Bees

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.

I have mainly refrained from commenting because Twhitehead and PatNovak
were broadly making the points I would make [with a few modifications].

My position is that GM is a powerful tool.

And as with all powerful tools, it's being good or bad is largely how you use it.

I think that there are a whole host of potential [and actualised] benefits of
GM, and I am comfortable that it is largely safe without containment and that
containment is actually more harmful than otherwise. [this for a licensed final
product, experimental plants being prototyped should be contained for obvious
reasons] This of course subject to any case specific considerations.

I think we should be using every tool in our arsenal [and enlarging that arsenal]
to produce as much food from as little area at as low a cost, both financially and
environmentally.

And I see [and so does the larger relevant scientific community] GM as being
a valuable tool in that endeavour.

Big companies will always require transparent independent oversight in what
they do to make sure they comply with good safety practice.

And just as Nuclear power is incredibly beneficial and very safe when done right,
but is perceived by the general public [and the environmental movement in particular]
as being always harmful and incredibly unsafe even when done right.
I feel that GM gets similarly unjustly maligned.

On the topic of labelling... I don't believe GM is a useful or necessary label to put on
food. Both from a psychological perspective, and from a practically based one.

The psychological perspective is that by creating a label that says GM or not GM it
helps perpetuate the myth that there is something inherently wrong with GM.
And it also makes people thing that there is something fundamentally different
about a GM version of a product than a non-gm version.

Take the example that kicked us off [which is partly responsible, I suspect, for the
GM focus of this thread] of modifying crop plants to be nitrogen fixers.
The difference between a orange grown on a GM plant and a non-GM plant would
be... nothing beyond a minuscule difference in DNA. The bulk changes to the plant
happened in the root system. There is no nutritional difference or difference in
safety. But one plant [the GM one] required no polluting nitrogen fertiliser to grow it.
And it left the ground more fertile than it was before, rather than sucking nutrients out
of it.

Roughly 1 half of the nitrogen in your body came from a factory making ammonia...
Should that be on a label??

Do you think people should be given a choice between food that only contains
'naturally' fixed nitrogen and food that contains factory fixed nitrogen?


Which brings me to my practical objection, which ties in with the first.

There are vastly to many different factors we could think of that we could put on labels
so 'people could choose what they put inside them'.
So we have to make a choice about what information we give people, because they cannot
possibly be given all of it.
Telling people that a product might [or does] contain nuts is valuable because a significant
number of people are severely allergic to nuts. It's a matter of life or death that they
can get that information about a product.

There is no such thing as allergy to GM food.

GM is too broad and too meaningless a label to be useful or informative... You would have
to know what KIND of modification to be useful, and then you would [as a member of the
general public] need to have some reasonable basis for deciding what to do with that
information... But most people don't have this information.

It's like computer anti-virus popping up an alert... To most people it reads:

"Scary sounding technical gibberish.

More technical gibberish.

Button to please make this warning go away."

It doesn't help anybody.

Food labelling needs to be actually useful and informative [which it seldom actually is]
to regular people. And as such experts need to preselect what information we need/should
get. And we need to trust that system, because we cannot all individually test and verify
the safety of our food.

You should not have to go into a supermarket and try to work out what the 'safe' food is.
It should ALL be safe... GM is not indication of safe/not-safe... and if it were, we shouldn't
be doing it in the first place. Slapping a label on it if it were dangerous would be like trying
to put a sticking plaster on the gushing neck wound of someone who's been beheaded.

Ie totally pointless.


That went on longer than I intended, sorry about that.

Going back to the OP I do think we need to be concerned about and do more to protect
our bees.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I have mainly refrained from commenting because Twhitehead and PatNovak
were broadly making the points I would make [with a few modifications].

My position is that GM is a powerful tool.

And as with all powerful tools, it's being good or bad is largely how you use it.

I think that there are a whole host of potential [and actualised] benefits o ...[text shortened]... Going back to the OP I do think we need to be concerned about and do more to protect
our bees.

Telling people that a product might [or does] contain nuts is valuable because a significant number of people are severely allergic to nuts. It's a matter of life or death that they can get that information about a product.

There is no such thing as allergy to GM food.

That's actually quite scary if you put it together. I can't think of a reason why someone might think it's a good idea to put genes for nut proteins into another crop, but even so, I do hope they've thought of that. Does this complicate allergy testing?

Sorry I disagree with you about labelling, if consumers reject GM products because of what you regard as irrational fear you have to deal with the fear, not remove the choice. Incidentally the difference isn't just in DNA, but in the proteins the DNA's transcribed into and any potential for harm comes from them, not the DNA.

Do you think people should be given a choice between food that only contains
'naturally' fixed nitrogen and food that contains factory fixed nitrogen?

Well if it says organic on the label...

Why would containment be harmful? I'll accept terminator genes as containment.

Originally posted by DeepThought
My concerns with GM are to do with bio-diversity and contamination of wild species and non-GM crops.

So you do apparently think there is something 'special' about GM crops. I find this attitude to be illogical. You would never have said 'my concerns are with bio-diversity and contamination of wild species and local species with Zambian varieties.'

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.
I disagree. Again you are making a claim that there is something special about GM crops. If a GM crop has a specific property that may be of concern to a consumer, then you may require labeling. But the same should apply to non-GM crops with similar properties.
For example, do you think foods should be labelled with what fertilizer was used, or what insecticides were used in their production? If not, why not?

Originally posted by DeepThought

Telling people that a product might [or does] contain nuts is valuable because a significant number of people are severely allergic to nuts. It's a matter of life or death that they can get that information about a product.

There is no such thing as allergy to GM food.

That's actually quite scary if you put it together. I can't think of ...[text shortened]... the label...

Why would containment be harmful? I'll accept terminator genes as containment.

Why would containment be harmful? I'll accept terminator genes as containment.

Because if the plants self destruct after one season and produce no usable seed then you
have to keep making more and farmers are locked into buying new seeds annually from a
central manufacturer.

If GM is so dangerous it needs to self destruct then we shouldn't be doing it.
If it's not so dangerous then it doesn't need to self destruct.

Sorry I disagree with you about labelling, if consumers reject GM products because of
what you regard as irrational fear you have to deal with the fear, not remove the choice.
Incidentally the difference isn't just in DNA, but in the proteins the DNA's transcribed into and any
potential for harm comes from them, not the DNA.

And a change in the DNA that codes for nitrogen fixation in roots [found in many food plants
anyway] changes the chemical composition of orange fruit how???

And if we test the fruit, and find that it's otherwise identical, and/or contains nothing harmful,
why in the world does it need a label telling people it's different when it's not?

People have irrational fears about vaccines, but people not taking vaccines harms society.
I would thus be quite happy with compulsory vaccination programs so that we can wipe
out many of these disease like we did with smallpox. At the very least I would send unvaccinated
kids home from state schools to protect the rest of the population from their parents irrational fears.


Similarly, we need to make decisions about how we make our food based on good science and
economics [and ethics] and not on peoples irrational fears. The amount of waste created by
people falling for the naturalistic fallacy and buying into 'organic' food based on the irrational
belief that its somehow better for you...

And again. GM is to ill-defined and meaningless to be helpful... What does it even mean to
have a label that says GM on it?

Without telling you HOW it's been modified, and giving you the technical information needed to
determine if that modification is dangerous it's meaningless.

Labelling food as GM just invites people to make a category error.


If you tell people about a set that includes Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and John Smith... things are not
looking good for John Smith. By being member of that set we automatically think badly of Mr Smith
because we think badly of the other members of the set.
But if the criteria for that set was "a birth mark on left butt cheek" then Mr Smith shouldn't face any
negative consequences from being on the list. But the moment you create a category people start
judging all the members as a group, and not as individuals.


You will always be able to find stories about scientists creating scary sounding genetic hybrids in their
research [plus activists lie about the dangers, like people lie about the dangers of nuclear power] and
if you create the category GM then people will [and do] judge every element of that set by the scary
and often untrue stories they hear about some experiments which bare no relationship to the vast
majority of the members of the set.

Couple this with the fact that we will soon have to feed a worldwide population of 11 billion people,
without destroying the remaining wild habitats of the world, then we don't have the luxury of everyone
getting to choose how food is made. We do not have the space or resources to do that.

Society needs to be built on trust because we cannot all possibly be experts on everything, or even
most things.


If you are basing your system on not trusting anyone then your system is more fundamentally broken
than the problems you are looking at. And trying to fix it by giving every individual a 'choice' is doomed
to fail because people do not have the information or resource's to be able to make informed decisions
about everything, and they shouldn't have to.


Our food should be safe, it should be environmentally sustainable, and it should be cheap [enough].

So when we walk into a supermarket the only things we should have to worry about is "what do I want
to eat tonight?"

Allergy information will need to be provided unless and until we find a cure for allergies, and dietary information
is useful for people managing their calorie and nutrition intake and creating a balanced diet. But beyond that
our food should simply be [justifiably] trusted to be safe and sustainable.


If that's not the case then we fix the system to make it so. We don't slap an afterthought of a labelling system
on as a sticking plaster.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you do apparently think there is something 'special' about GM crops. I find this attitude to be illogical. You would never have said 'my concerns are with bio-diversity and contamination of wild species and local species with Zambian varieties.'

[b]People who don't want to eat the stuff have a basic right to be able to control what's going into thei ...[text shortened]... h what fertilizer was used, or what insecticides were used in their production? If not, why not?

No, why pick out a country that I don't live in? In any case since Zambia is currently rejecting GM there isn't anything particular to worry about.

For example, do you think foods should be labelled with what fertilizer was used, or what insecticides were used in their production?

Well, in the UK to get organic accreditation they can't use artificial fertilizer, if they don't have organic accreditation then they will be using artificial fertilizer. If the fertilizer is a spray it can be washed off. If it is systemic it should be on the label.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Why would containment be harmful? I'll accept terminator genes as containment.

Because if the plants self destruct after one season and produce no usable seed then you
have to keep making more and farmers are locked into buying new seeds annually from a
central manufacturer.

If GM is so dangerous it needs to self destruct then we ...[text shortened]... m to make it so. We don't slap an afterthought of a labelling system
on as a sticking plaster.

They are locked in anyway - the organism is patented, so to grow the plant farmers have to pay the biotech company. This is the case because the gene is present.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No, why pick out a country that I don't live in? In any case since Zambia is currently rejecting GM there isn't anything particular to worry about.

You seem to have missed the point. You wish to protect your countries crops from GM genes but have no problem with genes from Zambian crops. This suggest you have a particular reason for disliking GM genes. What is that reason?

Well, in the UK to get organic accreditation they can't use artificial fertilizer, if they don't have organic accreditation then they will be using artificial fertilizer.
So in justifying one ridiculous requirement, you give me another ridiculous requirement? I am afraid I find the whole 'organic accreditation' business to be just as ridiculous as the GM labelling idea. It has nothing to do with human health and has everything to do with catering to, and profiting from, peoples irrationality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to have missed the point. You wish to protect your countries crops from GM genes but have no problem with genes from Zambian crops. This suggest you have a particular reason for disliking GM genes. What is that reason?

[b]Well, in the UK to get organic accreditation they can't use artificial fertilizer, if they don't have organic accreditation ...[text shortened]... man health and has everything to do with catering to, and profiting from, peoples irrationality.

Yes, this... Very much this.

Organic plants have 'natural' pesticides put on them. And 'Natural' fertiliser, like cow
dung, put on it.

So unlike artificial and sterile fertiliser regular food gets, organic gets a side order of
salmonella [among other things] with it's fertiliser.

And because 'natural' pesticides are less effective they use more of them.

All because people are irrational and we have this 'Oh so helpful' labelling system.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to have missed the point. You wish to protect your countries crops from GM genes but have no problem with genes from Zambian crops. This suggest you have a particular reason for disliking GM genes. What is that reason?

[b]Well, in the UK to get organic accreditation they can't use artificial fertilizer, if they don't have organic accreditation ...[text shortened]... man health and has everything to do with catering to, and profiting from, peoples irrationality.

Is the genome of Zambian maize different from the South American original?

Googlefudge asked why not demand labelling of the type (natural or artificial) of fertilizer used. I pointed out that this exists as it is a fair assumption that inorganic farmers will be using nitrogen from the Haber process. So why is it a ridiculous point?

Simply supplying free condoms to everyone in the world, all day every day, would do an order of magnitude more good in alleviating poverty and saving the environment than all the GM crops ever invented or ever likely to be invented. Plus it would be immensely cheaper than any other policy.

Overpopulation is the ultimate enemy.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Is the genome of Zambian maize different from the South American original?

Yes. Very much so. We have our own research and development facilities where we develop varieties suited to local climate conditions.

Googlefudge asked why not demand labelling of the type (natural or artificial) of fertilizer used. I pointed out that this exists as it is a fair assumption that inorganic farmers will be using nitrogen from the Haber process. So why is it a ridiculous point?
Because it too is labeling on a somewhat arbitrary categorization. It doesn't help the consumer, but rather gives them a false impression.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Simply supplying free condoms to everyone in the world, all day every day, would do an order of magnitude more good in alleviating poverty and saving the environment than all the GM crops ever invented or ever likely to be invented. Plus it would be immensely cheaper than any other policy.

Overpopulation is the ultimate enemy.

Its a little bit more complicated than that. Although providing contraceptives is essential, it is also important to provide child healthcare. If child mortality drops, so does fertility.
Most of the world is already at replacement level of 2 children per woman or below replacement level. Only Saharan Africa is still significantly above, and that is a result of wars and poor healthcare.

However, even at 2 children per woman, population is still set to grow to over 10 billion due to the aging of the population. So we do need to find way to grow more food.
However, better crops is only part of it. Better farming including improved soil management is important too.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Simply supplying free condoms to everyone in the world, all day every day, would do an order of magnitude more good in alleviating poverty and saving the environment than all the GM crops ever invented or ever likely to be invented. Plus it would be immensely cheaper than any other policy.

Overpopulation is the ultimate enemy.

supplying free condoms to everyone in the world would help and, don't get me wrong, I would totally agree with doing this, but, it would very far-from solve all our problems. Overpopulation is only one possible cause of poverty in some places but war and bad politics are probably far greater causes in reality.

Why not do BOTH give free condoms AND have GM to reduce poverty? The two are not mutually exclusive thus saying that GM would do less 'amount' of good reducing poverty than free condoms, even if that was true, would not be a rational reason to reject GM any more than it would be rational to reject giving out free condoms if, hypothetically, GM would do more 'amount' of good. BOTH can do SOME good regardless thus no reason to reject either.

Overpopulation is the ultimate enemy

I would disagree -poverty is a greater enemy and I assume overpopulation is generally bad mostly because it can result in greater poverty (plus reduce sustainability in how we use our natural resources ) and war and bad politics (such as governments not bothering to provide child care, health care and education ) are generally greater causes of poverty.
I would also say, overpopulation or not, people going hungry because they reject GM would only make that situation worse (I am not implying here that ALL cases of GM help reduce poverty because that is far from true; only merely that SOME possible cases CAN have that potential and thus morally SHOULD be used for that. I think, ideally, the rich countries would make that happen and thus pay for the costs of making that happen )

Originally posted by Soothfast
Simply supplying free condoms to everyone in the world, all day every day, would do an order of magnitude more good in alleviating poverty and saving the environment than all the GM crops ever invented or ever likely to be invented. Plus it would be immensely cheaper than any other policy.

Overpopulation is the ultimate enemy.

As much as free condoms is a good idea...

You have it backwards.

Poverty and lack of healthcare and education CAUSE overpopulation.

Improving peoples health and well-being naturally reduces average numbers
of children to around replacement levels.


And as I pointed out earlier.

We are locked in to having a worldwide population of around 11 billion even if
[as is likely] we have already reached 'peak child' [around 2 billion] because
simply maintaining that number of kids, with replacement levels of births, still
causes population growth till around 2100 because the number of children today
is larger than the number of adults in any given equivalent age block. And so as
they grow up and age the population will increase as the number of adults increases
too.

For an explanation with charts see this BBC documentary [the specific bit starts 22 mins in]

YouTube

Originally posted by googlefudge
As much as free condoms is a good idea...

You have it backwards.

Poverty and lack of healthcare and education CAUSE overpopulation.

Improving peoples health and well-being naturally reduces average numbers
of children to around replacement levels.


And as I pointed out earlier.

We are locked in to having a worldwide population of around ...[text shortened]... documentary [the specific bit starts 22 mins in]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM

I was told, and it is plausible but I haven't verified the information, that the way to fight overpopulation is to provide decent pensions. Where there are no pension systems people have large families so that at least one of their children looks after them in old age.