Indicible #conspiracy

Indicible #conspiracy fstdt.com

I kinda get what he says, though, since companies do their utmost to hide the inclusion of GMOs in food products.
Also, GMOs have been touted as the absolute solution to every problem in the world by the companies that produce them, with mixed results. Monstanto, for example has a corn variety that resists its pesticide, which does nothing against the fact that we are pretty much dying of an excess of pesticides. But, hey, at least, they make a nice buck selling the seeds and the pesticide.
We have abandoned old seed varieties because we thought we could do better and it has come back to bite us in the rump.

(Gabriel LaVedier:
@Indicible

Give me a minute, I'll submit your quote.)

@ Gabriel La Vedier

Be my guest. GMOs can be useful, but companies that produce them have a nasty tendancy to push for their use, even to the detriment of existing crop varieties and with the consequence that farmers have to pay through the nose without alternate solutions.

9 comments

old comment by Pharaoh Bastethotep

Sad to see that Indicible has fallen for the propaganda of the "natural" agriculture lobby.

Monstanto, for example has a corn variety that resists its pesticide, which does nothing against the fact that we are pretty much dying of an excess of pesticides.

GMOs producing their own toxins make these pesticides and their collateral damage obsolete. (Romeis, J. and Meissle, M. 2010; Qaim, Matin. 2012; Klümper, Wilhelm and Qaim, Matin. 2014; Lu, Yanhui, et al. 2012.)

We have abandoned old seed varieties because we thought we could do better and it has come back to bite us in the rump.

Technophobia alert!
If you have both toxin-producing and "conventional" seeds, both profit: The "conventionals" by reduced pest populations, the GMO fields from slower resistence development (Hutchinson, et al. 2016).

the consequence that farmers have to pay through the nose without alternate solutions.

Actually, the very opposite of that "Oh noes Monsanto is exploiting the poor naive natives for glass pearls!1!" nonsense is true (Carpenter, 2010; Qaim, 2012; Klümper, et al., 2014). Green biotechnology enjoys great support among Third World farmers - anti-GMO hysteria is mostly a phenomenon of Europe, which is very backwards in this regard.

Finally, I would encourage everyone to give your support to precision agriculture here.

old comment by Indicible

@ Pharaoh Bastethotep

Just to make it clear, I do not condemn GMOs (although I do have my reservations, particularly about the existence of solutions, should GMOs widely contaminate other crops), however I do not trust the companies that produce them as far as I can throw them.
When Monsanto sues for replanting seeds, I consider this an abuse of their rights. In Civil Law, when you grow a plant, you are entitled to its fruits (or seeds). Preventing replanting means the farmer is not entitled to using the seeds that result from their work. The contracts are drafted in such a way that they prevent replanting, thus guaranteeing a steady source of revenue in violation of one of the principles of property rights. The issue is of course complicated by the inclusion of intellectual rights, but it all stinks of abuse to me.
I am also wary of their respect for the Biodiversity Convention. They harp about intellectual rights, but will happily screw over countries for the use of some of its resources. It is of course extremely difficult to prove it. To my knowledge there are only very few cases in which biopiracy has been recognised (use of the maca plant, notably), but there are enough instances that I suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Their defense of glyphosphate is another beef that I have with their practices, but it is not linked with the present discussion.

My other remark was about the fact that we abandon old crops and thus lose variety. Since we do not keep stores of these seeds available, we are losing bio-diversity. That is not caused by GMOs per se, but the damage is nonetheless here.

Were GMO-producers less greedy, I would not have nearly as many problems with them. As it stands now, they act like clichés of villainy. That does not make them endearing to me.

old comment by Pharaoh Bastethotep

@Indicible:
GMO safety is a manufactroversy. In fact, the scientific consensus is firmly in favour of GMOs. In reality, GM crops need to pass excessively stringent tests (no such tests for conventional novel food!), nor is there even a plausible mechanism for there to even be a special health risk!

And yes, as much as you try to hide it as ~~conspiracy theories~~ scepticism against the corporate ethics of Big GMO, the underlying technophobia has been apparent in every single post of yours.

Let me guess: next, you will either bring up either Séralini, the Wakefield of the anti-GMO movement, (oh wait, you already alluded to him: "Their defense of glyphosphate is another beef that I have with their practices"), one of those "100 dissenting scientists!" lists, or "Frankenfood!"

PS: Or accusing me of being a chill, of course. No, I do not intend to go into commercial biotechnology. No, I want to become a chill for the Illuminati, Darwinist Conspiracy, MIB, Esoteric Order of Dagon etc,, spreading lies that deep sea creatures evolved on Earth!

old comment by Indicible

@ Pharaoh Bastethotep

For a bit of context, I have studied law, notably bioethics law, taught civil law and I am now working in a political institution in Europe.

In fact, the scientific consensus is firmly in favour of GMOs.

I would point out that I did not dispute that, although, I did point out that there are no safeguards in place incase something goes very wrong. And no, that is not sciencephobia, it is the normal posture of any serious legal practitioner in the field of bioethics. It is the application of the principle of precaution. Not the dumbed down version served by medias, but the original sense of the term, which is to have a contingency plan, in case something goes wrong. Most people confuse it with abstention (which would be to stop all research, which would be dumb).

In reality, GM crops need to pass excessively stringent tests (no such tests for conventional novel food!), nor is there even a plausible mechanism for there to even be a special health risk!

Genetics are tricky. In case a gene ends up being detrimental at long term, what plan do we have to reverse or mitigate its effects? As far as I know, we do not have any. That is a breach of the principle of precaution.
And yes, as much as you try to hide it as scepticism against the corporate ethics of Big GMO, the underlying technophobia has been apparent in every single post of yours.

Okay, first off, I do not think there is a Big GMO or something, simply because there are so few GMO-producers and most of the problems stem from one of them: Monsanto. And yes, Monsanto is dirty, dirtier than many companies in the field and it is nothing new. Their past record is to put it mildly controversial. So, no, I am not going to trust them because they spread a technology that I may approve of.
Secondly, once again, I have no problem with GMOs per se, as long as they take precautions, which I am quite certain they do not. They have proven over and over that the only thing they care about is their bottom line. Why should I trust them? The technics may be sound or they may not. We have had sufficient health scandals lately to be wary of corporate ethics in those fields.
Let me guess: next, you will either bring up either Séralini, the Wakefield of the anti-GMO movement, (oh wait, you already alluded to him: "Their defense of glyphosphate is another beef that I have with their practices"), one of those "100 dissenting scientists!" lists, or "Frankenfood!"

Nope. Séralini sounds like a clown to me. You do not give me enough credit for being informed. In my field (law and politics), if you defend your position with dirty tricks, whatever you defend, even if it is the most innocuous thing in the world becomes suspect. Monsanto has abused its position too many times for it to be anything other than dirty.
As for glyphosphate, I am inherently wary of pesticides. I have known too many farmers dying of cancer to not be wary. And before you accuse me of appealing to feelings or anecdotes, please note that studies HAVE pointed out elevated rates of certain trypes of cancer among farmers (for example, this one). When what I see and studies align, I do think I am somewhat right.
Or accusing me of being a chill, of course.

Nope. I will simply point out that we may not have the same tests for this situation, due to differing fields of knowledge and expectations.
Technology may be neutral in itself, but its use, abuse and its proponents are not. GMOs may be a good technology, but the people pushing for its use are not. So, yes, in my field, I will recommend to keep an eye on it, allow for research with proper precautions (and stringent supervision, which, I am afraid is largely not the case...), even allow a few minor innovations, but I will not agree to giving free rein to companies that have proven over and over that they cannot be trusted with the health of people, with upholding the law, or even with acting in good will.
Does that make me sciencephobic. I do not think so, unless of course, you consider bioethics to be sciencephobic (in all fairness, bioethics may very well be trying to keep things in check, but not out of fear of science, but of its effects or of those who would use it for their own ends.)

Indicible #conspiracy fstdt.com

9 comments

Confused?