The Big Picture: Feeding Edge

[John the Gamer]

Yay! We (dutch) made carrots! Also: BEWARE! Be nice to us or we'll make all foods orange!

you'll never get away with it! never!

Muhuhahahaha!

We've already started! You'll never stop us now, random posting person!

Spoiler

Spoiler

It's Alive!

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[PeterDawson]

I'm going to admit I didn't get beyond the eating of the carrot bit because, well, I hate the sound of other people eating. Hell, I sometimes hate hearing myself eat. So yeah, in spite of making a valid point before that and probably making one after it, screw you Bob. That's about as petty as I get.

Anyhow, I'm pro genetically engineered food. I don't think it should be done recklessly of course, because in spite of how much we now know about the world around us there's still a lot more to cover. People adapting to new food sources could have surprising side effects, after all, even if it's just a modified version of an existing one. Imagine our embarssment if genetically engineered carrots turn out to not be as good for your eyesight as natural ones due to some of the stuff that was changed? Granted I have no idea if that old claim is true or not, I'm just using it as a hypothetical example. Still, being able to avoid existing problems with food and make them, for lack of a better term, more efficient? I can get behind that.

 

[Sepiida]

First of all allow me to say that I completely agree with everything stated in this video. That being said:

While you're certainly correct that a large part of the controversy of GM crops is just ignorant fear-mongering your comparison with traditional farming isn't quite spot on. A big issue many people have is that agribusiness is taking traits from other species and splicing them into foods that said traits have never evolved in. Now that sounds a lot worse than it actually is but there is still some cause for concern. GM is still a technology in its infancy and we still don't have a good idea about what a lot of genes do or how they interact with one another. So yes, there is plenty of idiocy within the GM foods controversy but there is also a sliver of sense.

No there isn't any sense in the GM food controversy the folks that oppose GM foods are using scare tactics and false information. Without GM foods the worlds organic supply can only feed 4 billion people. There are roughly 7 billion people on the planet; which 3 billion do folks think should starve? Me not a god dang one bring on the GM foods!

First of all I would very much like to see where you got your figures. I never said organic farming was the solution or that GM crops are not a powerful technology that should be utilized. What I said was that there are questions about GM crops that have not been answered. The FDA has never to my knowledge performed any sort of test on what potential effects long-term consumption of these foods do to the human body. Now granted most of us have been eating them for the past 30 years and we've yet to have a zombie outbreak so maybe there is no cause for concern. The point is that we don't know.

It's worth pointing out that with or without GMOs we have a mounting problem in terms of food production. The vast majority of arable land is already being used for farming and it's unlikely much more can be squeezed out of it even with GM. Personally I favor farmscrapers but maybe that's just the technophile in me talking.

Finally, your juvenile tone does you no credit.

 

[00m]

Bob (et al.),
I suppose thanks for bringing it to my attention how much the media lies about the problems with genetically engineered crops because it sells (or something). I am something of an environmentalist, but I do not have anything against the idea behind genetic engineering (great medical benefits, reductionism IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH can work, yeah. The beef that I have with genetic engineering, and this is the beef as far as I have read, is how it is taughted as the solution to world hunger by the people making genetically engineered crops (real genetically engineered crops: corn with bacterial DNA inserted into it). It is wrong because it does not address the causes of world hunger today and in some ways exacerbates the problem (the problem is not a question of too many people and too little yield, but horrible and inefficient distribution via the worlds corporate and political elite).

 

[Ewyx]

Stop reasoning with people Bob, how am I supposed to maintain my arrogant personality if everyone actually knows what the hell they're talking about?

 

[keserak]

Dude, seriously? You decry Bob for oversimplying a complex issue, which is fine, but you do it arguing with a tone that implies you have all the info.

Wrong on all counts. I decry Bob for lying -- it was, like, at the top of the post -- and decry him for claiming to simplify an issue by saying things about it that are manifestly untrue. I never claim to have all the info, merely that he was nigh-deliberately wrong. Your analysis is inaccurate -- reread the post.

Guess what? To me, a scientist actually in the field to genetic engineering, and a little into transgenic plant development, you look the same way.

That's nice. To me, having worked in both the sciences and politics, hearing someone who's probably from industry obscure the issue makes you look like part of the problem. To each his own.

They are like Wal-Mart in a certain way.

Wow, that's misleading. While Wal-Mart is certainly a noxious company due to a variety of anti-union and anticapitalistic pratcices, saying that the problem with Monsanto is that it's like Wal-Mart completely misses the dramatic challenges to law and politics that Monsanto represents. Transformation of patent law into a legal sword harms both biotechnological research and puts, conceivably, billions at risk. It's a ludicrously horrible example of political corruption -- it may well be the most potent example, given the industry's successful pillaging of property it it cannot conceivably own. If we're all children, fine, I guess one can say is that the respective companies do naughty things, but the similarities end there.

Their science, however, is much more solid than what you've been allowed to know since a lot of the protocols are trade secrets.

You protest too much.

I never questioned their ability to use science to advance their agenda -- that's all that can be taken from your ambiguous use of the word "science." I claimed, straight-out, that the company has no concern and has taken nothing close to sufficient measures to protect the environment from ecological damage. We know this because the company actually uses ecological damage as a strategy for theft. Contaminating native stocks is not a bug, it's a feature.

Do you actually know how long it takes from the idea of introducing x or y thing into a crop to it reaching the supermarket?

Yes. Do you know how inappropriate it is to tranform patent law into a scheme that covers biotechnology? Do you know the kind of profits you can garner through destroying and capturing and patenting native, milennia-old foodstocks and forcing small farmers to grow only from your own seed? Is there a reason why your irrelevant facts were introduced here?

Before you go out and say that "Monsanto and allies" have no controls and do no testing please familiarize yourself with the actual process of creating GM crops.

Maybe you should dismiss your own bias and reread the post. Given the risks involved, industry controls are wholly inadequate; saying that they have said controls is making a completely unsupported assumption. Namely that the industry is concerned with issues besides its own profit margin. Experiments, and therefore their controls, are used by Monsanto to ensure that its products will be profitable for Monsanto, not to ensure that the products will be safe for the environment at large. Not only isn't that the case, we know as a matter of law that they profit when they do not bother with such experiments.

It takes LONGER than developing pharmaceuticals. . .

So what?

. . .and you know, it's not regulated by the FDA. The department of agriculture is in charge of that.

Again, so what? It should be under the perview of the FDA. That's the point. (As it stands, the FDA does have influence over these entities, but it "regulates" in the same way that a well-paid and competent hooker "punishes" a john.) In the same way cigarettes were kept free from FDA regulation due to sheer bribery, our bureaucracies can't even claim proper jurisdiction. In effect, you're claiming that "things shouldn't be better because they're already horrible."

You think they skimp on controls and tests, etc, etc, to cut down costs?

No, I know that the point of their tests is to ensure the wealth of their respective companies, not to protect anyone else. You are, again, making unfounded assumptions. The problem is Monsanto is using a U.S. model of legal responsibility: the burden of proof is on the plantiff to show environmental harm, as opposed to, say, Germany, where the company creating an environmental problem is assumed to bear its legal responsibility. As such, Monsanto has no real reason to bother with experimentation that would do nothing but give it knowledge that would ultimately increase its liability.

(snip). . . any slip up opens the door to huge legal backlash in lawsuits, loss of patents and HUGE economical set backs.

Wrong -- for the umpteenth time, contamination can actually increase their wealth. You begin with the assumption that Monsanto cares for the people it's robbing, a completely incoherent assumption that is nonetheless commonly found in people that work for people that rip others off for a living.

The companies aren't run by stupid people. They're run by bad people.

 

[Twinmill5000]

Holy shit! We agree on something again!

 

[Twinmill5000]

Holy shit! We agree on something again!

 

[XShrike]

Dead wrong. Since the GECs were first introduced there has been a lot of pressure on governmental institutions and quite a few revolving-door politicians/lobbyists/assholes happily switching between the big agri-corps and the EPA and FDA. Asking too many questions has been deemed as counterproductive to the ability to compete on a new market. When negative studies existed they were downplayed, even kept secred until whistleblown.

And your point is that some corporations will do anything to increase their bottom line? New methods and technology often have a period where only a few have control of it. Unfortunately this can lead to blinding greed. Corruption is a whole other monster I don't even want to get into. I don't know about the rest of the world but, what I am finding says that GE products are still regulated by the FDA, USDA, and EPA. Just as the corporations push for less regulations there are others pushing for more.

Genetic Engineering is one of a number of methods required to feed the growing population and doing it efficiently. I would recommend reading up on Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution and credited with saving the lives of an estimated billion people from starvation and malnutrition.

 

[reciprocal]

You'd think that sticking engineering on it would make it more likeable to the general public. Engineers tend to be more awesome people than scientists (No offence, scientists. I still love you).

Think about it. In the last few years science has probably provided more bad news for you than good. Maybe your favourite food isn't so good for you. Maybe the density of this planet proves that the chances of getting hit by an asteroid is higher than previously thought.

Then you have your engineers who just keep making things better. Like your car? Let's put some rockets on it. Like your little pet doggy? Let's make a cyborg one with lasers. Engineering's supposed to be about making things BETTER (once they are out of testing, anyway).

You'd think that the first reaction to the word 'genetic engineering' would be "AWESOME! Now my food can fill me up, taste great, connect me to the internet and do my taxes".

 

[Nomanslander]

Genetically engineered food? No, I'm not worried about stuff like that, and I completely agree with your video.

Now when it comes to all the chemical additives, you know the stuff that's been tested and proven to give rats cancer, that's when I start to worry...0o

 

[Rblade]

the technology of genetic engineering isn't bad. as Bob pointed out. but questionable things do get done with it. most important to come to my mind is making crops immune to weedkillers. This has infact been done, so that they could use the more aggressive weed killers to basicly wipe out all life but the vegetables. This caused the weedkillers to leak into the groundwater, then into the streams, the fish, the big predators, the people.

so it is the same as with all engineering. you have to ask yourself the questions about ethics and durability. and justify your decisions on those fronts. Before you carry on and do the things you intend to do.

The previous example is an example of bad engineering. but denying poor 3th world country farmers the possibility to grow geneticly engineered tomatos that are immune to common diseases. Diseases they would otherwise not have the expertise nor the means to prevent, just because you don't 'trust' the crazy scientists. Thats almost criminal isn't it.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

'Flat-earth'.

...no-one ever thought the world was flat. They always assumed the world was round (that, or just didn't give a shit). But they certainly didn't think they would drop off the edge of this "flat" earth; they did assume, correctly, that it was a round planet. I have Stephen Fry to thank for that knowledge.

 

[utajum]

LSD carrots.. pass me one

 

[Gilboron]

Oh boy. This... no. I'm not even going to spend time on this.

Just watch "The World According To Monsanto". That'll be enough. Come back when you did.

As has been said, the "fear" (which I would more describe as "skepticism", personally) towards genetically modified food is not at all the media fear-mongering. And while there might be no danger in the foodstuffs themselves (a debatable issue, by the way), there is certainly something worrying about the corruption and monopolization surrounding the issue. It's also telling - not taking sides here - that in many countries outside of the USA where the government has a much bigger say in economics and agriculture this level of genetic engineering is a much bigger question.

Of course, I'm not an expert on this subject, and I take most of my dough from - whaddayaknow - the media, but I try to look at things rationally as much as possible and I just think that the media's arguments are a bit more convincing than your arguments.

(On a side note, I really like that this video provoked me to write this. I think it's these kind of discussions that episodes of "The Big Picture" should stir up.)

 

[TheAngryMonkey]

Good Video, now tackle the Organic Food plague, nothing like taking steps backward.
GMO's have saved million of people around the world. The most classic example is the drought resistant wheat, that was introduced into more arid countries.
It just always bothers me that those people against GMO's with their full bellies, trying to stop other people in more difficult countries from being allowed to eat.
We all get caught up in our own special interests, lets all remember to step back and look past our own agenda.
As has been said "If you and yours aren't starving, what gives you the right."

 

[LakuNoce]

While you're certainly correct that a large part of the controversy of GM crops is just ignorant fear-mongering your comparison with traditional farming isn't quite spot on. A big issue many people have is that agribusiness is taking traits from other species and splicing them into foods that said traits have never evolved in. Now that sounds a lot worse than it actually is but there is still some cause for concern. GM is still a technology in its infancy and we still don't have a good idea about what a lot of genes do or how they interact with one another. So yes, there is plenty of idiocy within the GM foods controversy but there is also a sliver of sense.

Exactly! Bob takes the easy route of oversimplification. Although I agree to some degree, the complete ignorance of concerns strikes me as just as blinded as the "Frankenfood Club". The truth lies somewhere in between.

As for the Frankenstein reference - simplification strikes again. Of course, modern doctors don't collect corpses, stitch pieces together and try to reanimate those for personal interest . I think that wouldn't quite fit the hero term.

 

[EscChaos]

Too much of a straw man argumentation for my taste.

 

[Semi-Human]

good rant. Missed a few things like switching genes from one species to the next but that doesn't make it a bad thing. Besides hybrid crops are pretty old as well.

And compared to pesticide and hormones used other wise genetically engineered food is great

 

[SensibleCrout]

Wow, the pro GEC comments keep coming in. Please tell me that you all come from the US, then I could accept that you are uneducated people who actually boast about their own ignorance and do not even want to know whether they are brainwashed by billion-dollar marketing campaigns.

Actually Bob uses the exact same rhetorical pattern: "xy is like cute kitties and who is against cute kitties? Are you a kittie hater?". (xy being GEC and kitties being accepted traditional crops.)

Saying "glad Bob pointed that out, I think likewise" is the same as saying "I have a preconception and feel good if a layman biologist has the same" Is Bob an expert? No. Did he read anything from an expert on GE? Obviously not even that because he very clearly has no clue what he is talking about. Selective breeding has nothing to do with altering genes directly and it has a copletely different set of risks of which bob chooses to keep quiet about.

You are so very much in conflict with reality that I suggest you do a little research about GE. Check your sources and read something that is not directly or indirectly payed by the GE industry and educate yourself instead of affirming each other with your false preconceptions.