GMOs = The Smart Future of Food

Does software make little baby softwares as part of it's functioning? That's really the difference. Yes we can copy software if we decide to, but we don't need to make copies other than those that are explicitly allowed by law, just to use the software. Perhaps that is something you should do before telling us that the anti-Monsanto stories are overblown. I'm willing to listen, but I'm not going to be convinced by stuff you find on Monsanto's web page. Uh no. Do some homework.Order 81, among other things required Iraq to become a fully function member of the WTO including adopting the IP laws and requirements. It also banned seed saving without requiring Iraqi patents to enforce the requirement.Consider the US's own history as a brand new country. Most of the stuff being printed in the US was copyrighted stuff that the US could print with impunity because they could ignore British copyrights. Over time, as US industry developed, the US adopted a more modern version of copyright to protect their own artists.That is the kind of natural growth is a process many developing countries go through. India decided based on it's own interests when it was time to allow pharmaceutical patents. It was at a time when their own industries need for protection and the benefit of being a WTO member outweigh the benefits from just copying stuff that is unprotected in their own country.And that's how things should have been left for Iraq. Instead, the deck was stacked for US Companies because they are the ones with the technology to protect regardless of whether it benefits Iraq. Spoils of war I guess.

As GMOs are currently listed as safe within the academic research, what should one say about a large company using scare tactics to convince people they are cruel to their families by feeding them GMOs, therefore increasing the overall market segment of the organic industry? Assuming for the sake of debate that monsanto was correct, the independent studies were correct (basically, current science is correct) and GMOs are safe, then isn't a comparison of the ethics of the two large companies equal? One ethically has issues with being super over protective, while the other has issues with being deceitful to increase sales. I feel that is an apt comparison of two large companies and how ethics are kinda skewed in both.

That would be Monsanto's view, yes. And of course their right was vindicated in court. Yet before the court decision the idea that the offspring of protected plants was protectable by patent law rather than by the contractural arrangement that bound farmers who bought the seed was not settled law. And even now that it is settled, we can question whether that settlement was correct or in everyone's best interest.How would you feel if Samsung came to your house and confiscated your TV based on an agreement they had made with Walmart about some component in your television, a television you had purchased second hand from me?Well have no fear because patent law does not allow that. Samsung is stuck with chasing after Walmart not you. But that is not how things work for Monsanto and their seed.

Just a quick aside on this point, I used one resource from Monsanto's web page and it was information on the number of court cases, not any information on the details of those case. For any of that I have gone outside of Monsanto. For all planting information and food safety information, I have been using the independent studies section on biofortified.org and I am discussing with farmers that argue for GMOs for information regarding the increase in cost to a farmer which labeling would cause. It's not in the labels themselves, but the infrastructure for storing the grains, which would need to be separated now. Monsanto is not responsible for installing any of that infrastructure to maintain separation.ABE - Also, could you post some links to where you are getting this Iraq information from? I am reading multiple conflicting reports on this topic both from what appear to be trustworthy sources. I get claiming I am not doing my homework, we are used to arguing on EVC where many creationists do not. However, I am finding information that says seed saving is allowable...some where it says it is not, some where it says Order 81 is beneficial and others where it is not. I would like to compare some of the info I have found with what you are discussing.As for the suicides in India, please explain how me giving you a reference discussing the lack of public funds to be loaned to poor farmers and how they are subsequently forced to take private loans with exorbitant interest rates was me not doing my homework?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

I understand. And I did not mean the remark quite that literally. The point is that the story is nuanced and you seem not to have found much that is not pro-Monsanto. Maybe that's just advocacy and it is my job to come up with the other stuff. Butt I did not really see you post any details of court cases, just a summary statement of the number of people Monsanto had sued, and a brief statement about the Canadian case that sounded like straight Monsanto PR. I would suggest getting a copy of the order and paying attention to the discussion you find online that actually references the order. My general impression is that the extreme pro order 81 side never provides any detailed discussion of the order.What ought to be obvious though, is that the people who say it is just about seed rights woefully understate the truth. And when people say it is beneficial, well yeah, strong intellectual property rights are beneficial for developed countries, and Iraq should aspire to be such a country. But they aren't there yet. Is that the issue to which I addressed my remark about homework? My recollection is that I told you to do homework on Order 81 and that you yourself acknowledged in a prior post that you needed to do homework on the situation of people in India. That impression seems to be confirmed on my re-reading of message 16.Look, I don't know the entire story about GMO stuff, and the story does not begin and end with Monsanto. But telling one sided stories about Monsanto is not all that persuasive to me anyway. It should not be necessary to do that. I look at this as a matter of free speech. I want to label stuff I grow in my backyards as no-GMO, no pesticide, 100% tested and free of hoof and mouth, and then I hear you complain that doing so makes things difficult for you. Why should I be all that concerned about your infrastructure when you don't give a hoot about my concerns or the concerns of people who want to buy my stuff instead of yours?ABE;In reviewing my message 16, I believe you are objecting to this: This remark was addressed comments you had made before you posted what you knew about suicides in India. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So where was the comparison of Whole Foods and Monsanto. All I saw in your message was complaints about the unfairness of complaining about Monsanto being large and observing that Whole Foods was of similar size. Why should I assume Monsanto is correct? Isn't that what we are supposed to be debating? Have you pointed out something that Whole Foods has been deceitful about?

You'll forgive me for not engaging in the fine grain exchange of quotes and responses. It's just too much damn work.I called the Penn & Teller thing on organics irrelevant because organics are irrelevant to this discussion. What would the logic even be: that organic produce can't prove any nutritional edge, so whatever chemical treatment we give your spud is okay?So having called their thing irrelevant, I was surprised when you suggested I'd attacked the source. Perhaps I was unclear: irrelevant due to content, not source.I think people who believe that big corporations don't have their best interests at heart are right, whatever else they think about GMOs. And I don't see why shopping at a big business whose products and policies you admire makes criticizing a big business you deplore contradictory.I think it's been a long time since an absolute lack of food was the primary cause of most starvation.If GMOs are the best thing since sliced bread, it shouldn't be so hard to sell them to the public. Many people have moral or religious or icky concerns about unwitting consumption, whatever science says about how safe it is; people whose organic fields were pollinated by Monsanto's GMO fields chose their way of life for philosophical reasons, whatever Bullshit thinks about them. Some people aren't sure yet and would rather watch and wait. Forcing all those people--and any other people who care--to consume anything by prohibiting an otherwise free and legal choice to do otherwise is simply wrong.Personally, I think the future will eventually be brilliant for GMOs. How and how fast that should happen are separate questions.

I do not mean to sound like I am coming from Monsanto PR, especially because I am in agreement that the business practices, the patent laws, and other legal issues in this area of business should be looked into in depth and studied. That being said, I do agree that many instances have been willful theft by the accused (Just seems like human nature to have a few bad seeds, forgive the pun). However, I will not state how many of the total cases.If I seem particularly Pro-Monsanto, it is mainly because I am Pro-GMO and biotechnology. I find the safety has reached a particular level of concensus and that the food has largely proven to be safe. I find the removal of crops from areas where they could only benefit, such as East Asia with Golden Rice, through ignoring the science to be a bad move for humanity's future. That was why I would have preferred that we focused on the safety issues of the tech, rather than the company names. However, I do think that the legal issues are a good discussion as well and I think we will all learn more from them, so let us allow those topics as well and continue this line of discussion. Now, in the legal arena I am not Pro-Monsanto, but I do feel that they are due some sort of protection to recoup losses from R&D. Let's face it, they do put millions of dollars into R&D in order to develop a new product for the market, which includes submitting it for approval through the FDA. However, I would place a much shorter limit on the length of protection for these products, after which multiple breeders can compete in the marketplace. Perhaps a limit of five growing seasons, but I would think looking into profit raised from a new development versus amount of cost that goes into development could raise some light on how long the term should be. But, is this a mistake of Monsanto, or is it a failing of the entire process of trying to set Iraq up as a developed country, instead of as a developing country? From my understanding, Monsanto is not making any money off GMOs in Iraq because while the IP rights are protected under Order 81, GMOs are still illegal to grow in Iraq. SourceAgreed that we need to avoid one sided stories, but if the science on the benefits of GMOs is reaching a consensus, we should move past that argument and begin working on the other intricacies that this new technology brings us. The problem I am against is those that are completely against GMOs and feel they are terrible for humanity when a bulk of the evidence points otherwise. In evaluating resources, I will admit, that once someone has knowingly presented false facts, it creates a slight bias that makes me read their information more carefuly. In the case of Vandana Shiva's article, she makes statements that are blatantly false, such as claiming that local seed does not require pesticides, while GMO seed does. Then places the blame for the suicides in India on the GMOs and Monsanto. If the bases that she is resting her conclusion on are false, and many are in her case, then it stands to reason that the conclusion is not logically sounds. India has a lot of problems with their agriculture system, but GMOs are not initiator of the problems. SourceI don't think Myself, anyone, or even Monsanto is concerned if you want to label crops that you grow in your own backyard. The labeling that they are against is the mandatory federal and state labeling for products containing GMOs. These are also the labeling laws that I am against because there is no nutritional or health based reason, in the scientific literature for approved products, that justifies this declaration. This is what I am discussing when I say that labeling will lead to an increased cost on the farmer, rather than Monsanto because Monsanto will not be th one responsible for installing the grain silos and other infrastructure needed to house separated grains. I found the article I was talking about that discussed the labeling issue from a farmer's perspective: The Foodie Farmer: The Cost of GMO LabelingBecause there is no health reasons, if any food should wish to be differentiated it should fall onto the providors of that food type, not the overall market to bow to their wishes when they are not based on science. Otherwise, why is there not a push to require that all foods be labeled non-kosher? That is another category that does not have health or nutrition implications and labeling of that product is voluntary to the corporation or farm, not forced.

I think they are deceitful in their ability to continue to press the controversy, similar to how the climate change denialists are deceitful because they want to keep that debate going. By keeping the debate going, they continue the fearful image of the "Frankenfood", which increases their business. I am all for increasing your business through smart advertising, but not through manufacturing a controversy where one does not exist. I don't like how the oil companies do it with climate change either.Of the crops that have been approved for cultivation in at least one country, the only report I am ever pointed to from the anti-GMO crowd is the Seralini study: SourceHowever, this study has never been replicated because of the small sample size used. Seralini used groups of ten rats, with a species that has cancer occur by the age of 2 in 70-80% of the population and then tried to claim that it was the GM Corn that was responsible. There was no statistical significance to these results and the paper has since been retracted from the journal. I have read several of the papers listed on the biofortified.org site and they do not conclude a similar issue with GMOs and these results are verified. Asking for testable, repeatable results is something that we should ask for and Seralini was not able to do so. The fact that his study is still used as "evidence" by anti-GMO groups shows similar underpinnings to the arguments made in our evolution threads and should be treated with skepticism. Monsanto does publish their research and it is available for individuals to pore over, and the resounding stance of the scientific community is the safety of these products. As a non-scientist I must do my best to understand the papers and trust in the judgment of individuals who are trained in the respective fields. I have read the results of the Flavr Savr tomato and those were not good results, which is why this product is not grown, same as the low tar tobacco.

Understandable, I just like my message to look all multi-colored and purdy, so that's why I do it. And that argument would be a strawman of what I am claiming or that they are. They are fine with individuals who want to live a gluten-free life or pesticide free, or GMO free. Where they draw the line is making up Bullshit (hence the name of the show) claims of increased nutrition, better environmental impact, less pesticides in order to increase the profits of your product. Americans be dumb!!!!! You give them a little reason to think that buying organic is healthier and they would love to! However, the premise is not based on truth and that is deceitful. Tell them the truth about organics, it is grown with natural pesticides, natural weed killer, and without the aid of chemical fertilizers. If people want natural, more power to them. Just don't tell them they are going to get better health benefits because of it because that is not shown by the current scientific literature. Again, Penn and Teller go to extreme level of hyperbole because that helps it comedically. My fault for not connecting it better to my point. I was using it as a hyperbolic way to show how lying about the benefits and manufacturing a scientific controversy where one does not exist to increase sales is not ethical business practices. A product should stand or fall on its actual merits. It is the manufactured controversy that causes this though. If you choose Whole Foods over a regular grocery store because you deplore Monsanto's business practices, fine. If you can't stand globalization and want countries to develop at their own pace instead of Americanization so you refuse to help global corporations, fine. However, if you are tricked into going into these places by false information, not based upon the bulk of scientific research, and hating Monsanto for creating "FrankenFoods", then you should have an issue because your reasoning for hating the company is based on false reasoning and you have been tricked for your dollar, as far as evidence has suggested. If Climate change were really happening, it wouldn't be that hard to sell it to the public. However, the scientific consensus states that it is. So should we rely on how difficult it is to sell to the public or what the scientific community, especially closely related to that field, states about the topic and try our best to read the papers for understanding? When it comes to labeling products, I am all for optional labeling of natural foods and organics. If a company is organic and does not care to have that associated with them they can opt out of the label. No label, assume a GMO is in the product at some point down the line. When science has a consensus that there is no danger, then we should not force mandatory labeling for non-health reasons, especially when that will increase the cost of production not on the seed sellers (Monsanto, but on the farmers. I agree, it will be a great benefit to our society! I am hopeful that the Golden Rice will get past GreenPeace's block and finally begin to help those in need of Vitamin A.

Certainly, the anti-GMO crowd can be a very silly bunch, and they are often ruled more by fear of the unknown than by anything else. However, the pro-GMO crowd is prone to overstating their case about the safety and ecological soundness of their products.For example, the papers in the GENERA database deal with a wide variety of different GMO’s. Most of these papers report one test against one species of animals with one type of GMO. And, most of them don’t even deal with GMO’s that were eventually turned into commercial products. When you consider that labs around the world have been producing many thousands of GMO’s over the past few decades, the number of papers calling them safe doesn’t seem so big anymore.Additionally, there are a lot of behind-the-scenes problems with the regulatory apparatus. Independent studies often are not actually independent: while the specific project may not have been funded by industry, the lab’s other operations often are. The agrochemical companies are the leading donors to many of the regulatory agencies, like the EPA and FDA. Even the USDA, where much of the independent funding for this type of research comes from, depends on large donations from Monsanto. Monsanto is also the leading donor to the major scientific societies, such as the Entomological Society of America, and has a lot of influence over officer elections, journal editorships and things like that.It gets worse though. For transgenic crops that express insecticidal traits, EPA regulations were actually developed by researchers from the industry. Here is the original paper. Note that the disclaimer says the industry scientists participated as individuals, and not as employees of the comapnies, but I think we all know that that doesn’t mean anything. Furthermore, the public-sector and agency scientists were handpicked pro-GMO people, like Jorg Romeis, Robyn Rose and Tony Shelton. No one from the anti-GMO crowd was invited.Considering the high costs of developing a transgenic product and putting it through regulation, there will probably never be more than a handful of companies that can afford it. So, the field of transgenic crops is probably destined to always be dominated by a small group of corporate interests. That doesn’t seem like a desirable situation to me.I certainly don’t believe that GMO’s are evil, and I believe that they will have an important role to play in the future of agriculture, but the reality is that the game is rigged in favor of the companies.On top of that, insecticidal GMO's, combined with government subsidies for ethanol, are incentivizing farmers to abandon sustainable practices, like crop rotations, cover crops, and intercropping, and they're exacerbating the negative effects of intensified agriculture, which only makes us more dependent on transgenics and insecticides. There's got to be a better way than this.

Did you watch this past weeks episode of Cosmos? Would it be fair to ask who is Clair Patterson and who is Dr. Kehoe in the GMO debate or would that be ridiculously prejudicial.Of course such aspersion casting would not be fair.Nobody wants to be cast as the Creation Scientist in a debate, but then nobody would want to be cast as BP in a debate about climate change either, or as DuPont in a debate about lead additives for gasoline. Calling the opposing side 'creationist' surely is placing more heat than light on the discussion here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Could you care to comment on this article?A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

There is a gulf between our understandings that we are not bridging. For now, I'd just like to address the above.Proponents of GMO food are selling more nutritious and cheaper food; proponents of acting to meet the challenges of climate change are selling difficult and expensive proposals for change. One is selling food; the other is selling a great problem. Americans consume mass quantities of industrialized food, and most wouldn't have blinked at GMOs if not for Monsanto's (and their advocates') offensive tactics. They resorted to arm twisting, and now they complain that they are losing an arm twisting contest.I noted several times in your posts that you liken opponents of GMO food to creationists: loony people, shady tactics, science deniers.While always a fan of science, and especially evolution, it is the creationist intent to infiltrate religion into public school science classes and government policy that brought me to this site. But GMO food "doubters" have no such invasive agenda: they don't want it, and they don't want to be denied the info that lets them avoid it. Monsanto insists on the right to feed it to you without your knowing. Who is the zealot? The citizen who claims the right to express a private choice, or the corporation that claims science gives them the right to deny that choice?The position of the FDA, unless things have changed recently, is that no one can label a food product non-GMO; my understanding is that reflects Monsanto's position, lobbied for and won. The FDA, ironically, simply says that the non-GMO label would be inappropriate because GMOs so pervade our food industry that it is virtually impossible to make a non-GMO product.You paint a portrait of an irrational, science-hating, granola-headed liar (or puppet) of a GMO hater--kinda like a commie : as noted above by me and others, there are reasons beyond the scientific on which to base that preference.In this particular case, science is being used to coerce behavior when the rightness of that behavior is not a purely scientific question. People have a right to their personal choices, whether it goes against a scientific consensus or not. I don't care what creationists believe--just keep it out of our schools and governments. Similarly, I don't care what Monsanto thinks: if I refuse to consume something, for any reason whatsoever, that is my right. Trying to coerce me otherwise with policies justified by science is as wrong as teaching creationism in Bio 101. Resisting that coercion is not an abuse of science.

This is actually another of the Seralini articles based on his faulty test design.The first problem with the test is the choice of rat to use for the testing. He chose to use Sprague-Dawley albino rats, which have a non test cancer rate of up to 80% if allowed to live up to two years old. SourcceHe then made the test group of each type of food 400 rats, 200 of each sex, and only tested 10 from each group. He was taking a representative population of 2.5% and these rats are known to spontaneously grow tumors in the regions his study found tumors in. To me, this seems like setting your experiment up to succeed and this is why his research has been officially retracted. Wiki on Seralini affairABE - My fault, I read the author and assumed this was the 2012 study so just found where he discussed sampling only ten rats. He did do that as well in this study. I will read this one tomorrow and get back with you. I do not want to try and read through it when I am tired.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Realized my error