There are neither inherent negative effects nor positive effectives of genetically engineered foodstuffs. GMOs themselves are just a class of invention, which is why their conflation as a thing in and of themselves is so inappropriate. And so one must consider each and every GMO on a case by case basis, which is exactly the opposite of what we're doing.
And this leads to the next problem. Genetically engineered products are patented inventions that come with a litany of terms and conditions on their usage. Among the terms Monsanto includes is that their seeds cannot be used for public research without specific permission from the company. [1] There was also an editorial on this here [2]. In other words most of every study you've seen on Monsanto products has been rubber stamped by Monsanto. There couldn't be a conflict of interest there, could there? As an aside Monsanto in turn then uses this bias to create appeals to authority. When new work is done that does cast their product in a negative light they then immediately appeal to the quantity of their 'approved' work to try to discredit the new work by authority alone. It's like arguing that the Sun must indeed revolve around the Earth because we have 200 years of science showing it does! Again, anytime you see an appeal to authority - I think it should make you rather curious about why somebody would go this route.
And there's also the issue of retaliation. The examples on the individual level are extensive, but let's consider how this goes all the way to the top in large part thanks to Monsanto's extreme success in we'll say 'influencing' the US government. Here's a quote: "Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory." What is that from? That was a response, proposed in a confidential US cable, to a retaliation against a grievous act from France. What was France's decision? The heinous and unspeakable act of ceasing cultivation of Monsanto Corn!!!
The exact tactics vary, but in general themes this is very similar to how leaded fuel persisted as long as it did. Similarly with CFCs. And again there are also plentiful other issues and themes in play here, but I'm trying to avoid writing a novel!
Well, that's exactly the thing -- GMO by itself means pretty much nothing in regard to dangers or benefits. But the anti-GMO crowd isn't interested in them, they don't want GMOs to begin with.
Aren't there any newer articles about GMO-research coverups than these? For all its worth, I did see one study, and it was the kind I would have gotten an "F" for back when I was in high school with advance biology classes. And it is interesting to note that while in the US it was hard to find leaded gas even in 1990, it was the only kind sold in USSR where concerns of TEL manufacturers or patent holders would be of no consequence. And it was phased out much later, too.
IP and patent discussion is probably off-topic here, but if GMOs do what they are said to do, what it the problem with Monsanto having their own licensing terms on it? And so far there are good indications that they do have benefits and no well-designed studies showing dangers. And appeal to authority as a logical fallacy or not, I find the idea that all 100+ signatories (including some who, judging by the year when they got their Nobels could not care less by now about Monsanto's alleged threats) are either scared of or paid by the Big Agriculture to be an even greater conspirological fallacy.
That's quite amazing. I find 1, 2, 3, 4 straw men in so few words. That's usually an indicator that somebody's not really interested in rational discussion, but we've already gone beyond the grain of normal chat here so I'm a bit confused. So let me ask you a simple question, do you think everything you just said fairly represents what I have stated and/or implied in our discussion? If I point out misrepresentations you're making, would this be meaningfully likely to change your views?
I am just trying to figure out your angle on this, because I do not think Monsanto being the devil incarnate, or some scientists believing in eugenics 100 years ago has much bearing on whether we should use GMOs now to let people in areas where conventional crops do not grow well feed themselves. Argument that "there are too many people in the world" aside, I do not see how it could be a bad thing.
Again, let me ask you the same question. Do you think what you just said in way reasonable represents what I've stated throughout our discussion? And again, if I point out the [rather absurd] misrepresentation you're making, would it be likely to change your view one way or the other?
Well, I think that you are throwing strawmen by a barnful here, Monsanto, eugenics, whatnot, but other than a few inaccurate statements about food being bountiful and people not starving you are trying to avoid talking about what the real issue is -- would less hysteria about GMOs and increased use help with feeding people who are starving now, or not? It'a pretty simple, really.
And this is another straw man. I don't think many people particularly care if Monsanto wants to get setup shop in e.g. Zimbabwe. In fact, I don't even mind if they setup in the US. All I would like to see is appropriate labeling of products enabling people to make their own choice.
On the other issue though, you are now also lying or in complete denial of reality. I provided clearly sourced and strong evidence indicating that lack of food is not a problem, though distribution of food is. Your example of Zimbabwe was poorly chosen, but also a hornet's nest - which is why I chose not to get into it. But I'll go ahead and poke that nest now. They are arguably the poster boy for bad social decisions leading to hunger.
Back in ~2000 Zimbabwe decided to seize the land of white farmers and give it to black individuals in a purely racial attack. The problem is that it turns out that the locals have, even after years, been unable to develop the skills necessary to actually cultivate 'their' land, and the country has been in a food crisis ever since. You can find an enormous number of sources on this but here is one at random [1]. They actually tried to invite the former farmers back, but that ship has sailed.
Their drought is probably not even the straw that broke the camel's back. That back has been broken for years. Oh yes, and about the same time as Mugabe decided to seize all the lands of the white farmers, he also decided to return Zimbabwe to a socialist command system which has a rich history of starvation. There was a great article on that here [2]: "Last week we could not afford bread. This week we cannot get bread." The Atlantic also has a typically verbose writeup here [3], which I cannot say I have read - but the facts here are not exactly ambiguous.
We can even make some predictions here. Within a decade (and probably much sooner) you're also likely to see mass starvation in South Africa which is now following exactly in Zimbabwe's footsteps. And no, some seed is not going to suddenly solve these problems, especially if we want to get into exactly what is meant by 'increased yield' as it relates to engineered seed. It's not what you think, but again that's another topic!
As a matter of fact, you are now expanding on exactly the point I was making (or part of it anyway) -- in some places, of which Zimbabwe is an example, agricultural problems are caused by political issues. Normally it is a good place to grow stuff. The same just is not the case in, say, Sahel, and attempts to grow enough food using old methods and old crops just lead to deforestation, drought and generally more problems.
And while you personally may not mind GMO use, there are a lot of people, some of whom can negatively affect those countries, who, out of sheer ignorance as far as we can say at this time, very much do object to GMO use regardless of labeling.
Also, been a fun chat. But I think these things could be so much more civil if folks (on any side of any issue) would lay off the straw men. There's no need for that nonsense. It may make debate easier, but we should really be able to defend either side of any issue, within reason. Failing to be able to do so probably means you're not really considering the other person's point of view. And if you don't do this how would you ever expect to convince anybody of anything?
Right, and there are also people who who support GMOs out of pure ignorance. Lots of different people, lots of different views on most any topic of course! But I guess we're about wrapping up?
And this leads to the next problem. Genetically engineered products are patented inventions that come with a litany of terms and conditions on their usage. Among the terms Monsanto includes is that their seeds cannot be used for public research without specific permission from the company. [1] There was also an editorial on this here [2]. In other words most of every study you've seen on Monsanto products has been rubber stamped by Monsanto. There couldn't be a conflict of interest there, could there? As an aside Monsanto in turn then uses this bias to create appeals to authority. When new work is done that does cast their product in a negative light they then immediately appeal to the quantity of their 'approved' work to try to discredit the new work by authority alone. It's like arguing that the Sun must indeed revolve around the Earth because we have 200 years of science showing it does! Again, anytime you see an appeal to authority - I think it should make you rather curious about why somebody would go this route.
And there's also the issue of retaliation. The examples on the individual level are extensive, but let's consider how this goes all the way to the top in large part thanks to Monsanto's extreme success in we'll say 'influencing' the US government. Here's a quote: "Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory." What is that from? That was a response, proposed in a confidential US cable, to a retaliation against a grievous act from France. What was France's decision? The heinous and unspeakable act of ceasing cultivation of Monsanto Corn!!!
The exact tactics vary, but in general themes this is very similar to how leaded fuel persisted as long as it did. Similarly with CFCs. And again there are also plentiful other issues and themes in play here, but I'm trying to avoid writing a novel!
[1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies...
[2] - http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/opinion/la-oe-gurian...
[3] - https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html