Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by OpNestle, Feb 1, 2016.
I think that Wikipedia article might have given me schizophrenia. It smells of old flame wars. Example:
Correspondence is not peer reviewed so you can't really use it as evidence when a topic is highly politicized. Somebody probably wanted to leave this paragraph out but another person wanted it in. Ugh, I don't like wading through stuff like this.
Much of the article is like: "A guy said this. Then this other guy said something different. The end." There is no way to tell if the alleged controversy is of concern to scientists generally.
What I want is a summary of the scientific consensus. I want to know if I'm looking at a genuine controversy over facts or a manufactroversy coming from the makers of "fear uncertainty doubt." This article did not help me with that.
Part of what I expect to see in a discussion of controversy is context. I want to know about the non-GMO techniques being used to develop better crops. That way I can understand if a concern is specific to the GMO technique or not.
Much of the discussion about the spread of genes from GMO crops to neighboring fields would apply equally to non-GMO crops.
Seriously? How about biology 101.
You can do better than that. It would be more simple to admit you were slightly over-generalizing.
Wheat in one field will have sex with wheat in another field whether GMO or not. The only way to stop this illicit behavior is to have both wheat fields far apart. So of course GMO crops will spread pollen to non-GMO neighbors. Likewise, non-GMO crops will pollinate GMO crops.
Just like GMOs, a novel non-GMO plant will contaminate neighbors of the same species grown nearby. But how come people aren't getting freaked out about that?
What you say is right. What you don't say is that the risks resulting from this type of pollinisation are very likely higher with GMOs.
I do not see why that would be the case.
Natural ones have been mixing before, OGM ones haven't. I am not saying that the risks are high in absolute terms, but that they are higher in relative terms.
Still, GMO's should be labeled, regardless of whether they are good or bad. I've seen both sides of the story and I believe that it's a half good half bad thing. Monsanto doesn't tell the WHOLE truth. GMO's don't feed the people in Africa. Food isn't their problem, they're just too poor to buy it.
Ghirardelli is better than Nestle any day.
Also, the only GMO that I think should be banned everywhere is the Round-up ready crops. Round-up has been found in breast milk. That's bad.
I was comparing novel non GMOs to novel GMOs within a particular species. Both have novel genes but are still members of an existing species.
Oh, and sorry for attempting to hack you @The Internet. I admit I went a bit overboard. Won't do it again m8.
How do you know that is bad? Sure it sounds bad but how do we know it actually is bad?
True. I think that GMOs should be labeled as (genus) (species) (GMO) though. There are subtle differences between GMOs and the original thing.
Round-up is a poison.
And a damn potent one at that. Ever get it in an open cut? I've done that before. It's not pleasant.
Interestingly, there does not seem to be a page on Wikipedia in English. It exists in about 10 languages, e.g. French:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup Edit: found under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
Wikipedia is censored.
Meh, in breast milk there are many things already, kinda unphased at just one more. Human breast milk is way contaminated and has been for many decades. That's the ugly truth the breast feeding nazis do not discuss.
These stupid mothers who cannot help polluting their children. I am sure cows do much better.
The dose makes the poison.
What I mean is, we need more info, like are we talking female humans or mice fed a steady diet of Round-Up?
There is no original thing. Pretty much everything you eat has been manipulated by humans into a form that we like. Without that manipulation, plants are not very tasty or nutritious.
"If not for a single genetic mutation, each kernel on a juicy corn cob would be trapped inside a inedible casing as tough as a walnut shell. The mutation switches one amino acid for another at a specific position in a protein regulating formation of these shells in modern corn's wild ancestor, according to a new study."
Most of the pesticide you consume is actually made by the plants themselves. They make lots of chemicals to discourage other creatures from eating them. In short, plants hate us.
If you plant the seeds of your favorite apple, the tree you get will not grow those same apples. A lot goes into coercing trees to make the apples we like.
Domesticated plants lack genetic diversity by design. Thus they are vulnerable to catastrophic reactions to disease. We have seen the loss of many important species due to infections, like the elm trees and the American Chestnut, papayas, banana species. GMO provides us a possible way to recover when this happens. We got papayas back thanks to GMO. We are probably going to lose our bananas again but hopefully we can GMO our way out of that.
It is too late for us to stop playing God on this planet. We have found ourselves in that role, like it or not. So we have to become much, much better at the job.
I'm afraid Wikipedia is going to be a bad source of info on this subject. You can look at the Talk page and see the squabbling.
I can look into this but I prefer not to be loaded down with homework. It is easier for me if the other guy does the homework. For example, you have to check if the journals cited as a reference are legit or not. We now have a whole industry of crap journals out there, sadly.
Alright. I see all your points, but I'm still wary of GMOs. Maybe not as much as before but I still am a little. Regardless this thread is getting off-topic.
Getting back on topic does anyone here have a Raspberry Pi? I wanna host the @OpNestle Twitter bot on one. My web host doesn't allow always on scripts and I (sadly) can't afford a Raspberry Pi myself.
I guess you mean: "We now have a whole crap of industry journals out there, sadly."
Kinda. Industry has money and we needs money. The trick is to rig the game where Joe Researcher can tell a pushy money guy to fuck off if need be, and to motivate Joe to value his reputation for honesty above all else. It has been done and can be done, but times are hard right now.
Anyway I glanced at your article, Schinasi L, Leon ME (Apr 2014). "Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta-analysis". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11 (4): 4449–527. doi:10.3390/ijerph110404449. PMC 4025008. PMID 24762670
It is in a low status pay-to-publish journal covering a crazy wide range of topics, with lots of work from China. China still has a reputation for sneaking around peer review. Still, the study could be legit. Abstract:
So far so good. But no glyphosate yet.
Hey how come "handful" instead of a number? I got 44 for the other pile, which is a number. Well let's keep going.
There it is. But I have never thought of glyphosate as an organophosphate. That term usually refers to pesticides, not herbicides, that inhibit cholinesterase in insects. They inhibit cholinesterase in humans as well, which is not good. But glyphosate doesn't do that. So it hits a false note for me, classifying glyphosate that way.
Here is the McDuffie reference:
43. McDuffie H.H., Pahwa P., McLaughlin J.R., Spinelli J.J., Fincham S., Dosman J.A., Robson D., Skinnider L.F., Choi N.W. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and specific pesticide exposures in men: Cross-Canada study of pesticides and health. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2001;10:1155–1163. [PubMed]
McDuffie mentions glyphosate once:
Exposure to glyphosate does not correlate with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. There is a dose-response relationship for this non-effect, which nobody cares about as it is a statistical artifact. It is like saying the tooth fairy does not correlate with getting money under your pillow, but the amount of money is related to the tooth fairy stopping by. Just nonsense.
Curiously, Schinasi, the author of the paper you cited, says McDuffie found glyphosate correlated with NHL but there was no dose response relationship. So she is a fucking liar who has no business doing science.
Two more of the three papers to check. Actually only one because Schinasi says DeRoos saw no relationship. But wait, I don't think I need to check that one paper. Because even if it says glyphosate correlates with NHL, that is one teeny paper against a massive world wide scientific consensus that says glyphosate is not a carcinogen.
See how much fucking work I did? This is why dropping references is not really a valid way to argue a point when it comes to science. You need a summary of all the evidence, the consensus of the evidence. That is all you need, not papers.
Agreed, but it's always wise to site your sources.
Of course. Just make sure your source is a summary of the scientific consensus on the matter. Do not drop a bunch of cherry picked papers on somebody, because I hate homework.
Hey I did find something Nestle did that pissed me off. But I am kinda burnt out on googling right now due to Ann. Later I will share it.
I am sorry. Really. Your time might be better used improving WP, IMHO.
What you find? I'll Google it.
What is WP?
The Nestle chairman said climate change is natural and not due to human activity. This contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus that says global warming is due to human activity.
As a big cheese, the Nestle chairman has a responsibility to represent the scientific consensus accurately. Lying to the public is not cool. The public base their decisions on the info they have. When they have bad info they are not able to make informed choices. They have only the illusion of choice. This is the opposite of real freedom.
I don't know why Nestle felt the need to bullshit on this point. There is a connection between global warming and drought, but I can't see how that works in Nestle's favor. Even if Nestle talks people into privatizing aquaphors, people will fucking nationalize their water sources once they grow desperate enough.
IMHO, he just follows the liberal credo: more problems, thus more regulations, thus less profit. Pretending there isn't a problem is much easier.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!