Organic Food not better for you

[Guest Manny]

Manny, obviously you came in late and didn't read the previous posts. You have cited a proven quack! He has a history of using very poor science and ignoring proper statistical and scientific methodology in his projects. That's why no one except the anti-GM movement listen to him. He's just a shill for them.

Someone tell Reuters It was published a mere 4 hours ago.

I don't absolutely believe anything that we read about on the news these days. The age of information goves us so much now, that its becoming impossible for an ordinary person to discern truth from lies. And same goes for all of you here.

Therefore it is always...

[bleeding heart]

As for taxing the rich, the fact that you would interject such a statement in a scientific discussion is telling, Michael.

It's just that it's a populist (and in fact very popular) idea.

By your logic, we should in fact be increasing taxes on the rich--even if it's ultimately a bad idea--and then learn from the mistake, if it is one.

[Guest Manny]

Well Wild Bill, this article seems to be fair and unbiased, giving details of both sides of the controversy. If anything, it shows that there is still a clear controversy over the issue of GMO safety, both within and outside of the scientific community.

Link

The debate is not settled. For now I'll stick to organics as my preferred source of food. Give me food from the good earth, not designed by some jackass in a lab coat.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Manny

[Wild Bill]

Well Wild Bill, this article seems to be fair and unbiased, giving details of both sides of the controversy. If anything, it shows that there is still a clear controversy over the issue of GMO safety, both within and outside of the scientific community.

Link

The debate is not settled. For now I'll stick to organics as my preferred source of food. Give me food from the good earth, not designed by some jackass in a lab coat.

Manny, that is the article I cited several posts ago! Did you actually read it all the way through?

It supports exactly what I said!

Although it starts off with reporting what Gilles-Eric Seralini and his study had said it goes on to say that "proper" scientists have held him in disrespect for years for being so poor at basic science with his methodology.

Read the whole thing, Manny! Again, the man is a quack of the highest order!

[Guest Manny]

Manny, that is the article I cited several posts ago! Did you actually read it all the way through?

It supports exactly what I said!

Although it starts off with reporting what Gilles-Eric Seralini and his study had said it goes on to say that "proper" scientists have held him in disrespect for years for being so poor at basic science with his methodology.

Read the whole thing, Manny! Again, the man is a quack of the highest order!

Of course I read the whole thing, and other things already up till now. Maybe you are right Bill, I just don't know.

The fact that other scientists and some high level politicians believe this research, to the extent that they are contemplating banning these GMO products says this is not a black-and white issue, but politicized, as is common to all such issues where big money is involved. It's to the detriment of everyone.

For now I'll stick to caution, as I always do when the situation is unknown. Meanwhile the rest of you can feel free to volunteer for the experiment.

[Wayward Son]

Theres a big difference between genetic modification and more conventional methods of hybridization.

Ok. Explain to me the the significant difference between GMO technology and mutation breeding technology through radiation and/or chemical bombardment which had released more than 2500 varieties by 2007 - varieties you eat all the time. I am really interested to know why you feel that the only one which is accurate instead of just rolling dice, the only one which almost guarentees the addition of desired traits do not also bring with it undesired traits, as well as being the only one which is actually tested is the one that is the problem.

Genetic modification is an experiment being carried out

All plant breeding is an experiment being carried out.

to prove the safety of their products.

Nothing in science can be proven safe. No food you eat is proven safe - you may think that it is because humans have been eating it for X number of years, but that is simply nonsense. The foods we eat now are very different than the foods we ate a couple hundreds years ago, and even if it were not there is no way to actually know if common foods that people have ate for centuries do not lead to increased numbers of certain chronic diseases or certain types of cancer. There is really no easy to accurately test for it. We don't know if the food we normally eat is safe, but we assume it is. The great irony is that the only food which is tested at all is the food which some people are convinced is not safe. No other products are tested at all. As I have already shown above the examples that we have of plants that caused acute harm have come from the old traditional plant cross-breeding between two very similar varieties. Any breeding leads to an offspring that is different from its parents. Mutations can occur naturally, or through being enticed, and even naturally occuring mutations can lead to the switching off or on of several genes leading to a plant having undesired traits expressed, or being toxic, as has occured with potatoes and other plants in the recent past.

[Wayward Son]

The age of information goves us so much now, that its becoming impossible for an ordinary person to discern truth from lies. And same goes for all of you here.

I disagree. When it comes to science there are methods that people can use to discern the likelihood that a scientific story is true or not (or that a scientific study is rigorous or not). The general method is scientific skepticism and when applied, stories which promote pseudo-science or bad science will generally shoot up red flags. Red flags don't mean that the story or study is nonsense, but do indicate that one should approach the story pretty cautiously. This most recent story shot up a lot of red flags.

[Wayward Son]

The fact that other scientists and some high level politicians believe this research, to the extent that they are contemplating banning these GMO products says this is not a black-and white issue

The problem with such a conclusion is that there are black and white issues in which high level politicians and a small number of scientists find themselves on the wrong side.

Evolution, for example. The level of distrust in the US towards evolution signifies nothing about the rigor of the science - those who oppose it know nothing about the actual science, and what they think they know is most often wrong. A large percentage of the population is simply wrong. Because of that there are a large number of politicians who promote political policies that are also wrong. As with anything there will always be a small minority of scientists who advocate for the non-scientific side.

In Europe the level of distrust towards GMOs signifies nothing about the rigor of the science. As would be expected in an area where there is significant public distrust of a scientific area, many politicians hold the same views, and a small number of scientists advocate for that popular position.

[carepov]

Would any of you be opposed having a label on the product indicating it has GMO ingredients?

If so .. why?

I am opposed to mandatory labelling of GMO ingredients because it is an added cost (food prices will increase) and there is no benefit.

If what Monsanto produces is the same as natural products, why is there a need to patent the product?

First of all what Monsanto produces is as "natural" as many products, I think of humans as part of nature. What they make is different because of some or multiple benefit(s): safer, tastier, longer shelf-life, more nutritious, more efficient/cheaper to produce, less harmful to environment, etc...

[Guest Manny]

Ok. Explain to me the the significant difference between GMO technology and mutation breeding technology through radiation and/or chemical bombardment which had released more than 2500 varieties by 2007 - varieties you eat all the time.

I am no expert on food irradiation but as far as I understand, it is used to kill bacteria in existing food stock. Not produce hybrids.

The DNA of microorganisms is damaged by the application of radiation. For example,a potato is irradiated so that is is preserved and lasts longer. It does not produce a new species of potato with completely new genetic makeup that never existed before in the history of the ecosystem.

I work in the radiation industry but not in food. I am aware of the use of radiation technology in preserving food, and I understand that process. I've looked this up on Wikipedia, "Food Irradiation" and it is true. So, sorry but your comparison is non-sequitor.

[Michael Hardner]

As for taxing the rich, the fact that you would interject such a statement in a scientific discussion is telling, Michael.

It's an analogy. I'm trying to determine if there are any limits to your populism. We may have just found one.

[Guest Manny]

It's an analogy. I'm trying to determine if there are any limits to your populism. We may have just found one.

ad hominem, Brutus?

[Michael Hardner]

ad hominem, Brutus?

If somebody defends their point of view by saying "I'm a populist" it makes me curious as to what that entails. There are lots of popular movements that aren't worth defending, don't you know ?

[Guest Manny]

If somebody defends their point of view by saying "I'm a populist" it makes me curious as to what that entails. There are lots of popular movements that aren't worth defending, don't you know ?

Alright, I'll let that go.

Just funnin ya... it's not easy being the forum velocitator, is it...

[GostHacked]

I am opposed to mandatory labelling of GMO ingredients because it is an added cost (food prices will increase) and there is no benefit.

There are many things that increase the cost of food. Proper labeling should be mandatory in my view. If they deem it just as safe as natural products, then they should not have a problem with ingredient listings indicating just that.

We as consumers/customers want to be informed as much as possible when making proper product choices. More people put more effort into choosing other items like a pair of shoes compared to what they put in their bodies.

First of all what Monsanto produces is as "natural" as many products,

Genetic manipulation to make it resistant to a herbicide is anything but 'natural'. Monsanto has patents on their products. A copywrite if you will. They say it is as natural as anything else, but terminator seeds are anything but natural.

I think of humans as part of nature.

Would it be ok to patent the human gene? Do you understand the fallout of that? Would you have rights over your own DNA if it was patentable?

What they make is different because of some or multiple benefit(s): safer, tastier, longer shelf-life, more nutritious, more efficient/cheaper to produce, less harmful to environment, etc...

Safer, not sure.

Tastier? No.

Longer shelf life? Yes.

More nutritious> No.

More efficient? Depends on the scale.

Cheaper to produce? Depends on the scale.

Less harmful to the environment? No.

[Wayward Son]

I am no expert on food irradiation but as far as I understand, it is used to kill bacteria in existing food stock. Not produce hybrids.

The DNA of microorganisms is damaged by the application of radiation. For example,a potato is irradiated so that is is preserved and lasts longer. It does not produce a new species of potato with completely new genetic makeup that never existed before in the history of the ecosystem.

I work in the radiation industry but not in food. I am aware of the use of radiation technology in preserving food, and I understand that process. I've looked this up on Wikipedia, "Food Irradiation" and it is true. So, sorry but your comparison is non-sequitor.

I admit, that is a very impressive reply. I do agree that what you found about food irradiation is true, however, it may have been more helpful if you had looked up what I was actually talking about, instead of looking up something completely different and then assuming that the different technology you looked up was what I was referring to (and my link only refers to the use of radiation - used since the 1930s - and not the also popular and long used chemical mutagenic plant breeding techniques).

And there lies the real problem. Scientists have to deal with people who not only have been completely misinformed and lied to about GMOs, lack knowledge and understanding of genetics and molecular biology, and also have a completely fanciful belief of the breeding techniques that were widely used before GMOs came along with their superior and safer techniques. They are dealing with a public for which the little they do know is nostolgia to never never land. But never never land nostolgia techniques would not have come close to feeding the 7 billion people currently living.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Wayward Son

[Wayward Son]

Genetic manipulation to make it resistant to a herbicide is anything but 'natural'. Monsanto has patents on their products. A copywrite if you will. They say it is as natural as anything else, but terminator seeds are anything but natural.

This paragraph seems totally disjointed. If genetic manipulation to become resistant to a herbicide is unnatural, then when plants evolve to become resistant to a herbicide - as they have done many times - are those plants behaving in an unnatural way? If a company uses a bacteria to move a resistance gene from one plant variety to a target plant variety is that unnatural? Even though this horizontal gene transfer method happens in nature? Is it because it was done by humans? If things are unnatrual because they were done by humans then nothing in agriculture is natural anyways so why does the argument apply here, but not anywhere else in agriculture?

Then you hop from herbicide resistance-to patents-to terminator seeds as if they are easily related. To cap it all off, Monsanto does not use terminator seeds. No one does - except the conspiracy theorists who don't care about what is true and what is not.

[carepov]

There are many things that increase the cost of food. Proper labeling should be mandatory in my view. If they deem it just as safe as natural products, then they should not have a problem with ingredient listings indicating just that.

We as consumers/customers want to be informed as much as possible when making proper product choices...

Please do not claim to speak for “We as consumers”. I agree with Wayward Son, on this issue and everything else he wrote on this thread (well done Wayward Son!):

…However, a GMO-label law would be a mandatory labelling law, and as such laws require significant costs in regulation and monitoring it would be expensive…While polls have shown that consumers generally support lebelling by a large margin, that support falls dramatically when they are told that there will be a cost involved. People will generally agree that they want information even when they feel it is meaningless. When you add a cost to that information then the value of the information is taken into consideration.

Another reason I oppose it is because it is arbitrary and I don't think laws should be arbitrary. Mandatory labels are supposed to provide material information and warnings about health risks. We don't have labels to indicate which foods have come from seeds that come from a line in which radiation and/or chemicals were used to induce mutations - although that would be a high number of them and these methods of mutagenesis have led to many foods that people love. We don't label foods like banana's indicating to consumers that they are genetic freaks that bare little relationship to what they would have looked at in nature. We don't have a label that lists which fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides were used. Instead we determine what is considered safe, and if the product was made and produced in a manner that fits within those parameters that is good enough…

Would it be ok to patent the human gene? Do you understand the fallout of that? Would you have rights over your own DNA if it was patentable?

I don’t know. Good questions for another discussion.

Safer, not sure.

Tastier? No.

Longer shelf life? Yes.

More nutritious> No.

More efficient? Depends on the scale.

Cheaper to produce? Depends on the scale.

Less harmful to the environment? No.

You did not understand my comment: GMOs are different because they have one or more advantage over a competitive product. Golden Rice, for example, is more nutritious than regular rice.

You seem to be a fan of conspiracy theories, here’s one for you:

1. Anti-GMO academic put’s out a paper: “Chemical X in product Y possibly increases risk of Cancer Y in rats from 1/10,000,000 to 3/10,000,000, further study required”

2. A journalist pick up the story: “Frankenfoods linked to cancer – Study shows a 300% increase in risk”

3. Activists and politicians stand up for and protect the public from these evil conspiring corporations like Monsanto.

All three groups feed off each other as publicity and funding escalates. I sympathize with the non-critical public, like yourself as “the best lies contain the most truth”.

GostHacked, I along with others have tried to address your concerns about GMOs and modern agriculture. The problem is, it seems like you are not informed and you don’t even know what to be concerned about. I will ask you (and Manny and other anti-GMO, pro-“organic” people) again: What specific products do you think are unsafe?

[Guest Manny]

I will ask you (and Manny and other anti-GMO, pro-“organic” people) again: What specific products do you think are unsafe?

All new products.

[Wayward Son]

All new products.

When is a product considered new?

Let's say that we have 3 types of potatoes: A, B, and C. And that there is a trait "Y" that would be ideal in saving yields by making the potato more resistant to a certain fungus which is currently being fought with an environmentally questionable fungicide.

Potato A is great on many levels but lacks the gene(s) for trait Y.

Potato B is also pretty damn good, and has the gene(s) for trait Y, but one of the genes is turned off.

Potato C is a pretty good potato, but is it is unsuited for the local environment. It does produce trait Y.

Which one of the following is a new product?

Potato A is bred with potato C thousands and thousands of times until an offspring is produced with trait Y, but while still maintaining most of the characteristics of potato A. Of the 1% genetic difference between potato A and potato C it is 70% similar to potato A and 30% similar to potato C.

Seeds for potato B are subjected to radiation to produce mutations which allows them to find seeds for which the gene(s) for trait Y is now turned on.

GMO Scientists use the natural process of horizontal gene transfer to transfer the needed gene from potato C to potato A. Of the 1% genetic difference between potato A and potato C it is 99% similar to potato A and 1% similar to potato C.

[carepov]

All new products.

Please be more specific.

For example:

-Golden Rice, should research be halted?

-Is herbicide-resistant soy unsafe?

-If Hungry-man TV dinners were found to be linked to obesity heart disease and cancer, should we ban them? Should we put warning labels on them?

-Chocolate bars?

-Pesticide X found on apples?

[bleeding heart]

This paragraph seems totally disjointed. If genetic manipulation to become resistant to a herbicide is unnatural, then when plants evolve to become resistant to a herbicide - as they have done many times - are those plants behaving in an unnatural way? If a company uses a bacteria to move a resistance gene from one plant variety to a target plant variety is that unnatural? Even though this horizontal gene transfer method happens in nature? Is it because it was done by humans? If things are unnatrual because they were done by humans then nothing in agriculture is natural anyways so why does the argument apply here, but not anywhere else in agriculture?

I believe you're touching on the key matters here. There is often a twinned (and, frankly, thoughtless) belief that 1.) human behaviour is "unnatural," (but, oddly, didn't used to be); and that 2) because human beings have often accidentally poisoned themselves in one way or another, that this is the dominant paradigm of--in this case--large-scale agriculture.

And honestly, I think also wedded to all this is a distrust of Big Business generally. And personally, I don't think distrust of Big Business is at all irrational...there are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of it on numerous grounds, not least that those with lots of influence on our lives need to be watched extraordinarily closely. (In a saner world, this would be an inherently conservative view...but it isn't.)

But it's not a catch-all, and can't be extrapolated to every bit of corporate activity, because that's simply irrational.

[GostHacked]

When is a product considered new?

...

GMO Scientists use the natural process of horizontal gene transfer to transfer the needed gene from potato C to potato A. Of the 1% genetic difference between potato A and potato C it is 99% similar to potato A and 1% similar to potato C.

Take a look at the video I posted a couple pages back. I found a test crop with 20 new strains of GMO corn and 20 new strains of GMO Soybean. All those products are new this year. At least two of these new corn strains are hybrids of two previous GMO strains of corn.

Primates are 99% genetically the same, but yet different enough to be classified as something else.

I don't know but you and carepov are quite hostile in your approach in batting down organics. Almost like you two have an agenda.

[bleeding heart]

I don't know but you and carepov are quite hostile in your approach in batting down organics. Almost like you two have an agenda.

Wayward hasn't been here very long, but science and reason genuinely appear to be his "agenda," if we can call it that.

[segnosaur]

There are many things that increase the cost of food.

But those "other things that increase food costs" tend to have a real, tangible benefit.

For example, there may be costs associated with printing ingredients and/or nutritional values because those things do serve a practical purpose. (There are some people with food allergies and/or dietary restrictions that require that information.)

On the other hand, there is no benefit to labeling food as "GM-free" because in real, practical terms, it makes no difference to the end consumer. (i.e. there is no known harm that will come from eating a GM-produced tomato compared to a traditional or organically produced tomato). The only reason people would care is to their own personal paranoia, and I do not feel that I should have to pay more because of other people's lack of scientific knowledge.

If they deem it just as safe as natural products, then they should not have a problem with ingredient listings indicating just that.

Ummm... it was pointed out by another poster that printing the information would increase costs. Pretty much every company in the world would probably balk at spending money unnecessarily.

More people put more effort into choosing other items like a pair of shoes compared to what they put in their bodies.

That's probably because:

A: We have a ton of laws/regulations helping to mandate our food is safe, so there is no need to go through the trouble of making such decisions

What they make is different because of some or multiple benefit(s): safer, tastier, longer shelf-life, more nutritious, more efficient/cheaper to produce, less harmful to environment, etc...

Safer, not sure.

It could if it prevents any food-borne disease. (Not aware of any specific manipulations for that though.)

Tastier? No.

Longer shelf life? Yes.

Actually, the longer shelf life might make it tastier, given 2 similar items (one GM, the other organic) that are stored for similar periods of time. The non-GM product would end up spoiling (and tasting worse) sooner than the GM would.

More nutritious> No.

Actually some of the modifications actually do make food more nutritious.

More efficient? Depends on the scale.

Cheaper to produce? Depends on the scale.

Pretty much all food eaten by people in the western world is the result of large-scale farming, where GM would be cheaper.

Less harmful to the environment? No.

Actually yes it would be less harmful to the environment.

Longer shelf life means less spoilage/food waste. This ultimately means less farm land is required to grow the same amount of food. So less wilderness is plowed under for crops, fewer bunny rabbits with their homes turned into fields.