GMOs are welcome on my dinner table

[Brian Howell]

Slate has an excellent article up on GMOs and truths versus fictions about them. (Go ahead and get all post-modernist, if you like.) Kate and I have no concerns over their safety, even as a massive, uninformed, and dogmatic chorus sings loudly of their threats to humans, to other species, and to the planet as a whole.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

[David Fetter]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:02:39AM -0700, Brian David Howell wrote:
> Slate has an excellent article up on GMOs and truths versus fictions
> about them. (Go ahead and get all post-modernist, if you like.) Kate
> and I have no concerns over their safety, even as a massive,
> uninformed, and dogmatic chorus sings loudly of their threats to
> humans, to other species, and to the planet as a whole.

I find myself, as I often do, in a situation where I'm tempted to say,
"a plague on both their houses."

Yes, fear about GMOs (a term of at best fuzzy definition, of course)
is at best lacking evidence and generally contradicted by the evidence
we have to hand. Yes, the people agitating can be relied upon to say
really crazy and stupid stuff, and they're frequently anti-vaxxers and
similar dangerous paranoids.

That said, the entities spending fortunes to prevent mandatory
labeling of food with its origins, whether they be breeding practice,
country of origin, feed/chemicals, or other, are bad actors. Each and
severally, they have a track records that makes me believe that when
they're spending money to ensure that something stays out of the
public eye, they're doing it for reasons that basically involve
externalizing costs from them to us, i.e. for their benefit and
against ours.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david....@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

[jack saunders]

David makes a strong point -- a corporate committee formed to guide a

multi-billion dollar PR campaign whose main purpose is to keep information out of public view is suspect at best.

On the other hand, I frequently find myself wondering what "progressive" causes

are destined to become embarrassments down the road....like the anti-vaccine movement.

My personal pick is the transgender boomlet.

I have a haunting feeling that this won't work out well.

I read a definitive piece in the Times just after the Kaitlin come-out.

It was a splendidly sourced piece on the actual medical treatments involved.

Doctors told the Times that chances of success were better the earlier the procedure is performed.

These doctors credited news media with getting more youngsters into treatment earlier.

Today, most of their sex change patients come in between ages 16-18,

but, ideally, they would prefer to start at age 10-12.

Do we really want to start such treatments on the say-so of a 12-year-old?

An adolescent who is, ipso-facto, highly unhappy and upset?

The Kaitlin thing was cited as a great triumph.

But it started with a patient who must be six standard deviations from any norm.

A man with the heart of ten men -- I believe that's basically what a decathlon gold medal means.

Bruce Jenner had  decades of self-awareness training to draw on, and a multi-billion dollar corporation behind him.

I can not imagine a less reliable guide to what awaits a troubled teenager wanting a "do-over" as a cure for confusion.  

---

From: David Fetter <da...@fetter.org>
To: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] GMOs are welcome on my dinner table

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/20150814151107.GA8136%40fetter.org.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Craig Good]

I’m square on the side of big business on this one. Forcing labeling of GMO food is an exercise in demonization. The anti-science ideologues pounding their high chairs for labels want to use them to further demonize the food. “See? They have to label it! It must be bad!” The only other thing it will do is raise the price of food.

There’s nothing to hide. GMOs are absolutely harmless. It would make just as much sense to demand labels telling you what color the harvesting tractor was painted.

These food terrorists have put the companies in an absurd bind: If they agree to labels, then GMOs are obviously bad. If they don’t want labels they’re “hiding something”. Think “food terrorist” is hyperbole? An example is that the jerks at Greenpeace have literally said they’d rather have children go blind than let farmers plant GMO crops. (Look up golden rice.)

I want no part of it. I’ll fight the labels.

On Aug 14, 2015, at 10:40 AM, jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> David makes a strong point -- a corporate committee formed to guide a
> multi-billion dollar PR campaign whose main purpose is to keep information out of public view is suspect at best.

--
--Craig WWWAYD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

Whenever they say "it's for the children" it isn't. Instead, it's
always just another assault on your liberty.

[Scott Hotes]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Craig Good <clg...@me.com> wrote:

There’s nothing to hide. GMOs are absolutely harmless. It would make just as much sense to demand labels telling you what color the harvesting tractor was painted.

It may be true that GMO's are a net positive, and it may also be true that (in this special case)

labeling food and thus enhancing overall information may push us in the wrong direction, but

I would argue that this kind of blank statement is also misleading.

Maybe you can speak to Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seed crops, and the evidence that the

proliferation of these has lead to a number of potentially harmful effects, including an increased

use of herbicides and promoting the development of certain herbicide-retardant weeds, that

reinforces this kind of cycle.

In short, I'm not prepared to call the question closed.

Scott

[Craig Good]

On Aug 14, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe you can speak to Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seed crops, and the evidence that the
> proliferation of these has lead to a number of potentially harmful effects, including an increased
> use of herbicides and promoting the development of certain herbicide-retardant weeds, that
> reinforces this kind of cycle.
>

Crop rotation and farming technique are a completely different question. There’s no difference in the food that arrives on your table. There is absolutely no good reason to label GMO food, and at least two good reasons not to.

Farming technique, not Roundup Ready, drives herbicide-resistance. This is a problem no matter what kind of herbicide you use. The good thing about the Monsanto stuff is that it allows the use of less herbicide.




--
--Craig WWJGD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com
Operator -- No pity, no pain, no fear.

[Scott Hotes]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Craig Good <clg...@me.com> wrote:

On Aug 14, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe you can speak to Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seed crops, and the evidence that the
> proliferation of these has lead to a number of potentially harmful effects, including an increased
> use of herbicides and promoting the development of certain herbicide-retardant weeds, that
> reinforces this kind of cycle.

Crop rotation and farming technique are a completely different question. There’s no difference in the food that arrives on your table. There is absolutely no good reason to label GMO food, and at least two good reasons not to.

Farming technique, not Roundup Ready, drives herbicide-resistance. This is a problem no matter what kind of herbicide you use. The good thing about the Monsanto stuff is that it allows the use of less herbicide.

I was treating Roundup Ready Corn as a GMO, I guess technically it is GE (Genetically Engineered), maybe you are making this distinction?

If not, then we'll start with Roundup Ready is a GMO.

That alone would indicate that there is in fact "a difference in the food that arrives at your table".  It comes from a plant that is genetically engineered to not be killed by certain herbicides.  At least I am not in a position to say that this is possible and still have there be "no difference".

In any case, you make a further claim that being herbicide resistant is good, and further it is good because it allows you to use less herbicides.  In fact I would think the opposite is true.  I still want to kill weeds, but now I can use more herbicide because I can worry less about killing the thing I don't want to kill, namely the RR Corn.  Here is the claim documented in SourceWatch:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roundup_Ready_Crops#Increase_in_Herbicide_Use

Where am I missing on this?

Scott 

[jack saunders]

To perform differently under exposure to Round Up the plant must produce a different set of enzymes.  This novel configuration of enzymes is known to confer resistance to R/Up.  There could be other forms of biochemical non-cooperation conferred with that trait.  These might be unwelcome novelties, as yet unknown. 

I'm generally skeptical of the safety lobby.  It's whole ethic is about boosting fear.  I'm too naturally optimistic to rally behind such people.  But I acknowledge their right to be afraid, and to get the information needed to rationalize their frightened space.

 

---

From: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>
To: Craig Good <clg...@me.com>
Cc: jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net>; David Fetter <da...@fetter.org>; Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 1:21 PM

Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] GMOs are welcome on my dinner table

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/CAC7%2BDAA8BsV112MpeTDYkWe_WaUxW%3D4B1yjSdMk2knVTQUx-iQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Craig Good]

On Aug 14, 2015, at 13:21 PM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That alone would indicate that there is in fact "a difference in the food that arrives at your table". It comes from a plant that is genetically engineered to not be killed by certain herbicides. At least I am not in a position to say that this is possible and still have there be "no difference”.

I was referring to the nutritional analysis of the foods. Last I read, no lab could distinguish them.

>
> In any case, you make a further claim that being herbicide resistant is good, and further it is good because it allows you to use less herbicides. In fact I would think the opposite is true. I still want to kill weeds, but now I can use more herbicide because I can worry less about killing the thing I don't want to kill, namely the RR Corn. Here is the claim documented in SourceWatch:

I read that as saying that more glyphosate is being used. Since I can’t imagine a farmer voluntarily buying more herbicide than needed I take it that means more glyphosate and less of just about everything else. That’s the idea: no longer does the farmer have to spray a hit and miss cocktail of herbicides. So more glyphosate is exactly what I’d expect.

But, again, the resistance problem is orthogonal to the food safety one.

I’ve noticed something about food scares:

MSG
Gluten
Cholesterol
GMO

They all seem to turn out to be false. I think that’s the safest default position.

--
--Craig WWJGD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

The basis of a healthy relationship is a mutual respect for food

[Craig Good]

Oh - I just noticed that sourcewatch is propagating the “superweed” myth. I’m not familiar with this site but, based on that bit of hyperbole, I’d take everything they say with a grain of salt.

On Aug 14, 2015, at 15:23 PM, Craig Good <clg...@me.com> wrote:

> They all seem to turn out to be false. I think that’s the safest default position.


--

--Craig WWSJD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com
Craig Good: Chairman, Frank Booth Sensitivity Training Institute

[Scott Hotes]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Craig Good <clg...@me.com> wrote:

On Aug 14, 2015, at 13:21 PM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That alone would indicate that there is in fact "a difference in the food that arrives at your table".  It comes from a plant that is genetically engineered to not be killed by certain herbicides.  At least I am not in a position to say that this is possible and still have there be "no difference”.

I was referring to the nutritional analysis of the foods. Last I read, no lab could distinguish them.

OK, I realize we are now well beyond making useful progress, but for the record, here's a lab that could:

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Phytoestrogen-Alteration-GM-Soybeans1jul99.htm

The growing clinical interest and use of soybean-based food products or extracts to increase dietary phytoestrogen intake makes the precise composition of the key biologically active ingredients of soybeans, notably genistin and daidzin of substantial medical interest. Conventional soybeans are increasingly being replaced by genetically modified varieties. We analyzed the phytoestrogen concentrations in two varieties of genetically modified herbicide tolerant soybeans and their isogenic conventional counterparts grown under similar conditions. An overall reduction in phytoestrogen levels of 12-14 percent was observed in the genetically altered soybean strains. Most of this reduction was attributable to reductions in genistin and to a lesser extent daidzin levels, which were significantly lower in modified compared to conventional soybeans in both strains. Significant sample to sample variability in these two phytoestrogens, but not glycitin, was evident in different batches of genetically altered soybeans. Given the high biological potency of isoflavones and their metabolic conversion products, these data suggest genetically modified soybeans may be less potent sources of clinically relevant phytoestrogens than their conventional precursors. These observations, if confirmed in other soybean varieties, heighten the importance of establishing baselines of expected isoflavone levels in transgenic and conventional soy products to ensure uniformity of clinical results. Disclosure of the origins and isoflavone composition of soy food products would be a valuable adjunct to clinical decision-making. 

[Craig Good]

On Aug 14, 2015, at 15:46 PM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I was referring to the nutritional analysis of the foods. Last I read, no lab could distinguish them.
>
> OK, I realize we are now well beyond making useful progress, but for the record, here's a lab that could:
>

That study would be by the same Marc Lappe known as a “Campaigner Against Toxics & GMOs”?

https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/ge/lappe052405.php


I’m still skeptical, but open to evidence. So far every GMO study I’ve heard of that claims to find Terrible Things has been a bad one, some so bad they had to be retracted. They’re usually by people and organizations with an ideological axe to grind, as in the case of the Lappe paper.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/


There’s also the fact that livestock has been eating GMO food for a couple of decades with no detectable detriment at all.

Anti-GMO activism is science denial just the way global warming denial is.

--
--Craig WWJGD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway.

[Jack Saunders]

If there were any serious reason to fear GMOs, some big league player at MIT or CalTech would have persuaded The Times that there is at least something to worry about -- and they have not.  Do I suffer from mandarin blindness?

[Scott Hotes]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Craig Good <clg...@me.com> wrote:

On Aug 14, 2015, at 15:46 PM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I realize we are now well beyond making useful progress, but for the record, here's a lab that could:

That study would be by the same Marc Lappe known as a “Campaigner Against Toxics & GMOs”?

https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/ge/lappe052405.php

Craig, this is a link to an obituary of the lead author on the study, written by his child.  For Christ's sake,

I want to argue in good faith here, but I can'd decide if this is some kind of ad hominem attack on the

person, or, maybe because the proud son referred to his father as a "Campaigner Against Toxins",

maybe that's somehow a pejorative.  But please.  If you are going to refute the link, do so on its merits.

For the record, I am not a research biologist.  I, like you, must go on what I am reading here.  Do you

have direct evidence that negates Lappe's findings?  If not, then please just let it go.

 

I’m still skeptical, but open to evidence.

I am glad to hear it, but based on the above, I am not convinced.

 

So far every GMO study I’ve heard of that claims to find Terrible Things has been a bad one, some so bad they had to be retracted.

Except, presumably for the one linked to above.

 

They’re usually by people and organizations with an ideological axe to grind, as in the case of the Lappe paper.

Huh?  If by "ideological axe to grind" you mean a Ph.D. scientist dedicating his life to educating the

public and trying to remove toxins from our environment, then yes, OK, sure.

  

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

This article does not mention Lappe.  Is it possible that there *is* some bad science, but not all of it is bad?

There is no doubt some logical fallacy you are falling into here...

 

There’s also the fact that livestock has been eating GMO food for a couple of decades with no detectable detriment at all.
Anti-GMO activism is science denial just the way global warming denial is.

OK, thank you.  I now have a better idea of where you are coming from.

Scott 

[Craig Good]

On Aug 14, 2015, at 16:45 PM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Craig, this is a link to an obituary of the lead author on the study, written by his child. For Christ's sake,
> I want to argue in good faith here, but I can'd decide if this is some kind of ad hominem attack on the
> person, or, maybe because the proud son referred to his father as a "Campaigner Against Toxins",
> maybe that's somehow a pejorative. But please. If you are going to refute the link, do so on its merits.

I understand that. But yes, a “campaigner against GMOs” is a pejorative in a scientific context. That’s someone with his mind made up. Science isn’t campaigning.

That one study from an organization that has a clear agenda is not enough to convince me, but I’d be swayed by a consensus that there’s some difference. My understanding of the science is that there’s a very clear consensus that GMO foods are safe.

And yes, I really do see similarities between anti-GMO activism and global warming denial. Same tactics and types of arguments, and the same “lone wolf” outlier scientists.

--
--Craig WWWAYD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

"I've seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never came
to pass."
--Mark Twain

[Scott Hotes]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Jack Saunders <Jack...@pacbell.net> wrote:

If there were any serious reason to fear GMOs, some big league player at MIT or CalTech would have persuaded The Times that there is at least something to worry about -- and they have not.  Do I suffer from mandarin blindness?

The question was not:  is it rational to worry about consuming GMO's?  If that was the question,

well, that is more nuanced, and would require a lot more gray.  In particular what I was responding

to was the foregone conclusion:  nothing to see here, no need to worry, and you pesky people 

can't have your labels on foods.  That to me is a different point to respond to altogether.  In fact,

my point was simply:  if you think it's so cut and dry, you may have not considered all the facts.

In life we can't follow every question down to the bare metal.  No one could make progress that

way.  Sure, based on prevailing evidence, it is certainly plausible that GMO's are 1) a net 

positive, and even 2) from the pure human consumption side there are little to no risks.  That

DOES NOT imply that 3) there is no discernable difference (there is at least some evidence 

that in some cases there are), and 4) that thus we should not label foods (in fact there could

be many good reasons beyond simply changing the nature of the food we eat that could

warrant labeling, such as the proliferation of herbicides.)

Scott

[Brian Howell]

A few quick thoughts for now:

1. My thoughts are basically aligned with Craig on GMO labeling: that they'll induce an even louder cry for prohibition.
2. Anti-GMO science is basically like anti-global warming: it is not based in sound argument but in emotional reasoning.
3. Although most people are unaware of it it, humans have been eating GMO foods for decades; many processed foods have GMO components.
4. Hybrids and radiological mutation (two other common ways of producing new varieties of plants and animals that predate GMOs have been shown to be able to induce even greater genetic impact than genetic engineering).
5. Sourcewatch is generally an excellent site for revealing the motivations of the corporation behind its PR/spin curtain.
6. Scott's study is from 1999. I'd like to see more recent data. Surely, since this is such a critical subject, there must be plenty of them.

Read the article. And Saletan's earlier one on the same subject: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/08/critical_thinking_lessons_for_the_anti_gmo_movement_generalizations_evidence.html

There's also these other pro-GMO articles from Slate: http://www.slate.com/search.html#search=gmo

Finally, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/09/15/science-panel-dives-deep-gmo-thicket/ offers the following citations:

To date, more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with these ingredients of these crops or resulting food products have been identified.

— US National Academy of Sciences (2004)

 
---

Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers comring from that most litigious of countries, the USA. — UK Royal Academy of Medicine (2008)

---

The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that that biotechnology, and in particular, GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.

— European Union finding (2010)

---

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.

— official statement on GMOS from the World Health Organization

---

Actually, I'll add one more citation:

The American Medical Association, the largest physician organization in the U.S. that many consumers associate with safeguarding public health, adopted a formal statement explicitly opposing the mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods.

During a conference in Chicago, AMA's House of Delegates also adopted a report reaffirming there is no evidence that the genetic modification process presents any unique safety issues and recognizing the potential benefits of the technology.
The council's decision to oppose labeling comes amid California's consideration of legislation that would require genetically modified foods sold in grocery stores to be labeled. Beyond its potential to create unnecessary alarm for consumers, a review by the independent state legislative analyst points out the measure would cost the state and its taxpayers millions of dollars to implement and to pay for lawsuits.

The AMA report is consistent with the findings of a majority of respected scientists, medical professionals and health experts. As the AMA has cited previously, a highly regarded 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper states there is no evidence that genetically modified foods pose any health risks. The report also reaffirms the council's policy recommendation in a December 2000 report stating "there is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods."

Additionally, there have been more than 300 independent medical studies on the health and safety of genetically modified foods. The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and many others have reached the same determination that foods made using GM ingredients are safe, and in fact are substantially equivalent to conventional alternatives. As a result, the FDA does not require labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients because it acknowledges they may mislead consumers into thinking there could be adverse health effects, which has no basis in scientific evidence.

— Statement of the American Medical Association in advance of California’s 2013 referendum that would have mandated the labeling of foods containing GMO ingredients.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/66D5CA09-B4F9-41E5-9C2B-D2C819AFF5B7%40me.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Brian Howell
www.linkedin.com/in/bdhowell

[Scott Hotes]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com> wrote:

A few quick thoughts for now:

1. Scott's study is from 1999. I'd like to see more recent data. Surely, since this is such a critical subject, there must be plenty of them.

Both from 2013:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-hard-look-at-3-myths-about-genetically-modified-crops/ 

[Craig Good]

Hey, coincidentally today's episode of Inquiring Minds features a really interesting interview with a scientist from Monsanto. Some neat information and a few surprises.

[Craig Good]

On Aug 14, 2015, at 18:20 PM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Both from 2013:
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

That article doesn’t seem to tease apart glyphosate-resistance from any other. Weeds that build resistance to it can still be killed by other herbicides. It’s not clear from the article if they’re saying there are more herbicide resistant plants in general, and it wouldn’t be clear how that would be affected by the GM plants.

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-hard-look-at-3-myths-about-genetically-modified-crops/

The only thing they found true, the so-called “superweeds”, is the same problem as above. That interview with the Monsanto scientist talked about some interesting ways they fight resistance since it directly affects their sales. Unfortunately the techniques don’t always get followed in places like India. That’s a problem.

Neither says anything about dangers from consumption of GMOs, which is my main point: The overwhelming scientific consensus is that they are safe to eat.

--
--Craig WWSJD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

Losing one glove
is certainly painful,
but nothing
compared to the pain,
of losing one,
throwing away the other,
and finding
the first one again."
--Piet Hein

[Brian Howell]

My point exactly.

[Vince Koloski]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/23/hawaii-birth-defects-pesticides-gmo?CMP=ema_565

A Guardian article on the controversy in Hawaii about pesticide use on GMO fields. It is more concerned with the effects of the pesticides on surrounding humans than on surrounding plants. 

[Vince Koloski]

Not letting go of GMO...

An article listing a number of areas wherein the author contends that the issue of GMO consumption safety may still be up in the air:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/01/growing-doubt-a-scientists-experience-of-gmos/

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 11:55:07 PM UTC-7, Brian Howell wrote:

[Craig Good]

On Sep 5, 2015, at 23:03 PM, Vince Koloski <vkst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not letting go of GMO...
> An article listing a number of areas wherein the author contends that the issue of GMO consumption safety may still be up in the air:
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/01/growing-doubt-a-scientists-experience-of-gmos/
>

I’m finding neither his arguments nor the author himself very persuasive. He edits some kind of conspiracy theorist site claiming, among other things, that "corporations and governments have conspired to create a genetic determinist understanding of society and of human nature, even though the evidence to support that view is missing.”

Genetic determinism, Gracie?

Some of the red flags in this argument, which doesn’t get around to any actual scientific claims until well down into the body of it:

"One concern is that Bacillus thuringiensis is all but indistinguishable from the well known anthrax bacterium (Bacillus anthracis). Another reason is that Bt insecticides share structural similarities with ricin.”

My reactions are “so what” and “that sounds like scare mongering”. It reminds me of the Food Bimbo railing about “yoga mat” chemicals in bread.

“...some Cry proteins are known to be toxic towards isolated human cells…” Again, so what?

I’m still not persuaded by all the “boo scary” glyphosate stories, and still have a hard time picturing a farmer who says, “Yipee! Now that I’ve spent more money on these fancy seeds I can now spend even more money on herbicides I don’t need!"


If there’s a case to be made about GMO safety I don’t think Latham has made it.

--
--Craig WWSJD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

2. Go to a zoo or place with many types of life and communicate
with each of them until you know the communication is received and,
if possible, returned.

[Scott Hotes]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Craig Good <clg...@me.com> wrote:

I’m still not persuaded by all the “boo scary” glyphosate stories, and still have a hard time picturing a farmer who says, “Yipee! Now that I’ve spent more money on these fancy seeds I can now spend even more money on herbicides I don’t need!"

I think this is a great argument to have, and glad we're still having it... :)

A few posts back on this thread I sent links to Forbes and Scientific American, indicating that yes, in fact during the time that Round-up Ready crops have gone to dominate the US agricultural landscape, in fact overall herbicide use had increased.  Causality is a bitch to prove, so I'll just say this needs to at least serve as a baseline.

But I'll go further, and say that, like the people most vocal with warnings about Climate Change, we must tread lightly in upsetting a balance that has taken millennia to achieve.  That is, if a company like Monsanto is going to commercialize fundamental changes in US ecology, things that if taken out of balance scientists have argued may be very difficult to undo, then the burden must be on Monsanto and regulatory industries such as the FDA to demonstrate that long term effects are kept in check.  Have they?

Let's start with what RoundUp (and it's generic name glyphosate) really are [1].  Glyphosate, though marketed as something that kills weeds, actually kills all live plants.  The ones we want, and the ones we don't want.  Now, the folks at Monsanto thought:  what if, instead of building a chemical that only kills weeds, we find one that kills all natural plants, and along side this we introduce (the only) patented plants that can withstand it!  This indeed sounds like a tale out of Orwell's 1984, but lets continue.

But wait, maybe with this new brand of farming we could be more efficient with the land.  No pesky bugs or weeds to worry about.  And with proper usage it has been shown that glyphosate breaks down relatively cleanly, so that's OK too.  Better yields, less hassle, why not!

One almost gets the image that farmers got together and thought this out rationally.  Based on science.  But of course that's not how this happens.  As a Libertarian I find the following difficult to say, but markets are just not capable of dealing with these kinds of long-term risks.  With weak/non-existent regulatory oversight, market forces push for incremental yield/profit improvements, blind to longer-term effects.

What if Monsanto is wrong?  What if, as appears to have happened [2], the emergence of RoundUp Ready crops breeds new kinds of weeds that Monsanto *can't* kill, and we initiate an ecological arms race (TM, Scott Hotes)?  Consider the quote from Monsanto's Rick Cole:  "it's a serious issue, but it's manageable", indeed, I hope you are right for all our sakes.

Man has been farming the land for 10K years.  RoundUp Ready crops have been experimentally changing the landscape for less than 30.  I hope we know what we are doing.

Scott

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all

[Scott Hotes]

And in today's news...

Based on a study released earlier this year by the World Health Organization, concluding that

RoundUp "probably" causes cancer, the State of California considering labeling RoundUp as 

"known to cause cancer":

https://www.rt.com/usa/314544-california-epa-glyphosate-carcinogenic/

Scott

[Craig Good]

This wouldn’t be the first time the WHO has gone a bit off the straight and narrow. (They followed Lustig in the sugar scare.) Their conclusion doesn’t seem to match a lot of other studies not just on cancer but toxicity in general.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

On Sep 7, 2015, at 22:13 PM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Based on a study released earlier this year by the World Health Organization, concluding that
> RoundUp "probably" causes cancer, the State of California considering labeling RoundUp as
> "known to cause cancer":

--
--Craig WWSJD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

"A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will
almost certainly inflict violence on human beings if he acquires
the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure
truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely
in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of
words is the first and natural credential of civilized status."
--Paul Johnson

[Scott Hotes]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Craig Good <clg...@me.com> wrote:

This wouldn’t be the first time the WHO has gone a bit off the straight and narrow. (They followed Lustig in the sugar scare.) Their conclusion doesn’t seem to match a lot of other studies not just on cancer but toxicity in general.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

Your argument might be stronger if you went after the data, and not, well, the World Health Organization in this case.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/03/glyphosate-and-cancer-what-does-the-data-say/

Scott 

[Craig Good]

I thought that’s exactly what I did by linking to an article on a non-ideological web site, which included links to and summaries of studies. As to the WHO I’m pointing out that their conclusion seems outside the current scientific consensus.

Even then the claim seems to be about direct exposure, which isn’t much of an issue for the end consumer. And is still tangential to the safety of consuming GM foods.

On Sep 8, 2015, at 02:46 AM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Your argument might be stronger if you went after the data, and not, well, the World Health Organization in this case.

--
--Craig WWSJD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

Are you trying to develop a sense of humor or am I going deaf?

[Brian Howell]

Quotes from the creator of the Ames Test: 

• 99.9 percent of the toxic chemicals we're exposed to are completely natural -- you consume about 50 toxic chemicals whenever you eat a plant. 
  
• Elimination of cancer is not in the cards, even if we get rid of every external factor.
  
• Nearly half of all natural chemicals tested, like half of synthetic chemicals, are carcinogenic in rodents when given at high doses.
• Natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests.  We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant.
• About 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest are natural. The amounts of synthetic pesticide residues in plant food are insignificant compared to the amount of natural pesticides produced by plants themselves. Of all dietary pesticides that humans eat, 99.99 percent are natural: they are chemicals produced by plants to defend themselves against fungi, insects, and other animal predators.
  
• We have estimated that on average Americans ingest roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products. Americans eat about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg they consume of synthetic pesticide residues.”https://sciencepolicyivh.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/bruce-ames-testing-for-carcinogens/

Full disclosure: I knew Bruce and went to school with his children when I was growing up. I've long thought he should be awarded a Nobel, whether in medicine or [bio]chemistry—and I am not alone.

https://sciencepolicyivh.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/bruce-ames-testing-for-carcinogens/

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/science/scientist-at-work-bruce-n-ames-strong-views-on-origins-of-cancer.html

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40054/title/Mutagens-and-Multivitamins/

--

Brian Howell
www.linkedin.com/in/bdhowell

[Scott Hotes]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Craig Good <clg...@me.com> wrote:

I thought that’s exactly what I did by linking to an article on a non-ideological web site, which included links to and summaries of studies. As to the WHO I’m pointing out that their conclusion seems outside the current scientific consensus.

Even then the claim seems to be about direct exposure, which isn’t much of an issue for the end consumer. And is still tangential to the safety of consuming GM foods.

Not exactly.  For one thing, your post started with an attack on WHO veracity, citing a separate topic, namely their involvement with a campaign to reduce sugar intake, and Robert Lustig, a topic I'd also like to respond to, but would take us even farther off topic...)  This is a type of ad hominem attack.  If you doubt the veracity of the WHO findings, you should address them directly.  I could come up with countless studies from the WHO that *are* substantiated, but I don't believe that gets us anywhere.  Regarding the article, it predates the findings by the WHO by at least four months.  No doubt members of the WHO team had access to the scientific data that forms the basis of the article you sent.

Regarding the end consumer vs., say, the farm worker, well, the subject of this thread is "GMO's are welcome on my dinner table", and early on in the thread you yourself invoked the idea of associating people wanting food to be GMO-labelled as similar in nature to climate change deniers.  Both opening the door to effects beyond immediate health risks to the consumer associated with consuming GMO foods.  Yes, I am also talking about ecological effects, effects due to continued exposure, say, by pickers, etc.

Scott

[Craig Good]

I don’t think it’s an ad hom attack to point out that a cited authority is fallible, and has a history of sometimes putting ideology ahead of science. Credibility counts. But that was throat clearing. The point is that their conclusion does seem to be outside the scientific consensus on GMOs. It’s going to take more than a single study to turn that ship around.

It’s valid to consider the source. And so far all the anti-GMO arguments I’ve seen seem to be coming from advocacy web sites rather than scientific journals. And most of the arguments I hear against GM bear an uncanny resemblance to all the creationist and climate denier tactics I’ve dealt with for a long time. I think the pattern is telling.

There may well be something to exposure by pickers to glyphosate. I’m still skeptical on that, but it could be. That’s still only tangential to GMO. There’s nothing that GMO does to make glyphosate what it is or work the way it does. Rather it’s the way glyphosate works that has driven certain (certainly not all) GMO development.

--
--Craig WWWAYD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

Lexiphanes? Moi?

[Jack Saunders]

Craig...would be sincerely open to a discussion of "the pattern" you detect in the arguments attacking GMO technology in the food supply. Here's the pattern I see: A rational concern over a very high-value human asset (the food supply) is tech-splained by corporate interests with checkered histories.

That situation will reliably generate a new line of business in the Challenge Authority industry.

By this time, thousands of Green lawyers, flacks and political organizers have found steady and exciting work, migrating from state to state, issue to issue, GMO campaign to GMO campaign. No technical findings can shut it down at this point...not after the senior people now have 10 years or more invested in this baby.

We are an arguing culture-- much preferred to a sword culture -- and so we have millions of elites to employ in eternal debate. I'm willing to support the perpetual churn of challenge and hype. Some of those young debaters are building up sharp minds.

The wise republic will support a muscular reserve of analytic horsepower. Even if it's never used in peril, those jobs tend to train fairly attentive citizenship.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/BE5275B9-0AF7-4A3D-B3AE-8B9C0A73B788%40me.com.

[Craig Good]

On Sep 11, 2015, at 15:49 PM, Jack Saunders <jack...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Craig...would be sincerely open to a discussion of "the pattern" you detect in the arguments attacking GMO technology in the food supply.

"First, cast doubt on the science. Second, question the personal motives and integrity of the scientists. Third, magnify genuine disagreements among scientists, and cite nonexperts with minority opinions as authorities. Fourth, exaggerate the potential harm caused by the issue at hand. Fifth, frame issues as a threat to personal freedom. And sixth, claim that acceptance would repudiate a key philosophy, religious belief, or practice of a group.” —Sean Carroll on how to spot denialism as opposed to science


Those [UN|Monsanto] scientists are corrupted by money!

[GMOs are evil|Climate Change is fake] because [giant corporations|big government]!

I believe in science, but not *those* scientists. They’re frauds!

Here are a bunch of web pages showing how [GMOs are bad|global warming is a hoax], and they have actual Scientists on them! (Ignore the fact that they all have a political agenda and express minority opinion.) They all make lots and lots of points that you’ll never have time to address! (See “Gish Gallop”)

Your claims of a scientific “consensus” are all wrong because it isn’t up to a vote!

How can we risk [consuming GMOs|reducing our carbon footprint] when [I have a fear of modernity|I have a fear of change]!

OK, so maybe [GMOs are safe to eat|The earth is warming] but the *real* reason I’m against this is [whatever].




I could have found anti-vax and anti-evolution arguments that follow a similar pattern.

--
--Craig WWJGD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

Remember:
http://nymetro.com/news/articles/wtc/gallery/15.htm

[jack saunders]

Craig -- I see what you're on to, and endorse your point.  These are standard tactics in mass media debate.  The target is the C student population, easily excited and already leaning toward a resentful distrust of elites (science being the unmistakable icon for elitism).  Kick that old dynamic into the modern Internet world and you pick up the momentum of the slacktavist set.....folks keen to "take action"..... the easy way -- retweeting.

 

---

From: Craig Good <clg...@me.com>
To: Jack Saunders <jack...@pacbell.net>
Cc: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>; Vince Koloski <vkst...@gmail.com>; Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] GMOs are welcome on my dinner table

[Craig Good]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 3:49:54 PM UTC-7, Jack Saunders wrote:

Craig...would be sincerely open to a discussion of "the pattern" you detect in the arguments attacking GMO technology in the food supply. 

This cartoonish example just came across my feed. A noted anti-GMO (and also anti-vax) activist has now made the comical claim that GMOs cause concussions.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/seneff-claims-gmos-cause-concussions/

Poe's Law rules the universe.

[Jack Saunders]

Aren't momentum and shock wave the essential components of concussion?  Definitional ones?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/c61855f4-1a21-435b-b0dd-0111d52ed3dd%40googlegroups.com.

[Brian Howell]

I don't have time to read this right now, but I wanted to post this: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/540136/the-next-great-gmo-debate/

[Craig Good]

Yet another example of why I take such a dim view of anti-GMO activism:

http://www.science20.com/genetic_literacy_project/nutritionist_attacked_after_debunking_glyphosate_in_milk_study_heres_how_she_responded-156878

This "FOIA bullying" is becoming a common tactic among the anti-science crowd. Those bad old scientists can't be shilling for the bad old corporations as long as they have to spend all their time on paperwork.

[jack saunders]

Does anyone else long for the good old days when "straight science" never had to call itself that, and so never even dignified whacko challenges with a serious answer.  As a common layman, I found that stance comforting and convincing, and so did mass media.  Those days are gone.  Is it the Fox-inspired "fair and balanced" nostrum that has opened the door for the Jenny McCarthy's of the world?  Objectivity, like consistency, is the hobgoblin of cramped minds.

 

---

From: Craig Good <clg...@gmail.com>
To: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: clg...@gmail.com; clg...@me.com; sah...@gmail.com; vkst...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 4:18 PM

Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] GMOs are welcome on my dinner table

Yet another example of why I take such a dim view of anti-GMO activism:

http://www.science20.com/genetic_literacy_project/nutritionist_attacked_after_debunking_glyphosate_in_milk_study_heres_how_she_responded-156878

This "FOIA bullying" is becoming a common tactic among the anti-science crowd. Those bad old scientists can't be shilling for the bad old corporations as long as they have to spend all their time on paperwork.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/1a65924e-733a-4bc9-9969-26f88671ba08%40googlegroups.com.

[Craig Good]

Fear of modernity is as old as modernity. There have been anti-science activists since there was science, and anti-vaxers since vaccines were invented. I don’t think it’s Fox or any other media, but the internet megaphone that lets them be so loud now.

On Sep 17, 2015, at 16:25 PM, jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Does anyone else long for the good old days when "straight science" never had to call itself that, and so never even dignified whacko challenges with a serious answer. As a common layman, I found that stance comforting and convincing, and so did mass media. Those days are gone. Is it the Fox-inspired "fair and balanced" nostrum that has opened the door for the Jenny McCarthy's of the world? Objectivity, like consistency, is the hobgoblin of cramped minds.

--
--Craig WWJGD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

Go, gloried ace!

[Scott Hotes]

I don't think anyone (at least here on this list) is arguing that the anti-GMO "community" does not have its share of bad actors.  I think we get that.

Keep in mind that the biggest pro-GMO (at least in dollars) is... Monsanto.  Would it move the conversation forward if I were to point out the many ways Monsanto "stacks the deck"?  In terms of funding candidates, university funding, backing non-university studies, etc?  To be honest, I don't think either of gets us any closer to a resolution.

Scott

[jack saunders]

Oh, yes -- I'm very well aware that science has been hectored by often thinly credentialed auto-didacts (but sometimes by respected mainstreamers like John Gofman at UC during the height of the anti nuclear craze.  No question about that.  My point was that the lab I worked at in Livermore was hard pressed to find competent scientists to comment on "original" theories of mavericks.  Whether their work was in the same field or not, they seemed to sense professional peril in discussing anything work other than their own for journalists or for any other media use.  To comment to the Chronicle on other scientists' work was just not done.  Now I see it all the time.  The rules have clearly loosened up -- or, maybe more accurate, mores have changed.

 

I can tell you as a dead certainty that Livermore as in institution would never have gotten into a discussion over "mainstream science" versus counter-culture science.  To them, there was only one science -- the stuff published in refereed journals.  Period.  The rest did not exist.

---

From: Craig Good <clg...@me.com>
To: jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net>
Cc: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>; "sah...@gmail.com" <sah...@gmail.com>; "vkst...@gmail.com" <vkst...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 4:28 PM

Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] GMOs are welcome on my dinner table

[Scott Hotes]

Without context, I would agree that fear of "modernity" is common, and often unhealthy.

In the context of anti- vs. pro-GMO, I think it may be simply loaded.

I don't think the anti-GMO crowd (not sure I am in that, but willing to speak for them here...) would or should be willing to concede that pro-GMO (and in dollars, I mean Monsanto) has "science" on their side.

Do I think money can influence otherwise rational, scientific debates?  If money is involved, I would replace "can" with "always does".  Take for example how we peddle pharmaceuticals and the role "science" plays:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/ 

Sometimes when there's smoke there actually is fire.

What about the case of DDT?  This was a similar debate that happened decades ago.  With at least one of the pro-DDT folks eating it in his classroom to prove how safe it is.  Now, 20+ years later, and 20 more years of science to back it up, the UN is calling for limiting its use as linking the spraying of it in households to kill Malaria has been demonstrated to be directly linked to birth defects.

Scott

[jack saunders]

I get that, and I have no doubt that Monsanto has lied, cheated and deck-stacked to the fullest extent to the law, maybe beyond.

But there used to be a "scientific community" outside corporate interests.  The pro-nuclear Dept of Energy used to assemble special panels of advisory scientists to sort out things like tritium in the water and melanoma hot spots among Lab workers....and these guys were impressive.  I used to actually read their reports and sit through their press conferences.  They were not shills.  Nor were they prone to easy intuitive leaps.  I think it was a mistake when they started arguing with the inconsolably frightened.

 

---

From: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>
To: Craig Good <clg...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>; Craig Good <clg...@me.com>; Vince Koloski <vkst...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 4:32 PM

Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] GMOs are welcome on my dinner table

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/CAC7%2BDAAxyv8txtOt0knDibv9cA279F%2BHw6b6ZRoFp3-7WoX%2B7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Craig Good]

Many in the skeptical community think that scientists, as a group, dropped the ball by not pushing back. Many even derided Carl Sagan for his outreach efforts, saying that popularizing science isn’t the scientist’s job. We may be seeing some tragic results of that attitude.

On Sep 17, 2015, at 16:39 PM, jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> I can tell you as a dead certainty that Livermore as in institution would never have gotten into a discussion over "mainstream science" versus counter-culture science. To them, there was only one science -- the stuff published in refereed journals. Period. The rest did not exist.

--
--Craig WWJGD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

"Every word written is a victory against death."
--Michael Butor

[Craig Good]

 

"Pro-GMO is really pro-science and pro-evidence-based policy."

What she said.

[Scott Hotes]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Craig Good <clg...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

"Pro-GMO is really pro-science and pro-evidence-based policy."

What she said.

Here it is in the context of the article, and not as a soundbite: 

To me, the real issue in the GMO conversation is a much broader concern, not exclusive to GMOs or even agriculture. The real issue is not allowing fear and scientific illiteracy to drive policy and promoting evidence-based policies. The GMO conversation is not occurring in isolation. It is part of a larger conversation about science- and evidence-based policy. Those of us who are adamant about GMOs are so because we are advocating for science- and evidence-based decision making in multiple domains. The future of GMOs in agriculture just happens to be a domain that is a matter of considerable public concern at the moment. - See more at: http://www.soundofscienceblog.com/defining-the-gmo-debate-why-it-matters/#sthash.ox16YRT3.dpuf

Yeah, I don't like this definition.  I think it is wrong-headed to suggest that if you are not pro-GMO, then you are not pro-science.  In my case, I have a number of concerns about GMO's and the dollars/motivations behind much of the research associated with them.  I've shared that here.  Does that mean I'm "anti-science"?  To me that sounds absolutely ridiculous.  I too think it's an interesting/important debate, and I too believe the stakes are high.  In context the author cites to obvious cases where GMO's could have substantial benefit, but completely ignores any risk factors associated with the broader trends associated with GMO's.  That' a biased view.  The author also argues that in a reductionist sense everything we eat is a GMO, so thus labeling makes no sense.  Just because drawing a hard line is difficult, say relating only to transgenesis, does not mean we should simply abandon any effort on that front.

No, not willing to yield "pro-science" or "scientific" to the pro-GMO side.

Scott

[Brian Howell]

Those of us who are adamant about GMOs are so because we are advocating for science- and evidence-based decision making in multiple domains.

I heartily agree with Scott that not being pro-GMO means "you are not pro-science." In fact, a lot of anti-GMO sentiment is the result of (need I preface "valid"?) scientific research, personal biases, such as the author is obviously subject to, notwithstanding. To that end, I also agree that her arguments were one-sided. And, as Scott implies, a lot of those "us" have vested financial interests in GMOs. 

The premise doesn't support the conclusion—unless you interpret her statement in the abstract.

All that being said, I would suggest that the author does have some standing on the subject of GMOs, given her professional background as a epidemiology postdoc studying, in part, epigenetic consequences of toxic exposures.

[jack saunders]

This thread got confused somewhere.  I can't believe anybody on this list ever said

that skepticism is the province of blockhead deniers.

The history of science is full of vindicated skeptics.

 

---

From: Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>

To: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: clg...@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] Re: GMOs are welcome on my dinner table

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/043b6d36-eb4a-40ac-9442-09c081507e1a%40googlegroups.com.

[Scott Hotes]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:45 AM, jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net> wrote:

This thread got confused somewhere.  I can't believe anybody on this list ever said

that skepticism is the province of blockhead deniers.

The history of science is full of vindicated skeptics.

Jack, I don't think anyone was arguing that skepticism equates to anti-science or blockhead

deniers.  Actually I think all parties were mostly arguing in favor of skepticism.

The question was more whether or not it was a clear-cut case that GMO's are safe

and overall a net positive for society and for the environment, the

science is in, move along, nothing more to see here, and if you disagreed with that 

conclusion, or for whatever reason were not willing to get on board with that conclusion,

then not only were you being "anti-science" on this particular issue, but by taking this

position (I am drawing this from the recent link) you were promoting and helping to

promulgate a general trend of "anti-science" as it applies to politically charged

questions.

It is both parts of this last phrase that I take exception with.

Really, I think it significantly weakens an argument to appeal to the persons general

thinking process.  In short:  you are wrong, and to demonstrate that I will show that

you approach things in a non-scientific manner.  It is not relevant, and blurs the

question, to approach how the person approaches problems generally.  Likely it will

be difficult to make any truly defensible arguments along these lines, and in any

case, why not just stick to why this particular argument I am making or defense I

am giving is somehow not scientific?

This relates to the question of using arguments like:  "people who are taking this

side of the argument tend to be the kinds of people that are climate change

deniers", or worse appeal to their intellect more generally, as "impressionable" or

"whackos".  Like it or not, these are ad hominem type arguments.  The position

being taken is not being addressed directly, but rather subjective qualities of the

speaker, or worse, the crowd they (allegedly) hang around with.

Scott

[Jack Saunders]

Where do anti-fracking people come in.  Two earthquakes per year in Oklahoma a decade ago, now hundreds.  But all small, without apparent consequence.  Enviros are inconsolable.  To say there's nothing to worry about is to boost the interests of oil companies...unethical, ipso facto, to many.  Is it hard to get research grants in geology if the oil companies call you a wacko?

[Craig Good]

This is very thorough.

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/11/22/the-international-scientific-consensus-on-genetically-engineered-food-safety/

In summary, there is an overwhelming international scientific consensus
with regards to genetically engineered crops. The notion that “Big
biotech bought off every study and credible scientific organization
in the world” is the secular science-deniers’ version of “the devil
put the fossils there to test our faith.” 

[jack saunders]

It's interesting to me that everybody seems pleased with a bigger fish....except in this case.

I don't happen to like fish myself, but the bigger ones always look more interesting in the store.

More healthy looking.  But put that label on it, and the public runs in horror.

(I suppose a peach the size of a pumpkin might get some arched eyebrows, too.)

We are an easily frightened bunch.

 

---

From: Craig Good <clg...@gmail.com>
To: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 2:37 PM
Subject: [Ipse Dixit] Re: GMOs are welcome on my dinner table

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/427aa05b-77a4-4389-88b7-dbd610ac84ae%40googlegroups.com.

[Scott Hotes]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Craig Good <clg...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is very thorough.

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/11/22/the-international-scientific-consensus-on-genetically-engineered-food-safety/

Thorough, but at best misleading.

The overall thesis of this article is not that a) GMO's are safe to eat, or b) GMO's are safe for the environment, but rather it is:  c) I can safely divide up people into two classes:  i. those that agree with me, are pro-science and rational, and ii. those that don't agree with me, and are therefore anti-science, ignorant and irrational.

Like all the pro-GMO articles posted in this thread, the author cherry picks the top, most positive statements about GMO's, and like most, finishes with some snarky statement like "It's time for a reality check."

But actually the author is certainly biased.  This appears in many ways, I will pick out just one.  Consider:

1) All the currently approved commercially available crops that have been brought about via modern molecular genetic engineering techniques are at least as safe to consume (and are at least as safe for the environment) as their corresponding non-GE counterparts.

This is listed as a "conclusion" that is corroborated by the cherry-picked list of references and quotes below it.  OK, I know it is time I will never get back, but I perused said list, and NOT ONE of them referred to the parenthetical remark "and are at least as safe for the environment".

As I've said before in the thread above, this is an important question.  If I have reason to believe (again, see above, not willing to repeat myself here) that GMO's can/do have negative impact on the environment, at least in some cases, then I may choose NOT to "welcome them on my dinner table."

That doesn't make me a luddite.  It doesn't make me irrational.  It simply means I disagree.

Scott

--

"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value."

  - Thomas Paine

[Craig Good]

So you’d agree that the scientific consensus is that GM food is safe to eat, but you don’t yet recognize a consensus that they are safe for the environment?

Are there even a good number of high quality studies showing environmental harm? This strikes me as an extraordinary claim.

[jack saunders]

The breezy fact that "the scientific consensus is that GM food is safe to eat" represents a big jump in food safety over our lifetimes, compared to long run of our species's history.  Until very recently we depended on pretty reliable sensors to reject bad food.  Some died, yes, but not a lot.  The body does a good job throwing junk over the side.  But now that's not satisfactory.  Not up to par for good government.  A scientific consensus, implying all the rigorously refereed arguing, moves us beyond reliance in our own senses, to add political insurance -- the important question being whether or not we can sue.  Maybe we have evolved from tribes of hunters and gathers to associations of fretters, each with its own law firm.

 

---

From: Craig Good <clg...@gmail.com>
To: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] GMOs are welcome on my dinner table

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/B416EC0F-671A-45CC-8A36-D1E47C2E8626%40gmail.com.

[Scott Hotes]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Craig Good <clg...@gmail.com> wrote:

So you’d agree that the scientific consensus is that GM food is safe to eat, but you don’t yet recognize a consensus that they are safe for the environment?

Are there even a good number of high quality studies showing environmental harm? This strikes me as an extraordinary claim.

Do you have reason to believe that will move the conversation forward?

In 30 years, Glyphosate has become by far the leading herbicide used in the US.  As described

ad nauseam in the thread above, its introduction has dramatically changed US ecology.  What

in your mind would constitute "environmental harm"?  Obviously this has to be in contrast to 

other types of herbicide or I suppose my burden would be trivial here:  the massive disruption

caused to ecology alone would be enough to satisfy "environmental harm".

Instead, you need to argue trade-offs associated with different types of farming practices, 

different type so herbicides, etc.  Does my citing one reference make a difference?  If so, here

is one:

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416 

Scott

[Craig Good]

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 13:32 PM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
>

I’m having a hard time accepting that study as credible. I haven’t been able to vet the publication itself yet*, but one of the lead authors is a notorious anti-GMO crank.


https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/seneff-claims-gmos-cause-concussions/


In any case, the abstract sounds all sciency until it tries to link glyphosate residue to a laundry list of maladies:

"Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”

Autism and Alzheimer’s? That’s definitely crank territory.




* Having “testimonials” about how fast peer review is certainly raises red flags:
http://www.mdpi.com/authors/testimonials#Entropy

--
--Craig WWJGD?
clg...@me.com http://www.craig-good.com

Choose: The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means
-- OR you can read English.

[Brian Howell]

I have to say, Scott, your citation doesn't seem very strong. The authors themselves have, to say the very least, questionable credentials: they're computer scientists, one of whom is retired. Do read the referenced links. Could you find a better citation, please?

One recent example that an anti-GMO website approvingly pointed to was so obviously absurd that I was sure it  would be ignored by media. It’s a paper that suggests a chemical in Roundup, a widely used Monsanto herbicide, “can remarkably explain a great number of the diseases and conditions that are prevalent in the modern industrialized world,” such as “inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, cachexia, infertility, and developmental malformations.” [UPDATE: As someone puts it on Twitter, the paper “reads like it was scribbled on Glenn Beck’s chalkboard.”]

The paper is by two authors with dubious credentials and is such a mashup of pseudoscience and gibberish that actual scientists have been unable to make sense of it. As one of them also noted, the paper is published in a “low-tier pay-for-play journal.”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/04/26/when-media-uncritically-cover-pseudoscience/#.Vl8ZSYQ7NQ0

I published an article with them [Entropy Journal] once in their journal Future Internet. The article processing charges were waived. I found it strange that the journal asked me to submit names of reviewers for my paper. They didn’t use the editorial board to review it...One of the definitions for the word entropy given by Wictionary is “The tendency of a system that is left to itself to descend into chaos.” We may be witnessing this process occurring presently with MDPI. [MDPI owns Entropy.]

http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/05/16/more-controversy-over-open-access-publisher-mdpi/

The Samsel and Seneff paper was originally published in the journal Entropy, an interdisciplinary free access online journal with a pay-to-play price tag of $1,352.00. Entropy is published by the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), which, according to Jeffrey Beall at Scholarly Open Access, is a “potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publisher.” The paper itself is 48 pages of other peoples’ work and Samsel and Seneff establish no causative link between glyphosate and human disease. Indeed, the word “associated” is used 43 times in the paper and “association” appears 24 times. Their main hypothesis is something called “exogenous semiotic entropy,” a meaningless concept that exists nowhere in the world but in this paper. The authors present their readers with an explanation—that glyphosate is behind dozens of human health problems—and then drum up all the support they can for it. All without doing any hypothesis testing or experiments themselves. This approach is the opposite of dispassionate and skeptical science. 

https://mrdrscienceteacher.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/glyphosate-pseudoscience/

Seneff explains that she places her work in the "open access journal," Entropy, because it is "willing to publish novel hypotheses," and because  "the papers are subjected to rigorous review by experts who were not beholden to industry influence."  

http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/a_fishy_attempt_to_link_glyphosate_and_celiac_disease-132928

The web site, Sci-Phy, dissects Entropy as a bogus scientific journal: http://www.sci-phy.com/detecting-bogus-scientific-journals/

This is pretty damning: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=13715&tip=sid. Look closely at the numbers! Notice, for example, that the average cites per document is 1.51 and that many of those citations are self referential. Also, that between 2007 and 2014, Entropy's published papers received just 747 cites in total. 

The actual article (PDF)

http://www.netwerkvlv.nl/downloads/Gly,Modern%20disease,Samsel-Seneff-13.pdf

Other references

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/condemning-monsanto-with-_b_3162694.html

https://gmoanswers.com/studies/steve-savage-addresses-samsel-and-seneff-study-“glyphosate-pathways-modern-diseases-ii

This reminds me a bit of Joseph Smith and the hat:

http://www.tonu.org/2015/06/06/glyphosate_tradesecretfiles/

--

Brian Howell
www.linkedin.com/in/bdhowell

[Scott Hotes]

I'm not sure how to react to the argument that my citation was to an unaccredited journal, and that the authors do not have sufficient credentials (in part due to the fact that they are computer scientists, and one is retired), and have you come back with a Huffington post article, but I will continue in any case.

1. This thread that goes nowhere already contains a number of citations.  For example, please recall:

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/03/glyphosate-and-cancer-what-does-the-data-say/

Pointing back to The Lancet.

2. As I laid out in detail earlier in this thread, IMO the onus is on the party dramatically modifying the

  ecology to demonstrate either:  a. no harm, or b. harm that is justified by benefits and that could not

  be provided with means producing less harm, etc., etc.

Craig, neither you or Brian seem willing or interested in entertaining the second point.  That's fine.

To me that's the more interesting question.

BTW, IMO it is also more interesting to argue findings on their merits.  The witch hunt of who said

what about what contributing author to what journal that asked for what fee based on blah-blah-blah

leads only to a circus.

Scott

[Jack Saunders]

Consider the patent implausiblity of this statement:

Over the course of a century, we have chemicalized the entire food supply.  No ill effects were noted.

On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not sure how to react to the argument that my citation was to an unaccredited journal, and that the authors do not have sufficient credentials (in part due to the fact that they are computer scientists, and one is retired), and have you come back with a Huffington post article, but I will continue in any case.

1. This thread that goes nowhere already contains a number of citations.  For example, please recall:

<image.png>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/CAC7%2BDABJ4Lx1EW2qbCODAabX4R_1NNDLnVvTtA49xT%2BxmTADVg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jack Saunders]

Very aggressive presentation.  What is the root of the animus?  Why are "computer scientists" suddenly Jenny McCarthy, ipso facto?  I hope you guys are ready for the new "data scientists" we now see popping up everywhere in media -- Nate Silver types who analyzes vast stores of data.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/CAAq%2BNfdchVju%2BcvVKuxO3kfXV2BM_WYkGdub603FxcqnrBWnpQ%40mail.gmail.com.