Harvest Of Fear
Sirus
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
in Discussions
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/' target='_blank'>Harvest of Fear</a>
I was just browsing PBS when I saw this site. Interesting to say the least. I've never really thought about GM food. I suppose there's positive benefits to GM food, especially in regards to nutrition in third world countries, but to my chagrin, it does seem to possibly have consequences in hurting small farmers (I'm at unease due to events in US history with yeoman farmers, maybe not in our world of agribusiness possibly). But then again, it might prove to provide a niche market (organic foods) However, we aren't completely sure yet what the consequences of GM is yet, is it worth the risk ? Are we applying enough foresight ?
Just some food for thought. (Ok that was tacky.)
Opinions ?
I was just browsing PBS when I saw this site. Interesting to say the least. I've never really thought about GM food. I suppose there's positive benefits to GM food, especially in regards to nutrition in third world countries, but to my chagrin, it does seem to possibly have consequences in hurting small farmers (I'm at unease due to events in US history with yeoman farmers, maybe not in our world of agribusiness possibly). But then again, it might prove to provide a niche market (organic foods) However, we aren't completely sure yet what the consequences of GM is yet, is it worth the risk ? Are we applying enough foresight ?
Just some food for thought. (Ok that was tacky.)
Opinions ?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another potential hazard to human health is the possibility that bacteria in our guts could pick up antibiotic-resistance genes found in many GM foodstuffs. (Food geneticists often add such genes to GM plants as 'markers' to tell them which plants have taken up exotic genes.) If this transfer happens, in principle it could exacerbate the already worrisome spread of disease-causing bacteria that have proven able to withstand our antibiotics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I would like to point out that EVERY antibiotic we have already has bacteria that are resistant to it. The second problem is without that antibiotic being actually present, these genes are NOT maintained in a natural population of bacteria at any significant level. Thirdly, your gut bacteria <i>already have such genes right now</i>. They have had them since the day you were born at a low level to begin with. People seem to think antibiotic resistance appears by magic or something. Fourthly, the chance of this is INCREDIBLY low.
So this isn't really applicable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm still waiting for a single anti-GE spokesman or even scientist, to give me a single logical reason why inserting a few hundred kilobases suddenly makes a potato a lethal killer (for example). I have yet to see any evidence that GE foods are at all more dangerous than non-GE foods.
I've actually been researching this too so I could make a thread about it myself!
As for small farmers, the real losers of GE being upheld as 'safe' are organic farmers. They would be set to lose millions world wide, so it is hardly surprising to know that they keep up their vitriolic rants about GE to try and keep consumers confused.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of their greatest worries is that GM crops could harm other wildlife. A 1999 article in Nature about detrimental effects on monarch butterflies stoked that fear. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funnily enough, there is no mention of the fact that the gene in question had been one for insecticide. It does mention that it was done under artificial situations in a lab though, but not that the gene in question was for insecticide? Really odd.
GG being unbiased!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->critics also shudder at the thought that insects will become 'superbugs' resistant to pesticides engineered into GM crops.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that the plant can respond in the same natural ways as the insects can. These people have clearly forgotton what natural selection is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the same token, they also predict the evolution of 'superweeds' that become immune to a broad-spectrum weed killer after crossing with and assuming the herbicide-resistant gene from a closely related GM plant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The funny thing is, nobody has yet been able to prove that GM plants are any more likely to horizontally spread their genes. Not to mention you would need TWO extremely rare events, that have so far only been done in a lab successfully. With non sterile soil, bacteria that aren't sexed up and relatively 'real' conditions it simply wasn't even observed to occur.
Basically, under idea lab conditions with horny bacteria, a GE plant that wants to spread its genes it had a roughly 1 in a <i>billion</i> chance of spreading those genes to soil bacteria. Now, if the bacterium decided to keep the gene is a different story, let alone what good a herbicide resistance gene does. Then again, the bacteria probably don't care, I'll let you in on a secret here, <i>bacteria already have herbicide resistance genes</i>. Yet we don't have herbicide resistant plants rampaging around everywhere you cry!
Of course not, because the chances of those bacteria with those genes spreading them is almost zilch. Even if they did, the gene itself would need that friend, natural selection, to actually get anywhere.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Naysayers also worry that viruses will **** resistance traits from GM crops bearing genes from crop viruses. These gene-thieving viruses might then evolve into entirely new strains that could infect a whole range of plants previously unaffected.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has always been purely stupid. Really, this is why people who don't know how viruses work should probably not comment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nature also does not mix apples and oranges, much less flounder and strawberries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't it ironic though, that they claim it is impossible for genes to jump species on the one hand, and then claim it will in GE crops all the time.
Always funny those anti-GE ranters!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you are observing kosher dietary laws, how would you feel knowing the tomato you just enjoyed in your salad carried a pig gene?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it's DNA, a small section of DNA at that. Hardly constitutes making a pig really, it is just adding a new instruction to something that doesn't have it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What if you knew that many critics inveigh against biotech companies for being profit-driven, with little concern for potential risks to people or nature?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet, you can accuse the so called 'good willed' organic growers of doing the same thing. Many other GE protesters have investments in such buisnesses as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The FDA, for one, has long maintained that most GM foods are "substantially equivalent" to unmodified foods and are thus not subject to FDA regulations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oddly enough, they would in fact be pretty much spot on too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Labeling is another issue that raises the hackles of anti-GM food activists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One of the few things I agree with. Even though I see utterly NO reason that makes GE food different in any significant way, I do believe it should be labelled.
Really, that article was really quite sad overall. Short, generally heavily biased arguments that really don't give you the full story on pretty much anything. In addition to this, it is so easy to say that you'll get new viruses from a drought resistance gene, but I'd challenge ANYONE to *prove* it (Next to impossible, because the chance is about 0).
Now yes, there are risks. But despite people speaking out against GM foods, the fact is that companies will grow them and people will buy them. Smaller farmers catch the short end of the stick here, but well, that's capitalism. It's the harsh reality of running a business in a capitalist world (note that I'm not saying this is a bad thing, simply that it's what happens).
For all the doomsday talk of the dangers of GM foods, there really hasn't been much happening at all, and as the article says, we've been eating it for years. Given the state of legal cases nowdays, where you can be sued for just about anything, I find it hard to believe that a company would release a GM product without thorough testing. The legal risks are just too high.
That said, mankind doesn't have a good record with regards to foresight. We tend to invent or develop something then use it straight away, worrying about consequenses or side-effects later. In this case, we face a problem: world hunger, and we're trying to solve it with a quick solution: GM foods. Currently, the scale of the problem outweighs the possible disadvantages that might arise.
- Smaller farmers catch the short end of the stick here, but well, that's capitalism.
- For all the doomsday talk of the dangers of GM foods, there really hasn't been much happening at all, and as the article says, we've been eating it for years.
-Currently, the scale of the problem outweighs the possible disadvantages that might arise. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am utterly shocked that the 2 posts in reply were both in favor of GM foods. Everything you said Ryo-Oki is right on the money, key points highlighted.
GM foods are a godsend. Quite simply: stronger, more resistant, more plentiful, and even healthier crops can be grown. It is a wonderful invention. Unfortunately hordes of people with neither knowledge in biology or economics demonize them. I mean listen to that name "GENETICALLY MODIFIED". I mean my God, it sounds like something from a cliche horror movie, right? I s'pose it's only a matter of time before armies of super-vegetable warriors up root themselves to stake their claim as the new masters of the universe. I for one welcome our new plant overloads.
Ugh, please. Inserting base pairs into a plant will not make it more healthy. The plant STILL has the same proteins, celllulose, and chemical makeup, it's just tougher.
Food for thought (pun intended): Broccoli and cauliflower are horribel, twisted mutants (those 'buds' on a brocolli are would-be flowers that never actually sprout) that have been artificially selected by human beings and cultivated.
Don't forget, wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, carrots and a large variety of other crop plants, which are mostly mutants.
Potatoes were originally poisonous to boot as well.
Anyways, my general feeling is upsetting the balance. GM food affects much more than just the plant itself. It's entirely too difficult to foresee all the conflicts, but it seems that we are being a bit hasty. All it takes is one significant problem to throw hundreds of things out of whack. "Canadian farmers have reported that herbicide-resistant canola plants have invaded nearby wheat fields with the impunity of a feared superweed." "Cornell University researchers found that only 56 percent of monarch larvae survived when fed milkweed plants covered in GM corn pollen, whereas all those fed milkweed leaves with traditional corn pollen lived. About half of monarchs in the U.S. spend their summers dining on milkweed in corn-growing regions, so to environmental activists this proved dire news." While these are some what trivial, but we can't really sure how far we're going. Unpredictability is the conflict here.
Jeremy Rifkin : "So they're inherently more unpredictable in terms of what they'll do once they're out into the environment. Secondly, GMOs reproduce. Chemical products don't do that.
Third, they can mutate. Fourth, they can migrate and proliferate over wide regions. And fifth, you cannot easily recall them to the laboratory or clean them up. So when we're dealing with genetically modified organisms, we're dealing with a whole new genre of environmental and health questions, totally different than when we introduce chemical or even nuclear products into the environment. ... "
"Larger males are what females prefer. ... Fish just 25 percent larger will get 400 percent more matings than a fish of average size. And the theory behind that is called the good genes hypothesis, that if a male is a large, this male must be good in securing resources. [It] must be able to find its food and avoid predictors, so it carries the good genes to make it a better parent. ...
[With the GM fish], you have a situation where the individuals are getting all the matings but producing the lowest number of offspring. So gradually, over 20 or 30 generations, the population could go to extinction. "
Temporary solution in exchange for a permanent consequence ?
Once again, I'm afraid that we're not ready to do this because we don't know the consequences completely. GM seems to be good to be true.
But Ryo is right, we have little time with such problems such as world hunger. It's quite the dilemma to be sure.
It is extremely biased, reading through that, they ONLY present arguments or research from those who are sceptical and or anti-GE. They do not, for example, quote knock out blow studies (for anti-GE gibberers) that demonstrate that passing genes between organisms is extraoridinarily difficult to achieve in heavily biased laboratory conditions. It also does not present a very balanced argument, clearly steering anyone who didn't know any better to the negative point of view. This is because it does not talk about ANY of the science and gets it horribly wrong.
For example, the creation of new viruses and the like is a plain ridiculous assertion. I've never heard a single logical argument for it yet. The same with new bacterial pathogens, I've still yet to hear a logical argument for why this would be more significant than your average slum or poor neighbourhood. In fact, it is probably irrelevant, going to KFC* does more for breeding new bacterial pathogens than GE ever will.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Canadian farmers have reported that herbicide-resistant canola plants have invaded nearby wheat fields with the impunity of a feared superweed." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was delt with however, they just changed herbicide. The point of a herbicide resistance gene is a plant is to confer resistance to your brand of herbicide while stuffing everything else.
Worth noting is the fact that bacteria already have these genes anyway (why? Who knows, probably they just break down the herbicide as another energy source). If herbicide resistance was capable of spreading (for example) as anti-GE ranters would suggest or your average environmentalist would assert (IE Greenpeace), this should of already happened.
But it hasn't. Superweeds likewise have yet to materialise, though a GE maize (or something similarish) has become the predominant type in mexico. However, it is hardly overruning the environment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Cornell University researchers found that only 56 percent of monarch larvae survived when fed milkweed plants covered in GM corn pollen, whereas all those fed milkweed leaves with traditional corn pollen lived. About half of monarchs in the U.S. spend their summers dining on milkweed in corn-growing regions, so to environmental activists this proved dire news." While these are some what trivial, but we can't really sure how far we're going. Unpredictability is the conflict here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sigh
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Funnily enough, there is no mention of the fact that the gene in question had been one for insecticide. It does mention that it was done under artificial situations in a lab though, but not that the gene in question was for insecticide? Really odd.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG WTH! DOOD! AN INSECTICIDE KILLING INSECTS?!
UNPOSSIBLE! INSECTICIDES CAN'T KILL INSECTS.
>_<
Another example of their bias incidently, you'd think it would be intelligent to note that the gene was for insecticide.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Fourth, they can migrate and proliferate over wide regions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except for the fact that crop plants are poor competitors for a wide variety of reasons. There are reasons why we have to clear fields and prevent weeds and such growing in crop fields=Because they aren't very good at it.
Incidently, FEAR MY NEW AVARTAR! MUAHAHAHAHAHA.
And stuff.
*VRE is fun. Really fun. Everyone should get VRE, it's what's for dinner!
We're now doing this in a more... "scientific" fashion, and we're not just limiting the gene exchange to single species capable of interbreeding, but it is essentially the same concept.
Just some food for thought. AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHA. AHAH ahah. Aha.
I apologise deeply for that horrible pun.
I apologise deeply for that horrible pun. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is that the pun was already used...
You've made gorges weep now. Shame!
Aegeri, I don't understand why you say it's biased. On that site there are 6 arguments for GM, and 6 articles against. It can't be biased because it shows both points objectively. I'm not even really reading your complete posts because every response is a rant about how biased it is. It leaves me contemplating whether your points are valid if you're not understanding the whole objective of the study.
Perhaps you should understand that A: I work with GE, and B: I know what I'm talking about.
If you actually read what I wrote, then you would see why. Again, I point out the insect example, I'd also point you to the forum rules, that does, funnily enough, encourage people to read ALL the posts in a thread.
As for 6 for and 6 against, it is more or less 6 against and 2 that are somewhat positive and 4 are kind of neutral. In fact, as I've bought up several times now, they aren't even presenting full arguments so people can make a rational decision. Unless you want to claim otherwise Sirus, I would be quick to maintain the idea that a GE plant creating a new virus is INCREDIBLY, EXTRAORDINARILY unlikely. In fact, you'd have the same chance of getting a super virus out of a crop of non GE potatoes! That is how stupid that assertion is.
ONCE AGAIN
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Funnily enough, there is no mention of the fact that the gene in question had been one for insecticide. It does mention that it was done under artificial situations in a lab though, but not that the gene in question was for insecticide? Really odd.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not going to repeat this again for you Sirus.
You have a GE insecticide that kills insects. Monarch Butterflies are Insects. Monarch Butterfly+GE Insecticide=Death. Yet this 'fact' is not sufficient to warrant noting on the site.
Now if that is presenting an unbiased argument, don't you think they would have, I dunno, <i>mentioned that?</i> Seems pretty funny to me, like, I'd want to know that information myself if I didn't know any better (which I evidently do).
Where is, in that article, the FACT that many of the anti-GE ranters are as economically driven as monsanto? And that they sponsor groups to destroy GE crops and spread misinformation where they can, to create as much of a backlash as possible? Where is the little fact that if GE becomes mainstream and efficient, that organic growers are basically going down the toilet and REALLY fast?
Where are the detailed experiments showing that HGT transfer is extraordinarily difficult to achieve between plants to bacteria, then back from those bacteria to other plants to create 'superweeds' or similar? That research had been done at the time, and would of been immensely important to add. Yet it too, is absent.
Finally, I still don't see a stick of evidence that is even remotely intelligent explaining antibiotic resistance. Again, they have this already, bacteria have for eons and it emerges due to misuse of antibiotics. They don't bother picking it up, UNLESS under a lethal stress. That is why when you misuse antibiotics resistance spreads rapidly in a population.
If you think that is unbiased, you didn't bother reading. Either that, or we can replace unbiased with 'poorly researched'. If you read through the article, from the beginning, the whole thing gives a anti-GE slant. From the title (mentioned before), to the end it doesn't really make a very balanced argument at all.
By balanced incidently, it is important to realise that statements like, GE WILL CREATE TEH NEW SUPERBUGS DOOD, holds a LOT more weight with people, than say "Oh well it is natural to do this".
Actually, I never meant to provide any conclusive evidence on GM, <i>in fact</i> I simply said it was an interesting topic, and didn't even take a stance. <i>Also</i>, the website isn't any end-all evidence for GM, it's simply there to provide some points, and counter points just to get people thinking.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps you should understand that A: I work with GE, and B: I know what I'm talking about.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I apologize. What I see is someone who is ranting like mad over a non-issue and I can't find myself to bear wading through moot comments about bias. I never said you didn't know anything about GM, I simply said your comments about the bias left me wondering if there was any invalidity in your comments.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now if that is presenting an unbiased argument, don't you think they would have, I dunno, mentioned that? Seems pretty funny to me, like, I'd want to know that information myself if I didn't know any better (which I evidently do).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No names were named. I didn't hear a name about the gene, I'm not sure about the make up of the object placed on the corn, which means you can't yet point any fingers because you're dealing with a object that could be quite possibly anything, it could be what you're thinking of, or it could not. Regardless, it did what they said it did, that's not biased. I don't think they're trying to mislead people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where is, in that article, the FACT that many of the anti-GE ranters are as economically driven as monsanto? And that they sponsor groups to destroy GE crops and spread misinformation where they can, to create as much of a backlash as possible? Where is the little fact that if GE becomes mainstream and efficient, that organic growers are basically going down the toilet and REALLY fast?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've obviously touched on a sensitive topic. The site is not biased, regardless of how you feel. It's not trying to point people in a certain direction, it's left to be interpreted how it is. That's the point of having the "Yes, No" option at the bottom, it tries to get you to think about what's important to you, not them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where are the detailed experiments showing that HGT transfer is extraordinarily difficult to achieve between plants to bacteria, then back from those bacteria to other plants to create 'superweeds' or similar? That research had been done at the time, and would of been immensely important to add. Yet it too, is absent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn you like to make it something that its not. It's not conclusive evidence. It's just a topic to get people to think, of course they're going to speak in generalities. Any person who thought deeply about the subject is meant to research the topic further, not base their arguments on a website that picks both sides.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you think that is unbiased, you didn't bother reading. Either that, or we can replace unbiased with 'poorly researched'. If you read through the article, from the beginning, the whole thing gives a anti-GE slant. From the title (mentioned before), to the end it doesn't really make a very balanced argument at all.
By balanced incidently, it is important to realise that statements like, GE WILL CREATE TEH NEW SUPERBUGS DOOD, holds a LOT more weight with people, than say "Oh well it is natural to do this". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't understand the media if that's how you feel. While it's not necessarily yellow journalism, it's there to get as many people as possible to read it, if it did include things such as HGT transfers you wouldn't have many people getting the general idea now would you ?
In reality, you are so convinced of the benefits of GM that it seems that if anyone said anything else they're biased radical babbling idiots. If you want to talk about GM, go ahead, I wanted people to talk about the idea, not the damn website. If you want to talk about the "biased" site, just understand that I think you're talking about something that's rather trite.
Yes, and I answered many of their points, which they evidently didn't put any thinking into to begin with. Why bother saying something, that isn't even accurate to begin with.
You've also missed the point of my statement, I'm simply challenging if you agree with it or not. If you don't, then my point is upheld, if you do, well I'd hate to see what you'd think of a real debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I see is someone who is ranting like mad over a non-issue and I can't find myself to bear wading through moot comments about bias. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GG missing the point.
I thought this was a discussion forum, excuse me for getting that wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I never said you didn't know anything about GM, I simply said your comments about the bias left me wondering if there was any invalidity in your comments.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, perhaps you should actually read what I've wrote in responce to many points they have asserted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No names were named. I didn't hear a name about the gene,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's starting to get the point folks! Just push your understanding that little bit further Sirus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->it could be what you're thinking of<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have the paper. It is. Therefore, I am right, because I have read the paper and know exactly what that experiment is about.
Again, if you think that insecticides killing insects are highly unusual, I'd like to know how exactly you've come up with that conclusion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The site is not biased, regardless of how you feel. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GG proving otherwise by not answering a single one of my criticisms.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the point of having the "Yes, No" option at the bottom, it tries to get you to think about what's important to you, not them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you are going to make an argument, that something that talks like it is almost a certainty that you'll get new horrific diseases from GM crops is NOT pushing people towards a biased view?
Funny that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Damn you like to make it something that its not. It's not conclusive evidence. It's just a topic to get people to think, of course they're going to speak in generalities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I spoke in generalities before, and have spoken about GE to high school children with a higher degree of competency than some of that article.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Any person who thought deeply about the subject is meant to research the topic further,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BANG, how's your foot?
And you think, the average public researches things? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA. Rich, really rich. This is why we have people who think that AIDs is a result of GE (Yes, we'll get back to this).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While it's not necessarily yellow journalism, it's there to get as many people as possible to read it, if it did include things such as HGT transfers you wouldn't have many people getting the general idea now would you ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually yes you would, that is where you fail in this line. You see, people understand things very well and I know this, because I argue this a LOT more than you would have even thought about it. The best arguments that the likes of the greens use (and other anti-GE ranting groups) is that they will run rampant (destroying the environment, because frost genes obviously turn crop plants into deadly competitors!!!!), or that they will spawn new horrific diseases that will cleanse the human race (This is NOT an exaggeration either, believe it or not, this DOES come up).
The difference is, when people try to explain concepts like HGT being limited and low frequency (if at all between plants), or that viruses don't suddenly become ebola on exposure to GE crops, it's hard to get the truth across. This is because, websites like this one, which can't be stuffed doing proper research, usually flow on to the general public knowledge. The reason why people don't get such concepts, is because all the crap they've heard beforehand is too the opposite. This is basic <i>politics</i>, something you evidently do not understand.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In reality, you are so convinced of the benefits of GM<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed. Prove anything I've said wrong.
Go ahead.
Or am I just jumping on arguments that really aren't actually that valid to begin with? Maybe, just maybe. The difference is, I do this all the time, as ANYONE who works with microbes in todays world does. What is out there in the public arena, is generally a load of horse ****. Ask yourself where that comes from. It shouldn't be too surprising that misinformation has spread like wildfire, ironically, much faster than any so called "GE super virus/weed/plague/fascist corporation etc".
In reality, I've argued this for a long time now, and have pounced on BOTH sides on more than one occasion. I've debated the merits of GE vaccines for a long time with my lecturers and people working on them (I think they'd be a disaster waiting to happen). I'm more or less up to date with all the literature and know more about the real detractions of GE than most do. In reality, it all boils down to money and the fact 90% of those companies claiming to 'feed the 3rd world' are in fact full of absolute rubbish.
You've confused the difference between what I've said and what I haven't. I've pointed out (in vain it would seem), that many of their arguments are grossly inaccurate. Considering these arguments are what people find important (health and safety), they are naturally the most important ones to consider (hopefully this point has not been lost on you). With their rather weak and often absent information, for example, GE crops killed butterflies (with an insecticide, OMG!) is rather silly full stop.
Criticising me is usually better if you actually show some argumentative ability or knowledge of the subject yourself. I notice how you've used this as an excuse not to answer my direct criticisms against some of your arguments you posted earlier. Funny that. It is also better not to make assumptions, I've not fully stated my position, though I am pro-GE, I protect it from a research standpoint only. I'm in favour of a lot of things however that ranters are. Actual work being done on using GE to benefit 3rd world countries, mandatory food labelling so that people have a choice in the matter and similar things.
The difference is, I base my opinion directly on what I've been reading and importantly, <i>doing</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->seems that if anyone said anything else they're biased radical babbling idiots. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhh but a lot of them are. I wish there was still a link to a NZ green MP who, on TV, said that eating GE potatos would give you potato cancer (I'd love to know what that is...). Believe it or not, more than a few people believed it. If you don't know someone called Mae-Wan Ho, you haven't looked into this issue. Her nutty claims include AIDs being a result of GE, same with other emerging diseases (Even MDR-TB!) and all sorts of things. In some anti-GE circles and to some of the public, this is the holy truth almost among them.
Some are not however, but few can make any logical arguments to anything I demanded (to what you evidently, didn't read anyway). Calling them gibbering ranters is just a habit of mine really. Another common assertation from GE-Ranters is that HGT occurs basically every 5 seconds, yet so far there is no demonstratable evidence for this occuring. In the field, in humans or otherwise, we have no found significant GE to other animal HGT events. If this occurs at all is extremely debatable to me, I certainly don't deny that it could of happened (I look into this a lot from an evolutionary point of view), but I fail to see a fishes interest in herbicide resistance (for example).
Are they biased radical babbling idiots? Some very definitely ARE and there are a whole CRAPLOAD of them. More importantly, by putting things simply and bending the truth because " if it did include things such as HGT transfers you wouldn't have many people getting the general idea now would you ", to use your own words, most people would have a much better idea of what is going on. As it is the public that the ranters are so good at using with poorly argued, ill-supported (or nutballs like Mae-Wan Ho are quoted *shudders*) and importantly, threatening arguments, it amazes me that GE scientists haven't been assassinated yet.
More interesting is to repeat this from you again:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->if it did include things such as HGT transfers you wouldn't have many people getting the general idea now would you ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reading through enough anti-GE information as I have, I can honestly say that is the 1st principle they use. For example, MW-Ho will use every technical term she can to try and confuse her audience, without actually explaining or backing it up. When she posts references, they are from herself and when presented with evidence to the contrary immediately dismisses it as corporate propaganda. These are JOURNAL papers from the likes of nature, not random websites that are being openly dismissed.
What she fails to do is repeat the experiment and prove them wrong, she just rants about it to whatever organic shareholder etc will listen at the time. You see this trend a lot, where the bulk of evidence that suggests, for example, HGT is a rare event, or that antibiotic resistance is already present in bacteria before GE plants are planted (this is something she has only recently given up on, but some anti-GE members still maintain this) is corporate propaganda. The papers that suggest otherwise are from the underground of scientists who know 'the truth' and are being oppressed by the corporations and the like.
The problem is, the 'truth' generally isn't very strong, with highly objectional experimentation and often very interestingly interpreted results (sometimes downright creative). The general point I'm making here is that they'll happily use all the technical terms they like (HGT is becoming part of the language for even the general public!), but they won't explain them or why they occur/how. THAT is why I take exception to things that don't elaborate or give the full story: You can't make up your mind knowing that Jack and Jill went up the hill, and Jill didn't come back. That is what you're expected to do, and it heavily biases the public into thinking Jack killed Jill.
If you understand that analogy, then you understand that this is about politics now, and not science. If you don't, then you might as well not bother continuing as you don't understand my point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to talk about GM, go ahead, I wanted people to talk about the idea, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But I have, I've bought a lot of completely new information here. Rather than talk about it however, you've just gibbered on at length about my taking exception to their information (while posting my OWN, you've not even responded to a single one of my posts with any new information or discussion on GE, instead focusing on why I think this site is biased).
Isn't that a delicious twist of hypocrisy for you Sirus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to talk about the "biased" site, just understand that I think you're talking about something that's rather trite.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you've completely missed the point.
I observe also, how you've completely ignored every argument I've bought up demonstrating why I think this too. So easy to just scream, WELL I CAN'T SEE YOUR POINT SAYING ITS BIASED DOOD. Without addressing the other sides arguments (let alone reading them).
You've made gorges weep now. Shame! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For shame indeed! I wish I'd noticed that sooner now, but I probably still wouldn't have been able to help myself. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Incidentally, I don't see how a site named "Harvest of Fear" <i>couldn't</i> be biased.
This is how i think of this issue:
crops = food
GE Crops = More Food
Food = Good
Thus GE-Crops = Good :-P
This is how i think of this issue:
crops = food
GE Crops = More Food
Food = Good
Thus GE-Crops = Good :-P <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You said it. The only real danger is that of the 'terminator' gene that certain corporations have been testing that would kill the plant after one harvest, forcing the farmer to buy new ones.
More durable food that requires less maintenence and nutrients sounds hella good to me - until I consider the world population and that if we don't get off this rock soon or the next "slate wiper" comes along (could it be the new H5 flu strain carried in Thai chickens?) we're doomed anyways. This planet cannot support that many people for much longer.
Allow me to suggest to seperate your theoretical stances towards well working genetically engineered food, and the current situation, in which even the biggest supporters of genefood agree that it's still in its infant stages, and thus not yet throughoutly devoid of flaws. You'll soon realize that you actually agree on a great deal of points.
I never thought we would have such a big problem. I simply linked to a site to discuss about GM food. I left an open ended question like "What is your opinion on GM food?"
We got about 2 legitimate answers than from left field Aegeri starts talking about how biased the website is for making GM look bad and et cetera, which had nothing to do with anything other than bringing up the idea. Even if it was biased I, being a person with a neutral stance, do not think it is. (Compared to Aegeri, who is in the GE field, thinks it's biased) If it was biased it's no different then linking to Fox News and saying, "What do you think about the US involvement in Iraq ?", the topic was never about the bias. The only reason I linked to the stupid site was because it was got me thinking about GM, and I wanted to talk about GM, not the site.
I actually like the idea of GM because it would be of great benefit to third world countries, but I wasn't sure of the problems associated with it, you had to turn it into something that wasn't scientific, like the bias, and trying to outweigh my posts with your GE scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, from post one, you strayed right away from GM and got onto how the website is trying to decieve people, which being an extension of PBS and being non-profit I don't think it would fare well as a special interest group. Not to mention the fact that being a limited media type that's not reliant on advertising they don't have to cater to other peoples centrist ideas if they don't want to, they wouldn't have to have subliminal anti-GM information, they could have posted six cons of GM, but they didn't. Regardless, it's semantics.
GAH !
I'm sorry if I seem a bit peeved, I'm a bit annoyed by how off track the subject got over something so infinitesimal. I would have been happy to talk about GM food Aegeri, but I'm not particularly happy to talk about bromidic accusations of bias.
Considering my entire reply was about GE, and I've bought up numerous new arguments.
Ahhh stuff this, I can't be bothered with internet nits anymore.
If you had read my damn posts (which you even openly claimed you didn't), ahhh bugger it. I seem to be encountering every idiot on the net who doesn't read your posts lately.
Time to give up full stop now.
GAH !
I'm sorry if I seem a bit peeved, I'm a bit annoyed by how off track the subject got over something so infinitesimal. I would have been happy to talk about GM food Aegeri, but I'm not particularly happy to talk about bromidic accusations of bias. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought his posts mentioned science quite a bit... His showing bias was only part of his purpose. At the same time he was wanting to show what he perceived as bias he was not forgetting about science... Which admittedly comes from his experience with GM.
It is his experience with GM which should actually be considered a great asset to this discussion. He probably does have bias toward GM foods, but he's no PR person ( obviously ) and I sorta took his bias as more zeal and/or offense at his work being denounced.
In my mind he did not stray too far... Definitely nothing like we've seen in many other threads. If you have a problem with how he addressed the article then you shouldn't have posted it in the first place. He attacked actual points of the article that you posted and then also stated his opinions on the article. Since the article was posted to help "jump-start" the thread and because the article actually deals with GM foods, then his claims against the article and its content are actually on topic.
He didn't just say the article was biased... He, unlike many, went further and attempted to back his claim up, which was then railed against, and so he then defended his previous statements. The simple fact is that he did not go off topic to begin with.
And if you think PBS cannot be biased just because it is non-profit then I'd say you are naive ( which I find hard to believe ). I actually have not read the article, so I have no real opinion about the article being biased, but Insane is correct... The title itself is biased.
Thank you.
Everything I posted was about the topic, GE or issues that are related to GE. Sirus is just obsessed with the fact that I think the initial source is largely full of a brown substance, all the while ignoring every other argument I've bought up.
Let me put this in perspective, trying to discredit sources has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If someone noted a CNN article about the Iraq war and the question of the thread was "What do you think of the Iraq war?" would it be appropiate to start ranting that CNN is biased, and they fail to note key points and that they are trying to mislead people ? Of course not. I'm not obsessed with anything Aegeri, it just seems when it comes to discussing you always have a bone to pick and you take with almost religious fervor.
From Aegeri's first reply came this attitude.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Really, that article was really quite sad overall. Short, generally heavily biased arguments that really don't give you the full story on pretty much anything. In addition to this, it is so easy to say that you'll get new viruses from a drought resistance gene, but I'd challenge ANYONE to *prove* it (Next to impossible, because the chance is about 0). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That article was merely me anchoring the idea. I said that the Harvest of Fear website got me thinking and I merely pointed out the website. Aegeri then proceeded with a rather poor attitude about how stupid they are, and how they are all making unscientific points or what have you. It was that attitude that flustered me from point one. Compare it to everyone else's replies and you can see the difference, to be honest I was expecting simply what people thinking of GM food, not some rant on how terribly biased the site was.
Honestly, my only problem with Aegeri was simply that he wouldn't stop the calling the site biased and stupid and then proceeding to cluster me with those people, as if I had even formulated an opinion. I was fine with your analysis of GM foods but I was tired of the "bromidic accusations of bias".
I never even disagreed with your any of your opinions except that the site was inherently biased. They just took a bunch of key arguments against it, just as much as evolutionist might point to the peppered moth years ago, which was an argument even if proven false. Just because they note it doesn't mean it they are trying to mislead people, those are simply the main arguments.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He didn't just say the article was biased... He, unlike many, went further and attempted to back his claim up, which was then railed against, and so he then defended his previous statements. The simple fact is that he did not go off topic to begin with.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the world of discussion and debate, bias is a stronger word than you think, despite that it the fact that it's an overly used cliche by some people. The word bias was not used correctly. If you even read through all 12 points (6 cons, 6 pros) there is absolutely no note of bias at all. He can back up information about GM, that's great, that's what I wanted. But there's a difference between talking about GM, and ranting about the website for not being accurate or accurate enough / misleading.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He attacked actual points of the article that you posted and then also stated his opinions on the article<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The article includes 6 pros for GM food, and 6 cons, how can you call the entire site inherently biased if it plays both sides ? You can say that the researcher that the author noted was wrong, but the website isn't some evil misleading group of anti-GE fools.
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/viewpoints/benefits.html' target='_blank'>List of Benefits of GM crops</a>. Off the same site, they even have an interview with every single scientists or president from a school. Now tell me, how are they biased ?
Even if you read the press reaction to the broadcast of it on PBS you have many critics criticizing the program for not defining enough of the "bad" guy.
"...'Harvest of Fear' is pretty scrupulous about presenting both sides..."
"...The unnerving thing about this two-hour NOVA-Frontline collaboration, which promises to 'disentangle the debate about genetically modified food,' is that it doesn't make distinguishing the good guys from the bad guys one whit easier. It's scrupulously fair and frustratingly noncommital..."
"The broadcast earns points for calm and balance amid a debate that is often hysterical. It is not, alas, able to settle the all-important questions about the safety and wisdom of transgenic farming."
"The science is made simple - but not quite simple enough - for the layman, and the discussion is reasonably balanced"
"Overall, the broadcast is clearly tough, apparently fair, and undeniably important."
"A remarkable, well-produced docu from Frontline and Nova dishes up both sides of the controversy in an engaging, wide-sweeping, elegant way...."
I can list on and on how the stupid website/broadcast isn't biased.
I really think that Aegeri is right when he talks about GM food, but he isn't right when he won't stop labeling the website for being biased on a whim. That was my only problem, and that was my only contest. Otherwise than the unfair criticisms of the website I'm glad Aegeri is making input about GM food among people who don't understand it. But I don't like trying to read posts that endlessly criticize the site for something that didn't do, it's rather tedious.
<span style='color:red'>***Locked.***</span>