Nobel laureates urge Greenpeace to stop opposing GMOs (1 Viewer)

[The Future Champs]

This thread will go nowhere, b/c it's late on a Friday night and it doesn't involve sex, but I wanted to share this article:

Nobel laureates ...

My favorite part is that "Greenpeace officials called the event a publicity stunt."   Now, I'm not hating on Greenpeace or (most) of their publicity stunts, but common ...

 

[Lester Burnham]

They used to say margarine was good for you and butter was bad. How can you be sure there isn't some horrible side effect that hasn't been discovered yet?

 

[bueno]

They used to say margarine was good for you and butter was bad. How can you be sure there isn't some horrible side effect that hasn't been discovered yet?

Paranoid much?

 

[Lester Burnham]

Paranoid much?

LOL. Was waiting for the  response.

 

[bueno]

LOL. Was waiting for the  response.

Too lazy to find the emoticon.

 

[The Future Champs]

They used to say margarine was good for you and butter was bad. How can you be sure there isn't some horrible side effect that hasn't been discovered yet?

Ya, and doctors used to use leeches to treat hemorrhoids.   No doubt that the experts get it wrong sometimes.   That said, the anti GMO side seems to rely on vague scare tactics.    The "horrible side effect that hasn't been discovered yet" is a good example, as it can be applied to any progressive solution/plan w/o fear of rebuttal.

 

[tone1oc]

Makes sense, the more you understand protein synthesis the less it becomes a scary boogey man waiting to kill your children with frankenstein carrots.  

 

[otello]

Isn't this just like global warming?

 

[joffer]

They used to say margarine was good for you and butter was bad. How can you be sure there isn't some horrible side effect that hasn't been discovered yet?

Holy crap he's right!!!!!

 

[tone1oc]

Isn't this just like global warming?

Actually it has a lot of parallels, and as a liberal it's totally hypocritical.   LIberal's want the world to come together on global warming/climate change, heavily leaning on scientific consensus, which conservatives say are all liberal shills.  Flip it around, and yuppie liberal's turn their noses at scientific consensus because they all are monsanto/big business shills. 

And all of the affluent people who like to pretend they can somehow live a better life by paying twice as much for a tomato, are driving up the cost of "whole" foods for people who lack proper nutrition in part because food prices are too high.  

Monocultures and abuse of the technology by farmers (such as over-spraying) are real issues, but these are things that education could serve to help instead of investing in all of the scare tactics.   

 

[bostonfred]

Isn't this just like global warming?

Kind of.   On the one hand, it's ironic that the people who say we should listen to "the scientists" about climate change are simultaneously disagreeing with "the scientists" about gmos.  

But it's also fair to say that we're at a different point on the curve with GMOs than climate change.  There were scientists saying tobacco and corn syrup and sugar and fuel emissions were no big deal at one time - now the scientific consensus has changed significantly because we know a lot more.  

The science around climate change has also evolved - but still points very much in the direction of agw.  

There's also a profit motive saying gmos are good and climate change is fiction.   So it is the responsibility of watch dog agencies to take the other side - even if the science is pretty strongly against them.   

So while i agree with your point and initially thought the same thing,  i think it's pretty reasonable for them to be more skeptical of new science. 

 

[tone1oc]

Kind of.   On the one hand, it's ironic that the people who say we should listen to "the scientists" about climate change are simultaneously disagreeing with "the scientists" about gmos.  

But it's also fair to say that we're at a different point on the curve with GMOs than climate change.  There were scientists saying tobacco and corn syrup and sugar and fuel emissions were no big deal at one time - now the scientific consensus has changed significantly because we know a lot more.  

The science around climate change has also evolved - but still points very much in the direction of agw.  

There's also a profit motive saying gmos are good and climate change is fiction.   So it is the responsibility of watch dog agencies to take the other side - even if the science is pretty strongly against them.   

So while i agree with your point and initially thought the same thing,  i think it's pretty reasonable for them to be more skeptical of new science. 

We know exactly how to GM food, we have a deep understanding of protein synthesis and of mutations both transgenic and sysgenic.  On a higher level we've understood this for centuries, allowing us to even have corn and bananas today.   Through selective breeding we were essentially carpet bombing for desired traits, now we are able to pinpoint a sequence of amino acids like a heat seeking bunker buster.    GMO is "safer" from a mutation perspective, if that's your boogeyman. 

We've been eating GMO food for at least 30 years, and the science itself is heavily scrutinized and heavily regulated and yet we have yet to produce any evidence that it is bad to consume.  

ETA:  Smoking tobacco makes you sick, hack up things, we can see the smog and taste the bad air from pollution and corn syrup ended up being a substitute for our sugar addiction, which makes us fat.   We do not have any "symptoms" from consuming GM food at all.

 

[joffer]

Yes. The left is awful on this.  It drives me nuts.

 

[joffer]

On the other side, I've found the right to be mostly indifferent, as in most couldn't tell you what GMO stands for.

 

[tone1oc]

On the other side, I've found the right to be mostly indifferent, as in most couldn't tell you what GMO stands for.

Yeah, thankfully it hasn't become completely rooted in political zeitgeists.   Though I'd imagine it's hard to get your hand's on non-GMO food at Wal-Mart 

 

[Galileo]

This thread will go nowhere, b/c it's late on a Friday night and it doesn't involve sex, but I wanted to share this article:

Nobel laureates ...

My favorite part is that "Greenpeace officials called the event a publicity stunt."   Now, I'm not hating on Greenpeace or (most) of their publicity stunts, but common ...

or because it has already been posted twice in the genetically engineered food thread... https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/728932-what-is-everyones-thoughts-on-genetically-engineered-foods/