01-23-2014, 09:35 AM
It's really too bad that so many on this public forum who are opposed to GMO insist on overreaching, because there are valid points to be made in opposition to what has been done in America, but you just leap in with something like "GMO was created by the Devil!" and then the guys on the other side just start laughing and calling you a kook (which is just as ridiculous.. more on that later). I'm probably a fool for jumping into this thread, but here I go anyway, searching for the Middle Way...
First of all, Russell Ruderman did not get himself elected in order to single handedly destroy Monsanto and ensure that his three little stores would show exponential profits as a result. You guys who think that, get over yourselves. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, you could admit that he is an honorable man who genuinely wants to help the people of Hawaii, whether it ultimately helps or hurts his business. He's not in it for the money, because there is no money to be made by adopting the position he has adopted, and he's certainly not in it for the prestige... just look at what you guys say about the poor guy in print. Some of you guys really say stupid, ill-considered and ridiculously cruel things about him. Who would want that kind of attention? So lay off Russell. If you disagree with him, by all means vote for his opponent next time. Meanwhile, how's about we give our representative the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intentions (while of course retaining the right to dissent and debate him in a civilized way, eh?) "RUSSELL PLAGIARIZED!" Could have been,"Russell, you may have omitted a citation in your last post... perhaps you should review it."
So, what valid points? I'm trying to strike at the middle here, which is to say, I'm striking out on my own, because I don't see very many others heading for the middle ground in this debate... but here goes: Permie has made some really valid points. Let's set aside the GMO=PESTICIDES!=AllThatIsWrongWithTheWorld argument for now. One thing Permie (and Russell) have suggested is that the Seralini study was not exactly repudiated, as has beeen suggested in the press. That study sought to replicate a Monsanto study. And Permie has merely suggested that the lack of rigor attributed to both studies would warrant a larger study. That's not as expensive as labeling, so what's wrong with such a suggestion? Why swing at that like its a piñata?
On the other side, yes, the Bt product is not infused with a bacteria, just the section of the genome of Bt that expresses a particular protein, one that happens to unfold in an alkaline environment, is then cut into parts by other proteins and then attaches to the receptors in the gut of certain insects (who happen to have alkaline digestive tracts). So yes, human beings and other mammals with acidic digestive tracts are safe from the possibility that the protein will unfold inside their actual digestive tracts. So the science suggesting safety is sound... to a point. Because there are alkaline components to the diets of human beings and alkaline requirements for some of the other processes of the human body, and the protein is expressed systemically and completely (as opposed to during sporulation, which is when it is expressed in the actual Bt organism). So there is a potential for the manifestation of other unintended effects that may not have presented during the initial testing. These might in fact have a causal connection to some of the allergenicity cited in some of the studies mentioned and linked here. It isn't helpful to bang on the "no one has died" drum and then sit back and smugly chew on your corn. There are other health concerns that do correlate with the widespread use of Bt corn, such as the epidemic of obesity and diabetes since the mid-80s, as well as the increase in auto-immune disorders like fybromyalgia, as well as hormonal issues in both woman and men during that time. These may be attributable to other causes, for instance, the hybridization of wheat, or the widespread adoption of HFCS right around the same time, but if there was a causal connection of any kind, why would it be wrong to try and find out?
Science is all about finding things out. If you claim to be pro-Science, you should be excited at the prospect of finding something new out about GMO. And if you claim only to be a local farmer who wants GMO to be legal in order to grown more bananas or some such, stop hiding behind Science and stop suggesting that other people have conflicts of interest but you are somehow pure.
First of all, Russell Ruderman did not get himself elected in order to single handedly destroy Monsanto and ensure that his three little stores would show exponential profits as a result. You guys who think that, get over yourselves. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, you could admit that he is an honorable man who genuinely wants to help the people of Hawaii, whether it ultimately helps or hurts his business. He's not in it for the money, because there is no money to be made by adopting the position he has adopted, and he's certainly not in it for the prestige... just look at what you guys say about the poor guy in print. Some of you guys really say stupid, ill-considered and ridiculously cruel things about him. Who would want that kind of attention? So lay off Russell. If you disagree with him, by all means vote for his opponent next time. Meanwhile, how's about we give our representative the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intentions (while of course retaining the right to dissent and debate him in a civilized way, eh?) "RUSSELL PLAGIARIZED!" Could have been,"Russell, you may have omitted a citation in your last post... perhaps you should review it."
So, what valid points? I'm trying to strike at the middle here, which is to say, I'm striking out on my own, because I don't see very many others heading for the middle ground in this debate... but here goes: Permie has made some really valid points. Let's set aside the GMO=PESTICIDES!=AllThatIsWrongWithTheWorld argument for now. One thing Permie (and Russell) have suggested is that the Seralini study was not exactly repudiated, as has beeen suggested in the press. That study sought to replicate a Monsanto study. And Permie has merely suggested that the lack of rigor attributed to both studies would warrant a larger study. That's not as expensive as labeling, so what's wrong with such a suggestion? Why swing at that like its a piñata?
On the other side, yes, the Bt product is not infused with a bacteria, just the section of the genome of Bt that expresses a particular protein, one that happens to unfold in an alkaline environment, is then cut into parts by other proteins and then attaches to the receptors in the gut of certain insects (who happen to have alkaline digestive tracts). So yes, human beings and other mammals with acidic digestive tracts are safe from the possibility that the protein will unfold inside their actual digestive tracts. So the science suggesting safety is sound... to a point. Because there are alkaline components to the diets of human beings and alkaline requirements for some of the other processes of the human body, and the protein is expressed systemically and completely (as opposed to during sporulation, which is when it is expressed in the actual Bt organism). So there is a potential for the manifestation of other unintended effects that may not have presented during the initial testing. These might in fact have a causal connection to some of the allergenicity cited in some of the studies mentioned and linked here. It isn't helpful to bang on the "no one has died" drum and then sit back and smugly chew on your corn. There are other health concerns that do correlate with the widespread use of Bt corn, such as the epidemic of obesity and diabetes since the mid-80s, as well as the increase in auto-immune disorders like fybromyalgia, as well as hormonal issues in both woman and men during that time. These may be attributable to other causes, for instance, the hybridization of wheat, or the widespread adoption of HFCS right around the same time, but if there was a causal connection of any kind, why would it be wrong to try and find out?
Science is all about finding things out. If you claim to be pro-Science, you should be excited at the prospect of finding something new out about GMO. And if you claim only to be a local farmer who wants GMO to be legal in order to grown more bananas or some such, stop hiding behind Science and stop suggesting that other people have conflicts of interest but you are somehow pure.