GMO Denialism, worst kind of science denial

[sangha]

So, you can't prove your claim but to post an unsourced graph that just doesn't show what you want it to. It's not showing use of AN fertilizer going up.

You're the one obsessed with AN to the exclusion of every other nitrogen fertilizer.

And you almost have it right with that last bit about what you are calling "chemical fertilizers". AN fertilizer, the nitrogen isn't bound, it's free and leeches out with irrigation. There are fertilizers that have bound nitrogen that doesn't leech so easily and releases more gradually. Unfortunately these don't give us the yields you get from massive AN fertilizer use as we did in the past.

Organic fertilizer doesn't leach nearly as much nitrogen (nitrogen will alway leach out to some extent) as chemical fertilizers and produce better results than any chemical fertilizer because they provide other benefits in addition to plant nutrition

 

[clownboy]

I have heard of that, the algae not only clogs everything up but also takes most of the oxygen in the water, both suffocating and smothering the marine life. I wonder if urea doesn't do the same though since it's a lot of ammonia and nitrogen... hmmm.

It would, because it's the nitrogen in both that causes the algae blooms. However, I believe that most urea based chemical fertilizers are nitrogen bound, unlike AN chemical fertilizers. Another benefit is the urea based fertilizers are not petro based.

 

[sangha]

I have heard of that, the algae not only clogs everything up but also takes most of the oxygen in the water, both suffocating and smothering the marine life. I wonder if urea doesn't do the same though since it's a lot of ammonia and nitrogen... hmmm.

Yes, urea does the same thing.

The best way to stop nitrogen from running off into the water supply is to prevent water from running off. The two best ways to accomplish this is with soil that is high in organic material (which absorbs water) and with hardscaping the land to capture runoff and keep it on the land. Modern agricultural practices discourage both - the tilling it requires destroys organic material and hardscaping requires the use of land that they to devote to growing crops.

 

[sangha]

It would, because it's the nitrogen in both that causes the algae blooms. However, I believe that most urea based chemical fertilizers are nitrogen bound, unlike AN chemical fertilizers. Another benefit is the urea based fertilizers are not petro based.

True, but they do require the use of carbon energy to produce.

 

[clownboy]

You're the one obsessed with AN to the exclusion of every other nitrogen fertilizer.

Because that is the specific fertilizer that caused the huge rise in yield you saw from WWI . So again, back to the point which you've almost managed to obfuscate - the steadily rising yields may indeed be because of GMOs in recent decades.

Organic fertilizer doesn't leach nearly as much nitrogen (nitrogen will alway leach out to some extent) as chemical fertilizers and produce better results than any chemical fertilizer because they provide other benefits in addition to plant nutrition

So-called organic fertilizers are chemical fertilizers and are generally nitrogen bound, so yes. The last part is bull****. Look at your graph again. See that jump in growth? Before the jump we were using what you call organic fertilizers. The spike begins when we start using AN fertilizer.

Really you should talk to farmers once in a while. Whether they style themselves organic or traditional, they don't just use one chemical on their fields. We throw a little calcium/bone meal in their from time to time, a few other nice chemicals to keep things happy and productive.

 

[sangha]

Because that is the specific fertilizer that caused the huge rise in yield you saw from WWI . So again, back to the point which you've almost managed to obfuscate - the steadily rising yields may indeed be because of GMOs in recent decades

The industrial process for creating urea is older than the Haber process for creating AN. In addition, as you pointed out yourself, it wasn't just the use of AN that caused the post-war increase in yields. IOW, your focus on AN is inappropriate and will be ignored.

And there's no evidence that any increase in yields is attributable to GE corn.

So-called organic fertilizers are chemical fertilizers and are generally nitrogen bound, so yes. The last part is bull****. Look at your graph again. See that jump in growth? Before the jump we were using what you call organic fertilizers. The spike begins when we start using AN fertilizer.

And before the jump, many farms used horses and oxen instead of tractors. They also did not use insecticides, fungicides, herbicides or modern irrigation equipment and the water supply system was not nearly as well developed as it is now.

IOW, it wasn't just about AN, no matter how obsessed you are with it.

Really you should talk to farmers once in a while. Whether they style themselves organic or traditional, they don't just use one chemical on their fields. We throw a little calcium/bone meal in their from time to time, a few other nice chemicals to keep things happy and productive.

I talk to farmers regularly.

 

[Morality Games]

Such bull****. There is a scientific consensus that GMos are safe. If you're ignorant of that fact to look it up yourself, it is not our job to educate you. Go remedy your ignorance and then return to this conversation.

Most scientists that study food work as employees of companies that deal in food.

 

[Summerwind]

Most scientists that study food work as employees of companies that deal in food.

There is that issue with this and so many other topics, like meds. And those that do come out with contrary opinions are pretty well swept under the bus. I remember when Nancy Schniderman tried to educate everyone that Activia is bull****, and every yogurt of any price has pro-biotics, but Dannon or whoever it is that makes Activia put the kibosh on that pretty quick at GMA. That's the way it always is these days.

 

[Paschendale]

compared to GMO's, selective breeding is neither sloppy, slow or haphazard. I would argue that those words apply more accurately to GMO's.

You would be wrong. Completely wrong.

Slow: Even though GMO's have been in use for decades, there has been no significant increase in yields. In terms of increased yield per year, GMo's have not only been "slow", they've been a complete failure. In comparison, selective breeding has increased yields and has been doing so for centuries.

This is 100% a lie. Yields in the third world are significantly higher in the last century because of genetic modification of crops. This technology is also why food is so incredibly cheap in this country.

Sloppy and haphazard: When a farmer selects seeds from his healthiest and most productive plants, he is creating a new variety of the plant that is uniqely well-suited for the environmental conditions present on his land. The GMO seeds are not. Instead, they are a one-size fits all seed that has not been bred for the variety of environments that exist in the real world.

Wrong. When a farmer breeds together various plants, they have no way of knowing which genes will be transferred. It's merely trial and error, relying on artificial selection. Even if a certain gene makes the plant survive better, there is no control for additional genes that ride along, and no way to account for random variables in the environment that might select for a less ideal gene. All of that can be accounted for in a lab.

Every word you've written here is wrong.

I see you didn't read or comprehend my post at all. Try again. The reasons for GMO are not the same, there is some valid concern that the reason for GMO is to allow extreme amounts of chemicals to be used on the produce during its growth, not the same reasons as hybridization and a valid reason to be concerned. I certainly don't want even more chemicals, particularly weed killers and insecticides to be used in the production/growth of my vegetables.

And yes, putting GMO on a product IS enough. There are all kinds of information on packaging that many don't really understand, nonetheless it's there to inform whomever chooses to be informed. If people want to be afraid of it, knowingly or foolishly, that's their choice and doesn't need a dissertation on the label, just three letters.

So you intentionally want to scare people into opposing technology that is good for us. You don't want to label the foods based on what "chemicals" (I assume you mean pesticides) were used on them, only whether or not they were modified in a lab, even if that modification were simply altering the color of a fruit. You don't want actual useful information to be given to people, only fear-mongering. This is a terrible, anti-science, pro-ignorance, pro-reactionary fear stance to take.

 

[Summerwind]

You would be wrong. Completely wrong.



This is 100% a lie. Yields in the third world are significantly higher in the last century because of genetic modification of crops. This technology is also why food is so incredibly cheap in this country.



Wrong. When a farmer breeds together various plants, they have no way of knowing which genes will be transferred. It's merely trial and error, relying on artificial selection. Even if a certain gene makes the plant survive better, there is no control for additional genes that ride along, and no way to account for random variables in the environment that might select for a less ideal gene. All of that can be accounted for in a lab.

Every word you've written here is wrong.



So you intentionally want to scare people into opposing technology that is good for us. You don't want to label the foods based on what "chemicals" (I assume you mean pesticides) were used on them, only whether or not they were modified in a lab, even if that modification were simply altering the color of a fruit. You don't want actual useful information to be given to people, only fear-mongering. This is a terrible, anti-science, pro-ignorance, pro-reactionary fear stance to take.

I am in favor of letting each person make their own decision which means labeling three letters on the packaging and/or signage. I am also in favor of stopping the financial and copyright issues that are ruining farmers, even ones that never purchased nor intended to have GMO crops on their land. If you want to believe everything you're told and you want to eat them, go for it. I am pro-informed-choice in the matter. You don't like that, tough titties.

 

[iguanaman]

You are quite correct, recumbent techniques are in fact engineering. I really shouldn't lump hybridization from breeding programs into the same category. They are quite different.

They are very much the same. Both modify the DNA of plants to make them more suitable for use. The methods are different but the end results are the same.

 

[Paschendale]

I am in favor of letting each person make their own decision which means labeling three letters on the packaging and/or signage.

But you want them to make an uninformed decision.

I am also in favor of stopping the financial and copyright issues that are ruining farmers, even ones that never purchased nor intended to have GMO crops on their land.

So am I.

If you want to believe everything you're told and you want to eat them, go for it.

Believe everything I'm told? Really? That's the dumb quip you're reduced to? That's the same line anti-vaxxers use. Congratulations on descending to their level of discourse.

I am pro-informed-choice in the matter. You don't like that, tough titties.

No, you clearly aren't. You want people to make an ignorant reactionary decision instead of a knowledgeable one. And if you actually knew the science involved, you wouldn't be endorsing such an ignorant and reactionary stance.

 

[Summerwind]

But you want them to make an uninformed decision.



So am I.



Believe everything I'm told? Really? That's the dumb quip you're reduced to? That's the same line anti-vaxxers use. Congratulations on descending to their level of discourse.



No, you clearly aren't. You want people to make an ignorant reactionary decision instead of a knowledgeable one. And if you actually knew the science involved, you wouldn't be endorsing such an ignorant and reactionary stance.

You arrogantly assume people will be uninformed and choose not to eat them. I don't have that lack of faith. People tend to buy the produce that looks best, so likelihood is even if they are uninformed to your specifications, they'll not avoid GMOs. It worse to treat people like they are all stupid. I couldn't imagine living with such arrogance in my mind about any topic.

I am a limited vaxer, I do not believe every vax on the market is necessarily a good thing and I don't buy every medical claim about anything. I was told when I had my hysterectomy that I HAD to go on hormones or I'd get breast cancer and ovarian cancer, blah blah, but I hated them only took 'em for two weeks and decided to live with hot flashes instead. 15 years later, turns out my decision was the right one even though it was made for the wrong reasons. Additionally having been born dead and having open heart surgery at 4 years old, I had other "life long" medications I was supposed to take, quit taking them about the same time and my energy and health improved 10 fold. I no longer trust the medical society to the point I haven't seen a doc since 1991 when I had the hysterectomy. You don't like that, tough. My experience tells me not to believe people who have a financially vested interest in a product being pushed. To find my own information as much as I can and to remain skeptical.

You expect people to make reactionary decisions though you have no proof whatsoever that they will. Regardless, we have the right to know and to decide whether that decision is foolish or intelligent and by whomever's measure that is. Some will say those that avoid are the intelligent ones and some will say those that don't are, and truth is no one will know for sure for decades, just the same a hormone replacement therapy.

I suggest you get over yourself. This type of hysteria that you are expressing only convinces me more that there's something that's fishy going on with GMOs just the same as people who trash parents with legitimate concerns about the honesty of the medical community actually makes it seem more likely that there's reason for concern. As I'm sure you'll note, my original posts in this thread ranked at about 40% skeptical which is now at about 85%. You did that. Proud of yourself? Perhaps you need to read the person receiving your considerations more carefully if you want success.

 

[DDD]

If GMOs are so wonderful and safe, why does the lobby behind them work so hard to ensure GMO products do not have a label telling the buyer about it? One can assume well that since there is an absence of mandatory labeling of GMO products there must be some reason for keeping the consumer uninformed.

The GMO supporters and lobbyists should start by tackling prejudice first. Some of responses that I got is that GMO can "grow you another head." It was meant in literal biological sense, that for instance a two headed person could evolve to be due to GMO.

You can see that such a statement cannot be supported with evidence from start.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Most scientists that study food work as employees of companies that deal in food.

Your ludicrous denial of science is such an ugly thing. It must be awful to live your life shrouded in such ignorance and inability to grasp scientific concepts.

 

[Guy Incognito]

The GMO supporters and lobbyists should start by tackling prejudice first. Some of responses that I got is that GMO can "grow you another head." It was meant in literal biological sense, that for instance a two headed person could evolve to be due to GMO.

You can see that such a statement cannot be supported with evidence from start.

It's wrong to think you can educate these idiots. They are science deniers, they aren't going to be swayed by rational thought or evidence. They simply need to be called out on their bull****.

 

[Guy Incognito]

It's one thing to rage against the idiot hippies who are all afraid of "frankenfood", but don't diminish the real importance of the economics involved. Real serious reform is needed to get the bad out of GMO. The technology is sound and really pretty awesome, but we can't ignore the problems in the business side.

You're responsible for the people you ally yourself with. I don't support patents on genes either, but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Un biased]

Nobody should starve, but farmers should be pushed to the point of suicide because of corporate bullying and greed. Nope, not at all acceptable.

Ahem
Indian farmer suicides not GM related, says study | Environment | The Guardian

Myth of India’s ‘GM genocide': Genetically modified cotton blamed for suicides | National Post

https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/demolishing-myth-monsantos-engineered-cr/

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I just wish they didn't modify the taste out of these foodstuffs. Cooking shows are so popular because they've modified the natural taste out of vegetables.

 

[Un biased]

I just wish they didn't modify the taste out of these foodstuffs. Cooking shows are so popular because they've modified the natural taste out of vegetables.

Many foods are not the same as they once were due to artificial selection.

Artificial selection

 

[OrphanSlug]

Here you go: Core Truths: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked | Popular Science

Thank you, I'll read it.

The idiotic thing about all of this is that we have been manipulating the genes of food crops for a 1000 years at least but now it is supposed to be scary? We have plenty to be scared about but hybridizing food crops is not one of them. Those hybrids are what feed the world.

As I said I would, I did read this over including the supporting linked articles and a few others I have found. It is all very compelling and I did not see much to take issue with.

I will agree that we have been "modifying" food for a very long time using hybrid seeding. But I would be foolish to link hybrid seeding to what we see with GMO work. With hybrid seeding what we have been doing for "a 1000 years" is cultivating new plant varieties through cross-pollinating two related but different plants. Odds are the process took 5 or more generations to take to result in a new plant variety. Slow process but the eventual yield made it worthwhile. GMO seed varieties involve splicing and unlike hybrid seeding the plant types do not have to be related, like a bacteria with a type of plant to handle external conditions by protein manipulations.

It is simply not the same thing even though what I have read suggests GMO products are relatively safe. The ideas behind wanting crops that can beat out drought conditions or simply need less water to obtain the highest plant yield seems like the right course. Based on the conditions we need crops to survive in it makes sense to tackle food products that can grow in other conditioned locations, or perhaps yield at different times per year, or perhaps yield the eatable part of the plant without seeds, or survive historical plant disease types, etc.

I still think people should know what they are consuming but given the confusion on this subject we have a real problem with how we approach labeling. Since the overwhelming majority of the food products we consume are either from hybrid seeding or GMO food (gene level modified, as in protein type changes) we are talking about a major change. In a way you could say we have gone so far down this road it would be difficult to undo it all without adding enormous cost that would be passed right down to the consumer.

Anyway, thank you for the information. Proved to be very useful and compelling.

 

[Ikari]

The environmental and social considerations are hugely in support of GMOs, so that's out. And if you politics cause you to oppose GMOs, then change your ****ing politics. This is about human lives.

This is stupid, propaganda tripe. Why don't you prove it's "about human lives". Instead of just prattling off at the mouth. Data or it didn't happen.

 

[sangha]

You would be wrong. Completely wrong.

Very persuasive! :roll:

This is 100% a lie. Yields in the third world are significantly higher in the last century because of genetic modification of crops. This technology is also why food is so incredibly cheap in this country.

If you say so :roll:

Wrong. When a farmer breeds together various plants, they have no way of knowing which genes will be transferred. It's merely trial and error, relying on artificial selection. Even if a certain gene makes the plant survive better, there is no control for additional genes that ride along, and no way to account for random variables in the environment that might select for a less ideal gene. All of that can be accounted for in a lab.

I am right, and you are wrong.

first of all, when the farmer selects seeds for next years crops, he does not take just one seed. He takes many seeds from several plants. While some of those seeds may produce plants which have undesirable traits, most will not. Those are the plants from which he takes seeds for the following years crops.

Furthermore, the farmer does this year after year. By selecting seeds from his plants, which come from fruits which were pollinated with pollen from the flowers on plants grown from the seeds he selected, the cultivar becomes stable. New plants are unlikely to have undesirable traits because those traits have already been selected out of his seeds. They "breed true" because they are not F1's

In comparison, the seeds produced through GE are well suited for nowhere except, at best, the plot of land the lab uses. It cannot be best suited for the farmers land because the lab does not have access to the farmers land so they can not determine which plants have the genes which will make them better suited for the individual farmers land and the conditions which exist there.

There is only one way to significantly increase the amount of fruit a crop produces and that is to increase the plants "intrinsic yield" which is the amount of food a plant will produce under "perfect" conditions. It is telling that none of the modifications (with the exceptions of mods which give plants traits like drought or frost resistance) made through GE have addressed intrinsic yield. Instead, they address things like disease resistance and pests whereas selective breeding has turned such as tomatoes from bitter fruits the size of a pinkie nail into sweet fruits which can weigh well over a pound and bursting with flavor.

So contrary to your claims that selective breeding (SB) is nothing but trial and error, SB is a technology that is thousands of years old and continues to be used because it works. In terms of increasing yield, no other technology has produced results comparable to SB.

 

[sangha]

They are very much the same. Both modify the DNA of plants to make them more suitable for use. The methods are different but the end results are the same.

No, selective breeding and hybridization do not modify the DNA of plants. The DNA in the parent plants are passed onto the children unmodified.

With GE, the results are the plants have a genome that contains DNA that was previously not present in the parent plants genome. That never happens with selective breeding and hybridization

 

[sangha]

Ahem
Indian farmer suicides not GM related, says study | Environment | The Guardian

Myth of India’s ‘GM genocide': Genetically modified cotton blamed for suicides | National Post

https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/demolishing-myth-monsantos-engineered-cr/

The study by Guillaume does not say that GE crops play no role in the suicides. It merely says that it is not the predominant factor and that the suicides are the result of many factors with the most important factor being indebtedness. Notably, the use of GE cotton increases indebtedness because the seeds are twice as expensive as non-GE cotton.

However, the role of GE cotton in the suicide rate has probably been overstated