Thai farmers protest against bill on GMO farming

[jdlancaster]

Quadrow- here are 3 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that address the issue of crop yield among other things. I particularly focused on developing countries, since they stand the most to benefit. They discuss benefits such as increased yield and reduced chemical costs.

1. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5608/900.short

Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries

1. Matin Qaim1,2,*,
2. David Zilberman2
4. 2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01401.x/full
5. Five years of Bt cotton in China – the benefits continue
   Authors

   3. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X03000044

   Can GM-Technologies Help the Poor? The Impact of Bt Cotton in Makhathini Flats, KwaZulu-Natal

   • Carl E. Pray,
   • Jikun Huang,
   • Ruifa Hu,
   • Scott Rozelle
     • 
       
     • Colin Thirtle,
     • Lindie Beyers
     • Yousouf Ismael
     • Jenifer Piesse

[jdlancaster]

Here is a meta-analysis that averages 147 studies showing an average of 22% crop-yield increases, 37% reduced chemical pesticide use, and increased farmer profits of 68%. It's peer-reviewed and all the details of how they came up with these results is there for you to tear apart. I've included the Abstract; use the link for in depth analysis with figures and tables.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops

• Abstract Background

  Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, controversies about this technology continue. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for widespread public suspicion.

  Objective

  We carry out a meta-analysis of the agronomic and economic impacts of GM crops to consolidate the evidence.

  Data Sources

  Original studies for inclusion were identified through keyword searches in ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, EconLit, and AgEcon Search.

  Study Eligibility Criteria

  Studies were included when they build on primary data from farm surveys or field trials anywhere in the world, and when they report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. In total, 147 original studies were included.

  Synthesis Methods

  Analysis of mean impacts and meta-regressions to examine factors that influence outcomes.

  Results

  On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

  Limitations

  Several of the original studies did not report sample sizes and measures of variance.

  Conclusion

  The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

[GuestHouse]

Guesthouse. .. you asked why the us government fights labeling around the world for gmo products? ... first it's irrelevant to safety so I didn't answer it.... and im not the right person to ask because it is a business question and nothing about science.... i would say it is most likely bbecause they will sell more and they are protecting and promoting american companies. .. that is what the government does for many companies. . But again irrelevant... there are gmo safety issues scientists actually worry about but no one has come up with more than Monsanto is bad so gmos are bad arguements or government conspiracy theories. ...

So you dodged the question on the basis that you believe it not to be a safety question:

A few points;

Firstly, the Thai farmer's objections to GMO, which this thread is actually about, are not focussed entirely on safety, they also include issues such as food security, freedom, sovereignty, the patenting of naturally occurring genes etc.

Secondly, since when has not being informed of what you are eating not been a safety issue? And is there not plenty of evidence of corporations hiding safety issues by not releasing data to the public using their goods and services?

One of the most effective means of improving safety is to provide the public with the information they need to make informed choices.

Thirdly, as a scientists, you will have had training in the ethics of informed consent and yet you have nothing to say on the matter.

Methinks you dodged my question because the answer does not fit your world model.

Your science and safety question is coming up later today...

Have another crack at my question before then, it might help you build some credibility.

[jdlancaster]

Guesthouse. .. you asked why the us government fights labeling around the world for gmo products? ... first it's irrelevant to safety so I didn't answer it.... and im not the right person to ask because it is a business question and nothing about science.... i would say it is most likely bbecause they will sell more and they are protecting and promoting american companies. .. that is what the government does for many companies. . But again irrelevant... there are gmo safety issues scientists actually worry about but no one has come up with more than Monsanto is bad so gmos are bad arguements or government conspiracy theories. ...

So you dodged the question on the basis that you believe it not to be a safety question:

A few points;

Firstly, the Thai farmer's objections to GMO, which this thread is actually about, are not focussed entirely on safety, they also include issues such as food security, freedom, sovereignty, the patenting of naturally occurring genes etc.

Secondly, since when has not being informed of what you are eating not been a safety issue? And is there not plenty of evidence of corporations hiding safety issues by not releasing data to the public using their goods and services?

One of the most effective means of improving safety is to provide the public with the information they need to make informed choices.

Thirdly, as a scientists, you will have had training in the ethics of informed consent and yet you have nothing to say on the matter.

Methinks you dodged my question because the answer does not fit your world model.

Your science and safety question is coming up later today...

Have another crack at my question before then, it might help you build some credibility.

Credibility- you do not give any evidence to support your conspiracy theories. Asking a speculative question is not evidence to support your claims. A conspiracy theory book is not credible evidence(full of nothing but hearsay and regurgitated tin foil hat crap). This is a review of your evidence book from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/arts/13iht-idbriefs14C.html .I give you peer reviewed scientific journal articles. There is nothing more credible than a peer-reviewed articles... nothing. You make claims such as GMOs don't increase yield... I proved that wrong with several papers.

Also you are adding to the article... freedom? Sovereignty? A stretch... "multinational firms could monopolise local agriculture industries, and ordinary farming could become 2.5 times as expensive. " I do agree( as I said in many of my posts) that intellectual property rights need to be re-evaluated in reference to GMOs in reference to lawsuits from large companies, but thats it.

Lets go through this step by step:

1. Your question: In your question you imply that the US protecting US business interests abroad is a GMO conspiracy. You are asking me to speculate on US Economic Foreign Policy. Unless you are a Economic track Foreign Service Officer in The US Department of State or you work for the Obama Administration, you can only speculate. I can't read their mind. You pass hear say and conspiracy as fact. The US Government is not GMOs, GMOs are made in labs all over the world. High School kids even make then in AP Biology class. My point: US Economic Foreign Policy is irrelevant to GMOs, plenty of non-US companies (and NGOs) make and sell GMOs.

2. Food Security- This is exactly what GMOs are for!!! This is another peer-reviewed article, this time adressing food insecurity. In brief, GMOs reduced food insecurity by 15-20% http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064879

Another about food security in a world with a growing population: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/812.short

GMOs go beyond plants too... How do you feed the demand of the fishing industry? How much damage is being done to Thai fisheries? What other options are there? What about climate change? How will we face these challenges?

3. Farming will be 2.5x as expensive- I referenced a meta-analysis showing increased farmer profits of 68%. This is due to reduced labor, fuel, and chemical pesticide cost.

4. Multinational firms could monopolise local agricultural industries- The use of GMOs or lack there of is irrelevant to this. A fear the farang are going to buy up all the land, and agricultural companies, and put the poor Thai farmers out of work? This is already illegal and a political non-starter. This is brought up by every Thai industry looking for protection from outside competition.... but this isn't really relevant to whether GMOs are good or bad.

5. Informed Consent- Sure, label it.. I won't argue against it. Personally I don't care if you label it GMO, or not.... the food is safe to eat... Billions of people eat them everyday. I'd prefer a GMO-free label... as that will be the minority of crops and they can charge a premium on that product for the extra work and costs it entails.

[GuestHouse]

Jdlancaster, you obviously have a lot more free time on your hands than I do.

Can you use some of that time to either justify the following statement you made or withdraw the statement:

"You make claims such as GMOs don't increase yield"

If I have made such claims and I am calling you out on this point wighout justification I will of course apologise.

[AleG]

jdlancaster, I applaud your efforts, but as the expression goes you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't arrive through reasoning.

Opposition to GMOs is largely the result ideology, political pandering and/or by people wanting to sell an "alternative" something, science doesn't get into it.

[luk AJ]

Guesthouse. .. you asked why the us government fights labeling around the world for gmo products? ... first it's irrelevant to safety so I didn't answer it.... and im not the right person to ask because it is a business question and nothing about science.... i would say it is most likely bbecause they will sell more and they are protecting and promoting american companies. .. that is what the government does for many companies. . But again irrelevant... there are gmo safety issues scientists actually worry about but no one has come up with more than Monsanto is bad so gmos are bad arguements or government conspiracy theories. ...

So you dodged the question on the basis that you believe it not to be a safety question:

A few points;

Firstly, the Thai farmer's objections to GMO, which this thread is actually about, are not focussed entirely on safety, they also include issues such as food security, freedom, sovereignty, the patenting of naturally occurring genes etc.

Secondly, since when has not being informed of what you are eating not been a safety issue? And is there not plenty of evidence of corporations hiding safety issues by not releasing data to the public using their goods and services?

One of the most effective means of improving safety is to provide the public with the information they need to make informed choices.

Thirdly, as a scientists, you will have had training in the ethics of informed consent and yet you have nothing to say on the matter.

Methinks you dodged my question because the answer does not fit your world model.

Your science and safety question is coming up later today...

Have another crack at my question before then, it might help you build some credibility.

Credibility- you do not give any evidence to support your conspiracy theories. Asking a speculative question is not evidence to support your claims. A conspiracy theory book is not credible evidence(full of nothing but hearsay and regurgitated tin foil hat crap). This is a review of your evidence book from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/arts/13iht-idbriefs14C.html .I give you peer reviewed scientific journal articles. There is nothing more credible than a peer-reviewed articles... nothing. You make claims such as GMOs don't increase yield... I proved that wrong with several papers.

Also you are adding to the article... freedom? Sovereignty? A stretch... "multinational firms could monopolise local agriculture industries, and ordinary farming could become 2.5 times as expensive. " I do agree( as I said in many of my posts) that intellectual property rights need to be re-evaluated in reference to GMOs in reference to lawsuits from large companies, but thats it.

Lets go through this step by step:

1. Your question: In your question you imply that the US protecting US business interests abroad is a GMO conspiracy. You are asking me to speculate on US Economic Foreign Policy. Unless you are a Economic track Foreign Service Officer in The US Department of State or you work for the Obama Administration, you can only speculate. I can't read their mind. You pass hear say and conspiracy as fact. The US Government is not GMOs, GMOs are made in labs all over the world. High School kids even make then in AP Biology class. My point: US Economic Foreign Policy is irrelevant to GMOs, plenty of non-US companies (and NGOs) make and sell GMOs.

2. Food Security- This is exactly what GMOs are for!!! This is another peer-reviewed article, this time adressing food insecurity. In brief, GMOs reduced food insecurity by 15-20% http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064879

Another about food security in a world with a growing population: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/812.short

GMOs go beyond plants too... How do you feed the demand of the fishing industry? How much damage is being done to Thai fisheries? What other options are there? What about climate change? How will we face these challenges?

3. Farming will be 2.5x as expensive- I referenced a meta-analysis showing increased farmer profits of 68%. This is due to reduced labor, fuel, and chemical pesticide cost.

4. Multinational firms could monopolise local agricultural industries- The use of GMOs or lack there of is irrelevant to this. A fear the farang are going to buy up all the land, and agricultural companies, and put the poor Thai farmers out of work? This is already illegal and a political non-starter. This is brought up by every Thai industry looking for protection from outside competition.... but this isn't really relevant to whether GMOs are good or bad.

5. Informed Consent- Sure, label it.. I won't argue against it. Personally I don't care if you label it GMO, or not.... the food is safe to eat... Billions of people eat them everyday. I'd prefer a GMO-free label... as that will be the minority of crops and they can charge a premium on that product for the extra work and costs it entails.[/quote

I would like to add on point 5 that if "Guesthouse" wants GMO labelling this is fine but the chemicals used in fertilizer and pesticides should in that case also be mentioned. I don't understand all the objections against GMO and on the other hand the complete disregard of the toxic chemicals necessary to grow crops without GMO..

[jdlancaster]

Jdlancaster, you obviously have a lot more free time on your hands than I do.

Can you use some of that time to either justify the following statement you made or withdraw the statement:

"You make claims such as GMOs don't increase yield"

If I have made such claims and I am calling you out on this point wighout justification I will of course apologise.

My apologies.. that quote is attributed to quandrow and should be directed at him (and others). I was responding to you both using my phone and mixed you two up. But you question my credibility when I am the only one who has shown any actual evidence (peer-reviewed science). You bring conjecture and back it up with no evidence (that is credibility?). It is conjecture and misinformation that people base their opinions on and it is dangerous. I look forward to your specific claims at the dangers of GMOs. It is easy to ask questions...

So do you agree that GMOs increase yield, reduce the use of chemical pesticides, and increase profit for farmers?

Do you agree that not allowing GMO enriched foods into developing areas has allowed thousands of children to die or go blind children?

[jdlancaster]

I will summarize global impacts of GMO crops (1996-2012) :

• Crop biotechnology has contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with GM crops. In 2012, this was equivalent to removing 27 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 11.9 million cars from the road for one year;
• Crop biotechnology has reduced pesticide spraying (1996-2012) by 503 million kg (-8.8%). This is equal to the total amount of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the EU 27 for nearly two crop years. As a result, this has decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on the area planted to biotech crops by 18.7% (2);
• The insect resistant (IR) technology used in cotton and corn has consistently delivered yield gains from reduced pest damage. The average yield gains over the 1996-2012 period across all users of this technology has been +10.4% for insect resistant corn and +16.1% for insect resistant cotton;
• The herbicide tolerant (HT) technology used in soybeans and canola has also contributed to increased production in some countries; by helping farmers in Argentina grow a crop of soybeans after wheat in the same growing season (3), through higher yields and improved weed control;
• Between 1996 and 2012, crop biotechnology was responsible for an additional 122 million tonnes of soybeans and 231 million tonnes of corn. The technology has also contributed an extra 18.2 million tonnes of cotton lint and 6.6 million tonnes of canola;
• GM crops are allowing farmers to grow more without using additional land. If crop biotechnology had not been available to the (17.3 million) farmers using the technology in 2012, maintaining global production levels at the 2012 levels would have required additional plantings of 4.9 million ha of soybeans, 6.9 million ha of corn, 3.1 million ha of cotton and 0.2 million ha of canola. This total area requirement is equivalent to 9% of the arable land in the US, or 24% of the arable land in Brazil or 27% of the cereal area in the EU (28);
• Crop biotechnology helps farmers earn reasonable incomes for their work. The net economic benefit at the farm level in 2012 was $18.8 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $117/hectare. For the 17 year period (1996-2012), the global farm income gain has been $116.6 billion;
• The highest yield gains were obtained by farmers in developing countries, many of which are resource-poor and farm small plots of land; (Sound like Thailand?)
• The total farm income gain of $116.6 billion was divided equally between farmers in developing and developed countries;
• Crop biotechnology continues to be a good investment for farmers around the world. The cost farmers paid for accessing crop biotechnology in 2012 ($5.6 billion (4)(5) payable to the seed supply chain) was equal to 23% of the total gains (a total of $24.4 billion inclusive of the $18.8 billion income gains). Globally, farmers received an average of $3.33 for each dollar invested in GM crop seeds;
• Farmers in developing countries received $3.74 for each dollar invested in GM crop seeds in 2012 (the cost being equal to 21% of total technology gains), while farmers in developed countries received $3.04 for each dollar invested in GM crop seed (the cost being equal to 25% of the total technology gains). The higher share of total technology gains realised by farmers in developing countries relative to farmers in developed countries mainly reflects weaker provision and enforcement of intellectual property rights coupled with higher average levels of benefits in developing countries.

[GuestHouse]

So do you agree that GMOs increase yield, reduce the use of chemical pesticides, and increase profit for farmers?

Do you agree that not allowing GMO enriched foods into developing areas has allowed thousands of children to die or go blind children?

---------

I agree GMO may increase yields and may decrease the use of pesticides. I agree using GMO may increase proffits for farmers. I disagree that the possitive aspects of these claims are absolute certainties or that they are achieved without any negative impacts.

I do not agree with your claims regarding not allowing GMO foods into developing areas as it is not demonstrated that these same benefits could not be acheived by other means.

Edited December 11, 2015 by GuestHouse

[jdlancaster]

So do you agree that GMOs increase yield, reduce the use of chemical pesticides, and increase profit for farmers?

Do you agree that not allowing GMO enriched foods into developing areas has allowed thousands of children to die or go blind children?

---------

I agree GMO may increase yields and may decrease the use of pesticides. I agree using GMO may increase proffits for farmers. I disagree that the possitive aspects of these claims are absolute certainties or that they are achieved without any negative impacts.

I do not agree with your claims regarding not allowing GMO foods into developing areas as it is not demonstrated that these same benefits could not be acheived by other means.

How do you come to these conclusions? What peer-reviewed papers are you reading that show conflicting evidence? Or, are you just coming up with this on your own? I have posted just a drop in the hat of the papers published... and they show the negative impacts of non-GMO crops... alot of them... maybe non-GMO crops should be banned for the good of the environment (I'm not serious, but it's to illustrate a point)?

You use may... but it has been shown in hundreds of repeated tests. How many until you would believe the benefits? what would it take for you to agree? How many studies? To what statistical value (p value)? Nothing is absolute except mathematical laws. I can't be certain that a plane won't fall from the sky so we shouldn't allow flights despite it's value to humanity... I can't be certain that someone won't have an allergic reaction to this antibiotic and die so we shouldn't market it. I can't be certain this piece of lettuce from Chipotle is free from salmonella so we should outlaw Chipotle... If absolute certainty is your measurement.. then no drugs should be on the market.... "without any negative impacts".. it can't have any negative impacts? at all? No cars... they have a negative impact... no drugs... have a neg impact... no tv.. negative impact... no Thaivisa forum... negative impact...

What tests do you require to be performed?

What statistical strength do you require?

Where is the evidence to back your claims?

What are the other means? Their cost? effectiveness? How long until you can implement them? How many will die before then?

Edit: to be clear... it is best to describe what it would take for you to allow one specific GMO product on the market... as they would all be tested indiviually and are unrelated to one another... like is done in drug development.

Edited December 11, 2015 by jdlancaster

[GuestHouse]

Here's a logical argument that needs no peer review to demonstrate its inate truth.

Throughout this past week I drank green tea, a lot of green tea. I drank green tea at breakfast, I drank green tea several times during the day time, I drank green tea with my evening meal.

Denying me access to green tea this past week would not have resulted in me suffering with dehydration.

I would simply have drunk water instead, I might even have drunk herbal tea, but I would not suffer dehydration.

That statement is logically and factually true.

And demonstrates the fallacy of your arguments regarding denying the use of GMO's in developing areas.

----

Out of curiousity what is your scientific discipline?

I'll not ask for evidence of your research and papers but it would be interesting to know your area of research.

[GuestHouse]

Now here are some questions:

Do scientists claim that the genes being manipulated to create GMO have a single function in the organisms in which they are found?

Do scientists claim that these genes act in isolation (ie with no interaction with other genes to perform their function) and if so are the number and form of those interactions fully understood?

Are scientists aware of the whole functional part played by RNA or is the scientific community divided on the relationship between DNA and RNA and how this impacts the development of organisms?

What is the precautionary principle and how might it apply where there is an incomplete knowledge of the impacts of a change to an organism or a natursl environment?

[attrayant]

Firstly, the Thai farmer's objections to GMO, which this thread is actually about, are not focussed entirely on safety, they also include issues such as food security, freedom, sovereignty, the patenting of naturally occurring genes etc.

What's your problem with patenting naturally occurring (I assume that by this you mean non-GMO) plants?

[jdlancaster]

Your analogy is pointless... You are avoiding my question. I know you can drink water instead of tea... you can drink beer instead of tea... I asked what are the other options for battling Vitamin A deficiency in developing areas, how much do they cost? Are they ready to be implimented? How are they better than the GMO option? You have not given any evidence to support your claims.... and you have avoided answering my questions on what you consider to "prove" something... and your questions are vague... they need to be more specific... but i can give you a vague answer for the first two.. it depends on the gene...

And you have gave me no evidence of the negatives of GMOs.... I'm waiting for peer-reviewed papers... not analogies that have nothing to do with anything

I don't think your opinions are based on any hard evidence. I just think you have this opinion and it doesn't matter how much real evidence is shown to you.. it would never change your mind. You are basically asking me to prove that god does not exist... Nothing is 100% safe... not GMO food, and certainly not non-GMO food.

All you have is questions... questions aren't evidence. It doesn't matter how many I answer or the amount of evidence I show... This is the same line of arguments creationists use.... you can't disprove it 100% so my arguement is valid even though I can't produce any hard evidence to back myself up.

And my specialty is symbiotic relationships between bacteria and macroinvertibrates... in particular at the DNA level.

Edited December 11, 2015 by jdlancaster

[attrayant]

Do scientists claim that the genes being manipulated to create GMO have a single function in the organisms in which they are found?

Do scientists claim that these genes act in isolation (ie with no interaction with other genes to perform their function) and if so are the number and form of those interactions fully understood?

Are scientists aware of the whole functional part played by RNA or is the scientific community divided on the relationship between DNA and RNA and how this impacts the development of organisms?

What is the precautionary principle and how might it apply where there is an incomplete knowledge of the impacts of a change to an organism or a natursl environment?

In this post, you seep to have a problem with an alleged unpredictability of the outcome of the GM process. Would that be a correct assessment of your position?

[GuestHouse]

In this post, you seep to have a problem with an alleged unpredictability of the outcome of the GM process. Would that be a correct assessment of your position?

No that is not my point.

I am asking about the extent and completeness of scientific knowlegde. Predictability is another matter.

I'm looking forward to our resident 'scientist' answering the questions I ask.

[attrayant]

I've asked a question at .34 above which you've managed to dodge - as a clear supporter of GMO being introduced into our food would you care to answer the question I asked?

Here's your post #34:

I see the pro GM stooges are out in force today.

If GM is so very safe and so very good for us, tell us why it is that the US government fights every effort by governments and NGOs around the world to have GM content declared on food products?

The defenders of liberal trade fighting the right of people to know what it is they are eating.

Firstly, posts that open with a blanket insult to all who might reply deserve to be ignored. If you want to be taken seriously, you ought to consider the tone of your approach. Secondly - the FDA has already responded to a labeling petition with a fabulous takedown of almost every anti-GMO argument. The entire response is worth reading. It's only 35 pages and not very technical. Some choice quotes:

[C]onsumer interest, alone, is not a material fact under section 201(n) of the FD&C Act and does not provide a sufficient basis upon which the agency can require food labeling[.]

(snip)

FDA explained that, based on this extensive review, it had concluded that safety concerns due to the use of genetic engineering in food-producing plants are no different for genetically engineered foods, as a class, than for foods derived from traditionally bred plants. FDA further explained that it had concluded that the use of genetic engineering in plants has not resulted in the production of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, or oils that are substantially different from substances that have been contained in foods for thousands of years. Having determined that there was no scientific basis for concluding that, as a class, foods derived from genetically engineered plants pose inherent risks or safety consequences to consumers or differ in a material way from their traditional counterparts, FDA concluded that there was no statutory basis to require additional labeling for all foods derived from genetically engineered plants.

(snip)

Under section 403(a)(l) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. 343(a)(l)], a food is misbranded if its labeling "is false or misleading in any particular." Both the presence and absence of information in food labeling can be misleading. Section 20l(n) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. 321 (n)] further defines misleading labeling, particularly with respect to the absence of information in labeling. Specifically, section 201 (n) provides that labeling is misleading if it fails to reveal facts that are material in light of representations made or suggested in the labeling, or material with respect to consequences that may result from the use of the food to which the labeling relates under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling, or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. The FD&C Act does not specifically define the term "material" within the context of section 201 (n). In requiring food labeling based on section 201 (n), the agency has interpreted the scope of "materiality" to mean information about the attributes of the food itself.

This last paragraph makes the point that the presence of a label can be just as misleading as the absence of one. Thus, if the FDA were to require labeling of a product that is not actually dangerous, consumers will be mislead into thinking that the product IS dangerous.

There was a recent poll showing that something like 80% of American consumers would support mandatory labeling of foods that contain DNA. That's about the same percentage that want GMOs labeled. The joke, of course, is that DNA is found in almost all biotic components of an ecosystem. What would be the point of requiring this label on every single edible item in a supermarket:

WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children.

That's an example of why we can't cave in to uninformed demands. Consumers might want that label, but they have no idea WHY they want it, or they want it for purely emotional reasons that have nothing to do with a product being harmful or dangerous.

[GuestHouse]

Your analogy is pointless... You are avoiding my question. I...... I asked what are the other options for battling Vitamin A deficiency in developing areas, how much do they cost? Are they ready to be implimented? How are they better than the GMO option?

Putting asside your inability to accept the logical argument I made that absence of GMO is not evidence that the claims you make must occur, can you please direct me to where you asked me the questions in the quote above?

If you had already asked me those questions, then I will of course appologise.

If you had not already asked me those wuestions then I might reasonably conclude my anoligy was not at all pointless and caused you to change the parameters within which you make your claims.

As evidenced by the written record of our discussion.

[jdlancaster]

attrayant... great post... I know my biology... but I don't really know a lot about how the average person sees something... it has got me to remember and old joke e-mail that was sent about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide in the local drinking water... it hit the news as people were calling up the town responding...

Analogy.. it is not valid... in any way... and if you want to get in depth about hydration... all drinks are not equal in hydration... and depending on the circumstances such as the heat and amount of electrolytes lost... on may be better than the others. All methods for battling vitamin A deficiency are not equal... and you posted no alternatives and avoided all my questions. And my parameters of my claim have not changed... they were specific to Vitamin A deficiency and GMOs... which I supported by peer-reviewed papers.... you changed them to some bs about green tea... I never mentioned green tea or dehydration.. and yes I asked you those and many other questions you didnt answer from post #71.

Your opinion is not based on any data... none... I have been asking since I first posted for any data... you have posted none... and i did answer your questions... the first two is it depends on the gene and it depends on what you mean by function... no science doesn't know every gene in existence... hell we don't know how many drugs truly work... and all their interactions.. but we take them because the odds are better that we do... Your last two questions are vague... the answers could fill a book and take years of filling papers.

You believe in something not supported by facts... like religion.. you can not be convinced otherwise... unlike you I am open minded. If you show me data that shows a particular GMO product is dangerous to people or the environment I would take it seriously (as would the scientific community) and further studies would be done.

Questions from post #71:

How do you come to these conclusions?

What peer-reviewed papers are you reading that show conflicting evidence? Or, are you just coming up with this on your own?

What tests do you require to be performed?(to show a gmo is safe)

What statistical strength do you require?(to show a gmo is safe)

Where is the evidence to back your claims?(gmos are not safe)

What are the other means? Their cost? effectiveness? How long until you can implement them? How many will die before then? (in reference to alternatives for Vitamin A deficiency)

Edit: to be clear... it is best to describe what it would take for you to allow one specific GMO product on the market... as they would all be tested indiviually and are unrelated to one another... like is done in drug development.

Edited December 11, 2015 by jdlancaster

[jdlancaster]

I hope you don't ever take acetaminophen (tylenol) for headaches... because we don't really know how that works ... or all its interactions... we should start a movement to ban it in all countries....

[attrayant]

In this post, you seep to have a problem with an alleged unpredictability of the outcome of the GM process. Would that be a correct assessment of your position?

No that is not my point.

I am asking about the extent and completeness of scientific knowlegde. Predictability is another matter.

Before I respond, let's review the four main ways in which crops can be genetically modified:

In "traditional" hybrid breeding, a few thousand to a few hundred thousand genes might be randomly swapped around, resulting in an unpredictable outcome. Yet there is no safety testing required for these hybrids.

The mutagenic process (using a blast of radiation or toxic chemicals to force mutations in the plant's genetic code) is mostly hit-or-miss again with unknown results. Cross your fingers and hope for the best. Again, little to no safety testing is required for the resulting genetic byproduct. There is a lot of unusable waste in the output of hybrid and mutagenic breeding.

RNA interference switches off a specific gene or two. We know exactly which genes are targeted and what the result is expected to be. For some reason, lengthy and arduous safety testing is required before results can go to market.

Transgenic - the one most people are "afraid" of - involves inserting a selected gene at known locations. Again, we have a very good idea of what is expected as a result, but extensive safety testing is still required.

To answer your specific question, scientific knowledge is far more complete for the GM process than it is for the hybridization or mutagenesis process. The Lenape potato was produced in the 60's through "traditional" breeding techniques, went to market and later turned out to be poisonous due to its tendency to produce high levels of a natural pesticide in its skin.

More recently (80's-90's), farmers have been experimenting with new celery cultivars in an attempt to increase their pest resistance. The detrimental results weren't discovered until consumers started breaking out in rashes due to contact dermatitis. The offending cultivars had to be recalled and removed from the market. Kiwi fruit was also produced "naturally" and not tested for ptential allergens. It turned out that quite a few people were seriously allergic to them.

Can you show me the same thing happening with plants that have been produced via the transgenic or reverse-RNA process?

[attrayant]

I hope you don't ever take acetaminophen (tylenol) for headaches... because we don't really know how that works ... or all its interactions... we should start a movement to ban it in all countries....

Good point - the mechanism of action for quite a few medications is not completely understood. All that need be demonstrated is a desired affect and minimal side effects (acceptable risk/benefit balance). So in that respect, I guess biochemical/medical knowledge is "incomplete" and therefore... what exactly?

Moving closer to my own field of expertise, the four fundamental physical forces are in some respects incompletely understood. We still don't know what the source of gravitational force is, and yet planes can still fly. The fact that knowledge is incomplete doesn't stop us from moving forward with technological advances.

[GuestHouse]

Attrayant,

My questions on scientific knowledge of GM where not a request for a comparrative knowledge.

They were specific.

Your answer in terms of comparrative knowledge does not answer my specific questions.

Would you like another go?

[GuestHouse]

As for the FDA objections to citizens of other nations demanding GMO content being labelled.

The FDA argument that labelling is not required because they (the FDA) believe for whatever reason that yhere is no risk from GMO food is irrelevant.

If I buy a cann of tomatoes I want to know if it contains tomatoes - so I want a label that says tomatoes.

If I want Italian tomatoes I'll look for a can that says Italian tomatoes.

If I don't want to eat GMO food (for any reason at all) then I want a label that says this product does or does not contain GMO.

Nothing to do with what the FDA say and everything to do with my right to choose what I do and do not feed myself and my family.

Edited December 11, 2015 by GuestHouse

[GuestHouse]

I hope you don't ever take acetaminophen (tylenol) for headaches... because we don't really know how that works ... or all its interactions... we should start a movement to ban it in all countries....

But tylenol is not a self replicating organism that once released into the environment becomes un controllable.

Your science specialisation is ?

Edited December 11, 2015 by GuestHouse

[jdlancaster]

Yo are a troll... you present no evidence to show the dangers of gmos.... ive asked you several tines... you just try to getva rise out of people. .. you have thoroughly been showed with a mountain of evidence why you are wrong... tylenol example was to show that you're a hippocrit if you take it....people die because of your ignorance. .. keep up the good fight.... keep life saving advances out of the people that need it... and you didn't read any of the fda stuff... good luck with that thesis... maybe your committee will show u what a peer reviewed journal is

[jdlancaster]

And I already told you my specialization. .. but its not like you actually read the posts or have any intention of actualy answering questions or supporting your position. .. but thats a trolls life ...

[GuestHouse]

tylenol example was to show that you're a hippocrit if you take it...

The only thing your tylonol example shows is that you don't understand the difference between administring a drug and releasing a self trplicating organism into our environment.

Non of your peer reviewed papers contain a complete working and faultless model of how DNA and RNA function, science is not even sure if there are other mechanism at work - by example the whole debate over nature (GENETICS) or nurture (environment) upon which there are mountains of disagreeing peer reviewed papers.

You present the scientific community's knowledge of GMO as if it is one homogenious, whole and complete understanding of the mechanisms of DNA and genetics.

As a scientist in any field you would never claim there is zero doubt in the formulation of scientific models amd knowledge.

Yet when I and others raise the question of incomplete knowledge you point to the peer reviewed knowledge we have.

To quote Rumsfield "There are known knowns. These are the things we know that we know (your peer reviewed papers)

There are known unknowns, that is to say the things we know we don't know. (The 'further study' and acceped uncertainty in your peer reviwed papers)

But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. (My point of objection to your insistance that there are no safety risks from releasing GMO into our environment).

As a scientist you will understand the points I just made.

Edited December 11, 2015 by GuestHouse

[jdlancaster]

Show your evidence.... your data on anything. .. you are a troll... you have none.. drink that kool aid...you attack others because your position can't be defended ... as a scientist I know none of the points you made support a position that any gmo organism is dangerous. ... you talk in circles about nothing.... you show no data.... No Data.... what a joke....im not going to follow this anymore because you are dishonest and avoid showing any data... and I never said there are no safetynrisks.... I said they are studied and someone else said traditional brreding methods are more dangerous... all supported by peer reviewed science. ... you are right with the 80% that think food should be labeled for having dna and dihydrogen monoxide. ... I killed john f kennedy bybthe way... and im an alien from the planet zenu.... can't prove me wrong 100%... so im right ciao