Stop Bashing G.M.O. Foods, More Than 100 Nobel Laureates Say

[Independent voter]

We all know the only reason the EU is anti GMO is for protectionism, to protect their weak agricultural sector from competition the new trade deals with the US will bring. This article is just more proof.






http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us...-say.html?_r=0

More than 100 Nobel laureates have a message for Greenpeace: Quit the G.M.O.-bashing.

Genetically modified organisms and foods are a safe way to meet the demands of a ballooning global population, the 109 laureates wrote in a letter posted online and officially unveiled at a news conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C.

Opponents, they say, are standing in the way of getting nutritious food to those who need it.

“Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia,” the laureates wrote in the letter.

Proponents of genetically modified foods such as Golden Rice, which contains genes from corn and a bacterium, argue that they are efficient vehicles for needed nutrients. Opponents fear that foods whose genes are manipulated in ways that do not naturally occur might contaminate existing crops. And, they say, the debate distracts from the only guaranteed solution to malnutrition: promoting diverse, healthy diets.

“Corporations are overhyping ‘Golden’ rice to pave the way for global approval of other more profitable genetically engineered crops,” Wilhelmina Pelegrina, a campaigner with Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said in a statement. “This costly experiment has failed to produce results for the last 20 years and diverted attention from methods that already work.”

Richard J. Roberts, one of two winners of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, spearheaded the letter-writing effort to set the record straight.





“There’s been a tremendous amount of misinformation being put out by Greenpeace,” he said. Some plant scientists have been “attacked so fiercely” over their views that they’ve gone silent, Dr. Roberts said.

In the letter, the laureates — all but 10 of whom earned their prizes in the fields of physics, chemistry or medicine — contend that G.M.O.s have consistently been found to be safe. The Washington Post covered the group’s efforts on Wednesday.

“Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production,” the group of laureates wrote. “There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.”

In a report released in May, the influential National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that genetically engineered crops appear to be generally safe to eat and safe for the environment. It resisted broad proclamations, however, calling such sweeping statements “problematic” because of a variety of factors that affect such an analysis.

Consumers Union, a policy division of the nonprofit Consumer Reports, has approached the issue with caution, calling for labeling and federal scrutiny to better understand foods that contain genetically modified components.

In 2014, the Pew Research Center found an enormous gap between the public and scientists on the issue. Just 37 percent of adults in the United States said genetically modified foods were safe to eat, while 88 percent of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science said the same.

[Krille]

We all know the only reason the EU is anti GMO is for protectionism, to protect their weak agricultural sector from competition the new trade deals with the US will bring. This article is just more proof.






http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us...-say.html?_r=0

More than 100 Nobel laureates have a message for Greenpeace: Quit the G.M.O.-bashing.

Genetically modified organisms and foods are a safe way to meet the demands of a ballooning global population, the 109 laureates wrote in a letter posted online and officially unveiled at a news conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C.

Opponents, they say, are standing in the way of getting nutritious food to those who need it.

“Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia,” the laureates wrote in the letter.

Proponents of genetically modified foods such as Golden Rice, which contains genes from corn and a bacterium, argue that they are efficient vehicles for needed nutrients. Opponents fear that foods whose genes are manipulated in ways that do not naturally occur might contaminate existing crops. And, they say, the debate distracts from the only guaranteed solution to malnutrition: promoting diverse, healthy diets.

“Corporations are overhyping ‘Golden’ rice to pave the way for global approval of other more profitable genetically engineered crops,” Wilhelmina Pelegrina, a campaigner with Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said in a statement. “This costly experiment has failed to produce results for the last 20 years and diverted attention from methods that already work.”

Richard J. Roberts, one of two winners of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, spearheaded the letter-writing effort to set the record straight.





“There’s been a tremendous amount of misinformation being put out by Greenpeace,” he said. Some plant scientists have been “attacked so fiercely” over their views that they’ve gone silent, Dr. Roberts said.

In the letter, the laureates — all but 10 of whom earned their prizes in the fields of physics, chemistry or medicine — contend that G.M.O.s have consistently been found to be safe. The Washington Post covered the group’s efforts on Wednesday.

“Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production,” the group of laureates wrote. “There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.”

In a report released in May, the influential National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that genetically engineered crops appear to be generally safe to eat and safe for the environment. It resisted broad proclamations, however, calling such sweeping statements “problematic” because of a variety of factors that affect such an analysis.

Consumers Union, a policy division of the nonprofit Consumer Reports, has approached the issue with caution, calling for labeling and federal scrutiny to better understand foods that contain genetically modified components.

In 2014, the Pew Research Center found an enormous gap between the public and scientists on the issue. Just 37 percent of adults in the United States said genetically modified foods were safe to eat, while 88 percent of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science said the same.

Looks at American people. Most are fat. Don't want to be fat. Don't want your food. We're not starving.

[lonely zergling]

Its not like GMOS are needed in europe... we produce too much the normal way why waste even more?

[Izalla]

Looks at American people. Most are fat. Don't want to be fat. Don't want your food. We're not starving.

I think their concern is with places actually starving, like Africa and Southeast Asia. Says that in the article at least.

[Krille]

I think their concern is with places actually starving, like Africa and Southeast Asia. Says that in the article at least.

Yet the OP starts this thread with: "We all know the only reason the EU is anti GMO is for protectionism, to protect their weak agricultural sector from competition the new trade deals with the US will bring. This article is just more proof". If you want to send GMOs to Africa EU wont stop you.

[Mayhem]

Yeah, i will remain opposed to food that you aren´t allowed to grow freely because it´s copyrighted by a multinational company.

It´s safe to eat, sure, but is it safe to grow? Will they displace normal crops? ... and so on.

[Alvito]

The food itself isn't the issue. It is companies like Monsanto that stomp all over smaller farmers that people have an issue with.

[Thunderball]

The problem isnt the lack of food. The problem is balance - developed countries eat too much, poor countries dont eat enough. Rich people dont need to eat that much, and poor people wont eat more because you can make more food - they dont eat because they cant afford it. GMOs are a tool to reduce production costs of food, not improve quality. This is what all GMO research is aimed for and we should treat it the way it's created.

[Damajin]

European GMO 'protectionism' is one of the very few things that I'm actually envious of them having and wish we had here in the US. If anything could ever entice me to live in Europe it's the quality of the food being vastly superior to the US.

[Cosmic Janitor]

The only really sensible concern I've heard so far was a legal one that essentially (supposedly) went like this: The patent on GMO food means that even if a few seed from a neighbor who uses it blow over to yours they can sue you. I'm not sure how or if at all accurate that is. Otherwise I haven't seen any reasonable opposition claims other than scientific illiteracy, despite me really wanting to tell you Americans that you can keep your high fructose corn syrup crap.

[Krille]

The problem isnt the lack of food. The problem is balance - developed countries eat too much, poor countries dont eat enough. Rich people dont need to eat that much, and poor people wont eat more because you can make more food - they dont eat because they cant afford it. GMOs are a tool to reduce production costs of food, not improve quality. This is what all GMO research is aimed for and we should treat it the way it's created.

We've got very few countries in the EU that are so poor they cannot feed their own population. You can turn OPs words around and say that the only reason the US want to get this to EU is just because of another market. Not because they want to solve world starvation, let's not be silly.

[Deleted]

Does it really matter if EU is against GMO?

[Deja Thoris]

While I see the benefits the risks scare me.

Science is full of unintended consequences and when you're splicing the bits of rice / bacteria a frog and a dinosaur together with your biggest concern (likely) being profitability rather than scientific rigor forgive me for being worried.

[Independent voter]

Does it really matter if EU is against GMO?

Well, our trade deficit is for every $2 we send the EU we get $1 back.

The only other way than agriculture to fix that is make a Mercedes cost as much as a four bedroom house.

[Gamdwelf]

Nope it's not the same.

There is a risk of passing genes to related types of plants.

If the gene helps the plant live and reproduce what's the problem?

[Hif]

Yeah, i will remain opposed to food that you aren´t allowed to grow freely because it´s copyrighted by a multinational company.

It´s safe to eat, sure, but is it safe to grow? Will they displace normal crops? ... and so on.

This. How the fuck do you patent a tomato? I don't know. But ask Monsanto and the US government.

[Aoyi]

The anti-gmo crowd is like he anti-vaccine crowd in that they just hang on to their opposition despite lack of evidence. As stated in the above article, GMOs are perfectly safe. I worked in the food industry for a while and have seen many GMOs from many different companies. They aren't some corporate assholes trying to get one over on the population. Many of them have been actively working to solve real world issues like vitamin deficiency, starvation, and excessive food waste. GM crops have been around for decades now.

[Reeve]

Its not like GMOS are needed in europe... we produce too much the normal way why waste even more?

I never understood this thought process. If you can make the land more productive, why wouldn't you? If you can make 2 fields produce the same amount of food that 3 fields used to produce, you can use that 3rd field for something else. You can grow luxury products on it, or open up more pastureland so that your cattle don't have to live in Cowschwitz, or build more housing, or recreational areas, or even just leave it as open fields to enhance the beauty in the area. Whatever.

I just don't understand why someone would say, "I know you can make our processes more efficient and productive without any downsides, but what I've got is good enough so fuck off."

[the game]

Here's a non GMO watermelon


Here's a non GMO banana


Here's non GMO corn vs GMO corn

[Bauglir]

Here's a non GMO watermelon


Here's a non GMO banana


Here's non GMO corn vs GMO corn

Gmo is not the same thing as selective breeding/ cross breeding/ hybridization. Try again


Imo I'm on the fence. I'm waiting on some unbiased scientific evidence that gmo crops are harmful or not to humans