Support NeoGAF

[TimeEffect]

I was commenting on the typical "millenials are the worst" shtick.

But I agree, we are shit at that.

We should be able to text and tweet our votes IMO

 

[Slackbladder]

This is kinda' irrelevant considering the world is losing the soil needed to grow anything in. We’re treating soil like dirt. It’s a fatal mistake, as our lives depend on it You can read the report here
Basically there may be only 60 to 100 years of harvests. This is something I have never seen covered in the media and never brought up by politicians. But it may be the single greatest threat out there. If the soil fails we have no food. Not hard to work out the consequences.

I'm not opposed to organic farming as with regards to livestock animals are treated much better. And I believe there is room for both. However companies like Monsanto must be open to rigorous scientific evaluation at all times and not act as a closed business protecting its assets.

But regardless, the idea that we can do what we want with the soil and just keep destroying it is a very stupid direction to go in. But that's where we are heading.

 

[tearsintherain]

My wife and my mom are both heavily anti GMO and only buy organic stuff, even when I've done blind taste tests and they can't tell the difference between regular and organic fruits, meat, eggs, etc. So its not a millennial or youtube thing, people who have money to spend find ways to spend extra money for peace of mind.

 

[Timedog]

Society is a clinical trial. The Amish are the control group.

Way too many confounding variables.

 

[RCSI]

but youtube has a bunch of really great educational channels too.....


Damnit I thought the GMO debate has moved on to the next phase

are we literally back to square one on every topic until people catch up?

The factor to keep in mind is that good and accurate education needs to be a constant in people's views of major issues. You never stop educating people on GMO, anthropogenic climate change, racism (institutional and social), and other social and science concerns. Unfortunately, it is time consuming but important in addressing systemic issues that crop up once that educational outreach fades.

 

[CrocMother]

This is kinda' irrelevant considering the world is losing the soil needed to grow anything in. We’re treating soil like dirt. It’s a fatal mistake, as our lives depend on it You can read the report here
Basically there may be only 60 to 100 years of harvests. This is something I have never seen covered in the media and never brought up by politicians. But it may be the single greatest threat out there. If the soil fails we have no food. Not hard to work out the consequences.

I'm not opposed to organic farming as with regards to livestock animals are treated much better. And I believe there is room for both. However companies like Monsanto must be open to rigorous scientific evaluation at all times and not act as a closed business protecting its assets.

But regardless, the idea that we can do what we want with the soil and just keep destroying it is a very stupid direction to go in. But that's where we are heading.

We need to treat our soil like a naturally protected resource. Companies can no longer pollute waterways as they please just because it's on their land, they should no longer be able to completely destroy the soil either.

"It takes approximately 500 years to replace 25 millimeters (1 inch) of topsoil lost to erosion. The minimal soil depth for agricultural production is 150 millimeters. From this perspective, productive fertile soil is a nonrenewable, endangered ecosystem."
Source: David Pimental, "Population Growth and the Environment: Planetary Stewardship," December 98.

To quote FDR, "A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself."

Top soil also acts as a carbon sink, taking in CO2 from the atmosphere. This process has slowed considerably since we have destroyed so much of it.

"During the past 40 years nearly one-third of the world's cropland (1.5 billion hectares) has been abandoned because of soil erosion and degradation."
Source: David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro, Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, Nov. 1994

And that was 22 years ago. I'm sure if you looked you could find that we've done much more damage since then.

 

[michaelius]

Africans will starve if you don't eat your GMOs! The guilt tripping dimension of GMO marketing is really weird.

There's plenty of areas in Europe that could be used for farming if EU wasn't imposing production quotas and paying for those field to lie dormant.

 

[Oppo]

Another way we controlled pests was to plant something they found tastier next to the stuff we actually wanted to harvest, like a decoy. It's a proven technique people have been using for thousands of years. These are the kind of things that factory farms cannot utilize.

Buying from smaller, local farms is what is important.

For people in parts of the world where they don't have access to farmers markets and local food, GMO is the future.

There is not even a federal organic designation, I worked in Hawaii and we got our certification from California.

Ok, so I read all this, but you have to realize that a) you are planting crops that are pretty lucky in the pest department (can i ask what?), b) local to Hawaii so you should only be buying and selling this food in Hawaii. I see that you acknowledge "GMO" as the option for people not in this rarified situation, but surely you see that there's a reason the green revolution and scaling up of farm production happened in the first place? because not everyone has access to natural-pesticide Hawaiian farmer's market crops.

 

[CrocMother]

surely you see that there's a reason the green revolution and scaling up of farm production happened in the first place? because not everyone has access to natural-pesticide Hawaiian farmer's market crops.

Of course, but we have not gone about it in a responsible way. We need to stop practices which deplete the nutrition of both our food and soil, and we need to reduce our consumption habits.

I don't really care about GMO's, I care about the manner in which they are being produced which destroys our irreplaceable natural resources. The same goes for organic.

 

[Oppo]

Of course, but we have not gone about it in a responsible way. We need to stop practices which deplete the nutrition of both our food and soil, and we need to reduce our consumption habits.

I don't really care about GMO's, I care about the manner in which they are being produced which destroys our irreplaceable natural resources. The same goes for organic.

all sounds great, except I feel you are maybe under-representing the challenges of scale. and distribution.

 

[CrocMother]

all sounds great, except I feel you are maybe under-representing the challenges of scale. and distribution.

What does the scale look like when the soil is so degraded in our bread basket that nothing can grow there for another few hundred years?

Not to mention the billions of tons of carbon released into the atmosphere also due to degradation.

 

[Oppo]

What does the scale look like when the soil is so degraded in our bread basket that nothing can grow there for another few hundred years?

Not to mention the billions of tons of carbon released into the atmosphere also due to degradation.

worse? you are getting a bit far from the topic

 

[jakonovski]

There's plenty of areas in Europe that could be used for farming if EU wasn't imposing production quotas and paying for those field to lie dormant.

I don't understand your reasoning here. How does this relate to westerners eating GMOs being the supposed solution to world hunger?

To me, it's all about the global farming industry serving wealthy interests in the first place. Things like biofuel farming in the developing world and western insistence on eating meat all the time.

 

[JP_]

Yeah it seems silly to get hung up on inefficiencies of organic farming as if that's really what's preventing the end of world hunger.

Look at post-harvest food waste and all the energy and resources spent to raise meat if world hunger is what you're worrying about.

 

[Trokil]

I don't understand your reasoning here. How does this relate to westerners eating GMOs being the supposed solution to world hunger?

Well, this works somehow, more food is better always, even if we throw away up to 50% of it already and food waste is also one of the biggest climate killers. More food is still the answer to that.

To me, it's all about the global farming industry serving wealthy interests in the first place. Things like biofuel farming in the developing world and western insistence on eating meat all the time.

You should not bring this up, last time I tried that, explaining how eating less meat would really save the planet, people went completely bonkers. I even tried to explain, that Africa is actually producing more than enough food for the whole continent, but has a problem with transportation and storage. Also who farming subsidization in Europe and the US is killing African farmers, but this is all getting ignored.

To quote FDR, "A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself."

Top soil also acts as a carbon sink, taking in CO2 from the atmosphere. This process has slowed considerably since we have destroyed so much of it.

Funny thing, there are several studies which prove, that organic farming is actually way better for the soil and stores more CO2 than conventional or GMO farming in the soil.

 

[Mumei]

This is kinda' irrelevant considering the world is losing the soil needed to grow anything in. We’re treating soil like dirt. It’s a fatal mistake, as our lives depend on it You can read the report here
Basically there may be only 60 to 100 years of harvests. This is something I have never seen covered in the media and never brought up by politicians. But it may be the single greatest threat out there. If the soil fails we have no food. Not hard to work out the consequences.

"The Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself."

Perhaps thinking a bit small, but it's in the right direction.

I had never really thought much about soil until I was at The Field Museum in Chicago. They have a lovely exhibit that is squarely focused on soil and its importance, and how we can collectively help or hurt our soil.

But at this rate, we are in a race between ocean acidification and soil depletion— suffocation or starvation. :|

To quote FDR, "A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself."

Funny that we both thought of the same relevant FDR quote. Though I don't suppose there are a lot of options in the American political tradition for soil conservation. <_<

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Here is a panel of scientists on GM Foods presented by Brian Cox.

Brian Cox presents Science matters - Feeding the future

As the global population grows, consumption patterns change and the impacts of climate change and growing scarcity of water and land put pressure on our ability to grow enough food. What steps can we take with modifying crops and species to secure the future of our food?


Panelists will include:

Sir David Baulcombe FRS FMedSci, Regius Professor of Botany at the University of Cambridge

Professor Ottoline Leyser CBE FRS, plant developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge and director of the Sainsbury Laboratory

Professor Philip Stevenson FRES, Senior Research Leader in Chemical Ecology

But people will continue to ignore scientific consensus and come up with ridiculous nonsense about how "organic" which is a bullshit term is better.

But I doubt Trokil or any other anti-GMO poster will watch it because it's at odds with their ideology and bias.

 

[Trokil]

Here is a panel of scientists on GM Foods presented by Brian Cox.

But people will continue to ignore scientific consensus and come up with ridiculous nonsense about how "organic" which is a bullshit term is better.

But I doubt Trokil or any other anti-GMO poster will watch it because it's at odds with their ideology and bias.

There are only thousands of studies about organic what organic is. So even you can not even accept a term, nobody in science is really questioning, how can I take anything you write even as scientific or somehow relevant if you ignore something completely and even question it's existence?

Talking about ideology and bias eh?

 

[Nikodemos]

Yeah it seems silly to get hung up on inefficiencies of organic farming as if that's really what's preventing the end of world hunger.

Look at post-harvest food waste and all the energy and resources spent to raise meat if world hunger is what you're worrying about.

People tend to ignore the simple fact that, in the last hundred years, famines have happened due to: 1) warfare; 2) idiotic agricultural policies; 3) (in the last 20 years) the devastating effects of climate change. GMOs are useless at dealing with just one, nevermind all of those factors (they do make for nice portfolios at BASF, DuPont, DowChem and the like).

Alternatively, let me tell you a story.
You know truffles, those ridiculously expensive mushrooms that grow deep in the earth under trees, and have a bunch of shitty ersatz replacements that actually taste nothing like the real thing?
Well, 130 years ago, they were cheap and plentiful. French farmers had clinched the process, in the late 1800s, for creating truffle nurseries in deciduous forests (oak, hazel, beech).
What happened? 1914.
The forests were cut or bombarded, the farmers died in battles.
What happened x2? 1940.
What was left of the nurseries was cut by the Nazis for their trenches/fortifications.

Oh, and please explain to this conservatard: why is Norman Borlaug's 'feat' of adding 1.5 billion humans to the Earth's population considered an uncritical good thing?

 

[triplestation]

Gmo bananas ftw!

 

[Jon Canon]

Abit on the side, but here in Norway there are guidelines for what qualifies as an organic farmed salmon.

One of the demands is exclusive use of homeopathic medicine .. I dont even..

 

[HotHamBoy]

We think organic food is healthier, Boomers get Trump elected.

I think we're doing okay.

What percentage of millennials didn't vote? HMMMM??

(I recently found out that I'm a millenial at 31)

 

[Nikodemos]

One of the demands is exclusive use of homeopathic medicine .. I dont even..

Which is painfully ironic, given that homeopathy has Nazi roots (also, it's disgustingly vile quackery that doesn't work).

 

[tuxfool]

Abit on the side, but here in Norway there are guidelines for what qualifies as an organic farmed salmon.

One of the demands is exclusive use of homeopathic medicine .. I dont even..

As it stands that thing is only a label to make food more expensive, premium "quality" without being actually premium in any sense.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

There are only thousands of studies about organic what organic is. So even you can not even accept a term, nobody in science is really questioning, how can I take anything you write even as scientific or somehow relevant if you ignore something completely and even question it's existence?

Talking about ideology and bias eh?

The sweet potato is a transgenic crop that occurred naturally yet can be labeled "organic," so how can that term ever be taken seriously?

Like several National Academies reviews before it, the new study condemned regulatory approaches that classify products based on the technology used to create them. &#8220;The National Academy has been saying since 1987 that it should be the product, not the process,&#8221; says Fred Gould, an applied evolutionary biologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and chair of the new report. &#8220;But the problem up until now is &#8230; how do you decide which products need more examination than others?&#8221;

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/us-panel-releases-consensus-genetically-engineered-crops

 

[itwasTuesday]

When I order Chinese food I ask for extra GMO.

 

[PSqueak]

We think organic food is healthier, Boomers get Trump elected.

I think we're doing okay.

Being anti science isn't okay just because other people are even more ignorant.

 

[Electric Eye]

Organic food tastes better it just does.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Gmo bananas ftw!

Well, that's a thing because banana plight.

And also, vitamin A enriched bananas.
New GM banana could help tackle Uganda’s nutrition challenges

 

[Trokil]

Being anti science isn't okay just because other people are even more ignorant.

So buying healthier food with less pesticide from local markets reducing the impact of climate change and helping small farmers creating an income is anti science.

If the pro GMO people would not act like religious zealots the discussion would be way more balanced.

Well, that's a thing because banana plight.

And also, vitamin A enriched bananas.
New GM banana could help tackle Uganda&#8217;s nutrition challenges

The banana blight we created because we created gigantic mono culture fields all of the same banana which makes them vulnerable for any parasite and we now try to fix with huge GMO mono culture fields?

Let me guess, this banana that could save millions is on it's way, like Golden rice which has one food study on healthy people on it's back and is claiming for almost two decades now, that it will save millions or people or somebody when it works, which still may never be the case. So we get another sci-fi product which will save people, while organic farming creates income and does save millions of lives already for example by controlling the cassava mealybug saving about 20 Million people.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

So buying healthier food with less pesticide from local markets reducing the impact of climate change and helping small farmers creating an income is anti science.

If the pro GMO people would not act like religious zealots the discussion would be way more balanced.

"rigged!"

Kavin Senpathy:
Don't Like Monsanto? Then You Should Be Pro-GMO, Not Anti. Here's Why.

I prefer the use of pesticide on gm crops more than I do "organic" because most GM crops that are pesticide resistant are no-till.

Balance? What sort of evidence have you ever posted?

Watch the panel by Brian Cox. it directly addresses the issues you seem to care about.

 

[PillarEN]

Which is painfully ironic, given that homeopathy has Nazi roots (also, it's disgustingly vile quackery that doesn't work).

Isn't homeopathy from the 1800s? Or at least a decently long time before Nazi's even were a thought?

But do find it funny that they say you can only treat salmon with homeopathy if it is to be labeled organic. They may as well have a guideline that the salmon must not be treated at all haha

 

[mrkgoo]

It's not about being anti science or anything.

What they actually boils down to is risk.

Science can be wrong. It's how science works.

If they're wrong about, say, how far away the nearest star is, it has little effect on us. They adjust their hypotheses and theories and keep going.

However, if they're wrong about our food, then it's our health and personal wellbeing that we are risking. Our Children.

For a lot of people, personal health is the most important thing. but blanket percentages of not trusting scientists is not the full story. In certain areas of science it's actually reasonable to expect higher certainty.

 

[BruinsMtB]

So buying healthier food with less pesticide from local markets reducing the impact of climate change and helping small farmers creating an income is anti science.

If the pro GMO people would not act like religious zealots the discussion would be way more balanced.

You just completely moved the goalposts, who is being unfair? The article is about store shelf packaging. That's a far cry from "healthier food with less pesticide from local markets"

It's about organic as a poorly regulated advertising model and a complete rejection of GMO as opposed to wanting it to be more transparent and controlled. I'm in favor of GMO because of the potential for weathering the upcoming food crises, but I do understand the fear and uncertainty and do agree that for those that are capable, choosing CSAs or farmers markets would be ideal for both food quality and overall health. Not that GMOs are inherently worse but it's hard to argue that a locally sourced, small scale farm without harsh soil treatment isn't a preferable option.

This whole thread has just devolved into people arguing their worst case scenarios on both sides. Pretty incredible.

 

[PSqueak]

So buying healthier food with less pesticide from local markets reducing the impact of climate change and helping small farmers creating an income is anti science.

Supporting by choice all those things doesn't make you anti science, denying the pros of GMOs and preaching ignorance and false information to demonize GMOs (which the article mentions there is a demographic of) is anti science.

Excusing the last bit of behavior because "boomers voted trump" is not really an argument.

 

[Trokil]

Supporting by choice all those things doesn't make you anti science, denying the pros of GMOs and preaching ignorance and false information to demonize GMOs (which the article mentions there is a demographic of) is anti science.

Excusing the last bit of behavior because "boomers voted trump" is not really an argument.

But if was allowed to have a choice, why a pro GMO people fighting against labeling GMO food?

 

[PSqueak]

But if was allowed to have a choice, why a pro GMO people fighting against labeling GMO food?

Misguided attempt to lessen the scare mongering from people going Anti GMO.

Not saying i support that, just saying i understand where they're coming from.

If scare mongering against GMOs didn't exist, no one would have a problem with them being labeled.

 

[chillybright]

Hard to restore the reputation after US researchers confirm rural Chinese children used in GM golden rice trial.

 

[Monocle]

I hate how Neogaf turns every argument into two sides.

I'm fine with GMO, BUT, the way it's used right now is not helping anybody. Food production decreased, it didn't help, it's mostly used for animal feed, it caused the death of many farmers in 3rd world countries.

The main reason for GMO right now is to use pestesides by the same company that made the GMO seeds, these pestesides are harming the soil.

I like some Organic food and hate some, if I like Organic it doesn't mean I hate GMO.

Read part 2: The Papaya Triumph.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Hard to restore the reputation after US researchers confirm rural Chinese children used in GM golden rice trial.

The paper was retracted and the researchers fired
http://www.nature.com/news/china-sacks-officials-over-golden-rice-controversy-1.11998

Science and publications take ethics seriously.

That said, it was a political move by Green Peace to get Golden Rice discredited.

However, that paper still appears on the Golden Rice Project site. Something, I have umbrage with.

 

[Trokil]

Misguided attempt to lessen the scare mongering from people going Anti GMO.

Not saying i support that, just saying i understand where they're coming from.

If scare mongering against GMOs didn't exist, no one would have a problem with them being labeled.

So it comes from the same place making filming in cattle, pig or chicken farms illegal because seeing how you food is produced and knowing, is a bad thing; so better not having the choice.

 

[whitehawk]

Article is bad because it uses the word organic as a synonym for 'non-gmo'. Usually means no pesticide and shit was used

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

But if was allowed to have a choice, why a pro GMO people fighting against labeling GMO food?

You can pay to have the GMO free label on there if it is a moral imperative.

It's all marketing. You see that label on things that have no GM equivalent.


See also: Contains MSG
How MSG Got A Bad Rap: Flawed Science And Xenophobia

 

[WillyFive]

It's not about being anti science or anything.

What they actually boils down to is risk.

Science can be wrong. It's how science works.

If they're wrong about, say, how far away the nearest star is, it has little effect on us. They adjust their hypotheses and theories and keep going.

However, if they're wrong about our food, then it's our health and personal wellbeing that we are risking. Our Children.

For a lot of people, personal health is the most important thing. but blanket percentages of not trusting scientists is not the full story. In certain areas of science it's actually reasonable to expect higher certainty.

What health risks exactly do you fear?

Also, science is simply a process of weeding out misconceptions.

 

[PSqueak]

So it comes from the same place making filming in cattle, pig or chicken farms illegal because seeing how you food is produced and knowing, is a bad thing; so better not having the choice.

I personally think making that ilegal is dumb, but i also understand why such ridiculous ban exist, because again, people often tamper with it and use it for more scaremongering.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

It's not about being anti science or anything.

What they actually boils down to is risk.

Science can be wrong. It's how science works.

If they're wrong about, say, how far away the nearest star is, it has little effect on us. They adjust their hypotheses and theories and keep going.

However, if they're wrong about our food, then it's our health and personal wellbeing that we are risking. Our Children.

For a lot of people, personal health is the most important thing. but blanket percentages of not trusting scientists is not the full story. In certain areas of science it's actually reasonable to expect higher certainty.

Crossing a hybrid is crossing thousands and even tens of thousands of genes per cross.

A GM crop is using maybe a handful.

If the precautionary principle were to apply, then GM crops are inherently more safe than traditional breeding methods.

 

[PillarEN]

But if was allowed to have a choice, why a pro GMO people fighting against labeling GMO food?

That's easy. It instantly gives perception that something is bad. I don't know too much about random food things because I don't gain weight and in general don't eat much junk food so I don't care. However if there was some yogurt that said "Doesn't include lymagomatomabroma" (made up term) I may not think much about it but it is possible that in the back of my head without looking it up and learning what that thing is (and I won't because of my food habits) my mind will subconsciosly think "that lymagoma thingy might be bad I guess. I don't know."

Same thing with labeling GMO in such a way. Hell if it wasn't for my internet browsing habits I wouldn't even know what GMO meant for that matter. I would have thought it was some chemical. So I don't think it's a stretch that for many many many people they simply see a "soes not contain X" sign and assume that X is evil regardless of whether it is or isn't.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

QUIET YOU

Gizmodo needs dem clicks too. Don't forget to smash that share button!

But no where in Gizmodo's story does it mention YouTube. That was purely OP embellishing

 

[PSqueak]

That's easy. It instantly gives perception that something is bad. I don't know too much about random food things because I don't gain weight and in general don't eat much junk food so I don't care. However if there was some yogurt that said "Doesn't include lymagomatomabroma" (made up term) I may not think much about it but it is possible that in the back of my head without looking it up and learning what that thing is (and I won't because of my food habits) my mind will subconsciosly think "that lymagoma thingy might be bad I guess. I don't know."

Same thing with labeling GMO in such a way. Hell if it wasn't for my internet browsing habits I wouldn't even know what GMO meant for that matter. I would have thought it was some chemical.

Not to mention such labels can be used wrongly both ways, like seeing "Now glutten free!" labels in food that never had glutten in the first place.

 

[mrkgoo]

What health risks exactly do you fear?

Also, science is simply a process of weeding out misconceptions.

Crossing a hybrid is crossing thousands and even tens of thousands of genes per cross.

A GM crop is using maybe a handful.

If the precautionary principle were to apply, then GM crops are inherently more safe than traditional breeding methods.

Not so much myself. I'm just saying that when it comes to personal health and well being a lot of people look at that small percentage of negativity and heavily bias it with emotion more so than other areas. 5% risk of being wrong? It may as well be treated as absolute certainty for some people when it comes to these areas. It's like if I offered you $10 for a 95% chance to win but if you lost you have to cut off a finger. The emotional response is that the risk isn't worth the benefit regardless of the percentage probability.

That's what happens with these issues. It's not about whether we distrust the scientists or not as a whole, but in such a topic, many people don't consider the risk as something of a proposition to "toy" with to begin with.

Not really arguing my own view here, just claiming that is hownit is for some people's mindsets.

Health issues tag onto that emotional response.