

Unhealthy Fixation - ghosh
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

======
cb18
User _fs makes the excellent point that

 _The only fear of GMOs that I have is knowing that certain crops have been
genetically modified to not die when they are caked in pesticide. Good for
plants, bad for me, as I have not been genetically modified to eat crops with
layers of pesticide on them._

Strangely, this post was downvoted. Even more strangely a response to _fs's
post by goodreter, that simply provided support in the form of a link for
_fs's point about secondary negative effects was quickly downvoted.

As _fs alludes to, even if GMO crops have no negative effects on organisms
that eat them, there are a lot of potential negative externalities that need
to be considered, monocultures in food production, the unprecedented control
of a food supply that patented genomes give to individual corporations,
unforeseen interaction between a gmo and the surrounding ecological systems,
etc. etc.

With _fs's and goodreter's posts, both of which are perfectly reasonable,
being downvoted as well as the other posts downvoted in this thread(which all
seem to share the characteristic of being somewhat skeptical of gmo) I'm not
entirely sure there aren't monsanto shills hovering on this thread.

~~~
pbreit
Possibly because the more common situation is that a crop is GMd to not need
pesticides. Like the papaya in the article.

~~~
cb18
"more common situation is that a crop is GMd to not need pesticides"

Is that based on research you've done, or are you just going with your gut?

This[0] article explains how "Roundup-ready corn and soybeans"(roundup is an
herbicide) has caused the near disappearance of milkweed and because of that
the near disappearance of Monarch Butterflies which need the milkweed to
survive. What does "roundup ready" mean? It means the corn and soybeans can
tolerate the herbicide, so the fields are coated with it indiscriminately. I'd
wager that acres of corn and soybeans planted exceeds acres of papaya by a
fair bit.

This[1] well-sourced[2] article describes "Herbicide and Insecticide Use on
GMO Crops" as "Skyrocketing."

This[3] article describes how corn crops that are gm'd to be resistant to
pests have actually become susceptible to pests because "nature will find a
way." This has resulted in even more use and need of pesticides for these
crops, a vicious cycle.

By the way the crops that are modified to "not need pesticides," still
actually need and use pesticides. The pesticides are just incorporated at the
gene level, instead of after they've already been planted. _For example, the
use of systemic insecticides, which coat GMO corn and soy seeds and are
incorporated and expressed inside the entire plant, has skyrocketed in the
last ten years. This includes use of neonicotinoids (neonics) which are
extremely powerful neurotoxins that contaminate our food and water and destroy
non-target pollinators and wildlife such as bees, butterflies and birds. In
fact, two neonics in widespread use in the U.S. are currently banned in the EU
because of their suspected link to Colony Collapse Disorder in bees._ [1][4]

And the roundup ready type gm is one of the main things I've heard touted
about gm over the years, I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

 _Over 99% of GMO acreage is engineered by chemical companies to tolerate
heavy herbicide (glyphosate) use and /or produce insecticide (Bt) in every
cell of every plant over the entire growing season. The result is massive
selection pressure that has rapidly created pest resistance--the opposite of
integrated pest management where judicious use of chemical controls is applied
only as necessary. Predictably, just like overuse of antibiotics in confined
factory farms has created resistant "supergerms" leading to animals being
overdosed with ever more powerful antibiotics, we now have huge swaths of the
country infested with "superweeds" and "superbugs" resistant to glyphosate and
Bt, meaning more volume of more toxic pesticides are being applied._[1]

[0][http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/04/04/the-monarch-
butter...](http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/04/04/the-monarch-butterfly-
decline-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/)

[1][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bronner/herbicide-
insect...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bronner/herbicide-insecticide-
use_b_5791304.html)

[2][http://static.ewg.org/agmag/pdfs/pesticide_use_on_geneticall...](http://static.ewg.org/agmag/pdfs/pesticide_use_on_genetically_engineered_crops.pdf)

[3][http://www.wsj.com/articles/limits-sought-on-gmo-corn-as-
pes...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/limits-sought-on-gmo-corn-as-pest-
resistance-grows-1425587078)

[4][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Toxicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Toxicity)

~~~
joaomsa
The article's point is that generalizations about GMd foods are ignorant and
each case needs to be evaluated on it's own merits and dangers.

It's very well sourced (though it does occasionally fall prey into cherry
picking) to show cases of both positive impacts like GMO Papaya and Golden
Rice and negative like increased RoundUp usage.

Would be great if public perception adopted this skepticism and questioned
practices that aren't discussed for labeling like widespread Bt spray usage vs
the GMO included one.

------
_fs
First of all, I don't think anyone has a serious objections to GMOs that are
modified to increase output or resist natural predators

The only fear of GMOs that I have is knowing that certain crops have been
genetically modified to not die when they are caked in pesticide. Good for
plants, bad for me, as I have not been genetically modified to eat crops with
layers of pesticide on them.

~~~
goodreter
First unintended victim may be the monarch butterfly.
[http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/04/04/the-monarch-
butter...](http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/04/04/the-monarch-butterfly-
decline-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/)

------
fra
GMOs are to liberals what Global Warming is to conservatives.

It's quite sad, really.

~~~
csbowe
How is that? The way I see it, liberals consider both GMOs and global warming
large problems that must be dealt with or fixed. Conservatives tend to not
agree with the assessment that either is really a legitimate problem.

~~~
Nadya
I think it was a comparison of views.

Science says global warming is a problem, conservatives ignore that and say
that science is wrong because {poor reasoning here}.

Science says GMO is fine, liberals ignore that and say that science is wrong
because {poor reasoning here}.

~~~
pbreit
Except the science on GMOs is much further from settled. And science hasn't
really addressed some of the theoretical concerns.

~~~
Nadya
In many cases it has been largely settled and we even have decades of data
proving it. The article even provides several examples - cherry picked or not
[0] - that provide evidence to the irrational fear bits.

The Bt example is a great example. Being produced by the fruit or sprayed on
after being produced by bacteria has the same results and the "sing a
different tune" to try and pass laws against it is telling that there is a
larger (money-driven) agenda behind making people fear Bt-enhanced items
compared to Bt-sprayed items.

The claim, in many (but possibly not all!) scenarios is very similar to
tobacco companies saying "the science behind tobacco smoke being harmful to
humans is far from being settled and science hasn't fully answered some of the
so-called issues". I'll call bollocks on the tobacco companies and claim that
they might have some other ulterior motive behind making scientific claims
that tobacco isn't harmful and their cigarettes do not cause lung cancer.

I don't trust companies that would profit from a GMO ban on the harmful
effects of GMO when unbiased results are opposing the findings of the anti-GMO
groups. I also don't trust misleading claims used for fear-mongering because
people don't really understand something but pretend to. [1].

[0] I don't follow the GMO issues super-duper closely so concede that there
might be cases, many perhaps, that aren't as "case-closed" as the examples in
the article. But whether these examples are cherry-picked or not they do show
several GMO issues that should be "case closed" but aren't.

[1] [http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html](http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)

------
g42gregory
From my perspective it's not that all GMO foods are bad. I think the problem
is that a lot of staff is being engineered into food that is not good for us.
And we don't know which is which. It's a much finer-grained point than GMO vs
non-GMO. However, if we can't even LABEL the GMO food "GMO", what do you think
will be in it? When corporations are fighting the GMO label so furiously, this
can't be a good sign.

------
chrismealy
It took 80 years to figure out trans fats are bad. How long will it take to
sort out every single invented GM food?

~~~
jostmey
People have been breeding and cross-breeding our food supply for thousands of
years. What can we do about that? I know! Let's use the Internet to identify
which foods are pure. Then we can be sure to stick to just those foods when we
shop at the grocery store.

~~~
pbreit
Breeding <> GMing. One is natural, the other is artificial. And that's
precisely the point.

~~~
NeutronBoy
There are a lot of natural things that are bad for you, and a lot of synthetic
things that are not bad for you.

~~~
pbreit
That may be but doesn't change the concern here with respect to food
manipulation.

------
andor
Journalist uses anecdotes to prove that GMOs are safe and science is
difficult.

