Mar 24
Aaaarrrggh commented on GMO Foods: All the Definitive, Totally Objective Answers in One Place.
OK, I am still not my point across here -I’m wandering off on tangents. So I will (try and) keep this short.
There is a perception by anti-GM activists that GM is synonymous with industrial agriculture. That only corporations/industrial agriculture use GM.
This is 100% wrong.
GM is a tool. It is a tool used (badly) by corporations. But it is also a tool being used by government research organizations and private research bodies. For the record I am not a fan of many of the products that corporations have created using the GM tool. I am a fan of many of the products being created by the government and private organizations as they are of more direct benefit to consumers and the environment.
Put this another way: if I-522 wanted to label food “Contains products made by Monsanto” or “Contains products made from industrial agriculture” I seriously would not give the slightest shit about the initiative. I would have no objections. But instead a false connection between GM and industrial agriculture has been made - for political reasons, not scientific reasons - and a useful tool is being blacklisted as a result. This is being driven by ideology, not science. That I strongly object to.
More...
There is a perception by anti-GM activists that GM is synonymous with industrial agriculture. That only corporations/industrial agriculture use GM.
This is 100% wrong.
GM is a tool. It is a tool used (badly) by corporations. But it is also a tool being used by government research organizations and private research bodies. For the record I am not a fan of many of the products that corporations have created using the GM tool. I am a fan of many of the products being created by the government and private organizations as they are of more direct benefit to consumers and the environment.
Put this another way: if I-522 wanted to label food “Contains products made by Monsanto” or “Contains products made from industrial agriculture” I seriously would not give the slightest shit about the initiative. I would have no objections. But instead a false connection between GM and industrial agriculture has been made - for political reasons, not scientific reasons - and a useful tool is being blacklisted as a result. This is being driven by ideology, not science. That I strongly object to.
Mar 21
Aaaarrrggh commented on GMO Foods: All the Definitive, Totally Objective Answers in One Place.
No, I am drawing an analogy between people that quote Lindzen and people that quote Shields. Denalists trawl the internet, ignoring or discounting the massive amounts of data in support of global warming to find the quote from someone with impressive sounding credentials who supports their already established beliefs. You're doing the same thing, hence the use of the analogy.
You still can't see that GM is a tool that can be used for many purposes. Some of them more sustainable than others. Generalizing about GM is utterly pointless, because it is the product you make with it that needs to be reviewed, not the tool. You also cannot grasp that there are numerous non-corporate research groups that are using GM. Once you have to admit to that your entire position breaks down because your point is GM = corporate agriculture = profit = environmental destruction and that is frankly not supported by the evidence. If you just look around a little, there are numerous government and privately funded research organizations using GM to create products that more directly benefit the public (and weirdly, their TEST fields are being vandalized by anti-GM activists because GM food isn't TESTED enough *facepalm*)
I sent you 600 papers. Please tell me which ones have been eviscerated by the European Food Safety Agency like the Seralini paper was. I mean, seriously, have any of them been singled out for criticism by the EFSA? If they have please let me know. You say they are just as badly designed as Seralini's but why should I believe you? Any how many total scientists are that in that list? Couple of thousand? None of them need to hide behind anonymity like the 26 you are putting all your faith in. Are they complaining they they can't publish studies?
Let me try a different approach. Why do you believe Dr Shields and the anonymous scientists? Do you know him/her/them? Why aren't you questioning their motives? Why do you blindly accept what they say? Any decent scientific mind would be doing that. That's what I am doing. Why aren't you?
My position is that GM is not inherently dangerous but it is a powerful tool and so the products created with it need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis focusing on the changes made to the crop strain. And at the end of the day I have a couple of thousand scientists, from many of the worlds most reputable scientific organizations, agreeing with this idea and you have 26. And they aren't even anti-GM, just annoyed they aren't being given a free pass to do whatever research they want on somebody else's invention.
More...
You still can't see that GM is a tool that can be used for many purposes. Some of them more sustainable than others. Generalizing about GM is utterly pointless, because it is the product you make with it that needs to be reviewed, not the tool. You also cannot grasp that there are numerous non-corporate research groups that are using GM. Once you have to admit to that your entire position breaks down because your point is GM = corporate agriculture = profit = environmental destruction and that is frankly not supported by the evidence. If you just look around a little, there are numerous government and privately funded research organizations using GM to create products that more directly benefit the public (and weirdly, their TEST fields are being vandalized by anti-GM activists because GM food isn't TESTED enough *facepalm*)
I sent you 600 papers. Please tell me which ones have been eviscerated by the European Food Safety Agency like the Seralini paper was. I mean, seriously, have any of them been singled out for criticism by the EFSA? If they have please let me know. You say they are just as badly designed as Seralini's but why should I believe you? Any how many total scientists are that in that list? Couple of thousand? None of them need to hide behind anonymity like the 26 you are putting all your faith in. Are they complaining they they can't publish studies?
Let me try a different approach. Why do you believe Dr Shields and the anonymous scientists? Do you know him/her/them? Why aren't you questioning their motives? Why do you blindly accept what they say? Any decent scientific mind would be doing that. That's what I am doing. Why aren't you?
My position is that GM is not inherently dangerous but it is a powerful tool and so the products created with it need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis focusing on the changes made to the crop strain. And at the end of the day I have a couple of thousand scientists, from many of the worlds most reputable scientific organizations, agreeing with this idea and you have 26. And they aren't even anti-GM, just annoyed they aren't being given a free pass to do whatever research they want on somebody else's invention.
Mar 20
Aaaarrrggh commented on GMO Foods: All the Definitive, Totally Objective Answers in One Place.
@36
Oh, I’m sorry I think you are missing my point. I want to make it clear that I am not claiming Dr Shields is the equivalent of a “left wing global warming denalist”.
I’m saying YOU are.
Why do I keep mentioning it – it’s an effective analogy. I mean, it is a constant refrain of the denalist movement to ask for more and more data while claiming that the enormous amount of data that has been collected is tainted because insert-ideological-reason-here. Then they go and find a quote from somebody that sort of supports their position. You managed to find a quote from 26 scientists that made an anonymous complaint because they couldn’t do whatever they wanted with somebody else’s property and from that you have extrapolated that all the data is corrupted. Meanwhile there have been over 600 (and counting) papers on GMOs published in peer-reviewed scientific journals as far back as 1996: http://tinyurl.com/cleutaj which should assuage concerns about lack of openness…but I’m sure you’ll find something wrong with those.
You said: “DO you claim there are no environmental impacts from GM agriculture? do you claim there is no issue with proprietary rights over food production? do you claim GM agriculture addresses sustainability issues? So why the hell do you keep going on about climate change denial?”
Sorry, these are typical shift-the-goalpost, strawman questions. All agriculture has environmental impacts, GM and Organic. The question is which has the least and for that, the jury is still out. Yes, there are no proprietary rights over food production – nobody forces farmers to buy Monsanto’s products, they choose to do it. Sustainability? Why not, it could. What if the research into genetically engineering cereal crops to fix nitrogen pans out? Isn’t that worth working on? Or we should stop it because you don’t like the tool that they might use to create such a crop?
For the record imho GM technology is a very powerful tool that should be being tailored to, and used in conjunction with, the best organic farming techniques. The final crop varieties (products) made, regardless of the tool used, need to have their risks analyzed, as they currently are, on a case-by-case basis by the regulators. That is the fastest path to the intensive and sustainable agriculture that we are going to need for this century.
More...
Oh, I’m sorry I think you are missing my point. I want to make it clear that I am not claiming Dr Shields is the equivalent of a “left wing global warming denalist”.
I’m saying YOU are.
Why do I keep mentioning it – it’s an effective analogy. I mean, it is a constant refrain of the denalist movement to ask for more and more data while claiming that the enormous amount of data that has been collected is tainted because insert-ideological-reason-here. Then they go and find a quote from somebody that sort of supports their position. You managed to find a quote from 26 scientists that made an anonymous complaint because they couldn’t do whatever they wanted with somebody else’s property and from that you have extrapolated that all the data is corrupted. Meanwhile there have been over 600 (and counting) papers on GMOs published in peer-reviewed scientific journals as far back as 1996: http://tinyurl.com/cleutaj which should assuage concerns about lack of openness…but I’m sure you’ll find something wrong with those.
You said: “DO you claim there are no environmental impacts from GM agriculture? do you claim there is no issue with proprietary rights over food production? do you claim GM agriculture addresses sustainability issues? So why the hell do you keep going on about climate change denial?”
Sorry, these are typical shift-the-goalpost, strawman questions. All agriculture has environmental impacts, GM and Organic. The question is which has the least and for that, the jury is still out. Yes, there are no proprietary rights over food production – nobody forces farmers to buy Monsanto’s products, they choose to do it. Sustainability? Why not, it could. What if the research into genetically engineering cereal crops to fix nitrogen pans out? Isn’t that worth working on? Or we should stop it because you don’t like the tool that they might use to create such a crop?
For the record imho GM technology is a very powerful tool that should be being tailored to, and used in conjunction with, the best organic farming techniques. The final crop varieties (products) made, regardless of the tool used, need to have their risks analyzed, as they currently are, on a case-by-case basis by the regulators. That is the fastest path to the intensive and sustainable agriculture that we are going to need for this century.
Mar 20
Aaaarrrggh commented on GMO Foods: All the Definitive, Totally Objective Answers in One Place.
@34 looks like you are downplaying the evisceration that Séralini's paper received. Quote from the EFSA: "EFSA has concluded that the Séralini et al. paper is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment. EFSA’s initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested."
Sounds to me more than a sample size/statistical power issue...?
And now you have 20 scientists. That’s nice. If you collect more maybe you could start your very own Oregon Petition. Just be aware that the signatories will still have to contend with the scientific consensus from the WHO, National Academy of Sciences, AMA, Royal Society of the UK, the USDA, the FDA and the EFSA.
Remember, genetic modification is a TOOL that can make a wide variety of DIVERSE PRODUCTS and people need to be focusing on the PRODUCTS. That is why scientist have been saying, since the late 80s, that (from the WHO): “individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods”. Trying to argue that Golden Rice has the same risk profile as Roundup Ready Soy because they both used recombinant DNA techniques does not make scientific sense. And the scientists and regulators realize this. The anti-GM movement seems incapable of making that distinction and so they see the regulators as being complacent, or *eyeroll* conspiring with Monsanto, and any scientist that does a poorly designed/executed experiment that backs up their belief system as a whistleblowing hero....when, in fact, they are just crap at their job.
More...
Sounds to me more than a sample size/statistical power issue...?
And now you have 20 scientists. That’s nice. If you collect more maybe you could start your very own Oregon Petition. Just be aware that the signatories will still have to contend with the scientific consensus from the WHO, National Academy of Sciences, AMA, Royal Society of the UK, the USDA, the FDA and the EFSA.
Remember, genetic modification is a TOOL that can make a wide variety of DIVERSE PRODUCTS and people need to be focusing on the PRODUCTS. That is why scientist have been saying, since the late 80s, that (from the WHO): “individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods”. Trying to argue that Golden Rice has the same risk profile as Roundup Ready Soy because they both used recombinant DNA techniques does not make scientific sense. And the scientists and regulators realize this. The anti-GM movement seems incapable of making that distinction and so they see the regulators as being complacent, or *eyeroll* conspiring with Monsanto, and any scientist that does a poorly designed/executed experiment that backs up their belief system as a whistleblowing hero....when, in fact, they are just crap at their job.
Mar 20
Aaaarrrggh commented on GMO Foods: All the Definitive, Totally Objective Answers in One Place.
sorry for the double post - computer had a fit.
And Anon1256:
I’ll see your Doctor at Cornell and raise you a full Professor at MIT. Here’s what Prof Richard Lindzen has to say about the case FOR global warming:
“For 20 years –more than 20 years unfortunately, 22 by now, since ’88 – of repetition, escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. “Quite the contrary,” he continued. “I would suggest the failure to prove the case of 20 years makes the case even less plausible”
So now have I proved to you that global warming is a hoax?
I hope not because what I did there is called “cherry picking”. I found the one reputable global warming skeptic. However global warming is a real concern because the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it’s a problem. Similarly GM food is NOT an issue because the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it is NOT an issue. You are going to be able to find quotes from scientists that disagree with this but the reality is that the quote from the NYT that “"there is no reliable evidence that genetically modified foods now on the market pose any risk to consumers” is supported by the WHO, National Academy of Sciences, AMA, Royal Society of the UK not to mention the regulators (USDA, FDA, EFSA).
That is why the anti-GMO crowd is being labelled as the left-wing version of the global warming denialist movement.
More...
And Anon1256:
I’ll see your Doctor at Cornell and raise you a full Professor at MIT. Here’s what Prof Richard Lindzen has to say about the case FOR global warming:
“For 20 years –more than 20 years unfortunately, 22 by now, since ’88 – of repetition, escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. “Quite the contrary,” he continued. “I would suggest the failure to prove the case of 20 years makes the case even less plausible”
So now have I proved to you that global warming is a hoax?
I hope not because what I did there is called “cherry picking”. I found the one reputable global warming skeptic. However global warming is a real concern because the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it’s a problem. Similarly GM food is NOT an issue because the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it is NOT an issue. You are going to be able to find quotes from scientists that disagree with this but the reality is that the quote from the NYT that “"there is no reliable evidence that genetically modified foods now on the market pose any risk to consumers” is supported by the WHO, National Academy of Sciences, AMA, Royal Society of the UK not to mention the regulators (USDA, FDA, EFSA).
That is why the anti-GMO crowd is being labelled as the left-wing version of the global warming denialist movement.
Mar 20
Aaaarrrggh commented on GMO Foods: All the Definitive, Totally Objective Answers in One Place.
Wow Anna - way to perpeptuate the fear and hysteria...the "anti-labeling side" you refer to includes the European Food Safety Authority: “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.”
and
“EFSA’s final statement considered the independent assessments of the paper by organisations of six EU Member States: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Full copies of these evaluations can be found in the annex of EFSA’s statement.”
and
“EFSA’s final statement considered the independent assessments of the paper by organisations of six EU Member States: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Full copies of these evaluations can be found in the annex of EFSA’s statement.”
Mar 20
Aaaarrrggh commented on GMO Foods: All the Definitive, Totally Objective Answers in One Place.
Wow Anna. Way to crank up the fear and hysteria. Like the link to the Seralini paper. You do realize that this has been eviscerated by scientists, e.g. from the European Food Safety Authority: “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.”
and
“EFSA’s final statement considered the independent assessments of the paper by organisations of six EU Member States: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Full copies of these evaluations can be found in the annex of EFSA’s statement.”
But, hey, continue to believe in your conspiracy theories just don't make me pay for them.
and
“EFSA’s final statement considered the independent assessments of the paper by organisations of six EU Member States: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Full copies of these evaluations can be found in the annex of EFSA’s statement.”
But, hey, continue to believe in your conspiracy theories just don't make me pay for them.
Mar 4
Aaaarrrggh commented on Wait, That's GMO, Too?.
@63: could you provide a better reference for your claim? That link just sent me to a general news site. Generally these type of claims are appalling exaggerated - e.g. "poor" Percy Schmeiser who deliberately and knowingly planted Roundup Ready Canola and (surprise!) got sued is still parting fools from their money on the anti-GM speaking circuit.
@48 is right - Monsanto is ONE organization that used GM technology (for fairly dubious purposes). Opposing GM because of the way Monsanto uses it is akin to opposing screwdrivers because they are used by weapons manufacturers. There are plenty of government research organizations investigating other uses of the GM tool - ones that would more directly benefit the consumer. Unfortunately many of these trials are being destroyed by narrow-minded activists who make the logical fallacy that GM = Monsanto.
@48 is right - Monsanto is ONE organization that used GM technology (for fairly dubious purposes). Opposing GM because of the way Monsanto uses it is akin to opposing screwdrivers because they are used by weapons manufacturers. There are plenty of government research organizations investigating other uses of the GM tool - ones that would more directly benefit the consumer. Unfortunately many of these trials are being destroyed by narrow-minded activists who make the logical fallacy that GM = Monsanto.
Feb 28
Aaaarrrggh commented on Wait, That's GMO, Too?.
@16: your points have already been refuted by @3.
@18: this is a common misconception. Google “470+ safety assessments”: “Currently there are near 470 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds. Close to 30% of these publications are produced and funded by organisations that are completely independent of large commercial seed companies.”
@19: The Seralini paper has been eviscerated by scientists, e.g. from the European Food Safety Authority: “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.”
and
“EFSA’s final statement considered the independent assessments of the paper by organisations of six EU Member States: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Full copies of these evaluations can be found in the annex of EFSA’s statement.”
@20: there has also been an increase in the consumption of organic food over that time period. So therefore do you conclude that organic food causes cancer?
@22: from the USDA: “There is no significant risk to monarch butterflies from environmental exposure to Bt corn, according to research conducted by a group of scientists coordinated by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).”
More...
@18: this is a common misconception. Google “470+ safety assessments”: “Currently there are near 470 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds. Close to 30% of these publications are produced and funded by organisations that are completely independent of large commercial seed companies.”
@19: The Seralini paper has been eviscerated by scientists, e.g. from the European Food Safety Authority: “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.”
and
“EFSA’s final statement considered the independent assessments of the paper by organisations of six EU Member States: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Full copies of these evaluations can be found in the annex of EFSA’s statement.”
@20: there has also been an increase in the consumption of organic food over that time period. So therefore do you conclude that organic food causes cancer?
@22: from the USDA: “There is no significant risk to monarch butterflies from environmental exposure to Bt corn, according to research conducted by a group of scientists coordinated by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).”
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
In the spirit of continuing "to read whatever I can get my hands on that relates to Washington's Initiative 522" here is a link to the National Academy of Sciences report titled "Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States":
https://download.nap.edu/catalog.php?rec…
you can download it for free. Happy to discuss. I particularly like conclusion 4 on page 17.