Soylent is Proudly PRO-GMO


#102

Companies are playing with things they do not fully understand - we need
20 more years of scintists doing the basic research so we can use
informed and correct techniques, Europe gets this.

And how many will suffer or even die needlessly for lack of food or nutrients while we in the western world, who have plentiful food, satisfy ourselves that these GMO foods are safe?


#103

Nit picking now. not proven safe yet - mean not proven safe using the tools we have.

really - that is your argument that of all the less invasive, less “money/patents only for big corporations”, less gouge small farmers with payments to multinationals, scientific techniques we are innovating for democratically bringing safe and clean food and water to the worlds population — you believe the only real solution is to have multinational companies race with each other to willy nilly modify genomes of food breeds – that is your solution to the only way forward?


#104

Or they are still running test and don’t want to approve them till they are done.


#105

None of those complaints are related to safety or environmental footprint and I’m not convinced they’re anything peculiar to GMOs. As far as I’m aware that’s how agribusiness has always worked.

Don’t make a strawman out of him, he never said “only”.


#106

You are moving the goalposts. I said that the European regulatory agency had tested and deemed safe many GMOs and you acted as if this was some sort of concession. You act like one side in the debates thinks all GMOs are assumed safe and need no investigation. That’s not the case. Everything, GMO and otherwise, needs investigation.

The debate of the PRINCIPLE of whether using GMOs is a good idea happened decades ago and the conclusion was that yes, it is a good idea in principle. That’s done. The details on whether any particular GMO is safe is just that, namely details.

You just hate the idea of GMOs and you’re going to use any and every means you can to roll them back. European scientists aren’t against the idea of GMOs at all and that bothers you for some reason so you’ll try to swing the conversation over to the European public that thinks more like you.


#107

Yet in the US (different than Europe) there is not independent investigation of new GMO products, just letting the corporation test themselves and give summary data to the FDA. Seems lame.

I have said over and over I like GMOs and believe GMO techniques will be totally beneficial to the world - I simply state ( again as Europe and other countries believe) that given the early days and scientists still attempting to understand the deep complexities of how molecular and genetic biology work as a whole ( we barely have scratched the surface) that the precautionary principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle) is the best course of action till we get the science down. And surely letting corporations try early, quick, haphazard, modifications with greed as the motivation with no independent testing the US allows is weaker that the precautionary principle the growing list of countries follow.[quote=“yngh, post:106, topic:25870”]
so you’ll try to swing the conversation over to the European public
[/quote]

Umm, what? EFSA are European scientists. I have not talk about the public or policy only science. All the journal articles I have put on this site showing issues with some GMOS are from scientists, most of them from Europe. So only as I can because evidence is important not unsupported statements, I back up my side with actual science from peer review papers from in most case real European scientists.


#108

Do you have any proof to back up that assertion? Even if true what does that have to do with Soylent being proudly pro-GMO?


#109

They’re somewhat correct.

In regards to the FDA,

[…] it does not itself conduct safety testing on GMOs. It does not sponsor independent safety testing. It does not require independent safety testing. It does not require long-term safety testing, to uncover ill effects that have delayed onset. It does not have access to the full data and content of all industry safety testing. And it does not require post-market epidemiological testing.

www.usrtk.org/the-fda-does-not-test-whether-gmos-are-safe/

Warning - the whole page is a pretty dull read.


#110

really - that is your argument that of all the less invasive, less
"money/patents only for big corporations", less gouge small farmers with
payments to multinationals, scientific techniques we are innovating
for democratically bringing safe and clean food and water to the worlds
population — you believe the only real solution is to have
multinational companies race with each other to willy nilly modify
genomes of food breeds – that is your solution to the only way forward?

There are people starving or suffering from horrible diseases caused by malnutrition who could benefit NOW from GMOs. What do you say to them? “So sorry you watched your little one starve to death, but we had to make sure there were no long-term health effects from the food we prevented you from getting.”


#111

GMO’s in the US are innocent until proven guilty.

FDA don’t need proof of safety, they need proof of harm.


#112

For those who think - surely large companies that stand to make billions would not be able to unfairly influence the GMO science reporting in the US (compared to Europe and many many countries that ban GMOs), well from the NY Times is an article showing exactly that level of false influence even to the level of published articles in the best journals which changed the US’s early view on nutritional dangers Sugar ( its fat, its fat that is evil, not sugar) that we are still untangling decades later. What will they say about corporate GMO influence in the future. See this article
"How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat"


#113

So your argument is:

  1. Scientists have changed their minds on the relationship between fat, sugar, and obesity.
  2. At some future indeterminate point, they might also change their minds about GMOs
  3. Therefore, we should avoid GMOs because scientists might change their minds one day.

Not buying it.


#114

If I recall correctly, the FDA does very little testing of any kind on any products. They’re not supposed to. We don’t want the people to bear the cost of an individual’s desire to introduce a new product.

Their role is to require testing, review results, make decisions, enforce regulations… Most of their testing in the food space is probably inspection-related.


#115

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the whole “fat is evil” thing was actually NOT based on science and science has since proven it wrong.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/03/28/295332576/why-we-got-fatter-during-the-fat-free-food-boom

And to that end are your saying the majority of the scientists in the US are in Monsanto’s pockets? Those are either astonishingly deep pockets or scientists are a dime a dozen and we can’t believe anything any of them say.


#116

I am a cognitive scientist, who uses/writes computer algorithms (AI) to emulate / model cognitive processes by emulating biological processes. I am not a biologist, just someone who likes to read science papers. In my area, I am a prof that runs a research lab with 1 postdoc and 8 PhDs and have wrote over 80 published papers. I have done research / was faculty at SFU, Stanford and NYIT - typically teaching conciousness, cog sci, AI and VR. I am not or never claimed to be an expert in the food science or biology space, just a scientist who cares that we speak the truth and read journals to understand that truth.

omg! just read this whole thread. Was surprised to see this. SFU is Simon Fraser University? I’m at a neuroscience lab at UBC. My background is in cognitive systems (specializing in AI) and I write VR software for the Vancouver general hospital (or rather I started and will finish when my bloody thesis is completed). So we’re practically in the same field plus both like Soylent. Cool!

Yea I revived the thread. Couldn’t help myself. It was like the last thing I expected to read and it forced me to read the whole thread. I leave more in favour of Soylent advertising that they are pro-GMO than I was before.

So many companies advertise as “non-GMO” when it’s hard to argue their products are even non-GMO or any more safe. Case in point being made by the link in the original post - you can irradiate seeds to change their genome and it’s still considered non-GMO and I’m guessing these food-types are considered non-GMO in Europe? If folks are going to continue arguing over whether GMOs are good or bad can we please operationalize what “GMO” means please? Maybe we’ll all find out we’ve been arguing over very different things and actually once a definition for GMO can be agreed on we’ll find we all agree GMO’s are sage/unsafe.

Anyway, reading this thread is me procrastinating. Sighs, back to my doomed thesis.


#117

The FDA is unconstitutional anyway.


#118

How so?

(Personally, I’m a fan. It prevented the thalidomide tragedy in the US.)


#119

The Constitution protects your right to say that, but that doesn’t make it true.


#120

Just saw this video by Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell and thought it would be most at home in this thread:


#121

I was wondering why someone gravedug this tread :slightly_smiling_face: