Gallstones wrote:
Can you, like, state that in vulgar English so the simple among us can understand?
Do you know or care what a toil it is to read your posts?

Fuck.

Tell us about it. I gave up.

All technology carries risk.
Show me the risk assessment. Science only provides information - it does not provide policy and this is a policy issue just the way pasteurization is.
There are "some" benefits of raw milk but there the public weal is best served by pasteurizing.

GM foods in the mind of most governments outside of Europe provide a positive benefit.
To Europe - the opposite mind set prevails.

I would suggest for the wider world GM foods provide a positive benefit and is being well supported by governments who perhaps see a different set of risks than the west.

Corporate predation in this realm is no different than any other and requires oversight. Hundreds of millions of people consumer GM foods daily..a fucking large scale social experiment
..at this point in time and the outcomes over two decades of that social experiment........ I'd say there are greater threats than GM to spend resources on.

Macdoc wrote:All technology carries risk.
Show me the risk assessment. Science only provides information - it does not provide policy and this is a policy issue just the way pasteurization is.

Some of us, however, can do our own risk assessments and often prefer to do so.

Loren Michael wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Don't want to make a big thing of it, because the evidence for it is not strong, relying as it does on that film maker.

Likewise, I don't want to make a big thing of creationism, for similar reasons.
...

Your reasons aren't as similar as you seem to think. Nor is biology as simple as you seem to think. Applying your simplistic biology, frogs should die when they ingest certain poisons, but instead they make use of them. Why shouldn't a particulsr species of grain, separated from another by millions of years of geographical isolation, produce a different response from the other species to a poison. That isn't creationism, just more subtle science.

Macdoc wrote:All technology carries risk.
Show me the risk assessment. Science only provides information - it does not provide policy and this is a policy issue just the way pasteurization is.
There are "some" benefits of raw milk but there the public weal is best served by pasteurizing.

GM foods in the mind of most governments outside of Europe provide a positive benefit.
To Europe - the opposite mind set prevails.

I would suggest for the wider world GM foods provide a positive benefit and is being well supported by governments who perhaps see a different set of risks than the west.

Corporate predation in this realm is no different than any other and requires oversight. Hundreds of millions of people consumer GM foods daily..a fucking large scale social experiment
..at this point in time and the outcomes over two decades of that social experiment........ I'd say there are greater threats than GM to spend resources on.

Climate change would be one such area of course as I think would biodiversity and loss of species, along with the overall health of the biosphere. In 2008, the British Sustainability Commission, a now defunct agency of the British government, estimated that 40 per cent of earth's ecosystems had been outright destroyed, badly damaged, or seriously degraded. Who's looking after this? Who's thinking about it? Who's doing anything about it?

What I'd be interested in seeing is a show of hands regarding whether one trusts Monsanto to market GM seeds that pose no threat to human health. I for one do not, and the reason I don't is that Monsanto has worked very hard to control about half the seed market and has developed infertile seeds so that farmers have to buy a new batch of seeds every year, an expense they've not heretofore ever faced, and they're left to the mercy of Monsanto in making their seed buys.

Moreover, when infertile seeds proved to be a disaster for other reasons, what did Monsanto do? They set about to develop seeds that produce infertile seeds, but those seeds can be switched to fertile seeds by the application of some compound that farmers have to buy from who? Monsanto of course.

None of this illustrates what I'd consider to be a responsible corporate citizen, it's basically outright theft from famers, they may as well hold a gun to their heads.

Engaging in capricious behavior that poses important negative economic impacts on a part of the public, people we call farmers, is not something I can or will tolerate. Monsanto has broken no laws in this campaign, least that I know of, but the law isn't the only standard, there is such a thing as moral behavior. I don't think that beating up farmers with what amounts to a baseball bat satisfies any construct of moral behavior.

So I don't trust Monsanto in their seed business. I guess I could say it appears to me there's too much greed there.

So which among us trusts Monsanto and which do not? Comments as to the reasons why would be interesting too.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
So which among us trusts Monsanto and which do not?

Oh. A guy with a bullhorn, exhorting the crowd. Never got over the 60s, didja?

The question is about what we should trust Monsanto to do. As a corporation, we trust Monsanto to try to maximise the benefit to its employees. People who invest in Monsanto without inside information about how the company is operating are gambling.

The further question is where we get the idea that Monsanto is really more of a bad actor than the Catholic Church, which is also run for the benefit of its management.

After that, you can ask how it is that anybody who doesn't get on board with one corporation or another expects to get ahead in the world. Is there no Justice? Whence do we get our concept of Justice? That's right: Jeebus.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Monsanto has worked very hard to control about half the seed market and has developed infertile seeds so that farmers have to buy a new batch of seeds every year, an expense they've not heretofore ever faced, and they're left to the mercy of Monsanto in making their seed buys.

Where do you get your information? Weather Underground, c. 1970?

Where do you get your ethics of mutuality? It isn't from observation, is it?

I've seen docs on the Montsanto scientists that developed GMO and quite frankly and with good reason they are appalled at the negativity around what they regard as significant benefit to humans.

Are there predatory practices....of course ....does not mean dumping the technology.
It's as bad as the nuclear fears.....far too much knee jerk negativity.

a new batch of seeds every year, an expense they've not heretofore ever faced,

Pioneer has been doing hybrid corn you have to buy every year for decades so that's nothing new at all and farmers line up as they want the constant success a strong hybrid can bring in mono-cropping.

You gonna be the one to tell a wheat farmer not to grow GM wheat as his fields wither under steady drought.
Like any technology there are risks and benefits.

Macdoc wrote:I've seen docs on the Montsanto scientists that developed GMO and quite frankly and with good reason they are appalled at the negativity around what they regard as significant benefit to humans.

Are there predatory practices....of course ....does not mean dumping the technology.

Who sai anything about "dumping the technology"? Certainly not myself.

Why do you habitaully stretch things?

It's a bad habit.

Macdoc wrote:
It's as bad as the nuclear fears.....far too much knee jerk negativity.

"Knee jerk" is a condescending term to use against those who seek better science and greater accounatbility. You think the science on this is settled?

Macdoc wrote:

a new batch of seeds every year, an expense they've not heretofore ever faced,

Pioneer has been doing hybrid corn you have to buy every year for decades so that's nothing new at all and farmers line up as they want the constant success a strong hybrid can bring in mono-cropping.

You don't think they'd prefer to have plants that produce fertile seeds? Oh, I forgot, your the expert on these things. But it's only an opinion, and we all have them.

I think discourse like this can be carried on in a gentlemanly manner, but you make it hard to do that. I say you oughta relax a little.

Macdoc wrote:
You gonna be the one to tell a wheat farmer not to grow GM wheat as his fields wither under steady drought.

Again, you leap to conclusions here, erroneous ones I might add. Bad habit. Please quoite me where I either said or intimated that I'd like to tell farmers not to grow GM crops, wheat or otherwise.

Macdoc wrote:
Like any technology there are risks and benefits.

No kidding?

To hear you tell it there is no risk, so why don't we all just shutup and go home.

People will always hold differing views on a subject for whioch the science remains unsettled. That's not a crime, so quit acting as though it was.

OK What science is 'unsettled'?

Acetone wrote:OK What science is 'unsettled'?

Oh my, does this question really have to be asked?

Let's see, the topic of the thread is "GM Crops Can Feed the World," so from that you might deduce which science isn't settled yet, but I dunno, these things get tough for some of us from time to time.

Why can't this conversation go on without a bunch of antagonistic attitude showing?

Now, I do take it that you may not have intended to be antagonistic or condescending in asking your question, but you have to operate in the context of the thread's narrative. Check out the monstrous condescension I'm getting from Cito di Pense, for example, or the spin that MacDoc's laying on my posts, you'll see what I mean. In this context if you want to come off as NOT being antagonistic or condescending, I dare say you have to be really clear about it.

Thanks.

No, YOU have to be really clear about what YOUR saying. GM foods involves such a HUGE amount of different scientists and fields. Your saying ALL these fields have not yet settled their 'science'. (whatever that means)

When someone makes a claim that 'the science is unsettled' it's expected that they are talking about specifics.

The is the same dishonest tactic that pops up so often in global warming threads. Oh these scientists don't agree about the extent of human impact. There's just so much for both sides that I don't know which is better!

When really the scientists involved agree on nearly everything except for minor details and the overarching policy (which isn't a concern of science, but people tend to throw that in to the 'science unsettled' argument)

So I want to know what you're talking about, specifically.

Acetone wrote:No, YOU have to be really clear about what YOUR saying. GM foods involves such a HUGE amount of different scientists and fields. Your saying ALL these fields have not yet settled their 'science'. (whatever that means)

When someone makes a claim that 'the science is unsettled' it's expected that they are talking about specifics.

First of all you intimate that you don't know what the term "settled science" means, then turn right around and and state an expectation you somehow think is applicable or relevant to a claim that "(a) science is unsettled."

But the term "unsettled science" can be rightfully used in a wide variety of contexts, some specific, some not so specific, some even quite general.

Acetone wrote:
The is the same dishonest tactic that pops up so often in global warming threads. Oh these scientists don't agree about the extent of human impact. There's just so much for both sides that I don't know which is better!

I hope you're not accusing me of using dishonest tactics, because if you are I dare say you'll regret having done so. And besides, there's no real reason to assume or speculate that I am into using dishonest tactics in this discussion, and if you think there is, I'd like to see quotes of whatever I've said that led you to such a conclusion.

Acetone wrote:
When really the scientists involved agree on nearly everything except for minor details and the overarching policy (which isn't a concern of science, but people tend to throw that in to the 'science unsettled' argument)

I don't care what others do, I'm not them.

In the GM foods arena we have to distinguish between the science that's involved and the fact that much of what goes on is technological in nature, and not scientific per se. GM plants are engineered, which makes them artifacts of a technological process, not simply a scientific process. The science is in plant biochemistry and physiology at the DNA level; the engineering is the design of gene splices in plant DNA.

Mistakes can be made in both facets, the science and the engineering; incomplete testing can lead to dangerous products.

Acetone wrote:
So I want to know what you're talking about, specifically.

It's difficult to be "specific" when the use of genetic engineering techniques in plant development involves such a wide variety of differing goals and approaches, as you certainly must be aware.

A number of genetically modified food materials and products have gained regulatory approval in the UK, Canada, and the US, and are in commercial use: cheese produced with genetically modified chymosin, tomato paste from slow softening tomatoes, and genetically modified soya and maize, among others. Other genetically modified food materials have cleared parts of the approval system (for example, clearance for food safety but awaiting environmental clearance for agricultural scale production).

These include oil from oilseed rape, starch and oil from maize, oil from cotton, chicory, a slow softening tomato intended to be eaten fresh, and riboflavin from a microbe. In addition, other products granted approval have not been developed to full commercial scale ... for example, I don't think genetically modified brewers' yeast and bakers’ yeast has been approved yet, although I'm not fully up on what's been approved and what hasn't been..

Most GM applications are for crop plants, and the genetic modifications are for commercially important agronomic traits ... mostly herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. These agronomic traits are determined by single genes and are therefore easiest to manipulate and the science involved is quite straightforward and well understood. In contrast, characteristics such as flavour, texture, and processing qualities tend to be determined by multiple genes and are much more difficult to manipulate with success.

Despite the technical difficulty, progress is and has been and continues to be made with genetically modifying the compositional and processing characteristics of food crops. For example, oilseed rape can now be modified to produce oils with wide ranging characteristics through selective modification of the length and degree of saturation of the fatty acids produced ... fatty acids such as laurate, typical of tropical vegetable oils, can now be produced in temperate oilseed crops. Similarly, the balance of sugar and starch in potatoes, which affects the processing quality of potatoes for snack food production (too much sugar produces a dark, poor tasting product), can also now be modified, but as yet to my knowledge only on an experimental scale.

In addition, genetic techniques are being used to identify and manipulate the genes for biologically active components of food crops, such as natural toxicants (for example, potato glycoalkaloids and kidney bean lectin), antinutrients (for example, trypsin inhibitors), and allergens (for example, certain nut proteins). Such developments are at early stages but in the longer term are almost certain to lead to the development of foods that lack these undesirable components, assuming things hold up.

For marketers, deterioration of fruits and vegetables is a huge problem, as I'm sure you are aware: the tendency of plant tissue to turn brown at a cut or peeled surface often has to be controlled through the use of preservatives such as sulphite. Damaged cells release the enzyme polyphenol oxidase, which catalyses the conversion of monophenols (released from separate subcellular compartments) to quinones, which oxidise to form brown polyphenolic pigments. However, the gene for polyphenol oxidase has been switched off in experimental studies by genetic modification, blocking this discolouration spoilage. Genetic modification and other molecular and biochemical techniques are being used to unravel the biochemistry of fruit and vegetable ripening and deterioration, and many new methods of preserving these foods, without the use of chemical preservatives, may be developed.

May be developed. This is an area of GMing plants that's nowhere settled technologically.

Another possibility is the use of crops to provide renewable sources of valuable materials such as vaccines, drugs, bioplastics, and other industrial materials. In parallel, cattle and sheep are being genetically modified to produce pharmaceutical chemicals in their milk, so that drugs can be produced much more efficiently and cost effectively. There is hope that food crops such as banana could be used to produce and deliver vaccines in tropical regions, for example.

This entails another area of GM wherein the technology has yet to become fully mature.

It is worth looking further at two other closely related concerns: the safety of genetically modified foods and the use of marker genes that confer antibiotic resistance. Environmental concerns are obviously important as well.

Food regulatoru agencies in the US, Canada and in the United Kingdom have led in developing systems for assessing the safety of genetically modified foods. Consequently, in these countries, genetically modified foods are subject to a rigorous safety assessment, based on rational scientific evaluation by leading experts and, by definition, within the limits of current knowledge. Within the European Union genetically modified foods are now regulated on a union-wide basis, and in the US and Canada they are regulated nationwide.

Widely reported work on potatoes at the Rowett Institute shows how difficult it can be to identify the facts Initial media reports claimed that the research proved that all genetically modified foods were inherently unsafe; subsequently it became clear that the findings related not to genetically modified potatoes at all but to potato material to which concanavalin "A" (a lectin and known toxin) had been added. Obviosuly, this kind of situation emphasises the need to identify concerns precisely and assess claims critically.

Another case often cited as showing that genetically modified foods are inherently dangerous is that of the US company Pioneer Hi-Bred, which introduced genes from Brazil nuts into soybeans to increase the level of sulphur-rich amino acids. The soya was intended for animal feed, not human food. During tests it became clear that the nut protein that was transferred to soybean was allergenic to humans, and the company elected not to pursue the development, citing the potential difficulties of preventing the soya from entering the human food chain.

The use of antibiotic resistance as a marker system for gene uptake rightly continues to generate much concern. Again, it is important to identify and deal with specific concerns and not to condemn a general approach which has been invaluable in making genetic modification technically feasible. In general, the antibiotics used in marker systems are not used for treating diseases, and the gene and its product (that is, the enzyme that inactivates the antibiotic and thus confers resistance) would usually be destroyed during heat processing of the food material.

However, in two cases clinically important antibiotics have been used: a maize developed by Novartis contained a gene for ampicillin resistance, and a potato developed by Avebe contained a gene for amikacin resistance. A further complication with the maize is that the material was intended to be used unprocessed in animal feed and that the antibiotic resistance gene was under the control of a bacterial promoter.

That led to concerns that the antibiotic resistance gene might be transferred to animal gut flora (including human pathogens), which might then acquire resistance to a clinically useful antibiotic. As a consequence, both these genetically modified crops are having difficulties gaining full regulatory approval. In England, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and in the US, advisory committees to the US FDA have called for the development of different marker systems, and there's some evidence that alternative technologies are being developed. In the meantime it is imperative that the clinical use of antibiotics is not compromised.

There's an awfully lot of unsettled angles and facets in all of this, both in the science and in the technology. We could chose one and drill into its details and try to unravel the degree of uncertainty that it possesses, and if you want to "be specific" that's indeed what we'd have to do. I'm not so sure I'm up for that, being a rather busy guy and all. I'm satisfied that the science isn't entirely settled and the technologies aren't fully mature, which is all I need to know to avoid consuming GM foodstuffs (which is no mean feat but do-able and can be made routine) or using GM seeds.

What's revealed here is that the term "GM Foods" is much too general to offer any real utility in coming to grips with all that it means, all that it involves. This makes the very title of the thread almost meaningless.

As noted earlier in a different context, at my age it's hardly going to make a difference, but I have made my choices and I stick by them, just as you and otrhers can make your choices and stick by them too. This is why it's such a puzzle to me why some members here get all frothy at the mouth over this kind of thing and start shooting at one another like sombody was a criminal or something.

That just makes no sense to me and frankly, it's not something I'm used to encountering in science discussions in which I participate on the web. This forum seems to be particularly infected with contentious arguing and bickering and one-upsmanship games and spinmeistering that really don't have a place in discussions about science or scientific matters. Yet here, they seem to dominate. It's a mysery to me why they do, I must say.

But as I see it, these discussions are for the exchange of ideas and information and views and opinions to the end of informing participants to a greater degree than they'd otherwise be and thus serving to benefit the interests of all, and not intended to be a shooting gallery with involuntary targets.

Enjoy!

Acetone wrote:No, YOU have to be really clear about what YOUR saying. GM foods involves such a HUGE amount of different scientists and fields. Your saying ALL these fields have not yet settled their 'science'. (whatever that means)

When someone makes a claim that 'the science is unsettled' it's expected that they are talking about specifics.

First of all you intimate that you don't know what the term "settled science" means, then turn right around and and state an expectation you somehow think is applicable or relevant to a claim that "(a) science is unsettled."

But the term "unsettled science" can be rightfully used in a wide variety of contexts, some specific, some not so specific, some even quite general.

Acetone wrote:
The is the same dishonest tactic that pops up so often in global warming threads. Oh these scientists don't agree about the extent of human impact. There's just so much for both sides that I don't know which is better!

I hope you're not accusing me of using dishonest tactics, because if you are I dare say you'll regret having done so. And besides, there's no real reason to assume or speculate that I am into using dishonest tactics in this discussion, and if you think there is, I'd like to see quotes of whatever I've said that led you to such a conclusion.

Acetone wrote:
When really the scientists involved agree on nearly everything except for minor details and the overarching policy (which isn't a concern of science, but people tend to throw that in to the 'science unsettled' argument)

I don't care what others do, I'm not them.

In the GM foods arena we have to distinguish between the science that's involved and the fact that much of what goes on is technological in nature, and not scientific per se. GM plants are engineered, which makes them artifacts of a technological process, not simply a scientific process. The science is in plant biochemistry and physiology at the DNA level; the engineering is the design of gene splices in plant DNA.

Mistakes can be made in both facets, the science and the engineering; incomplete testing can lead to dangerous products.

Acetone wrote:
So I want to know what you're talking about, specifically.

It's difficult to be "specific" when the use of genetic engineering techniques in plant development involves such a wide variety of differing goals and approaches, as you certainly must be aware.

A number of genetically modified food materials and products have gained regulatory approval in the UK, Canada, and the US, and are in commercial use: cheese produced with genetically modified chymosin, tomato paste from slow softening tomatoes, and genetically modified soya and maize, among others. Other genetically modified food materials have cleared parts of the approval system (for example, clearance for food safety but awaiting environmental clearance for agricultural scale production).

These include oil from oilseed rape, starch and oil from maize, oil from cotton, chicory, a slow softening tomato intended to be eaten fresh, and riboflavin from a microbe. In addition, other products granted approval have not been developed to full commercial scale ... for example, I don't think genetically modified brewers' yeast and bakers’ yeast has been approved yet, although I'm not fully up on what's been approved and what hasn't been..

Most GM applications are for crop plants, and the genetic modifications are for commercially important agronomic traits ... mostly herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. These agronomic traits are determined by single genes and are therefore easiest to manipulate and the science involved is quite straightforward and well understood. In contrast, characteristics such as flavour, texture, and processing qualities tend to be determined by multiple genes and are much more difficult to manipulate with success.

Despite the technical difficulty, progress is and has been and continues to be made with genetically modifying the compositional and processing characteristics of food crops. For example, oilseed rape can now be modified to produce oils with wide ranging characteristics through selective modification of the length and degree of saturation of the fatty acids produced ... fatty acids such as laurate, typical of tropical vegetable oils, can now be produced in temperate oilseed crops. Similarly, the balance of sugar and starch in potatoes, which affects the processing quality of potatoes for snack food production (too much sugar produces a dark, poor tasting product), can also now be modified, but as yet to my knowledge only on an experimental scale.

In addition, genetic techniques are being used to identify and manipulate the genes for biologically active components of food crops, such as natural toxicants (for example, potato glycoalkaloids and kidney bean lectin), antinutrients (for example, trypsin inhibitors), and allergens (for example, certain nut proteins). Such developments are at early stages but in the longer term are almost certain to lead to the development of foods that lack these undesirable components, assuming things hold up.

For marketers, deterioration of fruits and vegetables is a huge problem, as I'm sure you are aware: the tendency of plant tissue to turn brown at a cut or peeled surface often has to be controlled through the use of preservatives such as sulphite. Damaged cells release the enzyme polyphenol oxidase, which catalyses the conversion of monophenols (released from separate subcellular compartments) to quinones, which oxidise to form brown polyphenolic pigments. However, the gene for polyphenol oxidase has been switched off in experimental studies by genetic modification, blocking this discolouration spoilage. Genetic modification and other molecular and biochemical techniques are being used to unravel the biochemistry of fruit and vegetable ripening and deterioration, and many new methods of preserving these foods, without the use of chemical preservatives, may be developed.

May be developed. This is an area of GMing plants that's nowhere settled technologically.

Another possibility is the use of crops to provide renewable sources of valuable materials such as vaccines, drugs, bioplastics, and other industrial materials. In parallel, cattle and sheep are being genetically modified to produce pharmaceutical chemicals in their milk, so that drugs can be produced much more efficiently and cost effectively. There is hope that food crops such as banana could be used to produce and deliver vaccines in tropical regions, for example.

This entails another area of GM wherein the technology has yet to become fully mature.

It is worth looking further at two other closely related concerns: the safety of genetically modified foods and the use of marker genes that confer antibiotic resistance. Environmental concerns are obviously important as well.

Food regulatoru agencies in the US, Canada and in the United Kingdom have led in developing systems for assessing the safety of genetically modified foods. Consequently, in these countries, genetically modified foods are subject to a rigorous safety assessment, based on rational scientific evaluation by leading experts and, by definition, within the limits of current knowledge. Within the European Union genetically modified foods are now regulated on a union-wide basis, and in the US and Canada they are regulated nationwide.

Widely reported work on potatoes at the Rowett Institute shows how difficult it can be to identify the facts Initial media reports claimed that the research proved that all genetically modified foods were inherently unsafe; subsequently it became clear that the findings related not to genetically modified potatoes at all but to potato material to which concanavalin "A" (a lectin and known toxin) had been added. Obviosuly, this kind of situation emphasises the need to identify concerns precisely and assess claims critically.

Another case often cited as showing that genetically modified foods are inherently dangerous is that of the US company Pioneer Hi-Bred, which introduced genes from Brazil nuts into soybeans to increase the level of sulphur-rich amino acids. The soya was intended for animal feed, not human food. During tests it became clear that the nut protein that was transferred to soybean was allergenic to humans, and the company elected not to pursue the development, citing the potential difficulties of preventing the soya from entering the human food chain.

The use of antibiotic resistance as a marker system for gene uptake rightly continues to generate much concern. Again, it is important to identify and deal with specific concerns and not to condemn a general approach which has been invaluable in making genetic modification technically feasible. In general, the antibiotics used in marker systems are not used for treating diseases, and the gene and its product (that is, the enzyme that inactivates the antibiotic and thus confers resistance) would usually be destroyed during heat processing of the food material.

However, in two cases clinically important antibiotics have been used: a maize developed by Novartis contained a gene for ampicillin resistance, and a potato developed by Avebe contained a gene for amikacin resistance. A further complication with the maize is that the material was intended to be used unprocessed in animal feed and that the antibiotic resistance gene was under the control of a bacterial promoter.

That led to concerns that the antibiotic resistance gene might be transferred to animal gut flora (including human pathogens), which might then acquire resistance to a clinically useful antibiotic. As a consequence, both these genetically modified crops are having difficulties gaining full regulatory approval. In England, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and in the US, advisory committees to the US FDA have called for the development of different marker systems, and there's some evidence that alternative technologies are being developed. In the meantime it is imperative that the clinical use of antibiotics is not compromised.

There's an awfully lot of unsettled angles and facets in all of this, both in the science and in the technology. We could chose one and drill into its details and try to unravel the degree of uncertainty that it possesses, and if you want to "be specific" that's indeed what we'd have to do. I'm not so sure I'm up for that, being a rather busy guy and all. I'm satisfied that the science isn't entirely settled and the technologies aren't fully mature, which is all I need to know to avoid consuming GM foodstuffs (which is no mean feat but do-able and can be made routine) or using GM seeds.

What's revealed here is that the term "GM Foods" is much too general to offer any real utility in coming to grips with all that it means, all that it involves. This makes the very title of the thread almost meaningless.

As noted earlier in a different context, at my age it's hardly going to make a difference, but I have made my choices and I stick by them, just as you and otrhers can make your choices and stick by them too. This is why it's such a puzzle to me why some members here get all frothy at the mouth over this kind of thing and start shooting at one another like sombody was a criminal or something.

That just makes no sense to me and frankly, it's not something I'm used to encountering in science discussions in which I participate on the web. This forum seems to be particularly infected with contentious arguing and bickering and one-upsmanship games and spinmeistering that really don't have a place in discussions about science or scientific matters. Yet here, they seem to dominate. It's a mysery to me why they do, I must say.

But as I see it, these discussions are for the exchange of ideas and information and views and opinions to the end of informing participants to a greater degree than they'd otherwise be and thus serving to benefit the interests of all, and not intended to be a shooting gallery with involuntary targets.

Enjoy!

Very well FACT-MAN-2. Besides, introducing GMO into ecosystem is introducing an organism from outside. Consequences of such introduction are not always settled either. There are quite a few examples of such human activity consequently labeled as disasters or at least damaging to ecosystems. Rabbits in Australia are obvious(!) without understanding genetics and ecology.


It has been argued that the industry made a major strategic mistake in leading the genetically modified organism (GMO) charge with organisms intended primarily to increase the profitability of farming systems rather than those that might, say, improve human health or help solve environmental problems such as waste-site contamination or agricultural soil degradation. Taking the profitability approach has led to public disquiet, because it is perceived that the public will bear all the potential risks of this unknown technology, while farmers in the developed world and multinational companies will enjoy all of the gains.

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss1/art12/

The "unknown technology" is the unsettled one and it has to be by definition. It is practically impossible to simulate how exactly will GMO affect environment introduced to, but it is possible to make predictions. What to call "risks" is up to debate but to say there are none or negligible is not only ambitious but probably ignorant.

So mostly what's unsettled is how the government is going to create policy surrounding genetic modification and for some reason you see scientists finding unwanted traits in their organisms to be an 'unsettled' part of the science?

Viral and bacterial evolution due to introducing genetic modifications to the environment are a serious concern. But that has little to do with the science behind the matter and more to do with policies. Introducing new genes into an environment, or genes where they've never been before to interact with the environment will always carry these sort of risks. It's not up to the scientists to determine anything other than that risk exists, which they have. It's up to the policy makers to decide what to do with that information.

You didn't cite anything that would strike me as unsettled in the science of the matter. Difficulty in creating organisms with multiple genes is not scientists being unsettled. Nor is finding unwanted traits.

Cito di Pense wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
...

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Monsanto has worked very hard to control about half the seed market and has developed infertile seeds so that farmers have to buy a new batch of seeds every year, an expense they've not heretofore ever faced, and they're left to the mercy of Monsanto in making their seed buys.

Where do you get your information? Weather Underground, c. 1970?

I think it was more recent than that:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981066/posts

India: Riots over 70 suicides blamed on "debt,drought, and Monsanto's GM crops.

(Above report dated 2003.)
I suspect that Monsanto would not have changed it's behaviour if it hadn't been for the riots, because they would have got away with it.

DavidMcC wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
...

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Monsanto has worked very hard to control about half the seed market and has developed infertile seeds so that farmers have to buy a new batch of seeds every year, an expense they've not heretofore ever faced, and they're left to the mercy of Monsanto in making their seed buys.

Where do you get your information? Weather Underground, c. 1970?

I think it was more recent than that:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981066/posts

India: Riots over 70 suicides blamed on "debt,drought, and Monsanto's GM crops.

(Above report dated 2003.)
I suspect that Monsanto would not have changed it's behaviour if it hadn't been for the riots, because they would have got away with it.

You didn't link to any report that Monsanto changed its behaviour. You also royally fucked up your quote tags. I think that's probably related to the same factors which obviated your actually mounting an argument.

I just think there still too many unknowns. We are playing with a very important part of our lives. I would like to see more results.

We dont know about long term. We dont know what will happen with cross fertalisation of different modified plants.
Two companies could develope two different strains which on their own are safe but in cross fertilisation produce a new deadly strain.

Too me it is all very disturbing. Another thing companies like Monsanto are only in it for the money.
Buy their seeds and you are fucked by them.

Most companies selling seeds are in it for the money.

And of course, the good old 'franken----' argument. The odds of genetically modified organisms breeding with other organisms to produce a 'deadly strain' is the same as two non-genetically modified organisms breeding and creating a 'deadly strain'. What makes you think it's any different???

There's not very many unknowns in regard to the science. I mean it's still a young field, but as factman pointed out most modification are the insertion of a single gene. You do this in university during your undergraduate, many times. It's not even that complicated actually, and the technology available is getting better. There's possible interactions when introduced out into the natural environment, but those mostly have to do with bacteria and viral interactions/increased resistance than some frakenbreed of organism killing people.

Also, a lot of the time genetic modifications are within the species. They specifically introduce genes in order to ensure their expression that would have already been possible to introduce just by breeding. Simply because we've inserted the genes using modern technology these organisms carry an increased risk?

Lets say there are risks, when introducing organisms into ecosystem. Sum of such risks is X. Then we genetically modify Y organisms and introduce them. The total risk is now X + Y. So far so good? Good. Now, the rate and scale at which organisms are being introduced increases, or rather fluctuates, based on various factors, and one of them, a significant one, is technological advancement leading to production of GMO. It is that simple. Greater rate/scale - greater risks.