Obama Gives Monsanto Get Out of Jail Free Card
- Thread starter GreatDane
- Start date
GreatDane said:
They lost me at Corporatist Democrats.
Strike that, they didn't lose me, I just stopped listening.
But Monsanto, BOOOOO!!!!!!
I like it how at the 3:20 mark she says this has nothing to do with science.
I've never understood the animosity towards a company whose sole livelihood is based on providing a safe and abundant food supply. What do they have to gain if the food is unhealthy for you?
I've never understood the animosity towards a company whose sole livelihood is based on providing a safe and abundant food supply. What do they have to gain if the food is unhealthy for you?
Huey, I'm not taking this position but those who do have animosity will say that that Monsanto and others are willing to sacrifice the long term health of the population in order to reap shorter term finacial rewards now, and that if GMOs were safe that such protections would be un-needed.
The big question in my mind - and I don't know the answer here - is, are GMOs safe or unsafe? Have they really been PROVEN to be unsafe, or is this a knee-jerk reaction to anything "unnatural"? Though I find even that question ironic, as farming itself is far from natural; farming is a type of technology too, regardless of what you're growing or how. There are a lot of people on this planet, and technology of one sort or another will become more and more critical to feeding all of them.
PaulyT said:
I think you have it backward. They need to be proven safe. The burden of proof should be on Monsanto to prove that their products don't cause health problems. There is a mounting body of evidence that GMO wheat causes all sorts of health issues and it isn't just wheat. Some of these GMO's contain proteins not found in the original food. These proteins can have long term health consequences.
Here's what I know but what most people don't appear to know.
I read Science News when growing up and well into my young adulthood. GMO based crops were introduced to feed livestock in the 1980s and even more in the 1990s to test the safety aspect of using the plants a food. They followed the lineage of upward of ten generations of livestock and tested vigorously using all the powers of science available to find any reason at all the associate GMO crops to health risks, both short term and long term. It wasn't until the scientists AND the FDA were completely satisfied that GMOs were safe as long as proper research and genetic knowledge of the plants were provided (due diligence) that they started testing on Humans, which was also performed for years before they were satisfied they were safe beyond any reasonable doubt.
Now, all that research, which is explained theoretically in scientific papers (but much of which is considered trade secrets the companies want to keep out of the hands of their competitors, and for good reason) is not accepted or known by the general public.
What these companies were trying to accomplish was to solve many of the major issues of traditional agriculture, like the out of control use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers which were hurting our environment. They wanted to get more nutrition to people year round and reduce the amount of waste in rotten produce being tossed out because it would rot before it sold. They wanted to enhance the nutritional properties of common produce to make the planet healthier. And, by doing that well, they wanted to make money.
Most of these researchers and scientists did this work with an absolute belief they were helping mankind. Because they are - how many of you can remember the 1970s when the only way to get vegetables in winter was to buy frozen or canned. AND, when there were vegetables, there was little selection and often they were not very ripe or already rotten.
This hard work has already improved the nutritional health of our population.
So, the next question... why is GMO the most dangerous thing we face in the supermarket? For centuries botanists have cross-bred crops to produce tastier or healthier or greater yielding crops. Heck, the orange carrot is not natural at all, it was bred by botanists in Holland to honor their royal family. A by product of their breeding an orange carrot was that the carrot became healthier with more Vitamin-A and other good nutrient, a the time they didn't understand the concept of vitamins.
Botanists have used cross-breeding to take anti-fungal properties of one poisonous plant and added that property to healthy food crops we eat. It has been used to make tomatoes stay ripe longer. It has been used to increase the yield of corn, wheat, and other staples. Cross-breeding has made some crops drought resistant and less likely to be attacked by common swarming bugs.
In the GMO process, instead of experimenting with thousands of attempts to cross-breed one property from a foreign plant into the DNA of a food crop, they are identifying exactly what gene is responsible for that property and activating (or suppressing) it to get the results needed to solve a production, health, or satisfaction issue in the original crop. How is that so evil?
How many generations of tests need to be conducted on chickens, rats, monkeys and humans before the public will accept GMO for what the scientist hope it is? We are already talking about genetically altering humans to prevent cancer, birth defects, and even to get attributes which are purely cosmetic like blue eyes and large breasts. Somehow thousands of people using gene therapy is okay but altering the genes of a plant are not.
How long do the scientists have to invest billions of dollars in technology which may end hunger permanently or improve the health of humans around the world before we will accept their work and the research they've done?
We accept the junk science of bottled water being healthier than filtered tap water. We accept the idea that organic farming is inherently healthier than non-organic farming (there is a significantly higher risk of tainted food from organic farming). We accept eye surgery, cancer treatments, most medicines, medical imaging technologies, synthetic fabrics, and other magnificent advancements to the health and quality of life, but we refuse to accept this amazing technology which could help the world more than all the other things we do?
So, when does the jury come to a conclusion? I get the impression the "jury will be out" considering the safety of GMOs forever - or at least until the jury finds in favor of those who are convinced GMOs will kill us.
I read Science News when growing up and well into my young adulthood. GMO based crops were introduced to feed livestock in the 1980s and even more in the 1990s to test the safety aspect of using the plants a food. They followed the lineage of upward of ten generations of livestock and tested vigorously using all the powers of science available to find any reason at all the associate GMO crops to health risks, both short term and long term. It wasn't until the scientists AND the FDA were completely satisfied that GMOs were safe as long as proper research and genetic knowledge of the plants were provided (due diligence) that they started testing on Humans, which was also performed for years before they were satisfied they were safe beyond any reasonable doubt.
Now, all that research, which is explained theoretically in scientific papers (but much of which is considered trade secrets the companies want to keep out of the hands of their competitors, and for good reason) is not accepted or known by the general public.
What these companies were trying to accomplish was to solve many of the major issues of traditional agriculture, like the out of control use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers which were hurting our environment. They wanted to get more nutrition to people year round and reduce the amount of waste in rotten produce being tossed out because it would rot before it sold. They wanted to enhance the nutritional properties of common produce to make the planet healthier. And, by doing that well, they wanted to make money.
Most of these researchers and scientists did this work with an absolute belief they were helping mankind. Because they are - how many of you can remember the 1970s when the only way to get vegetables in winter was to buy frozen or canned. AND, when there were vegetables, there was little selection and often they were not very ripe or already rotten.
This hard work has already improved the nutritional health of our population.
So, the next question... why is GMO the most dangerous thing we face in the supermarket? For centuries botanists have cross-bred crops to produce tastier or healthier or greater yielding crops. Heck, the orange carrot is not natural at all, it was bred by botanists in Holland to honor their royal family. A by product of their breeding an orange carrot was that the carrot became healthier with more Vitamin-A and other good nutrient, a the time they didn't understand the concept of vitamins.
Botanists have used cross-breeding to take anti-fungal properties of one poisonous plant and added that property to healthy food crops we eat. It has been used to make tomatoes stay ripe longer. It has been used to increase the yield of corn, wheat, and other staples. Cross-breeding has made some crops drought resistant and less likely to be attacked by common swarming bugs.
In the GMO process, instead of experimenting with thousands of attempts to cross-breed one property from a foreign plant into the DNA of a food crop, they are identifying exactly what gene is responsible for that property and activating (or suppressing) it to get the results needed to solve a production, health, or satisfaction issue in the original crop. How is that so evil?
How many generations of tests need to be conducted on chickens, rats, monkeys and humans before the public will accept GMO for what the scientist hope it is? We are already talking about genetically altering humans to prevent cancer, birth defects, and even to get attributes which are purely cosmetic like blue eyes and large breasts. Somehow thousands of people using gene therapy is okay but altering the genes of a plant are not.
How long do the scientists have to invest billions of dollars in technology which may end hunger permanently or improve the health of humans around the world before we will accept their work and the research they've done?
We accept the junk science of bottled water being healthier than filtered tap water. We accept the idea that organic farming is inherently healthier than non-organic farming (there is a significantly higher risk of tainted food from organic farming). We accept eye surgery, cancer treatments, most medicines, medical imaging technologies, synthetic fabrics, and other magnificent advancements to the health and quality of life, but we refuse to accept this amazing technology which could help the world more than all the other things we do?
So, when does the jury come to a conclusion? I get the impression the "jury will be out" considering the safety of GMOs forever - or at least until the jury finds in favor of those who are convinced GMOs will kill us.
Flint, very well said. It isn't often we agree, but that was about as well penned argument for gmo's that I have read.
From my understanding, the reason that this was inserted wasn't to keep the biotech companies from being sued by the consumer, but to keep them from being wrapped up in litigation by a competitor or activist group. Anybody can sue anybody, and if I claim is made, it is up to the judge to decide whether that product has to be shelved or not, until it is played out in courts. So some environmental group could sue a biotech company, without any science to back them up, and the biotech company could see their product put on hold, until they can prove in court that it is safe, which they had already proven it was safe with the proper regulatory agencies. So yes, like DIY'er said, it's all politics.
From my understanding, the reason that this was inserted wasn't to keep the biotech companies from being sued by the consumer, but to keep them from being wrapped up in litigation by a competitor or activist group. Anybody can sue anybody, and if I claim is made, it is up to the judge to decide whether that product has to be shelved or not, until it is played out in courts. So some environmental group could sue a biotech company, without any science to back them up, and the biotech company could see their product put on hold, until they can prove in court that it is safe, which they had already proven it was safe with the proper regulatory agencies. So yes, like DIY'er said, it's all politics.
Flint said:
I would say that most people should be aware that GMO based crops have been around for quite a while and have done wonders for our food supply. But the jury isn't still out for the exact same question. The Vanishing of the Bees documentary gives good insight into one of the possible issues generated not necessarily by GMO based crops, but by grand scale agricultural practice with pesticides (they are put directly on the seed so it grows in/with the crop) and may be causing surprisingly large percentages of the US bee population to die. Many believe Monsanto seems to push forward with their practice w/o regard to general environmental issues. Many people (hahaha there I go again) will either knowingly close their eyes or simply not be aware of, what, when questioned evenly slightly, may not have definitive answers. And when there are no definitive answers, this causes the "jury to still be out". Food Inc. also raises some interesting questions about the food industry and it's practices. It is also very easy to believe that Monsanto or any other grand scale agricultural/food business is like Umbrella Corp (Resident Evil reference) and is pursuing $ above all else and thus discounting all the good that is done by them (at least in argument but not necessarily practice). The general thought that "corporations bad" is not at all surprising.
Huey said:
What scares me is the political power these Agra/Food corporations wield.
They have often and repeatedly done wonders for the good 'ol USA and the world, but some things just strike a very bad note.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin's_Law - General info about a boy who died from E-Coli in a burger he ate
and the mother, when interviewed in the Food Inc. documentary, will not say that she thinks the beef industry or specifically the company that made the ground beef, is at all to blame due to fear of legal reprisal. She basically can't say it because it is illegal to do so.
Food borne illnesses happen. But that political/legal condescension is worrying to me.