Originally posted by DeepThought

“GM material.” is “genes” in this case. Since non-GM crops ALREADY contain genes, obtaining a new one doesn't necessarily do any harm.

An organic farmer is required to not use GM technology. If their crop is contaminated then they could lose organic certification and this drops the price of their produce.[quote]I also should point o ...[text shortened]... o a potential problem I've named with genetic modification is to do more genetic modification...

An organic farmer is required to not use GM technology. If their crop is contaminated then they could lose organic certification and this drops the price of their produce.

-which is one of the many reasons why I think organic farming with organic certification is irrational and wrong.

Genetic modification always refers to artificial modification.

OK, so any reason why we should reject or be more scared of artificial modification than natures modification?

Your solution to a potential problem I've named with genetic modification is to do more genetic modification...

If the problem is that it hasn't been done perfect the first time than the solution is to do it perfect the second time.

Originally posted by PatNovak
I am more worried about the people that would potentially starve if someone like you (a person who appears either be completely unaware of the scientific consensus on GM crops, or is rejecting that consensus) was in charge of GM crop usage.

There is no evidence that there have been significant unintended consequences to using GM Crops (http://www.ncbi.nl ...[text shortened]... whiskey work just fine.
Why bother improving computers, my Commodore 64 does everything I need.

I'd just make the point that authors of the paper you referenced are employed by Dow AgroSciences LLC, who have a substantial interest in removing case by case assessment of GM crops.

I stand by my statement (why bother?), Science is not Engineering. A scientific advance does not have to be implemented on a mass scale. What is driving this is not consumer need, but the desire for profits on behalf of biotechnology companies.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I think that there is also concern that growing GM crops would make African countries dependent on Western countries' seed producers.

Any special reason why African countries couldn't possibly ever produce their own GM seed? I know most/all are generally currently relatively poor, but that shouldn't forever bar them from the GM business.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'd just make the point that authors of the paper you referenced are employed by Dow AgroSciences LLC, who have a substantial interest in removing case by case assessment of GM crops.

I stand by my statement (why bother?), Science is not Engineering. A scientific advance does not have to be implemented on a mass scale. What is driving this is not consumer need, but the desire for profits on behalf of biotechnology companies.

While what motivates some people can intrinsically and subjectively be bad or good, what motivates some people into making GM is, purely in practicall terms, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT! Only its risks (if any) and benefits of GM and what effect it has is relevant.
If the effect of some people saving lives or doing something good is total selfishness, money, massive greed etc, doesn't matter to humanity because the EFFECT is still saving lives or doing something good.
There must be a huge selfish greedy profit motive for companies making solar panels and many often don't really care a damn about the environment or our future etc. -so we should reject the making of solar panels?
No! because, regardless of the bad motive of doing a good thing, the EFFECT is STILL GOOD!

Originally posted by humy
What motivates some people into making GM is, purely in practical terms, irrelevant. Only its risks (if any) and benefits of GM and what effect it has is relevant.
If the effect of some people saving lives or doing something good is total selfishness, money, massive greed etc, doesn't matter to humanity because the EFFECT is still saving lives or doing somethi ...[text shortened]... els?
No! because, regardless of the bad motive of doing a good thing, the EFFECT is STILL GOOD!

The point is that there is a risk of bias.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The point is that there is a risk of bias.

not sure what you mean by "bias" here but if it is "bias" to do something harmful, this is where the need for government regulation and laws comes into it -providing that is done to ensure they are steered into doing the right thing even if for the 'wrong' reason, no problem.

Isn't there a "there is a risk of bias" within the solar energy industry? why pick on GM in particular? corruption and greed exists in ALL industries and involves ALL technologies.

Incidentally, would you count a profit motive as the 'wrong' reason to do GM? if so, would you be against solar power companies being motivated by profit? do you think they should make no profit?

Originally posted by PatNovak
Fair enough. I am open to the possibility that food aid is a net negative in some cases. I don't have time to research it, but I think there is a fairly big resistance in Africa to grow GM crops. If this is true, it would still mean that African opposition to GM crops would be a cause of hunger there.

I can't speak for the northern parts of Africa, but in Southern Africa, where I come from, we are more than capable of growing enough food. The problems are political, not agricultural. There is plenty of land that is simply not used because it is not profitable to use it.
Yes, poor people benefit from high yield, drought resistant, insect resistant crops. But will GM seeds be handed out for free? Or are they for the commercial market anyway, in which case the poor won't benefit.
The resistance to GM crops is for three basic reasons:
1. To try and stop the US dumping food on Africa in order to ruin our agriculture.
2. Because there is a fear that it will be used to extort money out of farmers as they often come with patents and terminator systems etc.
3. Because the GM crops are developed in other countries and are simply not suitable for our climate anyway.

Now if someone develops a GM crop that is patent free, pest resistant, high yield, drought resistant, and suitable for our climate and soils, then it would probably be welcomed.

But ultimately, Zambia's main crop maize, is not exported. This means there is a finite market for maize. So, improved crops for some farmers, means other farmers must grow less or everyone must drop their prices and suffer a loss.

Now if the US and the EU were to stop farm subsidies, then maybe we could start exporting to the US, instead of being treated as a dumping ground.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I can't speak for the northern parts of Africa, but in Southern Africa, where I come from, we are more than capable of growing enough food. The problems are political, not agricultural. There is plenty of land that is simply not used because it is not profitable to use it.
Yes, poor people benefit from high yield, drought resistant, insect resistant crop ...[text shortened]... es, then maybe we could start exporting to the US, instead of being treated as a dumping ground.

Now if someone develops a GM crop that is patent free, pest resistant, high yield, drought resistant, and suitable for our climate and soils, then it would probably be welcomed.

any reasonable chance of that someone being African and doing it within Africa rather than the US or EU? -a possible solution.

Originally posted by humy
not sure what you mean by "bias" here but if it is "bias" to do something harmful, this is where the need for government regulation and laws comes into it -providing that is done to ensure they are steered into doing the right thing even if for the 'wrong' reason, no problem.

Isn't there a "there is a risk of bias" within the solar energy industry? why pick ...[text shortened]... gainst solar power companies being motivated by profit? do you think they should make no profit?

Bias means bias. They want to get a particular result and lo and behold they get it. The paper Pat Novak referenced was written to justify ending the case by case testing of GM crops for unintended consequences. Based on a quick read of the abstract, and I'm not buying it for the sake of being able to read the rest, it is a synthesis of other research - you read a bunch of papers and make claims based on them. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but which papers did they include and which did they reject? This is what I mean by "risk of bias". This is different from an accusation of actual bias, I'd need to look at their methodology and see if the papers they included or rejected match their stated criteria - which is a lot of work and would involve spending money to get hold of all the papers they reference.

Originally posted by DeepThought
What is driving this is not consumer need, but the desire for profits on behalf of biotechnology companies.

You have provided no evidence that this is true. Even is it is true, there is nothing wrong with companies creating need. People didn't need cars until Henry Ford came along. We didn't need smartphones until companies like Apple started selling them. Companies don't need to do things for purely altruistic reasons for the results to be beneficial to society (and in fact, that is the norm).

There is only one issue that is important here: What should be the default policy position on GM food? I contend that here, like everywhere else, scientific consensus should determine what the default position is. And I also contend (and am more than ready to debate if necessary) that scientific consensus is clearly on the side of GM food being safe.

This means that the default position should be that any particular GM food is considered safe until proven otherwise, and should not have to jump through any more hoops than any other kind of food. The burden should always be on those who are countering scientific consensus.

Until scientific consensus on GM food changes, the burden should be on those opposing it, not the other way around.

Originally posted by PatNovak
You have provided no evidence that this is true. Even is it is true, there is nothing wrong with companies creating need. People didn't need cars until Henry Ford came along. We didn't need smartphones until companies like Apple started selling them. Companies don't need to do things for purely altruistic reasons for the results to be beneficial to society ...[text shortened]... nsensus on GM food changes, the burden should be on those opposing it, not the other way around.

What should be the default policy position on GM food? I contend that here, like everywhere else, scientific consensus should determine what the default position is.

What do you mean by policy position? Do you mean that it should be allowed to be sold without testing? Do you mean it should not be labelled as GM? Do you want to make it compulsory? The human safety aspect is a bit of a red herring though, the issue I am more concerned about is potential problems for pollinators.

The decision on burden of proof should be to limit damage. If the burden of proof is on the side of bio-tech companies then if there is a problem, by the time it is recognised the damage will have been done. If the burden of proof is left as it is then if there is a problem it will be caught before any damage is done, and if there is not a problem then the consequence will just be a delay in bringing the crop online.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I can't speak for the northern parts of Africa, but in Southern Africa, where I come from, we are more than capable of growing enough food. The problems are political, not agricultural. There is plenty of land that is simply not used because it is not profitable to use it.
Yes, poor people benefit from high yield, drought resistant, insect resistant crop ...[text shortened]... es, then maybe we could start exporting to the US, instead of being treated as a dumping ground.

I agree with you about farm subsidies. Just about every year there is talk about cutting them (here in the U.S.), but it never seems to happen.

All I am after is treating GM food like any other product that has been thoroughly tested and backed by scientific consensus, and stop having it treated like it is some sort of unusually dangerous product (and I think you have a similar position). People shouldn't go hungry (or go without other thing because they had to spend more than necessary on food) because they heard food was "Genetically Modified" and got scared off by scary sounding words, or by scare mongers who don't have good science to back them up.

Originally posted by DeepThought

What should be the default policy position on GM food? I contend that here, like everywhere else, scientific consensus should determine what the default position is.

What do you mean by policy position? Do you mean that it should be allowed to be sold without testing? Do you mean it should not be labelled as GM? Do you want to make it co ...[text shortened]... if there is not a problem then the consequence will just be a delay in bringing the crop online.

In the U.S., and I suspect all developed countries, there is a thorough regulatory process that all food must go through, and GM food is not exempt from it. Again, this is not some rogue company deciding to put food into the market without testing. It is an industry which clearly has scientific consensus backing them and has many regulators watching over them. You are setting the safety bar higher for GM foods than other things, and there is no evidence to support that this is necessary.

In the U.S., GM food labeling is not mandatory (nor should it be, because the science doesn't support labeling). There is nothing stopping companies from voluntarily labeling their food. For instance Cheerios cereal labels themselves as GM-free, which they do purely for marketing, because if you go to their FAQ, they say:

"Q: Are genetically modified foods safe?

A: Yes. There is broad consensus among major global scientific and regulatory bodies that approved genetically modified foods are safe. The World Health Organization (WHO), the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Health Canada have all weighed in on this question – and all have found approved biotech crops to be as safe and acceptable as their conventional counterparts."

http://www.cheerios.com/en/Articles/cheerios-and-gmos#.U6szoPldXEM

Here is what the US Food and Drug Administration says about GM food:

"First, let me state that FDA is confident that the bioengineered foods on the United States market today are as safe as their conventional counterparts. This conclusion has been echoed in recent reports by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Government Accountability Office, and most recently in a 2004 report from NAS’s National Research Council and Institute of Medicine entitled, 'Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects.' Over the last ten years, FDA has reviewed the data on more than 60 bioengineered food products, ranging from herbicide resistant soybeans to a modified canola oil. To date, the evidence shows that these foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts."

http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/testimony/ucm112927.htm

If all you are worried about is the bees, then this problem has been addressed through normal scientific processes. They found something might be causing bees to die, and took it off the market. Natural plants have also been known to kill bees, so this is not a problem unique to GM plants.

Originally posted by PatNovak
In the U.S., and I suspect all developed countries, there is a thorough regulatory process that all food must go through, and GM food is not exempt from it. Again, this is not some rogue company deciding to put food into the market without testing. It is an industry which clearly has scientific consensus backing them and has many regulators watching over th ...[text shortened]... Natural plants have also been known to kill bees, so this is not a problem unique to GM plants.

Actually my main point in the O.P. was soley concerned with the reduction in bee numbers and neo-nicotinoids. I voiced some concern about systemic pesticides in crops, the thing about GM crops was an afterthought, and it lead to this row about GM crops, rather than a discussion of the problems facing pollinators. It's interesting to read the posts and to see how logical each poster is about the subject.

twhitehead, argued against my position on systemic pesticides on the grounds that DDT is worse, but voiced an important objection which is how terminator genes and patents make these things bad news for African countries. This is a difference from Europe, where the GM sceptics like me would prefer the terminator gene present to protect wild species and non-GM crops.

humy seemed willing to sacrifice the entire population of pollinators provided science advances.

Your post wasn't unreasonable, assuming that the standard food safety procedures will catch any plausible problems with GM crops.

My concerns with GM are to do with bio-diversity and contamination of wild species and non-GM crops. People who don't want to eat the stuff have a basic right to be able to control what's going into their bodies (so we disagree on labelling see last paragraph) and if non-GM crops become contaminated their choice is pretty compromised.

googlefudge largely stayed out of the argument. But was broadly pro-GM.

I think if something has a GM crop in it should be marked as such in the list of ingredients (in the U.K. this is small print on the side of the packet). I doubt most people read this stuff, but I'm regularly put off buying things by reading the ingredients, not so far because it's GM but purely by conventional nasties. I'm not arguing it should have a cigarette style warning label on the front.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Actually my main point in the O.P. was soley concerned with the reduction in bee numbers and neo-nicotinoids. I voiced some concern about systemic pesticides in crops, the thing about GM crops was an afterthought, and it lead to this row about GM crops, rather than a discussion of the problems facing pollinators. It's interesting to read the posts and ...[text shortened]... ventional nasties. I'm not arguing it should have a cigarette style warning label on the front.

humy seemed willing to sacrifice the entire population of pollinators provided science advances.

No. Don't know where you got that from including the “ provided science advances” (what!?!? ) bit (very strange bit! ) but also I do not want to “sacrifice the entire population of pollinators” -why would I want that? I was only saying that, if all the bees DID disappear (unlikely ) , although bad, it wouldn't be nearly as disastrous as many people would claim and it certainly wouldn't doom humanity to extinction (for the reasons I explained -we would adapt + many plants don't need bees etc )