Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Total Ban On GM Corn in France Follows Popular Opposition [View all]FarrenH
(768 posts)Still have no idea what you're talking about. The European Network of Concerned Scientists appears to be a bunch of scientific concern trolls, some of whom, according to what I found through further searching, are close political allies of well-known scientific fraud Seralini.
I actually read their laundry list of complaints (a courtesy you seem unwilling to reciprocate since nothing in your reply is a response to, or indicates that you read and understood my post) and they actually aren't making much sense:
1. "There is no consensus on GMO safety":
- a blanket statement like this makes no sense because every GMO is a fundamentally different organism. There is not a common quality of "GMOness" that is common to all GMOs! In fact there is no physical characteristic of all GMOs which distinguishes them as a class of organisms. Given two unknown eukaryotic cells, one from a GMO and one from a "natural" plant, a biochemist could not tell which was the GMO. Which GMOs are they talking about? Without specificity this criticism is silly. Its like saying "There is no consensus on the writing quality of novels" - "Which novels, Einstein?" - its meaningless hand-waving.
- Adopting the same hand-waving rhetoric: There is no consensus on organic food safety. Where are the long-term risk studies? Popular organic breeds look nothing like the original plants they were derived from, so why haven't we done the testing? See how dumb this looks? It represents a fundamental failure to apply consistent reasoning.
2. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health
See above. I cannot believe these idiots have degrees. Where are their goddamn published papers showing any harm for any specific organism. Oh, that's right. Nowhere.
3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or inaccurate. Patently wrong:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf
3. EU research project does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety
Here they begin tilting at windmills. The references report is not an "EU research project" but a status report on EU research for policy consideration. So this is not only merely a repetition of previous points, but a attacking something for being something that it is not.
4. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops -
The same logical error as (1) above. Every GM crop is fundamentally different and can be expected to have different ecological effects. Which crop are they talking about. They really start to mix up totally different arguments under this point too, some of which apply to any crop, mixing up suggestions of ineffectiveness with suggestions of harm.
...
I'm going to stop here because I have work to do (on artificial neural network code for security applications - it really amuses me that a bunch of hippies in America think a left-wing security software developer from South Africa is an industry shill) but I'll wrap up by saying its a laundry list of non-sequiturs, arguments against monoculture that are apply equally to conventional crops, arguments against pesticides that apply equally to conventional crops, misrepresentations of policy reports as scientific studies and god knows how many other obvious errors of logic and misrepresentations, all underlined by what appears to be shockingly subjective, ignorant and intuitive fears from people who call themselves scientists.
Anyone interested in the actual science rather that validating neo-primitivist nature-worshipping would see it quite clearly, but you clearly aren't interested in the science. Please, do yourself and those you are misinforming a favour and actually learn a bit about science. I'm not a scientist but many of my friends are and I have a deep lay interest in biological sciences (especially neuroscience given both a professional and personal interest in AI). The last four books I read recreationally were "How the Leopard Changed its Spots" - a review of epigenetics and its implications, "Life's Grandeur" by Stephen J Gould, "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins and "Guns, Germs and Steel", on human evolution, environment and history. I don't derive my understanding from Neo-primitivist infographics by know-nothings passed around on facebook, and hastily googled references that I have not taken the time to read and understand, on topics I have no actual scientific interest in, as you and some other critics on this thread appear to.
One more request: Actually read the post you just responded to, understand it, and respond to the points made. How do you expect to be taken seriously if you just smugly post a bunch of googled links in response to a post, that do not address a single point made in that post?
Your own words, like this post and my preceding post, indicating your own understanding. Because the linkstorms you're posting just confirm a lack of real knowledge or understanding.