Space Opera Fans discussion
Reader Discussions
>
Mutant lambs - the new delicassey
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
I'm diabetic and if it weren't for GMOs, I'd probably be dead.
A lot of people I know that say they won't eat GMO (I'm sure they still do and don't realize it), say it's unnatural and use the cancer scare tactic, because everything unnatural gives cancer apparently. The article states that Europeans have a severe distrust for science. Apparently they fear GMOs out of ignorance.
same here. gyros would be so disappointing without lamb.
The criticism against Europeans is rather harsh. Is this because we won't buy US-grown GM crops?
I didn't make up Europeans having a severe distrust, it's in the article. The USA has a high distrust.*edit
To be completely honest, I think most of the world has a high distrust for science. It stems from poor education or idiot parents scared of what they don't understand, telling their children science is full of shit.
The USA doesn't have to fear GMO crops. They have the unquestionable integrity of the FDA protecting them :)
AndrewP wrote: "The USA doesn't have to fear GMO crops. They have the unquestionable integrity of the FDA protecting them :)"The incorruptible FDA.
It is interesting (and awful) that both Europe and North American have high levels of distrust in science but the form it takes is very different. Overall I think the North American version is more harmful, since it often takes the form of distrusting research and the institutions that perform it.
If your anti-GMO in general you're an idiot, if you believe a certain GMO is bad that's understandable as science makes plenty of mistakes. But being against the entire concept of improving our food, something we have done since forever though breeding is silly.Jonathan wrote: "I didn't make up Europeans having a severe distrust, it's in the article. The USA has a high distrust.
*edit
To be completely honest, I think most of the world has a high distrust for science. It ..."
I think it's fine to distrust the science, but there is a difference between having distrust for science(This GMO is bad because X; I disagree with your climate model because Y) and being anti-science (All GMOs are bad, natural crops only, we can't change gods work; we need to depopulate the earth and go back to preindustrial era in order to stop climate change).
Steph wrote: "The criticism against Europeans is rather harsh. Is this because we won't buy US-grown GM crops?"Sorry, I did mean in the article; should have made that clear. I think the distrust in GM foods is largely because the science is still quite new. I accept the point that on one level it's no different to selective breeding.
I would like to see how you selectively breed a sheep and a jellyfish :)
AndrewP wrote: "I would like to see how you selectively breed a sheep and a jellyfish :)"The obvious reply is "very carefully," but in fact i think it is done in vitro by cut and pasting the DNA.
Aaron wrote: "If your anti-GMO in general you're an idiot..."Hi Aaron - you do realize you just called your Borg Queen and probably 3/4 of the people in this community idiots?
Some dear friends of mine on two separate fronts are bio-researchers who have come up with some very DISTURBING and unexpected links between GMO-crops and autism, neurological and intestinal problems, alzheimers, and cancer, and then were ordered to suppress those studies because big agribusiness got involved, so they did. But they won't eat anything they don't grow themselves or buy from a reputable source. And they won't talk about it because they fear being ridiculed and made to sound un-credible.
So, yeah ... my kid has Aspergers and their advice to go organic made about 70% of his symptoms clear up in a couple of weeks. The rest of the damage is permanent. But I guess I'm just stupid and an alarmist? Eh? And as for my silent scientist friends who just keep their heads down and move onto the next study ... I just hope you never need the vaccine for ebola, because they're so 'uncredible' and stupid that they don't understand what their own scientific studies showed?
[*yeah ... that's the kind of research they're into*]
#SMH
The glowing lamb is probably safe, it just hasn't been sufficiently tested and cleared for human consumption--and that's why it's a big deal that it made its way into the food supply. You can say it's probably safe...probably. But since the testing is expensive, the regulatory hurdles are extensive, and the lamb is meant for science rather than broiling anyway, it won't ever be submitted to and approved by the FDA, which means there's no way of knowing for sure what hidden dangers might exist.Anyway, there's lots of conventional lamb on the market, so no great loss that we can't eat this one.
The glow-in-the-dark lamb bothers me a lot less than the Agent Orange / Roundup / glyphocene GM crops have been engineered to resist. Don't care -how- many times the scientific community says it's safe to feed my kid ... I won't buy it, won't eat it, don't want anything to do with it, avoid it like the plague. In a capitalist democracy, I vote with my almighty dollars.
Anna wrote: "Aaron wrote: "If your anti-GMO in general you're an idiot..."Hi Aaron - you do realize you just called your Borg Queen and probably 3/4 of the people in this community idiots?
Some dear friend..."
You must of missed my next sentence.
"If you believe a certain GMO is bad that's understandable as science makes plenty of mistakes."
I'm very accepting of the argument that GMOs we currently have and are in the market right now are worse for you, there is a good bit of evidence pointing towards that especially in certain products. But saying that GMOs are bad in general is stupid, GMO just means Genetically Modified Organism that's it, the main issue probably comes down to the fact that we understand human health way less then we would like.
I would also add be very sure you do your research on any such labels that say GMO-free, Organic, made with no _____. Because a decent bit of the time they are misleading, and the only difference between the organic version and non-organic version is the label on the box and the price tag.
Aaron wrote: "...a decent bit of the time they are misleading, and the only difference between the organic version and non-organic version is the label on the box and the price tag. ..."I understand a lot of science / engineering peeps get into 'logic' mode and don't pick up on social cues that their arguing has crossed a social boundary. But you came across as condescending. And you ridiculed people who have legitimate concerns. The fact you cannot SEE that you did that only exacerbates the problem.
It also doesn't help that you are making factual arguments that are not appropriately precise:
1. The label 'organic' is a legal term which is highly regulated by the government and law. So no, that statement is incorrect. Organic is organic. If a company mislabels organic, they will be fined and can even go to jail.
2. If a product says GMO-free and it -does- contain GMOs, that's deceptive advertising, and consumers can, and HAVE gone after corporations for mislabeling their food. Consumer protection law is an area of law I have dabbled in. So no, GMO-free means GMO-free. Or else ... the state attorney generals can, and do, regularly go after them for triple damages (recently, they went after a butter company).
However...
I think maybe you were referring to the common food label 'natural' which has no such legal constrictions? Yes, you can douse something in 'all natural' pesticide, serve it up with rubber yoga mat coating, and a healthy side-order of herbicide, and still call it 'all natural.' They call it 'greenwashing' and a lot of people think because something says 'natural' that it means healthy.
Of course, 'organic' and 'GMO-free' doesn't necessarily mean 'healthy.' My kid loves organic, GMO-free popcorn with organic, non-rBST treated butter and organic cookies made with organic coconut oil. It still makes you fat and gives you pimples 3:-)
I'm not one of those wingnuts who believes GM is inherently bad. I -want- to believe science can save the world. I -want- to believe we can make grain grow in the desert. But I worked for Arthur D. Little for a while, where they did testing for the FDA, I have scientists for friends, and I rub elbows on a regular basis with some pretty heavy hitters. There's a lot of scary crap going on in the USDA/FDA, regulators and entire branches of government bought-and-sold by mega corporations. I don't trust them because they talk down to intelligent people as though they are stupid and ridicule them rather than be honest and do some long-term testing, so therefore I won't eat it. Any of it. Period. They can't make me buy it, and the more they scorn me and try to twist and pervert the law, the more cautious I will become about only buying food from people I trust.
I mean, really? I spray that glyphocene shit on my dandelions and it makes them shrivel up and turn black. And they want me to believe it's safe to feed that food to my kids? The same shit that made the babies of Vietnam veterans get born without hands? Uh-uh. Nope. Don't buy it. And I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Anna wrote: "Aaron wrote: "...a decent bit of the time they are misleading, and the only difference between the organic version and non-organic version is the label on the box and the price tag. ..."I underst..."
I can't find glyphocene except in a local newspaper magazine in Brazil. I can find glyphosine which is apparently being used in diabetes type 1 medicine.
What is glyphocene? I used DuckDuckGo, Bing and Google to search for the term.
I used to think anti-GMO people were being ridiculous, and then my daughter was born. Wanting her to be healthy and illness free caused me to take on an entirely different mindset, but I don't discount GMOs entirely. I do believe that without GMOs, there would be a worldwide famine. Regardless of a person's belief pertaining to overpopulation, people starving to death and dying of malnutrition is a shitty thing.Why would their be malnutrition and famine? In short: not enough food being grown.
Around the world the movement away from agriculture jobs is happening, the USA and western Europe and Japan already there. Because of that, the general populace has turned into shitty farmers who cannot feed themselves, let alone a family, with the vertical farming techniques required since fertile land is in such short supply. Hell, most people would be a failure at growing weeds in the ground.
It's because a super majority of people alive don't know how to grow food themselves, which led to a demand for increased crop output to feed all those "ignorant" mouths. The sharp upward slope in demand over a relatively short period of time (decades vs hundreds of years) pushed agri-business to devise new ways to increase crop output.
I am sure many of those businesses tried to find holistic ways for an increase, with varying levels of success; but the unceasing population boom and the human desire for wanting to make money, led to laboratory designed ways to increase crop output.
Now, what laboratory designed ways are good and which are bad? No idea, and I think that is where the distrust in science comes from. Who exactly is paying for the studies done on GMO foods? Monsato is a very wealthy company, are their fingers in all or even some of the GMO food studies? How do you prove their aren't involved in all GMO food studies? You cannot (dis)prove a universal negative so the distrust in food science develops and then festers, until you have people who make up their mind and science be damned. It's that reason why a lot of people will never ever believe any health positive studies in relation to GMO foods.
As I said about my mindset change now that I have a daughter, I am not anti-GMO food. Why? Because, how many people in impoverished Africa, Asia and island countries have been helped by iron fortified rice? There are quite obviously a lot of people who haven't, but putting iron in a staple food to so many people around the world is a good thing. People shouldn't die from scurvy.
@ Jonathan - it's glyphosate, not glyphocene ... my apologies ... a misspelling on my part.Poor, starving people in Africa, Oceana and Asia are all too stupid and lazy to grow their own food? Or eat a piece of spinich?
Talk about white privilege...
You're not aware that agribusiness is the biggest supporter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership to FORCE those countries to buy our GMO crops against their will and SUE them to force them to eat our food because our taxpayer subsidized GMO crops have undermined the local farmers ability to earn a living...
[*but they're starving, remember?*]
You didn't know that agribusiness and drug manufacturers SELF-REGULATE their own safety testing? And that there is almost zero government oversight of that self-regulation because the FDA and USDA have been defunded (after much corporate lobbying) since the 1980's?
You don't know that US agribusiness gets billions of dollars in US taxpayer subsidies every year, and then the big agribusiness takes that subsidized food and DUMPS it on our 'trading partners' at far below the cost to produce it, putting the local farmers out of work?
You weren't aware that WE, the taxpayers, PAY to subsidize these crops to make them so cheap? Or that nearly all of the subsidies go to NYC agribusinesses which control nearly all of the farms in this country? Not the tea party redneck farmer, who hates GMO crops just as much as the most flaming Whole Foods shopping liberal?
You never made the connection behind our US GMO corn subsidies and the rise of drug lords in Mexico and South America rammed down their throat by NAFTA? Or the illegal immigration problem?
I'm not going to argue with people who choose to remain willfully ignorant without researching the underlying facts independently of the propaganda (on BOTH sides ... if an anti-GMO site is selling snake oil supplements ... RUN). Why do you think so much science fiction features an evil corporation?
As far as Organic, I was personally thinking of a product that had Organic as part of it's brand name, but wasn't actually Organic. I believe you can also get away with having it, if the word Organic is part of a trademarked process(but I'm not sure if that loophole still exists or is currently being exploited).That being said I don't really argue anything you said in your last post it's pretty accurate. I just tend to get very fired up when people go into their all GMOs are bad, fad diet, superfood nonsense.
Anna wrote: "I mean, really? I spray that glyphocene shit on my dandelions and it makes them shrivel up and turn black. And they want me to believe it's safe to feed that food to my kids?"
It's about the dosage levels pretty much everything can be made to look scary at high enough dosage, that being said at extremely young ages much smaller doses can cause bigger effects and our knowledge on health is even less for our children and I do think that many people start feeding their kids crap way too young.
The majority of people in impoverished nations don't know how to grow their own food, but it's from a lack of education instead of "white privilege" (coincidentally affects more than white people, since it's kinda weird to think everyone not "white" can grow crops).What exactly is the problem behind GMO food besides "evil" corporations who look out for nothing but the bottom line creating this GMO food?
That's an honest question. Aside from people hating Monsato, et al because they are big business (a lot like why people hate WalMart), I've never seen a reason to fear GMO foods. Maybe because it's that I'm not looking, but I haven't seen any article citing scientific evidence of a GMO food being as horrible, or worse, or even in the same ballpark as smoking cigarettes. I'd love to read such an article though.
Minor point because my views are basically an echo of Jonathan's: my understanding is that much of the issue with food shortages are due to cropland degradation (40% of the world's agricultural land is degraded, apparently). Education won't necessarily improve yields from unproductive land.Improving yields from degraded farmland and growing crops that can improve soil rather than degrade it is something that GMO foods could be a tool to address, though obviously it's a question of which direction the research is encouraged to go.
One slightly reassuring thing, though I am in general not very trusting when it comes to the capitalist system: Monsanto et al can be trusted to do what makes them the most money, and they would lose money if they release a GMO food that is a health disaster.
Glyphosate is probably (*most studies have pointed to it not being toxic but they are constantly re-evaluating because it is so heavily used) not toxic to humans, it inhibits an enzyme that is shared by plants, fungi and some bacteria but not animals, hence why it is a herbicide and not a general poison.
@ Aaron - Organic is organic is organic. It might be USDA-certified organic. Or some states have an even higher level of organic certification. But if it says organic, it has to at a minimum meet the standards of USDA organic, or they're breaking the law. It's a very precise legal term. You are thinking of 'natural,' which is quite legal to misuse.@ Jonathan - I don't have the time to bring you up to speed. Read: Genetic Roulette
@ Brandan - still not going to eat it...
Anna wrote: "@ Aaron - Organic is organic is organic. It might be USDA-certified organic. Or some states have an even higher level of organic certification. But if it says organic, it has to at a minimum mee..."Yep your right sorry. The story in which I remember stuff about that was around 5 years ago, so I might be misremembering something(in another western country maybe) or they fixed the loophole.
"Products that are “100 percent organic” or “organic” may display the USDA organic seal anywhere on their product label and can display brand names that contain the word “organic” on their PDP as long they meet all labeling requirements. Otherwise, agricultural products that are not “100 percent organic” or “organic” may display company names containing the term “organic” only as part of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor statement required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the information panel." -USDA
Unlike 'natural' which is abused with impunity. Here's a funny video about the blatant use of the word 'natural' in false advertising:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AftZs...
I think it pertains to sci-fi, because I know I constantly think on what the food supply is in the civilizations I make up. What they eat or where it comes from usually doesn't make it into my writings, but I love adding it to the back story and history of the universe I create.
As for the article, I have zero problem with eating GMO food or mutant sheep.