Monsanto the GMO Kings

[J’raxis 270145]

I can't  honestly say that anyone can prove ALL GMO is bad. What would it take?

I can honestly say there is almost nothing that can be proven in which it is ALL bad.

This is exactly right—and that's part of the point I've been trying to make. You can't prove that "GM" is inherently bad, because it's a general concept, a technology. Some specific genetic modifications done to crops will turn out to be bad. Some won't.

I think you are missing what I posted and not truely understanding the long term consequences of GMO. This stuff is in the air. There can be no "recall."
Ron..if we find out this stuff is a serious mistake, then what?

This is the risk argument again. I can understand this argument, but I'm not convinced yet that GM as a whole is potentially harmful, and I prefer to err on the side of "innocent until proven guilty"—that is, safe until proven otherwise.

And for the people who do not want GMO products, well too damn bad. So much for freedom huh?

Ah, now this is an entirely different argument, and something I can clearly get behind: I've pointed out a couple times before (I think in some of your or others' fluoride posts?) that the harm factor is entirely irrelevant to the argument that the State should not be putting the stuff in city water supplies—what's important is that people have a choice as to whether or not they wish to consume fluoride.

So, now the question comes down to this: Do we restrict the freedom of those who want GM products, or the freedom of those producing the products, in order to protect the freedom of those who don't want said products? Who's freedom is more important?

Is there another solution besides pitting one group's freedom against the other?

[J’raxis 270145]

I will ask you this once again.

What is your basis that GMOs are safe and beneficial?

That it hasn't been shown to be otherwise. Taking either position is an assumption, but I believe the "innocent until proven guilty" approach is superior from a liberty-minded perspective.

[kola]

I will ask you this once again.

What is your basis that GMOs are safe and beneficial?

That it hasn't been shown to be otherwise. Taking either position is an assumption, but I believe the "innocent until proven guilty" approach is superior from a liberty-minded perspective.

BINGO.

Finally.

And this is the nugget I have been after.

Ok. You base your entire position on your own opinion (using your exact wording "BELIEVE"...my note: as in a "belief", see definition) and then make the authorative claim that this is the accepted. STOP. (think about that.)
You claim it "hasn't been shown to be otherwise" (when taking about safety) yet there is a large porportion of material (non CT ) stating as such but you choose to ignore it.

And then you go even further to somehow solidify your lone opinion and say that you base all of this on the "innocent until proven guilty" approach and that "in your opinion" is far superior from a certain individuals perspeculative outlook.

KUNKK!!!

That was the sound of my jaw crashing on the desktop.

Now, before I go any further, I will give you a chance to change that statement and/or correct my interpetation of it. If this is your final answer, Jraxi (spoken like Regis on TV) I will be quite dissappointed in you.


Kola

[J’raxis 270145]

I will ask you this once again.

What is your basis that GMOs are safe and beneficial?

That it hasn't been shown to be otherwise. Taking either position is an assumption, but I believe the "innocent until proven guilty" approach is superior from a liberty-minded perspective.

BINGO.

Finally.

And this is the nugget I have been after.

Ok. You base your entire position on your own opinion (using your exact wording "BELIEVE"...my note: as in a "belief", see definition) and then make the authorative claim that this is the accepted. STOP. (think about that.)
You claim it "hasn't been shown to be otherwise" (when taking about safety) yet there is a large porportion of material (non CT ) stating as such but you choose to ignore it.

And then you go even further to somehow solidify your lone opinion and say that you base all of this on the "innocent until proven guilty" approach and that "in your opinion" is far superior from a certain individuals perspeculative outlook.

KUNKK!!!

That was the sound of my jaw crashing on the desktop.

Now, before I go any further, I will give you a chance to change that statement and/or correct my interpetation of it. If this is your final answer, Jraxi (spoken like Regis on TV) I will be quite dissappointed in you.

Your interpretation of my position is correct. I have not seen enough evidence to demonstrate that genetic modification is inherently unsafe, and thus I assume it is safe. You don't seem to realize, however, that your own position uses the exact same rationale: You have not seen enough evidence to demonstrate that genetic modification is safe, and thus you assume it is unsafe.

You've chosen to assume dangerousness unless proven otherwise.

I've chosen to assume safety unless proven otherwise.

The material that you've collected demonstrates that specific instances of genetic modification (Bt, RoundUp-ready, GM-soy, &c.) are unsafe. What it still doesn't do is demonstrate that genetic modification itself is unsafe, as I've been saying all along. You use these materials to make an illogical leap from specific genetic modifications being shown to be unsafe to genetic modification is unsafe.

[NJLiberty]

Kola,

It is not a matter of anyone ignoring the material about specific GMOs. There is no question that some GMOs have proven to be unsafe. The problem for me comes when we try to take that set of data about specific GMOs and use it to say that all GMOs are therefore unsafe, and then carry that even further to say GM is inherently unsafe. While I don't like the general concept of GM because I find it to be unnatural, I cannot agree that all GMOs are unsafe because some of them are, nor can I agree that GM is inherently unsafe because some of its results are.

Fortunately I can still buy seeds from sources that guarantee that their seed stock is unadulterated. I don't buy new seed every year, I keep a lot of my own, but I do buy some new varieties once in awhile to see if I like them better than my old ones. I know what the farmer next door to me plants because he and I have talked about this and I ask him each year. While he grows any number of patented flowers in the greenhouses, he gets his vegetable seed from a similar source to mine. His is the only farm or garden close enough to mine to interfere with mine so I am confident of the seed that I keep from year to year. One of the ironic things about living in the "Garden State" is that there are hardly any farms or gardens left. I'm looking forward to seeing how well my NJ seed does in the soils and growing seasons of NH.

Do we have any idea how many acres of GMOs are planted in NH at this point, and where they are located? Just to be on the safe side, when I move up there I would prefer to be well away from those areas.

George

[John Edward Mercier]

You'd have to ask your neighbors again...

[kola]

Jaraxi,

My sweet lord, I can't beleive it.

You preach to me about using logic and science and reasoning and research and then you turn around and base you sole opinion on the "innocent before proven guilty" phrase that is designed for civil and criminal laws.

I wish you would have mentioned that a LOOOOOONG time ago. We could have saved a lot of time and energy.

I am really trying to be respectful to you because I have to hold back laughing uncontrollably. I have decided to refrain from tearing you to pieces as well. For your sake, I think it would be best as I will just leave this to rest.

[ReverendRyan]

It has not been conclusively proven that water is completely safe. Don't drink it.

It has not been conclusively proven that air is completely safe. Don't breathe.

It has not been conclusively proven that teepees are completely safe. Don't live in one.

[Caleb]

There was an Indian physicist on KPFK the other day who has sort of become a leading activist against GMO foods in her native India. Her claim was that GMO foods are not being redesigned to increase yield, and that there is no statistical proof that they do increase yield, but rather they are being modified so as to require certain fertilizers, which are actually shown to decrease the amount of organic material in the soil. She argues that the long term use of these fertilizers will actually decrease yield by making the soil less productive.

My take on this whole GMO thing is that it is basically being done so that people can copyright foods.

[kola]

Caleb, some of my posts indicated that GMO's have poor yields. And this was determined by the folks jraxi
says he supports (scientists).

But then he does a 360 and says he uses his own creation called the "innocent before proven guilty" scientifiK method.

That blew me away.

Kola

[John Edward Mercier]

Think I missed something...
What specific fertilizers? To my knowledge plants require specific nutrients, but not soil.
Artificial fertilizers are designed to increase certain nutrients.

[ReverendRyan]

My take on this whole GMO thing is that it is basically being done so that people can copyright foods.

Once again, right or wrong, that's an indictment against the current practice, not the technology itself.

[Caleb]

well, your argument Kola is sort of based on lumping everything together under a collective banner (GMO Foods) and dismissing it wholesale, whereas I think J'rax is just saying he prefers to decide on a case by case basis.

My point is that it just isn't necessary. Whether it's harmful or not is another issue, but even before we get to that point there is the question of why on earth anybody would do it. Why should I wish to consume modified food? Was there something wrong with the original? If there is, don't eat it.

[Caleb]

My take on this whole GMO thing is that it is basically being done so that people can copyright foods.

Once again, right or wrong, that's an indictment against the current practice, not the technology itself.

yes, but I'm not arguing against the technology itself, just that I don't want it for me, and it seems pointless.

[ReverendRyan]

My point is that it just isn't necessary. Whether it's harmful or not is another issue, but even before we get to that point there is the question of why on earth anybody would do it. Why should I wish to consume modified food? Was there something wrong with the original? If there is, don't eat it.

The problem is not with the food. The problem is with the population. Population increases much faster than usable farmland does, which brings us to the

Borlaug Hypothesis

Borlaug has continually advocated increasing crop yields as a means to curb deforestation. The large role he has played in both increasing crop yields and promoting this view has led to this methodology being called by agricultural economists the "Borlaug hypothesis", namely that increasing the productivity of agriculture on the best farmland can help control deforestation by reducing the demand for new farmland. According to this view, assuming that global food demand is on the rise, restricting crop usage to traditional low-yield methods such as "organic farming" would also require at least one of the following: the world population to decrease, either voluntarily or as a result of mass starvations; or the conversion of forest land into crop land. It is thus argued that high-yield techniques are ultimately saving ecosystems from destruction.