ADVERTISEMENT

The GOP’s dangerous ‘debate’ on vaccines and autism

I give up. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I assumed you didn't actually read the article. I'm not sure how you defend a scientist adding non-existent cases to a cohort to bolster his or her hypothesis but it sure as hell isn't imputation by any existing definition. Your data-set is what it is - that's science 101.

If there aren't enough autism cases in the data-set, you can try to figure out why but YOU CAN'T ADD IMAGINARY CASES to make it add up. You just can't. It's not an "error of imputation" because it isn't imputation at all. Had they not openly admitted doing it, it would be fraud.
I could explain it with a moderately easy example but it's work and I no longer have any confidence that you can or will understand even if I do a great job of it.

I'll dumb it down a lot and if you choose to reason your way home, let me know. Here goes....

Imputation is like weighting results. After saying weighting can be proper, he's saying she shouldn't have weighted her results. But instead of explaining why, he simply points to the fact that she did, and doesn't explain either why or where she went wrong.
 
Republicans, and members of the traditionally Republican coalition like conservatives and the religious, are criticized for rejecting two main areas of science: evolution and global warming. But even those critiques are overblown. Believing in God is not the same as rejecting science, contrary to an all-too-frequent caricature propagated by the secular community. Members of all faiths have contributed to our collective scientific understanding, and Christians from Gregor Mendel to Francis Collins have been intellectual leaders in their fields. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian, wrote a New York Times bestseller reconciling his faith with his understanding of evolution and genetics.

Numerically speaking, according to Gallup, only a marginally higher percentage of Republicans reject evolution completely than do Democrats. Yes, an embarrassing half of Republicans believe the earth is only 10,000 years old—but so do more than a third of Democrats. And a slightly higher percentage of Democrats believe God was the guiding factor in evolution than Republicans.

On global warming, conservative policy positions often seem to be conflated or confused with rejection of the consensus that the planet has been warming due to human carbon emissions. The climate trend over the last several hundred years is not one anybody credible disputes—despite the impression you might get from GOP presidential primary debates. Of the many Republican members of Congress I know personally, the vast majority do not reject the underlying science of global warming (though, embarrassingly, some still do). Even Senator Jim Inhofe, perhaps the green community’s greatest antagonist in Congress, explicitly endorses environmental regulation.


The catch: Conservatives believe many of the policies put forward to address the problem will lead to unacceptable levels of economic hardship. It's not inherently anti-scientific to oppose cap and trade or carbon taxes. What most Republicans object to are policies that unilaterally make it more expensive in the United States to produce energy, grow food, and transport people and goods but are unlikely to make much long-term difference in the world’s climate, given that other major world economies emit more carbon than the United States or have much faster growth rates of carbon emissions (China, India, Russia, and Brazil all come to mind).

The more important question on climate change is not “how do we eliminate carbon immediately?” but “how best do we secure a cleaner environment and more prosperous world for future generations?”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ty-isnt-really-the-anti-science-party/281219/

So, you're all for doing something about climate change as long as it's not uncomfortable or inconvenient. Gotcha.
 
I could explain it with a moderately easy example but it's work and I no longer have any confidence that you can or will understand even if I do a great job of it.

I'll dumb it down a lot and if you choose to reason your way home, let me know. Here goes....

Imputation is like weighting results. After saying weighting can be proper, he's saying she shouldn't have weighted her results. But instead of explaining why, he simply points to the fact that she did, and doesn't explain either why or where she went wrong.

Well, you certainly "dumbed it down". I can explain it more simply. If you're studying incidence of autism, you can't add imaginary cases of autism to a real existing cohort because you don't like the numbers that you actually have. YOU CAN'T DO IT. I can't even imagine how you would defend it...so let's see your "moderately easy example".
 
What I find particularly funny when it comes to the anti-vax crowd is that they say it's some sort of money grab by Big Pharma.

Completely ignoring that Big Pharma would make a hell of a lot more money by treating the diseases with drugs, rather than completely eradicating the disease from the get go.

It's been awhile, so the statistics might have changed - but vaccinations were something like 17th or so on the list of where they make their money.

I'm sure worthy will barf out another 10 posts linking random things to discredit this.
A quick look at Merck's 2014 Annual Report shows that Gardasil is 5th on their list.
http://www.merck.com/investors/financials/annual-reports/home.html

"The following discussion of vaccines does not include sales of vaccines sold in most major European markets through Sanofi Pasteur MSD (“SPMSD”), the Company’s joint venture with Sanofi Pasteur, the results of which are reflected in Equity income from affiliates (see “Selected Joint Venture and Affiliate Information” below). Supply sales to SPMSD, however, are included.

Merck’s sales of Gardasil, a vaccine to help prevent certain diseases caused by four types of HPV, were $1.7 billion in 2014, a decline of 5% compared with 2013 including a 2% unfavorable effect from foreign exchange. The decline reflects lower sales in Asia Pacific, Japan and Canada, partially offset by higher government tenders in Brazil from the national immunization program, as well as higher public sector purchases in the United States. Merck’s sales of Gardasil grew 12% to $1.8 billion in 2013 compared with 2012 driven primarily by volume growth in the United States, reflecting continued uptake in both males and females, and volume growth in Latin America, partially offset by lower volumes in Japan. Sales in 2014, 2013 and 2012 included $56 million, $37 million and $44 million, respectively, of purchases for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) Pediatric Vaccine Stockpile. In June 2013, the Japanese Health Ministry issued an advisory to suspend active promotion of HPV vaccines. The Company is a party to certain third-party license agreements with respect to Gardasil (including a cross-license and settlement agreement with GlaxoSmithKline). As a result of these agreements, the Company pays royalties on worldwide Gardasil sales of 19% to 27% which vary by country and are included in Materials and production costs.

In December 2014, the Company announced that the FDA approved Gardasil 9, Merck’s 9-valent HPV vaccine, for use in girls and young women 9 to 26 years of age for the prevention of cervical, vulvar, vaginal, and anal cancers caused by HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, pre-cancerous or dysplastic lesions caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and genital warts caused by HPV types 6 and 11. Gardasil 9 is also approved for use in boys 9 to 15 years of age for the prevention of anal cancer caused by HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, precancerous or dysplastic lesions caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, and genital warts caused by HPV types 6 and 11. Gardasil 9 includes the greatest number of HPV types in any available HPV vaccine.

Merck’s sales of ProQuad, a pediatric combination vaccine to help protect against measles, mumps, rubella and varicella, were $395 million in 2014, $314 million in 2013 and $61 million in 2012. The increase in 2014 as compared with 2013 was driven primarily by higher sales in the United States reflecting approximately $30 million of government purchases for the CDC Pediatric Vaccine Stockpile. Sales of ProQuad in 2012 were affected by supply constraints. ProQuad became available again in the United States for ordering in October 2012.

Merck’s sales of Varivax, a vaccine to help prevent chickenpox (varicella), were $672 million in 2014, $684 million in 2013 and $846 million in 2012. Sales performance in 2014 reflects lower sales in the United States largely offset by growth in the emerging markets. Merck’s sales of M-M-R II, a vaccine to help protect against measles, mumps and rubella, were $326 million in 2014, $307 million in 2013 and $365 million in 2012. Sales of Varivax and II declined in 2013 as compared with 2012 due to the availability of ProQuad discussed above.

Merck’s sales of Zostavax, a vaccine to help prevent shingles (herpes zoster) in adults 50 years of age and older, were $765 million in 2014, an increase of 1% compared with 2013, driven primarily by higher sales in the Asia Pacific region due to ongoing launches, partially offset by lower demand in the United States, as well as in Canada. The Company is continuing to educate U.S. customers on the broad managed care coverage for Zostavax and the process for obtaining reimbursement. Merck’s sales of Zostavax grew 16% to $758 million in 2013 compared with 2012 driven by higher demand in the United States and Canada, as well as by launches within the Asia Pacific region. Merck is continuing to launch Zostavax outside of the United States.

Merck’s sales of Pneumovax 23, a vaccine to help prevent pneumococcal disease, grew 14% in 2014 to $746 million compared with 2013 driven primarily by higher sales in Japan from the national immunization program, as well as higher sales in the United States attributable to both price and volume. Foreign exchange unfavorably affected sales performance by 3% in 2014. Merck’s sales of Pneumovax 23 increased 13% in 2013 to $653 million compared with 2012 driven primarily by volume growth in the emerging markets, as well as volume and price increases in the United States.

Merck’s sales of RotaTeq, a vaccine to help protect against rotavirus gastroenteritis in infants and children, increased 4% in 2014 to $659 million compared with 2013 primarily reflecting higher sales in certain emerging markets. Merck’s sales of RotaTeq grew 6% in 2013 to $636 million compared with 2012 reflecting higher pricing in the United States and volume growth in Japan."
 
I love when people post bullshit figures with nothing to back them up. Hell, the last I checked I had a 10 inch penis. Do you believe me?

Here's a pretty good article I found


You can read it if you want, if not - I don't care. This is an argument I'm not going to get sucked into because your mind is already made up.

I don't believe your 10 inch penis claim, as your vagina is obviously very sandy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joes Place
Well, you certainly "dumbed it down". I can explain it more simply. If you're studying incidence of autism, you can't add imaginary cases of autism to a real existing cohort because you don't like the numbers that you actually have. YOU CAN'T DO IT. I can't even imagine how you would defend it...so let's see your "moderately easy example".
LAST TIME: That's the claim. No evidence is provided that the numbers were added without justification. The "because you don't like the numbers that you actually have" part is what's made up here, and what needs proof from the one making the claim.

I would ask why this is so hard for you to grasp, but you aren't someone I want to be sarcastic with and it wouldn't be fair to ask another question when I am done beating this dead horse.
 
LAST TIME: That's the claim. No evidence is provided that the numbers were added without justification. The "because you don't like the numbers that you actually have" part is what's made up here, and what needs proof from the one making the claim.

I would ask why this is so hard for you to grasp, but you aren't someone I want to be sarcastic with and it wouldn't be fair to ask another question when I am done beating this dead horse.

Dumbfounded. Absolutely dumbfounded. The Geiers told you exactly why they added the cases. The numbers didn't match up. The incidence in this cohort didn't match the incidence in that cohort so they made up extra cases so the percentages would be the same. They "assume" numbers must be something particular so they added imaginary cases to meet that "assumption". They admitted it. YOU CAN'T DO IT when it affects the very thing you're studying. There is NO DEFINITION of imputation that allows this. The data you have is the data you have.

Still waiting for your "moderately easy example", though. I would love to see it.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe how wrong you are on this.
Sensible lefties object to some GMOs and not others. As you say, the term is too broad. There's a huge difference between inserting a gene in rice to enhance vitamin A production so as to help alleviate vitamin deficiency problems in some regions vs engineering pesticide resistance into crops that not only encourages excessive introduction of harmful chemicals into the environment, food chain, and water supply, but results in adaptations among pests, which cascade across the animal kingdom. And those are merely 2 examples.

Do you understand how GMO crops work? Pesticide use per acre is actually reduced because of genetic resistance, not the opposite. Farmers aren't willy nilly applying pesticides now because they know their corn won't burn down, if only for economic reasons. Pesticides aren't cheap.
Now, you could certainly argue that farmers shouldn't use any pesticide at all, but we're also living in reality, and organic farms use pesticides too (some pretty nasty ones, actually). I'll take fewer, less harmful pesticides any day of the week over what farmers used pre-GMO.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...101-no-chemical-flood-but-yields-are-soaring/
Regarding adaptations - this has occurred both naturally and via human intervention not only since the first pesticide was created and applied, but since the beginning of time - regardless of GMOs.

It's also disingenuous to suggest that because man has bred variation into crops and animals for millennia that therefore GE changes are safe and require no care.

Is this hyperbole for the sake of making a point? If it isn't, It is equally disingenuous for you to make the opposite claim. Sensible people, both left and right, understand the process by which GMOs are regulated by multiple government entities, and how each trait is tested for years prior to commercial release. That's actually a quantum leap ahead of any of the radiation-induced GM organic fruits and vegetables you'll find a the supermarket.
 
Do you understand how GMO crops work? Pesticide use per acre is actually reduced because of genetic resistance, not the opposite. Farmers aren't willy nilly applying pesticides now because they know their corn won't burn down, if only for economic reasons. Pesticides aren't cheap.
Now, you could certainly argue that farmers shouldn't use any pesticide at all, but we're also living in reality, and organic farms use pesticides too (some pretty nasty ones, actually). I'll take fewer, less harmful pesticides any day of the week over what farmers used pre-GMO.
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...101-no-chemical-flood-but-yields-are-soaring/
Regarding adaptations - this has occurred both naturally and via human intervention not only since the first pesticide was created and applied, but since the beginning of time - regardless of GMOs.



Is this hyperbole for the sake of making a point? If it isn't, It is equally disingenuous for you to make the opposite claim. Sensible people, both left and right, understand the process by which GMOs are regulated by multiple government entities, and how each trait is tested for years prior to commercial release. That's actually a quantum leap ahead of any of the radiation-induced GM organic fruits and vegetables you'll find a the supermarket.
[1] Apparently you don't understand that all GMO crops don't work the same. And the pro-agribusiness nonsense you are peddling has been discussed here and shown to be only a small part of the picture. I posted plenty of links the last time this was brought up. Do your own research this time.

[2] What you describe would seem reasonable, if it were true and not riddled with exceptions, op-outs and voluntary compliance. Again, do your research and don't regurgitate nonsense.
 
[1] Apparently you don't understand that all GMO crops don't work the same. And the pro-agribusiness nonsense you are peddling has been discussed here and shown to be only a small part of the picture. I posted plenty of links the last time this was brought up. Do your own research this time.

[2] What you describe would seem reasonable, if it were true and not riddled with exceptions, op-outs and voluntary compliance. Again, do your research and don't regurgitate nonsense.

"Do your own research". You're kidding, right? Are you here to have a thoughtful debate, or not?
1 - Only one of us has provided a link in this thread regarding GMOs that refuted a quoted claim. The vast majority of the public doesn't understand GMOs as noted in the graphic I posted earlier in this thread, and further illustrated by your apparent lack of understanding of them as well.

2 - What isn't true about it? The fact of the matter is, not a single trait has been approved that hasn't gone through EPA, USDA, and FDA testing. And after approval, they continue to be monitored for compliance. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

BTW
climateGMO1page.jpg
 
"Do your own research". You're kidding, right? Are you here to have a thoughtful debate, or not?
1 - Only one of us has provided a link in this thread regarding GMOs that refuted a quoted claim. The vast majority of the public doesn't understand GMOs as noted in the graphic I posted earlier in this thread, and further illustrated by your apparent lack of understanding of them as well.

2 - What isn't true about it? The fact of the matter is, not a single trait has been approved that hasn't gone through EPA, USDA, and FDA testing. And after approval, they continue to be monitored for compliance. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

No, I'm not here to have ANOTHER thoughtful debate on this or to waste time digging up research again and then having to explain why comments like yours - blanket "nothing to see here" and blanket "everything is thoroughly tested" claims - are both inherently untrue and beside the point.
 
HIWB, as you may be aware, the improper use of Bt corn has already led to the development of resistance in western corn rootworms in Iowa. The pests have already developed resistance to two of the strains of Bt used in Bt corn. If you're a farmer down the road who has relied on periodic applications of Bt - a use that doesn't promote resistance - to control the rootworm, you're in trouble.

The use of Bt corn requires that farmers reserve 20% of their acreage for non-Bt corn as a refuge....but many farmers are ignoring this requirement. In some states the farms out of compliance can run as high as 20%.

I'm a supporter of GMO's but every one of them has to be considered on it's own merits.
 
No, I'm not here to have ANOTHER thoughtful debate on this or to waste time digging up research again and then having to explain why comments like yours - blanket "nothing to see here" and blanket "everything is thoroughly tested" claims - are both inherently untrue and beside the point.

If you're not here for another debate, then why did you respond to the post about GMOs? So you can snipe a comment that is easily debunked, leave when you're challenged, then come back in 2 months and do it again in the next GMO thread?
Can you link where I said there's "nothing to see here"? I have never said there is no concern for GMOs and I've never said they shouldn't be regulated. All that I continue to do is refute your claims that they aren't regulated. If you want more regulation, explain it.
If you weren't so misguided by your lack of understanding of GMOs, you'd be able to see the difference between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying. The irony is, you've tried to explain the same concept regarding liberals and GMOs in this thread.
If what you're saying is easily debunked using statistics and statements from the most trusted scientific entities on the planet, along with an explanation of the actual process of GMO regulation, what is the point then?
Never mind, I'll just take your word for it.
 
HIWB, as you may be aware, the improper use of Bt corn has already led to the development of resistance in western corn rootworms in Iowa. The pests have already developed resistance to two of the strains of Bt used in Bt corn. If you're a farmer down the road who has relied on periodic applications of Bt - a use that doesn't promote resistance - to control the rootworm, you're in trouble.

The use of Bt corn requires that farmers reserve 20% of their acreage for non-Bt corn as a refuge....but many farmers are ignoring this requirement. In some states the farms out of compliance can run as high as 20%.

I'm a supporter of GMO's but every one of them has to be considered on it's own merits.

I understand this and completely agree with you. The point is, pesticide resistance isn't a GMO problem - it's a nature and a pesticide problem. I've never suggested that we throw our hands up in the air and acquiesce that nothing can or should be done about pesticide resistance (which is why the 20% refuge requirement exists in the first place), and neither does the vast majority of GMO supporters.
 
I can't believe how wrong you are on this.

Sensible lefties object to some GMOs and not others. As you say, the term is too broad. There's a huge difference between inserting a gene in rice to enhance vitamin A production so as to help alleviate vitamin deficiency problems in some regions vs engineering pesticide resistance into crops that not only encourages excessive introduction of harmful chemicals into the environment, food chain, and water supply, but results in adaptations among pests, which cascade across the animal kingdom. And those are merely 2 examples.

Contrary to your assertion, there is good science on a lot of these. Some suggesting the changes are safe, some showing the opposite. And plenty more where the evaluations aren't and may not be conducted but where risk may exist. Lumping the good, bad and unknown together and concluding that because we don't havce conclusive science we shouldn't do ANYTHING to protect ourselves is just the sort of dishonest manipulation of science we get from the climate change deniers - just the opposite of your suggestion that the GMO-cautious are like the CC deniers.

It's also disingenuous to suggest that because man has bred variation into crops and animals for millennia that therefore GE changes are safe and require no care. It's like saying there have always been climate cycles, so climate change is nothing to worry about.

Every major scientific body and regulatory agency says that crop biotechnology and using the current foods on the market is safe. I personally have not reviewed all the science but when organizations like the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Royal Society of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization (just to name a few) say they have reviewed the research and have found using the technology to be safe then I'm going to take their word for it. You can't just point to some paper you find somewhere and declare yourself an expert. If the evidence suggesting that using these technologies was there, these organizations would be mentioning that. So yes, "GMO-cautious" (nice loaded term there) are like CC deniers because they are not listening to the experts on what the science is really saying.

Just one of many sites:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...e-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...e-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/
 
Every major scientific body and regulatory agency says that crop biotechnology and using the current foods on the market is safe. I personally have not reviewed all the science but when organizations like the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Royal Society of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization (just to name a few) say they have reviewed the research and have found using the technology to be safe then I'm going to take their word for it. You can't just point to some paper you find somewhere and declare yourself an expert. If the evidence suggesting that using these technologies was there, these organizations would be mentioning that. So yes, "GMO-cautious" (nice loaded term there) are like CC deniers because they are not listening to the experts on what the science is really saying.

Just one of many sites:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...e-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/
You are simply arguing a point tangential to my point. As I said earlier, I'm not going to keep beating this dead horse if nobody is actually bothering to hear what I'm saying. You can throw studies that I agree with at me all day long. But if they don't address my point, we aren't having a conversation.

I am PRO genetic engineering. But we simply don't have a sufficiently regulated, sufficiently honest, and sufficiently funded testing and oversight capacity in place. Give me that, and I'll be happy to say "full steam ahead." Fail to provide that, and the potential risks are too high.

When engineered products can, in theory (and not just tin foil hat theory), alter ecologies and cascade through food chains, we need to exercise more care and have the proper precautionary attitudes and mechanisms in place. When certain alterations could have harmful effects on humans only over the long term, but we are approving them in the short term, we really ought to be discussing the morality of letting corporations use millions of people as lab rats. We also have to look hard at the patenting of organisms and the way in which some companies are using the courts to attack farmers for improper or even accidental use of patented products. We also need to be aware of ad campaigns and other exercises around the world that have impoverished some farmers when the new crops didn't work as planned or had unintended consequences. And so on.

It's not the technology I'm against, it's the lack of safety controls and the dangers of abuse.
 
You are simply arguing a point tangential to my point. As I said earlier, I'm not going to keep beating this dead horse if nobody is actually bothering to hear what I'm saying. You can throw studies that I agree with at me all day long. But if they don't address my point, we aren't having a conversation.

I am PRO genetic engineering. But we simply don't have a sufficiently regulated, sufficiently honest, and sufficiently funded testing and oversight capacity in place. Give me that, and I'll be happy to say "full steam ahead." Fail to provide that, and the potential risks are too high.

When engineered products can, in theory (and not just tin foil hat theory), alter ecologies and cascade through food chains, we need to exercise more care and have the proper precautionary attitudes and mechanisms in place. When certain alterations could have harmful effects on humans only over the long term, but we are approving them in the short term, we really ought to be discussing the morality of letting corporations use millions of people as lab rats. We also have to look hard at the patenting of organisms and the way in which some companies are using the courts to attack farmers for improper or even accidental use of patented products. We also need to be aware of ad campaigns and other exercises around the world that have impoverished some farmers when the new crops didn't work as planned or had unintended consequences. And so on.

It's not the technology I'm against, it's the lack of safety controls and the dangers of abuse.

1 - Are you saying that even though the most respected scientific entities on the planet support GMO crops, they don't think sufficient regulation and testing is in place?
The question that has been posed to you several times is: what is sufficient regulation and testing, beyond what is already in place, in your opinion?
2 - Crops have been patented since the early 1900s. Conventional, organic, and GMO alike. This isn't a GMO issue. If I remember correctly, you're opposed to patent law in virtually every realm, so I suppose you're consistent.
3 - Farmers aren't being sued for accidental contamination, regardless of what this land of myths where you seem to be getting your "research" says. In fact, the Ag companies clean up and compensate farmers if accidental contamination occurs. Yes, farmers are sued for breaking patent law. Interesting though...The OSGATA tried to ban future lawsuits by suing Monsanto...

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York considered the facts and the arguments. And then the courttdismissed the lawsuit.

Here’s some of what the court said:
    • There was no case or controversy in the matter because Monsanto had not taken any action or even suggested taking any action against any of the plaintiffs.
    • Monsanto had a long-standing public commitment that “it has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”
    • Plaintiffs’ allegations were “unsubstantiated … given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened.”
    • Plaintiffs had “overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto’s] patent enforcement,” noting that Monsanto’s average of roughly 13 lawsuits per year “is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million.” Link
 
You are simply arguing a point tangential to my point. As I said earlier, I'm not going to keep beating this dead horse if nobody is actually bothering to hear what I'm saying. You can throw studies that I agree with at me all day long. But if they don't address my point, we aren't having a conversation.

I am PRO genetic engineering. But we simply don't have a sufficiently regulated, sufficiently honest, and sufficiently funded testing and oversight capacity in place. Give me that, and I'll be happy to say "full steam ahead." Fail to provide that, and the potential risks are too high.

When engineered products can, in theory (and not just tin foil hat theory), alter ecologies and cascade through food chains, we need to exercise more care and have the proper precautionary attitudes and mechanisms in place. When certain alterations could have harmful effects on humans only over the long term, but we are approving them in the short term, we really ought to be discussing the morality of letting corporations use millions of people as lab rats. We also have to look hard at the patenting of organisms and the way in which some companies are using the courts to attack farmers for improper or even accidental use of patented products. We also need to be aware of ad campaigns and other exercises around the world that have impoverished some farmers when the new crops didn't work as planned or had unintended consequences. And so on.

It's not the technology I'm against, it's the lack of safety controls and the dangers of abuse.

That's a different argument from what you were making before (at least as I understood it). That potential exists, for sure. Any technology, used improperly, poses a larger threat to the environment and/or to people. The argument that there isn't enough regulation is not the same as the argument that genetic engineering practices, as they are currently used, is inherently unsafe.

Currently, there are several agencies in charge of regulating this. While I won't say we have adequate oversight (I don't have enough information to make an informed decision on that one way or the other) I will say that we have been using engineered food products for the better part of a decade (much, much, longer depending on what technologies you include) now and haven't had any issues with it so far.

Except for killer bees. We created killer bees.
 
Last edited:
I will say that we have been using GMO's for the better part of a decade now and haven't had any issues with it so far.
As someone else mentioned earlier, not all GMOs are the same. This is simply not a logical argument against better regulation and enforcement.

And of course there have been issues. I pointed out a few.
 
As someone else mentioned earlier, not all GMOs are the same. This is simply not a logical argument against better regulation and enforcement.

And of course there have been issues. I pointed out a few.

You might be right, but the major scientific organizations and regulatory groups where the experts determine these things remain unconvinced.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT