So, no.
Looking at Ulfreida’s post…
:sigh:
Of course one has to be wary of new technology, but one has to say that most fears that you mention are mostly unfounded or without evidence.
One should check the experts in the matter, the cited ones in Talkorigins.org and skepticalscience.com should be checked when creationists and then fake global warming skeptics peddle their nonsense, for GMO one should check biofortified.org
This article is appropriate:
transgenic contamination of maize in mexico, canola in canada
monsanto direct intimidation of farmers in the US
these are from the first page of google search “gmo small farmers”
And what about that crazy hippie Western Europe, which has enacted gmo bans of various kinds? What’s their pitiful unscientific excuse?
yes, it’s political. And saying “technology is just a tool” is naive in the extreme. It’s never just a tool.
:sigh: again, even the article I quoted makes the point that one should consult the science, not activists and what Monsanto does (that does deserve pointed critisism) is not the reason one should then dump the whole deal.
How can you separate them, then, in the real world?
Using logic and evidence, I do dislike Monsanto for increasing the number of weeds that are resistant to their crops, making it very likely that even farmers that do not like to use the Monsanto stuff will be affected.
However, as the Papaya example shows, even Monsanto knows that there are limits to what they can do, in Hawaii they decided to not enforce their patents regarding the Papaya changes, and I do think that public pressure was a part on that decision; as they say, there is a need of eternal vigilance, but as the Papaya shows, lets not refuse to use GMO when it is clearly a good thing.
It can take a while, but sooner or later, the law catches up with the science. It’s happening with the internet, it’ll happen with agritech.
How is this happening with the internet exactly?
If the law and science are the only two players, that would be a different world than the one I live in. In the one I live in, those who have the money and power are the big players, and both the law and science are usually just the puny dwarfs biting their ankles.
Europe? The place where an Italian court just awarded damages to a family for a child who developed autism “caused” by a vaccine? The place where homeopathic remedies are sold in every drugstore?
I just looked at your first cite and I don’t see what the fuck it has to do with the safety of GMO foods. Farmers were forced off small farms so that large scale farming of soy could be done. Would that be OK if was not GMO soy?
Want to follow the money? How about following it to idiots who write books and go on the lecture circuit spouting nonsense, or corporations that create organic brands so they can charge more, or large grocery chains like Whole Paycheck?
One issue with crops genetically modified for herbicide resistance (most common, Roundup Ready crops) is that they also select for “Super-weeds” and that results in the use of ADDITIONAL herbicides rather than fewer herbicides.
Super-weeds are not only a problem for the user of RR crops, but also for all other farmers and home owners in the local area who will be invaded by the same weeds. (One weed in the southeast, called pigweed, can grows three inches a day. Imagine having to keep up after that in your back yard. On the bright side, once the cotton fields are completely over-run, the pigweed could probably be used as fodder for alternate fuels from cellulose.
Here is a heavily referenced article (as in they provide cites for their statements) about the super-weeds that are developing in association with Roundup Ready crops: GM Crops Meltdown in the US
This 2010 article includes a interactive map that shows the spread of resistant weeds between the year 2000 through 2009: U.S. Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds - The New York Times (Source: International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds)
Boots sell homeopathic “remedies”, as do CVS. Boots doesn’t sell cigarettes though.
See, now this is an example of a reasonable concern. For what it’s worth, I generally agree that Monsanto in particular has taken the technology of genetic engineering and done a lot of really stupid shit that seems intentionally designed to turn the general public against it.
I mentioned earlier the banana plant that expressed a polio vaccine. That wasn’t hypothetical. My only source is my old college professor who claimed that Monsanto had created such a plant, the idea being that you just plant banana plants around the third world, and anyone who snacked on a banana would be immune to polio. So I can’t say for sure if it actually exists, but just imagine how the public image of GMOs would be different if they’d started with THAT kind of project rather than the money-grubbing crap they’re now known for.
From what I’ve seen, Monsanto is essentially the 1990s-Microsoft of genetic engineering. Could one oppose Microsoft without opposing software in general?
I think a lot of people are not so much opposed to GMOs as taking a wait and see attitude. The experts are very confident they have this all figured out and the benifits to date have been immense. Now it seems that superweeds could complicate things and superbugs due to poor farming practices could become serious issues. Regardless of the unintended consequences I suspect that organic produce will very soon be only affordable to the super-rich. And on a global scale that is pretty much already true.