Who's Afraid Of Gmo?

[billvon]

​And let me tell you right now, if you need to forbid people from accessing their fundamental right

of getting proper information about the products being sold to them, you're leaning to the dark side of the force...

I used to think that.  Then Prop 65 passed.  And rather than being a way to inform consumers of health risks, it has become 100 million dollar industry intended to separate money from Californians and move it into the pockets of lawyers.

 

So now when I see a law that requires labeling of some sort I immediately assume that it's a group of lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes.  Indeed, the same lawyer who was behind Prop 65 was recently behind a mandatory GMO labeling law that was (fortunately) defeated.

Edited April 19, 2017 by billvon

[billvon]

If noone is arguing that GMO's are inherently safe to consume...why then, am I told I have an obligation to accept them into my produce isle? If noone has proven they are safe, then why am I obligated to accept them into my produce isle?

You are not obligated to accept anything.  You have the right to not buy GMO products.  If you are a store, you have the right to not carry them.

 

You do not have the right to tell a store to take them out of THEIR produce aisle.  That's up to them.

You show me a sick and degenerate cancerous American society, as evidence of the safety of GMOs?

 

?? No.  You show me a sick and degenerate medieval society as evidence of the safety of hybrids?  Where most children did not survive to age 10?  Where the average lifespan was about 45?

As opposed to thousands of years of natural foods. Time tested, for safety. Thousands of years of natural plant-interbreeding, is not the same as GMO. . . . When thousands of years ago, men inter-breed plants to make superior plants, this was a different process than GMO.

 

Yes.  It is also a different process than was used to develop the hybridized, but non-GMO, produce you eat today.  But that's OK?

[JMJones0424]

No idea what cultivar it was, I doubt it said on the label anyway.

 

If noone is arguing that GMO's are inherently safe to consume...why then, am I told I have an obligation to accept them into my produce isle?

If you don't know what cultivar it was, how do you know that it was GMO? I know of no GMO oranges that are approved for human consumption.  The closest I could find is this line that was only approved for trials in November of last year.  If you paid for your oranges, these are not the ones you bought.  If you can't show that you consumed a GMO orange, then your personal recollection is meaningless in this discussion. You aren't obliged to accept GMOs in your produce isle, and if you claim that you are, then you are a liar.

 

 

As opposed to thousands of years of natural foods. Time tested, for safety.

 

 

Why is time a factor in safety tests for your food?  There is likely no food that you consume that existed a thousand years ago.  Time testing is not a measure of safety.  Testing for safety is a measure of safety.  There is no GMO food that has been approved for human consumption that has been shown to be unsafe.

 

 

Thousands of years of natural plant-interbreeding, is not the same as GMO

A significant portion of the non-GMO food that you eat was not derived from crossing plants.  Chemical manipulation of plant genetics predates GMO.  If your argument is that the only safe foodstuffs are those that are offspring of "natural" crosses, then you are already eating "unsafe" foods.

 

 

You show me a sick and degenerate cancerous American society, as evidence of the safety of GMOs?

I have done no such thing.  Your claim here is a lie.  I have made many actual claims about GMOs in this thread.  If you'd like to address them rather than strawmen, you are welcome to.

 

 

 

When thousands of years ago, men inter-breed plants to make superior plants, this was a different process than GMO. If GMO was the same process there would be no fuss, people would just say "Oh, same as those men thousands of years ago who inter-bred plants

 This begs the question that crossing is the only "safe" method for producing new cultivars.  Many of the non-GMO foods you eat were not produced in this manor.  Your preference provides no evidence for the safety of GMOs.

Edited April 19, 2017 by JMJones0424

[JMJones0424]

Everything .

 

Because not only is it our food , it is energy , nutrients , health , our well being and the evolution of our intellect , mind and body .

You need to know everything about GMOs.  What do you not know?  I can appreciate your moronic emotional appeal that this is an important discussion, but I can't read your mind.

Edited April 19, 2017 by JMJones0424

[sanctus]

Why is time a factor in safety tests for your food?  There is likely no food that you consume that existed a thousand years ago.  Time testing is not a measure of safety.  Testing for safety is a measure of safety.  There is no GMO food that has been approved for human consumption that has been shown to be unsafe.

 

 

 

Time is a factor though, this for 2 reason, but first and more dangerous due to our system not GMO in itself:

 

1) GMO are big money both invested before and returned when out, so Monsanto and friends wish to bring a new GMO as quick as possible to the market to get returns as quick as possible. This implies as I stated elsewhere, that the testing is done as quick as possible (and I would ASSUME just enough to be legal) and we all agree I guess that when stressing the things are done worse.

 

2) Slow changes like in interbreeding have time to show potential adverse effects on the way (starting with minimal effect), while a similar change in 1 generation jumps right away to the maximum effect. I know you will say now that so far no adverse effect has been shown, but this does not imply there won't/can't be (and also not that there will be :-)).

[quickquestion]

If you don't know what cultivar it was, how do you know that it was GMO? I know of no GMO oranges that are approved for human consumption.  The closest I could find is this line that was only approved for trials in November of last year.  If you paid for your oranges, these are not the ones you bought.  If you can't show that you consumed a GMO orange, then your personal recollection is meaningless in this discussion. You aren't obliged to accept GMOs in your produce isle, and if you claim that you are, then you are a liar.

In any case, if it wasn't GMO, then it was a seriously messed up orange.

 

Your arguments are basically looney. You are delusional to think that I have the power to change a market monopoly. You can't be serious to think that one person boycotting a supermarket will do anything. If the supermarkets wake up one morning and disable the organic produce isle, there is nothing I can do about it. I have no power over the corporations.

 

My main point is, you can't know if GMO's are safe, because the population is so sickly, you can never know what hit them. You could blame their cancer on cigarettes, toxins, bad health, lack of excercize, or GMO's, but you don't have any kind of control set to isolate what's really going on.

Edited April 19, 2017 by quickquestion

[JMJones0424]

Time is a factor though, this for 2 reason, but first and more dangerous due to our system not GMO in itself:

 

1) GMO are big money both invested before and returned when out, so Monsanto and friends wish to bring a new GMO as quick as possible to the market to get returns as quick as possible. This implies as I stated elsewhere, that the testing is done as quick as possible (and I would ASSUME just enough to be legal) and we all agree I guess that when stressing the things are done worse.

No, I don't agree.  I'm not sure that I understand your argument here at all.  What evidence can you cite that a particular GMO that has been approved for human consumption is unsafe for human consumption?  Why do you assume that a new, relatively untested GMO is unsafe while a new, relatively untested natural crossing is safe?  What do you mean when you say that " we all agree I guess that when stressing the things are done worse." 

 

There are many instances where stressing plants led to desirable traits being expressed.  Perhaps this is a translation error.  I don't understand your argument here.  I'll be the first to line up against Monsanto, but Monsanto does not equal GMO and GMO is not limited to Monsanto.

 

 

2) Slow changes like in interbreeding have time to show potential adverse effects on the way (starting with minimal effect), while a similar change in 1 generation jumps right away to the maximum effect. I know you will say now that so far no adverse effect has been shown, but this does not imply there won't/can't be (and also not that there will be :-)).

 

I don't think you have demonstrated knowledge of how new cultivars are developed.  New GMOs are far more tested for safety than any other line that arises from either crossing or chemical manipulation of genetics.  I do claim that no adverse effect of GMOs approved for human consumption has been shown to exist.  I do not imply that no adverse effect is possible.  What I ask from you is why that you do?  If you can't come up with a reasonable answer, then your aversion to GMOs in this vein is simply unfounded.

Edited April 20, 2017 by JMJones0424

[JMJones0424]

In any case, if it wasn't GMO, then it was a seriously messed up orange.

 

Your arguments are basically looney. You are delusional to think that I have the power to change a market monopoly. You can't be serious to think that one person boycotting a supermarket will do anything. If the supermarkets wake up one morning and disable the organic produce isle, there is nothing I can do about it. I have no power over the corporations.

 

My main point is, you can't know if GMO's are safe, because the population is so sickly, you can never know what hit them. You could blame their cancer on cigarettes, toxins, bad health, lack of excercize, or GMO's, but you don't have any kind of control set to isolate what's really going on.

No, I maintain that it is far more likely that you are providing a false recollection of your experience.  I can not know that you at some time in your past consumed a bad orange.  I can know that it is highly unlikely that this orange was GMO.  For you to use this experience as an argument against GMOs is disingenuous.

 

My arguments, as I have tried to make them, are not looney.  You do have the power to change the market through collective purchasing, and the fact that non-GMO products exist and are successful economically shows this to be the case.  Organic certification of produce is a different bag of worms that I have addressed in previous threads.  If a GMO is safe for human consumption, I find no reason why it can't be produced in OMRI approved situations.  You claim that I can't know that GMOs are safe, and this is a true claim.  However, what I claim is that you don't have any evidence that GMOs that are approved for human consumption are not safe.  The population of the US is sickly when compared to other developed countries because of poor diet and poor healthcare, neither of which have anything to do with GMOs.

 

All I ask is for informed debate.  You have provided nothing but fabrications and FUD.

Edited April 20, 2017 by JMJones0424

[JMJones0424]

My attempt to lead this discussion past unsupported claims has apparently failed.  Monsanto is an evil corporation.  First world countries have committed numerous crimes against third world countries.  No amount of testing can ensure safety of a particular product.  These are all facts.  It is also a fact that direct manipulation of the genome of plants can produce useful strains that centuries of cross-breeding and chemical and radiological genetic manipulation can not.  If you wish to maintain that GMOs are unsafe, then you need to provide evidence that supports your claim.

 

I have already given an example where a gene that arose from a random mutation in grapes and was not thoroughly tested with the rigor you require of GMOs was placed in an apple in order to delay the browning of the apple after being cut.  This is a GMO.  What argument can you conceive of against this application of technology?

Edited April 20, 2017 by JMJones0424

[exchemist]

In any case, if it wasn't GMO, then it was a seriously messed up orange.

 

Your arguments are basically looney. You are delusional to think that I have the power to change a market monopoly. You can't be serious to think that one person boycotting a supermarket will do anything. If the supermarkets wake up one morning and disable the organic produce isle, there is nothing I can do about it. I have no power over the corporations.

 

My main point is, you can't know if GMO's are safe, because the population is so sickly, you can never know what hit them. You could blame their cancer on cigarettes, toxins, bad health, lack of excercize, or GMO's, but you don't have any kind of control set to isolate what's really going on.

What market monopoly? 

 

As for your assertion that we have no idea what causes cancer in the population, that is demonstrably untrue. We have a very good idea. And in any case the notion that GMOs are likely to be bad for human health is pretty irrelevant. The genuine arguments about GMO are nothing to do with human health - as you can see if you read the earlier discussions in this thread.

[sanctus]

Time is a factor though, this for 2 reason, but first and more dangerous due to our system not GMO in itself:

 

1) GMO are big money both invested before and returned when out, so Monsanto and friends wish to bring a new GMO as quick as possible to the market to get returns as quick as possible. This implies as I stated elsewhere, that the testing is done as quick as possible (and I would ASSUME just enough to be legal) and we all agree I guess that when stressing the things are done worse.

 

2) Slow changes like in interbreeding have time to show potential adverse effects on the way (starting with minimal effect), while a similar change in 1 generation jumps right away to the maximum effect. I know you will say now that so far no adverse effect has been shown, but this does not imply there won't/can't be (and also not that there will be :-)).

Your reply to my point 1

 

No, I don't agree.  I'm not sure that I understand your argument here at all.  What evidence can you cite that a particular GMO that has been approved for human consumption is unsafe for human consumption?  Why do you assume that a new, relatively untested GMO is unsafe while a new, relatively untested natural crossing is safe?  What do you mean when you say that " we all agree I guess that when stressing the things are done worse." 

 

There are many instances where stressing plants led to desirable traits being expressed.  Perhaps this is a translation error.  I don't understand your argument here.  I'll be the first to line up against Monsanto, but Monsanto does not equal GMO and GMO is not limited to Monsanto.

 

 

 

 

It is true that you did not understand me here, this is NOT a critic of GMO (as I also sais in that post) but of our current from of capitalism. With "stressing" I referred to "work under time pressure" not putting plants in a special/harsh/unfriendly environment in order "to stress" them (I take that is what you mean by stressing plants). So here once again in other words:

GMOs are a big market, with a lot of investment ($$$) going into the development so the corporations want a return on investment as quick as possible otherwise they loose the backing from investors and/or go bankrupt. This implies that safety tests have a big potential to not be done thoroughly, since  they are under time-pressure.

Hope this is clearer now.

 

Your reply to my point 2 (what happened to quote=JMJones when manually quoting, it just shows quote without the name?)

 

I don't think you have demonstrated knowledge of how new cultivars are developed.  New GMOs are far more tested for safety than any other line that arises from either crossing or chemical manipulation of genetics.  I do claim that no adverse effect of GMOs approved for human consumption has been shown to exist.  I do not imply that no adverse effect is possible.  What I ask from you is why that you do?  If you can't come up with a reasonable answer, then your aversion to GMOs in this vein is simply unfounded.

First off I agree, although not happy about it, that "no adverse effect of GMOs approved for human consumption has been shown to exist" so far.

 

 

 

When in reply to point 1 you say:

 

 

 Why do you assume that a new, relatively untested GMO is unsafe while a new, relatively untested natural crossing is safe?

it is more related to my point 2.

 

I do not assume that, what I mean is that with GMO you have a big jump in one generation, with interbreeding you have the change slowly over many generations. So if there were to be any adverse effects with GMO you have the full-scale effect right away, with interbreeding you have them incrementally so you can stop before it gets to the full-scale. See it this way, if a half pinkish grapefruit or a corn with some yellow but mainly black turned out to have adverse effects we would not have pink grapefruit or yellow corn today...while if now we would create  green GMO grapefruit and it passes all safety tests then if there is an adverse effect the tests don't see we get the full-scale adverse effect, while via interbreeding we would stop at the greenish grapefruit.

 

I alredy hear you say, that this is playing on fear and that tests for safety are reliable. Most likely they are I do agree, but if they miss something with GMOs we get the full-scale consequences, with interbreeding we don't.

 

 

 

[quickquestion]

No, I maintain that it is far more likely that you are providing a false recollection of your experience.  I can not know that you at some time in your past consumed a bad orange.  I can know that it is highly unlikely that this orange was GMO.  For you to use this experience as an argument against GMOs is disingenuous.

 

My arguments, as I have tried to make them, are not looney.  You do have the power to change the market through collective purchasing, and the fact that non-GMO products exist and are successful economically shows this to be the case.  Organic certification of produce is a different bag of worms that I have addressed in previous threads.  If a GMO is safe for human consumption, I find no reason why it can't be produced in OMRI approved situations.  You claim that I can't know that GMOs are safe, and this is a true claim.  However, what I claim is that you don't have any evidence that GMOs that are approved for human consumption are not safe.  The population of the US is sickly when compared to other developed countries because of poor diet and poor healthcare, neither of which have anything to do with GMOs.

 

All I ask is for informed debate.  You have provided nothing but fabrications and FUD.

I am just one person. I have no power of influence over hippies who make organic markets. I do not own whole foods or any markets. If the world suddenly decides that organic is no longer hip, I have no power over them and I would be forced to eat whatever food they decide is suddenly "cool" and "in".

 

The fundamental fact is that you don't have a clean laboratory, so if you introduce GMO's into the population you have absolutely no way to prove whether or not they have any effect on the population at all.

The only way to test GMO's is to put newborn humans in a lab of all known ethnicities and wait for 90 years and see if it does anything.

All you are doing is guessing that "If I add this gene to that gene, both genes are safe, therefore I don't believe it will do anything, why should it do anything, both genes are safe, so theoretically it should be safe."

Please research what scientific control is and it's fundamental role in the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

Edited April 20, 2017 by quickquestion

[JMJones0424]

I am just one person. I have no power of influence over hippies who make organic markets. I do not own whole foods or any markets. If the world suddenly decides that organic is no longer hip, I have no power over them and I would be forced to eat whatever food they decide is suddenly "cool" and "in".

 

The fundamental fact is that you don't have a clean laboratory, so if you introduce GMO's into the population you have absolutely no way to prove whether or not they have any effect on the population at all.

The only way to test GMO's is to put newborn humans in a lab of all known ethnicities and wait for 90 years and see if it does anything.

All you are doing is guessing that "If I add this gene to that gene, both genes are safe, therefore I don't believe it will do anything, why should it do anything, both genes are safe, so theoretically it should be safe."

Please research what scientific control is and it's fundamental role in the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

Your requirement for testing of safety of human foodstuffs is not only unnecessary but entirely inhumane.  If, as has been done, one can show that there are no adverse effects from the consumption of GMOs by humans, then this should be sufficient to show that GMOs are safe as far as we know.  This is not a perfect scientific test, as you have identified.  It is not possible to humanely perform such a perfect scientific test.  However, the tests that can be humanely performed have shown that your argument here is unfounded.

 

There exists no evidence that a GMO crop that has been approved for human consumption produces any negative effects on those that are consuming the produce.  I am not making a guess.  When you consume a food, the genome of that food is irrelevant.  There is no evidential reason to believe that the cultivars that are derived from direct genetic manipulation are any more or less safe for human consumption than cultivars that arose from older technology.  If you required the same level of testing with naturally mutated foodstuffs, then at least you would be consistent.  I would still disagree with you, but at least you would be applying your contrariness evenly.

 

You ate a bad orange and falsely accused GMO as the reason why this orange was bad.  Why don't you require all new orange cultivars to be inhumanely studied for 90 years prior to widespread human consumption rather than singling out GMOs for this inhumane test?

Edited April 21, 2017 by JMJones0424

[JMJones0424]

Sanctus- I think I understand your first point now, though I don't particularly agree with it.  I do agree that unregulated, industrial food production is not desireable, but as you have noted, this hasn't anything to do with GMOs.  However, your first point assumes inadequate testing.  What testing would you find to be adequate?  It seems to me that this argument isn't against GMOs, but rather an argument against the US's testing of food safety.  Am I correct in making this assumption?

 

On point two, I can not more fervently disagree.  How have you determined that inserting a gene into a plant is more or less slow than using crossing to express random mutations.  This is where I think your understanding of how new cultivars are developed is deficient.

[sanctus]

JmJones, almost :-). My first point does not assume inadequate testing, it assumes that theory of the testing is a good as it gets but that "time pressure" risks to make those making the tests to be sloppy and hence the test risks to give wrong results. And this is not specific to US's food safety tests.

Wrt to point 2 and your last comment to it, I went to read up a bit more and found an interesting thing from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeding):

 

 

Some scientists therefore argue that plants produced by classical breeding methods should undergo the same safety testing regime as genetically modified plants. There have been instances where plants bred using classical techniques have been unsuitable for human consumption, for example the poison solanine was unintentionally increased to unacceptable levels in certain varieties of potato through plant breeding.

From the same link, my point is valid, at least if backcrossing is done. GMO is 1 generation, breeding is many.

 

[quickquestion]

Your requirement for testing of safety of human foodstuffs is not only unnecessary but entirely inhumane.  If, as has been done, one can show that there are no adverse effects from the consumption of GMOs by humans, then this should be sufficient to show that GMOs are safe as far as we know.  This is not a perfect scientific test, as you have identified.  It is not possible to humanely perform such a perfect scientific test.  However, the tests that can be humanely performed have shown that your argument here is unfounded.

 

There exists no evidence that a GMO crop that has been approved for human consumption produces any negative effects on those that are consuming the produce.  I am not making a guess.  When you consume a food, the genome of that food is irrelevant.

Incorrect.

The genome is relevant to what food you eat.

Your statement is ridiculous.

If I eat a mushroom, is not the genome of the mushroom relevant? Most mushrooms are toxic. Thus knowing the genome is important.

 

There exists no evidence that a GMO crop that has been approved for human consumption produces any negative effects on those that are consuming the produce.

 

Instant negative effects is the key word.

It is only possible to judge the effects after studying them in a controlled setting for many years.

And if you want to talk about ethics...first of all I don't believe in sending criminals to prison. But if they are in prison, you might as well make them useful for something. If GMO's are as safe as you believe then why not test it on them.

[billvon]

Incorrect.

The genome is relevant to what food you eat.

Your statement is ridiculous.

If I eat a mushroom, is not the genome of the mushroom relevant? Most mushrooms are toxic. Thus knowing the genome is important.

The genome will not make you sick.  No one cares whether the genome starts with ACTG instead of ATTG.  What IS important is the phenotype - what proteins and structures are expressed in the organism as a RESULT of the genome.

 

That is an important distinction.  You could put the entire genome of Clostridium botulinum (i.e. the organism that creates botulinum toxin) in a carrot's DNA, and as long as the key sequences in the C. Botulinum were not expressed, it would be no more dangerous than any other carrot.

 

It is only possible to judge the effects after studying them in a controlled setting for many years.

 

People have been eating GMO's since 1994.  We have seen no effects in over 20 years.

But if they are in prison, you might as well make them useful for something. If GMO's are as safe as you believe then why not test it on them.

 

It has been tested on them (and many others) for over 20 years now.