Unless you're paying $3/# for carrots, herbicides are in the mix one way or the other. GMOs allow us to be pickier about which herbicides we're exposed to.
Regarding IPR issues: you're referring to Monsanto lawsuits. Monsanto enforced its IPR against people who not only planted Roundup-ready crops, but then used Roundup on them --- in other words, people who took advantage of the IPR itself, not merely people who happened to plant Roundup-ready seeds unknowingly. Farmers don't accidentally spray their crops with Glyphosate.
15.1 billion bushels of corn... wasted.
Maybe its not directly toxic like agent orange, but these chemicals are still dangerous.
[1] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-20...
To say that IARC 2A classification is controversial would be understating.
I’m inclined to agree with the WHO because I can’t see how they could profit from having the results be the way they are, if you believe the conspiracy theories. The old adage, “follow the money” still holds true; so if there is a conspiracy where is the money for calling RoundUp harmful?
That Reuters article is loaded with conspiracy. No actual evidence of wrongdoing, unless I just missed it.
Honest question: If glycosate is safe couldn’t you drink it? Why then did this Monsanto lobbyist refuse to drink it? Honest question. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
1. That's a dude who was asked by Canal+ to give an interview about Golden Rice, a product that has nothing to do with herbicides, and is at the end of the interview asked to drink a glass of herbicide.
2. That dude doesn't work for Monsanto, isn't a "Monsanto lobbyist", and has never taken a dollar from Monsanto.
3. I don't need to watch Canal+ stunt interviews to know how dangerous glyphosate is, because there's something called "the medical literature", which documents people having drunk a half liter of the stuff with no effect.
4. But drinking a half liter of glyphosate-based herbicide is an extremely bad plan, because glyphosate isn't the only thing in glyphosate herbicide. Lots of routinely-used fungicides are extremely toxic to humans and found commonly in households.
5. Even if drinking a half liter of random herbicide was completely safe, I'd be upset if you demanded I drink it, for the same reason I'd be upset if you asked me to drink a glass of grapeseed oil or of human urine.
6. All of this drastically misses the point of glyphosate, which is that it's a very simple, broad-spectrum herbicide that is better understood than the selective herbicides farmers use for non-GMO crops. Glyphosate targets a metabolic pathway present in plants and fungus that isn't present in animals. That's not true of selective (grass- or broadleaf- targeting) herbicides. "Conventional" weed control programs are known to be dangerous to humans, rather than the targets of FUD campaigns.
7. If you're "inclined to agree with IARC" about glyphosate, unlike a significant number of scientists, I have bad news for you about cooking food --- meat or vegetables --- which is also 2A-carcinogenic.
Regarding points 1-5, did you miss that I said it was an honest question? I clearly did not say that it was an argument. I asked precisely because I knew there might be facts I am not aware of. Thank you for filling me in.
> 6. All of this drastically misses the point of glyphosate, which is that it's a very simple, broad-spectrum herbicide that is better understood than the selective herbicides farmers use for non-GMO crops. Glyphosate targets a metabolic pathway present in plants and fungus that isn't present in animals. That's not true of selective (grass- or broadleaf- targeting) herbicides. "Conventional" weed control programs are known to be dangerous to humans, rather than the targets of FUD campaigns.
And this addresses the concern that it may be a carcinogen... how?
> 7. If you're "inclined to agree with IARC" about glyphosate, unlike a significant number of scientists, I have bad news for you about cooking food --- meat or vegetables --- which is also 2A-carcinogenic.
And that also is not an argument for rejecting 2A carcinogenic labeling on glyphosate.
So I ask again: This addresses the concern that it may be a carcinogen... how?
Well, I ask rhetorically. Apparently an answer will not be given, only misdirection.
Sorry but I don't have the energy to debate with people who won't read carefully or provide answers that are not misdirecting. You may have the last word. Good day and God bless.
P.S., "a significant number of scientists" is a fallacious appeal to authority. A significant number of scientists is not the same as having a majority of consensus.
IARC works under WHO, but WHO itself doesn't think glyphosate poses a cancer threat:
Huh, didn't know--thank you. Plants have apparently been patentable since 1930 [1]. In 1970, the Congress gave breeders "up to 25 years of exclusive control over new, distinct, uniform, and stable sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant varieties" [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
GMO crops can be engineered to be pest resistant, requiring far less use of pesticides, without harming the crop's suitability for human consumption.
Ignorance on this issue is destroying ecosystems in agricultural areas.
Meanwhile, pesticides are killing off 75% of all flying insects.
I like monarchs, but if I had to choose between a world with no monarchs, and a world with no monarchs and also just 25% of the flying insect biomass we had 30 years ago and also fewer birds and everything else that consumes insects and all of the beneficial pollination that those 75% of insects would have accounted for ... well, that seems like a pretty easy choice to me.
Gene editing would also provide an avenue for a different approach here, where the crop could be made resistant to its costliest pests without harming monarchs. Good luck doing that through cross-breeding.
That would be the result of getting rid of pesticides and insecticides...
I think you're referring to Round-up Ready? Wasn't the point of that program to reduce pesticide use?
Programs like Bt-corn reduce pesticide use... by making the plant produce the herbicide in the fruit. So, instead of being able to peel or rinse fruit (with varying results), you're eating corn kernels that have pesticide on the inside.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean
We eat lots of pesticides. Capsaicin (in chilis) [1] and piperine (in peppers) [2] are two examples.
The endotoxin used in Bt corn is also 100% natural [1].
I'm not arguing for (or against) Bt corn. I'm trying to show that the language we used to describe GMOs is misleading. Something we think of as natural isn't inherently healthy or unhealthy compared with something we think of as artificial. The same applies to GMO.
https://www.amazon.com/Bonide-Products-803-Thuricide-16-Ounc...
"Engineered chemicals" shouldn't be used when you mean "harmful". It sounds ignorant.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crop...
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2017/04/gmos-and-herbicides-its...
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600850
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/ho...
It seems rational to me that the operation is on its head. If I want to grow GMO soy I just buy it, plant it, and spray it. But if I want to certify Organic I must go through a rigorous and expensive authorization process.
I’d like to see it exactly the opposite: If you use proven, centuries-old methods it’s easy, but if you want to spray and use weird stuff it requires a rigorous and expensive authorization process.
Don’t we do that in other industries? Why not with our own food?
Furthermore, many modern 'organic' methods are anything but centuries old. Heavy use of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, copper compounds, compost tea, etc. etc. are all quite new. That's not to say they aren't safe; there are a few practices which warrant more scrutiny, but for the most part they're alright. But the point is that many people are terribly mischaracterizing actual farming practices.
Yes you can grow as you like but it seems backwards to me that you have to prove you are /not/ doing unusual things. If any regulation should occur it ought to be in doing the /unusual/ things.
> Furthermore, many modern 'organic' methods
I'm not speaking of newer methods. I would have any new method more strictly regulated until proven.
There’s lies, there’s damned lies, and then there’s studies. Monsanto’s maize study was only done for 90 days and then got approved. When the same study was replicated for two years, significant health issues were discovered.[1]
And by the way, Monsanto was the only one required to confirm that the study showed positive results. Safety testing is not done by the FDA, only required by the company, who may or may not be telling the truth about the results.[2]
Lies, damned lies, and studies.
So the question remains: Why should I if I were farming have to spend a lot of time, effort, and money to prove what I am not doing? Shouldn't it be the other way 'round?
[1] https://www.gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-this-study-now/
Then welcome the next potato blight...
But then I live in the United States where we do quite a number of backwards things.
I don’t have all day to sit around debating so take my thoughts as they are. You may have the last word. Good day and God bless.
Hybridization of plants swaps thousands of genes at random, in an uncontrolled manner. We've been doing that for a thousand years, and just breeding stuff out in fields to see what sticks.
Geneticaly modifying rice to produce more vitamin A required changing only 2 genes, instead of thousands, but somehow people find that scarier because it seems "new".
But classic methods have been used and proven for centuries. It seems riskier and frankly, backwards, to me to require stricter regulation on what has been proven but easily permit that which is new and still being tried out.
What has the FDA really "rigorously thought" about if they aren't testing?
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Health/eating-gmo-produce/story?id=300...
A viable option actually.
We've come up with a definition for "GMO" which is about as arbitrary as "plants grown on the north side of a mountain."
Look at a wild carrot [1]. There is no good reason for plants to stuff their roots with beta carotene. But nutrient-rich roots are tastier and healthier, so we bred them. It blows my mind that someone might consider a mutation bred [2] vegetable healthier or safer than one where the desired gene is precisely injected.
The economics of GMO produce are compelling. They will be produced. All anti-GMO consumers guarantee is having their views, tastes and concerns ignored as agriculture develops. That lack of consumer input is, in my opinion, unhealthy for us all.
It seems likely (intuitively, which is why this is a question) that a naturally-occurring mutation which is artificially selected-for by a grower actually is very different from a transgenic insertion. The former arises within the complex regulatory/inhibitory genetic environment of the natural plant, so it sort of feels less risky, less likely to be disruptive or to renovate the biochemistry. Transgenically-inserted genes are mitochondrial, activated by default, and not part of a regulatory chain, and may produce arbitrary metabolites -- this is where they get their power. An ecosystem analogy comes to mind, natural mutations are like species evolving in an ecosystem, and transgenic insertions are like invasive species, potentially throwing the ecosystem seriously out of whack.
Is this just a sort of romantic fallacy, supported by a bad analogy?
I think it's tangential to the safety question -- actually-existing commercial GMO crops have been tested and demonstrated to be safe, that seems to be clear. But I think the space for unsafe combinations is much larger than it is for natural mutations, and the analogy to selective breeding understates the danger (and the power)?
Actually plant breeders use radioactive radiation, and certain mutagenic poisons, to increase to mutation rate way above normal, in order to get more mutated offspring to work with.
What you write about "transgenically-inserted genes are mitochondrial" and "not part of a regulatory chain, and may produce arbitrary metabolites" is total bollocks and I have no idea where you got that particular misinformation from.
In particular:
> The acute oral lethal dose of cyanide for adult humans is reported to be 0.5–3.5 mg/kg (0.2–1.6 mg/lb) of body weight (approximately 50 bitter almonds), whereas for children, consuming 5–10 bitter almonds may be fatal.
The mutation that makes the bitter almonds produce cyanide is very old, totally natural and dangerous. It was mutated at least 300 million yeas ago, before the almond became a different plant than peach and cherry and other similar plants. Probably to make the animals avoid the plant and kernels.
The idea I have (again, perhaps wrongly) is approximately that harmful-to-humans mutations make up a smaller fraction of the space of viable (i.e. allows the organism to survive at all) natural mutations, and a larger fraction of the space of viable transgenic mutations. A secondary point is that this is because the space of viable transgenic mutations is not constrained by the prior state of the genome, the same thing that makes transgenic mutations powerful also makes them risky.
So, I am (or I was, anyways) positing _fewer_ dangerous natural mutations, not necessarily zero.
I'm certainly less convinced that there's an important difference than I was yesterday, though, but mostly because the _accessible_ space of transgenic behaviors is evidently limited by investigator effort, which does not scale, so even if the _theoretical_ space is larger, it doesn't matter, we're not going to sample it.
I don't know, the whole group of flowering plants is about 300 million years old (says Wikipedia). Perhaps you mean 30 million years.
Apparently is a very very old feature (even older than what I though).
Note that for instance the heavily-selection-bred Cavendish banana is currently facing possible extinction due to its susceptibility to a fungus. So on the one hand here you have exactly the problem you're worried about with gene-edited crops, and meanwhile gene editing is a possible solution to the problem.
I regret that I'm not well-enough versed in the science of this subject to communicate it better.
Actually, it's not that clear. They have been proven to not be unsafe, which arguably is a lot easier. But a lot of countries still ban them specifically because the "safe" part wasn't proven. Obviously this depends on the crop, as GMO means a lot of different things.
So, "north side of the mountain" is non-GMO right off the bat.
Plants have been patentable since 1930 [1]. In 1970, the Congress gave breeders "up to 25 years of exclusive control over new, distinct, uniform, and stable sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant varieties" [2]. IP concerns and GMO are orthogonal issues, as non-GMO varieties have been patented.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
That's that gathering of political representatives from all corners of the planet, to make decisions for humanity.
You may think the only issue the ethical problem of enforcing genetic IPR, but casual consumers do not give a shit about IPR ethics. They assume "genetically modified" is in approximately the same category as "contains toxic herbicides".
Ironically, the most commercially viable way to produce non-GMO crops are toxic herbicides.
What would be the point of it? In both cases we're seeking genetic modifications. In one case, it is targeted and precise, in another - random and probabilistic, i.e. we don't know whether the modification we want (sweeter apple, nicer carrot, etc.) didn't also bring along something we don't. Or at least we don't without analyzing the genome and selecting only those with genome we want - in which case it's just a very convoluted way of producing GMO.
It's like typing code by throwing rock at the keyboard until they hit necessary character and calling it "natural Organic coding" - surely, you could do that, but what exactly is the point?
If you say "but those genetic modifications have been tested by centuries of time" - also not really, many cultivars we're eating today are relatively recent, late 19th to 20th century. E.g. Fuji apples one sees everywhere were introduced to US marked in 1980s. And for many cultivars, there was no serious studies about their safety. Of course, if people start dropping dead in place from eating certain kind of apple, it would be noticed. But otherwise - we have little data, and nobody is too worried about it.
Simply to try to define "GMO"; do you have a better idea?
Since everything is "modified", the definition is meaningless if M refers to all modification. To be useful, the definition probably has to carve some subset in the M space.
> It's like typing code by throwing rock at the keyboard until they hit necessary character and calling it "natural Organic coding"
That may be so, but I like being a human rather than some organic molecules on the surface of a rock from which I evolved by this ineffective, dangerous process.
Yes. "GMO" is a scare term, devoid of any real content, used by tiny number of overly cautions ecologists and vast number of charlatans to trick gullible people into fearing modern technology.
> Since everything is "modified", the definition is meaningless if M refers to all modification
That's where you realize "GMO" is meaningless, and stop using that term.
> I like being a human rather than some organic molecules on the surface of a rock from which I evolved by this ineffective, dangerous process.
You are both. One does not contradict the other, and being made of organic molecules in no way diminishes your humanity. And being made of other organic molecules, some of which were purposedly put there to make it better (for varying definitions of "better") does not diminish the quality of your food. Which is not just declared by me, some guy on the internet typing some bullshit into the browser, but was actually verified by scientists.
It's not meaningless at all. GMO could be used maliciously. A tomato could be produced which deliberately make a protein such that a fraction of a milligram can kills. That is not likely to happen with random evolution.
"GMO" is just as meaningful as "infected executable".
> You are both.
Completely besides the point; which wasn't about human versus molecules, but rather that random evolution did a pretty good job there.
Anything can be used maliciously.
> That is not likely to happen with random evolution.
That is happening all the time with evolution. Hundreds of types of plants produce poisons. In fact, producing various poisons is the plant's main weapon in the struggle for survivial - it has no claws and can not run, so it's either making itself completely indigestible (like trees) or making itself unfit or at least hard for eating. Like tomatoes, which were, like all nightshades (potatoes, tomatoes, etc.) originally highly toxic. Only we humans convinced tomatoes and potatoes not to kill us, by genetically modifying them since at least 500BC. Of course, we could develop ones that kill too. Or we could worry about grocers to just shooting you - if they'd be willing to kill you with tomatoes, why not with rifles? Of course, in reality nobody tries to kill anyone, so worrying about weaponized GMO is pointless - if you wanted to kill people, nobody would bother with GMO, there are much cheaper ways.
That's a strange claim to make about a member of the nightshade family.
> Currently, up to 92% of U.S. corn is genetically engineered (GE), as are 94% of soybeans and 94% of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products). It has been estimated that upwards of 75% of processed foods on supermarket shelves – from soda to soup, crackers to condiments – contain genetically engineered ingredients. [1]
[1] https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/abou...
Cottonseed oil is not food, it is a waste product of the cotton industry that should only be used for biodiesel.
I suppose there is some overlap, but I would think that as a first step people with dietary health concerns would cut out things like white flour and high fructose corn syrup.
Guess what? GMO food saves millions of people from malnutrition in the 3rd world. But yet it's just not good enough for the cocky American consumers, despite that scientists agree it's perfectly safe and despite that GMO food is everywhere (without you realizing). I happily by GMO food, I proudly support GMOs because it saves lives, and I can't believe ignorant people would rather these people starve.
Kindly provide evidence for such assertions.
Also, a lot of the signatories are those who received the Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Economics, and Peace awards.[4] I'm not sure which Nobel award would be given for agricultural scientists, so many of those receiving the award could indeed be specialists in that field. But I could only find one agricultural scientist who received an award for anything, and he is dead now, so he couldn't have signed this, and indeed he did not.[5]
Best I can tell, this open letter was signed by people who aren't specialists in this field, who gave as their evidence for support a crop whose value (or even safety?) has not yet been proven. A lot of smart people to be sure, but not experts on this topic. I welcome evidence to the contrary.
[1] http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-le...
[2] https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden...
[3] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_91496...
[4] http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.h...
[5] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970...
But if you ask from the scientists from those fields, you are going to get the same answer.
"the study committee found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it find conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops."
Ask them what, about the many lives that are saved from malnutrition as the commenter asserted? You answered about safety. Neither of us are discussing safety. (Well, I did as an aside. It was not the main point.) That is a separate subject.
Are millions of lives really saved from malnutrition? Kindly provide evidence for such assertions. I’m interested.
As another aside, while looking for evidence that GMOs saved lives through nutrition I was reminded that the economic engine seed producers profit from has brought poverty to farmers in India. 200,000 have committed suicide over increased farming debts. Seeds are far more expensive now, and cannot be saved.[1]
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
Where is the _actual_ evidence of GMO’s salvation of millions?
So unless you somehow solve the problem of mass producing food in pesticide free agriculture, please do not ask for impossible studies.
But the control group — wouldn’t it be non-GMO crops of any kind, organic or non? The assertion, yet to be provided evidence for, is that with gene editing many more millions are no longer suffering malnutrition. That seems to me to be easy evidence to provide if it’s true. If it’s true, evidence should be able to be shown that nutrition content has increased by X percent leading to X thousand lives not perishing. “Since the introduction of high vitamin C rice in Zambezia, the rates of scurvy have dropped by 32%. Vitamin C is difficult to obtain in Zambezia by any other means.” I don’t see how a discussion of pesticides enters into it.
By the way, Nobel laureates can be wrong. The prize was awarded in 1948 for the invention of DDT.[1]
[1] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1...
The article points to an open letter signed by a number of scientists (are they all food/agricultural/health-related scientists?) who evidence Golden Rice, which in my opinion is thin evidence. But I am definitely not a food/agricultural/health-related scientist, so my opinion counts for a hill of non-GMO beans.
Better to investigate, report, regulate, so all society can benefit from the benefits of targeted engineering without fear.
It seems unnatural to eat a big sweet apple. Nature provided small bitter apples.
Second, I have got the feeling that many people who experiment with genetic manipulation don't know what they are actually doing. Yes, they might know it on a high-level perspective and for experiments that is fine, but as long as we can't simulate even single cells its is hard to tell that we know what we are doing.
As a computer scientist it feels to me like someone is patching the binaries of 'grep' and 'cp' together and hopes to use the resulting binaries to build autonomous drones. It is just irresponsible to use the results are long as the have only one petri dish which is actually the one we are living in.
So don't get me wrong, I am completely pro research, but also completely against usage outside of laboratories. There might be exceptions to that rule when it comes to 'specific modification' as you call it, but for me it ends where you could not achieve the same result with a handful of normal breeding cycles.
This is frankly ridiculous. You describe yourself as a computer scientist and presumably have no expertise in the field and then use your gut feeling about how well people understand the consequences of their efforts? I know plenty of people who think that I'm just typing words and random until my code compiles.
Demanding that we are able to model living organisms in computers before we can productionize gmo tech is like saying that we can't deploy any web app until it has been formally verified in Coq.
So if we would live within the web, I would certainly demand to formally verify every web app before it would be deployed.
Conventional agricultural practices are already causing massive ecological devastation. Gene editing is a very good solution to that problem.
If you are pro research, maybe you should understand what you are talking about before you make ignorant claims that are completely backward, disconnected, and unfavored by the majority of scientists. You ignorance in this comment is incredible. The large majority of scientists support GMO research and confirm it's safety, while ignorant civilians (like you) fail to understand, fail to listen, and fail to learn.
The problem I have, is that nobody really knows what happens when you place those products in our ecosystem. We might have some theories and observations but in the end nobody knows enough about the whole system to understand all its processes and sometimes small changes have much larger effects.
And as long as we have only one system and no backup, I don't want to risk changing the ecosystem on this planet in ways we can't predict.
It's all "unknown unknowns" territory here. There are no known threat scenarios. But if you're into being concerned of unknown unknowns, you have thousands of other things to be concerned of, too.
I know that unknown threats are everywhere and there are a lots of other things I am concerned of too, but in the end I am used to live with that and it doesn't change my view on the topic.
No, it's like applying a patch to a code base, compiling it, testing it and expecting it to work. Which is literally what millions of software engineers do every day.
> So don't get me wrong, I am completely pro research, but also completely against usage outside of laboratories.
What's the point in that research than? Idle curiosity?
> but for me it ends where you could not achieve the same result with a handful of normal breeding cycles.
That's like saying it's ok to run binaries, but only if we compile them by hand on paper without using a compiler. If the result is the same, as even you admit, what's the point of taking the hard route?
The only real answer to fears about GMOs is to point people towards longitudinal studies that show that the specific modification in question isn't causing any problems. Sadly, this really isn't possible in our current system, as I have no idea which changes were made to the organisms that get put in the consumer products I buy. In an ideal world, I could read NGK-028181 off the tin of baked beans in my pantry and realize that I needed to throw it out because they discovered something wrong with that one specific genome (or because I know I'm allergic).
As a consumer, if I ever get suspicious about one specific change made to one specific breed, my only option is to buy non-GMO everything. That doesn't make any sense!