The goodness of GMOs

[Nearly Sane]

Why GMOs are good.



http://michaelkovich.com/blog/catalog-information-gmos-monsanto-related-topics/

[Udayana]

Unfortunately none of that mess shows that GMOs are, or always will be, "good".

The one suggesting that seeds and plants are like DVDs is a hoot!

[Nearly Sane]

Unfortunately none of that mess shows that GMOs are, or always will be, "good".

The one suggesting that seeds and plants are like DVDs is a hoot!

Surely the parts covering their safety and sustainability are addressing what the main concerns are?

[jeremyp]

Unfortunately none of that mess shows that GMOs are, or always will be, "good".

That's part of the myth isn't it? Each individual modification may or may not be bad. Each individual modification may or may not be good. You have to take things on a case by case basis much like we do for new drugs. 

[Udayana]

That's part of the myth isn't it? Each individual modification may or may not be bad. Each individual modification may or may not be good. You have to take things on a case by case basis much like we do for new drugs.

Yes.
So what is needed is comprehensive and honest examination of the possible problems and what systems are in place to manage them. Though this likely becoming an impossible task given the scientists finding ways to avoid controls put in place, and rapid progress of the technology needed to create modified varieties.   

And then that's without considering the possible side effects on trade/economy/inequality/migration and other social aspects.

[Udayana]

Surely the parts covering their safety and sustainability are addressing what the main concerns are?

Really I don't have time over the next few weeks to go into any detailed discussion, but if you have a particular article in mind I can try and read it at the weekend.

Sim. with the Kuhn thread - v. interested but it will have to wait.
 

[SweetPea]

Unfortunately none of that mess shows that GMOs are, or always will be, "good".

The one suggesting that seeds and plants are like DVDs is a hoot!

Agree. Nothing can ever be good about modifying and modifying a plant... until all it's original base and natural goodness is lost.

As for trying to justify Monsanto, that's frankly a disgrace. It's all about the money.

[Rhiannon]

That's part of the myth isn't it? Each individual modification may or may not be bad. Each individual modification may or may not be good. You have to take things on a case by case basis much like we do for new drugs.

Who regulates new GMOs?

[jeremyp]

Agree. Nothing can ever be good about modifying and modifying a plant...

But that's exactly what we've done with pretty much everything we eat.

As for trying to justify Monsanto, that's frankly a disgrace. It's all about the money.

A lot of the criticism of Monsanto is baseless. Perhaps you'd like to pick one or two and we'll discuss them in detail.

[jeremyp]

Though this likely becoming an impossible task given the scientists finding ways to avoid controls put in place

I think citation needed there. Can you give examples of scientists finding ways to avoid controls put in place.

, and rapid progress of the technology needed to create modified varieties.

That's really no different from the rapid progress of technology needed to create new drugs. We manage to regulate them quite effectively. As far as I can see, the biggest obstacle to testing GMOs properly is vandals sabotaging the experiments.

And then that's without considering the possible side effects on trade/economy/inequality/migration and other social aspects.

How would these side effects be any different from those caused by existing means of creating new varieties?

[Rhiannon]

Who regulates new GMOs?

This was a genuine question. I’ve no idea how the system works. Who regulates it? Who oversees whether something is allowed to be grown in the field or not?

[Nearly Sane]

This was a genuine question. I’ve no idea how the system works. Who regulates it? Who oversees whether something is allowed to be grown in the field or not?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/gmo/whos-responsible.htm

[SteveH]

But that's exactly what we've done with pretty much everything we eat.

Selective breeding, which we've been doing since we stopped being hunter-gatherers, is emphatically not the same thing as genetic modification in the sense in which the phrase is normally used. One simply manipulates what happens anyway in nature; the other produces bizarre results by splicing genes from one organism into another which may be completely unrelated, except in so far as all living things are descended ultimately from a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. You can transplant animal genes into plants, and vice-versa. That is not necessarily to condemn it in all circumstances (though I think we should proceed with great caution), just to expose and correct this characteristic bit of deliberate obfuscation by the GM lobby.

[Rhiannon]

http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/gmo/whos-responsible.htm

And in the USA?

[Nearly Sane]

And in the USA?

https://fas.org/biosecurity/education/dualuse-agriculture/2.-agricultural-biotechnology/us-regulation-of-genetically-engineered-crops.html

[Rhiannon]

https://fas.org/biosecurity/education/dualuse-agriculture/2.-agricultural-biotechnology/us-regulation-of-genetically-engineered-crops.html

Thanks. Just a quick glance at it on my phone but the criteria needed for it to be judged as safe doesn’t seem all that stringent to me. It seems more comparable to, say, cosmetics rather than medicine.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course



https://medium.com/@welovegv/no-gmos-are-not-part-of-the-international-jewish-conspiracy-which-isnt-real-either-7447e32bc7e1

[jeremyp]

Selective breeding, which we've been doing since we stopped being hunter-gatherers, is emphatically not the same thing as genetic modification in the sense in which the phrase is normally used. One simply manipulates what happens anyway in nature;

Do you really think that modern livestock and crops would have happened anyway without us?

the other produces bizarre results by splicing genes from one organism into another which may be completely unrelated

Most GMOs look decidedly not bizarre. People wouldn't buy bizarre looking tomatoes.

That is not necessarily to condemn it in all circumstances (though I think we should proceed with great caution), just to expose and correct this characteristic bit of deliberate obfuscation by the GM lobby.

There's nothing obfuscatory about the point. Characterising the results of GMO across the board as "bizarre" is obfuscatory.

[SteveH]

Do you really think that modern livestock and crops would have happened anyway without us?

No. Try reading what I actually said.

Most GMOs look decidedly not bizarre. People wouldn't buy bizarre looking tomatoes.

transplanting plant genes into animals, or vice-versa, or just between unrelated plants and animals which couldn't breed in the normal way, is intrinsically bizarre,

There's nothing obfuscatory about the point. Characterising the results of GMO across the board as "bizarre" is obfuscatory.

Yes, there is, and no, it isn't.