The GMO debate needs more people like Pollan and Ronald.
These days Google+ gets overwhelmed with dodgy blogs lacking any kind of credible backing that are using fear to influence the GMO debate. Between all this noise it is great (thank you +The New Yorker) that some people, even if they are from opposite sides, talk to each other on a more mature level.
A must read article ( also do read the referenced articles ) for all that do engage in the debate here online!
Michael Pollan told the audience, “If anyone can make the case for this technology, it’s Pam Ronald.”
20 Replies to “The GMO debate needs more people like Pollan and Ronald.”
I can't believe there is a debate? Organic is the way to go! Its natural nature….just like it was intended.
+Trey Collier please read the article and see why this is a sensible debate.
'Pollan echoed this sentiment, and agreed that the technology itself may not fundamentally pose a greater health threat than other forms of plant breeding. “I haven’t read anything to convince me that there are inherent problems with the technology. I think most of the problems arise from the way we’re choosing to apply it, what we’re using it for, and how we’re framing the problems that it is being used to solve,” he said.'
+Trey Collier It's a debate because people still think the natural fallacy is a thing that's worth bringing to the table. And that inefficient agriculture (that also uses pesticides, btw) is something worth having in a world were millions of people die from hunger.
And it's a debate because some people haven't paid attention in their biology classes, and don't trust highly trained scientists.
+David Röll, yes! I don't understand the irrational fear of GMO food. Everyone should eat them and we've been genetically modifying crops for millennia.
Personally…..I don't GAF. I have an internal fight with wife…..I want Organic…….she buys what she buys…..
Sorry +Jason Davison I don't agree with you.
Only becuase I've done my own research on this……now I'm in fight with my wife…..
+Trey Collier See, "your own research" versus the scientific consensus, that is, the best interpretation of reality we have. Tens of thousands of highly trained, highly specialized scientists who looked at every bit of data we have on the topic.
To claim that GMOs are not as safe as any other food crop would be like claiming the earth is flat.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.de/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html
My problem is not with GMO, per se, since we have been adapting species since we first started agriculture – and doing the same with animals, through selective breeding. My biggest problem with it is Monsanto – they have the tactical methods of the Gestapo. Take them out of the picture and allow for actual real debate, instead of Monsanto lobbyist funded legislation, and we can have a proper conversation on GMO (minus the argument equivalent of anti-vaxxers on both sides, obviously).
+Cod Codliness The same people who claim that GMOs cause cancer also tell the horror stories about Monsanto (for good reason, so guys like you who don't oppose GMOs at least oppose one of the companies producing them).
Strangely, their customers (=farmers) are quite happy with them. Go figure.
Actually, ”guys like me ” (nice generalisation, by the way) are perfectly capable of looking at the evidence on it's own merits. I'd prefer not to be painted with your very broad brush, particularly since broad brushes are usually quite inaccurate.
If you read my comment again, you might notice I said nothing about Monsanto products. My problem is with their practices. Although, to be fair, that's something which can be held against some other corporations too.
+Cod Codliness Give me some examples.
"Organic" is nothing more than a marketing buzzword that means "You wasted your money on an inferior product"
You mean like the fraud and corruption trials they have been defendants in, which are a matter of public record? Or the monopolistic practices? Or the tens of millions of dollars they spend on lobbyists buying US politicians? Those sort of practices?
+Cod Codliness There's one documented case of corruption in an area of the world where you can't run a large business without corruption (which is also well documented). Yeah, not good, but no reason to "march" and condemn the whole industry. People still buy Siemens products even though there have been death sentences in corruption affairs in China. Similar with VW, which has had a huge corruption trial in the US. Hardly ever mentioned. Their super bowl commercials seem to be more interesting. So corruption can't be the reason why people hate Monsanto, or go full Godwin on them ("Gestapo").
"Monopolistic practises" as in? Last time I checked the ag market had quite a few big players (generally refered to as "big ag"), some of which make more money than Monsanto.
Data at the bottom of the article: http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/right-to-save-seeds/
Btw, there's a reason small companies can't enter this market easily: too much regulation.
Maybe provide more specific examples here?
Lobbying (the act of telling politicians your side of the story)… give me a break. Is that all you have? Earlier you had compared them to the Gestapo.
One?
Is that the 2003 settlement in Alabama for dumping hazardous chemicals?
Or is that the 2005 violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – a prosecution brought by the DoJ?
Or perhaps you are referring to the 2011 investigation by the Environmental Agency here in the UK regarding the dumping of hazardous waste (they agreed to pay on condition of not admitting liability)?
Or the half dozen cases of false advertising cases in the US and Europe.
And that's without even going near India, Brazil or Argentina.
Interesting definition of lobbying you have there BTW.
As to the Gestapo comment, OK, it may have been somewhat hyperbolic. I'm man enough to admit that.
+Cod Codliness You were talking about corruption. Now it's environmental issues of the former chemical company, which has been sold off in the 90ies.
>And that's without even going near India, Brazil or Argentina.
See, this is where it would get interesting.
>Interesting definition of lobbying you have there BTW.
That's the actual definition, you should know that.
So, it comes down to a "hyperbole"… how would you rate them compared to Google or Apple?
“used for people, not for profit.” how is the research paid for……its paid for by money from profits. I think GMO could be a really good thing, but I also think its on a slippery slope. I'm still on the Organic wagon ATM.
GMOs are a slippery slope… To millions of people not dying of malnutrition every year… To children not going blind from vit A deficiencies… To hearty crops that can better endure the ravages of Global Warming… Please, let's slide down that slope as soon as possible.
If you think "organic" is not for profit, you must not know much about who owns "organic"…
+Trey Collier "organic wagon"… http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/06/the_biggest_myth_about_organic_farming.html
Who Owns Organic
http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/