Thai farmers protest against bill on GMO farming

[attrayant]

Acknowledgement of uncertainty within scientific knowledge does not prevent progress, it is a fundamental part of scientific analysis.

Your failure to understand this, and willingness to jump to the conclusion that the bounds of uncertainty would somehow halt progress is utter nonsense.

While such claims don't really matter here on TVF, for your own sake don't make such assertions in an academic institution or any research paper you present for academic review, you'd be laughed off campus.

No conclusion has been jumped to. Case in point: Last week, the Philippine Supreme Court stopped field testing of Bt brinjal (eggplant). Their reason?

The decision was based on the precautionary principle, with the CA saying that "there is no full scientific certainty yet as to the effects of Bt talong field trials to the environment and to the health of the people."

To use your own words, the "bounds of uncertainty" have in fact halted progress. Laughed off campus, indeed.

[attrayant]

When you genetically modify a plant, you add to it a gene that belongs to something else, and there is no way to know what the consequences will be in the long term.

Demonstrably false. In genetic modification (whether transgenic or cisgenic), a single gene is inserted at a known location, with highly predictable results. It's "traditional" breeding techniques such as hybridization and mutagenesis where an organism's genetic structure gets blasted to hell in the hopes of creating something viable. In the past this has lead to harmful (to humans) results, as I have already cited in this very thread.

[impulse]

When you genetically modify a plant, you add to it a gene that belongs to something else, and there is no way to know what the consequences will be in the long term.

Demonstrably false. In genetic modification (whether transgenic or cisgenic), a single gene is inserted at a known location, with highly predictable results. It's "traditional" breeding techniques such as hybridization and mutagenesis where an organism's genetic structure gets blasted to hell in the hopes of creating something viable. In the past this has lead to harmful (to humans) results, as I have already cited in this very thread.

You don't watch many Sci-Fi horror movies or wingnut conspiracy documentaries, do you?

[attrayant]

[deleted as I suspect the comment I replied to was satire]

Edited December 13, 2015 by attrayant

[attrayant]

Last week, the Philippine Supreme Court stopped field testing of Bt brinjal (eggplant).

I neglected to add the link for this: http://bit.ly/1NNumj7

And after poking around a bit on farmer's blogs in countries where brinjal is grown, I see those farmers who don't use Bt brinjal need to spray their crop with chemical pesticides as much as 140 times (depending on how rainy it is) during a single growing season. Sounds tasty, eh?

[AleG]

Acknowledgement of uncertainty within scientific knowledge does not prevent progress, it is a fundamental part of scientific analysis.

Your failure to understand this, and willingness to jump to the conclusion that the bounds of uncertainty would somehow halt progress is utter nonsense.

While such claims don't really matter here on TVF, for your own sake don't make such assertions in an academic institution or any research paper you present for academic review, you'd be laughed off campus.

No conclusion has been jumped to. Case in point: Last week, the Philippine Supreme Court stopped field testing of Bt brinjal (eggplant). Their reason?

The decision was based on the precautionary principle, with the CA saying that "there is no full scientific certainty yet as to the effects of Bt talong field trials to the environment and to the health of the people."

To use your own words, the "bounds of uncertainty" have in fact halted progress. Laughed off campus, indeed.

The case you mentioned shows how science is its own worst enemy when dealing with this sort of public panics, no scientist worth the name will ever claim absolute certainty about anything; that of course is used to attack the methods and results of scientific study by people that don't understand that what they see as a fundamental flaw is actually the greatest strength of the scientific method. If a theory is proven wrong then it will be binned or corrected and that's how progress is made; the evolution of the understanding of the structure of atoms is a good example of that.

Contrast that with some of the more strident opponents of GMOs, alternative medicine quacks, that no matter how many times their theories are proven wrong, they still peddle their snake oil.

How did that quote by Bertrand Russel quote go? Fools and fanatics are always certain, while wise people are full of doubts.

[GuestHouse]

Acknowledgement of uncertainty within scientific knowledge does not prevent progress, it is a fundamental part of scientific analysis.

Your failure to understand this, and willingness to jump to the conclusion that the bounds of uncertainty would somehow halt progress is utter nonsense.

While such claims don't really matter here on TVF, for your own sake don't make such assertions in an academic institution or any research paper you present for academic review, you'd be laughed off campus.

No conclusion has been jumped to. Case in point: Last week, the Philippine Supreme Court stopped field testing of Bt brinjal (eggplant). Their reason?

The decision was based on the precautionary principle, with the CA saying that "there is no full scientific certainty yet as to the effects of Bt talong field trials to the environment and to the health of the people."

To use your own words, the "bounds of uncertainty" have in fact halted progress. Laughed off campus, indeed.

A victory for the precautionary principle and a victory for civil leadership over technology and commerce; interests.

In no way could this be seen as a set back for progress other than in terms of a tightly framed argument that excludes civil society and the voice of all stakeholders (i.e. precisely what the Thai opponents of GMO are calling for).

We thankfully do not run our world by the decisions of technocrats.

[GuestHouse]

The case you mentioned shows how science is its own worst enemy when dealing with this sort of public panics, no scientist worth the name will ever claim absolute certainty about anything; that of course is used to attack the methods and results of scientific study by people that don't understand that what they see as a fundamental flaw is actually the greatest strength of the scientific method. If a theory is proven wrong then it will be binned or corrected and that's how progress is made; the evolution of the understanding of the structure of atoms is a good example of that.

Contrast that with some of the more strident opponents of GMOs, alternative medicine quacks, that no matter how many times their theories are proven wrong, they still peddle their snake oil.

How did that quote by Bertrand Russel quote go? Fools and fanatics are always certain, while wise people are full of doubts.

I would agree with you except the promotion of GMO is not simply a scientific endeavour nor indeed simply an battle between science and non-science or pseudo-science.

It is a commercial endeavour driven by some of the most powerful corporations in the world, who it turns out are not adverse to using a few dirty tricks and pseudo-scoience themselves.

Its not that long since the Thai government put a law before parliament that outlawed traditional herbs, writing laws to suit the big-agra.

Witoon was thankfully there again to fight this abuse of power and dangerous control of government by big-agra. http://planetsave.com/2009/02/12/thailand-labels-ginger-12-other-herbs-as-hazardous-plants/

The 13 herbs and plants are vital in traditional Thai cooking and are clearly not hazardous: ginger, chilli, neem, lemongrass, turmeric, Chinese ginger, African marigold, Siam weed or bitter bush, tea seed cake, Chinese celery, ringworn bush, glory lily, and stemona.

We should be celebrating civil society's willingness, and effectiveness, and putting the wider needs of society and our environment ahead of the business plans of big-agra.

I certainly am.

[attrayant]

In no way could this be seen as a set back for progress other than in terms of a tightly framed argument that excludes civil society and the voice of all stakeholders (i.e. precisely what the Thai opponents of GMO are calling for).

It sounds like you didn't read the article. "Too many unknowns, not enough testing!", the court says. So what do they do? Issue an injunction against field testing. Stakeholders should be in favor of testing, shouldn't they?

Reaction article from NYU Professor of Biology & Dean of Science:

The SC kills Bt talong, and takes down Philippine science as well

There is clear consensus! Ask the various national academies of science around the world, or the various independent scientific professional societies. They have concluded that GMO technology is safe.

An Italian research in 2014 published a major review of 1,783 research papers, reports and other material on GMO safety in the journal Critical Review of Biotechnology. They found little to no evidence that GMO crops had a negative impact on the environment.

[snip]

Bt is so safe, even the organic farming community certifies it can be used as a spray in organic farms. Bt corn, soybean and cotton have been grown since the mid 1990s in the US and elsewhere over tens of millions of hectares. There has been no scientifically credible evidence that growing these Bt crops over the last decade has had a substantial environmental impact. And because of the introduction of Bt crops, insecticide use has been lowered in farms that carry these GMO crops, reducing the exposure of farmers and consumers to synthetic insecticides.

Fine, they've shot themselves in the foot. They'll just have to be content with importing food from other countries instead of being self-sufficient.

Edited December 13, 2015 by attrayant

[jdlancaster]

In no way could this be seen as a set back for progress other than in terms of a tightly framed argument that excludes civil society and the voice of all stakeholders (i.e. precisely what the Thai opponents of GMO are calling for).

It sounds like you didn't read the article. "Too many unknowns, not enough testing!", the court says. So what do they do? Issue an injunction against field testing. Stakeholders should be in favor of testing, shouldn't they?

Reaction article from NYU Professor of Biology & Dean of Science:

The SC kills Bt talong, and takes down Philippine science as well

There is clear consensus! Ask the various national academies of science around the world, or the various independent scientific professional societies. They have concluded that GMO technology is safe.

An Italian research in 2014 published a major review of 1,783 research papers, reports and other material on GMO safety in the journal Critical Review of Biotechnology. They found little to no evidence that GMO crops had a negative impact on the environment.

[snip]

Bt is so safe, even the organic farming community certifies it can be used as a spray in organic farms. Bt corn, soybean and cotton have been grown since the mid 1990s in the US and elsewhere over tens of millions of hectares. There has been no scientifically credible evidence that growing these Bt crops over the last decade has had a substantial environmental impact. And because of the introduction of Bt crops, insecticide use has been lowered in farms that carry these GMO crops, reducing the exposure of farmers and consumers to synthetic insecticides.

Fine, they've shot themselves in the foot. They'll just have to be content with importing food from other countries instead of being self-sufficient.

Yes, and the biodiversity will just have to be content with all the non pest insects that will die due to the extra insecticide use... and the environmental impact of all that insecticide runoff.

And they stopped golden rice as well... so more of the poorest children will go blind and die. It's only 500,000 preventable vitamin A deficiency deaths a year... and another 500,000 more from weakened immune systems and complications... but then again... what is 1,000,000 children a year.... nothing compared to what could.... maybe... possibly happen despite having no evidence to support the dangers... But that's ok you can sleep well at night knowing the sacrifice others made for you to stay GMO free... Casualties in the (imaginary) war against the imperialist US and there multinationals.

It's ok... I'm protected for GMOs while I sit here taking a drag of my cigarette and drinking my beer, as I down a double bacon cheeseburger. I don't have to think of the costs my conspiracy theories have on the poor... I have the money to buy any food I want... man the evils of US multinational conspiracies, GMOs, vaccines... me and my first world (imaginary) problems...

[STMx]

Why everyone so dislike GMO?

[attrayant]

Why everyone so dislike GMO?

Fear is usually the prime mover, especially for something highly technical like genetics. We all eat, so that makes it personal. It doesn't help that there are charlatans like Vani Hari, Mercola and Vandana Shiva taking advantage of public ignorance, using scare tactics (Frankenfood anyone?) and making ridiculous appeals to the naturalistic fallacy. Hari and Mercola have storefronts full of organic and "all natural" products, so they also have a large financial interest at stake.

Some corporations (I'm gonna take the cheap shot and say "Big Organic") obviously dislike the technology because it threatens their profits. Farmers are probably the best group to look at since they have the most skin in the game. I don't want to be accused of putting words in their mouths, so go spend some time on their blogs and see what the general consensus is. Try to avoid editorials and news aggregators (like HuffPo) that claim to speak on behalf of the farmer. Go directly to the farmer's blog and read their own words. You can also leave questions, and more often than not they'll be answered. Also try to avoid blogs that seem to discuss nothing but GM tech, as these cites have an obvious agenda (both for and against) to push. These are some I keep my eye on:

The Farmer's Daughter

Mr. Farmer's Neighborhood

Ask A Farmer

When you visit a farmer's blog and see a graphic like this, it's not hard to understand why so many have embraced the technology.

On the other hand, when you see the graphic below on an anti-GM tech site, it's not hard to see what's motivating them either. Don't waste time trying to learn or understand the research, just look at the picture and be afraid!

[GuestHouse]

Farmers are probably the best group to look at since they have the most skin in the game.

Thank you.

Now go back to the start of the article and read the bit about Thai Farmers objecting the GMO.

[attrayant]

I don't see any actual farmers quoted in the OP. I see organizations like Greenpeace speaking out on behalf of them. That's exactly why I cautioned about listening to mouthpieces and advocates rather than actual farmers with GM tech experience.

I also see things like this:

Direk Kongngern, head of the Northern Farmers Federation, said yesterday that most of the group's members grew maize in the North, and expressed concern on two points, namely prevention of contamination when growing GMO plants for commercial purposes and the safety of people's daily food supply.

What exactly does "express concern" mean? Maybe it means they want to be better educated about the opportunities that GM technology offers. If some Thai farmers think GM somehow threatens food safety, then they're simply not informed and in need of a more complete education. But we know that isn't likely to happen in Thailand.

I'd suggest Thai farmers meet with and talk to other farmers in countries where GM tech has reduced pesticide use, increased yields and hugely increased profits. If there are any farmers anywhere who have abandoned GM tech, I'd be interested in hearing their stories as well. Although I think such farmers will be few and far between.

[attrayant]

And wanted to respond specifically to this because I just couldn't believe my eyes when I read it:

...most of the group's members grew maize in the North, and expressed concern on two points, namely prevention of contamination when growing GMO plants for commercial purposes...

It's hard to believe this is coming from actual, experienced farmers. I remember learning in 8th grade Earth Science how to prevent cross-contamination of compatible cultivars simply by staggering the pollination times. 8th grade was a long time ago so just to make sure I'm not recalling a false memory, I went to - wait for it - an actual farmer with experience to make sure I'm correct:

Organic and GMO fields can grow just meters apart with no danger of contamination.

Given the different stages of growth these 2 fields of corn are in, it is biologically impossible for them to "drift" to one another. That's the management of field planning, something all we farmers do.

Coexistence is an extremely manageable situation and happens more often than you are lead to believe by the media. We practiced organic, conventional, and biotech farming systems simultaneously for 7 years and continue to do specialty seed production which still requires the same level of management to ensure purity. That's all coexistence is, management and planning.

So despite what you may hear in the media, know that it is very doable and happens often. We farmers have been managing it well despite those who would lead you to believe otherwise.

I can't fault anyone in this thread for not knowing that, but this statement apparently came from people who should know better. If the Thai farmers don't know the basics of pollination timetables, I guess I can understand why they're expressing concerns. Perhaps some basic farming education is in order.

[GuestHouse]

Oh dear, you make a case for the inclusion of the views of farmers 'with skin in the game' and then wriggle and wryth when you realise you've spent so many hours arguing against the views of farmers 'with skin in the game' and the protesters demands that farmers 'with skin in the game' should be included in the decision process.

But welcome to the cause for open democracy and inclussive policy decision making.

[attrayant]

you've spent so many hours arguing against the views of farmers 'with skin in the game' and the protesters demands that farmers 'with skin in the game' should be included in the decision process.

Okay I'll try this again and I'll type real slowly this time. There are no actual farmers in the OP. The farmers with skin in the game are those who have tried and either succeeded or failed with GM tech (links already provided). That's where the readers of this thread should look if they want to learn what GM tech is truly capable of. The mouthpieces in the OP who claim to speak on behalf of farmers don't have any skin in the game because they're ostensibly rejecting (out of ignorance) a technology that has been proven highly safe and successful.

And so it goes that the poorest people - the people who most desperately need this technology - may be denied access just because of the fears and prejudices of those of us who have enough to eat.

[jdlancaster]

Oh dear, you make a case for the inclusion of the views of farmers 'with skin in the game' and then wriggle and wryth when you realise you've spent so many hours arguing against the views of farmers 'with skin in the game' and the protesters demands that farmers 'with skin in the game' should be included in the decision process.

But welcome to the cause for open democracy and inclussive policy decision making.

You either don't read peoples' full posts or purposely misrepresent them. You are incapable of supporting your side in the slightest. The article quotes several special interest anti-GMO organizations (full of many non-farmers) and is not representative of the farming community as a whole. And as far as democracy and inclusive policy decision making goes.... capitulating to a small group is neither.

Most of your posts consist of nothing but logical fallacies, mostly argumentum ad ignorantiam or an arguement from ignorance (claiming something to be true because it cannot be proven false (argument against the mountains of peer-reviewed scientific paper with nothing to counter)). Not a single post has presented evidence (data) of the dangers (health, economic, social, or whatever). You argue from onus probandi " I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false" (which plenty of data supporting GMOs has been represented) and your only counter is argumentum ad ignorantiam. You also are guilty of Argumentum ad hominem to avoid posting any data, and the anti-GMO use of the fallacy of many questions (especially when referring to "BigAgro" or US Economic Foreign policy).

Edited December 14, 2015 by jdlancaster

[GuestHouse]

Attrayant, you, I and the protestors agree farmers 'with skin in the game' should be included in the policy decision process.

It took a while getting there but we are in complete agreement on that.

[GuestHouse]

Jdlancaster, way back I pointed out the issue of the precautionary principle.

You ignored it.

In the example someone else gave several pages after my comment we are presented with the Philippines courts using the precautionary principle to halt GMO trials in their jurisdiction.

Spend some time reading up on where the precautionary principle comes from and how it features in legal frame works relating to environment and safety.

As a 'scientist' you might also want to check if the principle is referenced in the code of ethics applied to research at your own institution.

It certainly is referenced at both the universities at which I am undertaking research.

[jdlancaster]

Jdlancaster, way back I pointed out the issue of the precautionary principle.

You ignored it.

In the example someone else gave several pages after my comment we are presented with the Philippines courts using the precautionary principle to halt GMO trials in their jurisdiction.

Spend some time reading up on where the precautionary principle comes from and how it features in legal frame works relating to environment and safety.

As a 'scientist' you might also want to check if the principle is referenced in the code of ethics applied to research at your own institution.

It certainly is referenced at both the universities at which I am undertaking research

The precautionary principal is highly debated... and rarely taken to the extreme you do (As you apply it it is a logical fallacy, but other apply more appropriately than you)...

You misapply the precautionary principal... it's a cost-benefit analysis. It's about minimizing risk... not eliminating it. You have applied it as it doesn't matter the cost-benefit analysis... you've applied a 0 risk threshold... your risk acceptance is 0... That is a misapplication of the principal. If your risk acceptance is not zero.. then quantify it...

That is not including that there are huge issues with the "precautionary principal", especially as you apply it. "The 'precautionary principle', properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle." From Bioethics and the Environment: A brief review of the precautionary principal and Genetically Modified Crops.

So... the precautionary principal is to do "no harm"... but applying the precautionary principals causes harm (e.g. vitamin A deaths, economic loss, disease outbreaks from people not being vaccinated).... therefore prohibiting the use of the precautionary principal....

So the way you are using it is not how it is applied at any university... or you are an engineer... what building/ car/ plane/ bridge/ dam... whatever/// has 0 risk of collapse... or fire... or anything... none...therefore they should not be built..... but in not building we put ourselves at risk to the environment or can't go to work so we cant make money and cant eat.. etc.... thus causing harm....

AN equivalent example is the hadron collider and the precautionary principal. Some people thought that it should not be built or used because it could start a black hole that consumes us all....: (science doesn't know what happens when we smash these particles at high speed.... we know a lot more about GMOs)

Injury in fact requires some “credible threat of harm.” Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 950 (9th Cir. 2002). At most, Wagner has alleged that experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (the “Collider”) have “potential adverse consequences.” Speculative fear of future harm does not constitute an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing. Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 970.

And you have done the same... At most, you have alleged that GMOs have potential adverse consequences.

The precautionary principle has been ethically questioned on the basis that its application could block progress in developing countries (More than a million deaths a year, reducing quality of life)

[GuestHouse]

How do I apply the precautionary principle?

Tell me what your assumptions are, because I haven't told you.

[attrayant]

Add to that - if you're going to apply the precautionary principle (hereinafter PP) to GM tech, which is a well-understood and highly predictable science, then you should at least have the courage to be consistent and apply it to far more haphazard (but still somehow considered "traditional" or "all natural") breeding techniques as well. Not doing so shows that you apply the PP selectively, only when it benefits your argument.

Edited December 14, 2015 by attrayant

[jdlancaster]

a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."they made certain assumptions about the market"

'm not making assumptions...

that is what you are doing. I supported my claim that several gmo types are beneficial to the environment health and farmers and very low risk...through scientific journal articles that can be replicated to verify results. You give no data to support the dangers of gmos.... you assume they are dangerous.

[jdlancaster]

If I am wrong... state your claims ... what is your acceptable level of risk (and for each specific danger).. so far you have only used the argument of ignorance which is implies accepting 0 risk... again quantify your risk.. what statistical level of strength is required to satisfy you

[GuestHouse]

JDL,

You made the following statement:

---

That is not including that there are huge issues with the "precautionary principal", especially as you apply it.

---

Can you please tell me exactly how I am applying the PP ( referenced to my statement on how I am applying PP)

So that I can determine where we disagree on the matter.

Once again ( for the third time in this discussion) if I have made statements on how I apply the PP, I shall applogise for asking you to justify ayour statement about what you claim I have said.

[jdlancaster]

Ive asked you several times to clarify yourself and quantify what is considered acceptable risk.. you say we can never know for sure... ( can never have a 0 % risk) ... just take a stand and specify exactly what you mean.... what do you mean? 0% or what number? I don't want to guess... I know what you said...I want to know what you mean

[jdlancaster]

And to be clear. .. you used pp to counter many peer reviewed studies... saying science can't know for certain. ...certain is 0 percent risk... therefore we should ban gmos

[jdlancaster]

And you antagonize with claims like for the third time.... but you have dodged many questions from me.... dodged anything that required u to give numbers or data....

[GuestHouse]

Ive asked you several times to clarify yourself and quantify what is considered acceptable risk.. you say we can never know for sure... ( can never have a 0 % risk) ... just take a stand and specify exactly what you mean.... what do you mean? 0% or what number? I don't want to guess... I know what you said...I want to know what you mean

You catagorically stated

"That is not including that there are huge issues with the "precautionary principal", especially as you apply it."

Either tell me how I am applying PP with reference to my own words ( let's call that by means of citation)

Or withdraw the catagorical claim you made.