Monsanto is a bunch of douchenozzles, yes. That said: being required to label GM food as GM food would, technically, require that all food consumed anywhere in the world be labeled as GM food.
People are irrationally afraid of "frankencorn" and for some reason don't know that "corn" was -- yes, I'm going to say it -- genetically engineered from previous species that weren't very good eats. In the past, we did our genetic modifications by selective breeding -- hence, for instance, cows, dogs, cats, wheat, and corn -- but now we do it with microscopes and thingers and THEREFORE BAD. I also Googled "third generation GM" and found, in admittedly ten minutes of searching, exactly zero peer-reviewed studies that backed up the claims presented in the HuffPo etc. articles.
You can find, quite easily, just as many peer-reviewed articles touting the truth of Intelligent Design theory. This should maybe be a clue.
But, as I feel I should reiterate: Monsanto is a giant sack of jackasses.
They're also promoting organic farming, which is arguably worse for the environment than non-organic. Sure, they don't use "engineered" pesticides etc., but that doesn't mean they don't use pesticides. Shockingly, it turns out that the pesticides they use aren't as good at killing beasties and weedsies as the ones non-organic farmers use, so organic farmers have to use more of them. Sometimes quite a lot more. And that's bad for the environment.
You've got to consider the source whenever you're reading an argument. People with skin in the game are less reliable than bystanders. For example, just like you shouldn't trust me to give an accurate prediction about whether the Cubs will win the series this year (IT COULD STILL HAPPEN OK), you shouldn't trust someone who sells homeopathic remedies to give you an accurate assessment of whether homeopathy works or not.
Did you read the articles, or just dismiss them because of the website that LINKED articles from reputable sources?
Sure did. Did you read the articles I linked to? Which did you think were more persuasive?
The thing I'm most concerned about, honestly, is the SciAm article you linked above which claims that Monsanto et al. are not allowing independent research. If that's true, that's worrying indeed -- but I'm not so sure the FDA is as toothless as all that.
And no, not all food consumed - you know exactly what I'm talking about Eric.
What, precisely, is the difference between genetic modification produced in the lab and genetic modification produced by centuries of selective breeding? Seriously.
Why do scientists have to ask permission to publish independent studies? What is wrong with that picture?
Yeah, that's messed up. I note that the second article you link doesn't actually cite any sources other than a book (coincidentally for sale by that same website) written by the page's author. Oh, and the book is about how the GMO seed companies are secretly a New World Order. Note that this is not an argument that says the author's claims are untrue; it's just that the author hasn't given us any reason to believe his claims. I'm much more persuaded by the SciAm reference.
They aren't selective breeding the corn, they are adding in foreign bodies so the corn/grain/sugar beets/etc grow better and are *resistant* to their weed killers.How are those things different? You might start by
( ... )
People are irrationally afraid of "frankencorn" and for some reason don't know that "corn" was -- yes, I'm going to say it -- genetically engineered from previous species that weren't very good eats. In the past, we did our genetic modifications by selective breeding -- hence, for instance, cows, dogs, cats, wheat, and corn -- but now we do it with microscopes and thingers and THEREFORE BAD. I also Googled "third generation GM" and found, in admittedly ten minutes of searching, exactly zero peer-reviewed studies that backed up the claims presented in the HuffPo etc. articles.
You can find, quite easily, just as many peer-reviewed articles touting the truth of Intelligent Design theory. This should maybe be a clue.
But, as I feel I should reiterate: Monsanto is a giant sack of jackasses.
Reply
Reply
Check that site, they link to a LOT of different news - BBC articles, NYT blog and NYT articles, Reuters, etc.
Reply
You've got to consider the source whenever you're reading an argument. People with skin in the game are less reliable than bystanders. For example, just like you shouldn't trust me to give an accurate prediction about whether the Cubs will win the series this year (IT COULD STILL HAPPEN OK), you shouldn't trust someone who sells homeopathic remedies to give you an accurate assessment of whether homeopathy works or not.
Reply
Because the website promotes it yes. But a lot of the articles are from very reputable sources. As I said earlier.
Reply
Sure did. Did you read the articles I linked to? Which did you think were more persuasive?
The thing I'm most concerned about, honestly, is the SciAm article you linked above which claims that Monsanto et al. are not allowing independent research. If that's true, that's worrying indeed -- but I'm not so sure the FDA is as toothless as all that.
Reply
What, precisely, is the difference between genetic modification produced in the lab and genetic modification produced by centuries of selective breeding? Seriously.
Why do scientists have to ask permission to publish independent studies? What is wrong with that picture?
Yeah, that's messed up. I note that the second article you link doesn't actually cite any sources other than a book (coincidentally for sale by that same website) written by the page's author. Oh, and the book is about how the GMO seed companies are secretly a New World Order. Note that this is not an argument that says the author's claims are untrue; it's just that the author hasn't given us any reason to believe his claims. I'm much more persuaded by the SciAm reference.
They aren't selective breeding the corn, they are adding in foreign bodies so the corn/grain/sugar beets/etc grow better and are *resistant* to their weed killers.How are those things different? You might start by ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment