• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Founder of the anti-genetically modified crops movement repudiates all past claims

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CottonRabbit

Golden Member
Apr 28, 2005
1,026
0
0
untrue or unsubstantiated, such as articles like this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57517377-10391704/study-says-genetically-modified-corn-causes-tumors-but-other-scientists-skeptical-about-research/

And we wonder why people are anti-GMO?

Then there are the strong handed tactics monsato uses. Why cant GMO foods be labeled?

monsanto adds fuel to the fire by filing lawsuits to restrict food labeling, and filing lawsuits over cross pollination in nearby fields,,, and so on.
That's a single study on a single product used in a specific way. Those results have not been confirmed independently and are far from definitive. If a new drug by Pfizer turns out to potentially cause cancer, does that mean all drugs on the market should be banned for potential to cause cancer?

Also, the discussion is on the use of GM foods, not on the business practices of a company.

You are trying to put cross pollination and gene splicing on the same level.
Please tell me how the process of in vitro modification of the genome itself is "bad" compared to "natural" mutations.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
Please tell me how the process of in vitro modification of the genome itself is "bad" compared to "natural" mutations.
You are talking about something different then what nehalem256 was referring to.

Cross pollination is not the same as gene splicing.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
You are talking about something different then what nehalem256 was referring to.

Cross pollination is not the same as gene splicing.
He is basically continuing my point. Humans have been messing with food genetics for thousands of years.

Why do we need to label the way in which we messed with the plant genetics?
 

CottonRabbit

Golden Member
Apr 28, 2005
1,026
0
0
You are talking about something different then what nehalem256 was referring to.

Cross pollination is not the same as gene splicing.
It doesn't matter whether they are the same or not. Please tell me the mechanism by which the process of in vitro genetic engineering itself may cause harm.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
People who want to avoid GM crops should not be given the choice?
I do not see why companies should be forced to give in to fear mongers.

If non-GMO foods are really preferred than someone will cater to that market by providing special GMO-Free foods just like Organic foods today. Perhaps Organic foods today even cater to that market (I am uncertain and don't really care about the rules on organic food).

You are trying to put cross pollination and gene splicing on the same level.
You are trying to claim one is inherently more dangerous when there is absolutely zero evidence to back this up.

If GMO were bad you should be able to look at the end result plant and find hazards chemicals, proteins, etc.
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,892
63
91
He is basically continuing my point. Humans have been messing with food genetics for thousands of years.

Why do we need to label the way in which we messed with the plant genetics?
You are failing to understand how gmo creation works. Cross pollination is a natural process that humans have helped along by selecting for certain traits. Creating a gmo is more like introducing a gene that would never have developed in the organism on its own. On the most basic level injecting a foreign gene(s) to force a plant to have a certain trait. Nothing natural about. Hence one reason why some people want a label on it.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
It doesn't matter whether they are the same or not. Please tell me the mechanism by which the process of in vitro genetic engineering itself may cause harm.
I would imagine it MIGHT increase the chance of dangerous chemicals or proteins being produced by the plant.

Of course I would think these chemicals or proteins would also be easily detectable in the apple/corn/etc.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
You are failing to understand how gmo creation works. Cross pollination is a natural process that humans have helped along by selecting for certain traits. Creating a gmo is more like introducing a gene that would never have developed in the organism on its own. On the most basic level injecting a foreign gene(s) to force a plant to have a certain trait. Nothing natural about. Hence one reason why some people want a label on it.
Can we put a label on non GMO food saying that it took more land to grow and therefore causes starvation and environmental destruction?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
You are failing to understand how gmo creation works. Cross pollination is a natural process that humans have helped along by selecting for certain traits. Creating a gmo is more like introducing a gene that would never have developed in the organism on its own. On the most basic level injecting a foreign gene(s) to force a plant to have a certain trait. Nothing natural about. Hence one reason why some people want a label on it.
I understand the basic theory.

What I don't understand is why the newer method is more dangerous and needs special labelling?
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
He is basically continuing my point. Humans have been messing with food genetics for thousands of years.

Why do we need to label the way in which we messed with the plant genetics?
It doesn't matter whether they are the same or not.
Yall do not understand the difference in cross pollinating crops, and splicing animal genes into crops?


Please tell me the mechanism by which the process of in vitro genetic engineering itself may cause harm.
I am not debating whether or not genetic engineering may cause harm.

I am however debating the consumers right to know what they are eating.

Monsanto has created a level of distrust with the consumer by fighting the public on simple labeling of their foods.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Yall do not understand the difference in cross pollinating crops, and splicing animal genes into crops?
I understand the difference. I simply don't see why I should care.

I am not debating whether or not genetic engineering may cause harm.

I am however debating the consumers right to know what they are eating.
That is a meaningless slogan. If you cannot show a real reason to care about GMO why should we add it to the label?

The point of labels is to provide meaningful information to the consumer. If there is no real difference between GMO and non-GMO foods all you are doing is providing information overload and/or confusion to consumers.

Monsanto has created a level of distrust with the consumer by fighting the public on simple labeling of their foods.
They have created distrust with people who already had a mindless hatred of Monsanto and GMO foods.
 

CottonRabbit

Golden Member
Apr 28, 2005
1,026
0
0
I am not debating whether or not genetic engineering may cause harm.

I am however debating the consumers right to know what they are eating.

Monsanto has created a level of distrust with the consumer by fighting the public on simple labeling of their foods.
To label all GM foods as GMO implies that the process of genetic engineering inherently causes some sort of change to the food regardless of what was actually modified. Such a belief is not based on science.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
That is a meaningless slogan. If you cannot show a real reason to care about GMO why should we add it to the label?
The FDA regulates labeling food as "organic", but GMO is off limits?

Lets have a fair and balanced food labeling system.


To label all GM foods as GMO implies that the process of genetic engineering inherently causes some sort of change to the food regardless of what was actually modified. Such a belief is not based on science.
But yet companies are required to list other stuff?

I guess sodium content changes and implies the food is faulty?

We are going in circles here. All I ask is fair labeling of food. Which is something the rest of the industry has to do, but Monsanto fights against.

If campbells soup has to list their sodium content, then let companies that use GMO label their products as such.

Its this fighting against the will of the public that has lead to mistrust of GMO foods.
 
Last edited:

CottonRabbit

Golden Member
Apr 28, 2005
1,026
0
0
You are failing to understand how gmo creation works. Cross pollination is a natural process that humans have helped along by selecting for certain traits. Creating a gmo is more like introducing a gene that would never have developed in the organism on its own. On the most basic level injecting a foreign gene(s) to force a plant to have a certain trait. Nothing natural about. Hence one reason why some people want a label on it.
There are viruses and bacteria in nature that do exactly what you are describing and have been doing so for million/billions of years. Instead of having such vectors inject their own genetic material into plants, we are having them inject genetic material that benefits us. Could we use this process to create harmful plants? Yes, but the process itself is not inherently dangerous.

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

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
The FDA regulates labeling food as "organic", but GMO is off limits?

Lets have a fair and balanced food labeling system.
Fair and balanced would be having a GMO-Free label that was regulated by the FDA.

The FDA does not require that all non-"organic" foods be label as "non-organic"

But yet companies are required to list other stuff?

I guess sodium content changes and implies the food is faulty?

We are going in circles here. All I ask is fair labeling of food. Which is something the rest of the industry has to do, but Monsanto fights against.

If campbells soup has to list their sodium content, then let companies that use GMO label their products as such.

Its this fighting against the will of the public that has lead to mistrust of GMO foods.
Sodium content is labeled because people have reasons for caring about sodium content. Sodium is a relevant nutritional item.

You have provided zero reason for people to care about GMO.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
If I was Monsanto, I'd spend tons of money to defeat that proposition too, as it would hurt their bottom line. The forced-labeling is nothing but fear-mongering at this point just because of the unwarranted stigma that has been attached to GMO food. It really has little to do with either points a or b.
That's my fundamental opposition, they should label it despite corporate desire to impact law to protect their bottom line.

All food should be labeled let them spend their money on GMO education commercials.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Fair and balanced would be having a GMO-Free label that was regulated by the FDA.

The FDA does not require that all non-"organic" foods be label as "non-organic"



Sodium content is labeled because people have reasons for caring about sodium content. Sodium is a relevant nutritional item.

You have provided zero reason for people to care about GMO.
GMO free label would work as it accomplish a way to distinguish what your eating
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
GMO free label would work as it accomplish a way to distinguish what your eating
But what real distinction is there between GMO and GMO-free food?

Here is an idea. If you have same irrational hatred of GMO buy 100% organic food.

http://gmo-awareness.com/2011/05/05/is-organic-always-gmo-free/

It is guaranteed to have no GMO food in it.

But just like we do not require that all non-"organic" food be labeled as "non-organic" it is silly to label GMO food.
 

bononos

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2011
3,720
68
91
Its fear mongering because there is no reason to believe that GMO is bad for you. I have never heard any proposed theoretical mechanism that would make GMO harmful. People have been influencing the genetics of the food they eat for 1000s of years.
Maybe there is no proof because there is no money in doing so while billions are being poured into researching GMO products.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
I am still waiting for a reason why anyone should care. They are free to buy 100% organic which is GMO-free.

I have no objection to the label being updated to "100% organic and GMO-free"
Its attitudes like that that make people mistrust GMO and monsanto.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Maybe there is no proof because there is no money in doing so while billions are being poured into researching GMO products.
How hard is it to get a hold of some GMO corn and then run it through some tests to detect the chemicals and proteins in it?

Imagine how much fame, and future grants, you would acquire if you could find dangerous proteins or chemicals in it?

And if you can't how could it be dangerous?

Its attitudes like that that make people mistrust GMO and monsanto.
The people who distrust GMO have never needed any reason other than its "unnatural".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY