TechHui

Hawaiʻi's Technology Community

"Islands at Risk - GMO's in Hawai'i"

Aloha TechHui'ians:

I'm replying to the posts from this video, here in this Blog instead since my response there would be too long to fit in the video response comment area. Keep in mind the two fundamental points of this video "Islands at Risk - GMO's in Hawai'i" both of which are completely missed by everyone posting comments on it thus far:

A) GMO research in Hawai'i is NOT what is being debated here; the folks in this video are NOT against GMO Research -- what they ARE against in conducting GMO Research in an irresponsible way, which is Not done by having experimental plots in an open air environment. GMO research in Hawai'i should be done in a responsible manner inside a hermetically sealed Laboratory setting, or at the very minimum inside an enclosed/contained Experimental Greenhouse with strict controls, and that Research should/must take place in this strict setting from cradle to grave. If GMO Research can't be contained inside the Lab this way, then it should be done at all. No aspect of the GMO Research should EVER invlove growing GMO Research plots in an outside open air environment on Hawai'ian nor Puerto Rican lands. Safe GMO Research is done this way on the US Mainland, so why isn't conducted in the same way in the Hawai'ian Islands nor in Puerto Rico? Why is it that in Hawai'i & Puerto Rico open air experimental GMO plots abound, moreso than any other location in the USA or on Earth, whereas strict controls against risky GMO open air experimentation exists for the USA mainland?
ANSWER: because BioTech companies from the U.S. mainland prefer to have the much riskier GMO Research done in someone else's backyard, somewhere else where the financial cost of conducting this risky GMO research is minimized by having them done without strict R&D safety controls within a Lab nor a hermetically sealed Greenhouse i.e. instead in an open air environment, somewhere else where the consequences of an altered experimental high risk Genome getting out of control and causing untold unforeseen damage is contained in someone else's backyard that doesn't come back to haunt them, somewhere else where the victims of such a scenario aren't close to home, somewhere else where the high risk experimental GMO research is safely far enough away from home yet close enough to keep under their control, somewhere else where local Governments are so cash strapped for sources of income (other than Tourism and the Military) to support their economies that are easily influenced by the requests and demands of these financially and legally powerful BioTech companies, somewhere else where the ability to impose their agenda and conduct their high risk Genome research meets very little or no resistance at all, somewhere else like the Islands of Puerto Rico and Hawai'i.

B) GMOs should have strict scientific data and sound evidence conclusively proving that there are No Reasonable Health Risks to ingesting them, nor Environmental Risks to using them, and in addition that in fact there are also Benefits to be gained as well from using them in GMO crops, and not just technological benefits but also economic benefits with business common sense for Farmers. Until this is conclusively proven, then and only then can permits and lisenses be granted with Government and public approcal, to allow GMO Research to come out of the Laboratory, for growing on Farming lands and for the sale of "properly labeled" GMO crops to the public.

In addition, I have the following to add to Dan Leuck's posting on this video, WHICH AT THE SAME TIME ANSWERS MANY OF THE OTHER POSTINGS FROM OTHER TECHHUI'IANS AS WELL:



From Dan Leuck: "1. There are no credentials supplied for the people making these sweeping generalizations".
>> My take on this is what do you mean by "credentials"? Does this mean being a so-called 'educated expert' in a specific field backed-up by University degrees: BS, MS, PhD's combined with published papers on a given topic in established journals? If there is one thing I have learned in my Career is that having a formal education and recognized as a so-called 'expert' in a given field doesn't necessarily make someone any "wiser"; likewise, NOT having University degrees doesn't necessarily invalidate someone that is self-educated from being very well versed and quite knowledgeable in a given field. There have been countless examples throughout history of important contributions made by folks that weren't formally 'educated' but that were very inquisitive and taught themselves all about science and the world around them; Anthony van Leeuwenhoek, Joseph Henry, Rita Levi-Montalcini, Alessandro Volta, Thaddeus S. C. Lowe, Johann Wilhelm Ritter, Gottfried Leibniz, Elihu Thompson, Michael Faraday, etc. just to name a few, whom were self-made Scientists, had boundless curiosity and open minds, free of scientific dogma and the limitations of a traditional legacy education.

As technically trained TechHui'ians we shouldn't discount the opinions and contributions of others just because they hadn't gone to college and received a formal education nor a University Degree - which I have observed over my career doesn't necessarily correlate to deducing conclusions based on common sense combined with wisdom. Thankfully this prejudice has softened considerably in recent years, as "teamwork" and collaborative contributions by "all" have become recognized and encouraged. Personally, I was always impressed by the many contributions of talented operators, technicians, secretaries, and other "non degree holding people" I knew and worked with. While formal training can undoubtedly sharpen the mind, ingenuity and common sense are pretty much inborn characteristics, and just as valuable. The 18 folks in this video are not just lay people, they have been advocates in the non-use of GMOs for a reason, based on years of investigations and countless studied reports. I do agree that more data should have been presented to back-up their cliams, but dismising all their concerns outright (especially when it means impacting both the financial health of the Hawaiian farming industry, as well as physical health of the people consuming GMOs grown in Hawaii) is just as troubling, if not moreso.

With that being said, here are some of the Federal & Government Legal cases mentioned in this video, which back-up some of their claims:

And the 18 folks mentioned in this video are:
1. Walter Ritte, Hawaiian Activist
2. Jeri Di Pietro, GMO Free Kaua'i
3. Miliani Trask, Director of Indigenous World Association
4. Nancy Redfeather, Know Your Farmer Alliance; Hawaiian Islands SEED Exchange
5. Mark Query, Arborist
6. Paul Achitoff, Attorney for EarthJustice
7. Isaac Moriwake, Attorney for EarthJustice
8. Hanohano Naehu, Da Hemo Wai Brothers
9. Kalaniua Ritte, Da Hemo Wai Brothers
10. Eloise Engman, GMO Free Mau'i
11. Elisha Goodman, Hawaii Organic Farmers Association
12. Una Greenaway, Coalition to Protect Hawai'ian Coffee
13. Union of Concerned Scientists
14. Melanie Bondera, Mixed Organic Farmer
15. Chris Kobayashi, Organic Farmer
16. Amy Greenwell, EthnoBotanical Garden
17. Dr. Lorrin Pang, MD MPH, Hawaii Dept of Health, Maui District Health Officer; Medical Scientist for the United Nations World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
18. Puhipau, Joan Lander "Na Maka o ka'Aina"



From Dan Leuck: "2. There are a lot of emotional, fear based statements - "They are making monsters!", "They are putting foreign things in foreign things!"
>> My take on this is that out of the entire 30+ minute video, these two statements "They are making monsters!" and "They are putting foreign things in foreign things!" totals about ~15 seconds of the entire peice. The remaining 29+ minutes of the video offers seriously compelling argumemnts regarding GMOs that should be at the very minimum thouroughly looked into, especially when the negative affects seems to far outweight the positive benefits (if any) for GMOs. In fact, a simple search on Google for "GMOs" yeilds 981,000 hits. Of these 408,096 speak of the positive effects of GMOs, where as 572,904 speak of the negative effects of GMOs. Thats a ratio of Good:Bad of just 2:3! A much worse ratio holds for a Google Video search on "GMOs" with 1,360 GMO videos, practically all speaking of the negative impact of GMOs (less than 100 speak of positive benefits of GMOs).

With ~60% of the information on the WEB devoted to all the negative effects of GMOs, and of this negative information a good portion devoted to the unscrupulous activities of GMO companies in collaboration with the FDA, does all this strike anyone anywehere to be a reasonable risk at all, in ingesting manipulated and altered foreign Genomes into your body, or liberating them into the environment, when not nearly enough studies have been done guaranteeing their reasonable safety in humans nor to the environment, and of the potential consequences of a very high risk of something going drastically wrong? With those odds, Alarm Bells and Sirens should be going off here in most peoples minds.

Granted that GMO BioTechnology has yielded some good benefits to ~90% of the worldwide GMO crop population were resource-poor farmers in developing countries including farmers in China, India, subsistence farmers in South Africa, The Philippines and many other developing countries, in biological and medical research, production of pharmaceutical drugs, experimental medicine (e.g. gene therapy), and agriculture (e.g. golden rice). But keep in mind however that these benefits are the side-effects of GMO BioTechnology thats Patented from R&D in the Lab -- the primary motivation of BioTechnology IS NOT the greater good for all, it is instead to maximize revenues & profits, even if it means doing so at the expense of farmers and others. If BioTech companies were in it for the geater good and benefit for all, they would not engage in "Bio-Piracy" to essentially steal the intellectual knowledge passed-down from generation to generation of many of these same resource-poor farmers' in developing countries, intellectual property accumulated over hundreds of ancestral generations, take this knowledge back to the Lab to Patent, claim the Intellectual Property as their own, then return to sell their newly Patented GMO BioTechnology back to the same farmers where they got their GMO ideas in the first place, essentially handcuffing/forcing farmers into buying GMO crops with no other choice, nor giving them credit/compensation for taking the original knowledge from these farmers in the first place.

The fundamental objective for any 'BioTech' company (or any non-philonthropic business for that matter) and therefore intrinsic problem of creating GMOs, is to turn GMO Patented BioTechnology into a cash cow money-making revenue stream and profit-making corporate business -- the unlimited profit motive -- and the only way to accomplish this is to capitalize to the maximum possible on GMO Patents & BioTechnology even if it means controlling and monopolizing the worldwide food production & supply -- this is an incredible amount of power in the hands of just a few American multinational companies especially when they are given practically 'card banc' by the FDA; there have been many published papers that conclusively establish this. It is quite simply unfettered technological progess without a moral/ethical checks-and-balance, in short "irresponsible technology", inevitably resulting in BioTechnological GMO Patenting by a few, which (in most cases) trumps the greater good and benefit for all.

Lets think about this contructively & critically for a moment shall we? If BioTech companies were truely in it for the greater good in benefiting & assisting the world food supply, in impoversihed continents such as Africa and others, in in biological & medical research, production of pharmaceutical drugs, and experimental medicine they could just as easily taken the moral high ground and alternate "Technological Path B" of developing alternative BioTechnologies that would safely fertilize farming soils and eliminate pests & herbs WITHOUT altering the genomes of plants & our food supply and WITHOUT causing adverse effects to the environment. However, this much friendlier Technological Path B in not nearly as lucrative, not by a long shot.

Hence, by BioTech Companies opt to choose the current "Technological Path A" of developing their own fertlizers/herbacides/pesticides that are coupled with their own GMOs, both of which are legally protected by BioTech GMO Patents, which inevitably will pretty much force the entire worldwide farming population to be permanently locked into using BOTH their Patented fertlizers/herbacides/pesticides and also Patented GMO crops, hence diverting an incredible worldwide revenue stream directly into the coffers of a few multinational BioTech companies. The surreal profits in this case are staggering, and with so much money at stake, they have easily pushed their agenda with minimal oversight or resistance by FDA or Government -- even if it means doing so at the expense of public health and environmental safety, starting with the fact that neither the FDA nor Congress will dare force BioTech companies into adequately label GMO crops, foods, fruits & vegetables distributed into the U.S. (and worldwide) food supply. Because both the US Government & FDA know that if they did, the vast majority of Americans & citizens of the world, ~80% but some accounts, would simply choose NOT to purchase GMO foods when placed on supermarket grocery shelves & food markets -- they wouldn't come near the stuff with a 10 foot pole. This scenario would essentially collapse the entire GMO BioTech business overnight -- since Technological Path A has created a business model where there is just simply way too much money on the line here (for the BioTech multinationals).

Perhaps time will tell and force the Government & BioTech industry to change to the correct ethical alternative Technological Path B, much in the same way that the whole world today is realizing that when the Fossil Fuel Petroleum based internal cumbustion engine of the Ford Model-T, produced in mass on an assembly line resulting in driving down the cost (Technological Path A), beat out the original Electric Car with swappable Electric Battery of the early 1900's (Technological Path B); where now today everyone is now realizing that this Tech Path A business model of burning fossil fuels & internal combustion engines was the wrong irresponsible technological/business choice at that time 100 years ago and is bad for world economies, bad for the environment and bad for our own health leading to ultimate disaster unless something is done; then perhaps in 100 years or so from now in the year 2110 the same will happen with GMO crops & BioTech Industry, but only until AFTER we have all waited till the 11th hour when much of the damage has already been done AND its almost too late to stop & reverse the trend. Then and only then will some serious action be finally done about this, after most of the profits have already been realized at the expense of the greater good after most of the Health & Environmental catastrophes have already occurred and the damage has already been done.

The first main reason why GMO crops are here, is because its based on a deception that occured in the FDA. The FDA was heavily influenced by GMO companies into stating the these altered GMO foods are "not different", using newly generated lexicon & terminology of "Principal of Substantial Equivalency". Under "Sunstantially Equivalency", GMOs were therefore considered to be "not meaningfully different", and "not uniformly different". Ultimately the "Principal of Substantial Equivalency" was transformed into meaning "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS). However, for anything to be GRAS, it needs A LOT of peer reviewed & published scientific studies, combined with overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community. With GMOs, they had neither from the FDA, nor any other scientific or Government organization. Once a GRAS blessing is granted by the FDA, this means that a company marketing a food or drug has been trusted as acting "on their honor" in having conducted as the necessary through rigorous scientific research & studies necessary for guaranteeing public health and safety of a Food or Drug it wants to introduce to the market. Hence, once the GRAS category was achieved by the BioTech companies for GMO food products, they could then introduce GMOs directly into the market without having it rigorously confirmed and approved by the FDA or even letting the FDA know (because they are on their honor in having it done on their own themselves), and simply need to present nothing more than a summary & conclusion of their efforts to the FDA in guaranteeing GMO products safety, no questions asked. You can Trust Us, the stuff is good! Really! :)

The second main reason why GMOs are here is because the FDA & USPTO have allowed BioTech companies to Patent "living organisims" which were never invented nor created by these BioTech companies in the first place. However, just because they have managed to digitally map these genomes at the DNA, gene & molecular level, this has opened up a "Can Of Worms" in allowing BioTech companies to claim these as their own after the novel "mixing" (wow, what a neat new concept) a few samples of DNA between two species in a petri dish or test tube. The result yields a GMO, a new life from they have supposedly "created" (very loosely stated) -- in my mind nor the mind of most reasonable folks, I hardly think this qualifies as a novel technological breakthrough warranting Patentability, and even less so when it involves a living organisim/species. I don't think they asked permission from Our Creator on this one, to Patent a hybrid life form as as if it were their own, from parent species that God originally created in Nature. However, the BioTechs engaged in GMO creation (with their incredible lobbying & financial power) have convinced the USPTO to allow them to do so. Once GMOs are allowed to be Patented by the USPTO, all foreign Patent Offcies fall in line as well, the BioTech Companies at that point are then are protected by the entire worldwide legal system, allowing them to force the hand of millions of Farmers around the world and in the process ultimately control the Worldwide food supply allowing BioTechs to reap incredible GMO profits.

Hence with both the FDA and USPTO in the back pocket of BioTech companies promoting GMO's, they are able to easily push their self interest agenda through into the worldwide market.



From Dan Leuck: "3. They are asking us to accept genetic manipulation being undesirable as axiomatic. This is a religious argument that leaves no room for real scientific debate."
>> My take on this is I have posted another GMO video on TechHui called "What's Wrong with GMOs?", where serious scientific debate is thoroughly discussed. Now before anyone jumps all over this video as well, I will state up-front that just one scientist is interviewed, and this one scientist presents compelling scientific debate 'against' GMO's. The problem with the "axiomatic" argument is that honestly, I simply cannot find very many compelling arguments "FOR GMO's" either from WEB artciles, news articles, online videos, nor from any other source. If anyone out there does find any compelling arguments "FOR" GMOs, PLEASE by all means post them here on TechHui presenting a balanced opposing view.



From Dan Leuck: "Genetic engineers are working on cures for debilitating diseases and ways of growing crops in poor soil conditions in desperately poor African countries. There is no doubt that some of the seed companies mentioned have been involved in sketchy legal maneuvering, but implying that all genetic engineering is being done toward some great evil plan to control the global food supply is disingenuous at best."
>> Yes of course there are some benefits of the work Genetic Engineers are doing on cures for debilitating diseases and ways of growing crops in poor soil conditions in desperately poor African countries. However, as mentioned earlier, the same technological advances can just as easily be made by alternate friendlier BioTechnologies WITHOUT focing the use of Patented fertlizers/herbacides/pesticides coupled with Patented GMOs to accomplish the same.


God Bless Hawai'i
Mahalo,
Rubén

Views: 397

Comment

You need to be a member of TechHui to add comments!

Join TechHui

Comment by Mark Enomoto on March 30, 2010 at 10:22pm
Think of GMO's as the introduction of a small line of code into the code base of an operating system, like Windows. Now imagine you are an SDE working on Vista and now having engineer around that piece of code introduced in the early versions of Windows. Imagine not being able to trace a bug due to that line of code doing something seemingly innocuous when first introduced... I think the scenario is clear and its a scenario that many ex-colleagues of mine can attest to at Microsoft. Its like doing a build on your local machine before checking your code in to ensure that nothing will blow up... which often does and often occurs when some other SDE checks their code in.

Hawaii's ecosystem and all ecosystems have evolved over millions of years yet have been screwed up in a fraction of that time due to the impact of humans. As someone who has spent some real field time doing conservation work for the Sierra Club pulling noxious weeds like Clidemia off of a pali in Wailau valley, or building fences for the National Park Service I haven't seen much "good" that humans have done in Hawaii.

I'm a designer, not a developer but I've worked on projects where a seemingly elegant solution to a Pri-1/Sev-1 user need cannot be implemented due to legacy code. Something written long ago, by a person long gone cannot be commented out for fear of it wreaking havoc or not knowing what it might do.

I argue we apply more stringent standards to code that drives websites then to the code that drives our environment.
Comment by Daniel Leuck on March 29, 2010 at 7:18pm
I believe GMOs are the next natural evolutionary step for us. They are no more of a perversion of nature than a wood box is a perversion of a tree. Obviously GMOs should be regulated, as should anything we put in our bodies, but they should not be railed against on religious grounds. The fact of the matter is, GMO corn is _not_ killing that woman's children, nor anyone's children. If we can create crops that can grow in poor soil conditions in poor African countries than we should! GMOs are with us. They will not go away, and they will become more prevalent in all aspects of our life. Its good to have watchdogs and fight for sensible regulation, but unilaterally opposing all genetic engineering because we are "manipulating nature" or "doing things that are unnatural" doesn't make any sense to me. You could make the same arguments about taking penicillin.

I also don't think all for-profit corporations should be vilified. You need to make money to employ people and fund R&D. Many companies are excellent corporate citizens. Our small company is a for profit entity but being a good corporate citizen and helping our community is one of our core tenants.
Comment by Konstantin A Lukin on March 17, 2010 at 11:42am
Is Jeffrey Smith really an industry expert?
Not sure, but he is definitely raising a number of red flags in his video, which to me means that there needs to be a more thorough research about possible dangers ASAP (preferably with full GMO production freeze)

My understanding is that most of GMO research is currently sponsored by corporations, which often display lack of morality, being driven solely by $$ profit. Since GMO is becoming such a controversial issue, IMO it needs to be regulated on a higher level.

Like was mentioned earlier, (IMO) this case should be viewed as pessimistic - meaning don't do it until we are absolutely sure there are no harmful side-effects. (Preferably getting independent opinions from a number of International Scientific organizations)

..the same technological advances can just as easily be made by alternate friendlier BioTechnologies WITHOUT forcing the use of Patented fertlizers/herbacides/pesticides coupled with Patented GMOs to accomplish the same.
Yes. There are other greener alternatives to sustaining our food supply, such as Vertical Farming. Why not focus in those instead and leave GMO alone till more information is available?

As a basic rule of thumb, don't produce anything you wouldn't want to eat yourself.

Thank you, Rubén, for sounding alarm bells on this issue.
Comment by Konstantin A Lukin on March 15, 2010 at 10:00pm
Common sense and intuition will often lead you astray. Galileo, arguably the father of modern science, was often mocked because his heliocentrist views were contrary to "common sense" and what the common man thought he observed on a daily basis - the sun circling the sky.
Agreed, as there is another side to my original argument. But there is also a case, where science goes against intuitive thinking, only to arrive at 'we shouldn't have done this' conclusion.. I was simply trying to say that scientific gurus should pay extra attention to general opinion, as it might prevent dangerous experiments with unpredictable outcomes. GMO experiments would fall under this category (IMO). Once again, quite often there is no clear solution to where to draw the line, that is why forums such as this one provide for great discussions :) I fully believe that truth is discovered in a healthy argument.
Comment by Rubén Peña on March 15, 2010 at 9:40pm
Konstantin:

I had seen this video & watched it in sheer awe the first time I saw it a while ago -- all the information & data he presents is jaw dropping; however, I opted not to post it on TecHui as part of the GMO discussion since it doesn't necessarily fall within the scope of Technology that directly speaks to its benefits and/or detriments of GMOs in Hawai'i and its effects to Hawa'iian Farmers (although he does briefly mention GMOs in Hawai'ian Papaya & Corn).

Jeffrey Smith speaking in your posted video "Everything You HAVE TO KNOW about Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods" is the same person being interviewed on my posted video "Whats Wrong with GMOs?". Jeffrey Smith is director of The Institute for Responsible Technology, www.responsibletechnology.org.

God Bless Hawai'i
Mahalo,
Rubén
Comment by Daniel Leuck on March 15, 2010 at 8:18pm
Using 'science & credentials' argument against 'intuition & common sense' can win some kudos points, but is a failing strategy in the long run. It is better to use science to back up intuitive/common sense conclusions.
I have to disagree with you on this my friend :-) Common sense and intuition will often lead you astray. Galileo, arguably the father of modern science, was often mocked because his heliocentrist views were contrary to "common sense" and what the common man thought he observed on a daily basis - the sun circling the sky.
Kostya - you might enjoy reading one of my favorite books - Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach. Its a very hard book to characterize, but it explores the fundamentals of logic, reasoning and the nature of human intelligence. It was one of the most influential books in my life.
Comment by Konstantin A Lukin on March 15, 2010 at 8:04pm
Just watching an excellent video on GMO dangers - loaded with facts from an industry expert. Dangers far outweigh the benefits. In GMO case, we should have a 'pessimistic' approach to possible dangers, not an optimistic one. IMO - JUST SAY NO TO GMO. Period.

Everything You HAVE TO KNOW about Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods from Jeffrey Smith on Vimeo.

Comment by Daniel Leuck on March 15, 2010 at 7:13pm
For those new to the discussion - Rubén's blog post above relates to the video he posted about GMO's in Hawaii.

Rubén Peña: As technically trained TechHui'ians we shouldn't discount the opinions and contributions of others just because they hadn't gone to college and received a formal education nor a University Degree.
I'm not doing any of those things. People with significant real world experience have plenty to contribute, and communities should certainly have a say about what happens in their backyard. That being said, lets not pretend credentials don't matter. Would you let a person without a medical degree perform major surgery on you? This is an extreme example for the purpose of illustration, but I think you get my point. Most of the "experts" you cite are activists and attorneys. There is nothing wrong with being an activist or a lawyer, we need activists to keep the government in check, but just because a person is protesting something doesn't mean they have any expertise in the subject.

If someone is going to presume to lecture others about a subject as complex as GMOs, which is what this video is doing, I expect that they either have a relevant scientific degree, or significant experience in the area. I do not think people running around with signs saying "GMO Corn is Killing My Children" (yes, this really happened on Maui) is particularly conducive to rational debate. I also find being lectured by a cartoon character named Pinky rather patronizing. Now, if he were a lemur...
Comment by Konstantin A Lukin on March 15, 2010 at 7:41am
As technically trained TechHui'ians we shouldn't discount the opinions and contributions of others just because they hadn't gone to college and received a formal education nor a University Degree - which I have observed over my career doesn't necessarily correlate to deducing conclusions based on common sense combined with wisdom
I'll have to agree with common sense approach. True, some people in the video express concerns that are more intuitive or heart-felt than scientific. It just tells me that these people are trying to sound 'the alarm bells', not necessarily knowing how to do it scientifically. It is no reason to dismiss their story, but on the opposite - listen, digest and figure out what's really wrong with open GMO picture.

IMO some 'scientists' are taking 'science' way too seriously, often forgetting that science is just a tool for us to deal with natural phenomena. Science is still in it's infancy stages, can not explain a lot of things, but that does not mean those things are not there. We humans have instincts and intuition. When something feels wrong, we should pay special attention to it, and not discredit it just because some arguments are not inlined with existing scientific theories.

GMO in the form of cross breeding has been going on for thousands of years. So to say GMO == BAD is simply nonsense. It is like saying natural == good, synthetic == bad. There are plenty of "natural" poisons and various "synthetic" creations that save millions of lives. Labeling something as GMO versus "natural" is pointless. The conversation is at completely the wrong level.
GMO is a man made creation, which had no time to adjust to natural settings. The biggest problem with GMO is that it's behavior is unpredictable if left unattended. There is nothing wrong with that either, but one of the consequences of GMO plant-life is that it can completely wipe out indigenous plants, thus leaving Hawaii without its natural cultural habitat.
Naturally for some people, who are not from these lands it does not seems like a 'big deal'.. but if you grew up here - I can understand how important preserving indigenous plant life is.

Using 'science & credentials' argument against 'intuition & common sense' can win some kudos points, but is a failing strategy in the long run. It is better to use science to back up intuitive/common sense conclusions.

In this case, I agree that GMO's should be fully isolated. I also think that there is truly no need for GMOs at all. The only reason why we are using them is because we do not know how to fully leverage what's already out there provided to us by nature. I'd personally stay away from GMO food.

Genetic engineers are working on cures for debilitating diseases and ways of growing crops in poor soil conditions in desperately poor African countries
Genetic engineers are simply using 'poor African countries' argument as an excuse for doing their research where nobody can provide enough resistance. Even desert soil can be enriched, like was done in Egypt and Israel.
Comment by David Jacobs on March 14, 2010 at 1:31pm
Sigh, I suspect I'm going to regret responding to this.

GMO in the form of cross breeding has been going on for thousands of years. So to say GMO == BAD is simply nonsense. It is like saying natural == good, synthetic == bad. There are plenty of "natural" poisons and various "synthetic" creations that save millions of lives. Labeling something as GMO versus "natural" is pointless. The conversation is at completely the wrong level.

Re: Risk of consuming GMO
GMO foods should be treated no differently than any other food product. If you are worried about the quality of your fruits and vegetables, then testing rules should apply to all of them. After all, GMO foods don't have a lock on "bad" food. There is plenty of "natural" bad food that gets shipped around.

Re: Risk of growing GMO
Not all GMO is created equal. Just like when scientists play with bacteria, there are some which require only nominal measures of cleanliness and there are others which require high grade environmental isolation and everything in between. One standard for all is simply does not make sense. Can you imagine if all chemicals had to be handled in a fashion that the most dangerous chemicals were handled? Clearly there are cases where total isolation is warranted and cases where it is not.

Re: Patenting food production
Like all intellectual property discussions, this can easily devolve. Let me just say that a balancing act is necessary. You want to provide enough property rights to encourage innovation, but not so much that you deny society of its benefits for too long. In the US the pendulum has been swinging too far towards the property rights side and is due for a correction in the other direction. But one shouldn't forget a balance is needed. This means there will always be some deserving people who won't have access to the benefits while the innovator extracts their rewards. But if you get the balance right, it should be a net positive for the society as a whole.

David

Sponsors

web design, web development, localization

© 2024   Created by Daniel Leuck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service