Anti-GMO = Anti-science, anti-truth, pro-ignorance.


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You're right. I've never heard that.  Nor do I believe it to be true. You may want to check that.

Fair enough.  It was an unsourced claim in my original link.  All checked:

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/05/15/cheese-gmo-food-die-hard-gmo-opponents-love-and-oppose-a-label-for/ - History of the claim.   "Today ninety percent of the cheese in the United States is made using FPC."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennet "By 2008, about 80% to 90% of commercially made cheeses in the US and Britain were made using FPC."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/do-gmo-opponents-have-a-problem-with-cheese/ "So here's my question: would opponents of GMO technology object to eating cheese made in this way? Avoiding it might be hard - between 80-90% of hard cheese produced in the US is made with recombinant chymosin. And what about companies like Whole Foods that are moving to label all of their products that contain GMOs, or states that are passing laws to do the same? Most regulatory agencies don't consider chymosin an ingredient."

http://www.vrg.org/blog/2012/08/21/microbial-rennets-and-fermentation-produced-chymosin-fpc-how-vegetarian-are-they/ 

Good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fair enough.  It was an unsourced claim in my original link.  All checked:

(Clip)

Good?

My objection was with regard to your use of "yeast".  Your articles mentioned "microbes" and "recombinant DNA". That is usually done with bacteria, not yeast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fair enough - there's more to the details than in my brief summary that was probably not very accurate.   I haven't made cheese since the 2nd grade. :)

I guess the real question here - are you going to tell your wife?

That's a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fair enough - there's more to the details than in my brief summary that was probably not very accurate.   I haven't made cheese since the 2nd grade. :)

I guess the real question here - are you going to tell your wife?

So, I told my wife.  And she said,"Oh. I guess that makes sense."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my son happened upon our conversation about GMO.  He wondered what the deal was.  Why is it good?  Why is it bad?

I told him both sides of the argument as I saw it.  Mrs. Carb added a couple of good points on her side of the argument.

1) Lots of legal issues arise with companies like Monsanto.  They sued a farmer for growing Round Up Ready on his land when the wind simply blew some seeds over there.  (I didn't bother going over the details where that was found to be "uncertain".)

2) They place terminator genes on plant seeds that mix with other viable seeds.  This decreases the fertility rate of existing seeds.  And it is harder and harder to keep genuine heirloom seeds with high fertility rates.

3) The GMO side is talking out both sides of their mouth because

  • They want to get past the FDA without tons of studies to prove they're safe.  So, they try to sell the idea that it is "substantially similar" to organic plants.
  • They want to patent it.  So, they declare that their plants have a "substantive difference" from organic plants.

You can't have it both ways.

In the end, my son was left wondering for himself.  He'll eventually figure out things for himself.

But the point is that my wife is pretty smart.  Although, she doesn't have the technical background to argue the science stuff with me very much, she does know about politics, economics, and so forth.  We recognized that our difference in opinion are really based on religious issues.  By "religious" I don't mean what we believe the Church's position is.  I mean that we just feel it in our gut that our way is right. We're both aware of the facts.  We're both aware of studies and bias and financial motivation...

But in the end we have to gather all this stuff together and make a decision on what we're going to believe.  We simply chose different paths on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok then - you are unable or unwilling to answer.  Got it.

Honestly, I don't care if you believe if GMO is good or bad.  Believe whatever you wish.  It's just that we're here in a public forum, where people come to maybe look at both sides and make their mind up.  In the realm of "how come you believe what you believe", one side seems to hold all the cards and the other side has a bunch of suspicion about motives and no good points to make. 

I mean, if I'm off base, feel free to make a good point somewhere.   What's your gripe with genetically modifying food to be better?  Which method?  Why?

When I read articles like the following is when I have serious doubts about GMO's.  The "studies" often are funded by the same companies who make money off their products.  Believing that they are unbiased and neutral is a little too credulous for me.  A study funded by Monsanto would be like asking the fox to do a safety study on the hen house. The last thing I base my opinion on is the health problems I experience when I have anything with high fructose corn syrup in it.  Not only me, but many other people I know, including my children.  I've posted studies like this before here, but they were pooh-poohed by those who are more wise than me.

http://responsibletechnology.org/allfraud/genetically-modified-corn-study-reveals-health-damage-and-cover-up/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Cool beans Carb!  Please allow me to burst into your kitchen and stand on your table and start shouting things without being invited:

Quote

1) Lots of legal issues arise with companies like Monsanto.  They sued a farmer for growing Round Up Ready on his land when the wind simply blew some seeds over there.  (I didn't bother going over the details where that was found to be "uncertain".)

Yeah, of course this is hooey.  It started out as an agenda-driven spin response to a lawsuit, then it became a myth, then a debunked myth.  No, monsanto doesn't sue anyone because the "wind simply blew".  These days, the notion is a blatant unveiled disinformation tactic pushed by anti-GMO crowd, and apparently someone in the Carb house has fallen for it. 

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/01/04/gmo-patent-controversy-3-monsanto-sue-farmers-inadvertent-gmo-contamination/ 
"As you may know, the commonly repeated myth is that Monsanto has taken hundreds of farmers to court for inadvertent contamination or for replanting GE seeds. According to the company’s website, there have been ‘147 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States [and none for inadvertent contamination]. This averages about 8 per year for the past 18 years. To date, only nine cases have gone through full trial. In every one of these instances, the jury or court decided in our favor.’"

https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/gmo-contamination-lawsuits/
"The misperception that Monsanto would sue a farmer if GM seed was accidentally in his field likely began with Percy Schmeiser, who was brought to court in Canada by Monsanto for illegally saving Roundup Ready® canola seed. Mr. Schmeiser claims to this day the presence of Monsanto’s technology in his fields was accidental – even though three separate court decisions, including one by the Canadian Supreme court, concluded his claims were false."

Conclusion - If this is all one of Jojo's money-and-power-driven conspiracies, entire legal systems of various nations, including the Canadian Supreme Court, are now among the conspirators. Canada's desire to have a fed citizenry is obviously forcing it to abandon truth and right in favor of supporting BigGMO.

 

Quote
38 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

2) They place terminator genes on plant seeds that mix with other viable seeds.  This decreases the fertility rate of existing seeds.  And it is harder and harder to keep genuine heirloom seeds with high fertility rates.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, citations and sources are good things with this topic.

https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/gmos-and-patents-part-1-terminator-genes/
"I had heard about “Terminator Genes” and had been under the impression that many genetically modified seeds used this technology. Legend has it that GMOs are sterile due to terminator genes, which forces farmers to buy seeds from one season to the next. In reality, terminator genes do exist, but they have never been commercialized. The bulk of the information in this section is summarized in the freely available article “Genetic use restriction technologies: a review“.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology (Lots of info and source links.)

 

Quote

3) The GMO side is talking out both sides of their mouth because

  • They want to get past the FDA without tons of studies to prove they're safe.  So, they try to sell the idea that it is "substantially similar" to organic plants.
  • They want to patent it.  So, they declare that their plants have a "substantive difference" from organic plants.

 

Seriously Carb, folks in your family are being fooled in the same way that LDS families get fooled by anti-mormon websites.  The truth is out there - no reason to be bamboozled!

https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/default.htm
FDA: Consumer Info About Food from Genetically Engineered Plants
FDA: How FDA Regulates Food from Genetically Engineered Plants

Again, Jojo's conspiracy-minded ideas require government agencies, scientists, and entire court systems to be working in harmony, complicit in hiding truth.

Quote
Quote

But the point is that my wife is pretty smart.  Although, she doesn't have the technical background to argue the science stuff with me very much, she does know about politics, economics, and so forth.  We recognized that our difference in opinion are really based on religious issues.  By "religious" I don't mean what we believe the Church's position is.  I mean that we just feel it in our gut that our way is right. We're both aware of the facts.  We're both aware of studies and bias and financial motivation...

I've never met your wife but I already like her.   As you usher me out of your kitchen firmly by the shoulder, allow me to go ranting and raving, throwing pamphlets at everyone as I pass, demanding people read them.   Read those links!

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Cool beans Carb!  Please allow me to burst into your kitchen and stand on your table and start shouting things without being invited:

I already believe you.  I had read the status of these things many years ago.  But things hadn't reached their conclusion when I got bored with the topic.

The "wind blown Monsanto seeds" was being argued back and forth.  I read several back-and-forths and realized something was amiss and not as straight forward as some had thought.  But it didn't reach conclusion until after I washed my hands of it.  thanks for the update.

I had read the stuff on terminator genes a while back.  I told my wife.  But then she played the conspiracy / evil motivation card.  Of course, if it is a conspiracy, then I can't really refute it, now can I?

Regarding the FDA, the links you provided didn't address the concern.  She was saying that because of the particular nature of the modification (which even the FDA admits is different than the methods used throughout history) that such engineering should be subject to the scrutiny that is normally required of drugs rather than food.  And it does not meet that standard -- even by the data in your links.  And they should only be allowed to be considered "substantially similar" to organic plants if they are "substantially similar".  You can't have it both ways was the argument.

While I'm on your side, there are some arguments that are at least based on some reason, and can't really be refuted.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I told my wife.  But then she played the conspiracy / evil motivation card.  Of course, if it is a conspiracy, then I can't really refute it, now can I?

This is the problem with conspiracy theories. By their very nature, they are difficult or impossible to prove. Yet does any rational human being deny the existence of conspiracies, even at the very foundations of our societies? It's enough to drive anyone to be a cynic and a fatalist. Just remember, kids: Cynicism is a sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is the problem with conspiracy theories. By their very nature, they are difficult or impossible to prove. Yet does any rational human being deny the existence of conspiracies, even at the very foundations of our societies? It's enough to drive anyone to be a cynic and a fatalist. Just remember, kids: Cynicism is a sin.

I guess I'm going straight to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

Believing that they are unbiased and neutral is a little too credulous for me.  [...]  I've posted studies like this before here, but they were pooh-poohed by those who are more wise than me.

Excellent!  Sources from Jojo!  I mean, none of them are "studies", but they do include lots of claims.   I'm down with everything in that ScientificAmerican article.  Especially their three main conclusions:   
- The vast majority of the research on genetically modified (GM) crops suggests that they are safe to eat and that they have the potential to feed millions of people worldwide who currently go hungry.
- Yet not all criticisms of GM are so easily rejected, and pro-GM scientists are often dismissive and even unscientific in their rejection of the counterevidence.
- A careful analysis of the risks and benefits argues for expanded deployment and safety testing of GM crops.

 

Jojo, you are wise in the art of skeptic-fu when it comes to following the money.  Now, you just need to be consistent and apply it to your own links.  

ResponsibleTechnology.org - a nonprofit organization.  Started by a bestselling author, and you can buy his books here.  The org runs off of donations and sponsors and book sales.  Sponsors like, well, these guys:
Home-bread_2.png     americas-first-organic-winery.jpg

 

Collective-Evolution.com.  They believe "in creating change by thinking outside the box."  They "aim to challenge the current status quo by "shaking up how we currently think about the world."  Fair enough.  They also sell snake oil.  Have you been to their online store?  I notice they're sold out of their "Chakra Balancing/Healing Crystal Vial Necklaces" and their "Aura Protection/Good Luck/Prosperity Elixir Necklaces".  But they still have plenty of "Confidence/Creativity/Power-Root Chakra Opening Necklaces" - so you'd better hurry.
lyggOmp6a4toVSU0l0K_YGPTdveSLayufd91IbyLlPM_KeqODLiJPCd-LXD2pWMvCRhP1LA0UQ5RPLwHgRMQw9A_8U3_-hcAlmgYKOSUat6l8xnqqOlXugezHY9CjlXQA2E.jpg?v=1444582727 - A steal at twenty-seven bucks!

There's plenty of "Brain Octane Oil", which promises the following:
- Fast Energy - Brain Octane, the shortest of the MCT’s, converts into ketone energy which can be used by the brain, faster than other fats or oils.
- Balancing of yeast in the gut—Studies show that there are gut biome balancing effects of caprylic fatty acids.

And no quack health store is complete without your forty-dollar bottle of E3Enzymes Supreme, endorsed by several Credentialed Naturopaths! 

 

Quote

 I've posted studies like this before here, but they were pooh-poohed by those who are more wise than me.

I'm not saying I'm wiser than you, or even wise at all.  I'm just saying, if you're gonna be skeptical about agendas, take your blinders off and apply that same skepticism to your own sources.  The exercise will leave you without a side to call your own, since all sides are biased and driven by agendas.  You'll have to find some other way to pick sides.  I urge you to consider the path of scientific literacy and reason.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zil said:

I'll save you a spot - just don't get to close - I like my space!

I think that's part of the punishment of hell.  Sheathens ave to put up heathens.

But all cyborgs go to heaven.  So...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-015-0052-7

I submit that I am not a scientific journal snob, so this may not be considered reputable information, however, it seems to me that these articles are written by reasonable human beings who do have a grasp on what is going on and would suggest that the safety of GMO's is not a scientific consensus and that reasonable people have legitimate concerns.

My biggest pet peeve of late with suggesting that GMOs are safe (or unsafe) is the sweeping generalization of such a diverse category of product. It's like stating that drugs are safe, which many more or less are when used properly, but they can also be extremely dangerous so to categorically say they're safe (or unsafe) is kinda silly to me.

I stand by a person's right to know what they ingest and support GMO labeling, if they're really such great products why not advertise the greatness? The fight for secrecy does smack of conspiracy and gives plenty of fodder to GMO opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I lost faith in the entire Global Warming/Climate change argument when they showed the temperatures for our area.  They listed my area as being consecutively hotter every year.  What took the cake was when we had our verifiably coldest year, and then they listed it as being the hottest year. 

Yeah....when you see blatantly false information and you KNOW the area's temperatures and weather where you live...it kind of makes you question what other false information they are relaying...or how in the world they are getting information that is that inaccurate.

 

As for GMO's, they have helped feed a LOT of the world that would be starving instead.  As for me, I'm old enough not to really care I suppose at this point.  IF GMOs help or reduce life expectancy...well...I'm not too concerned of myself at this point.  I know for my own family it probably doesn't make much of a difference.  Parents and such ate GMO food and lived into their 90s...so...I don't think it's going to be that much of an effect on my genetics.  I suppose if they do have an effect I might have been able to outlive Moses by getting beyond the age of 120...but I'm not certain it's going to make that much of a difference to me.

On the otherhand I could die tomorrow...and thus live less time than my ancestory, but either way...the best thing for me is to hope I'm prepared to meet my maker whether tomorrow, or many years from now.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 0:35 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Well, I'm sure she's a saint among women, and I certainly mean her no disrespect.  If you lived in Colorado Springs I'd be happy to sell all y'all some eggs from our happy chickens, who are as genuinely cage-free/free-range/cruelty-free/all-natural/hormone-free as they can possibly get.

 

You are in Colorado Springs?  I arrived there just last week at the airport without my luggage.  Talk about a soiled white shirt – I had to wear something both soiled and not white to church.  I am sure someone thought me a vagabond but all were kind enough to ignore my habiliments.

For the thread, I have two thoughts:

First thought – think small big ideas upset nearly everybody.

Second thought – it is easy to measure anyone’s intelligence and life experience by how well they can consider alternate viewpoints.  Not necessarily how they agree but their ability to find something in the idea that is worthwhile and applies.

I am convinced truth is not an answer to a question or a destination of understanding – truth is a method.  I am convinced a truth is worthless unless you know what it is that makes the truth worthwhile.

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think I lost faith in the entire Global Warming/Climate change argument

 

Global climate change is taking place on such a grand scale we need to change the title from global climate change to solar system climate change.  So, drastic is climate change in our solar system that the storm eye on Jupiter has decreased drastically over the last few decades and will likely disappear completely within 5 years.  Not sure how atmospheric carbon here on earth is causing all this but to be safe we should all stop putting carbon in the atmosphere.  There is undisputed scientific proof that carbon is the #1 and only problem.  At least we have been so told and reminded that most scientist agree.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2017 at 11:11 PM, SpiritDragon said:

I submit that I am not a scientific journal snob, so this may not be considered reputable information, however, it seems to me that these articles are written by reasonable human beings who do have a grasp on what is going on and would suggest that the safety of GMO's is not a scientific consensus and that reasonable people have legitimate concerns.

Fair enough, SD.  I'm not one either, but these people pass the "not selling snake oil" and "don't appear on their face to be politically agenda-driven" smell test.  Plus, they don't seem to be making any of the anti-science/truth based points I'm attacking here.  They aren't even saying GMOs are bad.  They're just saying the science isn't 100% concluded, and there are still things we don't know, still things left to test.  I'm ok with that.  

 

Quote

My biggest pet peeve of late with suggesting that GMOs are safe (or unsafe) is the sweeping generalization of such a diverse category of product. It's like stating that drugs are safe, which many more or less are when used properly, but they can also be extremely dangerous so to categorically say they're safe (or unsafe) is kinda silly to me.

Indeed.  It's why I make sure I include this infographic every time I argue GMO.  At the very least, it helps folks from both sides of the discussion understand the complexity.
 gmotechniques.jpg

 

I stand by a person's right to know what they ingest and support GMO labeling, if they're really such great products why not advertise the greatness? The fight for secrecy does smack of conspiracy and gives plenty of fodder to GMO opponents.

I'm big on someone's right to know also.  The answer to your question, is of course "the organic/anti-GMO movement has been so successful in their disinformation campaigns, that tons of people believe false things about GMO, and therefore advertising such things decreases sales".  But I don't think you can legitimately claim GMO folks are fighting for secrecy.  Arguing against labeling, especially when nobody wanting the labels has spent five seconds thinking about stuff like that infographic, doesn't smack of a desire for secrecy.  Especially when a layman like me can spend five minutes googling and come up with well over a dozen good links that ring at least as professional as your link.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

@SpiritDragon and @NeuroTypical - and anyone else

Science and bias.  Although we live in a scientifically oriented society there are problem with science.  I can say this because I am an engineer and a scientist and make my living as a consultant.  We scientist are kind of like the hired guns of the old west.  The only free gun is your own and admit it or not even you have a bias.  The money for research has to come from somewhere.  This may seem odd to many but money all by itself creates a bias.  In the business world, the bias is usually more money.   The only reason that private companies do research and development is to increase their market share with the intent to put more money in their pocket.

Money and profits are not in themselves evil or wrong but they can be strong incentives to create bias and skew data.   I am quite sure that politics does not help as much as most like to think.  I use to work for the defense department and considered leaking information because of the gross waste and corruption.  Sometimes the problem is not really waste and corruption – just politics.   Having worked as a contractor for the defense department I could give many examples.

Bottom line – funding for scientific research creates a bias and it is my recommendation that the more hidden the bias and funding the more unreliable the research results.   There may be an exception – but I have yet to encounter one.

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Bottom line – funding for scientific research creates a bias and it is my recommendation that the more hidden the bias and funding the more unreliable the research results.   There may be an exception – but I have yet to encounter one.

This is unnecessarily a cynical view.

In my family, we don't teach that money comes first, integrity second.  Rather, we teach if you live with integrity, the money will come.  Now, I'm sure you live your life the same way.  We're not at all unique.  Many people live their lives this way. 

The fact that you're not spearheading research doesn't mean that all other people spearheading research live their lives with money first over integrity.  Yes, there is bias.  That's what hypotheses are about.  Your hypothesis is the bias.  Then you run the experiment to prove/disprove that hypothesis.  If you run an experiment without integrity then the bias spreads throughout the procedures.  To say that research is so money-driven that you, as a scientist, have not encountered research done with integrity is very sad indeed.  I, for one, don't believe it as my cousin runs medical research for pharma.  She has killed as many products as she has passed and these research projects take years, sometimes decades to do.  I seriously doubt she'd let something pass after decades of research that shouldn't just because they're going to make money if it goes to market and they're going to lose beaucoup money if they don't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share