Kimmo
-
Posts
1741 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Kimmo
-
-
If it does go down, will anyone here really be happy about it? Why?
Here's the official list:
1. Massive unending lawsuits;
2. Massive compliance costs to farmers;
3. Ginormous RED TAPE;
4. Washington becomes PARIAH STATE;
5. MASSIVE FOOD COST INCREASES.
Didn't you see the ads?
-
I heard someone say it's not over yet.
Any truth to that???
-
Did anyone find the excerpt below interesting the first time around?
Brian Martison (Nature, 2005) found that one-third of 3,000 surveyed scientists, drawn primarily from the biological sciences, admitted to behaving unethically in their research, and 15.5% of them specifically admitted that “they had changed how they conducted an experiment or its results in response to pressure from a funding source”.Considering how difficult such an admission would be, even in a confidential survey, this may be a conservative estimate.
Something to consider: Monsanto does its own "scientific" safety testing.
If, from a broad sampling across the biological sciences spectrum we find 1 out of 3 scientists willing to admit to "behaving unethically", and nearly 1 out of 6 changing experiments or results due to "pressure from a funding source", what are we to think of Monsanto's in-house process of safety testing the GMOs we as a society then eat?
-
My argument against GMOs (their usurpation of the natural environment) would have presented a stronger case than the one your fear-mongering, dreadlock I-522 friends managed to concoct.
Again, do you think mandatory childhood vaccinations are a good idea?
not sure why you keep going on about vaccinations, but yes, I saw you post your ideas of how to run a more effective campaign.
Curious, if the aspect you wished for had been the campaign's central focus, would it have troubled you enough to vote for a labeling initiative?
-
Posing endless questions is not an argument.
Why not?
-
I-522 isn't really about GMOs so much as it's about people hating monsanto. You can have an entire conversation about GMOs with someone and the first thing they'll do is bring up Monsanto and Roundup, as if that's all that needs to be said.
"I hate McDonald's. Let's label anything that is a hamburger!"
I have lots of friends voting yes, so I don't really care that much. But it sure is interesting to see how poorly understood the science is in popular culture. But I guess that's true on nearly any technical topic presented in mass media. it's kind of a joke putting an issue like this to the voters and then letting two huge corporations (both of which stand to profit if the other one loses) spend endless amounts of money on campaign cash presenting questionable arguments to a largely ignorant and easily frightened electorate -- half of which doesn't even bothering showing up to vote.
What a system!
Let's go ride bikes
Nailed it. You could substitute any other name for "Monsanto", and the issue would still be the same.
And, unfortunately, your misguided argument would still be the same.
-
Are you talking about the redundancy of my post, the discussion itself, or....?
-
But we'll see soon enough who's fear-mongering worked better.
I'm hoping for the best, fearing the worst.
Sounds like maybe you're a little too emotionally invested in this thing?
What does that mean?
Remember, I'm the one asking the questions around here.
-
-
But we'll see soon enough who's fear-mongering worked better.
I'm hoping for the best, fearing the worst.
-
I'm afearin' that Monsanto would have saved a pretty penny if that's the route I522 had taken.
-
Really?
ok I'll take your question seriously:
I *absolutely* believe that GMOs should be labeled. I should be able to pick up any food item meant for consumption and know immediately if it contains a controversial technology. This I believe without a doubt!
I shouldn't have to play a guessing game: "well, I know "organic" is GMO free (wouldn't be if Monsanto would have had its way! They fought this one hard.), and some are labeled "GMO free", but this one doesn't have a label. Should I assume it's GMO?"
The consumer has rights, codified rights, and considering the unanswered controversies surrounding GMOs, without doubt they should be labeled.
We aren't talking about the down-fall of capitalism here, or even the down-fall of Monsanto.
And forced vaccinations? My feelings are "nuanced".
-
Kimmo, this is kind of an aside, but I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from and to what degree your position is driven by empiricism vs emotion or a particular world view. What are your thoughts on mandatory childhood vaccinations? Animal rights? Are you a vegetarian? Vegan? I'm ok with your position on 522 and I understand why a lot of folks are pushing for its passage. In fact, Jim makes a good point when he says something along the lines that "if Monsanto is against it, then I'm for it," and I'm tempted to follow this path as well. (Although it's too late; I voted No and mailed it in a few days ago.)
I wish you would have followed that path!
I'll answer your question with a question:
Where do *you* think I'm coming from? I ask this because it seems my involvement with this topic here provides a rather strong clue, so I'm a little confused by the question.
But, certainly concern over a controversial technology being exploited by a large profit-driven corporation is at the top of my list.
The technology itself? Man, what a marvel. And I think it holds great promise that we can't even foresee right now. But foisting it upon the entire planet for commercial gain? I'd hold to the Precautionary Principle on this one.
-
Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements.
"I would be so tied up in what I was able to do that basically I would have no value to anybody else," he said. "The only person I would have value to is Monsanto, and I would continue to pay them millions in fees."
-
Glyphosate, active ingredient in Monsanto's RoundUp.
Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentina’s Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
From an article in Scientific American
-
Contrary to claims made by the chemical industries, glyphosate use increased 6,504% from 1991 to 2010 according to data from the USDA.
Thanks to glyphosate-resistant crops, farmers are free to spray more than ever.
Glyphosate is showing up everywhere
In a 2011 study by the U.S. Geological Survey, glyphosate was frequently detected in water, rain and air in the Mississippi River basin. Also in 2011, Chang et al. reported concentrations of glyphosate in air and rain as high as 2.5 μg/L in agricultural areas in Mississippi and Iowa.
Just another unintended consequence. Thanks Monsanto!
-
Keenwesh, I'll assume you posted your FDA website info as proof that the "vigorous" safety testing of GMOs Nate calls for already exists, correct?
I'm curious, did you read any of the info within the link you posted?
I quote:
"Based on the safety and nutritional assessment Monsanto has conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that oil derived from MON 87769 soybean for use as an ingredient in human food is not materially different in safety and other parameters from oils of similar chemical composition produced from other sources and used as ingredients in human food."
Interesting, huh?
The FDA asks Monsanto to do their own safety testing! The company that stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars from GMO sales is asked to do its own safety testing. Quite amazing, isn't it?
I ask you and Nate, does this qualify as "vigorous" safety testing?
-
from the FDA website:Food and food ingredients derived from GE plants must adhere to the same safety requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act that apply to food and food ingredients derived from traditionally bred plants.
FDA encourages developers of GE plants to consult with the agency before marketing their products. Although the consultation is voluntary, Keefe says developers find it helpful in determining the steps necessary to ensure that food products made from their plants are safe and otherwise lawful.
The developer produces a safety assessment, which includes the identification of distinguishing attributes of new genetic traits, whether any new material in food made from the GE plant could be toxic or allergenic when eaten, and a comparison of the levels of nutrients in the GE plant to traditionally bred plants.
FDA scientists evaluate the safety assessment and also review relevant data and information that are publicly available in published scientific literature and the agency's own records.
The consultation is complete only when FDA's team of scientists are satisfied with the developer's safety assessment and have no further questions regarding safety or other regulatory issues.
As of May 2013, FDA has completed 96 consultations on genetically engineered crops. A complete list of all completed consultations and our responses are available at www.fda.gov/bioconinventory.
I guess I don't understand again.
Why did you post this?
-
An understanding of genetics to know that putting genes from a distantly related organism into a food crop is not itself, cause for alarm, though it sounds very odd to the general public. Vigorous testing is needed to make sure that the particular genes are not allergens, or that they do no interfere with other genes, regardless of where that genetic material came from, be it a flounder or closely related plant.
ok that sounds fine, thanks.
Do we currently have "vigorous testing", and what does it consist of?
-
A potential problem could arise if the gene (and promoter region, you need both) spliced themselves in the middle of another gene, either deactivating it or changing the gene into something harmful. Any harmful genes would show up during the genomic sequencing. Also, they feed this stuff in massive quantities to rats during the FDA approval process. If they caused cancer/autism/herpes we would know about it.
You are right, I don't understand.
So help me out here.
1. Firstly, I was told by Nate that an understanding of genetics is enough to assess the safety of GMOs, and no testing is needed.
2. Then Nate states that there might be some problems that could occur, allergic reactions if I recall, and that's why he supports vigorous testing of GMOs for safety.
3. I asked him about this seeming change, and you chimed in with a "you don't understand." Not sure what that referred to, but...
4. You then stated that during the splicing process, the gene could turn into something "harmful", but this would show up during the genomic sequencing.
5. You then said that even if the above all didn't work out as planned, rats are fed the GMO, and certainly any problem would be caught at this point.
Is the above a fair synopsis so far?
-
Hello Nate, thanks for the reply. I am curious though about a couple of things you say:
Earlier in this thread, you said that you believe GMOs are completely safe, and an understanding of genetics is all that is needed to assess GMO safety, and that no actual food safety testing is needed.
But in the last post of yours, you say the following:
The risk lies with the particular gene inserted into the GMOs genome. The gene could, for example, trigger an allergy in some people. So I do support vigorous real-world testing that ensures researchers understand what the effects of that gene are.Why the change in your opinion?
Why do you now support "vigorous real-world testing" for GMOs, when earlier you said "an understanding of genetics" is all that is needed?
You don't understand.
You are right, and that's why I asked him to clarify.
-
Hello Nate, thanks for the reply. I am curious though about a couple of things you say:
Earlier in this thread, you said that you believe GMOs are completely safe, and an understanding of genetics is all that is needed to assess GMO safety, and that no actual food safety testing is needed.
But in the last post of yours, you say the following:
The risk lies with the particular gene inserted into the GMOs genome. The gene could, for example, trigger an allergy in some people. So I do support vigorous real-world testing that ensures researchers understand what the effects of that gene are.Why the change in your opinion?
Why do you now support "vigorous real-world testing" for GMOs, when earlier you said "an understanding of genetics" is all that is needed?
-
Not feeding studies, but an understanding of genetics, at least to refute the idea that a gene or multiple genes from an organism spliced into the genome of a vegetable or other food plant will make that plant toxic for consumption. If the gene encodes for a protein that is poisonous to humans, then it will be poisonous. But if the DNA being spliced into whatever plant they are working with does not code for something that is toxic to humans, then we shouldn't worry, even though a flounder gene in a tomato sounds weird.
So if I understand correctly, you have been taught that the consumption of any GMO is completely safe, as long as the spliced gene does not code for something toxic to humans, is that correct?
And that this theory is so beyond doubt that any actual real-world testing of its validity is unnecessary?
-
Brian Martison (Nature, 2005) found that one-third of 3,000 surveyed scientists, drawn primarily from the biological sciences, admitted to behaving unethically in their research, and 15.5% of them specifically admitted that “they had changed how they conducted an experiment or its results in response to pressure from a funding source”.
Considering how difficult such an admission would be, even in a confidential survey, this may be a conservative estimate.
Since this was a broad survey across a spectrum of biological sciences, what might the results be with scientists associated specifically with GMO work funded by Monsanto?
I522 - Pros and Cons
in Spray
Posted
BTW, ads for "No on I522" developed by Omnicom/Publicis Group, world's largest ad agency.
I admit to admiring their focused lack of flair in reaching the "common-sense" principles of Washington's smart voters with a "Shock and Awe" assault on their amygdalae.