Open letter from more than 800 scientists warning about GMO's.

[pnwmom]

Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2013, 04:28 PM - Edit history (3)

Some people will no doubt call this "anti-GMO woo."

My chief concern is that GMO foods should be clearly labeled, so that people with allergies and all people can know what they're eating. Let the consumer decide.

But the GMO producers are fighting labeling.

(Edit to add: below I've added an interesting statement from Scientific American, talking about how the producers of GMO foods are restricting research on their products.)

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d5fd9b8d65f4976%2C0

Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

The scientists are extremely concerned about the hazards of GMOs to biodiversity, food safety, human and animal health, and demand a moratorium on environmental releases in accordance with the precautionary principle.

They are opposed to GM crops that will intensify corporate monopoly, exacerbate inequality and prevent the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can provide food security and health around the world.

They call for a ban on patents of life-forms and living processes which threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources and violate basic human rights and dignity.

They want more support on research and development of non-corporate, sustainable agriculture that can benefit family farmers all over the world.

Previous versions of this letter were submitted to many governments and international forums including:

World Trade Organization Conference in Seattle (November 30 – Dec. 2, 1999)
UN Biosafety Protocol Meeting in Montreal (24 – 28, Jan. 2000)
UN Commission on Sustainable Development Conference on Sustainable Agriculture in New York (April 24-May 5, 2000)
UN Convention on Biological Diversity Conference in Nairobi (May 16-24, 2000)
United States Congress (29 June, 2000)

Signed by 828 scientists from 84 different countries, including:

SNIP

______________________________________

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

By The Editors (of Scientific American)

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.


"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

[niyad]

1. k and r and 3. . .2. . . 1. .

[pnwmom]

2. Yes, I know. The Monsanto fan club will be here any sec.

[n2doc]

7. You mean the "Woo Woo Woo" Club? n/t

[roody]

8. The preacher with the "well-fed" rant.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. There's also ones that claim if you are against Frankenfood you want 3rd world children to starve.

[Berlum]

17. Actually, they are the Poo* Club

Poo = corporately backed "science" & Associated PR.

[arcane1]

3. The "intensify corporate monopoly" part is my primary concern

Being able to sue for patent infringement when your own cops pollinate someone else's, or worse, if someone buys your seeds and then saves seeds for next year. Even if there turns out to be zero health issues, GMOs are still a huge problem for that reason alone.

[pnwmom]

4. That is an important concern. To prevent poor farmers from being able to use their own seed --

that's reprehensible.

[MotherPetrie]

5. K&R Why should the GMO crowd oppose labeling?

Unless they have something to hide, of course.

[roody]

9. Great question. They should be here soon.

[bobclark86]

22. You don't need to label...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-kelly/genetically-modified-food_b_2039455.html

If it has corn, soy or canola, and it's grown in the U.S., the chance is less than 1 in 10 it's NOT a GMO (and they mix the GMO and non-GMO together before using it, so your chances are even worse). Corn and soy have been like this for more than two decades now.

Every taco shell. Every store-bought cookie. Every can of Pepsi. Every french fry, hamburger bun, bottle of ketchup, stick of margarine...

Unless you have a very, VERY strict diet AND you grow every single thing you consume, you've statistically eaten your weight in GMO soy and corn many times over.

<insert scary Bach organ music and lightning here>

[MotherPetrie]

41. That doesn't answer my question as to why GMO producers are afraid of labeliing.

[bobclark86]

68. Because people are scared...

whether there is a reason to be or not. Making it a front-of-the-label issue on pretty much every food product would hurt business, whether any actual proof of harm is found or not.

Just like saccharin. At first, everyone thought it was going to give you cancer from half a can of Tab. By 2000, it was proven saccharin could cause cancer -- but ONLY in certain male rats. It still carries that stigma.

[MotherPetrie]

72. And not hurting business, rather than informing the consumer, is always the goal.

[pnwmom]

100. Which is more important? The chance that it could hurt business by reducing their profits?

Or the chance that it could hurt people?

Of all the food additives that the FDA regulates, why should genetic additives be the ONLY ones declared to be safe in advance, "unless demonstrated otherwise" -- while at the same time the government allows the GMO producers to prevent independent researchers from carrying out safety research that could demonstrate otherwise?

Do you see what I'm saying? First the FDA (during the Reagan administration) declared all GMO's to be safe, unless proven otherwise -- and then it allowed the manufacturers to prevent independent researchers from ever conducting such research.

A neat trick. We've all been played.


http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html

On May, 29 1992 the decision-makers issued a policy statement asserting there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that GE foods do not entail different risks than conventional foods. Accordingly, the policy presumes every GE food is as safe as its conventional counterpart unless demonstrated otherwise. (The only exception is for foods from one of the few species involved in the most common food allergies.) The FDA does not require any testing, and testing is done on a purely voluntary basis by the manufacturer, with all critical decisions left to its discretion.

(As noted in Section B, U.S. law mandates that new foods such as these cannot be deemed safe unless there is a "reasonable certainty" they will not be harmful. Further, determination of safety must be based on solid evidence from standard testing. 21 CFR 170.3(b)&(h))

[pnwmom]

97. We've all been inadvertent guinea pigs and rates of auto-immune diseases,

allergies, obesity, and diabetes keep rising. But there's no connection, of course.

We do need labeling, even if it means that purchases of GMO products drop -- as they did in Europe when labeling was required. Farmers may have to go back to planting non GMO plants, as they do in Europe and elsewhere.

[bobclark86]

98. As far as health issues go...

You think an increasingly sedentary lifestyle in America has NOTHING to do with obesity, diabetes, etc.? Instead of sarcastically inferring GMOs are to blame, I'd go with Ocam's Razor on this one.

Here's how it goes:
1) Factories start making processed shit for food -- super-high in calories, super-high in processed carbs, etc. GMOs make yields bigger, so more cheap crap to put in your Coke and Big Macs.
2) People don't have to work as much to get high-calorie foods. They can get jobs sitting at computers all day, rather than toiling in the fields to grow enough wheat to make a dumpling for their water soup.
3) The people who used to move around to get low-calorie foods now sit on their asses and get high-calorie foods.
4) ???
5) Profit (for the lipo clinics, PX90 creators, Lipitor manufacturers).

[pnwmom]

99. I didn't say that, did I?

Sedentary lifestyles can certainly be ONE of the factors.

But sedentary lifestyles don't explain the increases in food allergies and auto-immune diseases. And increasing the amount of exercise we get is something we have some control over.

As long as GMO products aren't labeled we have no control over them. And until the government requires the manufacturers to allow unfettered research -- the way they do with virtually all other commercial products -- no one will know how safe they really are.

[Archae]

6. Maybe if you used a more credible source, we'd take this seriously.

The site is full of woo.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SO_emf.php

Ho is the director of the The Institute of Science in Society (ISIS), an interest group that campaigns against what it sees as unethical uses of biotechnology.[6] The group published about climate change, GMOs, homeopathy, traditional chinese medicine, and water memory.

In reviewing the organisation, David Colquhoun accused the ISIS of promoting pseudoscience and specifically criticised Ho's understanding of homeopathy.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Colquhoun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho

[pnwmom]

10. The scientists who signed the letter are the real source.

And do you have a problem with Scientific American, too?

[niyad]

38. yep, right on schedule. . .

[RC]

103. I read that bullshit article.

They said in so many words that hybrid and GMO are the same thing. I could not believe Scientific American would print such blatantly obvious Monsanto propaganda.
Try inserting fish DNA, or whatever, into any plant cell by selective breeding, i.e., hybridization, some time. Hint, it cannot be done.

[pnwmom]

104. Huh? The Scientific American article was complaining that the GMO producers

are keeping independent researchers from carrying out research.

I think that's an important issue.

[RC]

105. "Fight the GM Food Scare"

We have been tinkering with our food's DNA since the dawn of agriculture. By selectively breeding plants and animals with the most desirable traits, our predecessors transformed organisms' genomes, turning a scraggly grass into plump-kerneled corn, for example. For the past 20 years Americans have been eating plants in which scientists have used modern tools to insert a gene here or tweak a gene there, helping the crops tolerate drought and resist herbicides. Around 70 percent of processed foods in the U.S. contain genetically modified ingredients.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea

As if cross breeding and GMO are somehow equivalent. This is the same BS strategy they sold the Iraq invasion with. It is propaganda 101, pure and simple.

No, they are not equivalent. With GM, you can get all kinds of franken plants and animals, impossible to get with cross breeding. Do we really need fish DNA or whatever, in our vegetables? Why would anyone want to ingest Round Up or pesticides, with every forkful of veggies? I sure don't.

The GM label needs to state the purpose and what was done to "improve" the item in question. Jellyfish DNA in rice? What could go wrong?

[pnwmom]

106. It's very significant when a GMO supporter criticizes the producers

for not allowing research.

Don't you think?

[RC]

107. It depends on the research.

Monsanto all but destroyed a good tool by their heavy handed law suites, actions and by coming out with GM pesticides that all but decimated the Monarch Butterfly. Another problem with GMO, is that there is no genetic diversity. There have already been problems with disease wiping out GM crops in some areas in the country. Hybrids don't have these problems, so are much better all around.

[pnwmom]

108. All research. Monsanto and the other GMO producers

are requiring all independent researchers to get their approval for research and often requiring confidentiality agreements. And the Scientific American editors are criticizing these firms for doing that.

[RC]

109. That is not the way I read it.

Even the title should give you a clue.
Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea
Mandatory labels for genetically modified foods are a bad idea
I read it as the editors pushing the GM and Hybrid equivalency BS and keeping people in the dark what they are actually eating.
There is a very good reason why GM is not popular when people know about it. As of yet, no one knows if it is even safe in the long run, because we incorporate some of the DNA into our own system from the foods we eat. It has only been 20 some years so far.

[pnwmom]

110. You're reading a completely different article -- one that shows

that the Scientific American isn't "anti-gmo."

However, they ARE pro-research and pro-transparency. This is the article in the OP:

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

By The Editors (of Scientific American)

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.


"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

[RC]

111. The article I referenced is in the the September 2013 edition.

There seems to be a disconnect between the two.

[pnwmom]

112. Anyway, it demonstrates to the pro-GMO people here that even

people who are generally supportive of gmo's object to the way the producers are preventing unfettered research.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Scientific American is very credible. The anti-research end-user agreement is a red flag.

Scientific American is very credible. The anti-research end-user agreement is a red flag the GMO companies have something to hide that they are afraid of having exposed.

[pnwmom]

13. You are right. It's a giant red flag. nt

[chervilant]

15. And, here you are, right on time!

Wait! Let me get my organic, non-GMO popcorn! This oughtta be good!




Maybe a brewsky...




Can't wait to see how you justify your derision...

[Tumbulu]

16. JUST IN TIME TO SAVE US FROM PSUDOSCIENCE!!!!!!!!

oh yes, just in time.

Forget it, until the products of this technology have been independently tested, it is the gmo folks who are spewing pseudoscience.

Pretty obvious and tired. But oh so well funded!

[LWolf]

21. "We'd."

You and? David Colquhoun?

Apparently, real scientists DO take this seriously. As does Scientific American. Since you seem to think that David Colquhoun's judgment trumps so many other scientists', tell us what he says about Scientific American.

[SidDithers]

37. They hit one of my markers...

any site promoting anti-fluoridation views, IMO, isn't credible.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NotoFluoridation.php

Sid

[Archae]

40. Don't forget the anti-cell phone hysteria and homeopathic woo pushed on that site.

[pnwmom]

56. It is possible that the site could be right about some issues and wrong about others.

Isn't it?

[SidDithers]

93. Yes, that's possible...

but why should we think them credible when they're wrong so often?

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/WaterRemembers.php

Sid

[pnwmom]

95. Here are two more sites, one a professional agricultural site, that express the same concerns.

Because the GMO producers are limiting or banning research with their seeds, independent researchers are unable to do research to confirm the claims put out by the producers, or to investigate further questions. How can anyone feel confidence in the claims of the GMO producers -- related to safety, contamination, or anything else -- when they refuse to let other researchers conduct unfettered research or they hide behind confidentiality agreements?

AG Professional

http://www.agprofessional.com/agprofessional-magazine/letting_science_do_its_job_120082274.html

Christian Krupke, Extension entomologist, Purdue University, stressed that nobody wants to infringe on intellectual property, much less violate stewardship agreements. What they do want is to be able to ask the questions that industry may not ask for whatever reason. 



"You can't expect companies in the business to ask every conceivable question a university researcher might ask," he said. "We want to keep these products around and ensure they are durable for the long run. These restrictions make it much more difficult for public researchers to work toward that goal." 



SNIP

"I don't think these events are being evaluated nearly as rigorously as they could be," said Krupke. "We may or may not agree with the findings of company X, but you can bet we will be asking some different questions." 



What Can Be Questioned?


Perhaps the most serious aspect of the entire issue is the fact that even raising it was considered risky on the part of the entomologists. The original letter to the EPA advisory committee was to be anonymous. Nine, fearing it would have little validity, stepped forward, while another two dozen were very nervous about even taking a stand, reported Shields. 



SNIP



"It is my impression, after 30 years as an Extension entomologist, that we serve as quality control and independent testers, even as far as consumer protection," said Shields. "We are severely handicapped in that role by not being able to do independent research. If we have to ask the company for permission, that gives them the right to refuse. If refused, you either don't do it or you put your institution at risk."








http://www.agprofessional.com/agprofessional-magazine/biotech_industry_in_a_quandary_over_research_rights_120083849.html

The restraints also reflect on the credibility of the partnership that has existed. "I like to be able to respond to the farmers of Indiana when they have questions," said Larry Bledsoe, Extension entomologist, Purdue University. "When I am asked my opinion and I have to say that I can't answer because of a confidentiality agreement with a company, there is silence and blinks from the farmer audience. They feel uncomfortable and so do I."


It is the broader university and other public research institutions that are a concern and the focus of the issue. In order to legally work with biotech crops, these researchers must negotiate permission. The permission may or may not mandate protocols, exclusions and data review. It can and often does mandate confidentiality.

SNIP

At first glance, the issue is simply one of permission to do research, but for the researchers involved, the National Academy of Sciences and the industry at large, it goes much deeper. For the first time that anyone can point to, research is being limited on commercial products. For public researchers, it is a damned if they do and damned if they don't situation. If they complain, they fear they will no longer receive permission for even limited research; hence the names withheld in the letter. Some entomologists are speaking out in this article and elsewhere, perhaps putting future research hopes on the line, but they feel it is worth the risk. 



"We have to ask permission from each company to do the research, and that gives the company the right to refuse," explained Elson Shields, Extension entomologist, Cornell University, and a spokesman for the group of 26. "Refusal has happened, and it comes in one of several ways. Out right written refusal is rare. Verbal is more common, and the third is endless legal wrangling that costs the research institution so much in legal fees that they say no, or negotiations continue past planting date."



http://www.ucsusa.org/about/

The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/suppressing-research.html

Good policy is impossible without good information. Smart choices about the role of biotechnology in agriculture will depend on how much we know about its costs, benefits, and risks.
The GE Research "Battlefield"—and the Need to Keep It Open

SNIP

With so much at stake, and axes to grind, it is vital to ensure that the makers of GE products are not the sole arbiters of what questions can be asked about those products, or who gets to answer them.

But multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto, have fought independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options.

In 2009, 26 academic entomologists wrote to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that because patents on engineered genes do not provide for independent non-commercial research, they could not perform adequate research on these crops. "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops," they wrote.

A Purdue University entomologist who signed the letter put it more succinctly to a reporter for a scientific journal: "Industry is completely driving the bus."

SNIP

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/spreading-gene-contamination.html

The history of genetically engineered crops shows that it is not a matter of whether they will contaminate other farmers’ crops, but when and how much. Monsanto jeopardizes the future of the fast-growing non-GE and organic food sectors—and the environmental benefits they provide—by threatening the purity of their products through gene contamination.

Monsanto has often taken farmers to court for growing its patented GE crop varieties in alleged violation of (or in the absence of) an agreement with the company.

While it's reasonable for the company to expect to be paid for its products, the issue becomes complicated when gene contamination enters the picture. It's one thing to sue a farmer for intentionally planting seeds containing patented genes without paying for them. It's another thing entirely when those genes turn up in farmers' crops without their knowledge—and, in the case of organic farmers, with potentially devastating consequences for their business.
Monsanto has disavowed any intention of suing farmers for inadvertent, small-scale violation of its patent rights. However, a group representing organic farmers, not content to leave the matter to the company's good intentions, in March 2011 filed suit in federal district court in New York, seeking a ruling prohibiting Monsanto from suing victims of gene contamination for unintentionally growing its products.

Monsanto filed for dismissal in July 2011; Judge Naomi Buchwald ruled in favor of Monsanto on February 27, 2012, dismissing the suit.
SNIP

[CoffeeCat]

81. I trust Scientific American, for sure.

When you can't provide a suitable rebuttal, attack the messenger.

Whatever.

No amount of fake PR-agency fueled "conversation" can save these Big Ag companies that try to keep the American people from seeing labels that help them to know what they're eating.

[Archae]

94. We can trust most of Scientific American, BUT...

If WND or Rush Limbaugh's web site used a Scientific American link, would you trust WND or Rush Limbaugh?

Obviously, no.

This "isis" site found a Scientific American article that backs up their woo.
And believe me, that site is STUFFED with woo.

[Egalitarian Thug]

11. K&R&Shhh

[MH1]

18. They had me at "biodiversity".

That's sufficient reason alone to be concerned about GMO's. And the only "woo" about it is the crazy woo that we can predict all the effects of what these companies are doing, who are only interested in their short-term bottom line.

[felix_numinous]

19. It's corporate ownership and manipulation of food supply

and that ALONE should be reason to oppose it. NEVERMIND the science, these people want to control the world's supply of seed.

Their harassment of small farmers and organic growers for accidentally having GMO seeds blow on their property, suing them out of business and confiscating lands is criminal.

If this was an honest endeavor they would never have to resort to underhanded tactics like this, or fight tooth and nail against simply labeling their fucking 'food'

[pnwmom]

20. +100. n/t

[truedelphi]

23. And Monsanto is shooting itself in the foot, as time progresses.

In late 2010, I found out I am now gluten sensitive. But I didn't used to be.

This determination came after 24 months of the most terrible pains in my gut. It wasn't diverticulitis. Or cancer. Or anything anyone could figure out. Luckily my doctor believed me and let me have the pain meds that worked, or I might have jumped in front of a speeding train, I was in that much pain.

Cat scans, MRI even to see if brain tumor was tricking me into thinking my gut was in pain. Also X Rays, ultra sounds etc. (Glad I was fully insured at the time.)

What helped my Dr's staff make the right diagnosis was that one day I was not in pain. His staff made me figure out what I had done differently. I hadn't had any bread or pasta or pizza in a four day time frame; and so I tried going without gluten for good, and it worked. I got my life handed back to me.

But I am not sensitive to all gluten. I just bought five pounds of wheat that is organically grown and milled in the "Hungarian way." Breads and pasta made with this wheat work out fine with my digestive system.

So if Monsanto and other Big GM purveyors are making food make us sick, how long before they end up spelling doom for farmers who do the GM thing?

[felix_numinous]

24. I'm gluten sensitive too

(along w/cancer) my belly, hands and feet swell up. Luckily I do fine with Ezekiel bread and hemp bread, and when I was overseas their flatbread didn't bother me at all....

In recent years I've had a couple of bad reactions, and never before was a picky or allergic type eater, but now have to be very careful.

[felix_numinous]

25. And your question--

When is the last time a big corporation did any act of philanthropy? I truly doubt their basic sense of ethics, many have no problem with doing great harm to people and the planet.

And Monsanto is evil, that is a fact...

[pnwmom]

29. I had much the same experience.

But I'd be careful with that special wheat, truedelphi. People with gluten sensitivity can go into a period of remission of symptoms, but it doesn't mean that's it's okay to eat gluten. Even without causing pain or other symptoms, gluten could still be damaging your system and increasing your susceptibility to autoimmune diseases and lymphoma.

Best of luck on this! I hope it works out for you -- just wouldn't take a chance myself.

[X_Digger]

26. Well if 828 scientists say so, it must be true, right? *snort*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

plus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

equals

Woo.

[pnwmom]

27. Refusing to allow independent researchers to replicate your industry-funded studies = woo.

What scientifically credible reason could Monsanto have for preventing independent scientists from performing research with their seeds?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

By The Editors (of Scientific American)

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.


"To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects."

[X_Digger]

32. That's better; dropping the logical fallacies helps strengthen your argument. n/t

[pnwmom]

44. If you'd read my post you'd have known that I included the information about Monsanto

preventing researchers from replicating their studies in the OP.

[X_Digger]

49. If that had been the whole OP, I wouldn't have responded.

Illogical tripe like, "X people say *something*" should be avoided by thinking people.

[pnwmom]

50. I was responding to a number of recent OP's saying that GMO skeptics were guilty of "woo."

Scientists at MIT, Harvard, etc. aren't pursuing "woo."

[X_Digger]

51. Being from MIT or Harvard doesn't make them immune from 'woo'.

Don't fall right back into that argument from authority again.

[pnwmom]

52. It gives them scientific credentials that the GMO-fan club here clearly lacks. n/t

[X_Digger]

53. Please don't double-down on the logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It's fallacious thinking.

[pnwmom]

54. I'm not.

There are times when it's perfectly logical to cite an authority.

As the Wikipedia states, it's not logical to appeal to authorities when the person is not a subject matter expert. But many of the people on the list have a specific scientific background that qualifies them to speak on the matter.

For example:


Prof. Liebe Cavalieri, Mathematical Ecologist, Univ. Minnesota, USA
Dr. Thomas S. Cox, Geneticist, US Dept. of Agriculture (retired), India
Dr. David Ehrenfeld, Biologist/Ecologist, Rutgers University, USA
Dr. Vladimir Zajac, Oncovirologist, Genetisist, Cancer Reseach Inst, Czech Republic
Prof. Ruth Hubbard, Geneticist, Harvard University, USA
Prof. Jonathan King, Molecular Biologist, MIT, Cambridge, USA
Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Laboratoire de Biochimie & Moleculaire, Univ. Caen, France
Dr. David Suzuki, Geneticist, David Suzuki Foundation, Univ. British Columbia, Canada
Dr. Vandana Shiva, Theoretical Physicist and Ecologist, India
Dr. George Woodwell, Director, Woods Hole Research Center, USA
Prof. Oscar B. Zamora, Agronomist, U. Philippines, Los Banos, Philippines

Also, your Wikipedia reference states that it's a fallacy to appeal to authority in "cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter." I merely point to those scientists to prove that there is NO scientific consensus on the safety of GMO, despite what the paid-GMO-researchers want us to believe. It would be a fallacy if I implied that those 828 scientists were sufficient proof that GMO products are unsafe, but that's not what I'm saying. Those 828 scientists demonstrate that there is doubt -- a lack of consensus in the scientific community. I'm also saying that the paid-GMO-researchers have not proved that they ARE safe; and they won't, as long as independent researchers are prevented from replicating their results.

[X_Digger]

57. Just as there's no consensus on their being dangerous. That's what lack of consensus means.

I could point to the 50,000 scientists who have no problem with GMOs and have the exact same validity (namely none).

So no, you are trying an appeal to authority- unsuccessfully.

[pnwmom]

58. I agree that there's no consensus on their safety or lack thereof.

The reason there is no consensus is because Monsanto and the other agri-firms are blocking independent research.

And please link me to some article pointing to 50,000 scientists who have no problems with GMO's and no concern that Monsanto is blocking independent research about them.

[X_Digger]

59. Lack of consensus means you don't get to tout 828 scientists as authority.

You finally ready to give that up?

[pnwmom]

60. I cite the 828 scientists as proof that there is no consensus.

In other words, they serve as a counter-example to the claim that the safety of GMO products has been accepted by scientific researchers.

You cannot prove there is a consensus in support of the products being safe or you would have by now.

[X_Digger]

62. Oh lord, went right past ya.. again.

Touting X number of scientists' position on a subject where there is no scientific consensus is a logical fallacy.

Now to be fair, what is the total number of scientists? (In which fields?)

If 828 is a minuscule fraction of (Mathematical Ecologists, Geneticists, Molecular Biologists, Theoretical Physicists, Biologists, Agronomists, Economists...) then you're approaching consensus.

Wait, just checking that list again.. why the hell should I listen to an Economist, a Natural Therapist, a Ph.D student, a Lawyer, a Linguist ...??

Remember that section in the wiki link, "cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert" ?

Pfft, your appeal to authority is getting thinner and thinner the more I look at it.

[pnwmom]

63. And you still can't show there is any consensus on the safety of these products

that must be labeled in most of Europe, Britain, China, Taiwan, Japan, etc.

[X_Digger]

64. *shaking my head*

I'm not the one saying there is consensus.

I'd be happy if you dropped the logical fallacy, but you seem to think it's actually a valid way to make your argument.

[pnwmom]

65. The posters I was responding to were. They were pointing to all the Monsanto-paid

research as proof of the safety of Monsanto GMO food.

[X_Digger]

66. Then pick apart the studies.

Was the sample sufficiently large to be statistically valid? Was the control sufficiently isolated? What were the measurement criteria?

Those are some of the things you need to look at to evaluate whether an experimental study is likely to yield legitimate results.

Science is not a popularity thing- It doesn't matter if every single scientist thinks something; that doesn't make it true. In the 14th century the consensus of astronomers was that the earth was the center of the universe. Two hundred years later, astronomers thought the sun was the center of the universe.

[pnwmom]

67. They cited no specific studies to pick apart. Just the fact that there have been many favorable

studies -- all approved or paid for by GMO producers -- is supposed to be enough.

[X_Digger]

69. Then ask for evidence. Don't make the same logically fallacious arguments they are. n/t

[truedelphi]

85. And have we reached a tipping point? I

Don't remember any previous anti-GM foods topics that got over 40 rec's. Good work!

[niyad]

71. and by the same token, lack of consensus means pro-gmo scientists also cannot be touted as

"authority", yes?

[X_Digger]

74. Correct, as I post above, hehe. n/t

[niyad]

70. but it's okay for the gmo supporters to "argue from authority"? after all, isn't that their

argument, that there is all this wonderful "authority" proving gmo is safe? so, who gets to determine which "authorities" are acceptable? I am really curious about this.

[X_Digger]

73. I'd say the same to someone claiming the reverse based on 'Y number say..' n/t

[niyad]

77. looking forward to seeing your posts doing just that in any pro-gmo threads.

[X_Digger]

79. I don't typically jump into GMO threads. The blatant logical fallacy in the OP caught my attention.

I tend to be pro-science / anti-woo, and I'm not above ripping into a study that's poorly designed.

[niyad]

80. yes, we understand perfectly.

[truedelphi]

89. And ya wanna know the total kicker?

Our nation is the only developed nation that doesn't utilize International Protocols by which to do any testing. I wonder why that is...

Meanwhile, officials and scientists in other countries laugh themselves silly when our government or our Big Corporations announce how safe some product is.

[truedelphi]

28. DU'er X Digger --Yet when 5 or 6 bought

and paid for science lackeys issue some New study showing that everything is A-okay with GM seed or corps, you would be the first one announcing it.

[X_Digger]

35. No, I tend to evaluate scientific reports on their individual merits.

I just can't abide blatant logical fallacies as presented in the OP.

[Union Scribe]

30. And check this out

I Googled "scientists against global warming" and found that, omg, many American "scientists" have signed a petition calling man-made climate change fake! http://www.petitionproject.org/

Thank God we don't have to worry about that anymore.

You know, the amazing thing is that I went to the link in the OP and it said that "open letter" has been circulating the world since 1999, and in all the world they could only find less than a thousand signatories.

[X_Digger]

36. Yeah, it's a pretty common fallacy.

That combination- authority + popularity gets a lot of play in advertising, too- "8 out of 10 doctors say.." etc.

[pnwmom]

101. The real fallacy is the idea that GMO's have been proven to be safe.

In 1992, under the Reagan administration, the FDA -- after a fierce debate within the agency -- issued a policy statement declaring GMO foods to be as safe as their non-GMO counterparts "unless demonstrated otherwise."

And since then it has allowed GMO producers to prevent independent researchers from carrying out any research that could demonstrate otherwise.

A neat trick. We've been played.


http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html

On May, 29 1992 the decision-makers issued a policy statement asserting there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that GE foods do not entail different risks than conventional foods. Accordingly, the policy presumes every GE food is as safe as its conventional counterpart unless demonstrated otherwise. (The only exception is for foods from one of the few species involved in the most common food allergies.) The FDA does not require any testing, and testing is done on a purely voluntary basis by the manufacturer, with all critical decisions left to its discretion.

(As noted in Section B, U.S. law mandates that new foods such as these cannot be deemed safe unless there is a "reasonable certainty" they will not be harmful. Further, determination of safety must be based on solid evidence from standard testing. 21 CFR 170.3(b)&(h))

[Cha]

33. Kaua'i is having a huge March and Rally today

Sept 8th! freaking trying to get Monsanto types to reveal what all poisons they're releasing on our Island.



Mana March Scheduled

snip//

"The fight over GMOs here on Kaua’i is far from over and both sides of the issue are digging in their heals. As Bill 2491 (Relating to Pesticides and Genetically Modified Organisms) continues to be discussed by the Kauai County Council, leaders both for and against the bill are planning their next steps.

On the PASS THE BILL side, another event has been scheduled for next weekend"

there's more..
http://northshorekauai.com/2013/08/30/mana-march-scheduled/

Mahalo for the article, pnwmom.

[niyad]

39. would you post pics and stories from the march, if possible?

[Cha]

42. I will try and do that, niyad. :)

[Cha]

113. Here ya go, niyad..

Mana March draws thousands

snip//

"Thousands of Kauaians — doctors, environmentalists, farmers, parents and concerned citizens from all walks of life — poured into the streets of Lihue in a sea of red Sunday to participate in what organizers are calling the largest march in the island’s history.

The message — at least for this event — was unified, loud and clear.

“Pass the bill!” the crowd, mostly dressed in red shirts, chanted as they walked from Vidinha Stadium to the lawn fronting the Historic County Building in Lihue.

“Mana March,” as it was called, brought together those in support of County Bill 2491, introduced in June by Kauai County Council members Gary Hooser and Tim Bynum.

If passed, 2491 would require Kauai’s largest agricultural companies to disclose the use of pesticides and genetically modified crops, establish pesticide-free buffer zones around public areas, and temporarily halt the expansion of genetically modified crop fields."



There's more..
http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/mana-march-draws-thousands/article_04ff6c36-190b-11e3-b902-001a4bcf887a.html

Very encouraging..

[sheshe2]

114. Thanks Cha,

That is encouraging.

[niyad]

115. wow--great article, wonderful event. would you consider posting this as its own thread, so

we can rec it, and for wider exposure??

[Uncle Joe]

34. The GMOs are bucking for our very own "Irish Potato Famine"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine

In Ireland, the Great Famine was a period of mass starvation, disease and emigration between 1845 and 1852.[1] It is also known, mostly outside Ireland, as the Irish Potato Famine.[2] In the Irish language it is called an Gorta Mór (IPA: [ənˠ ˈɡɔɾˠtˠə ˈmˠoːɾˠ], meaning "the Great Hunger&quot [fn 1] or an Drochshaol ([ənˠ ˈdˠɾɔxˌhiːlˠ], meaning "the bad life&quot .

During the famine approximately 1 million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland,[3] causing the island's population to fall by between 20% and 25%.[4] The proximate cause of famine was a potato disease commonly known as potato blight.[5] Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland—where one-third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food—was exacerbated by a host of political, ethnic, religious, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.[6][7]

(snip)

Potato dependency

The potato was introduced to Ireland as a garden crop of the gentry. By the late 17th century, it had become widespread as a supplementary rather than a principal food, as the main diet still revolved around butter, milk, and grain products. Over the course of one day, men could eat 60 potatoes, women ate 40 and children could eat 25 due to their exhausting work. In the first two decades of the 18th century, however, it became a base food of the poor, especially in winter.[23] Furthermore, a disproportionate share of the potatoes grown in Ireland were of a single variety, the Irish Lumper.[24] The expansion of the economy between 1760 and 1815 saw the potato make inroads into the diet of the people and became a staple food all the year round for farmers.[25] The large dependency on this single crop, and the lack of genetic variability among the plants that made up the crop in Ireland, were two of the reasons why the emergence of Phytophthora infestans had such devastating effects in Ireland, and had less severe effects in other European countries (which were also hit by the disease).[26]

Thanks for the thread, pnwmom.

[pnwmom]

45. Thank you , Uncle Joe. You're right that an over-dependence

on limited strains of any food is a bad idea.

[truedelphi]

84. In the mid-1990's, when I first understood what Gm crops would really be

Doing to agriculture overall, I thought immediately of the Irish potato famine.

I want to thank you for pasting up all the history of the event.

However, the history you cited did not fully explain the predicament. The truth of the matter relates to how the British were pulling away so many veggies and fruits and grains away from the people of the Emerald Island, so that the majority of people who were Irish ended up with only their crop of potatoes. Even if they had raised animals that provided cheese and butter. So much was simply confiscated right out from under the average person that yes, potatoes ended up being the main stay of the average person's diet.

Without that addendum to the history, it indicates that the Irish were too stupid to understand how they needed to plant more than potatoes. What ended up killing so many, and forcing so many others to emigrate to America, had to do with greed, rather than with stupidity.

[Uncle Joe]

87. You are correct and thanks for the addendum, truedelphi.

[truedelphi]

88. M<y son got me interested in the real history of what was behind the

Irish famine.

Started when he fell for a band called Black 47. The "47" stands for the year 1847 when so many heavy duty edicts affected the Irish Catholic peasantry.

I grew up inside an Irish catholic school district and I never knew anything about this. We basically were taught that the Irish didn't know better.

[pnwmom]

91. Of course it wasn't all about the failure of the potato crop.

There was plenty of healthy food -- other than potatoes -- being produced in Ireland by the peasants for the absentee British landlords; and that food was being shipped out of the country because that produced a higher profit for the owners than making it available to the starving millions in Ireland.

[Enthusiast]

92. Yes.

It was a choice to allow the people to starve. Ireland was a net exporter of food during the famine. The advocates for this policy stated if the Irish were fed they would grow dependent on the government. That argument sounds familiar.

I liked the Leon Uris book Trinity.

[JohnyCanuck]

43. Expert who predicted global economic crash thinks risks from GMOs too great

Last week the maverick biologist and billionaire entrepreneur Craig Venter tweeted: "Golden rice vitamin A could prevent blindness in 250000 children/year. Anti GMO people check your morals." https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/372779980230369280

The global risk expert and the Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering at New York University, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, responded on Twitter:

"Pro GMO people, check your understanding of 1) Risk & probability and 2) invoking 'morals' as a tactic while endangering people."

"Point 2: There are other alternatives with controlled & known side effects."

He also told Venter, a synthetic biologist with massive vested interests in the acceptance of genetic engineering and no background in risk (nor toxicology for that matter!):

"@JCVenter In other words it is not rigorous to make something with fat-tailed risks look like the 'only' alternative to (blindness) when it is not."

"Fat-tailed risks" means that when things go bad, they can go catastrophically bad.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15032-expert-who-predicted-global-economic-crash-thinks-risks-from-gmos-too-great

[pnwmom]

47. Thank you for the link. I'm kind of surprised by all the DUers who have fallen

for the corporate pile of you-know-what.

And they think that the GMO-skeptics are gullible.

[OneGrassRoot]

46. I can't believe DUers are defending Monsanto.

I've been away for a while.

I need to continue to stay away.

K&R

[pnwmom]

48. I think there are some who only post on a few issues.

It makes me wonder.

[niyad]

75. sadly, this is only the latest in an ongoing argument.

[fascisthunter]

55. There's a good reason most EU nations disallow GMO's

"HERE... eat it, it's fiiiiiine!"

"What's in it? where'd it come from?"

"Just fucking buy and eat it!"

"Oh... ok."

[niyad]

78. I keep thinking about "chicken little" in "space merchants" by the late frederich pohl.

[forestpath]

61. K&R

[Jim Lane]

82. Question about the Scientific American piece.

Its content is horrifying but it's from 2009. Is this the current practice? Maybe, in the intervening four years, the EPA has followed the editorial's advice and banned such restrictive licenses.

[truedelphi]

90. Nope the EPA has not done that.

Our EPA is a very flimsy shell of whatever good intentions the environmental crowd wanted back in the Seventies.

We are the only developed nation that does not use International Protocols and Standards when devising research parameters for a study. Scientists in other nations laugh themselves silly when our Big Corporations or the government announce how safe some product is.

[blackspade]

86. Corporate food gangsters.

They suck.

[Adrahil]

96. I'm not scared of GMO's, but....

agree that they should be labeled. People should know what they are buying.

[Quantess]

102. K & R