How did they create a new strain of wheat without modifying on the genetics of an existing strain? And given that it states that they cross-bread two strains, how did they prevent the resultant strain from not inheriting modified genes from the mixed parents?
Do you really find it odd? Nowadays, if you're not a chemist, you have no idea what you're eating. So it is only natural that people react by avoiding everything that is unknown, unfamiliar, or even seems unnatural.
That's perfectly normal behaviour. What IS NOT normal behaviour is sticking your head in the sand when 1 in 2 get cancer.
Who do you think is looking out for your well being? The companies selling you these things?
But hey, facts, harder to process than irrational fear of the new, and a crude prescientific search for "purity".
A great deal of plants, fungi, nuts, and fruits are highly toxic. Even staples like rice and fish have high levels of naturally occurring arsenic and lead; and most table spices are lethal in high quantities.
On top of that, there are countless carcinogens, allergens, pathogenic bacteria and parasites in the food chain.
There is a reason lifespan has been increasing.
Suddenly people are making extremely rapid changes to food and it's not unreasonable for people to be cautious about it.
Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but most people don't realize it or other things like how that 100% natural, not from concentrate orange juice is really made.
Also, for "organic" fruit and other foods, maybe that matters, but flavorings and other ingredients only have a requirement to be 95%+ organic content. One company I know of sells flavorings that are mostly organic water/alcohol/other diluents, but then the other 5% can be anything and you only need very small amounts of concentrated flavorings which can be anything "nature identical".
GM is a wonderful technology, with applications not only in agriculture, but also health. Insulin is produced by genetically modified bacterias, and modified white blood cells are now experimentally used to treat cancer.
There are probably other uses, but I'm not aware of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2o
Or just avoid food entirely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance
I'm not suggesting there aren't "bad foods" which need to be avoided. The rest is just a strawman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
The dihydrogen monoxide FAQ is an entertaining read:
From the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) [1]:
"CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available."
"Precautions: No specific safety phrase has been found applicable for this product"
"Ecotoxicity: Not available.
BOD5 and COD: Not available.
Products of Biodegradation: Possibly hazardous short term degradation products are not likely. However, long term degradation products may arise."
"Small Spill: Mop up, or absorb with an inert dry material and place in an appropriate waste disposal container.
Large Spill: Absorb with an inert material and put the spilled material in an appropriate waste disposal"
"Personal Protection: Safety glasses. Lab coat."
You can start here if you'd like to educate yourself: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-c...
I'd be okay with GMO apologists making an intellectually honest argument, listing the pros and cons, arguing that on the balance such and such makes sense.
Basically, the greatest good for the most people.
Alas, that takes some effort. It's easier to mock critics.
http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-co...
I'd never heard of Lynas before. He strikes me as Bjørn Lomborg character.
I think all criticism should be seriously (honestly) addressed. No worldview is above reproach. I'd eagerly watch/read a debate between Lynas and the people he criticizes. In answering his criticisms, it'd help them to refine their arguments.
But before any of that happens, I'd want Lynas to address his apparent conflict of interest.
I know there are side effects when it comes to GMO, I don't need to be a chemist for that. What I also realise is that there really is no shortage of food on this planet, evidenced by the tons and tons that are discarded daily. There is however a logistics problem, but it will not be solved by GMO. Even IF such a thing was possible by creating crops that fare better in extreme climates, these companies who are behind GMO products have absolutely no interest in helping out poor African kids who are unable to pay for what Monsanto & Co have to offer.
Never mind that you were explicitly talking about the people who simply cannot know better yet try the best they can. They should know better, and if they don't they're morons.
People who are anti-GM are skeptical about scientists' ability to predict all the consequences of their meddling in living genes and chemical balance of nature components.
The nature had millions of years of coming up with sustainable balance between growth and death.
I hope no one will argue that many of the priorities in our current scientific environment are short term individual benefits, whether it is political, wealth or recognition.
This is the basis of anti-GM folk mistrust, and not inability to detect that everything is chemicals and cross-pollination is a gene modification as well.
Huh?
If we invent a new gene, the odds are higher that it has visible benefits but hidden downsides.
Cross-pollination can produce entirely unfit specimens, or strains that prosper in one clime but fail in another.
This can all have wonderful yield/resistance benefits for farmers. But it has always brought risk too. My father had whole hybrid crops fail when an unsuspected fungus deformed every cob.
Think of genetic modification (yes, even cross-pollination) as an accelerated, guided evolution. Except instead of trying millions of experiments, seed companies sell a dozen each year.
Each stalk in each wild generation is a cross; only a few have to survive to ensure the population survives.
Our vastly reduced commercial genetic diversity puts our food sources at risk. Yet we cannot use plain wild strains in the modern world; half of us would starve.
The only way I can see this not working is if the specific changes we made that yield improved output are the same ones that cause problems.
However, my understanding is that this is extremely unlikely, and the likely problem is that in order to get those changes we were only working with a small number of strains, so we lack genetic diversity across the entire genome.
There is still the economic problem that doing this is expensive, yet causes no benefit to anyone in particular. This seems to make it the perfect candidate for the government to step in and do it.
The govt can help; or some other way of marketing variable-genetic seed that makes sense to the farmer. I don't see any other way.
In this way, we could view diverse seeds as a type of insurance. However if a farmer takes this insurance, even if it is a net positive investment in the long term, he will not be able to sustain himself in the short term.
You typically need large entities (be them public or private) to make this type of long term investment. If it is not innitiated by the government, we might see Monsanto (or other large GM companies) make the investment. Because if one of Monsanto's crops fails catastrophically, they loose alot, however they have the capital to invest in making their crop resistent to mass failure by introducing genetic diversity.
Unfourtuantly companies also tend to focus short term.
If we're lucky, we will see localized mono-culture failures which will incentives all involved to invest in geneticly diverse crops.
I'm ok with breeding. I probably don't even have a problem with transgenetics, but I'd want each effort vetted.
What I oppose, utterly, are two things.
1) GM foods engineered to enable ever greater use of pesticides.
2) GM foods engineered to create their own pesticides.
See, I've got this weird idea: first, do no harm.
Some people call it the precautionary principle. Also known as the Hippocratic Oath popular in the healthcare professions.
Now, I understand that it may not be possible to completely prove any particle thing completely safe. I get that. I'm not a zealot. And some things thought safe today could proof unsafe in the future. Or vice versa. Because science marches on, values change, and context matters.
But here's two things I do know. With absolute certainty. Based on readily available data:
1) The parties pushing GM are bad actors. Repeatedly. Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, etc are only too happy to poison people to make a buck.
2) The parties charged with safe guarding public health and the environment are completely enthrall to megacorps profiting from poisoning us.
These two points are not in dispute.
So while, in principle, further GM efforts may be all well and fine, in an ideal world, we, unfortunately, do not live a libertarian fruit cake free market utopia. And I prefer to judge things as they are, not by what they should be.