GMOs good for health

[Exnihiloest]

On the form, three argumentative biases are observed here:
- the call to pity (or feeling), the false dilemma and the argument of authority ...

Basically, how can we believe that an institution would massively deploy this sophisticated technique without lucrative ulterior motives?

It is not the substance, that, or that of the sophistry at the last stage.

First, the "ulterior motive" is legitimate, it is normal for any company to seek to make a living from its products and services.
Secondly, it can only make a living from it if its products meet a need, therefore provide services, otherwise they will not be bought. The interest of a society can therefore meet the interest of people (this is the general case).
Thirdly, to speak of a "call for pity" is only a manipulation on your part, the aim obviously being to account for an interest in GMOs which turns out to be humanitarian.
Fourth, there is no "false dilemma" but an alternative since no other solution has been proposed, the choice of golden rice is essential.
Finally, the "argument of authority" is respectable, it is that of scientists in number, including 100 nobels, but unfortunately for them they play the game of this economy that you spend your time believing omnipotent and denigrating, we So understand your reaction to their position.

[Exnihiloest]

...

Decryption is needed The danger of GMOs is not where you believe

... the more you dig, the more you come across a lot of fraud in the anti-GMO argument. This indictment is full of errors, sophisms, distorted facts, falsifications and lies. People who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth hide themselves the evidence of the falseness of their own claims about GMOs. They hope to drown you under a flood of science and so overwhelmed you preferred to trust your guts and gobble their incitement to distrust.
the central argument of the anti-GMO movement - the precaution to avoid genetically modified foods - is an imposture. Activists who tell you to pay attention to GMOs are far from being meticulous in evaluating alternative options. They denounce the toxicity of certain proteins of GM crops, while being the heralds of substances, pesticides and other non-GM crops packed with the same proteins. They describe genetic engineering as a chaotic and unpredictable process, although studies have found that other methods of agricultural improvement, including those endorsed by these same activists, are far more disruptive to plant genomes.
... If you're concerned about pesticides and transparency, then you need to know what toxins some of your food, and not others, have been exposed to. It's not a label that will tell you. On the other hand, it may push you to buy a non-GMO product, even though the GMO selection is comparatively the safest.

The story of Hawaii's papaya

Twenty years ago, Hawaiian papaya producers were not in great shape. The papaya ringspot virus, transmitted by insects, destroyed the crops. The farmers had tried everything to stop the epidemic: plant breeding, crop rotation, quarantines. Nothing had worked. A scientist had another idea. And if it was possible to transfer a gene from a harmless element of the virus, the envelope protein, into the DNA of the papaya? Would genetically modified papaya be immune to phytovirus?
This scientist, Dennis Gonsalves, of Cornell University, had this idea in part thanks to Monsanto. But Monsanto did not care about papaya. While papaya is an essential commodity in the developing world, it is not as profitable as soybean or cotton. As a result, Monsanto and two other companies would patent the technology for a Hawaiian farmers' association. Licenses were free but limited to Hawaii. The association distributed the seeds to the farmers for free at first, before selling them to them.

Today, the GM papaya is a triumph. She saved the area. But his story is also most edifying. Because the papaya, once the virus is defeated, almost did not survive a campaign to purge Hawaii of GM crops. The story of this campaign teaches us a difficult lesson: no matter that a GMO is consumed for years without harming anyone, no matter how many studies prove its safety, there will always be skeptics for warn you of unknown risks.

In 1996 and 1997, three federal agencies give their approval to the papaya GM. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not report "no deleterious effects on plantations, non-target organisms or the environment" in field trials. EPA, the US environmental agency, points out that people have consumed the virus for years in infected papayas. "Whole infectious particles of the papaya ring-spot virus, including its envelope protein, are present in the fruits, leaves and roots of most plantations," says the EPA. The agency mentions the long mammalian food history and indicates that for a very long time the entire virus has been consumed without causing any deleterious health effects on humans. Plantations infected with the virus have been, for centuries, an integral part of the diet of humans and domestic animals, and no study suggests that this plant may be toxic to humans, as it is to other vertebrates. In addition, phytoviruses are unable to replicate in mammalian organisms as in other vertebrates, which precludes the possibility of human infection.

Arguments that were not going to satisfy everyone. In 1999, one year after the arrival of the new papaya seeds in Hawaiian farmers, their opponents claim that the viral gene can interact with the DNA of other viruses and create pathogens all the more dangerous. In 2000, vandals destroy plantations of papaya and other plants grown in the University of Hawaii's research laboratory, calling them "genetic pollution". In 2001, the Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) considers Hawaii as the US state where open-label GM experiments are the most numerous and calls for a national moratorium on such tests. The US PIRG states that "the science of genetic engineering is radical and new" and that, with respect to GM crops, "their effects on human health and their impact on the environment have not been properly assessed".

As with the activists "voluntary reapers" in France, it is often dogmatism that triumphs, surely that the "original sin" sticks to our skin

Thank you for these extracts. It becomes more and more difficult to have information on GMOs and many other new technologies as reactionary environmental activism is great and fires all out in its crusades to impose its ideology even by lying.

[Ahmed]

Exnihiloest, you come to deny your own formalism?
You write:

First, the "ulterior motive" is legitimate ...

When an action presents itself under humanitarian considerations and that it involves mercantile ulterior motives, it is above all hypocritical and dishonest. The call to pity is part of this scheme, whether you like it or not.
Most importantly, you write:

there is no "false dilemma" but an alternative since no other solution has been proposed, the choice of golden rice is essential.

The false dilemma (should I remind you?), Is a fallacy consisting in proposing the choice between two options, one of which is, obviously, unfavorable (blindness of children) and the other presented as the only alternative: that's exactly what you write.
Like any self-respecting formalist, you argue without concern for the context and "in general", whereas cases of malnutrition are correlated with particular situations, such as war or the abandonment of food crops in favor of cash crops. A technical solution cannot solve economic, political or other problems ... A fortiori if between the one who receives the technique and the one who produces it there is an asymmetry of power, a notion that your social atomism denies since it is located at a level (or a focal length) which makes it conveniently invisible. Like you, I could demonstrate anything, such as the "runoff theory" or any other paradox of the same water, on condition that I exempt myself from historical reality and reduce economics, sociology and technology to this. ridiculous embryo on which you base your self-justifying ideology of everything ...

[Exnihiloest]

Most importantly, you write:

there is no "false dilemma" but an alternative since no other solution has been proposed, the choice of golden rice is essential.

The false dilemma (should I remind you?), Is a fallacy consisting in proposing the choice between two options, one of which is, obviously, unfavorable (blindness of children) and the other presented as the only alternative: that's exactly what you write.
...

I know perfectly well what the false dilemma is. I have related facts, namely in some countries, the adoption of GMO golden rice instead of regular rice, for health benefits.

You have the right to imagine that there would be other operational solutions but then you should quote them by explaining to us with detailed arguments why they were not chosen in the case in question.

Unfortunately your file is empty so you are sticking to an ideological posture. But it is not your side effects of empty rhetoric loaded with idle notions such as "power dissymmetry" or "social atomism" that will feed children deficient in vitamin A.

[Janic]

I know perfectly well what the false dilemma is. I have related facts, namely in some countries, the adoption of GMO golden rice instead of regular rice, for health benefits.
You have the right to imagine that there would be other operational solutions but then you should quote them by explaining to us with detailed arguments why they were not chosen in the case in question.
Unfortunately your file is empty so you are sticking to an ideological posture. But it is not your side effects "(...) that will feed children deficient in vitamins A.

as usual, use of spurious arguments.
https://www.lanutrition.fr/bien-dans-so ... -vitamines
for millennia various civilizations have done without these products, trafficked by man just to make people dependent on these industrial products. It's business that uses an excuse for health that is not justified. It's a bit like the recommendation of manufacturers to consume powdered milk to replace breast milk that most women can bring to their babies. And then they complain that the health of their brats is fragile!

[Ahmed]

The fact that the vitamin A deficit is not generalized, but manifests itself under the conditions that I have specified shows that it is by no means inevitable when social conditions (in particular those of peasants who have nothing to gain from this dependence) are correct, even when the food is poor by our usual criteria.

Distributions of free (and then paid) fertilizers in Madagascar had a very negative effect, socially speaking, in the medium term ...

It is unfortunate that "vitamin A deficient children" feed your liberal propaganda ...

[izentrop]

Ahmed, you're looping we tell you from the start that the seed is distributed free of charge to the poorest peasants http://seppi.over-blog.com/2019/04/le-r ... adesh.html

The consortium applies a basic rule: all the crops resulting from their project must be distributed free of charge to poor farmers. How does giving free seeds to farmers take away their rights? It also perpetuates the mythology of farmers who produce their own seeds. When farmers have the opportunity, they usually choose to buy seeds every year because it is a huge time and resource saver. Producing seeds is a lot of work. It's cheaper to just buy them. And in this case, we give them the seeds. Even if farmers want to produce their own seeds, they can do it. Nobody prevents them or takes away their "sovereignty".

Another lie: golden rice does not work. It always comes, it seems, as a strategy of negators. This kind of anti-GM propaganda is practically identical to anti-vaccine propaganda. Antivaxes not only claim that vaccines have not proven to be safe (they have), but also that they do not work (they do). Likewise, anti-GMO activists lie about the evidence for vitamin A content in golden rice and its availability to the human body.

Bangladesh has nothing to do with good people a poor country has become a global innovator in nutritionally fortified and pest resistant GMOs

[Janic]

This kind of anti-GM propaganda is practically identical to anti-vaccine propaganda. Antivaxes not only claim that vaccines have not proven to be safe (they have), but also that they do not work (they do)

Is lying about a subject, vaccines, supposed to give credit to the lies of the rest?
One: saying antivaxx is just a fantasy of provaxx.
Two: they only demonstrated their immediate non-toxicity in phase 2/3. That's all !
Three: they do not work specifically as shown and demonstrate non-truncated statistics.

[dede2002]

Hello,

We had already talked about golden rice in another topic. In my opinion, rice is a cereal, basic energy food, we do not count on a cereal to provide vitamins. It is the sauce, the vegetables and other accompaniments which provide the vitamins, the "sauce" is important because many vitamins are fat soluble. Would you like to eat white rice on its own or salad without sauce?

The problem of vitamin deficiencies comes mainly from the lack of financial means to "make the sauce"!

The problem with the "free" distribution of seeds is that it will not always be free, but by then the traditional seeds (and the know-how) of the small farmers risk disappearing.
Can golden rice grow without the addition of fertilizers and pesticides?
Can we reseed the golden rice from our harvest?

[Ahmed]

Still so dizzy, I had failed to respond to the objection regarding the argument of authority!
It is good to take Nobel prizes, surely competent in their field, but in this particular case, in what way does this give them greater expertise than that of Chantal Goya? This all the more so as their activity predisposes them to favor a scientific solution: "Those who have the head in the shape of a hammer see all the problems in the shape of nails".