[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]

 mikeh, on 2015-March-17, 14:28, said:

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 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]

 nige1, on 2015-March-18, 14:27, said:

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

Try this one, Nige.

[mike777]

 nige1, on 2015-March-18, 14:27, said:

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]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-March-18, 14:48, said:

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]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-March-18, 14:48, said:

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]

 mike777, on 2015-March-18, 15:01, said:

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]

 mike777, on 2015-March-23, 00:24, said:

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.washingto...try-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]

 barmar, on 2015-March-22, 00:29, said:

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]

 mycroft, on 2015-March-25, 10:16, said:

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).

[mike777]

New druga can easily cost 2.6 Billion to develop. This hinders innovation.
MIne Safety, oil drilling and banking have numerous safety regulations and have for decades and decades. They do not operate with zero or close to zero in rules and regulations.

Monsanto has been doing evil for years and years. You can go back years just in this forum and read all the evil they do.

Perhaps to stop all this evil Monsanto does it should be destroyed, people put out of work and all the owners put on trial. They all should either know or should know all this bad stuff evil Monsanto does in the name of profit.

To rephrase Helene post #73 it looks like in many cases it is those in government who are also trying to profit from their positions of power. Who is watching the watchdogs?

[barmar]

 mike777, on 2015-March-26, 13:30, said:

New druga can easily cost 2.6 Billion to develop. This hinders innovation.

Yeah, the big drug companies are really suffering

The usual complaint about drug regulation is that it delays availability of new drugs to desperate people suffering from illnesses. But I think I've heard there are some plans to relax the rules for critical patients.

Quote

MIne Safety, oil drilling and banking have numerous safety regulations and have for decades and decades. They do not operate with zero or close to zero in rules and regulations.

But those regulations are often not enforced well (the regulating authorities tend to be woefully understaffed), or just flouted. In the case of mines, the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster in 2010 brought this to light. Massey Engergy had a history of ignoring citations for violations, and after the investigation of this accident they were fined $10.8 billion for hundreds of violations that still hadn't been addressed.

Quote

Who is watching the watchdogs?

We don't have enough watchdogs to begin with, where would we get watchdog watchers?

Which all argues that extending this model to GMO foods is likely to be just as successful, I suppose.

[Zelandakh]

 mike777, on 2015-March-26, 13:30, said:

MIne Safety, oil drilling and banking have numerous safety regulations and have for decades and decades. They do not operate with zero or close to zero in rules and regulations.

I used to live in the city at the centre of the North Sea oil industry and knew someone there that was actually in charge of deciding which safety features to install on the rigs. He described his job as "deciding how many people should die every year" and explained how the companies keep data on how many lives they expect each measure to take along with the cost. If a measure was too costly per person that year then it was not introduced. So excuse my skepticism about driling safety regulations.

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2015-March-27, 16:07, said:

Yeah, the big drug companies are really suffering

I am not sure about the big drug companies, but the small drug companies are definitely suffering. Drug development is getting more and more expensive and is getting too big to handle for smaller drug companies. (And "smaller" still means 1000+ employees.)

Rik

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2015-March-28, 07:38, said:

I am not sure about the big drug companies, but the small drug companies are definitely suffering. Drug development is getting more and more expensive and is getting too big to handle for smaller drug companies. (And "smaller" still means 1000+ employees.)

Rik

This is going on in just about every area into which the government sticks its grubby paws.

In 1965, when I graduated from high school, the paperwork required to obtain a permit to build a nuclear power plant (that's build - after you build it you have to go through another paperwork drill to get a license to operate the damn thing), piled up, stood man high. In 1975, when I finished my Master's Degree, it filled a room. I can only imagine it's worse now.