I'm a scientist. I am for GMO labeling for the same reason that I am for open-source software.

[redgreenandblue]

It is not that I am not open to evidence that specific kinds of genetic modifications are safe. It is that I am aware that corporations are amoral entities designed to maximize profits.

Do I think it is likely that Microsoft will use the keystroke recorder that comes preinstalled with Windows 10 to sniff out my passwords? No. But it certainly possible. The point is, I have no way of knowing. And given what is known about the business practices of the corporation, I feel that I have every reason to fear the "unknown unknown": Who guarantees that the surveillance functionality that became public is all that is there? With open-source software, at least I can be reasonably sure that several independent entities have examined the end product.

With software however, I can choose to simply not use the product. With food I don't have this option. Therefore I think the government should enforce maximum transparency. If genes are to be modified, it should be completely laid bare what was done exactly and for what purpose. And this information should be available to everyone, such that independent entities can examine it as they see fit.

[True Dough]

1. I have no problem with mandatory labeling

But I'm reading into this statement of yours:

"It is not that I am not open to evidence that specific kinds of genetic modifications are safe."

that you are generally opposed to genetically modified foods. However, you can be persuaded that some are safe depending on the evidence.

Is that accurate?

[redgreenandblue]

2. I'm not opposed in principle. I just think a specific modification can just as soon be unsafe as

safe. I think it should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

As some have pointed out, all foods are modified. The difference is that with gene editing you create discontinuous leaps. The risks associated with that would seem inherently greater than with selected breeding, which is a slow and continuous process.

[True Dough]

4. I'm not a scientist

and not that well versed in GMOs. Are there examples of gene editing in foods that have already proven to be deleterious to human health, or even in studies on rodents?

[womanofthehills]

9. What's deleterious to human health are the vast amounts of glyphosate used on GMO's

and how glyphosate is now a "possible carcinogen"

[Major Nikon]

12. In other words you can't answer the question

[Major Nikon]

11. So a method that modifies one gene with predictable results....

is riskier than modifying thousands of them with mostly to completely unpredictable results?

You also seem to be unaware of all the different plant propagation methods. Selective breeding and gene transfer aren't the only games in town and are used far less compared to hybridization and other methods. Ever hear of induced mutation? Seems like if all those trying to drum up irrational fear about GMO should be more afraid of that, don't you think?

[kcr]

18. You think it can just as soon be unsafe as safe?

And you're a scientist?

[redgreenandblue]

28. The point is, I cannot know for sure unless I know exactly what was done.

That information should be available for those who seek it.

I agree that "this product contains genetically modified material" would not be a good label.

Better would be: "For more information on which specific modifications were made visit this website."

[randome]

33. You have no idea -none- how food is prepared in factories for your consumption.

So why is it suddenly urgent that you 'know' how one specific aspect of a food is prepared? Should labels also include the warning, "This food was prepared in a vat approximately eight feed wide made of aluminum and tin."?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[redgreenandblue]

36. Vat size would be excessive, but I certainly would like to know about all of the chemicals used.

And the conditions animals were held under etc.

Complete transparency in the food supply.

[tymorial]

3. What kind of scientist are you?

[magicnpoetry]

5. An Underappreciated Aspect Of GMOs

is the idea that it creates food production control. Whether GMOs are safe or healthy is beyond my knowledge, although I feel the implications tend to be more complicated than we tend to study (biodiversity and macrobiotics for example). But I really feel that creating a scenario where corporations are the only ones who are allowed to create the seeds etc. insures vulnerability.

[Imperialism Inc.]

8. Most agriculture is already in that situation even without GMOs.

That's because most seed comes from hybridization, which intentionally crosses two strains to produce seed with known properties like high yield. But the offspring of those hybrid seeds/plants don't breed true (i.e. there is lots of variation in subsequent generations) so farmers already need to buy seed from corporations each year.

[X_Digger]

6. ...

[closeupready]

10. Does not make the point you think it does.

[longship]

7. Might as well mark everything as genetically modified, then.

Because science does not discriminate between what agriculture has been doing for thousands of years and what is happening in the labs of academia. They are the same thing. So labeling is meaningless.

Where does one draw the line when there is no line?

[immoderate]

15. The OP explains the difference.

Some things are genetically modified. That is different from hybridizing and selecting for traits. (I don't think you properly represent the attitude of "science.&quot

--imm

[longship]

16. The difference is the specificity.

What is called genetic modification is much more constrained. Although hybridizing also modifies genes, it does so with less specificity.

But all food is genetically modified because that's what agriculture has been doing since forever. And nature does it, too.

[immoderate]

20. I think biologists know when they're splicing genes.

--imm

[longship]

21. Nature splices genes, too.

All by itself. No intervention necessary.

All life on Terra is on one single tree of life. Every life form here shares genetic material with every other life form.

We are all Frankenfood! All of us. Science does not make the distinctions that the GMO labelers imply exist.

[immoderate]

22. I get it. Nature kills. People kill. Same shit, right?

Please post a link to "science." I must see this.

--imm

If you want to sharpen your communications, here's a good start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

[longship]

23. Whatever you do, don't address the issue, make a personal attack.

That'll work well here.

I am done with this.

This stuff is Biology 101.

[immoderate]

25. They splice genes in Biology 101? Where? Link?

--imm

[Major Nikon]

37. ...

Course Outline:

The course is divided into 10 topics covering different aspects of plant breeding as outlined below, with more detailed objectives found in the course website within each topic area:

Introduction to plant breeding
History and important milestones
Plant biology 101
Evaluating performance and stress tolerance
Genes, genomes, and germplasm
Genotype, phenotype, and the environment
Breeding strategies: open-pollinated
Breeding strategies: self-pollinated
Marker assisted breeding and biotech
Cultivar and germplasm management and release

http://agrohortonline.unl.edu/plant-breeding-non-plant-breeders-introduction-basic-concepts-1-unit

[immoderate]

38. I don't think this qualifies as a basic course.

Their recommendation:

The course is developed assuming participants have had some undergraduate science courses (or more advanced). If you have not taken an introductory genetics or plant science course, we would suggest doing those first. The university has both of these online as well and those courses can be viewed on the webpage showing the Plant Breeding & Genetic Certificate modules.

I don't think they do gene splicing here. Hybrids, maybe.

--imm

[Major Nikon]

41. One example out of many

The point you conveniently and hopefully purposely keep trying to miss is the basics of biotechnology is commonly discussed even at the high school level. One doesn't have to "do" in order to understand the most rudimentary basics of the science. Kinda like one can understand the basics of powered flight without having to actually build an airplane.

[Hortensis]

13. Agree. The information should be available

to consumers. Open and shut to me.

[Glassunion]

14. I just don't feel that an entity should have the legal rights to a plant.

Sure I get it that you do need to pay for R&D and such, and there are benefits to engineering plants. I just don't feel that a corporate entity should retain those rights for decades based on their multiple patents.

[nationalize the fed]

17. "I Used to Work as a Scientist with GMOs—Now I'm Having Serious Second Thoughts About The Risks"

I believe that GMO crops still run far ahead of our understanding of their risks.
By Jonathan Latham, PhD 9/2/2015

By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. Into these plants we were putting DNA from various foreign organisms, such as viruses and bacteria.

I was not, at the outset, concerned about the possible effects of GM plants on human health or the environment. One reason for this lack of concern was that I was still a very young scientist, feeling my way in the complex world of biology and of scientific research. Another reason was that we hardly imagined that GMOs like ours would be grown or eaten. So far as I was concerned, all GMOs were for research purposes only.

Gradually, however, it became clear that certain companies thought differently. Some of my older colleagues shared their skepticism with me that commercial interests were running far ahead of scientific knowledge. I listened carefully and I didn’t disagree. Today, over twenty years later, GMO crops, especially soybeans, corn, papaya, canola and cotton, are commercially grown in numerous parts of the world.

Depending on which country you live in, GMOs may be unlabeled and therefore unknowingly abundant in your diet. Processed foods (e.g. chips, breakfast cereals, sodas) are likely to contain ingredients from GMO crops, because they are often made from corn or soy. Most agricultural crops, however, are still non-GMO, including rice, wheat, barley, oats, tomatoes, grapes and beans...snip
MORE: http://www.alternet.org/food/i-used-work-scientist-gmos-now-im-having-serious-second-thoughts-about-risks

Altered Genes- Twisted Truth



GMO's - "The Biggest Scientific Fraud of Our Time"

Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public

“A fascinating book: highly informative, eminently readable, and most enjoyable. It’s a real page-turner and an eye-opener.”--Richard C. Jennings, Ph.D., Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, UK



“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it's a pleasure to read--and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don't entail abnormal risk.” --David Schubert, Ph.D. molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is lucid, illuminating, and alarming. As a former New York City prosecutor, I was shocked to discover how the FDA illegally exempted GE foods from the rigorous testing mandated by federal statute. And as the mother of three young kids, I was outraged to learn how America’s children are being callously exposed to experimental foods that were deemed abnormally risky by the FDA’s own experts.”--Tara-Cook Littman, J.D.



“Steven Druker has written a great book that could well be a milestone in the endeavor to establish a scientifically sound policy on genetically engineered foods. The evidence is comprehensive, clear, and compelling; and its credibility is irrefutable. No one has documented other cases of irresponsible behavior by government regulators and the scientific establishment nearly as well as Druker documents this one. His book should be widely read and thoroughly heeded.”--John Ikerd, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri – Columbia



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will stand as a landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course.”--Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, London, Ontario



“Steven Druker's meticulously documented, well-crafted, and spellbinding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us. In particular, his chapter detailing the deadly epidemic of 1989-90 that was linked with a genetically engineered food supplement is especially significant. I and my Mayo Clinic colleagues were active participants in the attempt to identify the cause of this epidemic. Druker provides a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence and also presents new findings from our work. Overall his discussion of this tragic event, as well as its ominous implications, is the most comprehensive, evenlybalanced and accurate account that I have read.”--Stephen Naylor, PhD CEO and Chairman of MaiHealth Inc., Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, & Pharmacology Mayo Clinic (1991-2001)



“Steven Druker has done a beautiful job of weaving a compelling scientific argument into an engaging narrative that often reads like a detective story, and he makes his points dramatically and clearly. The examination of genetic engineering from the standpoint of software engineering is especially insightful, exposing how the former is more like a ‘hackathon’ than a careful, systematic methodology for revising complex information systems. I will recommend this book to my friends.”--Thomas J. McCabe, developer of the cyclomatic complexity software metric, a key analytic tool in computer programming employed throughout the world



“Based on over 30 years of teaching computer science at universities and on extensive experience as a programmer in private industry, I can state that Steven Druker has done an excellent job of demonstrating the recklessness of the current practices of genetic engineering in comparison to the established practices of software engineering. His book presents a striking contrast between the two fields, showing how software engineers progressively developed greater awareness of the inherent risks of altering complex information systems – and accordingly developed more rigorous procedures for managing them – while genetic technicians have largely failed to do either, despite the fact that the information systems they alter are far more complex, and far less comprehended, than any human-made system.”--Ralph Bunker, PhD



“Steven Druker has written one of the few books I have encountered, in my many years of public interest work, with the capacity to drive major change in a major issue. What Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed was to the auto industry and what Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was to synthetic pesticides, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will be to genetically engineered food. It is profoundly penetrating, illuminating, and compelling, and it could stimulate a monumental and beneficial shift in our system of food production.”--Joan Levin, JD, MPH



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is a remarkable work that may well change the public conversation on one of the most important issues of our day. If the numerous revelations it contains become widely known, the arguments being used to defend genetically engineered foods will be untenable.”--Frederick Kirschenmann, Phd Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Author of Cultivating an Ecological Conscience



“Druker's brilliant exposé catches the promoters of GE food red-handed: falsifying data, corrupting regulators, lying to Congress. He thoroughly demonstrates how distortions and deceptions have been piled one on top of another, year after year, producing a global industry that teeters on a foundation of fraud and denial. This book is sure to send shock waves around the world."--Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception & Genetic Roulette



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is very readable, thorough, logical and thought-provoking. Steven Druker exposes shenanigans employed to promote genetic engineering that will surprise even those who have followed the ag-biotech industry closely for years. I strongly recommend his book.”--Belinda Martineau, Ph.D., a co-developer of the first genetically engineered whole food and author of First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr™ Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods



“Altered Genes, Twisted Truth reveals how the inception of molecular biotechnology ignited a battle between those committed to scientific accuracy and the public interest and those who saw genetic engineering’s commercial potential. Steven Druker’s meticulously researched book pieces together the deeply disturbing and tremendously important history of the intertwined science and politics of GMOs. Understanding this ongoing struggle is a key to understanding science in the modern world.”--Allison Wilson, PhD molecular geneticist, Science Director, The Bioscience Resource Project

https://www.amazon.com/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903

Think you're avoiding GMO's if you don't eat Soy? Think again

[kcr]

19. That guy is a quack who questions whether diseases can be genetically predetermined

Total woo nutcase.

[nationalize the fed]

27. Druker?

So all those PhD's that endorse the book have been duped? ROFL

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. You laugh.

Because, I'm guessing, you don't know very many PhD's.

[magicnpoetry]

39. Excellent Post. You Said What I wanted To Say But Wasn't Capable...

I particularly like this phrase: "commercial interests were running far ahead of scientific knowledge"

[MohRokTah]

24. There are scientists who claim global climate change is a hoax. eom

[immoderate]

26. But they have no valid arguments.

Similarly, analogies are not valid arguments.

--imm

[MohRokTah]

31. Neither does the OP. eom

[DanTex]

30. GMO labeling isn't very comparable to open source.

Unlike open source, GMO labels don't tell anyone in detail what is in a certain food product. It's just a stamp on a label, to make consumers aware that the product has one of certain kinds of genetic modifications. For the most part, it doesn't carry any new information -- consumers that are interested in which foods contain GMOs and which don't can already find out with a little research, and many non-GMO foods are already labeled as non-GMO.

So the labels aren't a question so much of what information is available to consumers, but of how it is presented. It wouldn't facilitate the same kind of crowd-sourced reviewing as open source does.

I do agree that the kinds of food modifications being made should be made public (and I think they are, to an extent), but that's a different matter from GMO stamps on food products.

[meaculpa2011]

34. Is there any law preventing a food...

manufacturer from labeling their products "NON GMO?"

I see them on the shelves every day. One supermarket has several aisles devoted to organic and non-gmo foods.

Can we assume that any product not carrying the non-gmo label contains genetically modified organisms?

Problem solved.

[OkSustainAg]

35. People are concerned with

fish genes to make tomatoes have brighter red color. Not breeding for traits. Questioning how things are done is what makes for a great Democracy. Corporations want a free pass on what they do. I recommend questioning everything. The internet makes all this possible. Hold them accountable if the results go bad. If it goes well great.

[magicnpoetry]

40. Excellent Point

One problem I have with this topic is the orthodoxy of science. Because nuts have hijacked that anti-science world of anti-vaccines and global warming is a hoax, there is no ground to question what "science" has discovered. Science is a process and is never finished. Yet we often treat discoveries as the end of the story and not the beginning. When you add in greed to the equation then science can seem robust, but it becomes a commodity.