1/3 of Nobel Laureates say Greenpeace is “anti-science”, must now embrace GMOs

Written By: - Date published: 7:56 pm, June 30th, 2016 - 181 comments
Categories: business, capitalism, Economy, Environment, farming, food - Tags: , ,

The Washington Post has reported that one third (107) of all living Nobel Laureates have signed a letter condemning Greenpeace for being “anti-science” due to their leading a campaign against GMO crops in general, and against the vitamin A producing GMO “Golden Rice” in particular.

“We’re scientists. We understand the logic of science. It’s easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and is anti-science,” Roberts told The Washington Post. “Greenpeace initially, and then some of their allies, deliberately went out of their way to scare people. It was a way for them to raise money for their cause.”

Roberts said he endorses many other activities of Greenpeace, and said he hopes the group, after reading the letter, would “admit that this is an issue that they got wrong and focus on the stuff that they do well.”

The goal is for GMO “Golden Rice” to be grown throughout the third world and developing countries globally.

Perhaps it is now time for anti-GMO activists and political groups in NZ to stop being similarly “anti-science” and to embrace GMOs with both arms within NZ agriculture and horticulture.

The world’s preeminent scientists have now assured us that the benefits of GMOs clearly outweigh the risks.

Only anti-science witch doctors and voodoo exponents would disagree. If you are against GMOs in NZ food, which one are you?

Zero Hedge has slightly more skeptical coverage:

In summary, everyone should listen to the elites, no matter what one’s personal conviction is. This letter is not a surprise, as there was recently a call for elites to rise up against the ignorant masses – this group wasted no time in that effort.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has already declared that Russia is going to lead the world in GMO-free agriculture, which will keep mega-corporations like Monsanto away from Russia’s farm land. Putin and Russia appear to be dangerously ill informed and “anti-science”.

Here are a few last words from the Nobel Laureates’ letter:

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. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption.

It is time to give your full to support GMOs – unless you are “anti-science”, that is.

181 comments on “1/3 of Nobel Laureates say Greenpeace is “anti-science”, must now embrace GMOs ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Greg 1
    30 June 2016 at 8:36 pm

    https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/countries.html

    https://thelogicofscience.com/

    http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

    =is the stuff safe to eat,
    and will it be backed up by free health care if it isnt

    =yes/no/MAYBE/mostly/notToMuch

  2. save nz 2
    30 June 2016 at 9:13 pm

    2/3 of Nobel Laureates say Greenpeace is not “anti-science”, must not embrace GMOs

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      30 June 2016 at 9:23 pm

      They have kept quiet on the issue. Silence = consent.

    • marty mars 2.2
      30 June 2016 at 9:30 pm

      Yep – a vast majority of da da da… and the others disagree. I will fight gmos here and overseas will support efforts for alternatives. I like most Nobel whatsits think Greenpeace is doing a great job.

    • Phil 2.3
      1 July 2016 at 12:25 pm

      … one third (107) of all living Nobel Laureates have signed a letter condemning Greenpeace for being “anti-science” due to their leading a campaign against GMO…

      —

      2/3 of Nobel Laureates say Greenpeace is not “anti-science”, must not embrace GMOs

      Your conclusion is faulty or, at least, incomplete.

  3. b waghorn 3
    30 June 2016 at 9:19 pm

    I give my full support to rigorously trialling GMOs but giving fuckers likes Monsanto legal rights to terrorize neighboring farmers and make the rules is a no go.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      30 June 2016 at 9:23 pm

      A well considered, rational and scientific response.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2
      30 June 2016 at 9:49 pm

      +1

      Yep, find out exactly what the modification is doing before releasing it upon the world.

      And if it gets into the seed of a farm that has never bought GMO seeds then either tough biccies or the multi-national corporation gets sued into oblivion for contaminating the other farm.

      • b waghorn 3.2.1
        1 July 2016 at 8:16 pm

        The day I read about Monsanto suing people when it was their product that jumped the boundary, I thought no wonder American s go crazy and start shooting every one at times.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.3
      1 July 2016 at 11:17 am

      GMO is like most technologies, can be used for good or evil.

      It can be used to try to make a bioweapon or increase Monsanto wealth extraction (=evil) or to improve food production or make insulin (=good), as examples.

  4. Xanthe 4
    30 June 2016 at 9:24 pm

    BULLSHIT !!

    These people are not scientists they are technicians they do not study or increase knowlege they just tinker for commercial gain.

    Actual scientists understand that our understanding of genetics and the interaction between gene DNA RNA and life is in its infancy . No real scientist would suggest that GMO’S should be released into the wild or that they should be handed over to commercialisation.

    And dont start spouting crap about how we need this shit to feed everyone, we dont and thats not why its being pushed, Its about taking control over the production of food

    Disgusted !

    • Little Kiwi 4.1
      30 June 2016 at 11:01 pm

      True! I would eat organic if I could. I hate thinking about the frankenfood I am eating. GMO also means more herbicides on our food. It’s all about business and monopoly. I wish more people cared but they don’t.

      • Phil 4.1.1
        1 July 2016 at 12:31 pm

        GMO also means more herbicides on our food.

        Huh? This makes no sense.

        • Corokia 4.1.1.1
          1 July 2016 at 12:37 pm

          Yes it does. Have you not heard of Round up ready soy and other Monsanto products?

          They GE the food plant to be able to survive spraying it with Round up, the idea being the paddock is sprayed with herbicide/round up, the weeds all die, but the food crop survives. We eat the food crop. No thanks.

          • Phil 4.1.1.1.1
            1 July 2016 at 1:36 pm

            Ah, righto. I had pesticide and herbicide mixed up in my head.

            GMO crops can be more resistant to pests so there’s less use of pesticide. A little bit of swings-and-roundabouts.

            • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.1.1.1
              1 July 2016 at 2:13 pm

              Depends on what flavour of irrationalism you prefer. Some people hate the idea that Roundup might have been sprayed on plants they eat, but don’t mind the stuff that gets sprayed on organic crops. Others might freak out about the fact that organic crops have had animal shit on them. People with not enough to think about tend to fixate on trivia.

              • Robert Guyton …
                1 July 2016 at 3:24 pm

                Organic crops aren’t/shouldn’t “have animal shit on them”. Animal manures are integrated into the soil, sure, but applied to the crop? I don’t think so. Even “worm rum”, the super-nutritious leachate from worm-medium, is applied to the soil, not the leaf. Conventional dairy farms, btw, are more likely to have crops (ryegrass) besplattered with shit and urine with cows feeding all around.

              • corokia …
                1 July 2016 at 7:44 pm

                “People with not enough to think about tend to fixate on trivia.”

                People with not enough evidence tend to attack the person rather than make a valid point in a debate.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  1 July 2016 at 8:28 pm

                  Perhaps we could start with evidence that sprayed chemicals in general (because organic farmers also spray their crops) and Roundup in particular are dangerous to eat in the amounts remaining on food by the time you eat it.

                  • corokia …
                    2 July 2016 at 8:38 pm

                    OK, how about a study showing, say 10 years of eating food that has been sprayed with Roundup is safe. Could probably do it as an animal study with prescence or abscence of Roundup being the only variable.

  5. roy cartland 5
    30 June 2016 at 9:31 pm

    Really, one third? If so:

    “Science” doesn’t factor in the ethics of giving control of a primary food source to Corporations. They seem to ignore that starvation is n not caused by global scarcity of food.
    Nobel laureates are as corruptible as anyone else – Obama is one, for godssake.

    They want an anti-science population, they should keep blurting out this unhelpful shit. Truly appalling from those who, really, ought to know better.

    As for keeping quiet, there are some pretty hairy laws around speaking ill of the food industry in the US.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

  6. gsays 6
    30 June 2016 at 9:31 pm

    well it looks like i can add 1/3 of nobel laureates to the weatherman, economists(haruspices, thanks bill), commercial radio djs and senior mps, as people to take no notice of.

  7. Richard McGrath 7
    30 June 2016 at 9:42 pm

    How refreshing to see this appear at The Standard. Food for thought, if you’ll excuse the pun.

    • Dale 7.1
      1 July 2016 at 8:44 pm

      I grow my own vedges and I’d be filthy if Gm pollen fucked that up. But if Gm produce can help third world countries to feed themselves safely then it’s a good thing,don’t you think?

  8. Stuart Munro 8
    30 June 2016 at 9:51 pm

    GMOs need to be divided into risk categories according to the modifications, something like this:

    Modified with related strain or species ie wheat with wheat or tomato with tomato – low risk, low time to general release. Labelling need not be compulsory.

    Modified with benign but exogenous genes – ie wheat with banana
    moderate unquantifiable risk – moderate time to general release. Labelling required. Food allergy sufferers really need to know.

    Modified with dangerous exogenous genes – terminator gene, poison production or tolerance inducing excessive use, or human DNA – high risk, long time to market, labelling required. In some cases may be simply banned.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      30 June 2016 at 10:02 pm

      Interesting and thoughtful approach, but the Nobel Laureates seem clear that these “risk categories” are excessively cautious. After all, GMOs have been consistently found to be at least as safe as other foods, and have never been connected to negative health outcomes.

      So the only GMO category required is: “safe”.

      • Stuart Munro 8.1.1
        30 June 2016 at 10:21 pm

        Meh – half of the GMO panic is because fuckwits like Monsanto insist on railroading their technology into the food chain. The technology is mostly safe, but Monsanto are corporate psychopaths who will purse any imagined commercial interest whether their product is safe or not.

        They opposed labelling, prosecuted organic farmers, inflicted GMO food on third world food aid recipients – there’s not much they haven’t done. So I’m in no hurry to let them run riot here. Let the bastards wait until they learn some manners.

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1
          30 June 2016 at 10:33 pm

          So you support GMO technology as long as it is not under the control or direction of large corporations.

          Sensible, and also good to know that you think that the technology itself is basically sound and safe.

          • Stuart Munro 8.1.1.1.1
            30 June 2016 at 10:44 pm

            It needs strict regulation because, for example, one could modify sweetcorn to produce opiates or insulin.

            Simple food modifications are unlikely to produce results outside the range of toxicity normal for the contributing species – but ought to face some testing in case they do.

            Glycophosphate is not necessarily an unmixed blessing, and pharmaceutical products need to be treated with a healthy respect. Monsanto cannot do that without regulatory oversight.

            [http://www.laleva.org/eng/docs/ReproductiveToxicology.pdf briefly discusses glycophospate issues]

        • Phil 8.1.1.2
          1 July 2016 at 4:37 pm

          The technology is mostly safe, but Monsanto are corporate psychopaths who will purse any imagined commercial interest whether their product is safe or not.

          How is this any different to the supposed corporate activities at any other point in the food chain?!?!

          • Stuart Munro 8.1.1.2.1
            1 July 2016 at 4:54 pm

            A reasonable proportion of food manufacturers have less advanced corporate psychopathy than companies like Monsanto or Enron or Talleys. Though not invariably trustworthy they cultivate a degree of respect for customers in part to make their products more marketable. The reasoning of these companies would be “We need labelling to inform consumers of the advantages of our quality products.” Of course Monsanto know perfectly well their product is not desirable, but rather than develop some that are they mean to impose it on consumers by force. It is a costly and ultimately commercially fatal trope.

            Interestingly Microsoft is now gradually addressing the brute stupidity of their customer relations and quality assurance by soliciting customer opinion to avoid the errors that characterised two out of three of their operating system releases.

  9. Corokia 9
    30 June 2016 at 9:53 pm

    So it’s either ” full support” or you are anti-science.
    You sound like George W Bush and the war on terror.

    Surely each separate GMO must be researched thoroughly before a decision is made about that particular one. It’s not all or nothing.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      30 June 2016 at 9:58 pm

      The letter signed by 107 Nobel Laureates makes it quite clear that there has never been a health problem found with any GMOs. They have proven consistently safe to human and animal health. You need to stop scaremongering and being anti-science.

  10. One Two 10
    30 June 2016 at 10:23 pm

    The desperation of quack industry ‘science’ has become comical to the point where it is ensuring rejection

    GMO’s , vaccines , it’s over

  11. Booker 11
    30 June 2016 at 10:53 pm

    Oh seriously this is so depressing. I’m a scientist. I’ve worked hard my whole life, paid through the nose for university, lived off far lower wages than I would have got doing a different career, on precarious grant funding…. and along come some “I’ve made it, now I can say what I want” upstuck Nobel winners to further fuck up the public image of science. Fucking thanks. Seriously, do Nobel winners do anything other than fly around the world, give keynote speeches at conferences, and pretend they know everything? (seriously, this is a thing, a very big thing).

    I can’t believe of all things they chose ‘Golden Rice’ as a stand-out reason to back GMs. The study describing the results of the Golden Rice trial was retracted. Get this, for ethics violations:
    http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/30/golden-rice-paper-pulled-after-judge-rules-for-journal/
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/golden-rice-paper-retracted-after-legal-bid-fails
    …and when they got wind that their study was going to be retracted, they tried to sue the journal to make sure it wouldn’t get retracted. The only people who try to sue journal are scum like Andrew ‘vaccines cause autism’ Wakefield. There’s few golden rules in life, but I’ll say this: in science, if someone reaches for a lawyer, their science is shit.

    So a bunch of Nobel laureates want to wave their fingers, yell ‘bad public for not supporting science’, when the only part of science they’re talking about is GMs, and the very GM they’re talking about is embroiled in a scandal because the researchers didn’t follow proper rules of scientific conduct, cut corners, and got caught out doing it?! Give me a fucking break.

    Seriously, there needs to be new rules in science – once you win a Nobel, forced retirement. For the greater good. We don’t need any more of these ridiculous egos of profs on high dictating to the plebs what they should be doing. That shit belongs in a different era.

    • Robert Guyton 11.1
      30 June 2016 at 11:04 pm

      I agree with Booker. The Washington Post article reeks. Have you no nose for this sort of pabulum, Colonial Viper?

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1
        1 July 2016 at 12:42 am

        Your criticisms sound like ‘anti-science’ tripe to me matey

        • Robert Guyton 11.1.1.1
          1 July 2016 at 8:28 am

          Given that you seem blind to the chicanery of the Post article, your view about how my comment sounds is not surprising.

          • Editractor 11.1.1.1.1
            1 July 2016 at 11:53 am

            Sorry Robert, but you might want to retune your olfactory senses for sarcasm 😉 Chicanery abounds!

            • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1.1.1
              1 July 2016 at 11:59 am

              Ha!

            • Robert Guyton 11.1.1.1.1.2
              1 July 2016 at 1:05 pm

              Yes, Editractor, the “how dare you” was bald enough, that’s true, but as a device for stimulating discussion, playing Devil’s Avocado is hardly necessary with this particular topic, given we have supporters of GMOs hanging about like three-eyed fruit-flies already.

    • Colonial Viper 11.2
      1 July 2016 at 12:39 am

      Booker, I appreciate your comments and definitely your first hand perspective, but I have been told that science is a solid rational objective enterprise and I am sure that the world’s top scientists who so totally understand the “logic” of science have not been swayed by this kind of mundane stuff.

    • save nz 11.3
      1 July 2016 at 9:33 am

      +1 booker

  12. Bill 12
    30 June 2016 at 11:12 pm

    These fuckers still banging on ‘the golden rice’ front? That’s the rice that’s meant to address certain vitamin deficiencies, yes? The same vitamin deficiencies that only came about after the avocado trees and what not got cleared out of the way for more intensive rice planting, yes?

    edit – I’m not “anti-science” (whatever that means), but these fuckers need to learn about reality and political context before they spout.

    • Robert Guyton 12.1
      1 July 2016 at 11:28 am

      Bill’s correct. I listened to Dr William Rolleston ‘debate’ this issue in Queenstown, sticking to the science like a limpet and plugging his ears with anti-siren wax so as not to hear anything from the wider world (Bill’s “reality and political context”). What interested me was the intensity of his disdain for non-scientists. Unfortunately, the ‘other side’ of the argument were not quite prepared for someone focused and deaf, and fell into his simple traps. Of even greater interest was the way the organisers of the debate changed the title on the day, so as to, seemingly, make Rolleston’s job much easier. it narrowed the focus of the debate down to just … the science. I guess he requested that.

  13. Tautoko Mangō Mata 13
    30 June 2016 at 11:18 pm

    For an alternative view, the pro GMO is very closely linked to large biotech corporations and many scientists are dependent on these for their funding.
    The following extracts explain the issues regarding golden rice.
    1. “On occasion, the better parts of this press coverage have indicated that there are socio-cultural and technical obstacles to golden rice achieving genuine success in improving the nutrition of those with a Vitamin A deficiency. For a start golden rice will have to be widely grown (which means replacing many thousands of local varieties, or breeding the transgenes into each one); it must be made available to the poorest and most isolated (who actually need it); and it will have to overcome strong cultural preferences for white rice (by means not yet known). Moreover, in both scientific trials on humans (Tang et al 2009; Tang et al 2012) GR2 was immediately frozen at -70C to prevent loss of the apparently easily degraded beta-carotene (2). It was then fed to the study participants with 10% or more butter or oil (to ensure the availability of the fat necessary for absorption of beta-carotene). It perhaps doesn’t need saying that -70C storage capability and comparably fatty diets are not characteristics of those likely to be deficient in vitamin A.

    Thus, between its technical flaws and its requirement for very large quantities of financial resources and political will (for plant breeding, distribution, etc.), it is highly probable that golden rice will never progress beyond a nice media story.”
    https://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/fakethrough-gmos-and-the-capitulation-of-science-journalism/

    2. Golden Rice is a False Miracle

    Golden Rice is a genetically engineered rice with two genes from a daffodil and one gene from a bacterium which gives it a yellow colouring, which is supposed to increase beta carotene, a precursor to Vit A. It is being offered as a miracle cure for Vit A Deficiency (VAD)

    But Golden Rice is a false miracleIt is a disease of nutritionally empty monocultures offered as a cure for nutritional deficiency. According to goldenrice.org, children under the age of 7 require 450 ‘units’ of Retinol (Vitamin A) Equivalents. Children would therefore have to eat 300gms of Golden Rice to get their daily requirement of Vit A. In indigenous food cultures, a child’s diet normally contains less than than 150 gms of rice, but also contains a range of other nutritious foods grown by women. In fact, Golden Rice is 350% less efficient in providing Vit A than the biodiversity alternatives that women have to offer. To get your daily requirement of Vit A, all you need to eat is one of the following:

    -two tablespoons of Spinach or Cholai leavesor Radish leaves

    -four tablespoons of Mustard or Bathua leaves

    -one tablespoon of coriander chutney

    -one and a half table spoon of mint chutney

    -one carrot

    -one mango

    Not only do these indigenous alternatives based on women’s knowledge provide more Vit A than Golden Rice at a lower cost, they also provide other nutrients. One such example is iron, which helps fight iron deficiency and anaemia. But just like the biotechnology industry is offering Golden Rice for Vit A deficiency, it is promoting GMO bananas for increased Vit A and iron. In reality, GMO bananas provide 7000% less iron than indigenous biodiversity that Indian women are experts in growing and processing.

    The Vit A in GMO Vit A bananas has been pirated from indigenous bananas in Micronesia. The beta-carotene traits have been added to the sticky japonica rice Taipei 309, which Indians do not eat. The feeding trials for Golden Rice as well as the GM Bananas were done illegally and unethically.
    http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15045-golden-rice-not-so-golden

    3. Also http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/30/golden-rice-paper-pulled-after-judge-rules-for-journal/

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      1 July 2016 at 12:36 am

      This is very interesting and thank you for this valuable info Tautoko Mangō Mata, but it seems unlikely that so many of the world’s top scientists are unaware of these issues. They are clearly far more qualified than either you or I on these matters of ethics and research methodology.

    • Psycho Milt 13.2
      1 July 2016 at 11:45 am

      For an alternative view, the pro GMO is very closely linked to large biotech corporations and many scientists are dependent on these for their funding.

      For a further alternative view, the anti-GMO is very closely linked to large organic food companies and many activists are dependent on these for their funding.

  14. Tane 14
    30 June 2016 at 11:22 pm

    OK, I had this argument last year when someone was saying Greenpeace was guilty of murdering millions of people through its opposition to Golden Rice. My arguments were somewhat like this (I can’t be bothered digging up the refs again).

    – Golden rice solves and disguises a problem caused by our economic system.
    – Golden rice licenses it’s crop to growers and I don’t think food should be licensed.
    – Golden rice isn’t yet proven safe (the manufacturer’s website stated so).

    At this point, it looks like number three has been solved. Number two I can live with…maybe. Well, I just object to the licencing and control of food. Number one still holds true though. There is more than enough leafy vegetables, etc… , to go around. The reason these people don’t get any Vitamin A is because of systems, not lack of Golden rice.

  15. Stuart Munro 15
    1 July 2016 at 12:38 am

    I think we can safely assume the ‘nobel laureates’ story has been created to bury this:

    Vermont has passed GMO labelling.

    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-to-put-hold-on-gmo-labeling-legislation

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      1 July 2016 at 12:50 am

      Surely you are not suggesting that over a hundred of the world’s top scientists have allowed themselves to be bought and sold as a simple bit of political cover.

      • Stuart Munro 15.1.1
        1 July 2016 at 1:00 am

        What I’m saying is that Monsanto knew this was coming – why feed it out now? The Nobel folk thing probably took awhile to put together, but are a perfect twitterstorm to bury the chink in the Chinese wall that has until now blocked labelling.

        • save nz 15.1.1.1
          1 July 2016 at 9:29 am

          There are always scientists who are blinkered or corrupted. Hey, any oil lobbyist can get themselves a few to deny climate change. Thanks guys, you delayed the ability to mitigate climate change for 25 years, just like the tobacco industry. sarc.

          • Stuart Munro 15.1.1.1.1
            1 July 2016 at 9:42 am

            I’d be interested to see some interviews with folk on the list – signing a letter may not include recognising or approving all its possible PR uses.

    • Psycho Milt 15.2
      1 July 2016 at 1:40 pm

      Vermont has passed GMO labelling.

      What next? Ethnic labelling, so that people who don’t like particular ethnic groups can be “properly informed” about who they’re interacting with?

      • Stuart Munro 15.2.1
        1 July 2016 at 3:57 pm

        There’s a principle in law of being a good neighbour. This doesn’t mean that you must love your neighbour – which is a religious rather than a legal duty. But you must not harm your neighbour. Organic farmers big and small do not harm GMO growers by their conservative practices – but GMO growers can and do harm organic farmers by contaminating their crops.

        There is something fundamentally dishonest about not labelling GMOs, or for that matter US Beef with its never tested for BSE risk. “The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right names” – Gong Ja.

        • Psycho Milt 15.2.1.1
          1 July 2016 at 4:13 pm

          GMO growers can and do harm organic farmers by contaminating their crops.

          What is this “harm” and “contamination” that would be experienced by organic farmers if GM plants turn up in their fields? And how is it different from the “harm” and “contamination” a GMO farmer would experience if, for example, non-GM plants started turning up among his “Roundup-ready” crop due to “contamination” from a neighbouring organic farm and resulted in a smaller harvest?

          There is something fundamentally dishonest about not labelling GMOs…

          Is there something fundamentally dishonest about not labelling organic food as having been in close contact with animal excrement? If the beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper names, organic farmers could gain the wisdom of finding out what effect it would have on sales of their food to put the label “shit-fertilised” on every item. It would of course be scare-mongering propaganda to put an accurate-but-misleading-and-pointless label like “shit-fertilised” on organic food, but the same applies to labelling GM food.

          • Stuart Munro 15.2.1.1.1
            1 July 2016 at 4:32 pm

            The harm is that their niche product, which caters to consumer preference for authentic foods has been contaminated with inauthentic foods which their customers prefer to avoid and will not pay for. Perhaps you also believe you’re entitled to spray kosher or halal produce with bacon extracts without regard to its owners or consumers – doing so would destroy its value and science can not restore it.

            • Psycho Milt 15.2.1.1.1.1
              1 July 2016 at 4:44 pm

              In other words, the wind might ruin their magic woo. That’s not a basis from banning people from planting particular crops on their own land.

              • Stuart Munro …
                1 July 2016 at 5:07 pm

                Rule from Rylands & Fletcher:

                Any person who brings on to their land or accumulates there a thing that, if it escapes, will cause damage to their neighbour is absolutely liable for the consequences of that harm.

                If I have a lucrative mystic factory bottling magic woo that’s my business – as long as my customers are happy. Need not be religious either – Wagyu beef or Songi mushrooms or Champange – contaminate any of them at your peril.

                But Monsanto have been running it the other way – prosecuting organic farmers whose crops were ruined by GMO contamination for stealing their wind disseminated unwanted product. Vexacious much!

                • Psycho Milt …
                  1 July 2016 at 8:22 pm

                  What an individual corporation does or doesn’t do is irrelevant to the question of whether GM is a reasonable approach to food production or not. There’s also a question as to whether the term “farmers” plural is applicable in the context of “prosecution” in your comment and what the circumstances of the prosecution were.

                  Leaving that aside: would you be happy for organic farmers to be held to account for “contaminating” a neighbouring farm’s GM crop with low-yield, non-Roundup-ready plants? If not, why not?

          • Robert Guyton 15.2.1.1.2
            1 July 2016 at 5:49 pm

            “Is there something fundamentally dishonest about not labelling organic food as having been in close contact with animal excrement?”
            Surely, you jest. Perhaps, like CV, you are playing the avocado.
            All stock farming in New Zealand is carried out “in close contact with animal excrement”
            Do you propose those farmers lable their product thus? Fonterra will be delighted to discuss your proposal with you. You argument is faecetious.

            • Psycho Milt 15.2.1.1.2.1
              1 July 2016 at 8:15 pm

              Do you propose those farmers lable their product thus?

              I don’t. That’s the point. Labelling of food for bullshit propaganda reasons is pointless of stupid.

      • Robert Guyton 15.2.2
        1 July 2016 at 4:04 pm

        “Vermont has passed GMO labelling.”

        “What next?”

        New Hampshire.

  16. Corokia 16
    1 July 2016 at 6:59 am

    Are Greenpeace so powerful that they are all that’s standing on the way of GMOs?

  17. Puckish Rogue 17
    1 July 2016 at 8:36 am

    Some of the arguments about this article sound familiar to climate change deniers 🙂

    *Disclaimer alert:

    I believe climate change is something that is natural and will always happen and that the climate change that is happening now is being made worse by man made pollution

    I believe that vaccination is good and should be encouraged/mandatory for all those that can safely do so (allergies) and that religious beliefs should not over ride the benefits of immunisation

    I believe fluoridation is good and helps save teeth especially in poorer communities

    I believe the addition of iodine to salt is good

    I don’t believe chem trails are the work of the government (any government) in spreading chemicals to the population

    🙂

    • Andre 17.1
      1 July 2016 at 9:04 am

      Y’know Puckish, spending some time on SkepticalScience’s website would do wonders for your education and understanding.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/

      Otherwise, outstanding derail attempt.

      • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1
        1 July 2016 at 9:33 am

        Well you know sometimes you just gotta make a stand and say what you believe 🙂

        • Stuart Munro 17.1.1.1
          1 July 2016 at 9:47 am

          Yep – but as a non-scientist who has neither read nor performed any tests of GM products your opinion falls on the wrong side of Hippocrates’ test:

          “There are two kinds of learning, fact and opinion. One increases knowledge, the other increases ignorance.”

          • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1.1.1
            1 July 2016 at 9:58 am

            You are right however I feel that if one is ignorant then its better (on probabilities) to lean towards science then to lean the other way

            • Stuart Munro 17.1.1.1.1.1
              1 July 2016 at 12:32 pm

              Yes, appeals to authority are so much more ‘sciencey’ than sampling and observation – you have uncovered a great truthiness.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                1 July 2016 at 12:50 pm

                True true, so I guess from now on you’ll be pointing out to everyone on here that expresses an opinion on scientific matters that if they aren’t scientists then they’re ignorant?

                • Stuart Munro …
                  1 July 2016 at 12:54 pm

                  A reasonable proportion of the people here are scientists – they tend to migrate to the political left due to exposure to and respect for accuracy. When the statistical confidence of Key’s assertions became less than chance he lost the science crowd forever.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    1 July 2016 at 1:28 pm

                    So when a subject on here comes up that involves science you’ll be asking people posting on it if they’re scientists?

                    Otherwise they’re ignorant correct?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      1 July 2016 at 2:00 pm

                      One can tell whether they’re in the ball park by the content of their responses PR – not everyone is fooled by pretenders like Dawkins:

                      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/why-richard-dawkins-is-no-scientist-the-survival-of-the-least-selfish-and-what-ants-can-tell-us-9849956.html

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      1 July 2016 at 2:17 pm

                      No no no Stuart stay strong, as you said:

                      but as a non-scientist who has neither read nor performed any tests of GM products your opinion falls on the wrong side of Hippocrates’ test:

                      “There are two kinds of learning, fact and opinion. One increases knowledge, the other increases ignorance.”

                      So unless someone is a scientist and/or read or preformed any tests on GM products you should go through this entire thread and ask every person if they’re scientists and let them know that they’re ignorant if they’re not

                      I await you telling most of the posters on here and in future posts, that they’re ignorant

                • Robert Guyton …
                  1 July 2016 at 12:54 pm

                  Weaseling away the hours…

    • Roflcopter 17.2
      1 July 2016 at 9:16 am

      I don’t believe chem trails are the work of the government (any government) in spreading chemicals to the population

      They’re laying lines of coke for Jesus to snort.

      • Puckish Rogue 17.2.1
        1 July 2016 at 9:53 am

        That might in fact be the single best comment I’ve read on this site this year. People were looking at me strangely after the snort I just made reading that.

  18. Andre 18
    1 July 2016 at 8:59 am

    For someone who is normally a somewhat uncritical dairy booster, Rowarth’s Pundit piece is pretty balanced.
    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/pure-profit-even-if-pure-science-says-its-safe

    To me, the blanket no-GMO position is really unhelpful black-and-white thinking. Particularly when you consider the alternatives that are apparently acceptable. If you want to scare yourself, look up “mutation breeding”. If there’s a technology likely to let really nasty characteristics loose in the wild, inducing random mutations across the entire genome is it. Who knows what hidden mutations have been induced as well as the characteristics tested for? We’ve already had at least one episode of that, with the mutation-bred herbicide-tolerant swedes that poisoned a bunch of livestock a couple of years ago. That apparently easily passed through the regulatory approval process. It’s under-appreciated how fucked-up the genomes of conventionally-bred crops are, what with doubled-up chromosomes and all.

    A more balanced view would look at the changes in the entire organism, how those changes were achieved, and the risks of those novel characteristics transferring to other organisms.

    For instance, a common technique for engineering bacteria is to inject a new plasmid into the cell. Which also happens to be how pathogens commonly swap antibiotic resistance with each other. So that’s a really risky technique. But as far as I can tell, a newer technique (CRISPR) directly edits the genome much more precisely in a more stable, difficult to transfer part of its DNA. So it’s a much lower risk of “getting loose”.

    What the modified characteristic is and what effects it might have in the wild are also important considerations. The hazards of terminator genes, herbicide resistance, and Bt production are obvious. But it’s not so obvious that there’s significant risk from a plant that simply produces a bit more lipids, which is one of the benefits of the HME ryegrass.

    So yes, it would be really helpful if Greenpeace (and our local Greens) got a bit more balanced and nuanced in their views on GMOs, and other organisms modified by older, more random techniques..

    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1
      1 July 2016 at 9:24 am

      In their response, among other things, Greenpeace invoke reality:

      In response to the letter, Wilhelmina Pelegrina, a campaigner for Greenpeace Southeast Asia told The Post that the organization was not blocking golden rice, as the initiative “has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research.”

      “As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address vitamin A deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn’t even exist,”

      It seems Nobel laureates, as individuals, might be just as susceptible to a good story as the next person.

      I guess that must be why the scientific method involves peer review or something.

  19. save nz 19
    1 July 2016 at 9:26 am

    For a scientific experiment get yourselves some fresh vine tomatoes in the packet from the supermarket. Then wait and see how long it takes to decompose the tomatoes. You will be surprised. Compare with freshly grown tomatoes out of your garden.

    In Europe they use a gas to store fresh produce in, the products look great, problem is, when they tested the nutrient value of the products that looked fresh but would have normally decomposed they found there were no vitamins left in the food. Essentially consumers were fooled into eating rotten food that although did not make them sick, did not give them the nutrient value of the food either.

    Wonder why people are getting sicker?

    Food is no longer produced for the mass market for food, more a way for supermarkets and giant agri firms to make maximum profit, longer shelf lives and looking better. Taste and vitamin content are secondary apart from certain products which then tend to be more expensive, i.e. for richer people able to afford them. A two tier system for food nutrition.

    There is nothing wrong with decent science but most people can see we might be going too far ethically in some areas. Yep we can make a women who is 60 have a baby or have 8 babies at once, yep we can manipulate genes so that we can choose to remove disabilities or the sex of a baby, we can make transgenic (GM) plants and animals. But should we? And who takes responsibility if it all goes wrong?

    The sad thing, is that NZ is known around the world for quality food with high standards, it is a shame under trade agreements and the sale of our land and reputation that goes with it, this becomes another factor to be manipulated for someone else’s profit to people who are forced or tricked into having no choice.

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      1 July 2016 at 10:47 am

      I bought a couple of plums from the supermarket more than 2 months ago. They tasted shit. I left them in the bowl. They are still there and they still look 90% fresh.

      • save nz 19.1.1
        1 July 2016 at 11:25 am

        Yep, I agree. Fruit and Veg, has now joined the fast food industry in their quest for longer shelf life and killing germs (sounds good but also kills the nutrients too).

        Just bought a pineapple completely rotten when cut from the supermarket. Also I can’t be bothered taking it back – the time and energy of finding the receipt, and going back to complain about it, is not worth the hassle. They get away with bad food.

        I get an organic box delivered although you have the courier journey, the produce is fresh and local and from a small local business. But if you are on a limited income what do you do?

      • Stuart Munro 19.1.2
        1 July 2016 at 4:06 pm

        Many plums taste not so good not because of the everpresent evil machinations of PR and his perfidious corporate masters (though they would spoil them if they could) but because the heaviest cropping cultivars were originally developed for fermentation.

  20. save nz 20
    1 July 2016 at 9:40 am

    I also have a question for CV. Who are you going to vote for in the next election? You don’t seem to like the Greens even though your political voice is quite similar to them but you seem to hate the “Green” policies in the Greens, you hate Labour for betraying the ‘working class’, I can’t see you voting Winston Peters, and not sure you position on Mana.

    Therefore are you going to vote National next election against everything you seem to believe in or not vote? Or forgive Labour and vote for them?

    Or undecided?

    • te reo putake 20.1
      1 July 2016 at 9:55 am

      ACT might be a bit tame for someone with CV’s antipathy toward the world and it’s people, so probably the Libertarians who share his dismissive attitudes.

      • save nz 20.1.1
        1 July 2016 at 10:17 am

        Actually I think CV can raise some valid points politically, but I don’t agree with his views on the environmental issues.

        I’m just intrigued where he will go with his political vote, if he decides to answer.

        • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1
          1 July 2016 at 10:45 am

          hi save nz, I’ll turn up to vote certainly – too much fun on the day not to. Probably vote Greens or NZ First. Or a vote on some other long shot third party like Democrats for Social Credit or Mana.

  21. KJT 21
    1 July 2016 at 11:39 am

    Happy for people to grow GM food.

    So long as they sign up to 100% personal and financial liability for any harm it causes!

    Soon find out then if claims of safety are correct.

    The biggest problem with GMO’s and other proprietary organisms at present is the monopoly it gives to large agricultural mono-cultures and the reliance on pesticides, which are as potentially harmful as GMO’s.

    • Robert Guyton 21.1
      1 July 2016 at 11:43 am

      KJT is describing important aspects of the wider world that scientists who argue for GMOs seem blissfully unaware of.
      ’cause, science.

    • Colonial Viper 21.2
      1 July 2016 at 12:06 pm

      So long as they sign up to 100% personal and financial liability for any harm it causes!

      Devil’s advocate here – if a GMO were to permanently damage NZ’s pasture land (very very unlikely really as these top scientists have assured us) what good would this “100% personal and financial liability” serve? It’d be like compensating an Afghan family with US$500 for the death of all their children via drone strike.

      • KJT 21.2.1
        1 July 2016 at 12:46 pm

        Yes. But if there is the slightest possibility that corporate managers, boards and shareholders will be held personally responsible for any risk, watch the retreat from GMO’s unless they are convinced of their safety.

        Note the panic and papering their arses with procedures going on amoungst the same people now there .

      • KJT 21.2.2
        1 July 2016 at 12:48 pm

        Yes. But if there is the slightest possibility that corporate managers, boards and shareholders will be held personally responsible for any risk, watch the retreat from GMO’s unless they are convinced of their safety.

        Note the panic, and papering their arses with procedures, going on now they have some personal responsibility for workplace safety.

        As usual. “The party of personal responsibility do not take responsibility for anything”.

      • Psycho Milt 21.2.3
        1 July 2016 at 1:23 pm

        Devil’s advocate here – if a GMO were to permanently damage NZ’s pasture land (very very unlikely really as these top scientists have assured us) what good would this “100% personal and financial liability” serve?

        Along similar lines, if an organically-farmed organism were to permanently damage NZ’s pasture land (very very unlikely as these top organic farmers have assured us), what good would “100% personal and financial liability” serve?

  22. Psycho Milt 22
    1 July 2016 at 11:48 am

    It is time to give your full to support GMOs – unless you are “anti-science”, that is.

    Well, yes. Feel free to engage in political battles over how GMOs are used, but opposition to genetic modification in principle definitely is “anti-science,” and Greenpeace definitely are guilty of it.

    • Editractor 22.1
      1 July 2016 at 12:10 pm

      Are they? From their website it looks like they are opposed specifically to the release of GMOs into the environment because of a lack of scientific understanding on their impact. I wouldn’t regard that as opposition in principle, especially as it doesn’t encompass medical research and treatment – http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/

      • Psycho Milt 22.1.1
        1 July 2016 at 1:08 pm

        Yes, they are. Here’s what they say:

        Genetic engineering enables scientists to create plants, animals and micro-organisms by manipulating genes in a way that does not occur naturally.

        Ordinary old cross-breeding has enabled us to create plants, animals and micro-organisms in ways that would not occur naturally. None of those organic vegetables Greenpeace loves came into existence naturally. Opposing things because they’re “unnatural” is anti-science.

        These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, thereby contaminating non ‘GE’ environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way.

        Interbreeding is not “contaminating,” unless you’re some kind of racial purity nutcase. And the entire biomass of the planet develops in an “unforeseeable and uncontrollable way” – there aren’t any options for imposing planning and order on it.

        Their release is ‘genetic pollution’ and is a major threat because GMOs cannot be recalled once released into the environment.

        This is about as useful as people declaring wind farms “visual pollution” – your personal tastes don’t determine what constitutes pollution. And the fact that GMOs can’t be recalled once released into the environment is irrelevant in the absence of persuasive evidence that harm results from them being released into the environment.

        • Editractor 22.1.1.1
          1 July 2016 at 1:46 pm

          Ordinary old cross-breeding has enabled us to create plants, animals and micro-organisms in ways that would not occur naturally.

          Cross-breeding occurs between sexually compatible organisms so could indeed occur naturally. While not necessarily impossible, the insertion of genes from non-native organisms is much less likely to occur.

          And the entire biomass of the planet develops in an “unforeseeable and uncontrollable way” – there aren’t any options for imposing planning and order on it.

          It could be argued that the rate at which the biomass changes at least enables those changes to be managed. Less likely to be the case with suddenly released GMOs.

          And the fact that GMOs can’t be recalled once released into the environment is irrelevant in the absence of persuasive evidence that harm results from them being released into the environment.

          And there we get to the nub. The sentences you have picked are explaining the basis of their stated belief: that “GMOs should not be released into the environment since there is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health.”

          That statement strikes me as their real position – they want more scientific evidence as to their safety before release. Asking for scientific evidence is not anti-science. In contrast, releasing a GMO into the environment and then asking others to provide evidence that it is bad, despite then maybe not being able to do anything about it, seems the height of stupidity. Pharmaceutical agents have to go through rigorous safety testing before being released onto the market (and can still cause problems), so why should GMOs be any different? Because conducting such tests in such a complex thing as a biome would be too difficult and/or expensive? Yes, very scientific.

          • Psycho Milt 22.1.1.1.1
            1 July 2016 at 2:03 pm

            Cross-breeding occurs between sexually compatible organisms so could indeed occur naturally.

            There’s no inherent good or inherent safety protection in organisms being sexually compatible. Also, mutations occur naturally countless times a day without us requiring legions of safety inspectors to put a stamp of approval on them.

            …the insertion of genes from non-native organisms is much less likely to occur.

            It’s not common in GE these days either, since CRISPR gives good results using the existing genome.

            That statement strikes me as their real position – they want more scientific evidence as to their safety before release. Asking for scientific evidence is not anti-science.

            In principle it isn’t. However, in practice Greenpeace are demanding that scientists prove a negative – researchers keep carrying out ever-more studies, trials etc and no amount of them will ever be enough to satisfy anti-GMO activists, who at the same time don’t demand that organic farmers, for example, conclusively prove that no harm can possibly come from organically-farmed organisms.

            • Editractor 22.1.1.1.1.1
              1 July 2016 at 2:11 pm

              It’s not common in GE these days either, since CRISPR gives good results using the existing genome.

              You’re going to have to clarify for me what you mean by this. In my understanding, CRISPR is a system for precision genome editing using guide RNAs. It can’t put into a genome what isn’t already there.

              • Psycho Milt …
                1 July 2016 at 2:57 pm

                I meant that using CRISPR there’s a lot more focus on switching on or off sequences that are already present in an organism’s genome, rather than trying to paste in sequences from completely different organisms.

            • Editractor 22.1.1.1.1.2
              1 July 2016 at 2:32 pm

              As I mentioned above, proving a negative is exactly what pharmaceutical companies have to do – prove that a drug does not cause “excessive” morbidity or mortality – to obtain market access. Why should different rules apply to GMOs? You seem to accept, however, that a lack of evidence is evidence of benignness. To be completely dispassionate, you could say that if someone dies from taking a prescription drug, at least the problem has been contained, which wouldn’t necessarily be the case for a GMO in the wild.

              I don’t get your argument about organic food. Assume a genetically identical non-GMO grown with and without pesticides: the one without has to prove it is safe?

              • Psycho Milt …
                1 July 2016 at 3:03 pm

                A GM food plant is food, not medicine.

                My argument about organic food is that proving a food is “safe” is fairly straightforward. Proving that no conceivable harm can come from a food under any circumstances is not, whether that food is GM or organic. There’s no basis for demanding proof of a negative from one but not the other.

    • gsays 22.2
      1 July 2016 at 12:17 pm

      be fair to say the principle in the release/use of gmos, is “pro profit’.

      • Stuart Munro 22.2.1
        1 July 2016 at 12:35 pm

        Pro large corporate profit and anti small organic profit.

      • McFlock 22.2.2
        1 July 2016 at 12:44 pm

        at the moment, yes, but that’s a result of global capitalism being entrenched in bullshit IP laws, not genetic modification as such.

        • gsays 22.2.2.1
          1 July 2016 at 3:34 pm

          in terms of genetic modification in the food supply i would suggest that $ is the start and the end of principles.

          organic growing tends to have a more holistic view (soil, plant, consumer).

          weren’t monsanto the crowd that, in the ’70s, put it about that roundup was neutral after 15 mins exposure to the air?

          • McFlock 22.2.2.1.1
            1 July 2016 at 3:50 pm

            I could believe that about monsanto.

            But don’t kid yourself about organics – some of the most selfish people I’ve ever encountered have been holistic hippies.

            As for $$, that’s the principle of capitalism: GM just makes it easier to patent the outcomes of the research, alongside boosting crop yields and hardiness etc.

            • gsays 22.2.2.1.1.1
              1 July 2016 at 5:01 pm

              yes, i recognize the selfish hippy type too.

              my grievance with ge,gmo,etc is unintended consequences, and perhaps generations down the line. while they keep banking their profits today.

              by eluding to monsanto and their roundup assertion, as shown above by stuart, glycophate toxins are showing up in umbilical cords and can cross the placenta.

              but nothing to see here..monsanto/fda say it’s ok.

              • McFlock …
                1 July 2016 at 5:17 pm

                Ok, so the question becomes “what’s the harm”?

                Followed by “was it detected early on, or should it have been?”

                If we do no development of anything, people will starve. The job is to maximise the good while minimising and being honest about the bad.

                • gsays …
                  1 July 2016 at 6:18 pm

                  By harm I assume you are talking about toxins in umbilical cord and crossing placenta, well the least harmful aspect is that it showed us Monsanto/fda are liars.

                  Who knows what other harm is caused by this.

                  As to developing(biggering?), the problem with food is distribution, not quantity.

                  • McFlock …
                    2 July 2016 at 12:29 am

                    you came forward with a story about stuff being detected in umbilical cords.

                    So assuming that this is true, I asked “what’s the harm?”

                    And you’re all “who knows?”

                    Well, I guess nobody at this stage. Get back to me if that changes – there’s a huge difference between “detectable quantity” and “harmful quantity”, as we’re discovering with the p-contamination gravy train.

                    As for food issues, shortcomings in distribution can be compensated for by production. Given the hand we’ve been dealt at this point in time, how would you play it?

                • Robert Guyton …
                  1 July 2016 at 7:02 pm

                  “If we do no development of anything, people will starve.”

                  Humans have done plenty of development of plants since hunter and gatherer times – when is enough, enough? Have we not already a plethora of food plants? It’s the culture that needs “development” and that’s largely about a re-think, not an endless search for the new. We can feed ourselves with what we have got. Who seeks to gain from the development of new food plants?
                  Eh?

                  • McFlock …
                    2 July 2016 at 12:23 am

                    There is no endpoint.
                    There’s no endpoint to human evolution or to social change. To assume that we’ve reached an endpoint in developing our food supply is foolhardy.

                    Yes, we need to change the global capitalist system. That isn’t an argument against GM food.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      2 July 2016 at 2:26 am

                      yes there is an end point to human evolution and I’m picking that we are it.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 July 2016 at 5:13 pm

                      is that what the intrinsic intelligence of the universe is telling you to tell us?

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    2 July 2016 at 3:57 am

                    We will of course continue to develop things – but Monsanto has hit upon a relatively poor technology for enhancing food plants because the testing required to assure its more adventurous new products are safe is similar to that for medical products. The smart thing would be not to concentrate on food GMOs, but drugs or enzymes; and textiles or other nonconsumables like latex. Monsanto are like an inventor who, having discovered the laser, insists on trying to weaponise it instead of growing improbably rich using it for making computer drives.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      2 July 2016 at 8:06 am

                      … the testing required to assure its more adventurous new products are safe is similar to that for medical products.

                      That requirement isn’t a practical one dictated by risks inherent in the product, it’s a bullshit requirement consisting of regulations prompted by scaremongering. The comparison with scaremongering about houses “contaminated” by having someone smoke P in them at some point is a useful one.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      3 July 2016 at 7:17 pm

                      82% of US people believe that labelling should be compulsory so that they can make informed consumption choices themselves. You have a nearly perfect right to eat any damned thing you choose, but not to make others eat it.

    • KJT 22.3
      1 July 2016 at 12:51 pm

      Who said Greenpeace are objecting totally to GM.

      Opposition to scientific experiments being carried out worldwide on entire populations without restricted independent trials to prove safety, is not anti-science.

      • Psycho Milt 22.3.1
        1 July 2016 at 1:16 pm

        Who said Greenpeace are objecting totally to GM.

        Greenpeace do, as quoted above. They declare that GE modifies organisms in ways that don’t occur naturally and that the resulting organisms are a threat that must be kept out of the environment.

        Opposition to scientific experiments being carried out worldwide on entire populations without restricted independent trials to prove safety, is not anti-science.

        Indeed. Fortunately the hippies’ paranoia about science has meant GE gets loaded down with a shit-tonne of safety testing requirements. Meanwhile, where are the “restricted independent trials” proving that organic food is “safe?”

        • One Two 22.3.1.1
          1 July 2016 at 1:33 pm

          Anti Science, Conspiracy Theorists. …

          Despite the fact that you are wrong, it makes no difference what the Green Peace view is

          Because GMO , like the quak pharma companies they are linked to, is done

          Not because of GP but because humans don’t need or want fake lab rat organisms injested or injected into their bodies

          Its FINISHED. Get used to it!

          • Psycho Milt 22.3.1.1.1
            1 July 2016 at 2:05 pm

            I think your tinfoil hat has slipped and is letting the chemtrails in.

            • One Two 22.3.1.1.1.1
              1 July 2016 at 7:35 pm

              The concession in your comment is loud and clear

              It matches the desperation of those quack scientists you NEED so terribly to believe in

              I’ll make it simple for you…

              Nature is smarter than the so called scientists you bow to

              Nature will win 100% of the time if quack want to keep fighting it!

              • Psycho Milt …
                1 July 2016 at 8:12 pm

                Sure, nature wins… eventually. In a billion years from now, no-one will know or care about Homo Sapiens, and good so. In the meantime, the entirety of human civilisation consists of telling Nature to go fuck itself, and good so.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  2 July 2016 at 3:20 pm

                  We live on nature’s forebearance. We’ll be lucky if she has more than 100 years patience with us left.

          • tinfoilhat 22.3.1.1.2
            2 July 2016 at 4:39 pm

            I disagree 1,2, despite being a long time green and greenpeace supporter I’m very thankful for some of the GMO advances other wise i’d be short a grandchild.

  23. Greg 23
    1 July 2016 at 12:56 pm

    Indian farmers might have a different view on GMO’s

    In the meantime, millions of India farmers live on a knife-edge thanks to them having been encouraged to experiment with the Monsanto’s GM cotton. Read about the case of Bharat Dogra here whose shift to GM cotton as a result of heavy pressure from company sales agents proved disastrous. His case is not a one-off. A strong link has been discovered between economic distress among Indian farmers and the planting of Monsanto’s GM cotton.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-plight-of-indian-farmers-from-militarism-and-monsantos-gmo-to-gandhi-and-bhaskar-save/5523816?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

  24. Macro 24
    1 July 2016 at 3:47 pm

    CV I think your post is a little too biased. There may be some advantages in GMO foods – but you have not looked at any of the disadvantages.
    A useful post by a scientist is here
    In particular some one of the very real disadvantages to GMO is the potential loss of biodiversity. Most GMO’s are developed in association with Monsanto and other agricultural chemical giants to be resistant to herbicides (especial GMO Soy and Maize) this has the potential to result with transfertilisation to the development of herbicide resistant weeds as well as a increase in monoculture and the further destruction of biodiversity with the consequent eventual destruction of our well being.
    Finally one has to consider whether the benefits outweigh the risks – particularly when one considers the fact that GMO crops take just as long and require just as much care as other crops, and the loss of the common control of the seed base (i.e. the seed produced cannot be reused by the farmer (intellectual property and all that).Finally I suspect the report that “says 1/3 of scientists etc” Is this a peer reviewed paper such as the Cook et al paper with the 97% of climate scientists concurrence on CC? Or is it some puff piece from the Heartland Institute funded by Monsanto?

    • Colonial Viper 24.1
      2 July 2016 at 2:45 pm

      107 of the world’s top living scientists, Nobel Laureates all of them, signed the letter. There’s honestly no pleasing some people.

      • Macro 24.1.1
        2 July 2016 at 8:32 pm

        The point is which and why?
        A nobel laureate in physics has no more credence on biodiversity and care for the environment than the a nobel laureate in chemistry or a john key on the state of NZ’s rivers.
        USA and Canada are the only countries in the western world with carte blanche use of GMO’s they also both border .Lake Eire
        The cause is agricultural practices that 30 years ago were regarded as quite safe. Contrary to Monsanto’s statements Glyphosate’s persistence is longer than 15mins in the soil!.

        Field studies cited in the report show the half-life of glyphosate in soil ranges between a few days to several months, or even a year, depending on soil composition. The authors say the research demonstrates that soil sorption and degradation of glyphosate vary significantly depending on the soil’s physical, chemical, and biological properties.

        The whole of the Ohio plains drain into the Lake. Farmers there are little different to the farmers here when it comes to care of the environment.

        • Psycho Milt 24.1.1.1
          3 July 2016 at 12:50 pm

          A nobel laureate in physics has no more credence on biodiversity and care for the environment than the a nobel laureate in chemistry or a john key on the state of NZ’s rivers.

          Possibly. But a Nobel laureate in physics has excellent credibility when it comes to recognising anti-science scaremongering by political activists, which is what they’ve put their names to in this case.

      • Macro 24.1.2
        2 July 2016 at 8:49 pm

        Actually CV only 106.
        The list of signatories includes Alfred G Gilman, who died last year (on Dec 23 2015).

        • Colonial Viper 24.1.2.1
          2 July 2016 at 9:15 pm

          This piece makes the point that we cannot allow our personal values and principles be abrogated by other peoples, no matter how grandiose their own claim to authority is, and that goes double when they are nothing more than servants of establishment interests.

  25. Greg 25
    1 July 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Isnt it great that these Nobel Laureates gave their enlightened endorsement to Monsanto GMO’s so freely, I mean it has to be a first.

    sarc/

    • Colonial Viper 25.1
      1 July 2016 at 5:13 pm

      These are the best scientific minds that our civilisation has generated. A bit of respect, please. You wouldn’t want to be accused of being “anti-science” would you?

      • Greg 25.1.1
        1 July 2016 at 5:43 pm

        If you look at my first post, it contains the link to phrase, ‘logic of science’,
        so are they just supporting the company propaganda of GMO,

        Indian farmers have more experience with GMO’s, looking at Monsanto’s reach into that market. it seems to be going fantastically well.

        anti-science, well I already have acquired a list, so whats one more,

        This hero got to age 96, and he was Christian Scientist, according to the more detailed telegraph obit,
        http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/kiwi-battle-of-britain-pilot-dies-2016070109

      • Robert Guyton 25.1.2
        1 July 2016 at 7:07 pm

        You’re not worried, Colonial Viper, of being branded “deceptive” and “disingenuous” after playing the Weevil’s Avocado here? It’s a risky ploy for someone who might/ought to want to be regarded as a trustworthy voice.

        • Psycho Milt 25.1.2.1
          1 July 2016 at 8:38 pm

          Don’t worry, the regulars here aren’t under any illusions that CV might suddenly imagine that science is actually useful for something.

  26. Little Kiwi 26
    2 July 2016 at 12:03 am

    Embrace this:
    http://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/consumer/gmfood/applications/Pages/default.aspx

    I haven’t checked this list for 5 years, it’s getting ridiculous. Anyone French and single? I am starved of real food.

    • Greg 26.1
      2 July 2016 at 2:34 pm

      My great grandfather on fathers side was a French ship jumper from the Royal Navy n 1870,
      is that close enough?

      • Little Kiwi 26.1.1
        2 July 2016 at 7:58 pm

        Sounds good to me 🙂 I lived there briefly and probably could have stayed without anyone getting too upset. Loved the day long obsession with the next meal and decadent pleasures. They have a 1 hour lunch break, max 40 hour working week, it is considered rude to talk about work outside of work hours and they prefer the ladies to rugby. Chocolate for breakfast and no GMO ever. The French experimented with it over here and decided it wasn’t safe. Not happy with the experimentation of course.

  28. Xanthe 28
    2 July 2016 at 8:26 pm

    CV
    here is another from the same site
    Please read it
    https://www.independentsciencenews.org/#category/10/article/2130
    Real scientists understand that genetics and the environment have a very much more complex interrelationship, this area is in its infancy.

  29. Greg 29
    2 July 2016 at 8:46 pm

    Lets not forget Bee’s,

  30. Xanthe 30
    3 July 2016 at 11:50 am

    Many modern economists think what they do is “science”, they also are mad!

  31. AlZ 31
    27 July 2016 at 4:00 pm

    1. Science is the study of things and how they work = no one is “anti science” or anti learning.
    2. Genetic Engineering is “engineering” in the way the “chemical engineering” or welding is. Mechanistic construction. Done for a purpose either military or commercial. The profit motive, public safety and the reputation of companies and scientists was being checked by “peer review” which was a good system run on good faith and honesty, those days are gone as reviewers and whole journals have been proven to be easily bought or corrupted by the corporations who seek their own thriving above all other aims. ( the nature of competitive capitalism).
    3. “Safe” is an absolute term that is useless without parameters and context,
    no one especially in food or medicine should proclaim “safe”.
    4. Nature has been through most plant / trait combinations over millennia, there is no better testing process and it put human efforts in weeks or months in very controlled conditions ( some totally unreal) to shame. Put back the trees, de tox
    the productive land and feed it actual soil food not chemistry, eejots. In these maters nature knows best and any “scientist” worth their letters knows this.
    5. Green peace has joined the ranks of “post truth”, its recent campaign over a solar power “tax” ( only a government or royal can tax) is just the most recent propaganda / marketing of its causes, the word “levy” may be right the words “reduced returns” are accurate, but “Tax” is deliberately chosen for reaction.
    The non ethics of propaganda are not present in lectures on media, One must gat “emotional traction” etc. They do themselves a dis service by going along with the hyped up half truth, semi factual, advertorial way of presenting information, joining the ranks of Monsanto in PR is not a good look for a organization founded on ethics. Nobel Laureates….. what exactly is that a “mega qualified” grouping. lol Sign of a weak case, logically thinking. One good scientist cant sway opinion so pour on a hundred that should do it. Scientific weight of opinion again.