GMOs = The Smart Future of Food

The world makes enough food now to feed the world, and enough vitamin A to prevent deficiency blindness. What it lacks is the political will. I'd prefer GMOs that can produce a clean fuel from kudzu or turn spilled oil into shrimp food. Maybe some miracle organism could turn high fructose corn syrup into real food. Don't fuck with my beer.

Maybe that's what GMO Tobacco is for.

The GMO that I am finding interesting is cynobacteria that is modified to 'sweat' out sucrose. Proterro is currently conducting a prototype unit that is taking genetically modified blue green algae to produce straight sucrose. The projected cost of this is about 5 cents a pound, verses about 3 times that for corn sugar.This can be processed into ethanol, or another company came up with a process for turning sugar into gasoline.

How does the 'energy balance' work out? Does the process primarily use sunlight? Do we have to put in more energy from non renewable sources than we get out?

To produce the sugar , it's pure sunlight. Not quite sure how much energy is used to make the biofuelThis indicates that that issue is being worked onhttp://www.technologyreview.com/...s-on-bio-gasoline-startup

Ramoss observes: Maybe this is the way to store energy. Sugar.The world of the Plant Kingdom has been working on this problem for billions of years maybe....so they might have a good thing going?

"Super Bowl comes around, we all get to go."- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

While it seems that many of us do appear to be in favor of GMOs, the biggest complaint I think I have noticed is the current regulations and the fact that industry experts were involved in setting the standards for safety inspections of the products. As this is the case, I thought that we should look into exactly what the requirements are for a GM food to be approved in the United States and possibly see where individuals think the industry expert pushed regulations to be more in their favor then for safety:When attempting to get a GM food approved for sale within the United States, there is a process that must be followed to determine if the food is substantially equivalent to existing products on the market. This determination requires six-seven different steps (6 if not for animal feed, 7 if it will be used as feed). Ifa GM Food can be shown to be substantially equivalent to an existing food product, then the regulation of that GM product will follow similar rules to the existing product. However, three key components to showing substantial equivalence involve showing that there has not been any unexpected changes in toxins, nutrients, or allergens in the food product and that those that are present present the same antinutrients present in the existing food. According to the wiki: The policy beyond this in the United States has three main tenets involved in regulation of GM foods: Food products must be approved by both the USDA and APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) and can include additional approval from the FDA or EPA. The EPA reviews all cases of GM plants that contain a pesticide of any type. The FDA also offers a voluntary consultation service, which wiki states: Source: Wiki on Regulation of the Release of Genetically Modified OrganismsSo, with this process outlined, where are the areas that people feel the industry has been successful at blocking proper regulation? Personally, I definitely agree with the stance that only regulation based on verifiable, scientific risks will be tolerated. And I think that this statement would serve to deny mandatory labeling since it (at this time) would not be based on verifiable scientific risk.Another question I have is why Monsanto is the company that bears the brunt of individual's anger about this industry, when DuPont is actually a larger supplier in the seed industry? Or is Monsanto just the generic choice to apply to all BigAg companies?

How is his old employement a conflict of interest, strictly by definition? I could agree that it is a guaranteed conflict of interest if he were working at the FDA, while concordantly working for Monsanto. However, he worked first with a law firm that represented Monsanto in the 1980's. Then worked for the FDA starting in 1991, leaving in 1996. He worked for Monsanto for 16 months in the late 90's, began doing academic research in the 2000's and finally returned to the FDA in 2009. Are we supposed to assume that ever since he worked for this company they have had him consistently on the payroll? Or are individuals allowed to work for a company without a guarantee of them absorbing all the evil that supposedly comes long with it? If a company you worked for at some point in your past was thought to be doing nefarious deeds, yet you never were a participant, should your entire future career be clouded because you took a good paying job? I don't personally have the same values as my workplace, but according to your idea I would do my best to defend them even though my values differ. How is the place of employment the person? Source: Mike TaylorIs it...? Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto prior to them becoming a seed developing company in the 1970's yet you expect me to think that he has continued loyalty and that this absolutely necessitates a conflict of interest. Why? The main case that he is claimed to have decided was a decision of 6-2, he only wrote the majority opinion. He was not a deciding vote and the case did not even involve Monsanto, but Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Yes, there is a Bt Toxin, which has a shape that can attach to the stomach lining of two specific insects (with very slight overlap with the monarch butterfly). However, there have been tests done and submitted to peer-reviewed journals showing that there is not a danger to humans from consumption of this Bt Toxin corn. In fact, Bt Toxins are used in the organic farming industry as well, but as a spray pesticide rather than a part of the plant's genome. Plus, these poisons have been determined through testing to be safe for everything with a backbone. SourceSource

Main case eh?This seems pretty close to a strawman argument because Clarence has not recused himself in cases that certainly did involve Monsanto. The most important being Bowman v. Monsanto.Bowman v. Monsanto, a case in which a Monsanto paid attorney argued at the Supreme Court and which originated from a case involving Monsanto certainly involved Monsanto. Clarence Thomas had no business hearing, participating in the deliberations on, and voting in that case.Clarence also refused to recuse himself in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms. Breyer did recuse himself because his brother's lower Court decision was under review.The standard for recusal is not simply can Thomas be fair or whether he has been bribed, but whether or not his participation could reasonably be seen as a conflict of interest. He's way over that line on Monsanto's cases.

My fault, I meant main case as in the case where he actually wrote the decision. Correct, there have been other cases and they have involved Monsanto, but I still am not sure how Clarence Thomas' involvement could even reasonably be seen as a conflict of interest. He worked for Monsanto as a lawyer from 1976-1979, a total of three years. This was still prior to their entrance into the seed marketing and biotechnology arena. How is his involvement seen as any negative in Bowman, which was decided by a unanimous decision with a decision written by Justice Elena Kagan? Bowman admitted to breach of contract by saving seed to avoid purchasing it for an attempt at late season planting. Because late season planting is more risky, he did not want to buy the seed for a poor turnout. Breyer should definitely have done as he did and recused himself because of familial attachment to the previous decision. However, I am still not sure how 3 years of employment 35 years ago, prior to the company entering the biotechnology field constitutes even the reasonable assumption of conflict of interest. If that is reasonable, then one can assume that every person who has ever worked for any company shares the values and standards of the company, which is absurd. I currently work for my company and I do not share the values and standards of this place, but I work because I must. Perhaps you could explain how three years of work for a company 35 years ago is a reasonable reason for people to assume collusion, especially considering the overwhelming abundance of justices on the side of Monsanto in these cases:Pioneer Hi-Bred International v. JEM Ag Supply, Inc. - Decision 6-2
Monsanto v Bowman - Unanimous
Monsanto v Geertson Seed Farms - 7-1Maybe I am just not understanding how it is reasonable to assume that three years of employment present a reasonable thought of conflict of interest, perhaps you could clarify this...ABE - References:
Source: Bowman v Monsanto; Supreme CourtSource: Wiki on Clarence ThomasSource: Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed FarmsSource: JEM Ag Supply, Inc v. Pioneer Hi-Bred InternationalEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Seriously? Are you complaining that people aren't trashing Dupont badly enough? I suppose it is true that Dupont should be just as much a villain as Monsanto for people on that side of things.But none of that is any defense of Monsanto. Monsanto's behavior has been particularly, and spectacularly egregious. I cannot believe you are still picking this fight. The reason that Monsanto is such a large part of this thread is because of your excuse making on their behalf. (e.g. "it isn't the plaintiff suing for infringement that's wrong, it's the patent system") If you at least tried to be balanced, and I mean before the complaints of other posters put you on the spot, perhaps this discussion could get off on a better footing.It might also be that Monsanto's main interest is selling more Monsanto chemicals.The complaints about the testing is that it is insufficient, and concentrated on the short term. Also that issues regarding biodiversity are not addressed. Issues regarding the evolution of pesticide resistant bugs are not addressed.And anyone who tells you that some chemical is absolutely safe in combination with whatever else is out there is overstating the case. Even safe to all vertebrates is not good enough, because our environment requires butterflies, bees, spiders and all kinds of other critters in order to work properly.

You seem to make a lot of statements shaded to favor Monsanto. I have to admit that this one irked me a bit. Clarence Thomas's participation was bad because it undercuts trust in the judicial system. It contributes to the impression that the court is in the pocket of corporations. It is bad enough that the public sees the court as partisan and almost as politically polarized as the electorate.Supreme Court Justices, and all judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. It is not like Clarence has worked for 50 different companies. His arrogance is such that he cannot even recuse himself from two or three cases when it does not even matter to the outcome. And it's not like he's going to say anything insightful, or anything at all for that matter, at the oral hearing. He rarely even speaks.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, it is not a defense of Monsanto, nor have I tried to defend Monsanto, outside of asking people to look beyond the company to what they actually do and the products they release. If a corporation is using the current standards of law to protect themselves, while I can be anti-corporation, I have to agree that the rule of law was followed.Not one instance that has been put forth of Monsanto's egregious behavior has been substantiated, rather you say, "Well, they acted within the law, but the law should be changed." That is wonderful but until the law is changed, they are acting in accordance with it, correct?I have agreed that they have created products that were not safe, but that it wasn't regulation but testing by the company that caused them to abandon the project. No one has given me any viable proof that any of their approved products have been determined to be unsafe, there is just the constant attacking of the company, not the products. Finally, you say I do not change opinion until backed into a corner, but in the OP I even mentioned I do not like the aggressiveness of Monsanto and that because the business side offers many areas where I do not agree with the company, I wanted to focus on the products the company makes. I would not be surprised to find that their chemicals are their primary motivation in sales, although with their main product (Round-up) having the patent run out, it is important to remember that any company can produce glyphosate now, not only Monsanto. In regards to this, I would appreciate some evidence that this is actually the case. I have ehard the complaint that they are all short-term, but there have also been long-term studies, especially ones that attempted to recreate what Seralini had said would be the case from Bt Corn in rats, which was not replicatible. According to an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology: The results from these tests showed slight differences, but these differences fell within the range of normal parameters. These were long-term studies that included multiple yers and multiple generations. These results still show the safety and efficacy of these products. Also, I mentioned that the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) conducted an extended two year study of all available resources and have determiend that there is no increased risk of adverse health effects Source 1
Source 2However, this is incorrect. A plant's ability to affect Biodiversity is something that is tested for prior to approval, which includes a few different tests that must be performed, including tests to show: SourceThese are other topics that are also being researched on these products by academia. SourceSo, these complaints are areas that are already being addressed and the current scientific standing is that the danger is minimal, or comparative to other types of foods for pests to develop resistance. At the levels we are seeing with products that have been on the market for almost eight years to only have four cases of pest resistance be seen is a pretty good benchmark at this time. Funnily enough, no one from the Pro side has ever told me that they will be absolutely safe. These are the individuals who have told me about the failed crops and why they failed. And these products are tested against non-target species, so the danger to other creatures within the biosphere is known for these products, such as the minimal risk with the Monarch butterfly. Unless you have some evidence of an outbreak of Bt poisoning in non-target species?

Then this is a lack of understanding on the extent they claim "appearance" of conflict of interest on my part. I do not personally hold jobs people have had over a long career for a minimal portion of their total career as evidence of conflict of interest. However, if the Supreme Court is to err on the side of caution, then yes, Thomas should recuse himself from any further Monsanto(Or any of BigAg) cases and should have done so before. The difficulty I was having in this point is that it does not even seem reasonable to have a conflict of interest when it is in regards to a product they did not even sell, or participate in the making of, at the time he worked there. However, if it is supposed to be blanket coverage to avoid any murmurings, then I agree Thomas was in the wrong.