PM orders shelving of GMO bill

[GuestHouse]

Calm down Attrayant, I don't want to shut you up.

I simply point out the demonstrable fact that the issues surrounding GMO go way beyond science or what science can address and that science has a part to play in the discourse, it is not nor must it ever be the only voice that is heared.

I also point out that framing the discussion as simply one of science denies all the other voices that must be heared, specifically it excludes people who do not have a scientific education.

I think the final sentence of my last response in this thread clearly indicates I do not wish to exclude science from taking part in the social and political discourse on the very important matter.

Edited December 16, 2015 by GuestHouse

[attrayant]

I'm calm, just being hyperbolic. In text I guess that comes across as more heated than it really is.

I also point out that framing the discussion as simply one of science denies all the other voices that must be heared, specifically it excludes people who do not have a scientific education.

I don't really have a problem with this. I'm a huge advocate of free speech, but that's not what we're talking about here. People who lack an understanding of the science really have no grounds to use science talking points to lobby against it (or FOR it, for that matter). They can talk all they like about the philosophical aspects or the legalities and I won't give one whit. But when they start making statements about the science that are clearly wrong, that's some ignorance that really needs to be stamped out.

I do my best to stamp out ignorance by providing information and education - you can see how often I link out to sources when I counter people's incorrect claims in these forums. But all too many times it's clear that people just aren't interested in learning something that conflicts with their deeply held belief. Just like that lady from the solar panel story I quoted earlier:

A retired science teacher, Jane Mann, said she was concerned about the rising risk of cancer deaths in the area (despite reports showing that cancer rates in North Carolina have fallen over the 2008 to 2012 period) saying that no one could tell her that solar panels were not causing the cancer.

How does she know this? Don't ask silly questions - she just knows! She's done her research! How could solar panels NOT cause cancer?? She's got her mind made up and no amount of evidence is going to change it. There seem to be a lot of people like that in the GMO debates, too.

Willful ignorance is the worst.

[GuestHouse]

Well let's kill two birds with one stone.

Bad science exists and can be combatted with good science.

But as every PhD qualified scientist will understand from the research for their PhD, there is a lot of poor science that passes peer review and gets published and there's a lot of biased science that passes peer review and gets published.

Critical review and criticism of published and accepted science is an essential part of science research. You and I will regard this as a strength of science, which it is.

But it is also a demonstration that scientific knowledge is not absolute, fixed, all encompassing or neutral.

It can, like all tools be used many ways.

Unfortunately science too often gets used in the way that best suits those who pay for it.

So let's accept science too has it's failing, understand thst even if perfect science can not and must not be the only voice in a public discourse as so very important as GMO.

Science is itself a philosophy, if you feel it is your strength then why not get involved in the other philosophical debates around this issue.

I would be surprised if doing so did not improve your science.

Edited December 16, 2015 by GuestHouse

[plachon]

Heaps of misunderstanding and misinformation on GM crops from all sides of this debate, but one really needs to be concerned when some of the most egregious contributions on the subject come from a serving PM.

If the following quote has been correctly translated, then I think he needs to either get another set of advisors, or take 5 from his duties and do some serious reading on the subject. Usually, if you know nothing on a subject, it usually better to keep one's mouth firmly shut, to avoid looking like the proverbial fool.

"Other countries use GM plants in the event of war or crop failure due to disease. This is because these plants can tolerate drought and disease and also have high yields, which will be useful in the event of war around the world," the PM said.

[tomacht8]

Not later than 2 million years ago the early Homo erectus (Homo ergaster) left for the first time the African continent.

The term genetic engineering encompasses all techniques by which DNA can be artificially recombined and transferred to another organism.
In contrast to previous options (eg. As breeding, mutation), is possible by means of genetic engineering the targeted intervention in the DNA.
This results in the ability to transfer DNA across species barriers. Contrary to conventional breeding, in which all the characteristics of the parents are combined, a selection of the desired characteristics is genetically possible.
It is a very young science, may 20-30 years old.

Genetic engineering is a very powerful tool.
It can be very useful, or be very dangerous.
The possibilities to combine and re-assemble DNA, are endless.

There is no reason to rush here.
Especially the regulation and control are very important here.

Since genetically modified crops have no 'natural habitat', their release can be equated with the introduction of an alien species into an ecosystem.
Naturally occurring species thereby potentially displaced. Because they are equipped with certain additional features that make them eg before protect parasites or disease, can not be excluded that they prevail over other species and natural communities bring out of balance.

[attrayant]

The term genetic engineering encompasses all techniques by which DNA can be artificially recombined and transferred to another organism. In contrast to previous options (eg. As breeding, mutation), is possible by means of genetic engineering the targeted intervention in the DNA. This results in the ability to transfer DNA across species barriers. Contrary to conventional breeding, in which all the characteristics of the parents are combined, a selection of the desired characteristics is genetically possible.

Can you explain why you underlined that sentence? I assume you feel very strongly about it, but you haven't said why. Horizontal gene transfer happens in nature. It's not specific to GM technology and there isn't anything inherently wrong with it (at least compared to anything else that happens in nature).

There is no reason to rush here. Especially the regulation and control are very important here.

Straw man. Nobody is saying "let's hurry up and make more GM food", but at the same time there is no reason to slam on the brakes either. Proceed with caution. Thus far, GM food has a better track record than so-called "natural" food. Let's keep that going.

Since genetically modified crops have no 'natural habitat', their release can be equated with the introduction of an alien species into an ecosystem. Naturally occurring species thereby potentially displaced. Because they are equipped with certain additional features that make them eg before protect parasites or disease, can not be excluded that they prevail over other species and natural communities bring out of balance.

What exactly is the problem here? How do you identify whether or not a particular cultivar has a "natural habitat", and why does it matter? Ten thousand years ago there was no corn, not as we know it today. There was only teosinte - a hard and barely edible grass. Mexican farmers have spent the last ten thousand years "engineering" it via artificial selection into what we know today as corn. We can do the same thing now. It takes only a few years instead of ten thousand, but the result is the same.

And anyway, this "problem" is not specific to GM crops. Over the years, sunflowers (non-GM) have been "naturally" bred to become resistant to ALS inhibiting herbicides, and because of this there are now many varieties of weeds that have become resistant to that herbicide.

Let's try a different approach: Can you name ONE potential risk factor of GM farming that doesn't also apply to conventional farming?

[tomacht8]

The term genetic engineering encompasses all techniques by which DNA can be artificially recombined and transferred to another organism. In contrast to previous options (eg. As breeding, mutation), is possible by means of genetic engineering the targeted intervention in the DNA. This results in the ability to transfer DNA across species barriers. Contrary to conventional breeding, in which all the characteristics of the parents are combined, a selection of the desired characteristics is genetically possible.

Can you explain why you underlined that sentence? I assume you feel very strongly about it, but you haven't said why. Horizontal gene transfer happens in nature. It's not specific to GM technology and there isn't anything inherently wrong with it (at least compared to anything else that happens in nature).

And you claim to be a responsible scientist?

You see zero danger in genetic engineering?

No visited ethics seminars?

Found stone of the wise?

I know everything and everyone else is stupid?

Answer today only your first question.

Wonder how much time you have.

Do you live in USA?

This results in the ability to transfer DNA across species barriers.

eg If you installed the gene of a nut into a soybean to improve the taste, Nut allergy people are sufferers also allergic to soy suddenly.

eg genetically it is also possible to generate a pig that lays eggs, produces milk and wool.

Genetically it is possible.

Or not?

Can this "horizontal" gene transfer happens in nature?

You're the expert.

Waiting joyfully for your answer.

[GuestHouse]

Let's try a different approach: Can you name ONE potential risk factor of GM farming that doesn't also apply to conventional farming?

Well for a start there is risk to certification, brand and commercial viability that arises when a neighbouring farm to an "Organic" produce farm plants GMO products (Definition of organic per US Department of Agriculture), where the "Organic" produce is at risk of contamination from GMO DNA transmitted by pollination. This would place the "Organic Produce" in violation of the USDA regulations governing the right for the "Organic" produce to maintain the label and be marketed as "Organic".

http://blogs.usda.gov/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-in-organic-products/

"Organic" produce demand is a growing and lucrative market in the developed and developed world and a very good example of where profits can be increased, often for small scale farmers, community farms and social cooperative farms, but where GMO crops pose a very real risk to the operation of these farm and organisations.

Edited December 16, 2015 by GuestHouse

[attrayant]

Let's try a different approach: Can you name ONE potential risk factor of GM farming that doesn't also apply to conventional farming?

Well for a start there is risk to certification, brand and commercial viability that arises when a neighbouring farm to an "Organic" produce farm plants GMO products (Definition of organic per US Department of Agriculture), where the "Organic" produce is at risk of contamination from GMO DNA transmitted by pollination. This would place the "Organic Produce" in violation of the USDA regulations governing the right for the "Organic" produce to maintain the label and be marketed as "Organic".

This is also true of conventional crops. Compatible cultivars are always at risk of cross-pollination, whether they're GM or not. Bitter, inedible crab apples are compatible with many regular sweet apple varieties, and therefore can cross-pollinate producing an offspring that is distastefully high in tannic acid.

The way farmers avoid this with their conventional produce is by staggering the planting times. Many crops are fertile only for a few weeks, after which there's no danger of "contamination". So this "risk" is not specific to GMO, and can be easily prevented with basic planning and best-practice farming techniques. Read post #135 from the other thread to see how this is done: Organic and GMO fields can grow just meters apart with no danger of contamination.

Any farmer who has been growing heirloom varieties must be very careful not to allow their crop to become pollinated by conventional (or even "organic") pollen, or else they'll end up with a hybrid and lose the heirloom status. In the suburbs of Maryland and Pennsylvania it was quite common to see home gardeners bagging their tomato and bell pepper plants to prevent cross pollination from a neighbor's garden. You can even buy the bags on Amazon.

[attrayant]

And you claim to be a responsible scientist?

You see zero danger in genetic engineering?

No visited ethics seminars? Found stone of the wise? I know everything and everyone else is stupid?

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I never made any of those claims.

If you installed the gene of a nut into a soybean to improve the taste, Nut allergy people are sufferers also allergic to soy suddenly.

genetically it is also possible to generate a pig that lays eggs, produces milk and wool. Genetically it is possible. Or not?

Yes, I'm aware of this. Tha great thing about GM is that we can predict (usually correctly) what the resulting proteins will be and even if we're wrong, there is extensive health testing required before GM produce goes to market. Yet for some reason people are still having conniption fits about it, while conventional produce (which unlike GM produce, actually HAS caused human harm and allergic reactions in the recent past) goes largely unregulated and requires little to no pre-market testing. Double-standard much?

Can this "horizontal" gene transfer happens in nature?

Short answer: Yes. Just like there is natural and artificial selection, there is also natural and artificial HGT. Natural HGT is called "evolution". In fact, natural HGT is how bacteria have so quickly become resistant to antibiotics in the last dozen years or so. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Horizontal gene transfer, also known as lateral gene transfer, the transmission of DNA between different genomes. Horizontal gene transfer is known to occur between different species." [edited for brevity]

In case you're thinking that's only between different species, not so. It happens between different kingdoms as well:

What has become increasingly clear in the past 10 years is that this liberal genetic exchange is definitely not limited to the DNA of the microscopic world. It likewise happens to genes that belong to animals, fungi and plants, collectively known as eukaryotes because they boast nuclei in their cells. The ancient communion between ferns and hornworts is the latest in a series of newly discovered examples of horizontal gene transfer: when DNA passes from one organism to another generally unrelated one, rather than moving vertically from parent to child. In fact, horizontal gene transfer has happened between all kinds of living things throughout the history of life on the planet not just between species, but also between different kingdoms of life. Bacterial genes end up in plants; fungal genes wind up in animals; snake and frog genes find their way into cows and bats. It seems that the genome of just about every modern species is something of a mosaic constructed with genes borrowed from many different forms of life.

[Emphasis added]

Edited December 17, 2015 by attrayant

[tomacht8]

And you claim to be a responsible scientist?

You see zero danger in genetic engineering?

No visited ethics seminars? Found stone of the wise? I know everything and everyone else is stupid?

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I never made any of those claims.

Sorry, if you feel i have done so, but the tone make the music.

If you installed the gene of a nut into a soybean to improve the taste, Nut allergy people are sufferers also allergic to soy suddenly.

genetically it is also possible to generate a pig that lays eggs, produces milk and wool. Genetically it is possible. Or not?

Yes, I'm aware of this. Tha great thing about GM is that we can predict (usually correctly) what the resulting proteins will be and even if we're wrong, there is extensive health testing required before GM produce goes to market. Yet for some reason people are still having conniption fits about it, while conventional produce (which unlike GM produce, actually HAS caused human harm and allergic reactions in the recent past) goes largely unregulated and requires little to no pre-market testing. Double-standard much?

Can this "horizontal" gene transfer happens in nature?

Short answer: Yes.

I would like to contradict you here.

A pig that lays eggs, produces milk and wool.

Would not arise under natural, short-term conditions.

A pig, a sheep and a chicken would not stimulate each other in the normal way!

Or do you mean the evolution in a period in hundreds of millions of years?

Geneticists could bridge these previously set by the nature and the natural evolution intervals in decades.

That should show you how dangerous these GMOs can be, if they fall into the wrong hands.

Question:

What do you see as pro GMO as the greatest danger of this technology?

What would be here a Super GAU?

Analogous to Tschnobyl in the nuclear industry?

[GuestHouse]

This is also true of conventional crops. Compatible cultivars are always at risk of cross-pollination, whether they're GM or not.

But the risk I explained and you ignored is from GMO contamination to an "Organic" crop resulting in the "Organic" crop loosing its valuable "Organic" licence.

A few non GMO bitter apples does present that risk.

And all the measures to prevent ctoss polination from GMO are not necessary if the GMO is excluded from the start.

[lucky11]

More u turns by this government than there are in all the roads within Thailand.

Sensible U turns are surely better than failing to do a U turn and incurring 500 billion Baht of losses as a consequence, don't you think?

US corporate greed seems intent on destroying everything on the planet. People don't realise how dangerous these franken seeds are. They are a disaster waiting to happen in any country that adopts them. This disaster is well and truly under way in America, what's it like being guinea pigs? Oh sorry, I didn't realise that you were unaware of the fact.

I don't want to be part of the US 'experiment' thank you very much and have opted out by avoiding eating processed junk, masquerading as food!!

[tomacht8]

More u turns by this government than there are in all the roads within Thailand.

Sensible U turns are surely better than failing to do a U turn and incurring 500 billion Baht of losses as a consequence, don't you think?

US corporate greed seems intent on destroying everything on the planet. People don't realise how dangerous these franken seeds are. They are a disaster waiting to happen in any country that adopts them. This disaster is well and truly under way in America, what's it like being guinea pigs? Oh sorry, I didn't realise that you were unaware of the fact.

I don't want to be part of the US 'experiment' thank you very much and have opted out by avoiding eating processed junk, masquerading as food!!

I agree with you fully.

Ask a GMO farmer in the United States when he got to see at last a butterfly on his fields.

The majority of GM crops are in five countries: USA (40%), Brazil (23%), Argentina (13.4%), Canada (6.4%) and India (6.4%).

[lucky11]

More u turns by this government than there are in all the roads within Thailand.

Sensible U turns are surely better than failing to do a U turn and incurring 500 billion Baht of losses as a consequence, don't you think?

US corporate greed seems intent on destroying everything on the planet. People don't realise how dangerous these franken seeds are. They are a disaster waiting to happen in any country that adopts them. This disaster is well and truly under way in America, what's it like being guinea pigs? Oh sorry, I didn't realise that you were unaware of the fact.

I don't want to be part of the US 'experiment' thank you very much and have opted out by avoiding eating processed junk, masquerading as food!!

I agree with you fully.

Ask a GMO farmer in the United States when he got to see at last a butterfly on his fields.

The majority of GM crops are in five countries: USA (40%), Brazil (23%), Argentina (13.4%), Canada (6.4%) and India (6.4%).

The Monarch butterfly population is down 90% - attributed to roundup usage. If this impacts on bees in such a way then we are really in trouble as they are the chief pollinators!!.

[tomacht8]

More u turns by this government than there are in all the roads within Thailand.

Sensible U turns are surely better than failing to do a U turn and incurring 500 billion Baht of losses as a consequence, don't you think?

US corporate greed seems intent on destroying everything on the planet. People don't realise how dangerous these franken seeds are. They are a disaster waiting to happen in any country that adopts them. This disaster is well and truly under way in America, what's it like being guinea pigs? Oh sorry, I didn't realise that you were unaware of the fact.

I don't want to be part of the US 'experiment' thank you very much and have opted out by avoiding eating processed junk, masquerading as food!!

I agree with you fully.

Ask a GMO farmer in the United States when he got to see at last a butterfly on his fields.

The majority of GM crops are in five countries: USA (40%), Brazil (23%), Argentina (13.4%), Canada (6.4%) and India (6.4%).

The Monarch butterfly population is down 90% - attributed to roundup usage. If this impacts on bees in such a way then we are really in trouble as they are the chief pollinators!!.

roundup usage.

Did you read how Canada uses round up ( the active substance is toxic for almost all plants: glyphosate) for its lens harvest?

Canada has replaced India as lenses Producer No. 1.

They spray the poison after harvest on, so that all plants (including the lenses plants) die and the lenses are nice and dry for export (because the mother plants are killed).

This is really perverse

[attrayant]

This is also true of conventional crops. Compatible cultivars are always at risk of cross-pollination, whether they're GM or not.

But the risk I explained and you ignored is from GMO contamination to an "Organic" crop resulting in the "Organic" crop loosing its valuable "Organic" licence.

I didn't ignore it, I disqualified it because it didn't fit the criteria of my challenge. Here it is again:

Can you name ONE potential risk factor of GM farming that doesn't also apply to conventional farming?

Your response, while applicable to GM farming, also applies to non-GM farming and therefore doesn't satisfy the criteria of the question. In that regard, you're applying an unfair double standard.

And all the measures to prevent ctoss polination from GMO are not necessary if the GMO is excluded from the start.

So proper farming practices and planning wouldn't be needed if we just did it the lazy, sloppy, "easy" way. How many times have I witnessed that line of reasoning in Thailand? For the record, they're not 'measures to prevent...' as much as hey are simply good farming practices.

It's easy to see why this argument of "we wouldn't need to do X if we didn't do Y in the first place" is not very compelling if you apply it to other situations:

We wouldn't need seat belts if we didn't have cars.

We wouldn't need to suffer the tragedies of air disasters if people would just stop wanting to fly to other countries.

Thailand wouldn't have so many electrocution deaths if builders would learn how to properly earth ground an electrical installation.

And so on. The reality is, we do many things in this world that need to be done properly, or else they can result in monetary loss, damage or death. GM farming shouldn't be an exception.

[attrayant]

In the quotes below, I don't know what "lens" is. I tried searching and all I got were results to sunglasses web sites. A quick check of Canada's major agricultural products reveals nothing that looks like "lens". Since I can't respond to that, I'll address your emotionally-laden demonization of glyphosate.

Did you read how Canada uses round up (the active substance is toxic for almost all plants: glyphosate) for its lens harvest?

No we didn't read that, because you didn't provide a link to the article.

They spray the poison after harvest on, so that all plants (including the lenses plants) die and the lenses are nice and dry for export (because the mother plants are killed).

If roundup weren't "poisonous" to weeds, it wouldn't be able to kill them. Funny how that works, right? Not sure if you're catching the irony here, but you're criticizing a thing based on a quality its supposed to have. Better watch out - all natural pesticides are "poison" too, and they're sprayed all over crops... even your precious organic crops.

So just how "toxic" is glyphosate? Here's a great graphic that I won't embed in the post because it's quite large. But it really gives the big picture of toxicity. The summary: glyphosate is less toxic than vitamin B1, apple cider vinegar, table salt, lime sulfur, Advil (ibuprofen), aspirin, caffeine, rotenone and vitamin D3. Especially noteworthy is rotenone (LD50 = 350 mg/kg) and copper sulfate (LD50 = 300 mg/kg), pesticides that are cleared for use on organic crops, are sixteen to eighteen times more toxic than glyphosate (LD50 = 5600 mg/kg). Ordinary table salt is about twice as toxic as glyphosate.

This is really perverse

Why? (I Mean aside from the fact that you've just arbitrarily declared it to be so.)