Do you really understand modern farming? Urbanite examines 10 myths of GMOs and organics

[HuckleB]

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/04/do-you-really-understand-modern-farming-urbanite-examines-10-myths-of-gmos-and-organics/

This is a fair review of the topic, overall.

[HuckleB]

1. GMOS: AN INTRODUCTION (another worthy resource on the issue)

http://fafdl.org/gmobb/gmos-an-introduction/

[enough]

2. I don't have the scientific background to evaluate these claims,

but the bias is clearly evident. The entire piece (and apparently the entire website) is structured to indicate that there is no possible reason to be concerned about GMOs and to raise doubts about organics. It's about as one-sided as it could be. You would think that with issues as complex as these, even a gung-ho supporter might be aware of some areas of uncertainty.

[HuckleB]

3. The site is very balanced, but it uses the actual scientific evidence.

Thus, it doesn't offer false balance to the non-science fear mongering about GMOs, etc...

If you can actually show that the site's information is incorrect, please do so.

Thanks.

[Warpy]

4. A lot of the mistrust was caused by industry, itself

when it fought so hard against labeling GMO products. People started to wonder what they were trying to hide, a normal human reaction.

Some GM seed is sterile. So was hybrid flint corn that was widely planted for years before the GMO stuff came in.

I am delighted that the customer is finally being considered when GM crops are being developed. Non browning apples would be nice but not really necessary. It would be absolutely wonderful, however, to get a tomato that could be harvested green for shipping but would taste like a real tomato when ripened for sale instead of a papier mache impostor.

Labeling such a tomato as "GMO" would be a great selling point, not a deficit.

[HuckleB]

5. The problem is the lack of justification for labeling.

Further, the labeling movement really developed out of the organic industry's dishonest attempts to cause fear about GMOs.

What's odd to me, is how blatantly dishonest the anti-GMO crowd has been in its attempts to foment fear, and yet so few people actually stop and ask themselves, "Wow! These claims are really big claims! Maybe I should look into the reality, because things are almost never this black and white?"

A good piece on labeling:

http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/

And then there's the costs of labeling:

http://dyson.cornell.edu/people/profiles/docs/LabelingNY.pdf

[Warpy]

7. The industry just created the paranoia by fighting so hard against something

your article cites a lack of justification for.

It doesn't matter whether or not labeling is justified. What matters is that the industry fought tooth and nail against allowing it.

[HuckleB]

9. The paranoia was created by the organic industry.

It had been fomenting fear of GMOs for years.

It's an odd thing to demand labels for the hybrid technology that is the most predictable and most studied, while not even knowing what the other technologies are. That's the odd reality of the anti-GMO folks. It's much too easy to spread fear.

[Warpy]

10. Allowing labeling would have discouraged all but a few

Fighting it tooth and nail told a lot of people they had something to hide.

Get it?

[HuckleB]

11. No, I don't.

No one has ever asked to label such a technology before. Labeling was pushed by one side of the industry to attack the other. Further, it would jack up food prices, as research into the matter has shown. (See my link above.) The other option is to stop using GMOs, which would likely lead to much worse environmental practices in terms of tilling and pesticide use.

Labeling is not the simple thing that anti-GMO folks want to pretend it is.

[HuckleB]

6. And then we have the MSM, completely ignoring the science side of the equation, at times.

Here's a great example:
http://iwf.org/blog/2794833/New-York-Times-Hosts-Panel-on-Farming,-Forgets-to-Invite-Farmers

[Warpy]

8. Well, that sort of arrogance of ivory tower "experts" exists at all levels.

It's pervasive in this culture. We have a Congress that would rather talk to itself on the environment than invite environmental scientists.

The panel on women's health care was all male.

I wish I was surprised about the IWF. I guess the NYT was afraid they'd show up with straw in their teeth or something.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. It looks badly written, to me

For instance, it says

More than 2000 foods have been created by mutagenesis, including the durum wheat used to make fine Italian pasta. This article from the New York Times lists wheat, barley and even ruby red grapefruits as crops generated through mutagenesis. Imagine that!! The delicious, organic grapefruit from my farmers’ market was developed using radiation to randomly create mutations, and somehow that’s less scary than a GMO.

What the NYT actually says is:

A similar story unfolded in Texas. In 1929, farmers stumbled on the Ruby Red grapefruit, a natural mutant. Its flesh eventually faded to pink, however, and scientists fired radiation to produce mutants of deeper color — Star Ruby, released in 1971, and Rio Red, released in 1985. The mutant offspring now account for about 75 percent of all grapefruit grown in Texas.

So, no, that doesn't mean "organic grapefruit from my farmers’ market was developed using radiation". Even if she lives in Texas. And "the durum wheat" is misleading too; durum wheat originated thousands of years ago. A durum wheat was created by mutagenesis, perhaps more; but not the durum wheat.

Bad writing, or bad understanding? I'm not sure.

[HuckleB]

13. LOL!

You will believe whatever you want to believe.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Given your signature, that's a disappointing response

I think the problem is that the writer believed what she wanted to believe - and would like others to believe that too.

[HuckleB]

15. The writer knows her stuff.

Pretending otherwise is really, truly funny.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. And yet, I showed some simple logical mistakes

which made me think I couldn't take her word for the rest of the article. If she does know her stuff, then poor writing has concealed it.

[HuckleB]

17. You made a claim that doesn't address the main content of the piece in any way.

I may be a simpleton, but I'm not that much of a simpleton.

[HuckleB]

18. 19-year study of trillions of meals shows GE crops do not harm food-producing animals, humans

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/10/19-year-study-of-trillions-of-meals-shows-ge-crops-do-not-harm-food-producing-animals-humans/

And...

http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/early/2014/08/27/jas.2014-8124.abstract

[Archae]

19. You keep forgetting...

"Organic" sounds all touchy-feely, stereotypical "hippie food."

Organic is big business, just as GMO's are.
But by slapping this "Organic" label on, the food producers can double, ever triple the price they charge for their food.