Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pretty on the outside, doesn't mean its sweet and tasty on the inside. The best oranges I've had are grown here in Hawaii. You wont find them in the grocery stores because they aren't pretty with the mottled peels. They are way sweeter and juicier than those grown in Florida.
Fantastic.... I see orange trees in people's backyards and fronts, with loads of fallen fruit sitting on the dirt. Does no one know that a potent brew can be made from over ripe oranges. Shhhhhh.
I think there should at least be labeling laws so that we are allowed to know if what we are consuming is GMO. Obviously the debate will continue and someday we'll have a clearer picture on how exactly GMO crops are (or are not) affecting our bodies, environment, etc but while its all still up in the air I think a simple label that does not argue one way or the other isn't asking too much.
I agree, though, that its the economic implications of patented foods that are more disconcerting than the biological/environmental issues. Whether you believe the food to be perfectly healthy or not, you have to admit that a handful of companies literally owning the food the grows out of the earth is rather disturbing. I don't think you need to be a conspiracy theorist to see the power inherent in owning the worlds food supply.
I think there should at least be labeling laws so that we are allowed to know if what we are consuming is GMO. Obviously the debate will continue and someday we'll have a clearer picture on how exactly GMO crops are (or are not) affecting our bodies, environment, etc but while its all still up in the air I think a simple label that does not argue one way or the other isn't asking too much.
As the following article points out, it's not still up in the air, because the debate is actually over and well settled. The fact that you don't know, that there is really not much doubt left in the scientific community about the safety of GMO foods, is the result of a very effective misinformation campaign by those opposed to the technology:
As Pamela Ronald, a UC-Davis plant geneticist, pointed out last year in Scientific American: "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops."
Got that? There's broad scientific consensus, or agreement on this. As opposed to a small radical opposition, without any credible scientific evidence, who speak loudly and passionately and deceptively and often and at great length. It's the assembled voice of reason being shouted down by the bellowing Wizard of Oz.
And as the writer of the article summarizes:
Quote:
The bottom line for people worried about GMO ingredients in their food is that there is no credible scientific evidence that GMOs pose a health risk,. ~ Keith Kloor
So ironically, the anti-GMO forces have created a situation in which GMO labelling is NOT a neutral act. Not any longer, it's not. They've pushed the idea on the public that GMO foods are evil, despite the fact that "there is no credible scientific evidence that GMOs pose a health risk," and they've done it so successfully that a GMO label on any food will almost certainly kill its sales. That's why the entire food industry, top to bottom, is opposed to the requirement.
I'm fine with organic farmers labeling their foods "non GMO," if they wish. But the alternative is unworkable, because the supporters have already gone too far with their misinformation campaign. They've effectively poisoned the well against rational public discussion.
And let's quickly review the actual situation with GMO papayas on the Big Island. Cultivation on the BI was started after the commercial cultivation of papayas on Oahau collapsed in the 1950's, when ringspot virus made the fruit unsaleable. 40 years later the aphids and the virus caught up on the Big Island, and again the industry was on the edge of collapse because ringspot virus again made the fruit unsaleable. The argument that customers shouldn't reject produce because of visual defects is specious and irrelevant, because the simple truth is, they just will not buy it.
Then a virus researcher at Cornell, a native of Hawai'i, working on a small grant, found a way, through the use of GMO technology, to have the papaya make itself immune to the virus. After testing, seeds were grown and distributed free to island farmers in 1999. There's no big company involved, no corporate profits, just an enormous benefit to small farmers who otherwise would have been forced out of business. And after years of careful research the Japanese government concluded they are safe to eat, and issued an import permit, saving the Big Island papaya industry. And that's how the vast majority of transgenics are designed to work... to provide an ongoing benefit, without further involvement from the technologists.
And that, you see, is the real face of the GMO technology to me. There are thousands of such small, independent projects going on around the world which have zero to do with corporate giants, and everything to do with improving peoples' lives. And they're being impeded by irrational opposition based on fears that are increasingly proving to be empty. Those scary headlines are turning out to be bogus, sometimes with amazing speed. The recent French study, widely quoted, showing that GMO foods cause cancer in mice was totally demolished within two days in a broad peer review. Out of that review came the equally damning revelations that the breed of mice chosen for the research are naturally prone to developing cancers whether you give them anything or not, so the study was absolutely rigged from the outset, and the fact is that the author had a new book to sell and that the enormous publicity generated from the release study has helped him sell books, even if the research turns out to have been worthless.
To repeat, with my emphasis added:
Quote:
The bottom line for people worried about GMO ingredients in their food is that there is no credible scientific evidence that GMOs pose a health risk. ~ Keith Kloor
And now that the entire subject has been well aired, perhaps we can get back to the original topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manekiNEK0
I agree, though, that its the economic implications of patented foods that are more disconcerting than the biological/environmental issues.
Yes, I agree, but plant patents are a separate and very different issue which have been falsely comingled with the GMO issue, and really does not belong in this discussion about local production issues in Big Island farming. Any further discussion of these contentious topics should really go to the Politics and Other Issues forum.
As the following article points out, it's not still up in the air, because the debate is actually over and well settled. The fact that you don't know, that there is really not much doubt left in the scientific community about the safety of GMO foods, is the result of a very effective misinformation campaign by those opposed to the technology:
Got that? There's broad scientific consensus, or agreement on this. As opposed to a small radical opposition, without any credible scientific evidence, who speak loudly and passionately and deceptively and often and at great length. It's the assembled voice of reason being shouted down by the bellowing Wizard of Oz.
.... etc etc ...
Any further discussion of these contentious topics should really go to the Politics and Other Issues forum.
Wow, D ... you make a huge argument and then declare discussion over?
You also made objections earlier in this thread to my use of 'inflammatory' terms (Frankenfood), but apparently feel no similar restriction should apply to your own statements? You here, and in previous posts, made many statements of your own using 'loaded rhetoric', to use your phrase. For example, you turn to ridicule with your statement from post #53: "They are latter day Luddites, simply opposed to anything and everything that has to do with modern agricultural technology and food science."
Calling those who question GMO's "Luddites" is the very kind of "loaded rhetoric" that biases the discussion just as much as using the term "Frankenfoods". Now, personally, I wear the mantle of Luddite with pride ... I definitely am a modern Luddite -- but still, I am not a bit unsophisticated in science (I have a graduate degree in health sciences) ... The thing is, you are making a lot of very broad statements of condemnation of those who question GMO science as incomplete. As I have said before, you and I can link articles and studies endlessly to support our positions ... a pointless exercise, because anyone interested can look up pro and con articles and information till the next millennium on their own. There are very many, very credible studies on both sides of the issue.
And what that proves is that your claim of finality favoring your belief is without merit. The jury is NOT back in -- declaring judgement in your preferred GMO favor. You are suggesting that legions of credible research scientists from all around the world are not worthy of measure.
Now, as to the innocence of Big Island GMO papayas -- the point has been made that the issue goes beyond the interests of paypaya product ... you have your position, and I have mine ... your position does not invalidate mine just because you say the argument has been settled in an article in Slate Magazine and that ends the discussion.
How you can propose that the question of GMO safety remains only because of a "campaign of misinformation" led by radical, unscientific interests is just hard to swallow, sir. (your inflammatory, statement of denigration: "small radical opposition, without any credible scientific evidence, who speak loudly and passionately and deceptively and often and at great length. It's the assembled voice of reason being shouted down by the bellowing Wizard of Oz.") Hyperbole much, D?
The GMO corporation proponents have all the money in the world to battle with ... the battle rages because the issues of concern are great and credible and also based in solid science. I repeat: rather than a war of links, I suggest that those interested in the issue do their own research. There is much to be learned ... and cavalier dismissiveness is uncalled for.
The realities of what you call science "improving people's lives" is entirely questionable. And my opposing views are entirely, legitimately arguable. And my interjection of those views to the topic of farming produce in Hawaii is also valid. Farming produce for local consumption makes sense, given that we have gone beyond the hunter-gatherer stage of society. Enhancing product to compete in far-away markets -- or to limit shipped-in produce from afar raises a lot of questions of safety of methods and of ethics.
Wow, D ... you make a huge argument and then declare discussion over?
No, I made a simple argument, which traces back to solid science, and an observation that the discussion here was already way overdone, and really needed to move on.
Quote:
As I have said before, you and I can link articles and studies endlessly to support our positions ... a pointless exercise, because anyone interested can look up pro and con articles and information till the next millennium on their own. There are very many, very credible studies on both sides of the issue.
No, there are not, and that's the point. The bulk of "anti" studies lack scientific credibility. Period. Nothing checks out. They're flawed, they don't hold up under scrutiny, and they're being pitched by known frauds, because there's a good living to be made scaring the public. And there are very few pro articles to cite because the con articles just outshout them in the popular press at a rate of maybe 20 to 1, despite the fact that they're all just parroting each other and have no real facts behind them. It's time to move on.
Quote:
The GMO corporation proponents have all the money in the world to battle with...
And the majority of the GMO work in the world has nothing to do to do with big corporations. If you want to do battle with Monsanto, then please go do battle with Monsanto in the appropriate forum, but leave the other 60% of the GMO field out of it. The technology is being used to fight Dengue Fever and Malaria, and Vitamin A deficiency and a lot of other highly valuable causes, and it's getting a bum rap despite, as I said, a consensus of the scientific community agreeing there is no valid basis for the opposition.
Quote:
The realities of what you call science "improving people's lives" is entirely questionable. And my opposing views are entirely, legitimately arguable.
Fine, but you have to be able to tell when enough is enough.
No, I made a simple argument, which traces back to solid science, and an observation that the discussion here was already way overdone, and really needed to move on.
No, there are not, and that's the point. The bulk of "anti" studies lack scientific credibility. Period. Nothing checks out. They're flawed, they don't hold up under scrutiny, and they're being pitched by known frauds, because there's a good living to be made scaring the public. And there are very few pro articles to cite because the con articles just outshout them in the popular press at a rate of maybe 20 to 1, despite the fact that they're all just parroting each other and have no real facts behind them. It's time to move on.
And the majority of the GMO work in the world has nothing to do to do with big corporations. If you want to do battle with Monsanto, then please go do battle with Monsanto in the appropriate forum, but leave the other 60% of the GMO field out of it. The technology is being used to fight Dengue Fever and Malaria, and Vitamin A deficiency and a lot of other highly valuable causes, and it's getting a bum rap despite, as I said, a consensus of the scientific community agreeing there is no valid basis for the opposition.
Fine, but you have to be able to tell when enough is enough.
Well, I must at this point confess considerable amusement ... you surprise me, D, as you go on pontificating as if you are in a position of superior purview. You seem to think you get to define the rules of engagement for the GMO controversy at large -- and for this discussion ... I am not sure what your sense of authority is -- but it is curious. Now, today you made a big long post and declared "end of discussion" ... I am going to guess you are not married perhaps
So, we should "move on" because OpenD has declared:
• only the pro-GMO studies are scientifically valid
• the anti-GMO studies are flawed and pitched by frauds
• and the majority of GMO work has nothing to do with big corporations
• and the consensus of the scientific community agrees with OpenD
Except, sir, none of that is true.
Especially consider that at the root of GMO research is the ability to patent -- as in "privately own" -- the modified biologies ... that is a prime driver of the studies and the research and development grants at the universities -- which money is granted by whom? You guessed it! Bingo!
And before you declare anti-GMO voices as "frauds", you really ought to do some research of your own to find out who most all of the developed world -- except the U.S. of A. is listening to when they adopt GMO labeling laws and crop bans / limitations, etc etc etc. Of course, most of the world isn't privy to your wisdom I guess.
Well, pontificate on, sir ... I am merely raising some issues for others who are interested to research on their own ... you know, to arrive at their own conclusions based on their own research and assessments. No demand from me that anyone take my word as gospel for anything except: the jury is out on the science -- and the economic and social ramifications are of the utmost threat to civilization.
Finally, consider, really, reading Pandora's Seed: The Unforeseen Cost of Civilization ... and then come back and tell me author Dr. Spencer Wells is a fraud. Book Review: Pandora
By the way, Dr. Wells doesn't take an anti-GMO stance in his book ... he does however, raise fascinating issues to ponder ... which has exactly been my intent in this thread, as well.
Oh no! You challenged the declaration of safety and finality!
Point for you today
Heck of a good little, local, on-topic article you linked ... thanks for adding to the information inventory.
btw: GMO production is all over Kauai, too. But, of course, no worries ... the Monsantos, DuPonts, ADM's have nothing but our best interests at heart ... just as they did when they told us products like Agent Orange and DDT and Roundup were safe ... you can trust the big boys to take care of the small people every time. They're all about making the world a better place through modern science.
After doing my own research online, I will concede that the scientific community seems to be edging closer to the consensus that GMO crops are basically as healthy to eat as the original strains. For example, Japan, holding out on Hawaii's GMO papayas longer than anyone else, has apparently conducted over a decade worth of scientific research into this before finally allowing them to be imported again.
But you know what? They are clearly labeled as GMO foods, thus at least giving the Japanese consumers the information they need to make the choice for themselves. Many countries (China, India, all of Europe, and many more) have made the decision to require a simple label that informs the consumer of how their food was grown, which brings me to the point that the potential biological concerns are not the only issue at hand, and not necessarily even the most pressing concern. Like it or not we are beginning to touch on issues of basic freedoms... freedom of information, freedom of speech, etc.
Doesn't it seem strange that the United States is still holding out on what amounts to a very reasonable and easy (read: inexpensive) to implement procedure to provide basic information? We're not talking Surgeon General warnings like you find on tobacco products that really could scare you into not purchasing a product. A sticker on a mango that says it came from Ecuador or wherever and that it is a GMO strain. Those who are inclined to research the issue will and those who don't care one way or the other wont. So whats the holdout? You start withholding little tidbits of information from people here and there and yeah, you're going to get people acting like zealots and rallying against the powers that be because we feel like we're being duped... which we are, simply by the no doubt considerable effort being lobbied to keep things veiled in secrecy.
Ok, sorry for the rant, but theres one other thing that I am not sure has been brought up yet (maybe it has, but I'll bring it up anyway). Beyond the safety of the actual finished food itself for consumption, there are very serious concerns about the long term environmental impact of creating a bunch of crops that are super resistant to diseases, viruses and insect problems. But even worse, crops are genetically engineered to be ultra resistant to herbicides and insecticides themselves, rather than resistant to the actual pests. Whats wrong with that? Well, nature has a funny way of adapting to things and what we end up with are stronger, more resilient versions of weeds and insects that can handle the GMO varieties. Back to square one, except now our problems are worse.
Believe me, I wish there was no debate over GMO foods, that they were proven beyond all doubt to be completely harmless in every way like the original strains were. That would solve A LOT of problems in a world where there are countries where people really do starve to death and that unseasonal weather or invasive species can wipe out a crop and disrupt entire regions of the planet.
Point is, the debate is far from over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh no! You challenged the declaration of safety and finality! 
