Monsanto/GMO woo vs science

[scaramanga]

Yes farmed salmon have ben seen as a possible replacement for wild fish

By whom?

and their lack of competiveness has debunked that idea. However, farmed, genetically modified fish are perfectly capable of reaching the spawning redds and fertilising wild salmon eggs and stuffing up wild strains of fish. But who cares hey, it's all about the money!

You've just contradicted yourself in a single post.

If farmed salmon lacks the ability to compete properly, then it can't make a significant contribution to the gene pool.

 

[braineclipse]

Last time I checked, smoked salmon wasn't on the menu of starving Ethiopians.

I'm not sure if you think this is actually a point in this (so far) serious conversation. I kind of hope you don't.

Errrrr, let me, ahhhh, put this, hmmmm, bluntly.
If you think fudgeing around with the world's food supplies simply to keep your investors happy and profit margins high, whatever the long-term effects might be to human beings OF that modification, then we have no further opinions to exchange. I will leave you with a phrase - you can these days get tits thanks to chickens. And I don't mean that macaron you might see stumbling out of KFC on the High Street at midnight.

Anything done in any industry "simply to keep your investors happy and profit margins high, whatever the long-term effects might be to human beings" is obviously going to be bad. And we have many examples in many industries of that happening. That doesn't mean we shouldn't proceed with scientific and technological progress in that field.

There must be oversight and regulations. There should be serious conversations between serious people on what we should and shouldn't do. If, for the sake of argument, I accept that Monsanto have done a lot wrong and do not represent a good way of handling the GMO question can we have a conversation about how GMO should be handled?

I think the single biggest problem here is that I genuinely do not believe you will ever consider any source which is counter to your opinion as reliable. Any examples offered are countered with varying degrees of distrust and suspicion which (ironically) leave the perception of the sort of 'tin-foil-hatter' you tend to level at those in opposition. There have been plenty of examples offered showing you what Monsanto is about, how they operate and the immense might of their system. I even offered a wide-ranging series of pieces arguing both sides of the coin, yet you want me to point out the issues. You don't want to see them.

It causes discussion to become sabre rattling at a certain point, thus you enjoy not believing a word of it my friend. I will continue to choose not to trust the ethos and ethics behind Monsanto.

Do you trust the ethos and ethics behind Apple, Facebook, Ford, Gazprom or other industry leading large multinational companies?

ha, ha, I'll be he's a climate change denier as well. You, here look at this data from NASA. Him, its a world communist/Green inspired conspiracy. You, here is data from the Royal Society. Him, those numbers are cooked.

This is entirely unfair. Scaramanga is showing what I think is a very science minded and sceptical approach to this. Sceptical as in evaluating the evidence objectively and accepting the consensus of scientific experts in their fields.

I assume you think the data for climate change is convincing. I assume you think that's related to the scientific consensus on the matter? If we ask for consistency can you point me towards what you think is the scientific consensus on GMOs?

 

[scaramanga]

First of all, and sad to say because in this case I agree that the following are tossy, Chopra and Trump are entertained and believed by millions. They also both, for the amount of bricke they talk, make some fair points. I think aligning (personally) aligning them with Mercola is wide.

Here is a general Monsanto timeline. We can debate details if you wish, but the bottom line is that if it walks like a duck and acts like a duck, then for me, it's a duck. Monsanto's track record as a company shows that they are interested in profit over concern for life. I do not trust them. IMO, neither should you.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-co...anto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation/5387964

Finally I am aware that Global Research is not a major conglomerate-owned media outlet, but there are hard facts in this simple timeline which circumvent opinion. They simply either get reported or not (depending on the bent of the outlet). Media and the increasing hardship in finding balanced coverage, is another issue and another topic of debate (as is corporate/corporate-legal influence over media generally)...

Firstly, ignore everything before around 2002 - that's a different company with the same name. It was bought by some Swedish company in 2002 and is now owned by Pfizer, I believe.

Anyone writing a piece on Monsanto who isn't capable of discovering that or making that distinction really hasn't done any worthwhile research at all

I'll pick through the post-2002 stuff later today - got to get my son ready and head to work first.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

By whom?


You've just contradicted yourself in a single post.

If farmed salmon lacks the ability to compete properly, then it can't make a significant contribution to the gene pool.

Long term they are not viable, but it only takes a few successful fish to spawn with wild fish and the damage is done. When salmon habitat started to slide about forty years ago, it was suggested by the environmental vandals that it didn't matter because wild fish could be supplemented by artificially stocked fish. For many reasons this has been debunked. This is another reason I reject GM food, the idea that we can keep degrading our environment because science can keep developing plants and animals that can cope with the increased disease caused by drought, heat loss of habitat etc. People need to wake the fudge up.

 

[scaramanga]

Long term they are not viable, but it only takes a few successful fish to spawn with wild fish and the damage is done. When salmon habitat started to slide about forty years ago, it was suggested by the environmental vandals that it didn't matter because wild fish could be supplemented by artificially stocked fish. For many reasons this has been debunked. This is another reason I reject GM food, the idea that we can keep degrading our environment because science can keep developing plants and animals that can cope with the increased disease caused by drought, heat loss of habitat etc. People need to wake the fudge up.

That's not how genetics works.

If the salmon genetically lack competitiveness in terms of breeding (and it's believed they do) then over the course of a large number of births, they will not be able to pass on their genes. The odd few may get through, but genetics and evolution are about massive numbers of replication which would swamp any number like that.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

That's not how genetics works.

If the salmon genetically lack competitiveness in terms of breeding (and it's believed they do) then over the course of a large number of births, they will not be able to pass on their genes. The odd few may get through, but genetics and evolution are about massive numbers of replication which would swamp any number like that.

In small river systems only a small number GM getting to the redds would pose a real risk. I said it had been debunked for all sorts of reasons. One was that farmed fish lost their aversion to predators, they also lacked the ability to return to their home river and got lost at sea, there were all sorts of reasons other than being GM. Also, salmon farms reside alongside particular river systems and those rivers have particular strains which can be polluted by a relatively low number of GM fish. Your error is in viewing Atlantic Salmon as a monolithic species, when in fact there are all sorts of subtle variations which help a particular strain fit a particular ecological niche, i.e. not all rivers are the same, not all salmon are the same. This holds for the whole practise of farming salmon, as well as the added disaster of them being genetically modified. BTW Scara, what does 'evolution' have to do with anything? We are talking about the immediate genetic pollution of a species. I'm a fly fisher and have a fair amount of experience and interest in these ecological issues. Most fly fisherman do.

 

[scaramanga]

In small knitting blog systems only a small number GM getting to the redds would pose a real risk. I said it had been debunked for all sorts of reasons. One was that farmed fish lost their aversion to predators, they also lacked the ability to return to their home knitting blog and got lost at sea, there were all sorts of reasons other than being GM. Also, salmon farms reside alongside particular knitting blog systems and those knitting blogs have particular strains which can be polluted by a relatively low number of GM fish. Your error is in viewing Atlantic Salmon as a monolithic species, when in fact there are all sorts of subtle variations which help a particular strain fit a particular ecological niche, i.e. not all knitting blogs are the same, not all salmon are the same. This holds for the whole practise of farming salmon, as well as the added disaster of them being genetically modified. BTW, I'm a fly fisher and have a fair amount of experience in these ecological issues. Most fly fisherman do.

Do you have experience of accidentally catching GM salmon?

Because to my understanding (of genetics, not fishing), fish that are not very good at breeding don't pass on their genetic traits very well. That goes for all species in all population sizes.

It is possible to force genes to be dominant, but I'd be surprised if anyone is doing that except when planning to make changes in the wild (which has only been discussed in terms of Malaria AFAIK). It would just be a waste of time for a controlled environment like a fish farm.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

I'm not sure if you think this is actually a point in this (so far) serious conversation. I kind of hope you don't.



Anything done in any industry "simply to keep your investors happy and profit margins high, whatever the long-term effects might be to human beings" is obviously going to be bad. And we have many examples in many industries of that happening. That doesn't mean we shouldn't proceed with scientific and technological progress in that field.

There must be oversight and regulations. There should be serious conversations between serious people on what we should and shouldn't do. If, for the sake of argument, I accept that Monsanto have done a lot wrong and do not represent a good way of handling the GMO question can we have a conversation about how GMO should be handled?



Do you trust the ethos and ethics behind Apple, Facebook, Ford, Gazprom or other industry leading large multinational companies?



This is entirely unfair. Scaramanga is showing what I think is a very science minded and sceptical approach to this. Sceptical as in evaluating the evidence objectively and accepting the consensus of scientific experts in their fields.

I assume you think the data for climate change is convincing. I assume you think that's related to the scientific consensus on the matter? If we ask for consistency can you point me towards what you think is the scientific consensus on GMOs?

How many times does it have to be said? Even if the science is okay, GM food removes freedom of choice. That's why I oppose it. Also it is being used as a sop to convince people that environmental degradation is okay because the scientists will be able to produce super organisms that can cope. So people just disregard the fact that the planet is being turned into a wasteland. Don't bother with having pristine rivers that contain wild stocks of salmon, because we can have these fatty, artificially dyed GM fish growing in nets off the estuary. Which by the way are also polluting the ecosystem with their waste and hey, hey, Monsanto's chemicals designed to kill parasites affecting the fish, further degrading the environment. The Monsanto's of the world would have the public believe that the GM fish are better than the wild ones. Have a look at the science behind that? BTW, when has the issue ever just been about science? It's that narrow view which caused the problem in the first place. Morality is just as relevant to this debate, something which you and others seem to discount.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Do you have experience of accidentally catching GM salmon?

Because to my understanding (of genetics, not fishing), fish that are not very good at breeding don't pass on their genetic traits very well. That goes for all species in all population sizes.

It is possible to force genes to be dominant, but I'd be surprised if anyone is doing that except when planning to make changes in the wild (which has only been discussed in terms of Malaria AFAIK). It would just be a waste of time for a controlled environment like a fish farm.

By experience lies in environmental factors affecting salmon habitat and other game fish and the futility of relying on farmed (GM or not) fish to re-stock rivers that have been environmentally degraded. How would anybody know if they had 'accidentally' caught a GM fish? I can tell the difference between a wild fish and a farmed one, but not a Frankenstein fish. They don't have bolts added I'm afraid.

 

[scaramanga]

By experience lies in environmental factors affecting salmon habitat and other game fish and the futility of relying on farmed (GM or not) fish to re-stock knitting blogs that have been environmentally degraded. How would anybody know if they had 'accidentally' caught a GM fish? I can tell the difference between a wild fish and a farmed one, but not a Frankenstein fish. They don't have bolts added I'm afraid.

So your problem is with farmed fish rather than GM ones.

Do Monsanto farm fish?

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

So your problem is with farmed fish rather than GM ones.

Do Monsanto farm fish?

No, but they supplied (or did once) the chemicals along with Bayer that controlled parasites such as sea lice. The huge stock levels require massive doses of these paracides and antibiotics which are degrading river systems. I'm opposed to irresponsible fish farming and all GM foods.

 

[braineclipse]

How many times does it have to be said? Even if the science is okay, GM food removes freedom of choice. That's why I oppose it. Also it is being used as a sop to convince people that environmental degradation is okay because the scientists will be able to produce super organisms that can cope. So people just disregard the fact that the planet is being turned into a wasteland. Don't bother with having pristine knitting blogs that contain wild stocks of salmon, because we can have these fatty, artificially dyed GM fish growing in nets off the estuary. Which by the way are also polluting the ecosystem with their waste and hey, hey, Monsanto's chemicals designed to kill parasites affecting the fish, further degrading the environment. The Monsanto's of the world would have the public believe that the GM fish are better than the wild ones. Have a look at the science behind that? BTW, when has the issue ever just been about science? It's that narrow view which caused the problem in the first place. Morality is just as relevant to this debate, something which you and others seem to discount.

I think a choice of food is possible also with GM food being available, at least for most foods.

Wake up and smell the current mass extinction we're in the middle of. And our food production is a huge contributor to this. Others include poverty and a lack of basic resources like food. Caring about the environment is inherently an activity people do a lot more of if they have good food security, working towards food security for everyone on the planet seems to me of vital importance if want to take care of the environment. GM food can help with this.

You were the one who made claims about GM food production not being more effective - a scientific question. And when I tried to engage you on this you ended up with you "smoked salmon wasn't on the menu of starving Ethiopians" comment. You were the one making claims about Scara perhaps being a climate science denier as well based on his GMO views. Again, clearly a scientific topic.

I've engaged you on topics where scientific answers are clearly extremely relevant. For me at least a serious conversation about morality and policy cannot be had without accurately viewing the information science provides. Ignoring that information is the very science denialism you wrongly accused Scara of.

 

[thfcsteff]

I will answer in bold within quote mate...

Anything done in any industry "simply to keep your investors happy and profit margins high, whatever the long-term effects might be to human beings" is obviously going to be bad. And we have many examples in many industries of that happening. That doesn't mean we shouldn't proceed with scientific and technological progress in that field.

There must be oversight and regulations. There should be serious conversations between serious people on what we should and shouldn't do. If, for the sake of argument, I accept that Monsanto have done a lot wrong and do not represent a good way of handling the GMO question can we have a conversation about how GMO should be handled?



Yes. I would be up for that conversation. What I cannot abide by is the premise that Monsanto has done no wrong. Serious conversations between serious people require the same basic common goal. If that is to supply enough food for a world where there are sever imbalances, then that goal needs to be THE paramount concern. It isn't. And until it is, food will continue to be compromised primarily for production and profit.



Do you trust the ethos and ethics behind Apple, Facebook, Ford, Gazprom or other industry leading large multinational companies?


Apple? Not especially. Facebook? More so although they are increasingly close to being compromised. Gazprom? Nope. Ford? Nope. But let's face facts, these companies are NOT in the business of supplying a basic human requirement (Gazprom excepted - and they are dodgy dodgy dodgy). You can choose whether to buy an apple product, you can choose whether to by a Ford vehicle and you can choose whether to use Facebook or not. Monsanto is much harder to avoid unless you live off the grid, and even then it seems you run slight risk unless you source your own seeds! Thus from, the comparison doesn't hold up UNLESS you accept that Monsanto is a corporation whose primary regard is to their profit margin and shareholders. Again, would I welcome greater constructive discourse? Always. Where is it?



This is entirely unfair. Scaramanga is showing what I think is a very science minded and sceptical approach to this. Sceptical as in evaluating the evidence objectively and accepting the consensus of scientific experts in their fields.


Yet when scepticism is applied with regards to the source of information versus the power of a massive corporation to control what is reported of it's work, that is tin-hat, looney-left and unfounded? You would need a large array of experts to get a proper 'mean' opinion.




I assume you think the data for climate change is convincing. I assume you think that's related to the scientific consensus on the matter? If we ask for consistency can you point me towards what you think is the scientific consensus on GMOs?




When it comes to climate change, at nearly 50 years old I can see it and feel it's effect first-hand. Reports are secondary to what I have seen change in the blink of an eye I have been alive. I believe that 'scientific consensus' on GMOs is largely beyond the 'should-they-shouldn't they'. We are past that point. They are here to stay whether we like it or not. The next step becomes the level of monoploy versus regulation versus ethics applied in their development and research. As for long-term effects, I believe a fair comparison is to see the journey of 'the pill' from the 30s and 40s to the current day, when it has been widely recognized as a cause of the increased breast cancer figures in women. It took a while to see the full palate of possible side-effects. I am not a luddite. I encourage scientific research into things, especially cancer, etc. And thanks to the wonderful job we as a species have done lately with regards to responsible farming and climate change, I understand that modification of some food sources will be inevitable. It is the care put into it, the research put into it and the choices we have to opt out of GMO foods which are a major major issue for me. and when one company exerts such a large influence over the field, well, forgive my cynicism for suggesting they 'might' be in the manipulation game on more levels than simply adding fish genes to a tomato.

 

[thfcsteff]

I think a choice of food is possible also with GM food being available, at least for most foods.

Wake up and smell the current mass extinction we're in the middle of. And our food production is a huge contributor to this. Others include poverty and a lack of basic resources like food. Caring about the environment is inherently an activity people do a lot more of if they have good food security, working towards food security for everyone on the planet seems to me of vital importance if want to take care of the environment. GM food can help with this.

You were the one who made claims about GM food production not being more effective - a scientific question. And when I tried to engage you on this you ended up with you "smoked salmon wasn't on the menu of starving Ethiopians" comment. You were the one making claims about Scara perhaps being a climate science denier as well based on his GMO views. Again, clearly a scientific topic.

I've engaged you on topics where scientific answers are clearly extremely relevant. For me at least a serious conversation about morality and policy cannot be had without accurately viewing the information science provides. Ignoring that information is the very science denialism you wrongly accused Scara of.

I think you have to either accept (or not) that everything you are joining out is not a first-line concern UNLESS there is profitability involved FIRST. It is precisely why we are where we are. It sounds simplistic and macaronic, but if everyone made a sacrifice in the way they buy and eat food, we could change things. Instead we are hooked on a convenience culture. I am no saint, I adhere to it in some respects, but several years ago realized it was time to opt out where I could. I am in no way a model but I am trying. I believe of everyone 'tried', if everyone sacrificed some meat, if everyone sacrificed some processed convenience food for whole food even three times more a week than they might now, we would see a massive shift.

http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/...vironmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

I think a choice of food is possible also with GM food being available, at least for most foods.

Wake up and smell the current mass extinction we're in the middle of. And our food production is a huge contributor to this. Others include poverty and a lack of basic resources like food. Caring about the environment is inherently an activity people do a lot more of if they have good food security, working towards food security for everyone on the planet seems to me of vital importance if want to take care of the environment. GM food can help with this.

You were the one who made claims about GM food production not being more effective - a scientific question. And when I tried to engage you on this you ended up with you "smoked salmon wasn't on the menu of starving Ethiopians" comment. You were the one making claims about Scara perhaps being a climate science denier as well based on his GMO views. Again, clearly a scientific topic.

I've engaged you on topics where scientific answers are clearly extremely relevant. For me at least a serious conversation about morality and policy cannot be had without accurately viewing the information science provides. Ignoring that information is the very science denialism you wrongly accused Scara of.

It's about the morality of science. As to the climate denialism that was clearly sarcasm. GM foods are not benefitting the poverty stricken. Ironic that so much research has gone into GM production of luxury foods, such as salmon, which the poor will not be eating. Why is it so, because that is where the profits are. You must be naïve in the extreme, if you think the likes Monsanto care about the plight of the starving and the condition of the environment. All they care about is the share price and the investor's dividends. That is it!

 

[scaramanga]

It's about the morality of science. As to the climate denialism that was clearly sarcasm. GM foods are not benefitting the poverty stricken. Ironic that so much research has gone into GM production of luxury foods, such as salmon, which the poor will not be eating. Why is it so, because that is where the profits are. You must be naïve in the extreme, if you think the likes Monsanto care about the plight of the starving and the condition of the environment. All they care about is the share price and the investor's dividends. That is it!

You haven't answered my (now very relevant) question about golden rice.

 

[the dza]

I know nothing about any of this, but 'golden rice' sounds like a super noodles type of thing. In which case, GM food has my support.

 

[ringo]

I know nothing about any of this, but 'golden rice' sounds like a super noodles type of thing. In which case, GM food has my support.

Noodles wasn't the first thing that came to mind when coupled/associated with the word "golden".

 

[thfcsteff]

You haven't answered my (now very relevant) question about golden rice.

I will.

Of course, I am sure you will question the source, but there we are...others are available. Modifying foods to incorporate vitamins that we could find natural ways to deliver seems kooky.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/

 

[scaramanga]

I will.

Of course, I am sure you will question the source, but there we are...others are available. Modifying foods to incorporate vitamins that we could find natural ways to deliver seems kooky.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/

Please have a look at this video:
https://mylespower.co.uk/2015/05/21/golden-rice-and-why-you-should-not-fund-greenpeace/

It's from someone with a far higher opinion of greenpeace than I. Personally I think greenpeace are examples of massive flaws in the gene pool, but he's more generous.

For further reading:

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/greenpeace-anti-gmo-beliefs-nobel-laureates/

https://www.geneticliteracyproject....mo-critics-misrepresent-humanitarian-project/