I love the religious fervor of the “Progressives” ignoring the voice of reason (and Reason) simply pointing out that genetically modified food has never posed a danger to public health. Also you have to love their disdain for individual freedom, choice, and initiative. You see its not enough for an INDIVIDUAL to do their due diligence against things they hold dear, it must be rammed down their throats, preferably by a government agency! Party of choice!
You see they WANT it to be dangerous, so therefore it is! Wicked smart these guys! I want to be rich and not have to go to work today…..oh…
The one thing that struck me was when Bill Maher mentioned that 7 percent of food in Europe is genetically modified versus 70 percent in the US, Nick didn’t ask the obvious question:
And what detrimental affect has that had on health in the US versus health in Europe?
That in and of itself is prima facia evidence of the benign nature of GMOs. We eat LOTS of it and have no demonstrable health effects as a result.
Its the same as “Certified Organic” food. It was created to steam a public health risk….and yet none has been discovered.
Hey, but don’t let science stop you from continuing the rhetoric!
GMO’s GMF’s GM Foods…whatever scary thing they’re calling them these days.
And they appear oblivious to the fact that virtually everything we have ever eaten since the dawn of modern agriculture is “genetically modified”. Once we stopped being hunter gatherers, man began to selectively breed plants for specific traits that they wanted to maximize. Modern methods just make that process possible without waiting generations.
Hybrid only seed strains controled by big corporations are another matter, but without any evidence that genetically modified foods are a problem these dopes need to shut up and find an actual problem to address instead of making one up.
While it is true to say that mankind has been “genetically modifying” foods for millenia, it is only true for certain values of “modifying”.
Selective breeding allows us to enhance certain traits already present in the genome, or introduced by mutation.
What it DOESN’T do is allow us to introduce DAFFODIL genes into RICE, like the modern GM techniques allow.
The two – selective breeding and modern GM – are about as alike as magnetism and gravity. Both apply a force at a distance, but work completely differently and follow different rules.
Agreed. In this case, though, it appears to be a distinction without a difference for the argument at hand.
God forbid we introduce DAFFODIL genes into RICE and prevent BLINDNESS.
Um, plant genes are pretty plastic, and highly susceptible to cross-species hybridization.
Which is how almost ALL domesticated plants were “created”, albeit with highly unscientific, misunderstood, and often difficult to reproduce methods until the understanding of gentics in modern times. . .
Correction: “plant genomes“
Tell me again which Party is anti-science Georgie?
Sailorcurt brings a good point about those oh-so-sophsicitcated Europeans. Ask them about GM food and see the old superstitions fly.
Seedless watermelons. Burpless cucumbers.
People fear that which they do not understand.
It would have been nice if Maher had actually let whatshisname in the leather jacket actually finish a sentence whenever he actually started to speak. He sounded like he might have had a good point for discussion, if the jackass host had actually been interested in discussion rather than fear-mongering. The one lady made some decent arguments I would have liked to see responded to and followed up on, too.
I’ve noticed a common thread in these types of shows: The people who have good, logical reasoning also be the ones who politely allow their opponents to finish speaking, while their opponents – like Bill Maher here – “debate” by constantly interrupting and shouting down anyone who disagrees.
It’s almost like they’re afraid that their conclusions can’t survive a reasoned analysis, or something.
Smart, informed people debate the issue. Stupid irrational people can’t compete with that so they need to rely on trickery to keep up the appearance that they have the upper hand.
People like Maher and Bill O’Reilly are not smart men, well informed, or good debaters….yet they are paid handsomely to debate issues nightly with well-informed experts on the issue.
They got there because they can run the tricks without letting most people see the ruse.
I haven’t bothered with Maher’s current show (nor really any of them for years). The last time I saw one was set up with Maher as the host, three progressive/left types, against ONE conservative… usually a fairly weak one at that. Quite often, he would have to resort to shouting over even a weak conservative just to seem like he had the upper hand even with the three others backing him up.
I don’t know how they managed to get anyone with a brain to agree to go on the show.
s
That’s part of why they only had one non-statist, and a weak one at that.
Self selection plus confirmation biast.
“It would have been nice if Maher had actually let whatshisname in the leather jacket actually finish a sentence whenever he actually started to speak.”
This is why I can’t stand talk shows/talk radio. Most of the time it’s just a bunch of guys shouting at each other, and I don’t need to hear that. It’s just stressful just listening to it.
One thing to consider is that the various food fetishes — “organic”, “non-GMO”, “local” — are primarily status markers. People buy them because, well, that’s what people in their social cluster do. The less enlightened (and less able to throw their money away) buy “Frankenfoods” and “industrial produce”; the self-proclaimed elite track the buzzwords and make sure everyone knows they’re toeing the line!
Let the market economics handle it just as it did with “organic” foods. Is there a law saying a product can’t be sold unless it says “non-organic”? No. Instead there are rules governing who can legally call their product organic (which has problems of course), and people who want to pay extra for these products can seek them out. It didn’t take long before any product not labeled “organic” can be assumed to not be organic. There is no reason GMOs can’t be the same, and I don’t hear too many people complaining that we need “non-organic” labeling.
The problem I have with the term “Organic” is that technically, ALL food is organic. If it wasn’t organic it would be a rock or something. Even the most highly modified frankentomato is grown on a living plant.
I know, it’s splitting hairs, but geesh, get some terminology that has some sort of meaning already.
s