Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists’ Emails with Big Ag
wired.com
wired.com
Nutritional science (not really a science, more research) hasn't been able to produce conclusive results about some of the most simple (chemically) compounds that we've been consuming for thousands of years. And people are claiming that anyone can say that GMOs, i.e. things we don't understand (cells) that haven't existed for even a generation, are safe (edit: not just safe to eat, but also safe for the environment)?
What research are you looking at?
But the scientific consensus is: “Consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”
And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations. Then you pick some of them, examine them, and hope they're not hurting anyone. That sounds much more dangerous than the approach of genetic engineering (research genes, then modify only the parts that you have identified, nothing else).
( Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-geneticall... )
So, what's the alternative? Let 30% of our population starve because food prices shoot through the roof?
Of course, and I don't expect proof. I just expect long (20-years plus) studies that are unencumbered by commercial interests).
> And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations.
So basically, it's not safe at all. IMO, that's a serious misinterpretation of the word "conventional" - for me, conventional plant improvement techniques is interbreeding and selection (i.e. find plants that are "better" according to some criteria and take their seeds, thus slowly improving it over generations).
I'll definitely look into these "conventional" techniques; I guess this limits the food choices I have even more :) Thank god I live in Europe, I'm assuming we're growing more traditional variants here.
GMO's have been studied for more than 20 years
[1] http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/150120_signatori...
[2] http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2766504/there...
So when someone says GMO it assumed to be what exactly? Targeted gene inertion? Mutagenesis? What about marker assisted breeding? Each one of these is a continuum of progression from "conventional" breeding. All of them are human induced genetic modification, drawing the line at say targeted gene insertion is arbitrary.
More details on the problems with defining and classifying food as GMO can be found here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC510...
Ah, you're not being serious
The old method of GMO, that is intentionally controlling pollination to bring out desirable traits once per plant generation, is too slow to support the growing need for food as our population expands.
We can't look to the past for a solution for this (well, we could, but personally I'm against starvation and plagues), so I feel that we have little choice but to look forward.
What a lot of "anti-GMO" people seem to be missing is that the modern techniques are far less radical and significantly more controlled. At least now we can track the changes we make, which are limited in scope. Nothing is perfect, but I find small, tracked changes far more reassuring than randomly blasting plants with mutagens until you find something interesting.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
...
wow - that wiki page has an interesting claim about "some" so-called "certified orgainc" growers:
"...several organic food and seed companies promote and sell certified organic products that were developed using both chemical and nuclear mutagenesis. Several certified organic brands, whose companies support strict labeling or outright bans on GMO-crops, market their use of branded wheat and other varietal strains which were derived from mutagenic processes without any reference to this genetic manipulation..."
My worry with GMO is not that EVERY such food will be poison, or even that SOME such food will be poison. It's simply that GMO is a much more powerful tool for modifying organisms than the current tools like selective breeding. More powerful tools allow for greater good, but also allow for greater harm (deliberate or accidental).
Thus, more powerful tools require more wisdom to use than do less powerful tools. A great philosopher once observed, "With great power comes great responsibility". I am simply not convinced that mass market food producers have the wisdom to use the great power of GMO with great responsibility.
To put it in phone app terms, when GMO shows up in my groceries or in my fast food drive-through take out bag, I want it to have come from an Apple-style market, not an Android-style market.
Both inherently and due to levels of regulatory scrutiny (which may not be as much as some people like, but is still more than techniques of inducing genetic changes that are classed as "traditional" breeding) it is a much more controlled tool that other current tools like selective breeding.
OTOH, I'm not sure its more powerful (in terms of greater potential for change) than modern "selective breeding" techniques; from talking in to people who do work with both GMO and modern selective breeding techniques, I think that a lot of the public impression along those lines is driven by an outdated, romanticized view about "selective breeding".
In most cases such studies would simply be unethical, you can't just intentionally expose people to chemical you suspect might be harmful in studies.
Are you here pranking us? Apart of insulting, of course.
And about roundup-ready crops:
"The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions."
"Early epidemiological studies have not found associations between long-term low-level exposure to glyphosate and any disease."
(off of the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human)
Source for that?
> the scientific consensus you mention has also drawn attention due to conflicts of interest from sources of funding.
source for that?
After my GMO corn and soybeans are about 12" high, I use a contact spray (glyphosate) at a rate of roughly 10 gal/acre to selectively kill weeds. If you would watch the sprayer in the field, you would note that the nozzles are emitting a very fine mist. To me, it is an incredible feat of science that such little spray is able to completely and selectively kill the weeds.
Also, I'm not aware of ANY pesticides that are save for human consumption. To what are you referring?
Source: On the side, I farm 35 acres planted using no-till and GMO corn and soybeans. I hire a crop consultant to help me rotate pesticides to avoid developing glyphosate-resistant weeds.
Unfortunately there's no protective gear for eaters of your corn.