and who are you?

[Winstonm]

Bill Nye changes his mind about GMOs.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/03/proof-hes-the-science-guy-bill-nye-is-changing-his-mind-about-gmos/

 

"When the facts change, I change my mind." - John Maynard Keynes

[barmar]

If this were a TV thriller, The Science Guy would have been injected with something during his visit to Monsanto.

[mike777]

This is a thriller. Basically all of our non GMO food has been exposed to radiation. This radiation contains mutagens.

 

"In genetics, a mutagen is a physical or chemical agent that changes the genetic material, usually DNA, of an organism and thus increases the frequency of mutations above the natural background level"

 

I would also add that basically all humans have been exposed to this radiation.

 

It appears that all this food and humans have been "injected" by this radiation. I do not know if Monsanto is behind it all.

[blackshoe]

Nah. It's aliens. They want the planet, so they're trying to get rid of us. BTW, global warming is part of the plot. The aliens don't like cold.

[barmar]

Nah. It's aliens. They want the planet, so they're trying to get rid of us. BTW, global warming is part of the plot. The aliens don't like cold.

But they screwed up, because global warming also seems to cause more extreme winter weather, like the near-record breaking season we've had this year in Boston.

[mike777]

Nah. It's aliens. They want the planet, so they're trying to get rid of us. BTW, global warming is part of the plot. The aliens don't like cold.

 

 

Well true there are a reported 12=15 million aliens in the USA and many of them do not like the cold. But we can not deport them so lets give them a path to citizenship. Let us add them to that great American melting pot.

btw many of them if not all are also being exposed to this radiation that contains mutagen.

[Zelandakh]

Well true there are a reported 12=15 million aliens in the USA and many of them do not like the cold.

That would explain the reported 77% of Americans that believe there are signs of aliens having visited the Earth. :blink:

[mikeh]

That would explain the reported 77% of Americans that believe there are signs of aliens having visited the Earth. :blink:

76% of Americans believe that aliens haven't merely visited the Earth....they've moved in and stolen all the jobs that Real Americans don't want. And are planning to bring their cousins in next.

[mikeh]

I just found this reference: http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/777.full.pdf

 

The authors estimate that 99.99% by weight of pesticides found in a typical American diet represent pesticides produced by the foodstuffs as part of an evolved defence against pests :D

 

Oh well, more science for the gmo-nuts to deny.

[onoway]

I just found this reference: http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/777.full.pdf

 

The authors estimate that 99.99% by weight of pesticides found in a typical American diet represent pesticides produced by the foodstuffs as part of an evolved defence against pests :D

 

Oh well, more science for the gmo-nuts to deny.

If the plants have evolved their own defenses then why is it necessary to flood the crops with more? Of course, people thought that the Titanic was unsinkable as well, because they had designed in protection against anything nature could throw at her...

 

And if gmo agriculture, as it is being done now, is the "answer" why did India, after trying it wholeheartedly, now BAN GMOs in what used to be their most productive and fertile lands before they went to GMOs and almost destroyed their water table resources as a result? Why has Ghana, urgently in need of food self-sufficiency, recently said no to GMOs, and decided that they would be far better off building on their own traditions and food crops?

 

If these companies have the interests of the poor and the hungry at heart, why did food riots around the world happen a few years ago at the same time as there were huge bumper crops of grain and corn? If you don't know the answer, it's because the companies selling the seed are also buying the crop and selling it for biogas paid better than selling it for food, because people in poor countries couldn't pay as much as if it were sold for biogas. So much for their humanitarian intentions.

 

It isn't only that the crops are slowly poisoning people they are even more quickly destroying the land. That's what many people suggest explains the disappearance of many civilizations before now, but hey many of us will be gone and not have to deal with it,so why worry?

 

So what if a new batch of people with inflated egos and unflappable hubris think they can short circuit and force nature to do their will without even knowing anything much about the soil life (assuming, giving them the benefit of the doubt here as the alternative would fit my definition of evil)..just like people beating the earth with sticks every spring used to think. It didn't work out too reliably in the past, but hey, this is now and that was then. The only problem is that people used to do things with limited reach, now we are doing things with almost unlimited capacity to do a great deal of damage for a very very very long time. Sort of like fighting with swords as opposed to nuclear weapons.

 

And apparently they don't care, if they did, they wouldn't try so energetically to do everything they can to protect what they are doing from being researched by any scientists unfunded or paid for by them.Or hire firms to search out and befuddle conversations with half truths, which can be more confusing than outright lies, although they freely use those too.

 

In any case, people will decide what they want to do, at least now they have been somewhat exposed to the realities of the situation. Believing in GMO agriculture as it is being promoted and practised by companies like Monsanto is sort of like being in the religion where people think that if they only have enough faith, the live rattlesnake they are handling won't bite them... that doesn't usually end up well either, although some have got away with it for a time.

[Zelandakh]

onoway, the GMO seeds in India are cotton, which is a notoriously thirsty crop. For a non-GMO example you could look up the Aral Sea. From a very quick look, the main reason for the ban appears to be that it was seen that Western countries were "holding India to ransom" over the seeds. The seeds themselves are popular with farmers having increased yields and reduced pesticide use. This is about economics rather than the safety of GMOs.

 

I have not looked up the Ghana situation but I would imagine it is similar. A few years back Ghana got bitten by introducing American rice and this effectively destroyed the (to that point) successful local farming economy. It would make a lot of sense for them not to risk a repeat, again for economic reasons.

 

Noone is saying that the companies are putting the best interests of customers in mind. Their responsibility is to their shareholders and to maximise profits. Please try to separate out your arguments between ethical, economic and safety. Using reasoning based on the first two to try to "prove" the last is not going to work.

[nige1]

I just found this reference: http://www.pnas.org/...19/777.full.pdf The authors estimate that 99.99% by weight of pesticides found in a typical American diet represent pesticides produced by the foodstuffs as part of an evolved defence against pests :D Oh well, more science for the gmo-nuts to deny.

Seemingly, Mikeh's link is accessible only to GMO-nuts for affirmation or denial. Please would MIkeh provide another link or more information for the rest of us. 99.99% seems a high percentage. Presumably, it depends on how you define pest and pesticide. Also, of possible relevance is the relative risk of different pesticides to the environment and to human-health.

 

IMO we suffer from bad decisions: Allowing gene-patents and inadequate product-regulation.

 

These conspire against the public: We don't know the risks; we can't find out about them; and we can't opt out of exposure to them.

Anyway, buyers and the public shouldn't need to show damage. Vendors should be responsible for demonstrating safety. Regulators should have the duty and power to prevent the reckless sacrifice of safety to profit.

[Zelandakh]

Please would MIkeh provide another link or more information for the rest of us.

Try this one, Nige.

[mike777]

Seemingly, Mikeh's link is accessible only to GMO-nuts for affirmation or denial. Please would MIkeh provide another link or more information for the rest of us. 99.99% seems a high percentage. Presumably, it depends on how you define pest and pesticide. Also, of possible relevance is the relative risk of different pesticides to the environment and human-health.

 

IMO we suffer from bad decisions: Allowing gene-patents and inadequate product-regulation.

 

These conspire against the public: We don't know the risks; we can't find out about them; and we can't opt out of exposure to them.

Anyway, buyers and the public shouldn't need to show damage. Vendors should be responsible for demonstrating safety. Regulators should have the duty and power to prevent the reckless sacrifice of safety to profit.

 

Nige1 makes a good point. Humans are very bad at understanding many kinds of risk. We know Nature kills and Nature destroys. I am strongly against the "reckless sacrifice of safety for profit". I am also in general against those who" conspire against the public."

 

"Anyway, buyers and the public shouldn't need to show damage. Vendors should be responsible for demonstrating safety" Nige repeats a key theme which we discussed earlier in this thread. There simply is not enough time or money to do all of these studies. Call it a conspiracy, call it reckless, or whatever but it is simply impossible to do all of these studies. Thus we compromise, we take risks. We go forward with incomplete information.

 

 

 

If Biotech and genetic engineering can some way or some how alleviate the suffering of the human species I am all for it and the regulators as Nige1 suggests should NOT stand it the way and the regulators should not conspire against this help so they can profit. Regulators need to stop profiting and conspiring against the safety of the public from the numerous dangers from Nature.

[mike777]

Try this one, Nige.

 

thanks zel.

 

 

"ABSTRACT The toxicological significance of exposures to

synthetic chemicals is examined in the context of exposures to

naturally occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by

weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that

plants produce to defend"

 

 

It seems if plants create the chemical is it natural but if humans produce the chemical it is not natural.

 

Again in this thread there seems to be the assumption if chemicals or genes are altered by nonhumans it is safe or at least subject to a different bias to those created by humans.

 

Again this seems to circle back to my post regarding evolution by "natural selection" and evolution by "artificial selection."

------------

 

Perhaps some of the confusion regarding GMO is in the discussion of "natural selection" vs "artificial selection"

 

Hopefully by now we can agree that both are fully part of nature and an act of nature.

 

For many years natural selection was accepted as the path that is best for survival of the species. This has been proven false. It turns out natural selection works not so much for "the good of the species" but on a much smaller unit the gene.

 

That means that evolution by natural selection may not be the best path for survival of the species.

"The forces of natural selection have continued to operate on human populations, with evidence that certain regions of the genome display directional selection in the past 15,000 years"

Wade, N (2006-03-07). "Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story". The New York Times

 

Of course "artificial selection" may indeed lead to evolution of other species that are not homo sapiens

[nige1]

Try this one, Nige.

Thank you Zelandakh. Eye-opening: About 1.5g of our daily diet comprises natural pesticides. Mustard, pepper, tea, and coffee contain high concentrations (e.g. caffeine). "Stressed" plants increase their pesticide output. Thanks again.

[barmar]

It seems if plants create the chemical is it natural but if humans produce the chemical it is not natural.

 

Again in this thread there seems to be the assumption if chemicals or genes are altered by nonhumans it is safe or at least subject to a different bias to those created by humans.

 

Again this seems to circle back to my post regarding evolution by "natural selection" and evolution by "artificial selection."

I think the general idea is that if something is inherent in nature, there's not much we can do about it. E.g. exposure to the sun can cause skin cancer, but it's not like we can turn off the sun -- the best you can do is limit your exposure to it, wear sunblock, etc.

 

But when humans create NEW technologies, we have the option of NOT doing so if it's too dangerous.

 

This is, of course, a vast oversimplification of the issues. But people like to simplify complicated things, because otherwise it's too difficult to know what to decide. E.g. if you're contemplating a treatment for a serious disease, you might just ask "What's the percentage of success?" or even "What does the doctor recommend?", because trying to understand all the pros and cons as a layman would be infeasible.

[mike777]

I think Barmar you hit on a very key point.

 

 

Changes by humans is inhernet in Nature. Humans are an invasive species....the most invasive species.

 

 

 

We destroy species, we destroy/change the environment, ecology. We do this over50,000 years or more.

 

 

But many many think this is a new thing we humans do.

 

 

For some reason posters do not accept this inherent of humans.

I assume you want humans or the next evolution to survive.

 

Humans kill species...Humans drastically change the ecology

 

 

 

All of the above are reasons to move humans out into the universe.

[barmar]

But many many think this is a new thing we humans do.

Humans have always had a significant impact on nature. But as our technology has advanced, so has the rate and extent of our impact.

 

With the low technology of ancient societies, we domesticated many animal and plant species, but it took centuries or millenia. With modern technologies of genetic engineering, we can make comparable changes to species in years.

 

A quantitative difference can often result in a qualitative difference. It's like the difference between dumpster divers who could find a few individual credit card receipts and steal just those identities, and modern hackers who can steal millions of credit card details from a database in a few minutes.

[gwnn]

Even Ted Cruz thinks GMO's are fine, and he thinks George Soros will exterminate the human race.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/7/ted-cruz-dont-let-anti-science-zealotry-shutdown-g/

 

(But I admit I would have said "Only Ted Cruz would agree with GMO conspiracists" if the article was the opposite, so don't take this post seriously.)

[kenberg]

I think the general idea is that if something is inherent in nature, there's not much we can do about it. E.g. exposure to the sun can cause skin cancer, but it's not like we can turn off the sun -- the best you can do is limit your exposure to it, wear sunblock, etc.

 

But when humans create NEW technologies, we have the option of NOT doing so if it's too dangerous.

 

This is, of course, a vast oversimplification of the issues. But people like to simplify complicated things, because otherwise it's too difficult to know what to decide. E.g. if you're contemplating a treatment for a serious disease, you might just ask "What's the percentage of success?" or even "What does the doctor recommend?", because trying to understand all the pros and cons as a layman would be infeasible.

 

How people decide on complicated issues is interesting. I'll take your medical example because I am closer to it than I am to GMOs, but I think the mechanism is similar. I do not actually study percentages. For one thing, they are sometimes difficult to come by. But more importantly, I am not a randomly chosen person, I am me. This doesn't make me exempt from physical or biological cause and effect, but it does, to me, mean that statistical evidence on its own may not be all that relevant.

 

Also, over time, I come to trust some people and not trust others. For the most part I am not pitting crooks against saints. Much more often it involves deciding who has good judgment as opposed to who is closed minded.

 

I imagine most people follow something like this line in medical situations. I choose doctors and hospitals that I have come to trust and then I pretty much do as they say. I always reserve the right to say no, that doesn't sound right, at least not yet, but generally I either follow a doctor's advice or I go find another doctor (I have done this often) whose advice I am prepared to follow.

 

 

Back to GMOs. This time it is harder, because the whole process is more distant from my everyday experience. No doubt there is a lot of money involved and this skews matters. I guess my view is that I am provisionally satisfied with the asserted safety, but I don't think that skeptics should be shouted down. But skepticism about skepticism is useful as well.

[barmar]

I think the main problem with much of the anti-GMO rhetoric is that it's not based on understanding of the process, just fears of "Franken-food" (and you should read the original "Frankenstein" -- the "monster" wasn't actually evil, just feared because he was unnatural). Or a general mistrust of big business: "if Monsanto really wants it, we should be worried".

[helene_t]

I am currently working for the organization that acts as the main scientific adviser to the UK govt on biosafety and safety of pesticides. I haven't been here long enough to say something general about how much of our work is lip service and how much is real unbiased science, but I can say something about the scientific "evidence" on the basis of which the UK government managed to water down the neonicotinoid ban to a two year moratorium. Something which may not be related to GMO safety but obviously the political and economical stakes, as well as the position of various NGOs, are very similar.

 

So here is a story from the real life: https://peerj.com/articles/854/

I am currently trying to reproduce his results. If they stand, it is clear evidence that the government's decision to side with the industry against the EU was based on spin. But we shall see.

You can read about it in The Guardian tomorrow.

[mycroft]

My issue with GMOs has always been the Monsanto creep (well, that and poisoning the traditional process to lock in customers).

 

I *also* believe that if people are spending huge amounts of money in creating new foods and also huge amounts of money ensuring that the tests can be incomplete and private, they're doing it for a reason. "We don't want you to know what you're eating" is almost never in *my* best interest.

 

I also note they're spending a huge amount of money to avoid having to let anyone know about whether their product is in the customer's food. Again, "we don't want you to know what you're eating"...

 

The actual safety of the foods is frankly tertiary.

[barmar]

My issue with GMOs has always been the Monsanto creep (well, that and poisoning the traditional process to lock in customers).

 

I *also* believe that if people are spending huge amounts of money in creating new foods and also huge amounts of money ensuring that the tests can be incomplete and private, they're doing it for a reason. "We don't want you to know what you're eating" is almost never in *my* best interest.

 

I also note they're spending a huge amount of money to avoid having to let anyone know about whether their product is in the customer's food. Again, "we don't want you to know what you're eating"...

 

The actual safety of the foods is frankly tertiary.

So if the process of developing GMO foods were more like that for developing new drugs, with appropriate regulation and oversight of the testing process, you'd be OK with it? You don't have an issue with GMO foods in principle, you're just worried about it being done with so little transparency.

 

That's not unreasonable. We have plenty of experience that when businesses are allowed to operate unchecked, they will often allow profits to override safety concerns (examples: mine safety, the Gulf oil platform explosion, subprime mortgages).