I did, and I learned some new information. I'll have more to say about it when I'm not on my phone, but if you want to check it out, I believe the stream is available here to check it out. Live Stream Debate Replay
The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
So I watched the debate and it seemed to me that the two sides were talking past each other.
The proGMO side was all gung-ho on what the future would bring and that all studies to date had shown no harm. That the crops were approved by the USDA etc etc etc.
The noGMO side was all about long term health tests not being done, multigeneration crop tests that would show if the benefits hold up, that the "roundup ready" crops were generating superweeds that had farmers in the south abandoning cotton fields because the weeds broke their equipment, that conventional breeding produced results as good as GMO/GE crops.
There were several aspects that I thought were brushed over or not addressed.
The limits on what the USDA approval means (especially when the guy in charge is a former Monsanto VP).
The limits on what was actually tested.
The different kinds of GMO/GE crops and how each has different concerns.
quote:The report appropriately named ‘Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States’ revealed that Genetically Modified (GM) crops (mainly corn, cotton, and soybeans) were planted on 169 million acres in 2013, about half of US land used for crops.
Despite the expected positive tone of the whole report due to the USDA’s usual total support of GM Crops, there were some telling signs that even the USDA has certain doubts creeping into their system.
Sustainable Pulse has selected a number of the USDA’s criticisms:
Over the first 15 years of commercial use, GE seeds have not been shown to increase yield potentials of the varieties. In fact, the yields of herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant seeds may be occasionally lower than the yields of conventional varieties
The fact that several researchers found no significant differences between the net returns of adopters and nonadopters of HT crops (particularly HT soybeans) despite the rapid adoption of these crops suggests that many adopters may derive nonmonetary benefits from HT adoption.
Herbicide (Roundup) use on GMO corn increased from around 1.5 pounds per planted acre in 2001 to more than 2.0 pounds per planted acre in 2010. Herbicide use on non-GMO corn has remained relatively level during that same time frame, the ERS said.
Herbicide toxicity may soon be negatively affected (compared to glyphosate) by the introduction (estimated for 2014) of crops tolerant to the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D.
HT adoption likely reduced herbicide use initially, but herbicide resistance among weed populations may have induced farmers to raise application rates in recent years, thus offsetting some of the economic and environmental advantages of HT corn adoption regarding herbicide use
Despite this criticism the ERS report was as expected mostly very supportive of GM Crops and also contained some worrying information for US citizens including: Researchers have thousands of tests underway in U.S. fields for new crops. As of September 2013, about 7,800 releases have been approved for genetically engineered (GE) corn, more than 2,200 for GE soybeans, more than 1,100 for GE cotton, and about 900 for GE potatoes.
Of those releases, 6772 were for GE varieties with herbicide tolerance, 4,809 for insect resistance, and 4,896 for product quality such as flavor or nutrition, and 5,190 for drought resistance.
So there are four "flavours" of GMO/GE:
"herbicide tolerance" ... so that more and more lethal herbicides can be used,
"insect resistance" ... with built-in toxins replacing sprayed on toxins that can be washed off,
"product quality" ... with enhancements to flavor or nutrition, and
"drought resistance" ... so crops can be grown in dryer areas.
Now I consider (1) to be a failure, with the generation of superweeds and the overall increase in herbicides on these crops compared to conventional crops, with no measured increase in yield, and a much more toxic field ecosystem. Another "Silent Spring" in the making, especially as more toxic herbicides are used.
Then I consider (2) to be potentially dangerous to people and animals, that the studies done do not come up to the standards imposed by the FDA on drugs for comparison on long term safety studies or the long term studies recommended in Europe. My concern is not so much with the genes getting into our germ cells, but into the gut bacteria and having potential effects on health (especially for people with challenged systems), and fetal development (the Thalidomide specter) because they are not tested to this level.
Next I consider (3) to be a no-show. This was a favorite talking point of the proGMO side but all the products were still in the future ... there were no standout success stories here. Nice idea, but it seems that the companies are more interested in (1) and (2) than this.
Finally I consider (4) to also be a no-show, same as (3).
What I did NOT see was (a) any reference to total herbicide\insecticide loading that included the embedded genes before processing (ie - raw), (b) net remaining after washing, or (c) a comparison of flavor testing for GMO/GE crops against nonGMO/GE crops.
I also found it curious that BOTH the noGMO side people had been proGMO initially and that there was little discussion of why they had converted.
Nor did I see a discussion of the pace of development, and the perceived necessity to move fast on these crops. World hunger was given lip service, but the real problem in feeding the world is distribution not production -- we don't even feed all the people in the US in spite of producing an excess of food that is shipped to the rest of the world. It seems to me that the GMO companies are more concerned with making big bucks than in providing real benefits.
Finally there was no real discussion on labels on food.
So I see no measurable benefit, an impatient rush for companies to make big money, and a potential for damage to the environment and to animals and people that has not been tested by long term studies.
quote:GMOSeralini.org welcomes the news of the republication of the chronic toxicity study on the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup and a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto’s NK603, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Sralini. The republication restores the study to the peer-reviewed literature so that it can be consulted and built upon by other scientists.
The study found severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in rats fed the GM maize and low levels of Roundup that are below those permitted in drinking water in the EU. Toxic effects were found from the GM maize tested alone, as well as from Roundup tested alone and together with the maize. Additional unexpected findings were higher rates of large tumours and mortality in most treatment groups.
Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist based in London, commented, Few studies would survive such intensive scrutiny by fellow scientists. The republication of the study after three expert reviews is a testament to its rigour, as well as to the integrity of the researchers.
If anyone still doubts the quality of this study, they should simply read the republished paper. The science speaks for itself.
If even then they refuse to accept the results, they should launch their own research study on these two toxic products that have now been in the human food and animal feed chain for many years.
This study has arguably prevailed through the most comprehensive and independent review process to which any scientific study on GMOs has ever been subjected.
The work provides important new knowledge that must be taken into account by the community that evaluates and reports upon the risks of genetically modified organisms, indeed upon all sources of pesticide in our food and feed chains. In time these findings must be verified by repetition or challenged by superior experimentation. In my view, nothing constructive for risk assessment or promotion of GM biotechnology has been achieved by attempting to expunge these data from the public record.
quote:After the research was completed, it went through rigorous reviews, as well as a four month review process by scientists and researchers. It was eventually approved and published, only to be retracted by request of the Journal. Although hundreds of scientists around the world condemned the retraction, and the researchers addressed the criticisms, it was to no avail.
There is great news to report however, as this major GMO study has now been republished following its controversial retraction (under strong commercial pressure), with even more up to date information and a response to previous criticisms. You can read more about that here.
The major criticisms of the Seralini manuscript were that the proper strain of rats was not used and their numbers were too small. Neither criticism is valid. The strain of rat is that which is required by the FDA for drug toxicology, and the toxic effects were unambiguously significant. In fact, Monsanto published a similar study in the same journal eight years before using the same number and strain of rats. Their study was for 90 days and claimed no harm. In contrast, the Seralini study was for two years and did not see any tumors until after nine months. Therefore, it is clear that the short 90-day feeding paradigm is not sufficiently long to detect the carcinogenic effects of GM products. It takes a long time before low-level exposure to environmental toxins affect health. For example, a recent associated press report documented the dramatic increase in birth defects and cancer in areas of Argentina that have grown GM soy for a decade. Given these facts, what was the justification of the editorial decision to retract the Seralini Manuscript? (source)
The linked articles on the controversy (here and (source)) are pretty interesting reading as well.
So it seems that you criticism of Dr. Sralini may have been a bit premature.
Re: Republication of the Sralini study: Science speaks for itself
No, it was not premature. The points about the data stand. It was republished, without peer-review, in a pay to play journal. You know, the same type journals that have recently been called out for printing papers by Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel. Source.
Here is a critical review of the republishing of Seralini's study as well. Source
Explain how rats that show a tumor rate of over fifty percent are able to give you any statistical significance in your results when each group of rats only contains ten members and you are testing over ten different feeding combinations? How much is valid data and how much is statistical noise?
Also, explain how the only level that showed a dose related response was in increasing male rat lifespan the more Round-up they consumed.
Look, just like with creationism, you will find scientists willing to manipulate data to fit preconceived notions. Seralini is one of these.
The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
Re: Live NYC GMO Debate reviewed PLUS new USDA report
RAZD writes:
The limits on what was actually tested
This was addressed several times. Especially in regards to Bill Nye's question, where the non-GMO side showed surprising similarity to the response from Ken Ham in his debate with Bill Nye. Bill Nye asked how many seasons you think products should be tested to gather evidence. The Pro side agreed evidence of safety was important and agreed with the current system that takes five years to get a crop through regulation. However, the anti side placed an indeterminate limit on safety testing, basically a moratorium until some invisible threshold is met. Alison had a wonderful answer to these safety questions that I would like you to consider, "What is the mechanism that you are proposing, what is the hypothesis for "how" these crops are damaging people unlike other crops?" (paraphrased)
Organic, conventional, and GM crops all contain nearly identical genes. The slight differences produce proteins, which also occurs through cross breeding. Sure, in GM we are specifically selecting which proteins will be created, but what is the biological mechanism that causes these proteins to react differently from randomly changed proteins. Again, I point you to the fabulously crossbred, ultra-high solanine containing Lanape potato!!!! Source
RAZD writes:
The different kinds of GMO/GE crops and how each has different concerns.
You have the ability to look up all available GM crops simply by visiting the international registry of approvals. What concerns are you speaking of exactly? The scientific standpoint is pretty consistent on this.
Now, let's look at that Sustainable Pulse article, cause holy example of cherry picking data and this speaks to an area where we should have agreement, since we both want a reduction in pesticides. Maybe, first instead of a site reporting their results, let's see what the USDA had to say about that first claim that Sustainable Pulse is making, namely:
Sustainable Pulse writes:
Over the first 15 years of commercial use, GE seeds have not been shown to increase yield potentials of the varieties. In fact, the yields of herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant seeds may be occasionally lower than the yields of conventional varieties
Well, checking the summary of the findings from the USDA, we see kind of the exact opposite response:
USDA writes:
Judging by the widespread adoption of GE seeds, farmers have benefited from them.
and here's the little bit they left of the end of their quote there
USDA writes:
However, by protecting the plant from certain pests, GE crops can prevent yield losses to pests, allowing the plant to approach its yield potential.
You can find that exact quote on page 12 of the full report from the USDA, located here: Source
RAZD writes:
1. "herbicide tolerance" ... so that more and more lethal herbicides can be used,
Really, more lethal herbicides? Didn't we compare the LD50 levels between Round-up and an organic approved pesticide? If we didn't, would you like to? I think you may be surprised by the results as Round-up requires a higher dose than both caffeine and table salt to reach the median lethal dose. Does this mean we shouldn't rotate crops? No, but that is better farm management techniques, some of which do stem from organic farming practices. Also, don't forget that overall there is a reduction in pesticides (herbicides and insecticides, another fact your Sustainable Pulse article tried to cherry pick).
RAZD writes:
"insect resistance" ... with built-in toxins replacing sprayed on toxins that can be washed off,
And studies have already shown that the Cry proteins created by Bt Endotoxin disintegrate rapidly in highly acidic environments, such as the human gut. They don't remain active in your gut, the evidence shows that. Also, organic farmers occasionally inject Bt directly into plants to help them with insect resistance, so what mechanism makes it different in digestion?
James and the Giant Corn writes:
We humans have acidic stomachs which helps to break down our food. Insects have basic stomachs for the same reason. Both acids and bases are good at breaking things down (think sulfuric acid and drain cleaner respectively), but the two are chemical opposites of each other. Cry proteins have evolved to function in the high pH environments of insect guts, and denature in our own low pH stomachs, and without shape, Cry proteins might as well be any other random string of amino acids.
RAZD writes:
"product quality" ... with enhancements to flavor or nutrition, and
Why use articles claiming to back up your point, when they cite a document that proves exactly the opposite of them not focusing on these other traits. From the earlier USDA report:
USDA writes:
product quality such as flavor or nutrition (4,896)
That is the number of currently approved field trials for specific traits related to flavor and nutrition, as per the USDA. So, they are happening, however why market the seed if there is not a large enough market to recoup R&D expenses. You can still register the trait, but not market the product. See the "scary" terminator seeds (but, please for the love of gods find a reputable site).
RAZD writes:
"drought resistance" ... so crops can be grown in dryer areas.
You call it a no-show when it is actually being grown for the food supply this year. How is it a no-show when it is actually being used?
RAZD writes:
Finally there was no real discussion on labels on food.
Of course, because this was not a labeling debate, but a debate on the technology itself and whether it should be used as a tool for the future. I'm with the Pro side in not calling it the only tool, but using all that we have learned from all the industries. But, on the labeling question, I will ask you again:
How are you unable to locate foods that do not contain GMOs with the current voluntary labeling process of Organic and Non-GMO Project Approved?
The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
Re: Republication of the Sralini study: Science speaks for itself
Here is a study that was funded by the Japanese government that also covers a two year feeding study, just like Seralini's paper did. However, interestingly enough, looking at their data and conclusions, they did not return any of the same results as Seralini. Of course, they also were smart enough to not use a rat prone to tumors by the age of two. While Seralini designed a 90 day toxicology test and then used it as a two year carcinogenic test instead. And for further reading, I have also included the paper from 1973 that discusses the high tumor incidence in Sprague-Dawley rats, the rats used in Seralini's study. Whereas, the Japanese scientist, knowing about the high tumor rate used F344 rats.
Sadly, other than the abstract and data, most of the methods are in Japanese, but the data can explain what exactly they looked at pretty well.
And here is the study on Sprague Dawley rats from 1973. Read that study and let me know if you still think the sample size was reasonble in the Seralini study. (200 rats total, 9 different feeding combinations, so a total of 20 rats in each group, plus 20 total control rats, ten male and ten female, while male Sprague Dawley rats have a cancer incidence of 34% and females have a rate of 58%).
The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
WASHINGTON, D.C. — On the heels of USDA deregulation of the Arctic apple -- the first genetically engineered apple -- leading consumer, food safety and environmental groups issued a response to widespread media reports wrongly characterizing the science on GMOs as settled.
The groups, including Consumers Union, Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth and Pesticide Action Network, pointed to a January 24 statement in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe -- signed by 300 scientists, physicians and scholars -- that asserts there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.
The claim of scientific consensus on GMOs frequently repeated in the media is an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated, the peer-reviewed statement said.
Preeminent science bodies like the National Research Council have recognized that some engineered foods could pose considerable risk. It is widely recognized by scientists that those risks depend on the particular engineered gene and crop. It is unfortunate that self-appointed advocates for the technology have selectively cited the literature and organizations to suggest that GE crops, generally, present no risks that warrant concern, said Doug Gurian-Sherman, PhD, senior scientist and director of sustainable agriculture at the Center for Food Safety.
Not one independent, public safety study has been carried out on the Arctic apple, and yet some media stories have reported it is ‘safe,’ said Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist at Consumers Union. We call on the press to accurately report on the science of GMOs, particularly the health and environmental concerns raised by scientists and the lack of required safety studies that leave questions about the safety of genetically engineered foods.
Entitled No scientific consensus on GMO safety, the journal statement does not take a position on whether GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, it cites a concerted effort by GMO seed developers and some scientists, commentators and journalists to construct the claim that there is a scientific consensus on GMO safety, and that debate on the topic is over.
That claim is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of scientific opinions among scientists on this issue, according to the statement.
The statement raises the following points in objection to the consensus of safety claim:
See article for itemized list.
My concern is that it seems like one side is all rosy-good-news and there are absolutely no problems.
The other side is all one-rotten-apple-spoiling-the-bushel and there are massive problems.
What I find incredible (uncredible) is that there are no middle ground studies noting some problems and the pros and cons, the way medicines have side-effects that may warrant concern for certain people with certain conditions (like a challenged immune system).
My experience is that science is not that cut and dried.
My major concern is unintended consequences.
Dying bees because stress from pesticides makes them vulnerable to mites and virus.
Dying monarch butterflies from herbicides killing all the milkweed in monoculture fields.
A "silent spring" in the insect world that will have consequences outside the crop field, in much the same way that the unintended consequences of DDT nearly drove the Bald Eagle and other birds into extinction.
The (natural) evolution of herbicide resistant weeds in response to the hyper application of herbicides around resistant GMO'd crops is something I find amusing and entirely predictable. The worry is that the companies will double-down with more aggressive toxins causing more unintended consequences.
The proGMO answers just seem a little too pat, too PR prepared slick.
I am skeptical that all the information has been reported as well as skeptical that there are no dangers at all.
GMOs and pesticide use don't have to go hand-in-hand. I get that much of the GMO research is aimed at creating crops resistant to the pesticides that are regularly becoming more and more potent and, as a result, toxic.
But I think that is an issue separate from GMOs themselves.
Also, it doesn't do a whole lot of good to save the planet if most of us are too busy dying from starvation to enjoy it.
I stand by this claim of mine. Rather than focusing on the "threat", we should focus on how we can use this technology to help others.
Sounds exactly like the advice an oil man might give to someone who warned about global warming when pumping the very first few barrels of petroleum out of the ground.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
Sounds exactly like the advice an oil man might give to someone who warned about global warming when pumping the very first few barrels of petroleum out of the ground.
And if we had listened to that oil man back then, today we might be mostly powered by alternative sources and would be utilizing the benefits of the benzene ring in pharmaceuticals, clothing, chemicals, plastics, cosmetics, medicines, etc., rather than burning it into the air.
GMOs can do a whole world of good if we approach the technology with care rather than fear.
Sounds exactly like the advice an oil man might give to someone who warned about global warming when pumping the very first few barrels of petroleum out of the ground.
ಠ_ಠ
So you ignore the caveat and go with the least charitable response you can think of? Tsk tsk.
It also sounds like someone who wants vaccines, and stem cell research, and teaching evolution, and exploring space.
Are GMOs safe? No consensus in the science, scientists say in peer-reviewed statement
Asking if GMOs are safe is like asking if nuclear technology is safe.
Up to date nuclear reactors are safe. Old, deteriorating nuclear reactors are not.
Nuclear technology can be used in many different ways... some safe, others not so much. GMOs are exactly the same... too broad of a term to ask "is it safe?" and expect some sort of simple answer.
GMOs are safe if done safely. GMOs can be dangerous if not done safely.
Asking if GMOs are safe is like asking if nuclear technology is safe.
Up to date nuclear reactors are safe.
Fukushima ...
Unintended consequences of building in the path of a tidal wave, or negligence in planning the location of the reactors in an area with a history of tidal waves (there are markers in the hills behind the reactor location for previous high water lines of tidal waves)?
GMOs are safe if done safely. GMOs can be dangerous if not done safely.
And it is reasonable to be skeptical of the safety aspect when DDT and Thalidomide were deemed safe by the (corporate scientists) and the regulatory (government bodies.
"Silent Spring" was an unintended consequence of widespread use of DDT that ended up putting the Bald Eagle on the endangered species list (among others). Or negligent science in disregarding the fact that Predators tend to concentrate toxins (lead in fish is another example).
Thalidomide was approved for one use and then prescribed for a different use that had not been tested, causing birth defects. Unintended consequence or negligence?
GMOs are safe if done safely.
Curiously I have used chemo medications that are produced by bacteria via GM technology -- but that also underwent very strict testing before use on humans.
But there are also two different kinds of GM products:
One that enhances the food value or the medical value of the crop. This also includes ones that are resistant to drought so they grow in more arid conditions. These do not endanger the ecological balance.
The other that increase the use of herbicides and pesticides because the crops are more tolerant of those toxins. This second type is inherently dangerous and also doomed to failure (and already failed is some areas), and it is inherently dangerous to the ecological balance.
We already see deaths of bees and monarch butterflies because of the toxin use around these second type of GM crops.
The crops themselves are not responsible, it is the coupled use of more herbicide and pesticide around them -- provided by the same companies that provide the seeds? Is this unintended consequences or negligence?
Either way should there be a rush to make use of toxin tolerant GM crops universal (like DDT was) before knowing?
Nuclear technology can be used in many different ways... some safe, others not so much.
And as far as I know the safest type of nuclear generation is not being used.
• Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[18] The Thorium Energy Alliance (TEA) estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[17][18] "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.[19] Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
• It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[15]:11[20] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-233 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[21][22]
• There is much less nuclear wasteup to two orders of magnitude less, states Moir and Teller,[4] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[15]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[19] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[23]
The problem is a common one, of committing to safety above all other concerns, especially concerns for corporate profits.
The argument that GM crops are needed to feed the world is bogus. The current problem is one of distribution not production. Heck we make car fuel additive alcohol from corn rather than send it to starving millions. Making bogus arguments in my mind damages the credibility of the rest of the arguments ... what else is bogus?
GMOs are safe if done safely. GMOs can be dangerous if not done safely.
How are GMO's any more of a threat than the plants themselves? How do we know that brocolli or brussel sprouts with their native genomes are safe? How do we know that naturally produced mutations that result in new phenotypes in cultivars are safe? How do we know if certain combinations of naturally occuring alleles are safe?
Let's not forget that the gene responsible for Roundup resistance evolved naturally. All they did was take that naturally evolved gene from one plant and put it in another.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
