U.S. GMO food labeling bill passes Senate
Source: By Chris Prentice, Reuters
Fri Jul 8, 2016 6:47am EDT
The U.S. Senate on Thursday approved legislation that would for the first time require food to carry labels listing genetically-modified ingredients, which labeling supporters say could create loopholes for some U.S. crops.
The Senate voted 63-30 for the bill that would display GMO contents with words, pictures or a bar code that can be scanned with smartphones. The U.S. Agriculture Department (USDA) would decide which ingredients would be considered genetically modified.
The measure now goes to the House of Representatives, where it is expected to pass.
Drawing praise from farmers, the bill sponsored by Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas and Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan is the latest attempt to introduce a national standard that would override state laws, including Vermont's that some say is more stringent, and comes amid growing calls from consumers for greater transparency.
"This bipartisan bill ensures that consumers and families throughout the United States will have access, for the first time ever, to information about their food through a mandatory, nationwide label for food products with GMOs," Stabenow said in a statement.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-food-gmo-vote-idUSKCN0ZO08N
Big Blue Marble
(5,151 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)At least nothing positive. And informs the public of nothing whatsoever.
Big Blue Marble
(5,151 posts)It gives the illusion of GMO labeling while actually preventing states like
Vermont to actually require labeling. It is clearly a protection act for Monsanto and cronies
driven by the need to restrict real GMO labeling.
longship
(40,416 posts)Let's start with that fact.
I support genetic modification mainly because the science informs us of these things:
1. Genetic modification is safe. No study that has passed peer review has shown that it is unsafe.
2. Science informs us all that there is no qualitative difference between cross-breeding and what is now called genetic modification. That's because cross-breeding is genetic modification. And humans have been doing that for thousands of years, even before they knew what genetics was.
My question is: what is the line of demarcation between cross-breeding and genetic modification? That's right! There isn't any!
So, the anti-GMO crowd, including the GMO labelers have no informed leg to stand on.
This is a bad bill. And all the screeching about Monsanto doesn't make it otherwise.
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)"cross-breeding and genetic modification". Hybrid seeds are the result of cross-pollinating two different, but related plants.
GMO seed varieties are created in a lab using high-tech and sophisticated techniques like gene-splicing. GMO seeds rarely use different but related plants. Sometimes it isn't even plants. It could be genes from bacteria or fish.
Clearly there are big differences and genetic modification is still too new to know what the consequences might be, if any. Meanwhile, we are beginning to learn the consequences of the herbicides used on many genetically modified crops and that is enough to cause concern among consumers. Hence, as a consumer I want to know.
longship
(40,416 posts)Consider the consequences of unknown gene transfers in cross breeding, whereas gene splicing is precise.
And please don't spew the shit about cross species. You share genes with every fucking life form on the planet including sponges and fucking bacteria. Because we are all on the same tree of life! So claiming cross species being somehow bad is just utter rubbish.
There is no need to label so-called genetically modified foods because all modern food is genetically modified. All of it.
Again, where is the line of demarcation? That's right. There isn't any.
Labeling laws are useless and inform people of nothing.
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)Science says something difference.
Whether genetically modified foods should or shouldn't be labeled is a matter of opinion and I happen to disagree with your opinion.
I did not claim that "cross species is somehow bad". I really don't know and neither do you.
Also telling a poster at DU to not "spew shit" is hardly respectful or civil. You needn't respond to this comment if that is going to be your level of discourse.
longship
(40,416 posts)And I will stand by my post, as it supports what the science says.
And mere opinions, not supported by science, can be fairly characterized negatively.
There is no peer reviewed science that supports labeling of genetically modified foods, because it is all genetically modified, by both nature and by humans.
Might as well label it all as genetically modified.
Again, show me the line of demarcation and I will gladly retract.
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)You support the "science" (whether independent or corporate sponsored) that conforms to your predisposed belief system. You are hardly interested in anything that would contradict it. You appear to be of the mindset of "Only tell me what I want to know!"
Happy Friday to you!
longship
(40,416 posts)Either you have the evidence or you do not. That's called peer review. It is how science knows what is true and what is not.
And here's the important part of all this. One has to be willing to give up all ones most cherished beliefs if the evidence comes out against them.
I abide by those principles. I will humbly admit that I was mistaken if there is sufficient evidence against my position.
My question then becomes simple. What amount of evidence would the anti-GMO crowd require?
Apparently no amount of evidence would convince them. That is pretty much the definition of an ideologically based position.
So my plea to them is simple. Put up or shut up. Show me the evidence and if it rises above the contrary evidence it will change my conclusions.
And, BTW, my fondest regards to you, too.
On edit: This is basic science. Biology 101. If there is a line of demarcation between what evolution, agricultural cross breeding, and what is now called genetic modification, life certainly does not recognize it. It is all genetic modification. And your genes, as with all other life on Earth, contain plenty of bacteria genes, and those of sponges, and trilobites, and fish, and just about any other life form that's ever lived on Earth. It's one tree of life.
Prove that wrong and you have an argument against GMO.
Again, my best to you.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)near that.
The corruption that occurs in our science, from denied funding when rocking the boat, to ego preserving their status at the expense of new information occurs more than it should. Add to that the politics when interacting with undesirable data and this truth you hold so dear can often be elusive. It's not the fault of science, but the weakness of human nature when dealing with greed and ego.
Oh,
If there is a line of demarcation between what evolution, agricultural cross breeding, and what is now called genetic modification, life certainly does not recognize it.
The demarcation line is called Time; which in turn allows adaptation of all species within the environment. Think about it.
longship
(40,416 posts)Science is also self-correcting so that when there are mistakes, they get fixed. See any history of science text for details.
Time? WTF? Time is just a variable common to any genetic modification and to science in general. The pace of change can be slow, or fast. To argue that one pace is good and another somehow evil is outright ignorant.
Some mutations happen in an instant. Would you deny that the resulting phenotypic change that nonetheless spreads through a population was somehow bad because it happened quickly because a cosmic ray changed a single DNA base pair in a single individual?
Yet it is predicted by the basic science and has been tested over and over and over again in the lab. See Lenski - E. Coli for one exemplar.
So your argument has no basis whatsoever.
If one wants to play in the science arena one has to do better.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)and therefore are not given time adapt and receive the feedback from the system in a measured manner. Since that system is us, and since this is not just science at play, but politics and corporate profits (issues that seem to escape your savant like understating), I am not for introducing Franken-foods to my plate without the ability to say NO.
And yes, some mutations do occur in an instant, and some species do die out from these changes. I so not want to be one of them, individually, or as a species. Sciens is not an absolute answer, it does not always get it right. Look at the current reversals on understandings of Cholesterol, various types of fats, butter, etc. in the diet. I prefer the approach of "do not harm" then your approach of, "well, some scientists said its okay so fuck anything contradictory and lets throw it to the masses!" The need is not there, expect primarily for corporate profits.
cprise
(8,445 posts)The industry is trying to suppress any idea that they don't completely understand the consequences of their very acute tampering-for-a-buck.
Unfortunately for them, ecology has advanced to the point where it has some definite things to say about the introduction of risk, particularly when "low incidence" mishaps carry severe consequences. The Precautionary Principle is now Ecology 101, so maybe you should learn something about it.
Genetic engineering has very little pure research left in it. Its like the 21st century version of what chemistry became... discovering new and more effective ways to accomplish narrowly-defined manufacturing objectives with only grudging regard for ecosystems. The fact that they participate in the process of regulatory capture at all ought to set off alarm bells.
Nothing is actually "proven" in science. And any industry that insists it defines what is and isn't scientific is pushing a form of Lysenko-ism. If you think that too harsh, then you should ask why countries with heirloom cultivars are being told they must effectively be banned in order to align with the great glorious scientific revolution.
And your genes, as with all other life on Earth, contain plenty of bacteria genes, and those of sponges, and trilobites, and fish, and just about any other life form that's ever lived on Earth. It's one tree of life.
And global warming "happens all the time", as Republicans now like to say. "It's natural."
Silent3
(15,280 posts)If you think that no scientific data can be trusted where anyone has any profit motive, how have scientists who warn about human-caused climate change escaped capture by deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry?
Somehow climate scientists happen mostly to be incorruptible good guys, but scientists doing GMO research are mostly shills for hire?
As for the Precautionary Principle, it's important, but it's also a very rough guideline that doesn't easily translate into clear and specific recommendations about which actions require extreme caution and which don't.
Before the first peanut butter and jelly sandwich was made, should there have been extensive testing done first before any human dared eat a PB&J? After that initial testing would longitudinal studies be needed for decades before anyone could, still cautiously, recommend a PB&J as generally safe for human consumption, with plenty of warnings for those with peanut allergies on the side?
If that seems like an absurd comparison to GMOs, what makes it absurd? Because of course there's nothing that's worrisome about mixing two foods together that seemed safe on their own?
Wouldn't that be hubris to think that way, however? Isn't it ignoring the Precautionary Principle to be arrogantly certain that there isn't some terrible unknown effect lurking among food combinations that haven't been tried before?
GMO fears cannot be explained by a simple abundance of caution and virtuous restraint. It starts with an irrational fear that there's simply something terrifyingly unnatural about genetically engineering food, so fundamentally scary that the default assumption must be that GMOs are guilty until proven innocent, so guilty that all studies that show no danger must be regarded as extremely suspicious and likely corrupt, while the sloppiest unrepeated study indicating even the slightest barely significant association with some risk factor is taken as just the tip of the iceberg of imagined undiscovered horrors.
cprise
(8,445 posts)The Precautionary Principle is a form of risk assessment intended to cope with uncertainty. It may be "rough" on ecocidal tendencies. It does lack the positivist, technolust quality that GMO boosters crave.
There is a documented trend of scientific research becoming overwhelmingly privatized because of neoliberal policies. Biotech is a large part of that trend. Climate research is closer in nature to palentology or astronomy; few industrial applications--if any at all.
Many people realize that scientific discovery is not cramming innovative implementations into a product pipeline.
Anyway, aren't genetic engineers to ecology what weathermen are to climatology? Even without the shill factor, isn't there still a problem of scope---of myopia? If genetic engineers don't fret over ecosystems and conservation, then aren't their judgments outclassed by those they are trying to ignore?
I don't mean to damn a field just because it yields so much promise for manipulation, but one has to ask: Where is the restraint? CRISPR has already been latched onto by the garage-hacker-bro set---a favorite source of "disruptive innovation" for venture capitalists). (My favorite is the re-engineered bacterium for better-smelling female genitalia.) The field is quickly devolving into technically astute, dangerous idiots.
The rubber-stamp regulatory culture has already come to pass. The US agencies promise to do better, but then again they approved GMO salmon in clear violation of ecological principles (containment will be "perfect" just like trillions of copies of terminator genes will be "perfect" .
The pattern of almost completely ignoring or trivializing a vital scientific field is also there; evolution/adaptation in particular seems to be a point of aversion. Thinking about how pests adapt to 'product innovations' is just... unthinkable.
This doesn't inspire confidence.
Excellent comment - I read it twice.
Silent3
(15,280 posts)What is it about genetic manipulation that's fundamentally more scary than mixing foods that haven't been mixed before?
No matter how many foods you've mixed before that have never been mixed before, that tells you nothing about what risks might be hidden in all the combinations which haven't been tried.
You clearly think the analogy is bad. I made it knowing you would think it's bad. But can you clearly explain what you think is the fundamental difference in risk? Why are new random mutations that occur naturally all of the time less scary? Why are new combinations of genes via gene splicing scarier than horizontal gene transfers that happen in nature from bacteria and viruses?
Because "nature" is fundamentally trustworthy, but people who might be hoping to make money are so fundamentally suspicious that even when doing things very similar (not in laboratory technique, of course, but in end result) are just bound to make it dangerous, somehow lacking some built-in "wisdom" you trust nature has when it does random shit?
cprise
(8,445 posts)Didn't environmentalists make an excellent case in the debate? The larger salmon could out-compete the natural varieties in the short term, and the resulting lack in genetic diversity could leave the resulting population vulnerable to collapse.
There is also the conservationist argument: Naturally adapted salmon simply shouldn't be replaced in the wild. There is no moral or ethical grounds to allow the excesses of genetic engineering (which is now a glorious, high-speed assembly line, so we are told) to spill over into the wild. And the physical, ecological assessment of this dynamic is one of ecosystem destabilization--quite negative. Assurances that escape events will be mere alternate versions of invasive species are wildly optimistic.
Some genetic engineers see mainly specific goals and targets, like eliminating a common species of mosquito to prevent the spread of zika or malaria. IMO, the power wielded here is both too acute and too great.
https://blog.adafruit.com/2012/03/02/doing-biotech-in-my-bedroom/
BioCurious? The DIY garage biology movement
Its amazing to me that genetic engineers express such admiration for evolution, and to this point have also relied on mutation so much, only to reject consideration that adaptation will occur in response to their creations or that their own 'edits' will be subject to mutation (causing safeguards like terminator genes to fail). The new GE is even worse, treating organisms like programmable computers. Its a fallacious mindset steeped in the culture of marketing and finance.
Silent3
(15,280 posts)...that GMOs are dangerous for humans to eat, a fear that goes way beyond an abundance of caution that there's some lurking unknown, to acting as if GMOs are essentially POISON!1!!!!!1!
I'm certainly not arguing that there's no need for any caution, especially for things released into the wild, but random mutations and horizontal gene transfers do occur out there in the wild too, even without human interference, and there's nothing to stop that from happening.
Simple human travel has created similar hazards by moving plant and animal species around the planet into new environments. I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course (some invasive species problems are pretty nasty), just that there's no particular reason to treat possible GMO introduction into the environment as totally new, different, and especially dangerous.
Why aren't people as passionately fearful of travel and shipping?
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)Somehow climate scientists happen mostly to be incorruptible good guys, but scientists doing GMO research are mostly shills for hire?
Climate scientists, which happen to be ~99% in agreement on what is happening and its causes, is not necessary incorruptible. However, where is the advantage of pushing for it except to follow the truth as any good scientist should. It's certainly not for fame, money or fortune. In fact, it can often be the opposite, where they are denied grants, ridiculed, etc. by the industries their warnings most affect. You understand these are still very powerful industries that have twisted basic science to their own ends.
As far ad GMO research, I do not know what percent are shills, but there are certainly a number of them. It is nowhere near the agreement of Climate Scientists on the safety of these genetic alters organisism. Why is that? Could it be research is still on going and more voices are raising alarms? How about the money involved in controlling the basic necessities of life, i.e., FOOD and it PRODUCTION?!
So you attempting to conflate climate scientists' motivations to GMO researchers is a very weak, and somewhat disingenuous point. You ignore what is still occurring and what is behind them. Only fools would claim they fully understand the changes they have made to the machinery in nature and its ramifications.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,077 posts)... Google is my friend, I thought I would make it your friend, too:
http://www.alternet.org/food/monsantos-gmo-feed-creates-horrific-physical-ailments-animals
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,077 posts)... lest you think I am a bovine snob, my friend Google also found this for me:
http://naturalsociety.com/kids-suffering-inflammatory-bowl-disease-eating-gmos/
longship
(40,416 posts)I don't think it's peer reviewed.
Please stop referencing so-called scientific papers which are published in obscure non-peer reviewed journals and cited only at sites entitled "naturalsociety.com" hardly an objective site.
The site the original paper is published on has anti-GMO adverts. Hardly objective either.
Please stop wasting my time here.
This is not how science is done, my friend.
As always.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,077 posts)... I found just oodles and oodles for you!
Health risks of genetically modified foods.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,077 posts)... the basis of scientific discovery, that is disturbing.
Oh, here is just oodles and oodles of links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gmo-health-risks/
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,077 posts)... whoooo boy! Lots of PhD's speaking out here, having done studies, having fought lawsuits and won vs the GMO corporations. Remember, Google is your friend.
Are Genetically Modified Foods a Gut-Wrenching Combination?
http://responsibletechnology.org/glutenintroduction/
longship
(40,416 posts)I am sure that it is entirely objective.
The source of the information is important. I note that your citation is not a peer reviewed one, but an ideological, anti-GMO one. Nobody should take any such thing seriously.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)These people are postulating problems from these foods, and have presented observation and some science for it. So, go have it peer review, if you can find someone worthy enough for you that is willing to risk their career if they find results not to Monsanto's liking.
Good luck with that.
This is your problem, longship. You babble "but, science", but you ignore all the other inputs that can, and do, twist the results of science to other ends. To many stories keep on coming about about what industry has know but suppressed for decades. Big tobacco, Exxon and Climate Change, asbestos, etc. Yet you want to claim these GMO foods are A-okay. I don't feel like waiting a generation to see what leaks form Monsanto because in the meantime, damage had been done.
If you cannot understand politics, corporate profits, industry regulatory and university capture, then perhaps you should stay quiet until you can. You just keep making people wonder about you and your motivations....
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)I keep on hearing, is that "peer reviewed" and it dawned on me that throughout history, scientific breakthroughs were frequently rejected and mocked by the scientist's peers.
Michael Nielsen in his article Three Myths About Scientific Peer Review, asserts that it is a myth that peer review is the way we determine what is right and wrong in science. He listed the following examples:
George Zweigs paper announcing the discovery of quarks, one of the fundamental building blocks of matter, was rejected by Physical Review Letters. It was eventually issued as a CERN report.
Berson and Yalows work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Krebs work on the citric acid cycle, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by Nature. It was published in Experientia.
Wiesners paper introducing quantum cryptography was initially rejected, finally appearing well over a decade after it was written.
To sum up: there is very little reliable evidence about the effect of peer review available from systematic studies; peer review is at best an imperfect filter for validity and quality; and peer review sometimes has a chilling effect, suppressing important scientific discoveries.
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/
I am quite sure you won't read it, but it is very interesting, especially the part about German physicist Jan Hendrik Schoen. Peer review did not reveal that his many published breakthroughs were fraudulent. Peer review is not always all it is cracked up to be.
longship
(40,416 posts)That's easy. Peer review!
Nobody has ever claimed that it is perfect. That would be a straw man. But it is an essential to the scientific method as it weeds out the chaff from the wheat, even if that takes some time. E.G., the Piltdown Man fraud was not caught for decades because the original bones were locked up and only casts were allowed to be studied. In hind sight, that didn't work out too well. However, in the early 50's the bones were released for testing and were found to be a human skull and an ape jaw bone. By that time, nobody had taken Piltdown man seriously for some time, mainly because of discoveries in other areas of the world.
Science is self-correcting, unlike ideological beliefs.
As I stated in another post in this thread, I will spin on a dime if there were substantial evidence that genetic modified food were shown to be unhealthy. That evidence does not exist yet. And no, I don't mean the silly non-sequitur glyphosate gambit so often cited by anti-GMO crowd as evidence that all of GM is somehow evil.
I will stand by what the science says.
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)I am a firm supporter of methodological naturalism. That will not likely change. But my beliefs in what is true about nature is malleable, subject to evidence and prior probabilities based on consistency with known basic science. The basic science is also subject to revision, albeit with a rather higher bar to jump over.
There are two good examples, a century ago, of the latter, relativity and quantum field theories. By then, the basic science had developed sufficient problems that it was ripe for change.
We may be on the verge of another such change if something interesting is found at the LHC. And dark energy has certainly upset an apple cart or two. But I have not seen anything new on the genetic modification front other than biased and flawed research by ideological sources, not a good sign as these things go. Hell! The retracted Seralini rat study -- yup! glyphosate again -- was not only fraudulent, it was condemned as unethical in its treatment of the animals. Yet one still sees it cited here. And Seralini himself still stands by it even though it has been thoroughly discredited. I've heard that he now apparently publishes in pay-to-play non-peer reviewed vanity journals hosted in Asia.
If one wants to convince, one has to do better.
Science is tough. One does not get away with gaming the system for long.
My best to you.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,077 posts)... Seralini won 2 lawsuits concerning his studies. This alludes to a previous post in this thread. I hope it shines some light somewhere!
SCIENTIST WHO DISCOVERED GMOS CAUSE TUMORS WINS LAWSUIT
http://globaljusticeecology.org/scientist-who-discovered-that-gmos-cause-tumors-wins-lawsuit/
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)That needs to be repeated often!
longship
(40,416 posts)Normally scientists do not sue other scientists when they disagree. In that case they just firm up their research, addressing the complaints, and try again.
Best regards.
That rat study was utter rubbish.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/24/scientists-react-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,077 posts)... never even read the link, huh?
"A court has ruled that French Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini was correct when he concluded that GMO food, when fed to rats, caused serious health problems including tumors."
But that's okay. We understand you by now.
longship
(40,416 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 10, 2016, 04:35 AM - Edit history (7)
That study is toilet paper and has been universally panned by peers.
His conclusions were not borne out by the data, which were not even published in the original paper.
There was no dose response curve!!!
The rats were treated unethically. This particular lab rat has a tendency to develop tumors. Seralini let them die of the tumors that inevitably developed, a clearly unethical practice. The ethical standard is that they should be euthanized when tumors first develop. Apparently Seralini did this so that he could dramatize his paper with graphical pics of rats with big tumors. (But somehow not of the control group rats who also had the tumors.) Torturing rats to make ones ideological point is never allowed. He should be banned from every scientific journal on the planet for that. He should be persona non grata in his field.
The study was not well controlled. The number of rats were too few especially the control group.
The statistics used were not standard.
And, did I mention that there was no dose response? That's fatal to the study's conclusions, even without all the other problems. And how can anyone support his torture of the animals?
I did read your link. I highly suspect that you didn't read mine.
The court's opinion is irrelevant here. It's what Seralini's peers say. And this paper has been roasted!
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)not, and never will be, the final word. Science is always evolving and its understanding is always growing. While some may claim that GMO foods are safe today, I would prefer to wait and have a choice of actually partaking in that; even if I have to pay more for non-GMO equivalents.
In time I may be proven wrong, or proof enough to convince me otherwise. If that's the case, then hey, I will use the GMO foods. If, however, I am proven right, then a bullet I have dodged.
The real problem here is the corporations that stand to make so much form this control of our food supply are doing all they can to prevent labeling so I, as a consumer, can make a choice. That right there stinks to high heaven and removes all trust I have in these foods and their objectives.
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)Better to pay a little more for "non-GMO equivalents" today, than pay with one's health down the line. There are some risks not worth taking while we wait for the "peer reviewed" studies.
Besides I do believe there is plenty of evidence to indicate that we should avoid certain foods. Also companies like Monsanto have a horrific track record. Hey, who knew aspartame or Agent Orange would some day be considered health risks? Saccharin, DDT, PCBs, BGH? If we wait until the government tells us that GMO products or glyphosate are hazardous to our health, if could be too late.
So much bullshit and the arrogant attempts to claim superiority and claim the title of what is science and what is not.
Some of the folks here would have felt comfortable working for the tobacco industry.
In addition, the VAST majority of GMO is not about providing more or better food, it is about PATENTING and maximizing profit opportunities often with little or no other benefit to the public. Even without the arguing about the general science it is a fucking corporate SCAM!
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,077 posts)... you didn't even look at the articles. If you did, you would have noticed the links and footnotes to sources. Sigh...
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)corporate profits which the rest of society and the world take a seat at the back of the bus to.
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)that corporate money can buy!
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)In nature, associated species are also going along with it over time and all adapt to the changes. With humans playing nature, the change is immediate with no input from the surrounding environment. These changes can have unintended consequences that take quite some time to fully understand. In the meantime, damage is done.
Don't worry yourself, though, corporate profits are preserved!
longship
(40,416 posts)Evolution, cross breeding, and what is called genetic modification are all genetic modification, whether directed by nature (evolution) or by humans (the other two).
Period!
And your corporate profit claim is a huge non sequitur and just ignores the basic science, which is the first thing you should address here.
Next, I suppose we'll see the Monsanto card played, another common non sequitur.
Either address my specific claim with evidence, or you have nothing.
Science is a bitch. If one wants to play in that arena, one has to play by the rules. All claims by the anti-GMO crowd have been falsified. What few papers they have on their side have been universally maligned upon peer review.
They have nothing. Nothing whatsoever, except for non sequiturs like screeching about Monsanto.
First, address the basic science.
Where is the line of demarcation between the genetic modification of evolution, cross breeding, and what is now called genetic modification?
Start by answering that with some peer reviewed papers.
Frankly, their positions all sound like the anti-GMO of the gaps, to say nothing of a fair amount of Gish gallop.
If you want to play at the science table, there are rules. If you ignore them, you don't get to play.
Sorry.
My best wishes.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)The real problem here, with people like you, is that you fail to realize that people for the most part do not want these Frankenfoods. So, to shove it down our throats, they have to hide that fact using politics and loads of money. So, you can cry and whine about science all you want, but the real problem here is politics and corporate profits and the efforts to protecting them. People are not too trusting of this mix, NOR SHOULD THEY BE!!!
If you want to play at the "living your life" table, there are rules. Ignore them, and you will be called out for what you are, a naive person yelling "science" while ignoring that science is always progressing and is certainly not settled on these GMO's safety, or a shill for a dubious industry with tremendous profits to protect.
longship
(40,416 posts)Putting bacteria genes in food is bad, eh?
Well, all life on Earth has a rather huge proportion of bacterial DNA. A great proportion of your body mass is bacteria, too. In fact, you have many more bacterial cells in your body than human cells.
You are Frankenfood! as is every other single lifeform on the planet.
We all come from the same tree of life and share a common inheritance with every other lifeform. Your DNA not only contains DNA in common with bacteria, it also contains sponge, sea cucumber, trilobite, fish, amphibian, reptilian, mouse, moose, and fucking chimpanzee DNA. Plus, every other life on the planet.
Welcome to our Frankenfood world.
That argument is oh so busted.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)I am part of the system that is currently present on this planet, in my area. Things not part of it are being introduced without good understanding, except for how much money they can make.
Oh, fuck your Tree of Life bullshit analogy. Just because we all come from a common root, does not mean in our current forms we are all compatible with each other.
Try this experiment. Go prepare a hearty batch of Conium maculatum tea for yourself. Drink heartily. Repeat. You share some of its DNA snippets, so I'm sure you will be fine.
longship
(40,416 posts)I may disagree with you, but unlike you, I would not wish that you die because of it. I suggest that you self delete your post.
I am now done with you.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)your "Tree of Life" argument and its asinine usage of dismissing valid concerns of these corporate driven GMO foods.
Sounds like you have!!!
Good.
longship
(40,416 posts)Good day, sir!
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)my point was very well made. "Tree of Life", in the manner you are using it, is disingenuous, at best.
longship
(40,416 posts)I posted "Good day, sir."
As you wished my death, let me modify that.
Good bye, sir.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)Just because you may share some genes or snippets of DNA does not mean that the final organism is compatible with each other. Guess you never heard of poisonous plants, or animals. As far as the same "tree of life"... Big fucking Deal. Again, when have you seen a human mate with another animal, or plant, to produce something new? I understand it will not work, but let us know of your successes in this area.
The demarcation is time. Time to allow genetic changes to adapt or to die out and time to allow co-existing species to also adapt to these changes, or die out. The problem with GMO is no time for this process to test itself in nature. Instead, you have a massive influx of the new DNA blueprint into the system. If something is not right, the long term consequences can be catastrophic.
longship
(40,416 posts)A mutation takes a fraction of a second, for instance a change of a single base pair in a single individual by the impingement of a single cosmic ray. If that base pair change results in a phenotypic change that is advantageous so it is able to propagate throughout a population, no doubt you would call it bad because it happened quickly.
The pace of evolution is not always slow, so the time argument is poo poo.
As to the compatibility argument, see my response #24, Frankenfood.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)the science deniers.
Sometimes it's damn embarrassing to be a leftie.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)do not survive in nature. They are deadly.
Currently most GMO are intra species, but that will change. And the whole argument about the types GM is a diversion from the other real issues with GMO: Which is that the vast majority of GMO products are a scam to monopolize and patent the food that is available and the majority of GMO products on the market are not of any real benefit to the public or the world but rather an opportunity to use larger and larger amounts of pesticides.
GMO does not increase yields, only risks.
Note: This is from the Union of Concerned SCIENTISTS and has been widely verified outside biased corporate misinformation.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf
I am not against GMO under the right conditions and well regulated. But the current approach is not at all in our favor and I would like to have informational packaging so I can better chose not to participate in this CORRUPT industry. Currently the only way to have a choice is to buy organic.
longship
(40,416 posts)Most genetic research occurs in academia, not corporations. So you are lying about a corrupt industry. It is based on science, unlike anti-GMO ideologues who blather interminably about frankenfoods, glyphosate, Monsanto, and this mysterious line of demarcation between what nature and what humans do to change genes to make things better.
I call anti-GMO by what it is, abject science denial. I put it right next to anti-vaccines and creationism. Same stuff.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Let me rephrase. You are repeating a lie.
Possibly you are misinformed. I cannot know what is in your mind.
Mea culpa.
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)What a great find. I've saved it to my computer.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)From:
http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/GMO-Myths-and-Truths-edition2.pdf
1.1 Myth:
Genetic engineering is just an extension of
natural breeding
Truth:
Genetic engineering is different from
natural breeding and poses special risks
Myth at a glance
GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is just an extension
of natural plant breeding. But genetic engineering is technically and
conceptually different from natural breeding and entails different risks. The
difference is recognized in national and international laws.
GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is just an extension of natural plant
breeding. They say that genetically modified (GM) crops are no different from naturally bred
crops, apart from the deliberately inserted foreign GM gene (transgene) and the protein it is
intended to make.
But GM is technically and conceptually different from natural breeding and poses different
risks. This fact is recognized in national and international laws and agreements on
genetically modified organisms (GMOs). For example, European law defines a GMO as
an organism in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur
naturally by mating and/or natural recombination and requires the risks of each GMO to be
assessed.
1
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,
2
an international agreement signed by 166
governments worldwide that seeks to protect biological diversity from the risks posed by
GM technology, and the United Nations food safety body, Codex Alimentarius, agree that
GM differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required
before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment.
3,4
In 1999 the UKs Advertising Standards Authority ruled that Monsantos advertisements
about GM foods and crops were misleading in claiming that genetic modification was an
extension of traditional breeding methods.
5
Today, few public comment forums on GM crops and foods are complete without claims
from GMO promoters to the effect that Weve been genetically modifying crops for
millennia. This conveys essentially the same message as Monsantos advertisements and
seems to have the same intent: to reassure the public that nothing radical or new is being
done to their food. This message is scientifically inaccurate and misleading.
Indeed, industry tries to play both sides in its presentation of GMOs. It tells patent offices
worldwide that the GM process is totally different from natural breeding and so the
longship
(40,416 posts)There is no qualitative difference between what nature does to modify genetics and what humans do. If a genetic modification, whether by cross breeding or by changing specific genes, has a deleterious effect on the organisms survivability, the outcome is the same fucking thing. The cultivar does not survive.
It is the same damned thing. That is something every one should have learned in high school biology. I am really worried that some here do not understand that basic science here.
All they do is blab about Monsanto, a non sequitur, and cite shoddy non-peer reviewed garbage. Garbage-in garbage-out.
Cite me a peer reviewed paper that documents what stops genetic modification from being the same damned thing as what nature is already doing. Where is the line of demarcation? If you cannot document that, you have absolutely nothing. And just because humans are doing it is not an answer.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)You are obviously very passionate about your stand but you cross the line by claiming superiority and trying to cast anyone who does not agree as inferior.
You don't know anything about the backgrounds of others.
In addition you are not even listening to the other arguments. So no use continuing. If your effort is to silence others through intimidation well then that you can achieve, but you really won't have an influence (if that is your aim) this way.
longship
(40,416 posts)The Monsanto and corporate excess arguments are non-sequiturs since most genetic research is done in academia and not funded by corporations.
Citing papers from ideological sites instead of recognized peer reviewed journals is not to be taken seriously. The source very much matters.
If one doesn't like the way science is done, that is just too fucking bad. Just don't pretend that you are doing science. And certainly do not pretend that science supports your position, because regarding genetic modification, it clearly does not.
If you don't like it, that's too bad for you. And science will move on.
It is late and I am about done with this thread.
Thanks for the back and forth.
My best to you.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Sorry but you don't get it. You should think a little more about other things than science, like maybe humility and social grace. Seriously. Welcome to ignore....
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)analogy. That should piss him off!
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)will repeat phrases like "peer reviewed" studies over and over again, followed by dismissive mockery.
Thank you for some really great comments in this thread.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Is funded by the industry and only looks at toxicity on human health. None of the studies prove an absence of negative ecological impacts. That's not a criteria for FDA approval. And that's why the mass cultivation of such crops is premature and why consumers have a right to know and vote with their dollars.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Honestly, are you even trying here?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)And you do understand the FDA's limited mandate right? But keep advocating for concealing information from consumers. It looks good on you.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)by the nefarious forces at work to keep GMOs on the market.
Actually, even better, is there any evidence that GMOs are more harmful to the environment or people than non-GMO agriculture?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Crops, about how you have to keep using more and more roundup to get the intended benefits, and about how monoculture makes our food supply more vulnerable.
here is a good place to start: www.Google.com
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and exists with hybrids and other varieties as well.
There may be an issue with Roundup resistance with some weed species, which means we will hopefully find a just as safe alternative soon, better that than the herbicides that were used in the past.
As far as cross-pollination, its a concern, whether it constitutes ecological damage I guess that depends on what traits are passed to wild varieties of certain crops. Or even if the traits are passed on at all. The concern would be whether such cross pollination adversely affects the survivability of the wild plant, or affects its toxicity to other organisms. And again, this isn't an issue unique to transgenic crops, any genetically modified crops, whether its hybrids, or exposed to mutagenic chemicals and radiation, causing mutations and unique traits, also face this exact same issue.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Food & Water Watch
Published on Oct 8, 2012
[center][/center]
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)To read later. A very complicated bill.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)I don't have a SmartPhone and will never have one. I need to be able to READ a label and be informed if it is GMO or not.
This is a terrible bill! It hides the labeling information!
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)benny05
(5,322 posts)I'm hoping Obama will not sign this.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)This bill must be stopped. It is a terrible bill!
If it makes it to Pres. Obama, I am worried he might sign it. He is showing us how Pro-Corportist he is, say pushing the TPP through. America is screwed!
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)What a bunch of crap
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)CFS Condemns Senate Vote on GMO Non-Labeling Bill
July 6th, 2016
*** 7/8/16 UPDATE ***
The Senate passed the DARK Act shortly after 11pm ET Thursday evening with a final vote of 63-30. The bill will now move to the House where CFS will continue the fight against this discriminatory legislation.
The following is a statement from Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director, Center for Food Safety:
"It is deeply disturbing that a majority in the Senate would support a bill that openly discriminates against America's low income, rural and elderly populations. This denies them their right to know simply because they are not able to afford or have access to smartphones. The bill itself is poorly drafted and would exempt many and perhaps most current genetically engineered foods from labeling. It was written behind closed doors between a handful of Senators and the big chemical and food companies. It is a non-labeling bill disguised as a labeling bill, a sham and a legislative embarrassment.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)november3rd
(1,113 posts)It's Monsanto-friendly.
Bill is designed to allow Monsanto, Cargill and others to deceive public while claiming to provide the desired information.
Monsanto's former Board member in the FDA gets to decide what is GMO label worthy AND what form the label will take: words (supercalifragilisticexpialadosius) or Bar Codes. Sure, most working single mothers and seniors can easily read those bar codes with the app provided by Monsanto. nt
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)And the average shopper is prepared to scan the printed QR code via an internet-connected smartphone?
What if the cell phone signal is shoddy in the grocery store and you cannot access the internet? That happens to me here in San Francisco.
This is their idea of compromise legislation?
ananda
(28,877 posts)I bet there's a catch in this somewhere.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The US is engaging in endless wars that are destroying the lives of so many people in this world, with no end in sight. Corruption is widespread in Washington DC, where the economic future of many low and middle income Americans are systematically being destroyed. But so many people are worked-up by this non-issue.
What's destroying the health of so many Americans is the quantity of pure junk they put in their shopping carts, not the method of DNA change. Science and logic is clear on this fact.
People want to take short cuts and ignore what science says on this issue. They think they know more than those with the intelligence, work ethic, and ability to produce science that passes peer review.
The fall-back for those that don't believe the science, whether it's evolution, global warming, or the safety of GMO's, is conspiracy. They all use the same argument.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)sometimes, and repetitious, particularly when the people you argue with apparently live in a fantasy world, and that's the kindest way I can describe it.
I would be interested in devoting my energies towards other pursuits, hit similar walls though, which is interesting.
The problem is that, for a lot of people, their education to DNA science, mutations, biology, genetic engineering and GMOs seems to be from saturday morning cartoons and pop sci-fi. Granted, I love TMNT, but I also recognize it as fantasy, not a reflection of how real mutations and genetic engineering occurs in the real world.
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)to other pursuits. I don't think you are changing any minds on this issue.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)there's nothing laudable in spreading misinformation, even if you think the goal is noble.
PatSeg
(47,613 posts)I have to say I agree with you on that one, but probably not the way you mean it.
Have a good night.