Bush wants EU to eat gen-modified food

[Phage]

Well the issue is a scientific one, that's why. Otherwise we are just guessing.

Also I don't think just because a person holds strong opinion he or she is wrong, but when they hold strong opinions and only vague references to science, their argument does seem based on politics and culture, not evidence.

Also there is a difference in who the experts actually are when either accepting or rejecting testimony. Steven Hawkings obviously has more weight then Duane Gish on the subject of physics. Because Hawkings is an established expert on that subject, with rigourous methods. Likewise the FDA is an established group with solid methods, as is the institute of biotechnology, tested by peers and over time. Whereas political groups are not tested or trained in the necessary subjects, so they don't carry the weight of expert testimony.(And yes expert testimony counts as evidence in logic).

Lastly we do have an idea of what GM foods will do, the reason is because we test them and study genetics. We have more predictive power here then with cross breeding in fact, and cross breeding has been done for hundreds of years without incident.

[Egeides]

Ahhh... I have to admit this relieves me. I thought our debate had turned completely out of hand.

Personally, I separate expectancy from reality: you may have lots of expectancies from this or this persons, reality is still independant and may (or not) be different.

So when I look a specialist and a normal person's arguments, I am passing the expectancy since I am looking at what it is. Touching reality breakes the expectancy to replace it by your own view of it. Like when you expect a car behind a curtain to be red: when you take off the curtain, the expectancy is replaced by information.

So let's go further than expectancies. Ad even simply from expectancies, the FDA is countered by many other scientific organisms. And independant ones, that do not owe stuff to a government paid by lobbies.

But just for now, I have little time so I'll come back a bit later. Anyway, I have two major sources with a good expectancy rating since they go to the source and so on:

http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/GEFood.html

http://www.psrast.org/indexeng.htm

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/shiva.html

[Phage]

The first and third site are obviously based more on religion and politics then science.

The second site, though by scientist has one basic argument "our knowledge of GM crops is incomplete."

Which ignores the fact that our knowledge of basically anything is incomplete.

http://www.psrast.org/intropage.htm

Our main conclusions at a glance

Commercial application of genetical engineering for production of foods cannot be scientifically justified and carries with it unpredictable and potentially serious consequences.

The reasons are as follows:

*

The knowledge about DNA is too incomplete to make it possible to predict and understand all consequences of genetic engineering.

(For this reason commercial application of genetic engineering of any organism especially for non-contained usage is unjustifiable blind and unscientific experimentation. This includes plants, trees, bacteria, insects and animals.)

*

The knowledge about the health safety of GE foods is seriously incomplete.

*

The knowledge about the environmental safety of GE organisms is seriously incomplete.

*

There is no need for GE organisms for feeding the world or solving nutritional deficiency problems.

Furthermore, food biotechnology perpetuates environmentally unsustainable industrial agriculture . It is based on chemicals of various kinds that are demonstratedly harmful to the health of the consumer and to the environment.

This is basically a perfectionist fallacy. On the last argument they fail to demonstrate how GM crops are dangerous but basically just say so.

Also they ignore the fact that while GM crops are not necessary now to feed some people, they will be in the future if the population continues to grow and can help now. Other then that nothing short of regional peace and serious government reform will help the third world.

So when I look a specialist and a normal person's arguments, I am passing the expectancy since I am looking at what it is. Touching reality breakes the expectancy to replace it by your own view of it. Like when you expect a car behind a curtain to be red: when you take off the curtain, the expectancy is replaced by information.

So let's go further than expectancies. Ad even simply from expectancies, the FDA is countered by many other scientific organisms. And independant ones, that do not owe stuff to a government paid by lobbies.

So far you have shown only one scientific group, that I've never heard of before and that doesn't list the scientists who are actually its members.

Since one of our board members, a university professor, was fired because of critisism of Genetic Engineering, we have decided not to disclose the names of our board and other scientific members.

Well how conveniant. So they may and may not be actual scientists, or scientists with any expertise on the issue. They may be a fringe quack group...we'll probably never know.

They also make a very unscientific, almost religious statement:

* The general preference for reductionistic methodology disabling the scientists to perceive complex systemic/holistic aspects.

We find that there is an urgent need for evaluation of applications of science and technology from a comprehensive long term global perspective including systemic/holistic consideration

Holistic science?

http://www.psrast.org/aboutus.htm

Not exactly a solid case and not exactly "many" scientific institutions.

Also you trust expert testimony all the time, logic demands it and you have to to get along. When you believe there is an africa you trust geologists and such who've been there, when you buy groceries, you trust the FDA, when you drive buy an electronic appliance you trust the laws of electricity and such, even though you've never actually expirimentaed with the laws yourself.

Sure testimony doesn't always equal reality, but sometimes the only way to find out about reality is through testimony. I don't have the rescources to test all GM foods in a lab myself, so I have to take the words of scientists and institutions on it.

[Egeides]

The first and third site are obviously based more on religion and politics then science.

Having arguments such as "it has disastrous effects on culture" like we'd say this about TV is not BASED on religion...

The second site, though by scientist has one basic argument "our knowledge of GM crops is incomplete.

Which ignores the fact that our knowledge of basically anything is incomplete.

It doesn't suppose it, it kept it a priori, thinking that its readers would know that!! They meant "too much incomplete"!

The knowledge about the health safety of GE foods is seriously incomplete.

*

The knowledge about the environmental safety of GE organisms is seriously incomplete.

*

So we see as evidence that what they are basing themselves on is not your litteral interpretation. Language isn't always direct, otherwise any adjective would be rejected from logical discourse because nothing is just nice, it's always nice COMPARED to. It's the logical nature of adjectives and epiteths.

Also they ignore the fact that while GM crops are not necessary now to feed some people, they will be in the future if the population continues to grow and can help now. Other then that nothing short of regional peace and serious government reform will help the third world.

It was shown over and over that there is enough food and the problem is the distribution: what stops others from eating isn't that there isn't food, but that its price is too high since the demand from rich countries (at high prices) doesn't stop. So EVEN if you produce more...

So far you have shown only one scientific group, that I've never heard of before and that doesn't list the scientists who are actually its members.

False, I wrote so many times about others that I didn't want to repeat myself, simply. It's the entire scientific community that disagrees with such a statement as "we have enough evidence to say that GMO are secure". Even those who made researches denying some of pro-GMO researches still say "perhaps we're advancing, but there's no conclusion on the subject as a whole".

Since one of our board members, a university professor, was fired because of critisism of Genetic Engineering, we have decided not to disclose the names of our board and other scientific members.

Well how conveniant. So they may and may not be actual scientists, or scientists with any expertise on the issue. They may be a fringe quack group...we'll probably never know.

If they get fired from it, would you EVER expect them to get into this publicly?? It's not fringe since as I said in earlier posts (and no one countered) the scientific community is divised and alot are anti-GMOs! In some countries, it seems to be a majority within scientists.

* The general preference for reductionistic methodology disabling the scientists to perceive complex systemic/holistic aspects.

We find that there is an urgent need for evaluation of applications of science and technology from a comprehensive long term global perspective including systemic/holistic consideration

First, it's a statement about methodology even if there's the word holistic in it. Second, go at www.-m-w.com to see the definition of "holistic" ;) It's methodologic.

Also you trust expert testimony all the time, logic demands it and you have to to get along. When you believe there is an africa you trust geologists and such who've been there, when you buy groceries, you trust the FDA, when you drive buy an electronic appliance you trust the laws of electricity and such, even though you've never actually expirimentaed with the laws yourself.

I trust experts only at the extent that I do not chose to check by myself. Once I checked by myself... the same sentence said by an expert and non-expert has the same value.

About the FDA, well as I said it is not neutral AT ALL. Curiously, while they succeed into being ABSOLUTELY sure (the FDA and all their scientists), all the rest of the scientific community is completely divided. How come this FDA working for the government (which is submitted to lobbies) succeeds into having such a different view of a world statistic base of scientists?... Curiously, GMOs are a nice adding to big corporations' economy...

[Nyarlathotep]

I think it's time he stopped intefering with internal policies of EU

I think the above statement is what this thread is about and I completely agree...

Bush needs to stop telling other countries what and what not to do. IMO that's the biggest reason why he's so disliked in other countries.

[Phage]

Having arguments such as "it has disastrous effects on culture" like we'd say this about TV is not BASED on religion...

That is totally irrelevant.....

It doesn't suppose it, it kept it a priori, thinking that its readers would know that!! They meant "too much incomplete"!

Well I'm not sure how I confront the claim now that it is "too incomplete". I mean they seem firmly convinced.

Even though its been thoroughly tested and is more predictable then cross breeding? Do these same 'scientists' argue against cross breeding? Even though they are tested even more rigourously then normal crops?

So we see as evidence that what they are basing themselves on is not your litteral interpretation. Language isn't always direct, otherwise any adjective would be rejected from logical discourse because nothing is just nice, it's always nice COMPARED to. It's the logical nature of adjectives and epiteths.

Red Herring. This above statement is far too general to support the claims.

That's like saying "People communicate...WITH WORDS STUPID."

Ok....but so what?

It was shown over and over that there is enough food and the problem is the distribution: what stops others from eating isn't that there isn't food, but that its price is too high since the demand from rich countries (at high prices) doesn't stop. So EVEN if you produce more...

NOW. I mentioned the future where our population could be 20 billion. Then more. This will mean not only that there will be more mouths to feed, but more distribution needed and less land to grow food with. Meaning efficiency become even more important.

Also the issue of distribution is not as simple as you make it out. A lot of it for example comes from internal wars, a political instability in the country itself. The rich send it all to military instead of their own people, or use the labor incorrectly, sending too many workers to certain projects and too little to food production.

Have you perhaps forgotten about Somoliar when we did try to send them food and the warlords took it?

False, I wrote so many times about others that I didn't want to repeat myself, simply. It's the entire scientific community that disagrees with such a statement as "we have enough evidence to say that GMO are secure". Even those who made researches denying some of pro-GMO researches still say "perhaps we're advancing, but there's no conclusion on the subject as a whole".

Oh yeah...where are they?

You are quick to claim "False" but show little to back it up.

Likewise I have even seen creationists list themselves, those against the war, and those who are both for and against Global Warming. I've even seen Marxist scientists in the Sparticus League make statements. Not exactly the least controversial issues for scientists to get involved in. But NOW, the GM food issue is just so "scary" and MycCarthy like they can't list names....sorry but I'm a bit skeptical.

If they get fired from it, would you EVER expect them to get into this publicly?? It's not fringe since as I said in earlier posts (and no one countered) the scientific community is divised and alot are anti-GMOs! In some countries, it seems to be a majority within scientists.

Well that's IF what they are saying is true. As of right now, knowing how science works, and seeing as this is based on expert testimony(which at least demands we know who our experts are) I'll have to say this is questionable.

Also you say the scientific community is divided, yet I have offered many established government and scientific sources saying GM foods are safe, and you have yet to even offer anything more then a vague reference and dubious page to say otherwise.

First, it's a statement about methodology even if there's the word holistic in it. Second, go at www.-m-w.com to see the definition of "holistic" It's methodologic.

Yes but this "methodology" is not really popular amond scientists and often times leads to all sorts of bizzare conclusions. Like the Gaia conjecture.

I trust experts only at the extent that I do not chose to check by myself. Once I checked by myself... the same sentence said by an expert and non-expert has the same value.

So when you hear about the war on Iraq in the news you actually went down there to check? When you here of AIDS, you are actually in the lab verifying the statements doctors make concerning AIDS? When you friend tells you what he had for breakfast, you either have to be there to verify it, or don't believe him? When you read about cereal ingredients, you do a quick chemical analysis with a test tube before you believe it?

Or did you take their word for it?

We take the words of friends and experts on a dozen things everyday, it's called testimony. Logicians recognize the use of this and thus allow it as evidence.

About the FDA, well as I said it is not neutral AT ALL.

Well yes they are concerned with protecting the public...

Other then that your claim is extraordinary and not proven. At this point you are merely supporting a controversial claim, with another, perhaps even more controversial claim. Making your argument very, very superfulous.

The FDA is established, currently common sense seems to show that very, very few people are dying of food poison in the US. Or of bad chemicals in medicine. The only incidents seem to come from abuse. Are you saying this is just a fluke?

Curiously, while they succeed into being ABSOLUTELY sure (the FDA and all their scientists), all the rest of the scientific community is completely divided.

And you have not done a single thing to show this claim...

I have shown many scientific and established groups, with many experts on the subject agreeing that GM foods are safe and tested. You have not brought sufficient sources to counter this. And you have done nothing more, then dismiss a long lasting and effective government institution as "biased". Which is amazing seeing as the FDA polices corporation to the extent that Newt Gingrich called them "bullies".

I suppose if NASA likewise said a certain technology was safe their opinion would be likewise dismissed as "Government" and hence biased.

Whereas radical political groups, and "science" sites that don't list their members are to be taken as credible...

How come this FDA working for the government (which is submitted to lobbies) succeeds into having such a different view of a world statistic base of scientists?... Curiously, GMOs are a nice adding to big corporations' economy...

Yeah, big corporations...not the FDA's. And guess who gets in trouble with getting no profit if the food turns out to be bad...the FDA. So why do you think they'd be in conspiracy with corporations? "Because they are government"...because it's plausible? Hell given that reasoning I guess you cannot trust NASA when they say they landed on the moon(as some people do) because they are a government agency and it's "plausible" NASA is lying to cover up Cold War propoganda.

And you state the FDA is differing widely from the world base of scientists, which is strange because before you stated scientists were divided on the issue, with no proof whatsoever.

[Phage]

I think the above statement is what this thread is about and I completely agree...

Bush needs to stop telling other countries what and what not to do. IMO that's the biggest reason why he's so disliked in other countries.

And why not if it's the right thing? So long as Bush doesn't use military force, I see no problem with Bush trying to influence them by legal or verbal means.

I mean it's not like a lot of Europeans can really talk about this issue, seeing as they have been sticking their nose in US business ever since the War with Iraq and even Afghanistan.

And did not a certain major European country called France, not so recently tell certain Eastern European nations like Bulgaria, that their standing in the EU could be jeapordized for supporting the war on Iraq?

Well the BBC, not exactly a Pro-Bush media, says it did: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2781369.stm

And didn't Europe recently bad mouth the US for failing to cut down on green house emission?

The problem is that nations are not magically cut off and self-contained from eachother but connected and effecting eachother. The world is now more connected then ever before. Hence government must recognize this and act accordingly.

Now at days my backyard IS your back yard. And we ignore this at our own peril.

[nemafakei]

"they have been sticking their nose in US business ever since the War with Iraq and even Afghanistan"

Er, well, foreign policy and, well, war is not exactly private to the US! Especially when going through the UN!

"Now at days my backyard IS your back yard. And we ignore this at our own peril"

Precisely.

Remember that the EU has not procluded GM crops' use in the EU for ever - it is merely that they feel our knowledge is too insufficient.