the very real danger of genetically modified foods

[bcbm]

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/

[Ostrinski]

Don't know much about science, but fuck the shitheads feeding us this garbage.

[Rooster]

That article doesn't really tell us anything. It starts off with saying that Chinese scientists have found strands of microRNA from rice in the blood and organs of humans. It then goes on to say that this might have an implication for GM food. It doesn't say that the rice in the first part was GM, so it just leads you on to think that both of the points are connected. No where does it say that GM food is dangerous or that this is unique to GM food.

[Sasha]

The implication is that if we absorb rdna from our food we will also from GMs, GMs have rdna with potential dangerous unknown effects on our genes. The mantra of the GM industry always been that we was no danger of these modified genes crossing into humanity, they where wrong/lying.

[Rooster]

The implication is that if we absorb rdna from our food we will also from GMs, GMs have rdna with potential dangerous unknown effects on our genes. The mantra of the GM industry always been that we was no danger of these modified genes crossing into humanity, they where wrong/lying.

But there's no evidence in the article saying that the mRNA that comes from GM food is any more or less dangerous than the mRNA that comes from any other food. All it says is that there was mRNA found in the blood and organs of humans from regular rice and that this could be a problem with GM food too. It makes it seem like GM food is worse because we don't know the effects of it but the article says that this Chinese research is new, meaning that a whole host of other food could have the same unknown problems. It is jumping to conclusions. It is also seemingly implying, from my reading of it anyway, that natural food (in comparison to GM food) is better. Whatever that means.

[Sasha]

Well we have been eating normal tomatoes for a long time, obviously any genes we absorbed isnt dangerous. But tomatoes with genes of say a uneddable funges could be dangerous and we should really consider wheter it is a smart to expose countless of people to it on a daily basis. In ancient times people switching to in the long term dangerous foodsources found out their mistake before it could become global (think patatoe plants)

[Vanguard1917]

Don't know much about science, but fuck the shitheads feeding us this garbage.

You 'don't know much about science' but apparently you're an authority on biotechnology.

[Princess Luna]

It would be wonderful if everybody in the world could eat organic food, sadly that is not the case. Genetic Modification allows for far more food to be produced then would otherwise be possible, meaning more people in the world can eat. Of course a better solution would be to change how food is distributed, but as along as most of the food in the world is produced under a capitalism system then Genetic Modification is a good thing.

[Renegade Saint]

Kind of wondering what this author's qualifications are to impart knowledge on this topic.

[Winkers Fons]

You could say that any crop we eat has been genetically modified. That's kind of how agriculture has always worked. The only difference is that now we are much better at it.


Also, just because something is "natural" does not mean it is good for you. Ask pretty much anybody that lived before the industrial revolution:laugh:

[bcbm]

It would be wonderful if everybody in the world could eat organic food, sadly that is not the case. Genetic Modification allows for far more food to be produced then would otherwise be possible, meaning more people in the world can eat. Of course a better solution would be to change how food is distributed, but as along as most of the food in the world is produced under a capitalism system then Genetic Modification is a good thing.

i think you have it backwards here. gm isn't about producing more food its about producing more profit, hence terminator seeds, etc.


You could say that any crop we eat has been genetically modified. That's kind of how agriculture has always worked. The only difference is that now we are much better at it.

i think there is a pretty large difference between selecting plants based on desirable traits and breeding them versus inserting things from completely different plants/animals/whatever

[Renegade Saint]

i think you have it backwards here. gm isn't about producing more food its about producing more profit, hence terminator seeds, etc.



i think there is a pretty large difference between selecting plants based on desirable traits and breeding them versus inserting things from completely different plants/animals/whatever
1. GM under capitalism is about profits obviously. No reason it couldn't work for the common good under socialism.

2. And why is the latter inherently a bad thing?

[Sasha]

2. And why is the latter inherently a bad thing?

Allow me to quote myself:

The implication is that if we absorb rdna from our food we will also from GMs, GMs have rdna with potential dangerous unknown effects on our genes. The mantra of the GM industry always been that we was no danger of these modified genes crossing into humanity, they where wrong/lying.


Well we have been eating normal tomatoes for a long time, obviously any genes we absorbed isnt dangerous. But tomatoes with genes of say a uneddable funges could be dangerous and we should really consider wheter it is a smart to expose countless of people to it on a daily basis. In ancient times people switching to in the long term dangerous foodsources found out their mistake before it could become global (think patatoe plants)

[bcbm]

1. GM under capitalism is about profits obviously. No reason it couldn't work for the common good under socialism.

the poster i quoted was saying it was good because it can feed more people in capitalism which isn't the motivation for gm crops. obviously it would be different 'under socialism' but we're not there, are we?


2. And why is the latter inherently a bad thing?

i didn't say it was, i said it was something quite different and it is. these techniques are new and as far as i know there has not been a great deal of research on their long term impacts on human health. surely this is something it would be sensible to do since gmos are currently being fed to millions of people?

[Vanguard1917]

the poster i quoted was saying it was good because it can feed more people in capitalism which isn't the motivation for gm crops.

...or for any other kind of production in a capitalist economy. Ask the 'organic farmers', who could possibly only really produce enough to feed the world's middle and upper classes, and whom, to give credit where credit is due, they manage to feed to some extent. Why? Because that market makes up the small minority of the world population who could afford to pay for the inflated prices which the 'organic' label brings.

But if we want to produce enough food to feed 7+ billion people, and have much more food left over besides, while working continuously to abolish arduous and time-consuming agricultural labour at the same time, we would do well to look beyond 'traditional' agriculture and see improved efficiency through the application of human technology and science as the way forward.

[Ele'ill]

The dangers of GM food stuffs are intentionally under-researched and overlooked and I tend to believe that GM food stuffs have the potential to be extremely harmful. I think in a socialist world there will be plenty of time to do adequate research into what works and what doesn't, what's dangerous and what isn't and these things that are patented or whatever and mass produced now which are basically 'well, this might be safe' will be halted and researched until we know more. Camel menthols are good for colds guys. Not anymore. I think things will be done differently post revolution and we'll be looking at GM to act as an emergency back-up (not the norm). I have a hard time understanding why the pro-technology crowd rail against organic and natural produce post revolution when we're gonna be able to produce it efficiently.

[Vanguard1917]

The dangers of GM food stuffs are intentionally under-researched and overlooked and I tend to believe that GM food stuffs have the potential to be extremely harmful.

In other words, speculation. You 'believe' that it has 'the potential to be harmful'. Well, what doesn't? There is no evidence that GM crops are any more harmful than other crops. Speculation, yes, concrete evidence, no.

You may point to this or that speculative study as evidence to back up your anti-GM prejudices. Well, if you care to remember, thousands of people fell ill last year in one single country (Germany), and tens of them died, as a result of eating organic produce.

I'm not an irrational scare-monger, so i will not suggest that this tragic anamoly is evidence against any type of agriculture, be it 'organic' or otherwise. But it is worth highlighting that, if i were a cynical opponent of 'organic' food who employed unfair methods of criticism, i could very well point to such a concrete occurance (which you lack utterly) as evidence against the kind of agriculture which you champion.

Yes, there are improvements which could be made to GM production, which is the case with any fairly novel and breakthrough technology. But no, there is no evidence that it is any more harmful than other kinds of food production.

[Krano]

Don't know much about science, but fuck the shitheads feeding us this garbage.
That garbage could feed the starving third world.

[Ele'ill]

In other words, speculation. You 'believe' that it has 'the potential to be harmful'. Well, what doesn't? There is no evidence that GM crops are any more harmful than other crops. Speculation, yes, concrete evidence, no.

There's evidence pointing towards it being harmful. Basically there's a lot of buzz from both camps about it- why risk it? Especially post revolution?


You may point to this or that speculative study as evidence to back up your anti-GM prejudices. Well, if you care to remember, thousands of people fell ill last year in one single country (Germany), and tens of them died, as a result of eating organic produce.

Was it from the actual food altering their genes or was it from a bacteria on the food? GM crops even if safe could have yielded the same results.


I'm not an irrational scare-monger, so i will not suggest that this tragic anamoly is evidence against any type of agriculture, be it 'organic' or otherwise. But it is worth highlighting that, if i were a cynical opponent of 'organic' food who employed unfair methods of criticism, i could very well point to such a concrete occurance (which you lack utterly) as evidence against the kind of agriculture which you champion.

As I pointed out above it's quite different.

[Ele'ill]

That garbage could feed the starving third world you selfish prick.


Don't call other users names and spam up threads with this garbage. Verbal warning.

[Krano]

Don't call other users names and spam up threads with this garbage. Verbal warning.

Sorry about that, but people like this piss me off some people actually tried to get some genetically modified food to aid starvation, but hippie groups like green peace blocked them because ''it wasn't proper food'' and as a result people starved to death.

[Vanguard1917]

There's evidence pointing towards it being harmful.

No concrete evidence.


why risk it? Especially post revolution?


Higher yields, a lower input of labour-time, the knowledge that it is relatively very safe.

[Ele'ill]

Sorry about that, but people like this piss me off some people actually tried to get some genetically modified food to aid starvation,

Occasionally you'll get pissed off at other views held by users on this forum but let's try not to split so harshly away from one another. I think we have more in common than not.



but hippie groups like green peace blocked them because ''it wasn't proper food'' and as a result people starved to death.

I'm not a huge fan of green peace but can you give citation regarding them being directly responsible for people starving to death.

[Ocean Seal]

That garbage could feed the starving third world.
This is the wrong way to think about it. Many GM scientists have said that they can feed the world. The problem isn't that there isn't enough food. In fact there is more than enough. The problem is distribution and destruction (by the very capitalists that grow it) of food.

[Krano]

Occasionally you'll get pissed off at other views held by users on this forum but let's try not to split so harshly away from one another. I think we have more in common than not.




I'm not a huge fan of green peace but can you give citation regarding them being directly responsible for people starving to death.
Of course i can't directly proof that it caused starvation, but they have successfully blocked food shipments to poor african countries which undoubtedly couldn't help there hunger. My point being there really isn't a need to complain about the quality of food in the first world knowing that some people don't have anything to eat to begin with.

This is the wrong way to think about it. Many GM scientists have said that they can feed the world. The problem isn't that there isn't enough food. In fact there is more than enough. The problem is distribution and destruction (by the very capitalists that grow it) of food.
Good point.

[Ele'ill]

No concrete evidence.

When a new food is discovered and upheld as edible I'd like to think that there'd be a way to prove its safety other than eating it and having it fuck with your genes. Getting sick etc.. Given the track record of capitalists I'd rather not trust GM/agri mega giants on a whim that it's likely safe when there's research being conducted that may suggest otherwise. The incentive for one is more appeasing to my leftist brain you'll have to forgive me.

[Vanguard1917]

When a new food is discovered and upheld as edible I'd like to think that there'd be a way to prove its safety other than eating it and having it fuck with your genes. Getting sick etc.. Given the track record of capitalists I'd rather not trust GM/agri mega giants on a whim that it's likely safe when there's research being conducted that may suggest otherwise. The incentive for one is more appeasing to my leftist brain you'll have to forgive me.

In other words, you're just expecting the worst for no good reason.



This is the wrong way to think about it. Many GM scientists have said that they can feed the world. The problem isn't that there isn't enough food. In fact there is more than enough.


Yes, as a result of GM and other such methods which environmentalists rally against! What, you thought we could produce enough to feed 7 billion people by growing a few carrots and potatoes in allotments, on apartment roofs and on nice little organic farms?

[Ele'ill]

In other words, you're just expecting the worst for no good reason.



Yes, as a result of GM and other such methods which environmentalists rally against! What, you thought we could produce enough to feed 7 billion people by growing a few carrots and potatoes in allotments, on apartment roofs and on nice little organic farms?


There's plenty of research and theory (past, present and ongoing) put into why GM crops can be harmful. I guess post revolution according to some we can have all kinds of awesome technological advancements but for some reason we can't feed 7 billion people with organic food.

[Vanguard1917]

There's plenty of research and theory (past, present and ongoing) put into why GM crops can be harmful.

But no evidence that they are harmful, despite the fact that they have been consumed by many millions for quite a number of years now.



I guess post revolution according to some we can have all kinds of awesome technological advancements but for some reason we can't feed 7 billion people with organic food.


If we came up with a form of agriculture which would produce equivalent yields as efficiently without fertilisers, pesticides and genetic modification, yes, i guess you would have a case for 'going organic'. Until then, you don't.

[Ele'ill]

But no evidence that they are harmful, despite the fact that they have been consumed by many millions for quite a number of years now.

Often research takes a bit of time to pin point the problems. Just because nobody has gotten horrifically ill with a direct link to to GM crops doesn't mean that GM crops aren't causing illness short term and long term. The theory is there and again I'd trust the incentive behind the anti-gm research camp over the gm camp any day of the week.




If we came up with a form of agriculture which would produce equivalent yields as efficiently without fertilisers, pesticides and genetic modification, yes, i guess you would have a case for 'going organic'. Until then, you don't.

It's completely possible. I eat gm free right now and all I need is a backpack and my wits. Imagine the potential with millions of workers behind it- research- technological advancements- legit creativity- restructuring of physical geographical living layouts. It's gonna be intense this post revolutionary world. Why don't you have faith in that? Post revolution if you had the option between all organic genuine food and this GM stuff with the state of current research in place which would you choose?

[Ele'ill]

I call bullshit, its clear you only gave him a warning because he was defending a posistion you disagreeded with. I have seen people use far worse insults, and not receive any kind of response from a mod/admin.

I'm not interested in what you've seen because had I been present in those other situations that you mentioned I would have acted as I did here. I respect that user's position but felt their post was not inline with board policy and would potentially derail the thread. I would also appreciate it if there was no further discussion about this here in this thread.

[Princess Luna]

I realized my post was wrong so I deleated it sorry :(

[Princess Luna]

This is the wrong way to think about it. Many GM scientists have said that they can feed the world. The problem isn't that there isn't enough food. In fact there is more than enough. The problem is distribution and destruction (by the very capitalists that grow it) of food.
However by stopping the production of GM foods, large ammount of crops will be lost to diseases and insects. which will simply compound the existing problem

[Vanguard1917]

Often research takes a bit of time to pin point the problems. Just because nobody has gotten horrifically ill with a direct link to to GM crops doesn't mean that GM crops aren't causing illness short term and long term. The theory is there and again I'd trust the incentive behind the anti-gm research camp over the gm camp any day of the week.

That's not such a great piece of scientific logic though, is it?



I eat gm free right now and all I need is a backpack and my wits.


Sorry, but we socialists don't want a kind of society where people are having to spend their time going around foraging in order to feed themselves.



Imagine the potential with millions of workers behind it- research- technological advancements- legit creativity- restructuring of physical geographical living layouts. It's gonna be intense this post revolutionary world. Why don't you have faith in that? Post revolution if you had the option between all organic genuine food and this GM stuff with the state of current research in place which would you choose?


As i said, if the kind of agriculture you want can produce a level of output which rivals current kinds of methods without a significant drop in efficiency (which includes labour-time input - we want humanity to have to spend less time producing the necessities of life, not more), you would then have a case for what you are proposing.

[Ele'ill]

Sorry, but we socialists don't want a kind of society where people are having to spend their time going around foraging in order to feed themselves.

That's not at all what I meant.




As i said, if the kind of agriculture you want can produce a level of output which rivals current kinds of methods without a significant drop in efficiency (which includes labour-time input - we want humanity to have to spend less time producing the necessities of life, not more), you would then have a case for what you are proposing.

If things are as shite bleak post revolution as they are now regarding industry potential to change people's lives globally I think it's being done wrong and we need another revolution.

[bcbm]

...or for any other kind of production in a capitalist economy. Ask the 'organic farmers', who could possibly only really produce enough to feed the world's middle and upper classes, and whom, to give credit where credit is due, they manage to feed to some extent. Why? Because that market makes up the small minority of the world population who could afford to pay for the inflated prices which the 'organic' label brings.

in a trial of corn and soybeans (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/july05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html) the yields were approximately the same between conventional and organic. but i don't recall anyone in this thread mentioning anything about organic foods. surely there is somewhere between all gmo and organic, no?


But if we want to produce enough food to feed 7+ billion people, and have much more food left over besides

we already do


while working continuously to abolish arduous and time-consuming agricultural labour at the same time, we would do well to look beyond 'traditional' agriculture and see improved efficiency through the application of human technology and science as the way forward.

by putting traditional in quotes you seem to be implying somebody in this thread mentioned it, which isn't the case. you're creating a false dichotomy of gmo v. digging the dirt with sticks and trying to paint anyone who thinks gmo should be subject to health evaluation is primitivists. not that i'm surprised, but this isn't really the way to have an intellectual conversation is it?

let's be clear: i'm all for the 'application of human technology and science,' but i'm also for making sure what we do with those things is good for our health, good for those producing food and good for the environment. given the practice of 'terminator' seeds alone, two of this criteria are not being met.


Sorry about that, but people like this piss me off some people actually tried to get some genetically modified food to aid starvation, but hippie groups like green peace blocked them because ''it wasn't proper food'' and as a result people starved to death.

the primary concern for most african countries in importing gm food has been contamination of local crops which could significantly affect their economies. this is why many countries that accepted food aid during the 2002 famine in southern africa asked that it be milled before being delivered, or monitored it carefully upon arrival.

[Sasha]

But no evidence that they are harmful, despite the fact that they have been consumed by many millions for quite a number of years now.

Did anyone mention tobacco, hormone meat, or thalomide (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide)?

There are many things that are harmful in the long run that we not yet understand, it might be that the hippies die out first because eating to much soy makes you infertile. But rigorous testing by dedicated free research is the answer not parroting capitalist sales pitches, esp those of the likes of Monsanto which really is the evil empire.

[Vanguard1917]

we already do

Without using pesticides, fertilisers and GM? And the problem is not just producing enough to meet our needs, but also producing it more efficiently, especially as far as labour is concerned.



let's be clear: i'm all for the 'application of human technology and science,' but i'm also for making sure what we do with those things is good for our health


And GM products are no more dangerous to eat than other agricultural products.

[Sasha]

And GM products are no more dangerous to eat than other agricultural products.

Proof please...

[Vanguard1917]

Proof please...

It is regarded as the consensus among experts that currently available GM products are 'not likely' to be harmful. From the World Health Organisation:



Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods.


http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

The WHO also points out that GM products tend to be evaluated and risk-assessed more rigorously than non-GM products. From the same webpage:



Generally consumers consider that traditional foods (that have often been eaten for thousands of years) are safe. When new foods are developed by natural methods, some of the existing characteristics of foods can be altered, either in a positive or a negative way National food authorities may be called upon to examine traditional foods, but this is not always the case. Indeed, new plants developed through traditional breeding techniques may not be evaluated rigorously using risk assessment techniques.

With GM foods most national authorities consider that specific assessments are necessary. Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for traditional foods. Hence there is a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.

[Mettalian]

This is a really interesting discussion. I know very little about science, or genetically modified foods, but this is a pretty engaging read. It's always nice to learn something new.

[Zav]

There have been many incarnations of this thread. They all go like this:

1. An article is posted.
2. A few people remark how much Capitalist GMOs suck.
3. Technophiles come in and ask why GMOs are so bad.
4. Technophiles are told GMOs are bad because they are being used as food yet are untested.
5. Technophiles post the glories of what GMOs could do and accuse the others of being reactionary.
6. Other people point out that GMOs don't do what they could while being produced in a Capitalist system.
7. Technophiles ask for evidence that GMOs are harmful.
8. Other people ask for evidence that GMOs are safe.
9. No evidence is given from either party except a few logical points with no accompanying statistics by the non-technophilic party.
10. Technophiles support GMO production by Capitalists anyway.
8. Repeat steps 2-10 until the thread is a couple weeks old and dies.

These threads are getting rather redundant. When a non-corporate-sponsored entity conclusively shows that a certain GMO is safe or dangerous, then there will be useful content to discuss. Until then, I'm just going to ignore these threads. I won't miss much.

[bcbm]

Without using pesticides, fertilisers

who said anything about that? strawman.


and GM?

most scientific research suggests crop yield increases are nonexistant or minimal (under 10%) with gm crops in developed countries, with other agricultural methods being a more important factor.


And the problem is not just producing enough to meet our needs, but also producing it more efficiently, especially as far as labour is concerned.

the problem is capitalism. we have enough food and the resources and technology to make producing that food much easier for everyone on the planet, even without gm. and if gm could be used in a way that benefits those people and is proven to be healthy for those eating it, no problem.


And GM products are no more dangerous to eat than other agricultural products.

nice selective quoting, but you missed a few important things 'good for those producing food and good for the environment. given the practice of 'terminator' seeds alone, two of this criteria are not being met.'

[Renegade Saint]

"Update 1/12: Thanks to science and biology bloggers, Christie Wilcox and Emily Willingham at the Scientific American blog network (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/01/12/the-very-real-scaremongering-of-ari-levaux/) and The Biology Files (http://biologyfiles.fieldofscience.com/2012/01/why-did-atlantic-publish-this-piece.html), respectively, we've learned of the scientific inconsistencies made in Ari LeVaux's most recent Flash in the Pan (http://www.flashinthepan.net/) column, which is syndicated by a number of newspapers and magazine websites. This column has been expanded and updated for AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/story/153737/how_genetically_modified_foods_could_affect_our_he alth_in_unexpected_ways/), with LeVaux discussing specific improvements in the comments."

Still waiting to hear this author's qualifications (writing a column doesn't count as a qualification).

[Sasha]

There have been many incarnations of this thread. They all go like this:

1. An article is posted.
2. A few people remark how much Capitalist GMOs suck.
3. Technophiles come in and ask why GMOs are so bad.
4. Technophiles are told GMOs are bad because they are being used as food yet are untested.
5. Technophiles post the glories of what GMOs could do and accuse the others of being reactionary.
6. Other people point out that GMOs don't do what they could while being produced in a Capitalist system.
7. Technophiles ask for evidence that GMOs are harmful.
8. Other people ask for evidence that GMOs are safe.
9. No evidence is given from either party except a few logical points with no accompanying statistics by the non-technophilic party.
10. Technophiles support GMO production by Capitalists anyway.
8. Repeat steps 2-10 until the thread is a couple weeks old and dies.

These threads are getting rather redundant. When a non-corporate-sponsored entity conclusively shows that a certain GMO is safe or dangerous, then there will be useful content to discuss. Until then, I'm just going to ignore these threads. I won't miss much.

Replace GMO with nuclear energy at will...

[Vanguard1917]

who said anything about that? strawman.

My point is that, the reason we can produce enough to feed 7 billion is the existence of the very kinds of agricultural techniques which environmentalists oppose and campaign against.



nice selective quoting, but you missed a few important things 'good for those producing food and good for the environment. given the practice of 'terminator' seeds alone, two of this criteria are not being met.'


But you're shifting the debate now to different areas. The initial purpose of your thread was to argue that GM is bad for health. That was disputed and shown to be unproven, and so you decided to introduce this new 'criteria'.

In actual fact, of course, there is no kind of production under capitalism which ultimately has the interests of human beings or the environment at heart. So yours should be an argument against capitalism, not GM.

[Vanguard1917]

7. Technophiles ask for evidence that GMOs are harmful.
8. Other people ask for evidence that GMOs are safe.
9. No evidence is given from either party except a few logical points with no accompanying statistics by the non-technophilic party.

Nice try, but not true. See my post quoting the World Health Organisation.

[Ocean Seal]

Yes, as a result of GM and other such methods which environmentalists rally against! What, you thought we could produce enough to feed 7 billion people by growing a few carrots and potatoes in allotments, on apartment roofs and on nice little organic farms?
Yes, I never said that I was against GM foods in general. But, the argument that we need more GM foods to feed the world isn't valid. The most important reason that we don't feed everyone is because corporations don't pull killer profits from feeding Africa or India.


However by stopping the production of GM foods, large ammount of crops will be lost to diseases and insects. which will simply compound the existing problem
I don't think that we should stop growing GM foods, I just think that we need to be more techno-skeptic because GM foods aren't always in our interest especially considering what Monsanto and friends genetically engineer.

[NewLeft]

GM food has nothing to do with making it more nutritious or even to increase yield, is it simply to make sure that the pesticide can be sold with the seeds.


My point is that, the reason we can produce enough to feed 7 billion is the existence of the very kinds of agricultural techniques which environmentalists oppose and campaign against.

What is the point of producing all that much if it doesn't even reach everyone.. http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72

[Ele'ill]

Zav, It's sort of akin to animal liberation discussions on this forum too.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, I never said that I was against GM foods in general. But, the argument that we need more GM foods to feed the world isn't valid. The most important reason that we don't feed everyone is because corporations don't pull killer profits from feeding Africa or India.

I agree that technical fixes aren't enough and won't in themselves get to the root of the problem. I think it was Engels who said that accomplishing true human mastery over nature is ultimately a social question, to be answered by the social revolution of the proletariat. :)

[bcbm]

My point is that, the reason we can produce enough to feed 7 billion is the existence of the very kinds of agricultural techniques which environmentalists oppose and campaign against.

i guess i should just argue against whatever positions i imagine 'monsanto supporters' to have when i'm discussing with you rather than anything you actually say then?


But you're shifting the debate now to different areas.

says the guy who was just arguing with 'environmentalists' ( a monolithic group, it should be noted) none of whom seem to be present here?


The initial purpose of your thread was to argue that GM is bad for health. That was disputed and shown to be unproven, and so you decided to introduce this new 'criteria'.

the initial purpose of the thread was to bring an article of interest to revlefters on either side of the debate and try to spark a discussion. discussions evolve, in my first post after the op i was talking about terminator seeds. there are a variety of reasons to oppose gm crops under capitalism, even if the health claims are inaccurate.


In actual fact, of course, there is no kind of production under capitalism which ultimately has the interests of human beings or the environment at heart. So yours should be an argument against capitalism, not GM.


the problem is capitalism. we have enough food and the resources and technology to make producing that food much easier for everyone on the planet, even without gm. and if gm could be used in a way that benefits those people and is proven to be healthy for those eating it, no problem.

:rolleyes:

just as unions have fought against mechanization to save jobs, we should oppose gm when it threatens the livelihood of farmers.

[#FF0000]

I was under the impression that most gm shit was in the form of self-terminating seeds and shit like that to make the stuff more profitable rather than efficient.

I mean, hey, if GM means more, safe food, then great. But I think claims that we can only feed everyone on the planet because of GM needs to be substantiated.

[NewLeft]

I was under the impression that most gm shit was in the form of self-terminating seeds and shit like that to make the stuff more profitable rather than efficient.

I mean, hey, if GM means more, safe food, then great. But I think claims that we can only feed everyone on the planet because of GM needs to be substantiated.

Some GM have a self-terminating gene.. It does render more profits, since you need to use their pesticide with their seeds..

[Princess Luna]

I was under the impression that most gm shit was in the form of self-terminating seeds and shit like that to make the stuff more profitable rather than efficient.

I mean, hey, if GM means more, safe food, then great. But I think claims that we can only feed everyone on the planet because of GM needs to be substantiated.
There is no reason why things like self-terminating seeds can't be opposed, while at the same time supporting genetic modification to fight off insects and diseases that kill crops. Genetic Modification is a just a tool, the fact that some people are dicks with it makes it no different then the majority of other technology that has been developed though out human history.

[Ele'ill]

I don't think anybody here is saying NO GM JUST BECAUSE AND ALSO FOREVER AND EVER. I and I think quite a few others don't want to use food stuff that has such controversy surrounding it until post rev environment where it can be researched fully and all potential negatives have been found, debunked or worked around.

[Renegade Saint]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/01/12/the-very-real-scaremongering-of-ari-levaux/


The Very Real Scaremongering of Ari Levaux (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/01/12/the-very-real-scaremongering-of-ari-levaux/)

By Christie Wilcox
January 12, 2012
Recently, food columnist Ari Levaux wrote what can only be described as a completely unscientific article in The Atlantic claiming that microRNAs (miRNAs) are a “very real danger of GMOs.” (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/) I won’t go point by point through the horrendous inaccuracies in his piece, as Emily Willingham has more than hacked them to bits (http://biologyfiles.fieldofscience.com/2012/01/why-did-atlantic-publish-this-piece.html). But I do want to make a short comment on this idea that miRNAs are dangerous, and thus something we should worry about when it comes to what we eat.
Every plant and animal out there produces miRNAs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroRNA). We, for example, are thought to produce thousands. These teeny-tiny snippets of RNA serve regulatory roles in our cells, attaching to bits of messenger RNA and causing changes in expression of different proteins. They are far from evil: indeed, miRNAs are necessary for cells to function properly.
Can miRNAs we eat alter our gene expression? Well, yes (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=vitamins-minerals-and-microrna). That was the incredible scientific discovery made by the Chinese research team that was recently published in Cell Research (http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v22/n1/full/cr2011158a.html). But to make the leap from ‘miRNAs we eat can alter gene expression’ to ‘GMOs are dangerous’ requires unbelievable gaps in understanding about GMOs and miRNAs.
First off, there’s no reason to think that the DNA being introduced into GMOs is going to produce more/different miRNAs than it did in the original organism. Ari’s claim that “new DNA can have dangerous implications far beyond the products it codes for” simply isn’t true because miRNAs are coded for. These small RNA fragments aren’t random or accidental – they are explicitly detailed within the genome. So a stretch of DNA that didn’t code any miRNAs before isn’t going to suddenly code for a ton of them when it’s placed in a different genome. If we’re worried about potential miRNA effects, we can screen genes we are considering transferring and determine if there is any chance they produce miRNAs before we shuffle around which organism they are in. Indeed, GMOs are tested genetically, to ensure that the target gene has incorporated properly and that the organism is producing the desired protein, and not unexpected products. Genetic modification is a very precise process, and there is no reason to think it would cause a sudden burst of miRNAs.
But perhaps more fundamentally, miRNAs are found in all kinds of life, including every single species that we currently eat. There’s no logical reason that a new miRNA being produced by a GM plant is going to be more dangerous than the multitude of miRNAs we ingest when we eat the non-GM version.
In fact, the potential side effects of non-GM food is, very explicitly, what the Chinese research team showed: that of the millions of miRNAs we eat every day, at least a few make it from our stomachs into our blood, and that a specific one from ordinary rice can change the expression of genes in mice. So if miRNAs are dangerous – guess what? – you’re already ingesting them every time you eat. And, to get a little gross, let’s be clear: when we eat something, we don’t just ingest the miRNAs from the species we intentionally eat. Did you know, for example, that foods you eat are allowed to contain mold, hair, insect parts, and even rat poop (http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidancedocuments/sanitation/ucm056174.htm)? All of those bits of organisms which we inadvertently eat have DNA, and – you guessed it! – miRNAs, too. If miRNAs are so dangerous, we would never have been able to eat anything previously alive in the first place.
But we can eat other organisms, and we will continue to, because, simply put, miRNAs aren’t that dangerous.
Perhaps what ticks me off most, though, is that Ari’s scaremongering overshadows the very real and interesting implications of the science he failed to cover. The notion that miRNAs may drive some of the interaction between us and our food is incredibly new and totally cool. As the authors write, their research suggests that “miRNAs may represent a novel class of universal modulators that play an important role in mediating animal-plant interactions at the molecular level. Like vitamins, minerals and other essential nutrients derived from food sources, plant miRNAs may serve as a novel functional component of food and make a critical contribution to maintaining and shaping animal body structure and function.”
What if some of the benefits of drinking wine aren’t from the antioxidants, but from the miRNAs present in grapes? What if we can produce beneficial miRNAs, and take them like we do vitamins? Or reduce the expression of harmful ones? Suddenly, we have been given a sneak peek at a whole new facet of nutrition science that we didn’t even know existed. The amazing implications of this research – not some ludicrous and tenuous connection to anti-GMO propaganda – should have been what The Atlantic highlighted. Instead, they made a fool of themselves by allowing Ari Levaux to expose just how poorly he understands genetics.As usual, the non-scientists misunderstand the basic science and instead resort to fear-mongering.

[pastradamus]

Im not 100% sure about GM foods. I do like many things about them such as the fact that it can help increase world-wide food production (If they actually allowed that to happen) but I have had my doubts about it since reaserch a few years ago noticed that massive quantities of butterflys are ignoring normal plants and are instead attracted to the GM ones. It might be nothing dangerous but its worthy of some thought, what exactly is the difference attracting them?

There has also been a dramatic decrease in Honey Bee populations in area's where GM crops have been introduced, maybe this is because of a number of reasons (habitat destruction, mites etc..) but its worthy of investigation at least. Because if it has such a dramatic effect on the insect population that what might it be doing to us humans?

[pastradamus]

I was under the impression that most gm shit was in the form of self-terminating seeds and shit like that to make the stuff more profitable rather than efficient.

I mean, hey, if GM means more, safe food, then great. But I think claims that we can only feed everyone on the planet because of GM needs to be substantiated.

Well a good point you have made. But unfortunetly the capitalist world will never allow food to be produced in such an abundance as can feed the whole world. It would destroy the already high price. This is the main reason that you have such unrest in the arab world over the past year -food cost there has gone through the roof because of exchanges in London, New york and Paris keeping these prices high.

[Lord Testicles]

I was under the impression that most gm shit was in the form of self-terminating seeds and shit like that to make the stuff more profitable rather than efficient.

Not always, you also have things like "golden rice" which could be used to combat vitamin A deficiency.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's quite clear that the way forward, in order to "do away with labor" (Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm)), and liberate all of humanity, lies in the elimination of scarcity and the automation as much undesirable, obligated work as is at all possible (and yes, that includes spending your time knee-deep in hog shit, bent over a row of garlic, or even driving a tractor in circles). What does that mean in practice? Industrialized farming, genetically modifying foodstuffs, and whatever the fuck else we can come up with to eliminate the need for anyone to toil away in backbreaking labor under the blazing heat of the sun.

No one living in a modern city* is going to join a revolutionary upsurge in order to abandon the convenience of picking up any meat or vegetables they desire, from any region in the world, by simply going to the local grocery store (or clicking a few links online! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.freshdirect.com/about/index.jsp)) in favor of eating only what can be produced locally, in season, according to harvests, weather, etc. That would be a huge step backwards, not to mention the massive number of lives it would put at risk.

(* I obviously exclude here the handful of lifeless, misanthropic, middle class fruit-and-fiber fanatics, and eco-nuts like these brave souls (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/blog/4523/the-sad-sad-demise-greenpeace) -- sometimes, but not always, interchangeable groups.)

Arguments against "GMOs" in the abstract are no different from arguments against nuclear energy in the abstract (http://www.revleft.com/vb/five-lessons-fukushima-t151577/index.html?p=2050170&highlight=nuclear#post2050170) or porn in the abstract (http://www.revleft.com/vb/not-another-porn-t159255/index.html?p=2204406&highlight=porn#post2204406).

This all comes from a liberal/reformist/utopian trend that has no basis in reality. We're not (or shouldn't be) out to perfect capitalism, to "tweak it" to fit our sensibilities... we're out to abolish it, and all the crap that comes with it!

The real question, as it always does, comes down to the private ownership of the means of producing the things people want and need. That's a social question, dealing with the nature of capitalism and class society. Just as the problem with nuclear energy is not with that technology itself, but rather its control by a minority concerned only with profit, and the problem with porn is that the main avenues for creating and distributing it are owned by a handful of people seeking to enrich themselves, the problem with food technology is that its owned by a group of capitalists out for nothing more than their own enrichment, no matter what that means for anyone else.

See also: Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/)

And:

wywRw_ORj-Q


I was under the impression that most gm shit was in the form of self-terminating seeds and shit like that to make the stuff more profitable rather than efficient.

I mean, hey, if GM means more, safe food, then great. But I think claims that we can only feed everyone on the planet because of GM needs to be substantiated."GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use – which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do. As we speak, there are sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world15. Scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people. Perhaps even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepatitis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical." - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/


in a trial of corn and soybeans (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/july05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html) the yields were approximately the same between conventional and organic."Fatal flaws in the recent report from Badgley et al. claiming that organic agriculture ‘could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base’. Among the serious problems identified: over 100 non-organic yield studies were claimed as organic; organic yields were misreported; false comparisons were made to unrepresentative low non-organic yields; high organic yields were counted 2, 3, even 5 times by citing different papers that referenced the same data; favorable and unverifiable ‘studies’ from biased sources were given equal weight to rigorous university studies. This report is being submitted to the Editor of the journal, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, for publication and response. It is only being released in the interest of public debate and discussion during the much-touted ‘organic fortnight’." - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1599476&fulltextType=XX&fileId=S1742170507002189

[MarxSchmarx]

Let's take this thread to the next level.

We start by recognizing that the arguments that have been raised in favor of and opposed to GM foods are crap.

This is a question that will be settled on a case-by-case basis utilizing quantitative risk assessment. Anybody who says otherwise is just trying to obfuscate the issue to advance their own agenda.

The basic idea is this. Let's suppose we have some food crop. There is some genetic modification that can be made to it. It will have some increase in yield. That in turn will have some percent impact on availability to people, some percent impact on profit for agribusiness, some percent impact on prices of other products, etc....

It will also carry with it some risk, however small, in terms of: health to the consumer, environmental "contamination", agricultural disease, or impact on subsistance farmers or whatever. The net cost of this risk will be such and such, in a worst case scenario.

Thus the question becomes, does the anticipated net cost of the risk, multiplied by the probability of this risk, outweigh the benefit in terms of potential lives saved from starvation/new industries/profits/social progress?. Period. If the risk times the cost is greater than the benefits, to hell with it, it belongs in the same pile as mercury therapy. If the potential advantages outweigh the costs, only a nihilist or a fanatic would object.

So, my question to the thread is this. Basically the question becomes, is:

p*C > r*B

where p is the probability of the technology leading to a catastrophe, C is the cost of the catastrophe, r is the probability of the technology succeeding, and B is the benefits provided by the technology.

I'll even be crass and say let's measure C and B in terms of money. Thus so many lives lost (or spent in medical treatment from complications) equals X dollars/euros but so many lives saved from starvation (or spent in activities other than conventional agriculture) also equals X dollars/euros.

I could be a bane and demand that you also show this is the case on average for various crops. But I won't. Give me one crop or domesticated animal used for food where you can categorically claim this inequality holds or doesn't hold.

Now show me the numbers - if you can't, you can't hope to resolve this question.

[bcbm]

by 'take the thread to the next level' i assume you mean 'shut down any possibility of the thread continuing,' because i don't think anybody is going to spend the hours needed to figure out all that shit. i mean you're basically saying you can't have an opinion unless you're willing to do a months long research study? give me a break

[MarxSchmarx]

by 'take the thread to the next level' i assume you mean 'shut down any possibility of the thread continuing,' because i don't think anybody is going to spend the hours needed to figure out all that shit. i mean you're basically saying you can't have an opinion unless you're willing to do a months long research study? give me a break

Yeah I guess one can look at it that way. I think it comes down to whether one sees this as something that can be resolved given the present state of knowledge. And I think it is incumbent upon the critics and supporters to summarize, in a manner that can help readers of this thread, what that state of knowledge is. And I contend that a significant part of that is quantifying the cost-benefits either way.

At the end of the day, we have to accept that this is an empirical question that has to be settled by real case studies one way or the other. The pro-GM crowd present some compelling examples of real agricultural success, but the anti-GM crowd raise a valid point about long term complications that aren't readily measured in the lab. I don't think the debate is well served by simplifying it any further; do you? And how does one ultimately resolve this kind of debate, where one side asserts potential risks whilst another side asserts potential windfalls? To me, the only rational resolution is a quantitative one.

Or is this a "moral" question about whether we should be interfering in this way with nature at all? If that is the case, the question isn't scientific.