It was a drill. Are We in Heaven? These facts can be scary and difficult to digest. However, once it transforms into a child, it can at last create its life anew by making up its own values, meaning and purpose. The United States of America needs to remember also that in its infancy as a republic, it was China which financed its early economic development, with the same railroad constructions across the continent, using hardworking Chinese labor that in the American history books were labeled as slaves. But probably not whether any Bobs were involved!
The following is from "AN OPEN LETTER TO FELLOW CHRISTIANS" by Doctor R.A. Alexander.
And still, after decades, there is no data that shows GM as anything but a means of creating plants capable of withstanding highly toxic sprays, leading to increased sales of these sprays and profits for the company. That GM is about extending chemical-cosh farming which is destroying the ecosystem to such an extent that pollinators are in sharp decline.
Someone should tell chemists the vital role pollinators play in our food chain. Yet this has all come about becauseof the attitude and behaviour of the GM companies, no one asked them to be secretive, or to lie about what their product did.
Yet we are to be blamed by you for this along with all else that you object to. I plead guilty to being anti-capitalist; the evidence is all there to see, capitalism is destroying the planet.
It has one impulse, to increase profits, and we have seen across a wide range of industries that capitalists care nothing for people, animals or planet nor of the damage they do. Anything less is fascistic control and must be implacably opposed. Mark, thank you for your comments about GMO labeling.
As a farmer an someone who is trying to keep transparency of what we do on our farm an important part of my job, I find you point of view very interesting. You have given me a lot to think about and a new perspective on what seems like a constant argument.
So thank you and I look forward to hearing more! From what I know about this issue is that in many European nations labeling is already required. There is no reason not to do it. The genetic change allows increase use of chemical use. This should not be the approach and pissed off a lot of environmentalist.
Any new technology should be primed and well introduced The industry went for teh quick buck and got the technology a based name. I do not have any empathy for the industry for the fact they have to fight an up hill battle after labeling is required.
I think it will help focus the industry to correctly apply, sell and spread their techniques and message. Life forms as in entire species should not be patentable! No plants are modified to resist insecticides. Corn and cotton are modified to resist certain order of insects and as a result reduce chemical inputs. I have heard some argue that the reduction in insecticides due to Bt crops is less than the increase of Roundup being used on crops, but they fail to take into account the amount of all the other herbicides used or to consider the lower toxicity of glyphosate.
Please point me to one long term independent human study proving that GMOs are safe for human consumption. I have yet to see one. Sorry, not buying it. And when it comes to GMO crops feeding the world, what an epic fail.
Superweeds and superbugs are showing the fallacy of Roundup resistant crops and Bt-crops. How long will that last? Both of these article are over 2 years old and from pro-business sources. There is no shortage of food in the world, it is a distribution and affordability issue. Show me a long-term human study that shows organic is safe. Din, are you referring to e coli contamination? The Standford meta study found the following:. When the authors removed one study that looked only at lettuce, the meta-analysis showed that organic produce had a 5 percent greater risk for contamination.
I am not a farmer nor a scientist even though I administratively support basic research scientists. All of us are paying the price for all of the cheap, fast, chemical, over processed, junk we are consuming. Therefore, as a consumer and concerned citizen, I must ask questions and in seeking answers need open, transparent, truthful information. That is all I ask so I can decide what is best for me and my family. Blasting plants with nuclear rays is OK — precisely altering a couple of genes not?
Label this and then we can talk: The labeling of GM is simply Big Business vs. Mind you, organic is way larger than biotech. I have said before, if the GMO is actually made for that reason, sure.
I am in favor of that technology. I am an organic producer, but I never agreed with the idea of providing food without using the very important tool kit of modern technology. However, the reality is that most GMOs are not designed for that reason. They are made for supporting the concentrated animal feeding operation CAFO business model which is destroying the planets ecosystems. The other part is categorically false. We already can produce much more food and actually improve the environment by eliminating once and for all the entire CAFO business model and returning the animals to the land where they belong using the most modern scientific management practices.
This not only produces more food per acre, it even restores more acres to productivity for a compounding effect. That land is slowly deteriorating. Organic is better described as biomimicry. Organic agriculture looks at the natural biosystem and uses that template to make a model optimizing both food production and carbon sequestration far beyond what unguided Nature can do.
So while grazing is good. Better than a CAFO. The organic biomimicry model of adaptive multi paddock grazing is better, both for the environment and food production. Multi-paddock grazing had higher soil carbon, water- and nutrient-holding capacities.
Success was due to managing grazing adaptively for desired results. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie W. I know many people who say they are opposed to GMOs. Some go out of their way to avoid GMOs in their own diets.
They buy and eat foods that with minimal investigation would almost certainly be found to contain ingredients derived from GMOs. They do this because of plausible deniability. If all GMO derived ingredients were labelled as such, most people who support this form of labelling would accept this and move on.
They already accept this on some level but they are afforded the fear that industry is keeping secrets from them. Yes, most people accept GMOs. The people have decided to buy GMOs. And they want a label. Transparency is a completely reasonable expectation and there need not be anything anti-scientific or otherwise misleading in providing that. What rock did all of you people come out from under?
Have any one of you taken a look at any of the studies done? Do you really think it is a good idea to ingest Bt corn which has its DNA injected with a pesticide that eats holes in insects stomachs? What the hell do you think this pesticide might do to your stomach? Not to mention the destruction of the American farmer as we used to know them. The fact that they can no longer save their own seeds for the following season and must go to the big ag companies for seeds to each time should tell you something about what is at play here.
And now these so called wonder crops are requiring greater and greater amounts of pesticide due to the insects becoming immune to the pesticide imbedded in the crops themselves.. It is an environmental nightmare. Not to mention the sky rocking allergies, cancer rates etc..
I guess I am just a crazy organic nut.. And yes you are exactly right when you surmise that our real agenda is the out right banning of GMOs in America. Of course it is.. Americans are waking up to the sick corruption of these Big Ag companies and will soon follow in the foot steps of our more intelligent over seas neighbors and force an out right ban.
I hope we are not all too sick or dead by then. Din Morfar, She might have gotten the Bacillus thuringiensis part from a propaganda site. Maybe even most of her post. But the basic major points are spot on as I detailed in depth 2 posts higher. Growing grains to support the CAFO system is about as destructive a practice there is. I agree completely with Mark.
So, YES, label foods that contain genetically modified ingredients but label them to clearly communicate the benefits to consumers: The dominant seed technologies [BT pesticide and Round Up resistance] decrease production costs, but do not increase yields.
This cost benefit is restricted, however, to the highly mechanized and low labour agriculture of the global north. I would not be confident that consumers will simply accept foods labeled as containing GMO, because the political economics of GE are already close to the tipping point.
The form and prominence of labeling will also have an effect. But I agree that it is possible the fallout will be to defuse the issue. Mark is certainly correct that trying to fend off labeling at the ballot box is a losing political strategy. On the other hand, a Supreme Court ruling that such a law is unconstitutional would be hard to overturn.
The obvious grounds for such a ruling is that it in effect establishes a religion. As a food industry employee writing personally, not on behalf of my employer or anyone else , I find myself in agreement with Mark. This Luddite fear of modern, life saving technology is tragic, but sad reality. And not just that, but the misuse and abuse of science to advance a political cause is nothing short of criminal.
Labeling should not be necessary since it is very easy to find out what commodities are genetically modified, or not. It must include disclosure everywhere it exists, including restaurants, beverages, drugs, etc.
After all, half of all food dollars spent in the U. In addition, to the previous point, there is pretty well established body of law in the U. Industry is opposing state by state initiatives because they cannot work. A federal solution is the only solution. And when the labels appear and people see the price differences as they can now between most non-GM and GM foods, I suspect buying habits will not change.
The pro-label forces will have to find a new business model to pick the pickets of their gullible contributors and invent new snake oil to peddle. But if industry were to concede this — mandating labeling based on a process, not on materiality — what will be the next demand? What about listing whether plants were manipulated by humans in some other way grafting?
Proximity to power lines? It was signed byan international group of more than 90 scientists, academics and physicians and is now open for further signatories. The first sentence on the wiki article would have enlightened you:. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.
We endorse the need for further independent scientific inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety and urge GM proponents to do the same. I tried to google the first name on that list and came up with… that list. It seems like another fake list of fake nonexistent people.
Too bad you people resort to lies, pseaudoscience, threats and other underhand tactics instead of just conceding you lost the argument. A list of names is not scientific anything. The body of literature is. You can ignore the science as much as you like and have an opinion as much as you like.
The facts, however, does not change according to those opinions no matter how strongly held. The article at http: No, both lists are PDFs. The PDF currently available at sustainablepulse. And this has been accidentally revealed by sustainablepulse. A list of names does not constitute scientific consensus. Only the body of scientific literature.
I couldnt agree more. What about those of us who like knowing our dairy cows are on pasture at least days of the year according to federal law. An act of US Congress it was. Twelve years in the making and still being tinkered with, for better of for worse. Am I making a bigger deal than necessary about a comment? Im curious about how you reconcile these viewpoints. Mark, as always I find your insights incredibly valuable. What an interesting position! If someone had actually made this point, I might have voted yes on I But I never considered labeling to actually help achieve those ends.
Too bad the initiative got so brutally crushed. Not only does the process differ, but the result does too. Truly natural crops nourish pests and humans ; BT crops grains kill pests because they generate their own insecticide in the plant. As resistant pests emerge, farmers have to spray on additional pesticides anyway. Other GMO crops contain fungicidal toxins.
So such crops nowadays get saturated with herbicides to kill weeds en masse, rather than hire workers to pull out weeds individually. If so, developers can add such distinguishing information to the label. Or with pyrethrins, sulfur, copper, rotenone? Genetic literacy the lack thereof and scientific ignorance lie at the heart of this discussion. Look up the Genetic Literacy Project, which is an independent group of scientists who address biotech.
The genetic modifications typical in biotech involve the insertion of a few genes. Natural selection tends to eliminate genes that are harmful to an organism but works the opposite way for those that are harmful to its predators. In fact, plants and animals have naturally evolved many poisons, both to kill or deter predators and for other reasons. Note that we are the predators when we eat plants and other animals. Over thousands of years of trial and death, humans have learned which foods are most of the most acutely toxic, i.
These still are not subject to any kind of regulation or testing requirements. In fact, we know that natural foods contain such compounds. In addition, nature continues to modify genes randomly, and without any safety testing, all the time. In contrast, biotechnology products are extensively tested for any sign of an unintended harmful change.
Biotech products generally contain the same natural toxins as the natural varieties they are derived from, so they are not really much safer, if at all. But they are also not any more risky. They are subjected to testing, at least. Well, thank you for that.
However I found this report up to date and much closer to how I see the problems. Typical compilation of anecdotes, innuendo, pseudoscience and nonsense posted on a snake-oil site and written by a professional charlatan. I suppose there is some new reason to believe that random mutations are appreciably more likely to be harmful if an unintended byproduct of biotechnology than if caused by other natural human processes, including the billions of completely random mutations that gave rise to all natural genomes in the first place.
There is however massive money being thrown at showing gmos are safe and most of it is lobbying and coercion. It took a long time to disprove them. Yet we still have to live with the long lasting effects of these poisons that were in use decades ago.
Everything is based on lies, pseudoscience and damned lies. What the anti-gmo cult hailed as a triumph recently, the fraudulent Carman pig study, was indeed funded by a seed company like Monsanto. Hypocrites all the way. It surprises me no end the number of people who mistrust the vast majority of scientists on this subject.
Reminds me of the global-warming deniers who absolutely refuse to look at the scientific evidence. People remember thalidomide, tobacco, DDT, and so on. Also there are more and more scientists who are anti-gmo. I know some really smart EEs, but none who would dare self publish papers so completely outside their field, in questionable journals. The remaining signators are mostly retired, with at most maybe 10 who are currently working in a related field.
More and more scientists against GMO? You make it sound like thats true. Im not sure which college campuses you have been around beyond Europe, but thats simply not the mainstream view. You can read exactly what has been said by a dozen commentors mostly anti-GMO ironically, that the university-govt-industrial complex is behind the development of almost all of these crops.
So Im confused, is one system growing and getting too big, e. I ask that one only reads some of the literature coming out of India and Brazil; Thailand and the Phillipines.
The methodology for breeding is here to stay. We have to learn how to use it properly and to our advantage where we can. It can do too much good in this world to stop the exploration. You did not address what I wrote in my first reply to you, instead posting a link to a Jeffrey Smith screed posted on a snake oil site. So, I will not take the time to dissect said screed, although I recognize many of the claims and know that they have been thoroughly debunked as you could easily ascertain with the use of google and the willingness to read and think.
So, rather than spend my time to do this for you, I simply offer my considered and informed judgement of the link you posted. Call it name-calling if you will, but it is my honest assessment. What I suspect is the root of this baffling contradiction is the inability to divorce the anti-Monsanto rhetoric from the concept and application of GMO foods. However, making this distinction is complicated and nuanced, and hard to put on a sign or bumper sticker. Thus the blanket opposition to anything and everything GMO.
As a Washington State teacher and resident, I voted against the measure, and encouraged people to vote no because the labeling is a waste of time and resources that could be spent actually helping the people of my state. Actually, the case against Monsanto is wildly overstated.
I get that they are guilty of some abusive business practices but how much more so than other big corps? Why are they the most hated, more than Exxon or LockMart?
The sources of the anti-biotech movement are rooted in the cult of nature, hostility to science, food purity fetishism, health paranoia, aging, identity politics and the business interests of the organic foods and alternative medicines industry. For the Left, the local food co-op or petty-capitalist simulacrum thereof is one of the few surviving venues for community building and activist communication. These are, I think, the major factors that account for the remarkable strength and energy of this particular movement, despite its relative lack of intellectual or moral foundations.
The case against Monsanto is wildly understated. How much more so than other companies? That is a difficult thing to quantify. Why are they the most hated? So much environmental damages that they are responsible for the extinction of entire species. Nothing new for humans you might counter. Why more than Exxon? We make the choice to use oil every time we gas up. We even have the choice to be conservationists, and buy fuel efficient cars, homes well insulated etc..
It is all known and above board. And when Exxon does have an accidental fuel spill, it really is an accident. Maybe they could do more to prevent accidents, but no one claims they dump millions of barrels of oil on purpose.
And when a spill does happen they are right on it with the clean up. They also to this day sell chemical products that are known, in fact even designed, to cause environmental harm. They justify it by saying they do less harm than the previous chemicals they used to market. The markets, the equipment, the support industries, all are built around an industrial farming model that is purposely killing entire ecosystems.
We have to eat you say? The majority of that is to grow livestock feed. Livestock that actually do far better on that tallgrass prairie, managed properly. They are most definitely a huge player in deciding how agriculture is done and very aggressively fighting any progress in fixing the problem. Diane, you may see this as a matter of respect; others see it as a matter of science vs. But what you are probably asking for is not to know the GCTAs but how they got there.
That distinction is something that many assume is meaningful and has implications for health or the environment. However, that assumption has no foundation in science. And it has zero to do with the subject at hand. But know that AO was thought out, sprayed, misused and ordered by the US government who also ignored safety warnings regarding it. Monsanto was obliged under law to make it and so was the dozen or so other companies that were producing it.
Further, the Monsanto of today is not that of 50 years ago. Way to go with the red herring. Until long term studies are available we should proceed cautiously as in year and longer studies. Heck, we should proceed cautiously now, given Indian livestock and farmer deaths, the Mexican maize debacle, Sherbrooke BT study on umbilical blood, etc…all signs of bashing into a party un-announced. Who of sane reasoning cannot claim the environment to be of first value? So I see nothing wrong, only something fundamentally very sane, about being called an environmentalist.
Maybe one day I will be honoured by the title as well. The environment is of first value and the forming of ones ideas, beliefs, and actions on the basis of environmental sustainability is essential.
Somehow the pro-GM crowd support what amounts to ballooning the population to 10 billion and quickly, through methods that grow crops off of microbe-dead soil. As if this 10 billion is an inevitability…which I suppose it will be if western multinationals are successful in establishing customers out of Asian peasant farmers. Trouble is the planet apparently cannot keep up with all of our clever genetic tinkering in an industrial confluence of chemicals, genes and species generation.
Keep highly controlled GM testing to tightly controlled labs held in the public domain not university labs which have fallen under industry control.
GM is creating new species after all, and before these be allowed to cross-pollinate into the wild we need to protect the wild from these long-term untested species. A return to local will represent a return to the dark ages for many and that is simply a product of a lack of imagination. We can take beautiful technologies, those not applied to seeds, into the new world of new locally-based and locally-oriented economies.
Utopia and the promise of world-savior technologies is only a distraction while we find ourselves smack in the middle of a smouldering global ecological crisis and species die-off. Can the tinkering little science-freaks go play with their genetic little games in lock down containers where the responsible people of the world can keep an eye on these adolescents?
The rest of us will be busy at return-to-local economies focussed on the health essentials of eating both locally and according to what is locally in season. That means no more GM mangoes from Hawaii for sale in Saskatoon, both for heath and for ecological reasons and yes, I am saying tropical fruit eaten out of season in northern climates is not good for you.
I wonder how many of us can handle the idea of our glass cities crumbling as populations disperse and retreat into the country, where we were born by nature to belong, and with local markets and small communities becoming the cultural focal points?
For whom is this just too painful a possibility? Life, which mother nature is at least very reasonably well able to provide for us, and for which she has an impressive resume to show for. A resume that probably puts even the cleverest of the clever geneticists to shame.
Facts and evidence to the contrary welcomed and encouraged! PJ, it is apparent that you have done some reading on this subject, but only of anti-biotech writers. I see no evidence that you have read much of Mark Lynas or any other critic of the anti-biotech movement, so why do you comment here?
This is why I am writing…to discover. My hypothesis is that GM is a miserable failure at creating a living ecology experiencing full expression in a bio-diverse abundance. Proving my hypothesis wrong will in effect teach me how GM science is a boon. What have I discovered so far?
Adopting a human diet cats have a diet, cows have a diet, frogs have a diet. Humans have a diet and it is starch-based. Can we accept that humans have a diet and eliminate non-foods from the shopping list? Most of us can walk, ride, bus, or car pool to work, or find jobs that allow for this. With each adopter enlisting two more people to adopt these painfully simple ideas, and by law of the progression of numbers, millions will have set the stage to save their own ecosystems within months.
Our collective purchasing power will soon enough collapse the powers-that-be. The infrastructure is subsequently re-shaped by a completely displaced workforce, where someone in the new economy probably an exchange based economy takes things like food and shelter to lend what they know to build their local economy.
You would be surprised at how self-regulating and adaptive this process is, even at the cost of the established global-based economy. Global based in replaced with local-based. Easy to argue this is how man was fit to interact with life. This economic renewal would NOT be the armageddon so many in establishment fear. The way forward is antithetical to the growth of one thing only: Shareholders are firmly rooted in their shares however, so the demise will be gradual enough.
Why is this the only solution? Complex solutions geo-engineering, pant engineering, etc involve balancing one thing at the distortion of another thing. Nothing further could be from the truth and this has been evidenced time and time again. The kid loves to think he is capable but he is not. The evidence is irrefutable.
So far down the labyrinth of complex solutions and arguments have they given themselves over to. In fact we are supremely clever at one thing and one thing only: And if what I read is any indication, the crowd representing GM science is more than capable at going on the defensive. What findings have consistently pointed to harm from bio-engineered foods?
On the other hand there have been well over a thousand studies showing either no difference between transgenic foods and their conventional counterparts for human health, or in the case of golden rice, an indisputable improvement. We have a vast array of equipment and lab tests at our disposal to check for toxins, allergens and novel proteins capable of causing harm. Transgenic crops have been thoroughly studied and the currently approved plants have all passed rigorous testing.
Virtually all the plants we eat today are the result of man improving on nature. In nature plants evolve the same as animals do- to promote their own survival. Remember that the next time you enjoy an ear of maize or a juicy, ripe tomato, that nature made them small, hard and bitter tasting.
Plant diseases pose a serious threat to some of our most important foods like citrus fruits, which are at risk of being lost forever due to the Huanglongbing virus. If there is an answer to this rampantly spreading, insect vector borne disease, it will probably be through genetic engineering which was tremendously successful with Hawaiian papaya, I should add.
The same is true for the American chestnut tree, and undoubtedly many more in the future. Ten billion people is not a goal. It is likely going to happen, though, and we can either be prepared or face starvation and the further destruction of the planet.
Good on you for choosing not to have kids, though. My husband and I have made the same choice for the same reasons. Can someone point me to a comment where a scientist refers to tests aimed at proving a hypothesis false?
Findings from such a study would pack incredible punch. But if you attempt to find a hypothesis false and cannot, you have truly discovered something. They want to cut and paste to prove a point, to educate! Some of whom even go so far as to want food labelling…as if that is horrible beyond horrible! Stephanie, I do want kids. If what you say is true then GM will be a boon to my kids. So why the skepticism? Why not THANK the independent scientists whose efforts in true science to prove their hypothesis false subsequently failed, which would only bolster the scientific rationale for GM foods?
We might turn around and fault them on spreading rumours and lies if they then turned quack and decided to publish results that went against their findings and against their conscience. If this be the case, then thank you for setting the record straight for all of us, and let the biotech-led utopia-building effort continue! Seed manufacturers can froth at the mouth, just as they have set the stage for it already…providing families who could not feed one child now to feed 14 on plants engineered to grow off the sides of corrugated plastic.
So a few Mexican farmers go on hunger strikes to protest their native varieties of maize becoming pollinated by transgenic maize. So a few thousand livestock die grazing on BT cotton.
So a few commentators question the safety and sanity of a contraceptive gene spliced into breed which uses traditional corn as its base, taken under the ownership of a corporation. Just like what has been going on since pre-civilization, right Stephanie? What is lost in the ripened plant when its genes include novel traits, if anything? While this key point may or may not be answered, we are quarrelling over methodology and spending the better part of our energies in subterfuge activities to discredit scientist who pursue this line of inquiry.
It is almost imponderable to me that scientists would be coached into a line of study that conveniently ignores studying what could possibly be harmful to those species feeding off of organisms built with novel genes introduced into them. Impossible and troubling to say the least that a science community is complicit in suppressing studies that proven harmful effects of feeding GM food to animals.
A long term human trial on GM safety is probably impossible, so we need to rely on observations made in the food web. Stephanie, I think you are leaning on the fact that isolating a control group of non-GM humans for long term trial studies is and will be impossible. To prove GM as a smoking gun will therefore also never happen. I may be wrong but the prevalence of GM in our food supply would seem to suggest as much.
So, as so many commentators many with scientific backgrounds have already suggested, we are guinea pigs in this centuries ongoing grand food experiment. Am I missing something? Tell me Stephanie or anyone else with a shred of sane reasoning left in them, or a conscience for that matter, are the studies that show harm to other species fed on GM plants as opposed to non-GM plants, or GM or non GM sprayed with pesticide or glyphosate only, etc.
As if the truth is ever black and white. My earlier post suggests biotech be a lock-down study spanning decades if not longer, harmless species then very carefully introduced to the wider ecology. I am not for black-or-white formative-type conclusions for or against GM…unless we see it is doing harm and needs to be further regulated, labelled, locked down so to speak. So many commentators say to relax and to stop trying to accuse GM of being anything other than a boon to mankind.
I would love to drift off into the sunset knowing this to be undeniable fact. The burden of proof does not fall on the critics however, it falls on the responsible product developers who carry the ethical responsibility of attempting to prove their hypothesis false that GM is safe as a way to prove their products safe.
Control conditions can be set to prove out almost anything you want to prove, we all know that. Some might contend that trusting to industry that which is spliced into our food genes unlabelled at that is all fine and good.
What do plumbers know about food science anyway? I ask, what do scientists know about food science anyway? I see in my university professors and in comments here and elsewhere a scientific arrogance that is hard to find anywhere else, even in politics. Science is politics increasingly so…and as such the element of discovery which either will or will not serve industry is lost.
Industry has too much to lose by some unintended Truth. The opportunity to prove a point is far to lucrative to worry about discovery, it seems to me. If you are as genuinely interested in this subject as your torrent of words would suggest, then you should do some reading in earnest to find out whether your general view is accurate, or not. There is plenty of good information on this site, plus pointers to more.
And I am certain you can find the sources on your own, if you are interested. There is a missing link in this whole debate. Something is obviously happening between the GM lab tests and the independent tests which look at the effects on species longer term.
Can anyone shed light on why this is so? But once a GM-fed species goes in for testing we see all sorts of calamities. Is it possible that even though the gene combinations test as completely benign in the lab, that the lab is not picking up on qualities that are not being carried into the final product, the mature and ripened plant? Qualities which are essential for nutrition and development from embryo to full maturity?
Is it possible that science has not discovered yet the full spectrum of how plants have evolved to nourish other organisms? Could artificially manipulating its genes at the earliest stage of development and from a different species set off a world of developmental stage changes that, in the end, negatively impact on the plants ability to deliver nourishment?
The cost being those traits which would have expressed otherwise, and which never will be recognized by any measuring device when they do not express simply because science did not know what to look for.
This might even be the actual case unless of course science has already discovered everything there is to discover about the life of plants. If you are going to frame the issue simplistically in terms of rights, then what is at stake is the right to produce and market food without having the government require that it be labeled absent any scientific grounds for concern about health, safety or environmental protection.
Well, technically speaking, yes. Systems of rights and such are determined largely a priori, taking into consideration few basic contingent facts as possible, if any at all. Instead one must rely on reason and logic, and at least establish internal consistency. If a theory predicts an empirical observable event, then we can test that with science… But ethics simply propose what should happen, not what does happen.
So we should apply meaningless labels rather than educate. Evidence presented below and in Chapters 4 and 5 suggests that problems are arising from all three sources.
Such processes are occurring constantly in nature, and are deliberately induced by traditional breeding methods. All living organisms are the result of billions of such processes. The only ones that are systematically tested for subtle harmful effects are those done by means of biotechnology. At least in the case of biotech we have some idea that a potentially harmful gene has been added and so we can test if it is actually harmful.
The herbicide glyphosate Roundup is a less-harmful alternative to more toxic herbicides that have been extensively used. It use is not known to cause any health effects in consumers or any significant environmental impacts. The more I mull it over the more the idea appeals to me, if done right of course, and if applied to all farming practices.
People use that as a slippery slope objection to this, but it is being consistent and fair if the principle of informed descision making by the public is truly valued. Just have a boring non-judgmental list of all the farming practices, that may have been involved in the making of the product, looking simply like an extension of already existing Nutrition labels.
My question is whether the view expressed two years ago, that GMO advocates should take the road to acceptance and vindication by embracing labelling, is still your position?
Or have you in the interim come up with a convincing counter-argument to that Indian scientist? I ask as an otherwise anti-GMO leaning consumer because both your arguments for GMO advantages and consumer comfort and education seem to me to make a great deal of sense. Your email address will not be published. Why we need to label GMOs. Ladies and gentlemen, In just about three weeks from now, on November 5, Washington State will likely pass a ballot initiative to label GMOs.
Mark Lynas Post author 16 October at 2: Loren Eaton 16 October at 2: Peter Simmons 18 October at Din Morfar 18 October at 1: Well, organic does kill people.
Mary M 15 October at 7: Katy Richards 15 October at 9: Jeff Walther 16 October at 4: Rick 16 October at 8: Robert Wilson 16 October at 1: Thanks Mark Interesting perspective. Creamy crockpot mac n' cheese We can't help but to love a slow cooker meal because it's makes for easy clean up, needs few ingredients and is very hands off. Caramel snickers tart Upgrade your favorite candy bar with this tart that combines all of your favorite ingredients -- caramel, chocolate and peanuts! Weeknight meals baked chicken fingers Turn your kids' favorite dinner dish into a healthier option thanks to this recipe from Best Bites!
One-pot chicken parm pasta. Butternut squash veggie pizza. Why you should leave quarter on ice during hurricane. Minestrone with dinosaur noodles. Are We in Heaven? This refinance opportunity is expiring soon Act now! Recipe of the Day. Recipe Box Want to save recipes from anywhere?