Obama Gives Monsanto Get Out of Jail Free Card

[Flint]

Okay... I see your point, but I get back to my original question early in this thread: How much testing is enough to start growing GMOs and feeding humans with them? The amount of research and testing that went into these food crops far exceeds the testing and research that went into Aspirin, Penicillin, Dr. Pepper, or many vitamins.

All of the fears seem based on the "what if?" principle. "What if it turns out these GMOs and their production happen to be what is causing autism, or allergies, or death, or the disappearance of bees?" Well, what if they are not responsible? How long do we have to keep testing?

This is similar to the fear-mongering that led to the banning of DDT, a truly safe insecticide which had started us down the path of eradicating malaria in the 3rd world and increasing life expectancy and the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people. Today most government environmental agencies consider DDT perfectly safe for use, but the public opinion is still way too negative for anyone to use it.

So, now what?

I guess the macro-question is, do the benefits of GMO crop production outweigh the real risks? If so, then we should push forward. If not, then what would it take to alleviate the fears and reduce the apparent risks?

You say there should be more testing. Well, there is. There piles of researchers still studying this stuff. But, the standard set for a food producer to prove the safety of their products has been wildly exceeded by Monsanto and their peers. In fact, more proof was needed for these food-stuffs than just about any other new food product in history.

 

[Flint]

By the way, I am not trying to be a jerk. I just really want to take this debate as far as it will go as I hear some pretty extreme statements from both sides which I would like to better understand.

 

[The DirtMerchant]

By the way, I am not trying to be a jerk. I just really want to take this debate as far as it will go as I hear some pretty extreme statements from both sides which I would like to better understand.

No worries. You aren't being a jerk.

 

[Huey]

I think people fear it because they don't understand it. Fear the unknown and what not. Monsanto has not done themselves any good with their public image, but they are an agriculture only company, meaning if this fails, they are in a world of hurt. Although if they weren't doing this somebody else would be.

 

[GreatDane]

One of the reasons why these companies are so opposed to labeling is that independent groups would then be able to track the diseases that are caused by genetically engineered foods. They would finally be able to publicly conduct controlled studies that are focused on the health implications. Universities and research foundations are currently unable to perform such health-related research on genetically engineered foods, because both the seeds and the genetically engineered genes are patented. Seed producers either refuse to provide the seeds, or only provide them with non-disclosure agreements that prevent researchers from revealing the results to the public. This how the “science” of genetic engineering is manipulated to ensure that only positive results get published. The scarcity of independent research that actually does get published is an indication of how bad the results must be overall.- http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/06/10 ... cott-list/

 

[Flint]

Not entirely sure that's completely true. My alma mater is researching patented GMOs for efficacy right now.

 

[The DirtMerchant]

Okay... I see your point, but I get back to my original question early in this thread: How much testing is enough to start growing GMOs and feeding humans with them? The amount of research and testing that went into these food crops far exceeds the testing and research that went into Aspirin, Penicillin, Dr. Pepper, or many vitamins.

All of the fears seem based on the "what if?" principle. "What if it turns out these GMOs and their production happen to be what is causing autism, or allergies, or death, or the disappearance of bees?" Well, what if they are not responsible? How long do we have to keep testing?
This is similar to the fear-mongering that led to the banning of DDT, a truly safe insecticide which had started us down the path of eradicating malaria in the 3rd world and increasing life expectancy and the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people. Today most government environmental agencies consider DDT perfectly safe for use, but the public opinion is still way too negative for anyone to use it.
So, now what?
I guess the macro-question is, do the benefits of GMO crop production outweigh the real risks? If so, then we should push forward. If not, then what would it take to alleviate the fears and reduce the apparent risks?
You say there should be more testing. Well, there is. There piles of researchers still studying this stuff. But, the standard set for a food producer to prove the safety of their products has been wildly exceeded by Monsanto and their peers. In fact, more proof was needed for these food-stuffs than just about any other new food product in history.

I think we are way past enough testing to grow GMOs. However, as the proliferation of GMOs increases, the sample size of people eating it also gets larger. If you're going to feed tens of millions of people or hundreds of millions of people or even billions, then testing should be done for decades (after the maximum proliferation is reached and testing has continued for years or decades beyond). The rates of issues (autism, allergies, death, disappearance of bees) is low in the first place, but is increasing. If there is ANY proof or possibility that GMOs increase the incidence of any of the issues, it must/should be studied continuously.

DDT is a good illustration of a part of the problem. Increases quality of life (mosquitoes/malaria/etc), but pre-puberty exposure and you are more likely to develop breast cancer. So, that isn't causation exactly but, by study, correlation. It also builds up in the ground and has a half life between 22 days and 30 years and in the human body between 6 and 10 years. Also causes thinning of bird eggs which increases lack of viability. So as a regular guy, do I want this stuff in my ground/water/body/environment at all? Not really. Am I willing to tolerate some so that millions don't get malaria...I guess, but not for widespread and consistent use. This is something that is not a simple yes/no answer. Being 51% "right" and thus having the benefits outweigh the costs and thus we shouldn't have any restrictions at all would be wrong. Being 51% "left"...in cases like this, I would much prefer to err on the side of caution (aka let's not risk the health issues) and if DDT would try to come out of the ban, show me/us exactly what the LONG term health effects are. Being an informed consumer is important and necessary.

Having said all that...GMO production is not what I have serious hangups about (though I do think testing/checking/research should continue to be done). What worries me moreso is the expanding use of chemicals in everything. Coating a seed in pesticides so that it is just part of the plant just does not seem like a great health move to me. If pesticides kill the bugs or keep them away, that's great. But to now make it part of what I ingest in so much of my food...not so great. Also the constant? increasing? use of chemicals becomes more and more troubling. We can try to keep stuffing more and more chemicals/reasons/practices under the umbrella of "the good of the many" and not wanting people to starve etc...but that to me is a constantly moving line. And the corporations have a responsibility, more so than the individual, to ensure overall safety, healthiness and quality of what they produce and to surpass that moving line. I'm not excusing personal responsibility, I take as many measures as I can to eat healthy/well and to give my family foods that don't have anything "unfit for human consumption". But I should not have to skip such large swaths of my grocery store to do so.

A friend of mine works in food science for some company. Her group a couple years ago was tasked to create a blueberry muffin in which the blueberries did not bleed into the rest of the muffin. They had to find a way to treat the blueberry with chemicals or treat the muffin batter to accomplish this. This way, when you broke the muffin open, it would look homogeneous and more appetizing. And I say that is an unnecessary use of chemicals. Appetizing looking muffins treated with chemicals to make it look more appetizing, while it may increase sales is just a bad idea and something that makes no sense to me. And you can say "well, what if the chemicals are proven to be no threat to health" and you may be right, but it still seems unnecessary. Increasing man made or unnatural chemical intake is just a bad idea.

 

[Huey]

Dirtmerchant, I have a problem with your analogy of treating seeds, which have been done almost since the inception of seed companies. While they may be using newer classes of insecticides, they are still the same family of insecticides. I know they are looking at seed treatments in the bee die off, but I would be very surprised if they ever produced a link between the two. Besides, it is a very minute amount, and is designed to only protect the seed. Being able to find any of those insecticides in an adult plant would be very difficult.

Let me ask you this question though. Sweet corn is now available which has a gmo insect resistance built in. One of the first products that is available that is directly eaten by you an I. What would you rather eat, a worm free ear of GMO sweet corn, or an ear of corn that was sprayed the day before with a product that has skull and crossbones on the container, and probably has a worm in 25% of the ears? And yes, most insecticides sprayed on sweet corn, allow for the harvest of the ears only 24 hours after spraying.

 

[The DirtMerchant]

Dirtmerchant, I have a problem with your analogy of treating seeds, which have been done almost since the inception of seed companies. While they may be using newer classes of insecticides, they are still the same family of insecticides. I know they are looking at seed treatments in the bee die off, but I would be very surprised if they ever produced a link between the two. Besides, it is a very minute amount, and is designed to only protect the seed. Being able to find any of those insecticides in an adult plant would be very difficult.

Let me ask you this question though. Sweet corn is now available which has a gmo insect resistance built in. One of the first products that is available that is directly eaten by you an I. What would you rather eat, a worm free ear of GMO sweet corn, or an ear of corn that was sprayed the day before with a product that has skull and crossbones on the container, and probably has a worm in 25% of the ears? And yes, most insecticides sprayed on sweet corn, allow for the harvest of the ears only 24 hours after spraying.

I don't pretend to be any knowledge center, just asking questions and discussing. Want to learn and question, that's all...

RE: seed treating since the inception of seed companies...Correction is good, as I said, learn new things
But are the chemicals and insecticides exactly the same? Or have the chemicals changed chemically/process wise/container/base chemical production etc? Because if they have, then I say test it again just as arduously as the first time. This is food supply after all and reaches millions of people. And while it may be minute amounts in each seed...how many seeds is that? over how many seasons? I know it can be fear mongering, but...trace amounts add up. Even a tiny bit of shit in food can cause all kinds of problems right?

As for a worm free ear of GMO corn or worm free corn sprayed with skull/crossbones chemicals...GMO corn. As I stated above, my general uneasiness is more centered on chemical overuse/misuse than on GMO. But spray and/or seed treating is still chemicals, right? So, there are levels upon levels (spraying/treating/etc)...some I question/doubt more than others but I do have questions about some more than others.

 

[Huey]

I think this has been a good conversation so far, and I like learning new things as well Dirtmerchant. Seeds, at least in corn and soybean production, are usually treated with insecticides, fungicides, and maybe some type of growth promoter. Probably the biggest thing to give any credence to seed treatments having a negative affect on bees, is the last 5 years, there has been a big push to treat soybean seed, which I do believe bees are needed to pollinate the crop. Everybody in agriculture is real nervous about the bee die off, as there would be world wide famine if we lost the bees.

 

[Flint]

From my modest understanding, most "chemicals" are the same compounds, or molecules, which naturally occurring organisms produce which have been isolated and mass produced through a chemical process. For instance, if a certain plant produces a sap which reduces bug infestation, a chemical company will study that sap and discover exactly what compound or molecule causes the insect defense and find some means for mass producing just that compound or molecule. That way they can mass produce the core component which causes effectiveness and weaken it with water, oils, or whatever to match the levels found in the natural sap. Is that a chemical?

What if they recreated the entire sap identically? Would that be a chemical?

Most of our medicines are actually the molecules which are found to be effective in getting the results some herbal remedy has used for centuries. Isolating the effective molecule is the very nature of most modern agricultural and pharmaceutical products.

Are those chemicals?

 

[The DirtMerchant]

From my modest understanding, most "chemicals" are the same compounds, or molecules, which naturally occurring organisms produce which have been isolated and mass produced through a chemical process. For instance, if a certain plant produces a sap which reduces bug infestation, a chemical company will study that sap and discover exactly what compound or molecule causes the insect defense and find some means for mass producing just that compound or molecule. That way they can mass produce the core component which causes effectiveness and weaken it with water, oils, or whatever to match the levels found in the natural sap. Is that a chemical?

What if they recreated the entire sap identically? Would that be a chemical?

Most of our medicines are actually the molecules which are found to be effective in getting the results some herbal remedy has used for centuries. Isolating the effective molecule is the very nature of most modern agricultural and pharmaceutical products.

Are those chemicals?

If they recreated the entire sap identically, that would be sap.
But if they recreated most of the sap identically and replaced a few of the molecules with other chemicals or compounds for whatever reasons (cost reduction, effectiveness) then we get into "chemicals".

 

[The DirtMerchant]

I think this has been a good conversation so far, and I like learning new things as well Dirtmerchant. Seeds, at least in corn and soybean production, are usually treated with insecticides, fungicides, and maybe some type of growth promoter. Probably the biggest thing to give any credence to seed treatments having a negative affect on bees, is the last 5 years, there has been a big push to treat soybean seed, which I do believe bees are needed to pollinate the crop. Everybody in agriculture is real nervous about the bee die off, as there would be world wide famine if we lost the bees.

And this is the kind of thing that should push companies to do more/further research. Because, how can we continue doing exactly the same thing when we know something or some combination of things is causing the bee die-off? And from what I read/understand...the die off is happening pretty fast. Maybe the certain pesticide ban (for 2 years or something) and required research/study in Europe will give return and enough knowledge to totally ban/change/reintroduce the pesticides...but can we continue for several years w/o making changes? Will the bee population last that long? Worldwide famine would be a REALLY bad deal. Stopping to take a breath and research for a couple years compared to that alternative sounds MUCH better.

 

[Huey]

I believe one of the nastiest class of insecticides is a synthetic compound derived from chrysthaneums(sp), and like Flint stated, most compounds are created because they saw something in nature and then refined. Which is exactly what they have done with GMO's, found something in nature, and made it work for them.

I keep thinking back to Jeff Goldblum's line in Jurrasic Park about how Mother Nature always wins. All these pests that we try to control, there are always those that are resistant, so unless we continue to find new ways to control the pests, we are soon left with something of epidemic proportions. We are quickly seeing that with anti-biotics.

 

[The DirtMerchant]

From my modest understanding, most "chemicals" are the same compounds, or molecules, which naturally occurring organisms produce which have been isolated and mass produced through a chemical process. For instance, if a certain plant produces a sap which reduces bug infestation, a chemical company will study that sap and discover exactly what compound or molecule causes the insect defense and find some means for mass producing just that compound or molecule. That way they can mass produce the core component which causes effectiveness and weaken it with water, oils, or whatever to match the levels found in the natural sap. Is that a chemical?

What if they recreated the entire sap identically? Would that be a chemical?

Most of our medicines are actually the molecules which are found to be effective in getting the results some herbal remedy has used for centuries. Isolating the effective molecule is the very nature of most modern agricultural and pharmaceutical products.

Are those chemicals?

If they recreated the entire sap identically, that would be sap.
But if they recreated most of the sap identically and replaced a few of the molecules with other chemicals or compounds for whatever reasons (cost reduction, effectiveness) then we get into "chemicals".

I used to drink Simply Orange orange juice. It was excellent. Not that strange processed looking OJ like Tropicana.
Looked like OJ and everything. Good Morning America did a story that all brands of fresh squeezed OJ put their OJ in huge vats w/ no oxygen for up to a year. In which it loses flavor. So to get that standard taste they add flavor packets giving it that fresh taste/smell again. The flavor packets aren't required to be shown on the labels. As I've said, I prefer to be an informed consumer, so I read labels. How am I supposed to know about ingesting chemicals when they are apparently in there, yet it doesn't say so? These are the reasons that I distrust the honesty of food companies. The line of thinking that they know what's OK, or worse, what is within the rules. And if they think it is OK or simply within the rules, then it is not a problem for anyone.

I used to wonder a bit why every bottle of OJ tasted the same yet different oranges at different times of the year are always different. I would think to myself that, well, they always use a proprietary blend of different oranges and it stays that way, kind of like the Colonel's secret recipe. Sadly, now I no longer wonder...nor do I drink Simply Orange juice.

 

[The DirtMerchant]

I believe one of the nastiest class of insecticides is a synthetic compound derived from chrysthaneums(sp), and like Flint stated, most compounds are created because they saw something in nature and then refined. Which is exactly what they have done with GMO's, found something in nature, and made it work for them.

I keep thinking back to Jeff Goldblum's line in Jurrasic Park about how Mother Nature always wins. All these pests that we try to control, there are always those that are resistant, so unless we continue to find new ways to control the pests, we are soon left with something of epidemic proportions. We are quickly seeing that with anti-biotics.

If Monsanto is as bad as some people believe, they are intentionally creating a catch-22 of resistant pests requiring new pest controls for the sake of profit. I don't think it is to that level, or even near that level.

However, how much of difference will it make if any of these companies created it intentionally or created it unintentionally?
It will just be SHITTY for everyone involved. Hope they are stepping as carefully as at all possible. Because food supply is a BIG deal.

 

[Flint]

Here's what I know about corporations from my nearly 20 years of working in, with, and around the largest corporations in the world: They will spend nearly any amount of money to avoid a lawsuit of government action against them.

Basically put, forget the fact that MOST people at any company, big or small, are generally good people who don't want to ever do anything bad - every company is terrified of that multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit or equivalent government action. No one wants to end up like the asbestos manufacturers or the silicon breast implant companies. They will stop at nothing to make sure they are not liable for some catastrophic action against them. Oil companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year cleaning up the former messes before anyone can file a suit, even if their old messes are already protected by government decree or legal documents (such as selling the land to a new company and that new company accepting all liability). Big-pharma companies constantly pay for more and more and more studies trying to find ANYTHING they need to be ready to address or which can be corrected immediately in their products so a jury will believe they did everything they could to be as safe as possible.

The GMO companies, from what I've read, are doing similar, but more so. If they ever do end up in court, they will produce so much solid, real, and effective research than you could ever imagine. Why isn't that stuff published for the public? Because it all requires that terribly thing, interpretation. And whenever interpretation is required there are anti-corporate and anti-commercial science activists who will interpret every single aspect of any study as being evil. Always evil.

The standard by which we say "even if one life is endangered by this thing, it must be stopped" is flawed in every possible way, yet that is what we hear all the time. By that standard we must never, ever product anything with peanuts - we should even eradicate them from the planet. We should ban shellfish, diary products, sunlight, strawberries, and any other food product which can kill people if exposed to them. After all, if a single person can be killed by a product, it should be banned, right?

Well, corporations are fearful of those types of activists who will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals. I've seen it in my business, the computer world, where a known issue where less than 0.5% of the units shipped from a particular model will fail from a known capacitor issue and the company is expected to proactively replace or refund 100% of those units at an enormous cost despite that fact that we all know more than 3% of those units shipped will fail from a hard drive or fan failure in the three year expected life-span. It is a stupid expectation that 100% of the population will not be adversely affected by any product.

But then we come to the very real issue of the environment. We have had hundreds of cases of new crops causing catastrophic environmental damage - like the non-rotated and single-crop issues which contributed to the dust bowl or the famous potato famine, or the fact that every single vineyard in France is based on grapes not native to France after a terrible decease killed off the entire nation's grape crops. There's the barren islands in Aegean sea from over-harvesting of timber. The list goes on and on and on.

What is safe?

I believe in the laws of the free market. If Monsanto or any other company wants to be successful with happy share holders, they have to make a product which is both desired and popular AND will last the test time without ruining their own business. Any failures to accomplish those goals are truly mysterious or based on a few people really fucking up and being greedy bastards. Again, I am convinced few people at any corporation will allow pure evil to occur.

 

[The DirtMerchant]

I am also convinced few people at any corporation will allow pure evil to occur. But what if it is unintentional? I don't think Monsanto is evil, but if they are in control of the eco-system...they better be able to prove health/quality/responsibility repeatedly, often and relentlessly upon request every day and twice on Sunday.

And, go ahead, produce things with peanuts in it. My son would probably come pretty close to death if he ate a peanut, I'm not asking them to stop. Just be sure to tell me if it is in there and what else is in the product. The fear mongering and over zealousness on either side is trying. But while it may be a bit much, to dismiss them (again on either side) without some level of consideration can prove to be just as dumb.

Aren't they still producing silicon breast implants? And aren't they still being implanted more than saline?

 

[Huey]

The problem with labeling is, all that will happen if that were to become a law is that all products would now say "May contain GMO's". To get a product that does not have GMO's will now command a premium, and you will pay more for the same product.

 

[The DirtMerchant]

The problem with labeling is, all that will happen if that were to become a law is that all products would now say "May contain GMO's". To get a product that does not have GMO's will now command a premium, and you will pay more for the same product.

I pay that premium already for/with organic produce, which I buy whenever I have the option. If I have to pay more to have items that do not have things I don't want in them, or think I don't want in them, well, that's my choice and I am willing to pay for it. I don't want GMOs to go away, I just want to know where/what they are. Same with the chemical issue (and more). So that I can be an informed consumer. On the list of items that give me pause is that OJ example...they aren't required to list everything, so they do not. I'm not avoiding Simply Orange because there are flavor packets in it, I am avoiding it because they lie by omission.