Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

God forbid anyone be against enviromentalism. Said person might as well be a holocaust denier.

[ChairmanPoo]

Partial? Yes, it's an opinion piece. That makes it partial by default.

Overreaction is also triggered by under-reaction to previous menace.
It's hard to trust the current safety regulation after the BP oil spill for instance.

Those technologies are not related to genetically modified crops. So comparisons don't really apply

(By the way, I'd like to point out that nuclear energy is largely safe, too. Specially nowadays, but that's another debate. I do think this middle-ground policy of not building new centrals but keeping the old ones has the worst of both worlds, though)

Two it's his job. He is partial. It's not a complete deterrent but it's to keep in mind.

He's a doctor and a ranking FDA member. His job is to assess risks in matters such as this. It doesn't make him partial per se.

[Phmcw]

Partial? Yes, it's an opinion piece. That makes it partial by default.

Overreaction is also triggered by under-reaction to previous menace.
It's hard to trust the current safety regulation after the BP oil spill for instance.

Those technologies are not related to genetically modified crops. So comparisons don't really apply

The point is, if one agency can do such an huge mistake, why would the other be safe. Note that it is also an emotional reaction.

(By the way, I'd like to point out that nuclear energy is largely safe, too. Specially nowadays, but that's another debate. I do think this middle-ground policy of not building new centrals but keeping the old ones has the worst of both worlds, though)

I agree with you. This is an example of my fist point at work : previous mistake in this domain had induced a long lasting fear of nuclear energy in the public.

Two it's his job. He is partial. It's not a complete deterrent but it's to keep in mind.

He's a doctor and a ranking FDA member. His job is to assess risks in matters such as this. It doesn't make him partial per se.

Yes, and he's defending his own policy. Then he is much more partial than someone that isn't part of the FDA.
And I don't see any need for a doctorate to produce any of his arguments : if he had used biology, I wouldn't argue on the biology part. But it's rather a sociological reflexion.
But of course, it's not a complete deterrent. As I said before.

[ChairmanPoo]

he's a doctor as in a medical doctor. I consider this relevant because he presumably has worked in such a role.

And I dont think that defending his own policy necessarily makes him partial. After all, he must have bona fide thought it was good, to propose it in the first place

I agree with you. This is an example of my fist point at work : previous mistake in this domain had induced a long lasting fear of nuclear energy in the public.

Granted, but I think there's being excessive cautiousness in these things. There are other paths to follow besides rushing foward blindly (or, conversely, obsessing ourselves with safety to the point of immobility)

[Phmcw]

I didn't said i is not relevant, I said it's partial.
Beside, there is no clear consensus on GMO from the scientific community.
I find it a bit harsh, actually, the more I read him, VERY harsh, as if here was no risk at all.
He is another document from the inra, that say almost the exact opposite. (about the perceived risk of ogm) 
http://www.inra.fr/esr/UR/ivry/PDF/biofutur.pdf (in french unfortunately)

Edit, here's another one that state that "Acceptability of products was dependent on tangible benefits associated with individual products, rather than attitudes towards the technology overall." which seems incompatible with both his analysis and mine actually, given that both lead to an overall rejection of the technology by the concerned public.
It suggest that the poeple have a risk/benefits approach of the situation. Not an emotive approach. 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6T-3W0P3WF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1996&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1394798428&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9c9e5061f29bb87224ec38d5fefbca65

[Eagleon]

Individual products do not dictate any kind of policy at all. The common perception of GM foods is that it is harmful. The fact is that besides concerns about allergic reactions to foreign proteins (someone allergic to fish reacting to a tomato = bad), there has been no hard, conclusive evidence of any kind of nutritional hazard from the kind of foods being produced. There is a clear consensus that GM does not in itself create any health hazard. GM foods are tested more thoroughly than normal foods. Efforts to create them are under constant scrutiny by the scientific community. Yet many people are terrified of GMOs.

This is an emotional response, not logical or risk-benefit based, and it's shaping legislature as we speak. I agree that thorough risk assessment needs to continue, but I think that placing a ban on the entire concept until we've rubbed our collective tummies and reassured ourselves that we know what we're doing is a tremendous mistake, whether it's for a year or a decade. This would kill a lot of the momentum we've gained towards better world nutrition from GM. Businesses surrounded around it will die, research will hiccup, and interest will fade - a 'GMO winter'. It's happened with stem cells and fission, it's probably bound to happen with GM, but maybe we can nip it in the bud and push through this time.

[DJ]

I'm more concerned with the environmental impact of a gung ho GMO policy.

[Phmcw]

Eagleon, it's the other way around : first you prove the product harmless, then you sell it.
There is no doubt about contamination of non mgo plant of the same specie by mgo.
And that is a big problem. The main reason behind the anti mgo movement I think.

[Nikov]

I'm more concerned with the environmental impact of a gung ho GMO policy.

Yeah, last thing we need is kudzu-like food crops spreading wild across impoverished African nations, choking the once pristine arid savannas in sickly green vines of frankenfruit.

[Phmcw]

Last think we need is a molecule usually only secreted by obscure bacteria spreading all over the different eco-system.

[DJ]

Yeah, setting cane toads loose in Australia sure turned out great.

[Criptfeind]

I have a question because I really do not know.

Is there any examples of a invasive species destroying a ecosystem, not changing it but destroying it.

[DJ]

So what, it has to turn into Sahara to qualify as environmental destruction? Well, there's this alga whose name eludes me now, that has basically killed every last coral in the Adriatic sea. There was nothing like Australia's coral reefs there, but they still formed a base for some important biomes. Fishing is quite bad in the Adriatic now, but that could also be due to overfishing.

[Criptfeind]

So what, it has to turn into Sahara to qualify as environmental destruction?

Yes.

Well, there's this alga whose name eludes me now, that has basically killed every last coral in the Adriatic sea.

That might count.

[Phmcw]

It dosn't count as destroying per se, but the nice butterfly-bush is very invasive and usually toxic to local species.
Where it grow, nothing else does, so he damage, and might destroy a lot of ecosystem. A lot of other species are in this case.
You wouldn't have the Sahara but a huge sea of Buddleja. And the Sahara does have an ecosystem. 
Of course an overly invasive ogm would qualify too : he would be toxic to other plant, toxic to many insect, rapid growing.
Actually, Nikov, yes it would be quite a disaster.