Does that mean there should never be? Should we be forced to repeat mistakes and be allowed to hide them no matter what we learn? LoisAre you saying broccoli and cauliflower were mistakes?
Does that mean there should never be? Should we be forced to repeat mistakes and be allowed to hide them no matter what we learn? LoisI don;t understand your question. These products are tested pretty thoroughly before being released in the wild or put on the market. If you want more extensive testing I suggest we require the same thing from every mom and pop operation or major company that is creating new breeds through selective breeding as well. Is inconsistent to artificially carve out one technique and designate it for closer scrutiny while allowing other techniques to proceed with no oversight at all. People have been completely comfortable with the current level of scrutiny that selective breeding products get. What I am saying is that the increased concern over modern GMO techniques is based on motional rather than rational concerns for the most part. Most people who are opposed to GMO's don;t even really know what the term means.
Does that mean there should never be? Should we be forced to repeat mistakes and be allowed to hide them no matter what we learn? LoisI don;t understand your question. These products are tested pretty thoroughly before being released in the wild or put on the market. If you want more extensive testing I suggest we require the same thing from every mom and pop operation or major company that is creating new breeds through selective breeding as well. Is inconsistent to artificially carve out one technique and designate it for closer scrutiny while allowing other techniques to proceed with no oversight at all. People have been completely comfortable with the current level of scrutiny that selective breeding products get. What I am saying is that the increased concern over modern GMO techniques is based on motional rather than rational concerns for the most part. Most people who are opposed to GMO's don;t even really know what the term means. Yes, many don't know what it means. i do. I am not against GMO technology, i am against the secrecy GMO advocates think is necessary and desirable--and has no downside. Lois
Yes, many don't know what it means. i do. I am not against GMO technology, i am against the secrecy GMO advocates think is necessary and desirable--and has no downside. LoisWhat secrecy are you talking about? Are you talking about the things that no one knows except you? Or the misinformation that comes from Greenpeace?
Yes, many don't know what it means. i do. I am not against GMO technology, i am against the secrecy GMO advocates think is necessary and desirable--and has no downside. LoisWhat secrecy are you talking about? Are you talking about the things that no one knows except you? Or the misinformation that comes from Greenpeace? I am talking aboot corporations that keep their methods a secret. I never said I was the only one who knows. If corporations were required to reveal their methods, neither Greenpeace nor any other entity could so easily deal in "misinformation." it would be a level playing field. As it is now, the corporations have the advantage and they do deal with misinformation--infinitely more than Greenpeace does--if Greenpeace does it at all. Perhaos you can describe the nisinformation you think Greenpeace is advancing.
Yes, many don't know what it means. i do. I am not against GMO technology, i am against the secrecy GMO advocates think is necessary and desirable--and has no downside. LoisI think I have already explained pretty clearly what the downside of labeling is in previous posts #41 and #44. Ask yourself this. Why aren't GMO opponents asking for labeling when produce is grown near high tension wires? or when its grown when the moon is in the seventh house? The reason is that they aren't afraid of those things. They don;t think those things affect the safety of their food. Putting this label on food implies to the uninformed who know nothing about the subject except those three letters that there is something wrong, dangerous, or unsafe about GMO's. Very few people who see those labels will ever research the subject, and those who do will be buried in incorrect information from all over the internet. The result will be that these products will ( and are already becoming) unmarketable. This means that most people will be denied the advantages of these products because a small misinformed group are rabidly against them and the uninformed majority don't understand the issue enough to push back. Labeling products as GMO ends the debate before its ever been started. It gives the win to the Anti-GMO group. It announces to the public that these products are unsafe when the evidence says just the opposite.
Yes, many don't know what it means. i do. I am not against GMO technology, i am against the secrecy GMO advocates think is necessary and desirable--and has no downside. LoisWhat secrecy are you talking about? Are you talking about the things that no one knows except you? Or the misinformation that comes from Greenpeace? I am talking aboot corporations that keep their methods a secret. I never said I was the only one who knows. If corporations were required to reveal their methods, neither Greenpeace nor any other entity could so easily deal in "misinformation." it would be a level playing field. As it is now, the corporations have the advantage and they do deal with misinformation--infinitely more than Greenpeace does--if Greenpeace does it at all. Perhaos you can describe the nisinformation you think Greenpeace is advancing. So, did I understand you? You are talking about the secrets where they keep things secret? Well, that explains it. Where do you think they learned these secret methods of genetic engineering? Look up your nearest state funded university and tell me you can't find a class that would teach you that. Greenpeace is currently campaigning against Golden Rice, a GMO food that would prevent blindness in poor countries. Monsanto has nothing to do with this rice, but if a successful GMO saved lives, Greenpeace would have to explain what their problem is. They have gone on with this campaign way too long and I see no way out of it without some kind of major shakeup in that org.
Yes, many don't know what it means. i do. I am not against GMO technology, i am against the secrecy GMO advocates think is necessary and desirable--and has no downside. LoisWhat secrecy are you talking about? Are you talking about the things that no one knows except you? Or the misinformation that comes from Greenpeace? I am talking aboot corporations that keep their methods a secret. I never said I was the only one who knows. If corporations were required to reveal their methods, neither Greenpeace nor any other entity could so easily deal in "misinformation." it would be a level playing field. As it is now, the corporations have the advantage and they do deal with misinformation--infinitely more than Greenpeace does--if Greenpeace does it at all. Perhaos you can describe the nisinformation you think Greenpeace is advancing. So, did I understand you? You are talking about the secrets where they keep things secret? Well, that explains it. Where do you think they learned these secret methods of genetic engineering? Look up your nearest state funded university and tell me you can't find a class that would teach you that. Greenpeace is currently campaigning against Golden Rice, a GMO food that would prevent blindness in poor countries. Monsanto has nothing to do with this rice, but if a successful GMO saved lives, Greenpeace would have to explain what their problem is. They have gone on with this campaign way too long and I see no way out of it without some kind of major shakeup in that org. Then your work is cut out for you. PS:You won't be able to do it by whining on this forum. I look forward to your "shakeup."
On a related note a while back I read Bill Nye’s book “Undeniable” which was primarily about evolution and a response to his debate with creationist Ken Hamm but near the end he has a chapter where discusses GMO’s. The chapter was very anti-GMO.
Bill Nye has always been a very pro-science person and has done a great deal to promote science education among kids so I found this very unscientific discussion of GMO’s disappointing. I wrote him a letter outlining what I saw as the weaknesses in his arguments. I never heard back from him and don;t know if he ever even read it, but today I was listening to the latest edition of StarTalk which he was guest hosting and was surprised to hear that he had completely changed his position. I doubt I had anything to do with it but I suspect that he had feedback from quite a few other scientists with similar arguments that lead him to change his view of the subject.
Its refreshing to see that he was willing to admit his error at a time when everyone seems to be entrenched on one side or the other of every issue these days. Disappointingly he made a brief comment stating support for labeling in which he really didn’t discuss his thinking at all. Honestly I don’t think he really thought through his position on that one.
Yeah, that was just a few months ago. As a famous person, he can actually go right to the source and discuss the science with them.] Of course the reaction was that he is now a shill and they paid him off. Thanks for taking the time to write him, I’m sure he has people that at least tally up the letters he’s getting and let him know.