ThunderChunky
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,456
Holycrap! Could you get more woo friendly sources?
Monsanto
- Thread starter Bodhi Dharma Zen
- Start date
Holycrap! Could you get more woo friendly sources?
ThunderChunky
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,456
Protesters in over 400 cities march vs Monsanto
If only those poor woos had known that you "debunked" everything, kitten...
Should be easy for you to provide one legal case, if such a case existed.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Entertained by whom, and in what context?
I'm visiting my Pantsgani friend for dinner, and he has a deep emotional objection to whatever-it-is... Insect protein? Insect protein. Maybe the people of Pantsganistan have a long-stranding no-insect tradition, and for him this dietary choice has a deep cultural meaning, that keeps him anchored in his sense of self, halfway around the world from his homeland. Okay, whatever. I'm a polite guest, he cooks a good meal. His objection, on whatever grounds, is fine by me.
On the other hand, the government, with its monopoly on force, is casting around, looking for things to criminalize and excuses to do so. You're an industrial food manufacturer, and you make food that is found to be healthy and safe by the best science and regulatory system we can devise. Why should the government entertain even for an instant the idea of making you a criminal if you choose not to entertain objections based on anything other than rational claims of health or safety?
Look, there's no law that says milk producers have to participate in kosher labeling. There's nothing criminal about a butcher who complies with the FDA but intentionally ignores halal requirements. Nor should there be. How is objecting to insect protein for irrational reasons any different? Not only that, but if the kosher community, and the halal community, can get the labeling they want without having to resort to government intrusion on the business of their fellow citizens, why should the insect-people be any different?
Just a guess, but people with antennae and compound eyes would strike me as "different."
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,964
I don't know about insect protein, but the same issues can be raised more realistically with the concept of lab meat. I saw a bit in Sci Am about the possibility of raising actual muscle meat outside of a mammal. IIRC, the idea was to grow meat cells on some sort of supporting structure. There was no data on potential market acceptance, but if the quality is there, I'd try the burger. It would probably end up with a huge mark-up on "real farm meat".
But if it's safe, as mentioned above, there would be nothing to protest. This is the sort of thing you vote for or against with your local currency... We might get over the gross factor if it's actually delicious. After all, we all got quite used to juice concentrate and imitation vanilla (well, my loonie votes against that one).
But if it's safe, as mentioned above, there would be nothing to protest. This is the sort of thing you vote for or against with your local currency... We might get over the gross factor if it's actually delicious. After all, we all got quite used to juice concentrate and imitation vanilla (well, my loonie votes against that one).
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Just a guess, but people with antennae and compound eyes would strike me as "different."
I set 'em up, you knock 'em down. You ever want to take this act on the road, just let me know!
But seriously, folks, I find it hard to consider seriously any food labeling gripe that a) has no scientific basis, and b) fails to properly consider the counter-example of kosher labeling practices in the US.
I mean, I'm no libertarian, but I do believe that we'd have a much better society, if more people took, as their model of consumer-producer relationships, kosher labeling, instead of class-action lawsuits.
Muldur
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,232
You call it "rants". We call it being rightly concerned about dangerously toxic substances being introduced into our food supply. We call it theft of heritage seeds and monopolistic control of food production.
How/why is it "ignorant" to oppose tampering with the very basis of human survival (the food supply)? Or to oppose unjust patenting of genetic material in such a way as to force others to pay Monsanto money just in order to use what nature/God provided for us to use?
And how is it in any way just for Monsanto to not only be immunized from responsibility for harming other farmers' crops (as I documented), but to turn around and attack the FARMERS whose crops they harm (as I also documented)?
Where is your vaunted "skepticism" where Monsanto's claims of GMO safety and ethical behavior are concerned?
Absent as usual...
With regard to the bolded text, I fail to see where Monsanto is forcing people to pay them money so as to use their crops.
If Monsanto develops a product that is superior to ones already on the market, then Monsanto has the right to patent it and to sell the product for a profit. If no-one wants the seed as they see no reason to use it, then presumably no-one will purchase it. That, clearly, is not the case.
My main issue with GMO food is that it tends to narrow biodiversity. However, that's hardly unique to modern foods nor to modern bio-engineering as our diets seem to have slowly been getting more and more concentrated for quite some time now (ie not just the past few decades) in regard to staple varieties of certain foods such as potatoes, wheat, corn and so on. As an example, there are some thousands of varieties of potato found in Sth America but, if you go into your average market in countries like the US or Australia, you'd typically see just three or four varieties of potato at the most.
This is a legitimate concern as, if there is a type of pathogen that attacks the predominant strain of wheat (for example), we could rapidly find ourselves suffering a massive shortage of wheat, with few other subspecies of wheat with which to replace the affected strain.
Muldur
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,232
Horse manure! Wanting to protect the very basis of human survival (food) is not "having an axe to grind", and the scientific case against GMO is already well documented.
The only "scientists" who insist GMO is safe are those shilling for their bosses in Big Agriculture.
No, you'll get a bunch of corporatist stooges who refuse to apply "critical thinking" to the claims of Monsanto, et al while excoriating GMO opponents as "woo".
1) Argument from popularity/consensus.
2) "Most people here" are wrong.
That does not mean that we should allow them to do so, esp using methods such as those employed by Monsanto.
Then why did it just pay Senator Blunt of MO $166,000 in campaign contributions to sneak through legislation immunizing them from lawsuits for harm they cause and then blocking every effort to repeal that law?
Oh no you don't. With all Foods and Drugs, the standard is that the purveyor (in this case Monsanto) must prove LACK of harm.
This is because of the fundamental nature of foods and drugs as basic survival means, and the overwhelming imperative to protect those means from being tampered with.
Who may start coming down with cancer or other genetic problems 20 years from now.
It saves farmers money to force them to buy new seed every year instead of saving back a portion of the previous year's crop as has been done for 1000s of years?
Pull the other one.
Oh, and about the environment:
Pesticide resistant weeds due to GMO
GMO INCREASES use of pesticides
Expert calls for GMO restriction due to resistant weeds
The facts are a matter of public record. I cited them in the OP, and I did again just above.
It isn't the "poor individual" that is tampering with the basic genetic codes of foods in an unnatural way that is not proven safe. It isn't the "poor individual" who has controlled the market for seeds such that 80 to 95% of many seed markets are dominated by Big Agriculture.
It is, in fact, MONSANTO and the other "bio-tech" agribusinesses who are doing both.
Muldur
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,232
Has already happened in cotton, rapeseed and soy.
And then there's what's happening in the EU with the proposed ban on "unapproved" (read Big Agriculture owned) seeds:
http://www.permaculture.co.uk/news/0105133318/new-eu-law-could-ban-our-seeds
http://bigolonifarm.blogspot.com/2012/12/shocked-disgusted-and-very-worried.html
http://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/articles/psss-want-to-buy-some-seeds
Muldur
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,232
If the above were true, there wouldn't be lawsuits against farmers, the special legislative protections such as the recent insertion into the Farm legislation, etc.
Further, if Monsanto was so certain that the public would accept their Frankenfoods, then it wouldn't be pushing laws and regulations forbidding people to advertise their products as being GMO free, or hormone free, etc.
Monsanto knows that where people are given information and a choice, they reject Frankenfoods overwhelmingly.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/18/fda-labeled-free-modification/
http://www.organicconsumers.org/biod/gmofreepreempt32905.cfm
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/mar08/rBGH-free_labeling_bans.php
http://www.ghorganics.com/failure of the first GM foods.htm
Susheel
Illuminator
Ok, I guess I can give an insiders view here. I work for a company that is part of an initiative that involves a public private partnership that tries to harness biotechnology advances to benefit farmers in the predominantly agrarian economy that is India. One of them is the development of a fruit and shoot borer resistant eggplant that has been proven to be very effective and the technology was sourced form Monsanto.
As a private firm involved in research and development, Monsanto is well within its rights to protect its technology. There have been so many stories of "small" farmers who have been vicitmized by the company because Monsanto varieties where found to have been growing in their fields despite the fact that they had no license to use these seeds. Their excuse was that the seeds had blown in from other nearby fields or there was cross pollination through wind with the farmers own varieties. This was effectively proved to have been false since the pattern of growth of the Monsanto varieties in the fields were found to have been a little too ordered and could not be accounted for within a scenario of accidental cross pollination.
Monsanto is well within its rights to demand compensation for use of the technology. Monsanto's technologies are quite effective. The success of BT Cotton in India is a case in point. Real data has shown a marked decrease in the use of pesticide and higher yields. In tests, we replicated the use of the technology for eggplant that showed a that fruit and shoot borer infection on the plants that used the technology came down to zero and farmers could reduce pesticide use anywhere from 60 to 75 percent.
Since the varieties are being developed by state universities in India, they will be distributed at low cost to the small farmers while the more affluent farmers can opt for the hybrids developed by the private entities. (Interestingly a lot of the so called farmer activists involved in the anti-GM movement in India had no idea about the hybrid-variety distinction).
During the COP-MOP held in Hyderabad where I was a delegate, I attended a press meet organized by a consortium of activists, apart from the usual Monsanto bashing, there were claims of how Bt Cotton was a failure in India and how organic cotton farmers were able to show better yields. There was no data provided just claims. When we asked them where these miracle farms existed, they refused to divulge the information.
There is no doubt that in the milieu of a growing population, climate change and diminishing aerable land, biotechnology holds great promise. Also it is necessary to keep in mind that every food crop, vegetable or fruit is the result of human intervention over generations. Wild eggplant, potatos, carrots, bananas or any other crop are either inedible, not really tasty or are not really viable as an alternative for the large number of consumers today. Biotechnology is an option allows us to enhance beneficial traits in crops more quickly. And keep in mind that GM crops are one of the most highly regulated items in the world and almost every country has stringent laws that govern what can be released into the environment.
As a private firm involved in research and development, Monsanto is well within its rights to protect its technology. There have been so many stories of "small" farmers who have been vicitmized by the company because Monsanto varieties where found to have been growing in their fields despite the fact that they had no license to use these seeds. Their excuse was that the seeds had blown in from other nearby fields or there was cross pollination through wind with the farmers own varieties. This was effectively proved to have been false since the pattern of growth of the Monsanto varieties in the fields were found to have been a little too ordered and could not be accounted for within a scenario of accidental cross pollination.
Monsanto is well within its rights to demand compensation for use of the technology. Monsanto's technologies are quite effective. The success of BT Cotton in India is a case in point. Real data has shown a marked decrease in the use of pesticide and higher yields. In tests, we replicated the use of the technology for eggplant that showed a that fruit and shoot borer infection on the plants that used the technology came down to zero and farmers could reduce pesticide use anywhere from 60 to 75 percent.
Since the varieties are being developed by state universities in India, they will be distributed at low cost to the small farmers while the more affluent farmers can opt for the hybrids developed by the private entities. (Interestingly a lot of the so called farmer activists involved in the anti-GM movement in India had no idea about the hybrid-variety distinction).
During the COP-MOP held in Hyderabad where I was a delegate, I attended a press meet organized by a consortium of activists, apart from the usual Monsanto bashing, there were claims of how Bt Cotton was a failure in India and how organic cotton farmers were able to show better yields. There was no data provided just claims. When we asked them where these miracle farms existed, they refused to divulge the information.
There is no doubt that in the milieu of a growing population, climate change and diminishing aerable land, biotechnology holds great promise. Also it is necessary to keep in mind that every food crop, vegetable or fruit is the result of human intervention over generations. Wild eggplant, potatos, carrots, bananas or any other crop are either inedible, not really tasty or are not really viable as an alternative for the large number of consumers today. Biotechnology is an option allows us to enhance beneficial traits in crops more quickly. And keep in mind that GM crops are one of the most highly regulated items in the world and almost every country has stringent laws that govern what can be released into the environment.
Susheel
Illuminator
Could you provide evidence of where this has happened? In fact, from what I know, Monsanto clearly states in their seed packets that their seeds are genetically modified. Beyond that it is the responsibility of the companies that use genetically modified crops in their products to decide whether or not to indicate that they use GM crops in their products.
I dont think there has ever been any attempt at a law to prevent organic or non GM users to label their products as such. If there has been, please do provide the evidence.
Flavr Savr never took off because a technology still in its infancy was unable to create a commercially viable product. It ended up being too expensive and was marketed in a demographic that was more prone to using canned tomatoes or tomato paste. Besides which the source variety used to develop the product was also not one preferred by many.
Skeletor
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 301
I had an argument with someone about how most of the hybrids farmers plant are no different than the genetically modified crops Monsanto produces, only Monsanto forgoes Mendelian genetics and dives straight into the DNA. It saddens me that intelligent people can get caught up in outright falsehoods, but he rejected my argument and called me a shill for Big Ag (are they a relative of Big Pharma?).
Talking to people who disregard logic, science, and common sense, and even using a fantastic argument like you just used won't convince the woo factions that they're wrong. Because you're an insider, you're in on the "poisoning" of the world's population, and the thrashing of poor farmers for their last pennies in their pockets.
Susheel
Illuminator
At a recent ag tec exhibition I was cursed by some activists, a big thing in India. Being an atheist, I just brushed it off. What bothered me more was the man refused to stand and have a discussion. Then there was a Hare Rama Hare Krishna, he was easy meat though. 10 years with JREF gave me enough to rip him to shreds. Watching him walk hurriedly away with his tail between his legs was immensely satisfying.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, perhaps they do. But, there are limits...
What if someone insisted they wanted their milk labeled to indicate the breed of cows used in the production? Or they type of feed used to feed the chickens that produced the eggs they eat? Most people would view such demands as unneeded (i.e. the end producer is unlikely to tell the difference in the end product), and would produce an unnecessary burden on producers.
I think the difference is that if insects were used in a product they'd probably already be on the label because they'd be a completely separate, unique ingredient which can be distinguished from the rest. (At least here in Canada producers have to include a basic ingredient list.)
Now, of course, its possible that the ingredient list may use scientific terms and buzz words, but at least they're there.
Oh, and by the way, even the most squeamish people have probably already eaten bug parts...
Ever eat any jelly beans? They contain a shellac made from insect excretions. And many foods dyed red use ground-up beetles.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15982_5-horrifying-food-additives-youve-probably-eaten-today.html
Susheel
Illuminator
Vaccines... there's GM, there's animal bits and a host of other things in those. Same with Insulin.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Probably because there is a chance (however small) that a person might have some sort of adverse health reaction to some component of the product. (I once had a girlfriend who was allergic to lard, so every time she bought anything she had to check the ingredients very carefully.)
With genetically modified foods, we haven't found any such reactions (at least not in anything that's passed screening.) Therefore, if you have no problem with soybeans, you'll have no problem with the genetically modified version.
Those are good points, as well as good examples of other ways in which people may base their food preferences on things other than hard science (perhaps "curently accepted science" is a better way of putting it, keeping the fen-phen example in mind). I guess one argument against compulsory GMO labelling would be that it places producers of GMO foods at a disadvantage in the marketplace by implying a scientifically-based risk which has not been established. One counterargument is that people have a right to express their views (rational or not) by "voting with their pocketbooks", and that in choosing which products to buy, they may be basing their decisions on factors that have nothing directly to do with their own health or the "safety" of the products.
Consider "dolphin safe" tuna. Many people have decided that they are strongly opposed to certain types of fishing practices on the basis that they negatively impact dolphin populations, a consideration that has nothing whatsoever to do with the food safety of the tuna itself. True, they might take that a step further and swear off tuna altogether on consideration of the obserrvation that tuna populations are also crashing, but perhaps the very fact that most of them don't illustrates the point that the relationship between humans and the foods they eat encompasses much more than issues related to either to safety or to caloric or nutritional value. The way people feel about the food they eat may actually be more important than those issues.
I can't claim to know very much about what it takes for members of, say, the kosher community to obtain the labelling they require, but I suspect that it would be somewhat easier for them if they represented a majority of our population. We do not all share the same philosophical/political/religious viewpoints, and it's often impossible to find solutions that satisfy everyone. (Our system attempts to minimize the "tyranny of the majority" effect, but it certainly has not eliminated it altogether). We don't require labelling of non-dolphin-safe tuna; we simply provide standards which must be met in order for a producer to label its tuna "dolphin safe". That seems like a reasonable solution. For tuna. Producers who recognize and respond to public demand (regardless of what "irrationalities" may be reflected in that demand) will tend to out-compete those who ignore it.
With GMO foods, I'm not sure how well that same approach will work. Due to the increasing ubiquity of GMO elements in our food supply, we may be approaching a point where it would be virtually impossible to guarantee that any food was completely free of GMO elements.
Susheel
Illuminator
Which allows manufacturers of GMO free products to label their wares as such. And despite the claims of some posters here, there are no laws preventing them from doing so.