GMO OMG the movie - Who controls the future of your food?

Hello Lisa,

So is old age, and for sure if you live long enough, something is going to kill you.
Ernie

Just meant to point out that "Mother Nature" makes some poisonous things too. Many times I've seen all natural used to imply that something is safer. This is a great example of that not being so...: )

Lisa,
I was just having fun with you, i pretty much understood what you meant.

It will soon be tomato tiime again so i will put to use everything you and the others taught me a few years ago about growning them.

Ernie

Thanks for everyone sharing their personal experiences. Most of the pesticides that we use now a days are much safer than the ones used previously. Of course we should still be careful with all of them.

But this fear that people have of them is probably much more dangerous to our health then the actual chemicals them selves. That would be an interesting study on life expectancies for chemophobes vs those who arent.

It is correct that some of the most toxic things on this earth are "natural". And to think that natural is always better...is a farce.

Glyphosate and many herbicides may not be perfect...but they sure are a lot better than what was used previously.

The same goes for GMO's. Weighing all the pros and cons there are more pros compared to the alternatives. I'd like to compare the benefits of GMO's to the benefits of wearing seat belts in cars. Seat bealts save lives. The reduction of pesticides by using GMO crops reduces worker exposures significantly and saves lives. Using GMO's makes as much sense to me as wearing a seatbelt. Its just a better way.

Of course you will always find a study that tells you how the seatbelt causes bruising...they just never explain what would have happened if you werent wearing one...ok I'm being silly again...maybe its all this snow!

Seems around here anytime there is a car roll over, some flies out & is rolled on by the car, if not wearing seatbelt.

Ernie, that time has arrived here also,but if it doesn't warm up and/or get sunny I'm going to stay in hibernation! I don't remember a winter like this since I moved to Tx 20+ yrs ago.

Another article about GMO foods and labeling, to return to our regular programming:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/opinion/schubert-gmo-labeling/index.html

>> Most of the pesticides that we use now a days are much safer than the ones used previously.

I'm glad someone is repeating the most important fact. I think it's an uncontested fact.

Some old Insecticides were really nasty neurotoxins (organophosphates). Replacing some or all of those with Bt genes is a huge improvement for human toxicity, both farm workers and consumers, and farm animal toxicity, since SOME insecticide residue must linger, and other residue washes off into ground water or evaporates into the atmosphere.

Even speculating that Bt or RuR genes may transfer "horizontally" into something elese is a lesser danger than the certainty that insecticides and pesticides were killing birds and beneficial insects wholesale, and were certainly present in ground ater.

I'm not sure what the worst old-fashioned herbicides were (but arsenic is pretty bad and very persistent). And glyphosphate is pretty benign.

I guess in principle the idea that RoundUp Ready crops COULD enable a farmer to spray with much more RU than he needed, but I'm pretty sure that residue from a double or triple dose of RU is still less toxic to humans than residue from the traditional cocktail of many different herbicides sprayed at many different times.

BTW, my science fiction-like speculations that plasmid-injected DNA "might" be more mobile than other DNA was pure speculation. And the only thing that made that speculation even interesting was the fact that some of the DNA being swapped around was transgenic (from species other than the crop plant's own species). I think that's the "scariest" part of first-generation genetic engineering. Pulling genes out of bacteria or animals and injecting them into a plants genome and then mono-cropping that plant over square miles ... if you agree with the old margarine commercial that warned "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature", that transgenic aspect was food for thought.

I'm working on a post about some new GE tools, "Talens" and "Crispr". They give greatly improved control over WHERE changed DNA is inserted into a plant's genome, which makes it practical to tweak existing genes rather than slam in genes from entirely different species. They would also eliminate dependence on Agrobacterium plasmids and their speculative "spare luggage" DNA.

Once again, let me say that this has been a very interesting thread. Thanks to you all, especially Rick_Corey and drobarr for their valuable inputs, research, and such. Here are my conclusions at this point. First, let me say that I am still “creeped out” (irrationally) by some of the wider, inter-species crosses being done. I also feel very confident that some genes will “leak” into the larger environment and cause unintended consequences. Of course, those folks engaged in GMO activity know this better than I and they are certainly working to minimize this possibility. Let me say clearly that I am not predicting catastrophe here. I am simply stating that, as with everything we do, there will be unintended consequences. They will not destroy the earth. I am not worried about the consequences of eating GMO foods. The risk there seems vanishingly small. I am very confident that the companies and Government agencies involved in GMO development testing would not let a potentially damaging or dangerous product onto the market. Folks concerned about “greedy profit-mongering corporations” willingly and knowingly killing or sickening people need to get a grip—and an education.

Here is a link to a document that contains the Mark Lynas GMO talk that was mentioned early in this thread. Interesting food for thought: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/.

I am still waiting for “Mendel in the Kitchen”, but, based on what I've read to date, I have concluded that there is no legitimate case against GMOs beyond being concerned about the possibility that something unexpected might crop up in the future. The anti-GMO stuff I've read to date is almost uniformly non-scientific, non-factual, sometimes minimally factual, and occasionally hysterical. If someone knows of a rational anti-GMO book, I'd love to read it. The anti-GMO side reminds me a lot of young-earth creationists (or rabid political partisans); there ain't no amount of facts gonna change their minds. By the way, the reason it's taken the library so long to get “Mendel” to me is that the library's copy has turned out to be “missing”. Pardon me for suspecting an anti-GMO proponent caused the book to go missing. :«) Anyway, Amazon will deliver the book tomorrow.

None of what I've said above is meant to criticize people who are cautious and wary about GMOs. As I've indicated, I have concerns too. In the meantime, something else good has come out of this discussion. I'm going to look into seeing if I can learn to Yoga-fly.

Willy, doesn't the fact that so many European and South American countries are concerned about GMOs and regulate their use suggest that perhaps there are some issues that we're not facing here? It seems to me that there's a lot of science that indicates that further research is necessary before we give GMOs the green light. But certainly if you've read this thread you're entitled to draw your own conclusions from it. They're obviously just different from mine! Anyway, thanks for chiming in.

GG,
The main reason most countries that i have spent time in or had an interest in products, usually put up barriers to imports to protect their own farmers or producers, not the health of their citizens.

New Zealand is terrible about that, as well as Japan,[remember the apple embargo} and Greece that i happen to know of.

When you see the highways of France blocked by tractors from small, inefficient farmers, you can understand why the Politicians try to blocklower cost imports, and because of the trade treaties they must find some back door reason for doing so,

I doubt very much if any country has more concern for their citizens than our country has.

Ernie

Well said Ernie.

>> First, let me say that I am still “creeped out” (irrationally) by some of the wider, inter-species crosses being done. I also feel very confident that some genes will “leak” into the larger environment and cause unintended consequences. ... Let me say clearly that I am not predicting catastrophe here. ... I am not worried about the consequences of eating GMO foods.

I'm with you completely there, Willy. Hopefully the Talens and Crispr tool kits will permit GE to go forward with less alarming changes to plant genomes.

However, when it comes to trusting corporations, I trust them to look after their profits and their stockholders, and to protect senior officers from going to jail. Some companies may also take ethical considerations under review, but MHO is that most of those companies will only be looking for ways to maintain good PR.

I hope you're right about that and I'm wrong!

I look at certain bad apples and extrapolate: tobacco companies, Enron (gross accounting fraud), British Petroleum (history of many gross safety violations leading up to a mega oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico) and JPMorgan (mortgage fraud, subprime mortgage trading leading to a global recession and massive bonuses for the responsible parties).

The following is based on rumors that we all believed where I used to work for a chemical company. Once regulations tightened up on dumping toxic waste, some companies put their toxic waste into tank trucks and drove them around on highways with the drain valve cracked slightly open. When they got to the disposal sites, it was pretty inexpensive to detoxify since it was empty.

Hopefully, average companies don't cross the ethical line as far as those examples, but I put not my faith in the profit motive, when it comes to "save the earth" or "feed the poor". The plant I worked at dumped acid and carcinogens into a river until forced to filter and treat them. And they continued to dump things that regulators were not looking for.

Why it is that I mostly trust researchers until they prove that they're sleazy and play word games, but DON'T trust corporations until they do something responsible that they weren't forced to do?

I guess because I worked for a bunch of researchers who wouldn't fudge anything, and their income and promotions did not depend on beating the profit margin of someone who WOULD cheat and sleaze wherever he could get away with it.

Two experienced, well-to-do New Jersey realtors truly did not seem to understand the word "ethical". They explained that they were sure the thing was LEGAL. We tried to explain to them that some things might be considered LEGAL but were still unethical. They looked at us like we were crazy. They had not even been exposed to that concept enough to recognize it. They truly thought that "ethical" meant nothing more than "legal". And in practice, from other conversations, they knew and cared most about exactly what could be gotten away with than what was legal.

They must have looked "ethical" up that night or asked someone, because the next day they kept using that word as if it were a new and amusing toy. It was clearly a novelty to them.

That set a tone for me to expect from business people in competitive markets. Who gets promoted? The one who makes the most profit without important people going to jail.

I was thus inclined to believe an NPR reporter who went to check out a business school, and rode the bus listening to conversations. Allegedly he heard this:

"Hey, whatcha got there? That book says "Business Ethics". What's that?"
"Unnhh ... sometimes ya gotta do bad stuff. But ya should think about it."

I'm sure that the CEOs or VPs who made decisions that poisoned people and the Gulf of Mexico, threw the global economy into a serious recession, stole retirement funds from seniors, caused millions of lung cancers and heart attacks and emphysema had some QUALMS along the way. But they got over those qualms and did what got them the most bonuses and promotions - anything that increased profits without arrests.

This may be a philosophical difference of opinion, or something unprovable. I don't claim to be able to prove it, or even persuade someone disinclined to think it.

And I would not have laughed at the idea of a compassionate large company 30 years ago, or one with ENLIGHTENED self-interest ... 30 years ago.

But despite the recent specious claim that "corporations are people my friend", I agree with Baron Thurlow: "They have no soul". And they reward soulless behavior among decision-makers, and punish anyone on Mahogany Row who lets it be known that they would ever put people ahead of profit ... or anywhere near the same importance.

The last 20-30 years have convinced me that many business leaders must be closet Social Darwinists, and if there was profit and bonuses in it, would be willing to see poor people starve and die from lack of basic medical care as a result of corporate decisions, as long as the finger was not pointed too clearly at them ... in a court of law, perhaps.

I guess the point where I back away from "Occupy Wall Street" is where they claim that everyone (including corporations) is responsible for taking care of fellow human beings. I'm not sure that is a proper use of governmental power: enforcing charity or good will.

But I would like to see high-functioning sociopaths in the board room recognized as worse dangers to society than less-well-educated sociopaths in dark alleys.

Yikes! I forgot to mention greenhouse_gal's contributions. So sorry.

Of course I don't agree at all, Ernie and Bernie, but that's an argument for a different thread...

This message was edited Feb 4, 2014 8:38 PM

I guess I don't put any faith in government actions--at least in terms of interpreting them as being sensible. GMOs have caused a lot of ruckus and European governments have acted to appease the population, not necessarily because there are real risks. As for South American governments, I have no trust in some of them period. Venezuela, Argentina...those countries are different worlds. I have seen Europe in particular back away from nuclear power since Fukushima and most countries in general have put nuclear on the back burner for decades in response to popular opposition. I know a fair amount about the subject and I am certain that anti-nuclear opinion is largely founded on ignorance and hysteria (the China Syndrome). Just because a government opposes something doesn't mean they oppose it sensibly. Sorry, not trying to turn this into a debate on nuclear energy--just trying to make a point.

As for my faith in corporations, perhaps I wasn't too clear. I have no more faith in corporations than I do in politicians. Corporations certainly do--and really should--place a high degree of emphasis on being profitable. If a business loses money, it doesn't last long. That's true of non-profits as well. I just don't think most people in corporations would stand for blatant manipulation of facts just to sell a product. Not to support Mitt Romney's idea too much, but corporations are indeed composed of people--people just like you and me. A "conspiracy" like that would be too large to contain. Also, does anyone really think Monsanto or whomever would knowingly release a product that would kill or harm people? The threat of lawsuits alone would prevent the unethical from knowingly doing that.

Here's a thought that struck me recently while reading a pamphlet from our local co-op. The pamphlet described the profit sharing amongst co-op members (folks who gave money to get the co-op off the ground). I realized then that the co-op structure was pretty much the same structure as a typical corporation--shareholders and all.

Again I would agree with you about governments doing things that appeal to people, instead of appealing to reason.

If I trusted corporations more, I would agree with you about nuclear power. The danger is not in the science or the technology, it's in the boardroom.

I knew one guy who worked in the nuclear Navy, then tried to transition to civilian nuclear power (many years ago). What he saw there shocked him into a career change instead of trying to blow whistles. He might have been TOO safety-conscious for some people, since the Navy didn't have to show a profit.

>> Corporations certainly do--and really should--place a high degree of emphasis on being profitable. If a business loses money, it doesn't last long. That's true of non-profits as well.

I'm with you there. Good point about non-profits ... I guess governments can go deeper into the red, and longer, than corporations, (the debt turns into circulating capital) but going TOO far causes toxic inflation.

>> but corporations are indeed composed of people--people just like you and me. A "conspiracy" like that would be too large to contain. Also, does anyone really think Monsanto or whomever would knowingly release a product that would kill or harm people?

Unfortunately, we diverge there. Yes, even the board room boys are "people", but much more driven and ambitious people than I am.

Normal people are very prone to believing what's convenient, and almost everything we've discussed is subject to opinion and debate. No VP would vote to put ground glass into baby food.
Probably few would even if they could get away with it.

But look how many tobacco executives (all of them) "believed" studies that were obvious falsehoods until the government forced them to print warning labels.

>> would knowingly release a product that would kill or harm people?

I have to answer based on the historical evidence: yes they would until forced to believe evidence SO overwhelming that not even lobbyists could convince legislators to deny it.

That's more cynical than I LIKE to sound, but it is how cynical I am. I wasn't 30 years ago! But I do think that the moral sea level has gone down in the last 30 years, at least if measured around big businesses or near election time.

Maybe I could honestly back off this much: no corporation will market a product where people drop dead while still clutching the open box in their cooling hands.

But if it takes 5-10 years to cause hair to fall out of 10% of users, won't there be company flacks arguing that "the science isn't in yet", and "bald mice don't mean bald people" to recover their investment before FORCED to take it off the market and pay for people's wigs?

As the evidence gets clearer and clearer, more people will change their opinion. The second-to-last people to change will be those with prestige and careers invested in the untruth.

The very last people to change will be those with a world view and ideology invested in the falsehood.


P.S. I'm not saying that "GMOs gonna kill you" ... just that no part of what I believe about them came from a Monsanto press release. Just as I've learned not to believe anything I read in ISIS unless corroborated by a reliable source.

I would even go farther than "GMOs are better for you than pesticide residue from highly toxic pesticides".

I would say that the last 15 years of testing and experience almost prove that there's no discernible or plausible human toxicity from the GMO-derived ingredients common so far, and farm animals fed mostly GMO fodder have either no ill effects or effects so difficult to discern that there are at most ambiguous hints.

But every new crop will be different, and feeding whole GMO corn, apples, salmon, papaya etc. directly to humans might be interesting 15 years after it becomes widespread. I would give 50-1 odds that there will be little or no human toxicity and 100-1 odds that there will be no obvious or provable human toxicity, unless we get sloppy about reviewing what is released for consumption, or stupid.

For example, apples that can't turn brown no mater how old they are? Maybe we'll learn a little about the human effects of eating really old, over-age rotten apples that LOOK fresh!

And salmon that produce their own antibiotics so they can be farmed in ever-denser, less healthy conditions? Let's keep an eye on how unhealthy salmon are when farmed so densely that they NEED constant doses of antibiotics just to prevent die-offs.

Not every product of a power tool is a good idea, even if you don't drop dead shortly after taking it out of a package.

And I wish the potential of GE WOULD be directed at the fact that world population is still rising, not just at cosmetic marketing factors and profit margins of producing rich-country foods.

I don't expect the profit motive to drive that. I expect the profit motive to draw cheers and applause about rising "bottom lines" until rising sea levels and starving hordes (or whatever) come flooding through the doors of the board room.

I think it highly unfair to try and blame CEOs and Corporations for any large problems this country may have. Highly unfair! Corporations are people, and that is where the blame should fall. The man who drove the truck, the guy who turned the valve to let the contaminates leak out, was he a CEO? All the people who assumed such actions were happening? What actions did they take, the inspectors why did they fail? The truck driver did not want to lose his job, the employees did not want to lose their jobs, the politicians do not want to lose their jobs, and the CEO does not want to lose his job, and the American people who have their retirement and investments in Corporations insist that the companies make a profit or that the management be fired. I have discovered that almost everyone's beliefs, their politics, their willingness to help society is directly tired to their source of income, follow the money! That holds true from the Top all the way down to the lowest level, yes it is the fault of all of us our country is in the state it is in, from our government to our Corporations. I read a story about a doctor who removed I think gall bladders for a living, after doing this for years and years it ended up he removed everyone of his patients gall bladders, he had become convinced that all gall bladders were bad and should be removed. Follow the money!

You're probably right to include everyone in the blame chain. CEOs, employees, stockholders and politicians. Even the propagandizing "journalists" who infuriate me so much.

Everyone wants to keep their job and tends to believe things that make that comfortable for them.

I knew a really smart young woman, but she lived in the Connecticut River valley, in the middle of tobacco country. She plain did NOT believe there was ANY health risk in tobacco. Other than that, she was intelligent and well-informed. Is that the money, or ideology? Both?

I take it as an example of belief being influenced by emotions. Are we rational creatures, or rationalizing creatures?

Let me add a few people to the blame chain, now that you've pointed out, in effect, that "We have met the enemy and they is us."

Consumers who want all fruit to look like the most gorgeous fruit that ever came off a tree.

Consumers who always buy the cheapest product, but would try to legislate quality.

Anyone who wants the government to do anything, but also tries to minimize their taxes (i.e., "everyone").

(I would add "people who support corporate subsidies but oppose food stamps", but I know that gets into party politics.)

new thread for slow dial-uppers?

Here you go, bluespiral. Good suggestion.

http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1349529/