Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday November 14 2014, @08:58AM   Printer-friendly
from the distributed-authority dept.

The European Commission has confirmed that it is abolishing the position of Chief Science Advisor to the EU President.

Anne Glover, the current advisor had become controversial in some quarters over her pro-GMO stance. For example, Glover had stated that "Opposition to GM, and the benefits it can bring, is a form of madness I don’t understand."

A number of European Green groups (Greenpeace, among others) have argued that the post was too independent and unaccountable. They stated in a letter to incoming EU President Jean-Claude Juncker calling for the post to be abolished, that "The post of CSA is fundamentally problematic as it concentrates too much influence in one person…".

In response, letters from science organizations were sent to Juncker, calling for the post not to be abolished. Among others this included one from Sense About Science stating “we cannot stress strongly enough our objection to any attempt to undermine the integrity and independence of scientific advice received at the highest level of the European Commission.”

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by deimios on Friday November 14 2014, @10:33AM

    by deimios (201) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 14 2014, @10:33AM (#115843) Journal

    Wait... they fixed a problem by getting rid of a position? Usually it's the other way around: Too much influence in the hand of one guy? Hire 4 more with the same influence, so they can form a committee and never agree on anything.

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday November 14 2014, @11:43AM

      by Immerman (3985) on Friday November 14 2014, @11:43AM (#115854)

      That would probably actually work pretty well in this case. Scientists and academics are often particularly bad about having strong opinions and assuming their expertise in one field makes them competent in many others. Having to defend their opinions against a few of their similarly strident fellows should help keep them honest. If a cabinet of science advisors can even mostly agree on something then it's a pretty good chance that there's actually a consensus on the subject in the broader scientific community.

      The second condition I would have, is to have them be elected by the academic community rather than appointed by politicians (I'm assuming that's how it happens now - seems to usually be the way of such things). If politically appointed the position is almost guaranteed to devolve to "spin-doctor in a lab coat"

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @02:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @02:31PM (#115907)

        The second condition I would have, is to have them be elected by the academic community rather than appointed by politicians (I'm assuming that's how it happens now - seems to usually be the way of such things). If politically appointed the position is almost guaranteed to devolve to "spin-doctor in a lab coat"

        In the US, most academic positions are almost entirely reliant on funding from major corporations, so they are often mouthpieces for that company or industry. If the same is true in Europe, I don't think your suggestion would help. :( If the same is not true in Europe and they can actually piss-off major players and retain their career and funding, then I would be all for your suggestion.

        • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday November 14 2014, @04:34PM

          by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Friday November 14 2014, @04:34PM (#115942) Journal

          For organizing observations. It is not an interest of itself, any more than is "measurement".

           

          If there needs to be technical advocacy for specific policy? It is a disservice to call such "Science".

          --
          You're betting on the pantomime horse...
        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday November 14 2014, @04:36PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday November 14 2014, @04:36PM (#115944)

          So make it a secret ballot. There's a reason those were invented.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 15 2014, @01:18AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 15 2014, @01:18AM (#116093)

      European Commission decides it won't have a science advisor after Greenpeace pressure - Glover wasn't institutionalised enough, apparently [theregister.co.uk]

      Yesterday seemed a great day for science in Europe, with the European Space Agency setting down its Philae lander on comet 67P - but even as this took place the European Commission quietly sent a rather different signal, as it hit "delete" on the role of its Chief Scientific Advisor.

      Since 2012 the EC Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) has been part of the Bureau of European Policy Advisers, but this group will not exist under the new Juncker Commission and the new European Political Strategy Centre which replaces it does not include a CSA role.

      Just hours before she told colleagues that her role was being scrapped, CSA Anne Glover tweeted in response to the Philae landing that she loved Europe’s big ambition on science.

      The CSA’s job was “to provide independent expert advice on any aspect of science, technology and innovation” to the Commission president.

      But according to the Commish, “the mandate of the scientific adviser came automatically to an end with the end of the Barroso II Commission on 31 October”. Glover’s contract will continue until the end of February, but her role will not be continued.

      Glover appears to have been forced out by environmental campaigners after she said that there was no scientific consensus regarding harm caused by GM crops.

      Greenpeace wrote to the Commission in the summer complaining that the CSA had become “unaccountable, intransparent and controversial” and that the job “concentrates too much influence in one person.”

      “President Juncker believes in independent scientific advice, but he has not yet decided how to institutionalise this independent scientific advice,” said Commission spokeswoman Mina Andreeva.

      However, writing on popular free blogging platform The Grauniad, James Wilsdon - chairman of the Campaign for Social Science - said:

      “It is hard not to interpret this week’s decision as a serious downgrading of the status of scientific advice at the top of the Commission.”

      It's also hard not to see the timing of the announcement as a way to bury bad news.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @10:52AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @10:52AM (#115848)

    They should scrap the EU. What a fucking disaster.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Darth Turbogeek on Friday November 14 2014, @11:49AM

    by Darth Turbogeek (1073) on Friday November 14 2014, @11:49AM (#115858)

    Bullshit, the CSA wasnt towing the Greenpeace line.

    That's what seriously pisses me off about green groups. They yell and scream abour SCIENCE!!!! YOU MUST OBEY THE SCIENCE!!!! with thing like climate change (And I will add as do I because the science is very clear, I am no denialist idiot) but as soon as the science goes against them, they fall back on their own fucking religious dogma. GMO's, vaccinations and Nuclear power to name three glaring examples of their stupendous hypocracy.

    They dont get to play it both ways. They either get to follow the science in ALL instances wether it lines up with their religious views or not, or they go off into the fairies. You dont get to be selective in this one especially as being a screaming hypocrite greatly undermines any hint of credibility, even when you are 100% right.

    I accept that GMO's do need to be supervised but we have been genetically modifying crops ever since farming started but GMO's arent some Frankenstein super evil. Nuclear powers has solvable (and frankly solved) issues but it is actually is greenouse gas free. But this is following the science, not some whack job religious idealogity. This bullshit about if THIS issue goes with my world view we will accept the science but this one? NONONO! has got to stop on both sides of the political divide.

    But frankly it's just plain hypocracy for the Green groups who are bleating SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE on one issue and refusing to accept the valid science on others. And it is hurting legitimate issues becuase it is straight giving whack jobs the ammo to knock down the good causes by exposing this incredible hypocracy and giving talking points to piss on legit concerns.

    If you are going to play the Science card and make yourself ou to be pro-facts, you dont get to play in the garden with the fairies when it suits you.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday November 14 2014, @12:11PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 14 2014, @12:11PM (#115861) Journal

      I accept that GMO's do need to be supervised but we have been genetically modifying crops ever since farming started but GMO's arent some Frankenstein super evil.

      We selected mutations which happened naturally (by selective breeding) but, until recently, did not transfer genes between species [wikipedia.org]. Transgenetic manipulation looks a bit like Frankenstin, we can't yet assess the evilness of it on the long term.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Friday November 14 2014, @02:28PM

        by moondrake (2658) on Friday November 14 2014, @02:28PM (#115905)

        Its not that black-white though. The species concept is not perfect wrt biology (you can, as a matter of fact, transfer genes between donkeys and horses by just breeding them, as you might know. Its fairly common to produce hybrids in a number of plant species as well. Sometimes you can help hybridization along a bit and even cross more distantly related species. Where nature draws its borders is almost random).

        But yes in a way you are right, we can do much more now, and with modern biological techniques one can even transfer genes between species that are very distantly related.

        The question you need to ask yourself is however whether this somehow matters. Is mixing an insect an a cow more evil than mixing a horse and a donkey? Why?

        You are not the first to worry about this; Herodotus wrote [mu.edu] in the fifth century BC:
        "Hereby it was shown plainly enough, that Xerxes would lead forth his host against Greece with mighty pomp and splendour, but, in order to reach again the spot from which he set out, would have to run for his life. There had also been another portent, while Xerxes was still at Sardis - a mule dropped a foal, neither male nor female; but this likewise was disregarded. "

        So I happen to be a plant biologist, and frankly, I think it is a bit silly to worry about gene transfer more than about many other things in live. Compared to some of the chemicals they spray on your food and GMOs, I would pick the latter every time. That does not mean there should be no oversight (If I could cross a donkey and a lion, I would not assume the result doesn't bite), and it does not excuse some of the very bad things going on in the industry (gene ownership, etc). People worried about genes spreading into natural ecosystems also have a valid concern. Just like our green revolution with the overuse of nitrogen and pesticides it is going to tax natural systems. I do just not think the answer is to abolish GMOs for food, but to make sure they are used in a responsible way. The reason is simply that the potential benefits are to great to pass on (more food with less land use water, fertilizer and pesticides).

        There is another reason why I find it silly that many people in Europe try to block this: a single nation or continent will be unable to stop it (which could lead us to an interesting discussion on whether you should be against something when it is pointless...) I see far more benefit in Europe trying to apply the technology in a responsible way, in order to out-compete moronic ideas such as Monsanto's glyphosate-resistant crops.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @02:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @02:45PM (#115916)

          The question you need to ask yourself is however whether this somehow matters. Is mixing an insect an a cow more evil than mixing a horse and a donkey?

          A more appropriate question is who's doing the mixing? Out in the real world this science is practiced by many companies who are outright evil. Until that stops, all mixing must stop. It is unethical to financially support murderous corporations. When these companies control the entire industry, then the industry must be opposed on moral grounds. Discussing theory is nice, and the science behind GMOs is great and should be supported, but theory ends in the real world, and these real companies have a real history that is abominable, so I do not want them mixing things into my food. Everyone should oppose these companies, which by proxy means opposing the GMO industry. Wake me when the two can be separated.

          • (Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Friday November 14 2014, @05:28PM

            by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Friday November 14 2014, @05:28PM (#115963) Journal

            The question you need to ask yourself is however whether this somehow matters. Is mixing an insect an a cow more evil than mixing a horse and a donkey?

            A more appropriate question is who's doing the mixing? Out in the real world this science is practiced by many companies who are outright evil. Until that stops, all mixing must stop. It is unethical to financially support murderous corporations. When these companies control the entire industry, then the industry must be opposed on moral grounds. Discussing theory is nice, and the science behind GMOs is great and should be supported, but theory ends in the real world, and these real companies have a real history that is abominable, so I do not want them mixing things into my food. Everyone should oppose these companies, which by proxy means opposing the GMO industry. Wake me when the two can be separated.

            See, I'm no Chief Science Advisor, but that willful conflation of companies and the fields they work in is "a form of madness I don’t understand".

            If you march under the anti-GMO banner (rather than the anti-Monsanto et al. banner), what will you do when you win?

            Let's say you get GMO labeling laws, and convince enough of the public to hate GMOs, so that selling food from GMOs is no longer viable -- and let's further assume a similar victory in all non-food GMO applications (IMO unlikely, as most people (not unreasonably) get scared about food more readily than pretty much anything else). End result, there's no market for GMO seed, so Monsanto shuts down its GMO division (and carries right on with their evil business practices in every other field they're in, but I'm sure you'll get to those next), and local co-ops/Mondragon/whoever you do trust buys their equipment/patents/etc. at the liquidation auction.

            Now that the murderous corporations are gone... what? Since "the science behind GMOs is great and should be supported", do you switch slogans from "Heirloom Good, GMO Bad" to "Heirloom Good, GMO Better"? And if so, will the anti-GMO mob you've worked up listen, or will they label you traitor and carry on?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Friday November 14 2014, @12:12PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday November 14 2014, @12:12PM (#115862)

      I was friends with a person who was a scientific adviser to greenpeace for a while. Her comment was that they are made up of some rationals who believe in science and irrationals who do not. So you get a bit of both coming out into the lobbying etc.

      Alas, that is just human nature. Large organisations, especially run by hippy types, do not always maintain a common public image.

    • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday November 14 2014, @01:30PM

      by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday November 14 2014, @01:30PM (#115887)

      I never heard anything about Greenpeace opposing to vaccination.

      Where did you get that from?

    • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday November 14 2014, @01:32PM

      by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday November 14 2014, @01:32PM (#115889)

      I'm fundamentally opposed to the private property of genes. That has shit to do with science.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @02:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @02:38PM (#115912)

      That's a lot of uppercase, all-caps and exclamation points. :) The bulk of the opposition I've been engaged in and read about is against the outright evil and murderous business practices of the major players who control the GMO industry, not the science. You cannot separate the GMO industry from its actions. Until those companies are held accountable, I cannot ethically support their industry. Most people I know are against the GMO industry, not the technology.

      • (Score: 2) by Open4D on Friday November 14 2014, @03:36PM

        by Open4D (371) on Friday November 14 2014, @03:36PM (#115923) Journal

        The capital letters and exclamation marks (points) were a fairly good impersonation of the Greenpeace anti-GMO lot. Typical anti-GMO behaviour: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html [slate.com]

        You cannot separate the GMO industry from its actions.

        Well, you can certainly consider individual matters on their own merit. Tell me please about any "murderous business practices" you know of involving Golden Rice [irri.org].

        I consider myself an environmentalist but I would never join any of the anti-science self-aggrandizing bandwagon-jumping scaremongering organizations like Greenpeace.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by emg on Friday November 14 2014, @04:05PM

        by emg (3464) on Friday November 14 2014, @04:05PM (#115930)

        Yes. As we all know, using upper-case and exclamation points is totally beyond the pale in polite discussion, whereas calling your opponents 'outright evil and murderous' is just dandy.

    • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday November 15 2014, @03:04AM

      by deimtee (3272) on Saturday November 15 2014, @03:04AM (#116114) Journal

      I have some objections to GMO's the way they are now. I think they should be labelled, and the label should state the M (modification).
      The main problem is that they lump them all in together:
      - Adding a gene to improve a product (eg vitamin A - golden rice) I think is a good thing. I would eat it, no problem.
      - Adding a gene to improve yield or quality (improving water use, adding the ability to fix nitrogen, making the plant structurally stronger, etc) would be ok.
      - Adding pesticide/herbicide resistance so they can spray more would make me more concerned about the residual levels of it in the product.
      - Adding a gene to produce an insecticide (eg Bt) would make me try to avoid it.

      --
      If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @07:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @07:17PM (#117358)

        I am not anonymous or a coward, but I don't need yet another account. I normally post as Bob A, and I have a Ph.D. in a science related field.

        Your statements re "lumping together" are interesting and a level above some of the other positions here, but does deserve the following observations.
        Regarding the first two points:
        Both of these statements betray a misunderstanding of the process for two reasons:
        (1) One cannot just "add a gene". Multiple genes are affected and various "promoters" and "activators" are required.
        (2) Every DNA sequence produces not one but multiple proteins, and are furthermore influenced by environmental factors (epigenics) Therefore, if you splice a particular sequence in that is intended to cause (a), then you almost by definition affect other pathways resulting in (b), (c) and (d) that are "unintended consequences".
        These product are NOT tested for (b), (c) and (d) so we have no idea - literally no idea - what novel and potentially harmful (allergens, cancer producing, etc.) proteins and related might actually be produced by the modified gene sequence. The FDA many years ago said that GMO's are "substantially equivalent". This was a decision promoted by the head of the FDA who was a former Monsanto employee, and against the advice of many scientists on staff. Nearly all approvals by other regulatory bodies are directly traced back to this assumption of "equivalency" which set a very low bar for safety testing.

        Re: pesticide and herbicide residues - yes you should be concerned. Look up the data on chronic kidney disease, for example, in gyphosate treated areas of Sri Lanka, and correlate with the similar problems now being experienced in Central America (Ecuador). The industry argument is that the substances are (1) non-toxic by standard toxicity tests and (2) biodegrade very quickly. But the toxicity tests are for accute toxicity and very short term. Non-industry sponsored studies have shown that longer term studies turn up extremely serious problems, including the endocrine disruptions noted in a paper by Swanson et al, which in turn references a lot of other research work by highly reputable scientists. The herbicides have been shown to persist in nature for up to 7 years and are now found in drinking water, sea water, and in the placental cords of new-born infants.

        Re BT toxin. Insecticide that doesn't wash off is a very bad idea at best. Of course the industry again claims that BT toxin affects only the corn-borer. That assertion is fundamentally ludicrous. Again, animal feeding studies have identified severe disruption and inflamation in the bowels of animals fed BT-toxin GMOs that actually go away when the animals are switched to alternate non-GMO feed. The belief that these toxins are harmless to humans, animals, and other including beneficial insects seems very ill advised.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @02:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @02:17PM (#115899)

    "Opposition to GM, and the benefits it can bring, is a form of madness I don’t understand."

    Most opposition I know of is against the business practices these companies engage in, not the technology. It is scary to think either the previous CSA did not know the basic history behind the companies who engage in GMOs, and/or is immoral enough to excuse their behavior. It is not madness to oppose the companies behind modern GMOs. The overwhelming bulk of companies who produce modern GMOs have engaged in murder, slave labor, and/or other atrocities that should be inexcusable in any civilization. I have no problem with GMOs, however I have an absolute problem with the bulk of the companies that are behind them, and the practices they have engaged in, and continue to engage in unabated. To think the previous CSA calls me mad for opposing the modern GMO movement until ethical practices are required and enforced makes me believe she does not understand what "madness" really is. It is madness not to oppose these practices.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday November 14 2014, @04:56PM

      by Bot (3902) on Friday November 14 2014, @04:56PM (#115950) Journal

      First GMO is not a product, Vaccine is not a product, Organic is not a product, guess what, what kills you or saves you, instead, are products, instances. So any general opinion against or pro GMO is braindead retarded.

      Of course I don't trust GMO because they are product of multinational corporations, and their track record as far as products go is terrible. Planned obsolescence, waste and dangerous materials recycled, faulty car parts shipped until courts decree otherwise, etc. Take your field of expertise, for example software. Now think that all the crap happening with software is likely happening in all other kind of consumer goods. It's the same system, the same values, often the same people, why shouldn't they pull the same tricks?
      Yes, the farmer down the road can pull tricks all the same. He risks a lot more because he is not anonymous nor shielded by powerful legal teams.

      Finally as a citizen, I want to eat whatever I want, if it is biodynamic salad sprouts picked up at midnight by south african redhead virgins, you allow producers to farm those and label those or go home. If I want to avoid GMO whoever prevents me to do that is just as nazi as the original ones.

      Of course I eat whatever I want if I pay the right price for it, If we paid the right price for stuff, taking into account the long term environmental impact, we'd live in a very different society anyway.

      --
      Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @02:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @02:27PM (#115903)

    Dow, Bayer, the list goes on of GMO companies who have a conflict of interest in producing healthy, safe foods, but also deadly, chemical weapons. The list of murders these companies have engaged in is long (Bhopal, Germany, etc..), and they should be out of business and many executives behind bars. However they continue to make record profits. The fact the previous CSA thinks it is madness to oppose these companies is sick. You cannot separate the modern GMO industry from these companies: they ARE the industry. Until that changes, the industry must be opposed.

    The position should be retained, as an objective scientist is needed to provide guidance to the EU. However when the person in that position calls people mad for opposing the blatant, evil acts by this industry, it shows a level of hyperbole that only hurts the conversation in the best light, and outright immorality in the worst light.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday November 14 2014, @02:56PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 14 2014, @02:56PM (#115919) Journal

      the list goes on of GMO companies who have a conflict of interest in producing healthy, safe foods, but also deadly, chemical weapons.

      Explain this "conflict of interest". Are you seriously claiming that these companies, because they make toxic compounds (your "deadly, chemical weapons") have incentive to put those toxic compounds in their products for human consumption? Where's the business model here? "We'll poison all our customers and make millions while simultaneously completely destroying a company worth billions and putting ourselves in jail!"

      The fact the previous CSA thinks it is madness to oppose these companies is sick. You cannot separate the modern GMO industry from these companies: they ARE the industry. Until that changes, the industry must be opposed.

      Sure, you can. Government regulation and lawsuits do that handily. For example, you aren't allowed to use your pesticide manufacturing equipment for food or pharmaceutical production. It's just not that hard to separate these industries. It's not "sick", it just works.

      The position should be retained, as an objective scientist is needed to provide guidance to the EU. However when the person in that position calls people mad for opposing the blatant, evil acts by this industry, it shows a level of hyperbole that only hurts the conversation in the best light, and outright immorality in the worst light.

      Unless, of course, that isn't what actually is happening. I see no indication that the scientist in question wasn't being objective. Objective doesn't mean they have to coddle anti-science viewpoints. My view on this that we should actually wait til there is a problem not tar the entire industry on a frivolous basis. The anti-GMO people are striking back at a government official for getting called on their hysterical bullshit by attempting to eliminate the position.

      Even with something like GMO, you have to base your concerns on what actually happens and the actual risks of GMO products not some unprovable, sci fi scenario or an assertion that companies can't operate in multiple businesses and still do GMO well.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by emg on Friday November 14 2014, @04:08PM

        by emg (3464) on Friday November 14 2014, @04:08PM (#115932)

        The problem appears to be that the scientist was being objective, and that's incompatible with 'Green' politics.

      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday November 17 2014, @01:56PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Monday November 17 2014, @01:56PM (#116716) Journal

        Explain this "conflict of interest". Are you seriously claiming that these companies, because they make toxic compounds (your "deadly, chemical weapons") have incentive to put those toxic compounds in their products for human consumption? Where's the business model here? "We'll poison all our customers and make millions while simultaneously completely destroying a company worth billions and putting ourselves in jail!"

        It's a proven fact that Monsanto HAS poisoned their customers in the past. So the implication you are making is...what? That it WAS good for business? The company still exists. The executives never went to jail.

        You know what Monsanto told our troops in Vetnam about Agent Orange? That it was perfectly safe. That they'd need nothing more than a raincoat. Turns out, they either lied or they didn't study it well enough. Hardly a large leap to think they might not study their new pesticides well enough either. Monsanto has a rather long history of releasing products they claim are safe and discovering them to be highly toxic several years or decades later. Also keep in mind that many of the GMOs Monsanto is currently producing are *intended to be toxic*. Many are also based on that same old research too -- for example, they're making GMOs that produce components of Agent Orange.

        Your expectation that this company won't make the same mistake for the tenth time is....rather interesting logic. They're probably not malicious, but it's pretty difficult to argue that they aren't at least incompetent.

        Spray the wrong chemicals over the battlefield, you've got a few hundred or thousand cancer cases to deal with. Pile the wrong chemical into the global food supply and things could get a hell of a lot worse. You really want companies like Monsanto, who have proven themselves to be so completely irresponsible, to be in charge of that?

        Also worth mentioning that there has now been more than one instance in the US where unapproved, unregulated, experimental GMO crops have escaped labs and entered into the food supply. It doesn't even matter how thoroughly (or not) they test the stuff if it's getting out before being fully tested...

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 17 2014, @02:56PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 17 2014, @02:56PM (#116734) Journal

          It's a proven fact that Monsanto HAS poisoned their customers in the past.

          I googled for "Monsanto poisoned" and got a bunch of hits. None were Monsanto poisoning their customers via food products. Second, in a bunch of these cases, the problem was lack of enforcement of regulation. For example, there's an [google.com]Argentinian lawsuit [rt.com] which alleges that Monsanto "asked" a bunch of farmers (the customers) to use certain herbicides without discussing procedures and equipment for safely handling and using these chemicals. It gets labeled as "Monsanto poisons farmers", but the reality is that the farmers didn't take proper precautions. Ultimately, it's their responsibility.

          You know what Monsanto told our troops in Vetnam about Agent Orange?

          Irrelevant for two reasons. First, it's not food handling. Second, that was a vastly different and almost nonexistent regulatory environment.

          Also keep in mind that many of the GMOs Monsanto is currently producing are *intended to be toxic*.

          So what? How is that GMO product going to end up on your plate? Again, I don't see the concern and I think it's quite dishonest to claim someone like Monsanto is going to poison people in today's regulatory environment just because they were doing such things in a environment with almost no regulation. I think the solution here is to regulate the industry, not remove advisory positions that say things you don't like to hear.

          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday November 17 2014, @04:39PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Monday November 17 2014, @04:39PM (#116801) Journal

            I googled for "Monsanto poisoned" and got a bunch of hits. None were Monsanto poisoning their customers via food products.

            So spraying toxic gasses over people is OK, as long as it's not in a food product? The point is, they've been lax on safety in the past, and we have no reason to believe they won't do the same in the future. In fact, we already have ample evidence that they're still lax on safety, which I'll get to in a minute...

            Irrelevant for two reasons. First, it's not food handling. Second, that was a vastly different and almost nonexistent regulatory environment.

            Are you in the US or elsewhere? Because in the US, safety testing of GM strains by the FDA is entirely voluntary. The massive lack of regulation is the only reason I have any concern about these things.

            The FDA has explicitly stated: "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety."

            Monsanto, on the other hand, has said: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."

            So, we have Monsanto saying the FDA should test it, while the FDA says Monsanto should test it. So who is testing it? Who is regulating it?

            And as I mention, we've had experimental strains escape the lab and enter the food supply on more than one occasion. So even if they *were* testing it, we might be eating the stuff for years before those test results come back. And then what? If you find out some experimental wheat that's been freely pollinating farms across three states turns out to be toxic, how do you contain it?

            So what? How is that GMO product going to end up on your plate?

            You are asking how a food product intended for human consumption is going to end up on my plate? Where else would it end up? Monsanto produces bt corn for example that is engineered to produce toxic chemicals. This corn is intended for human consumption. They might be right and the toxins might have no effect on humans. Or they might be wrong, and in ten years everyone eating the stuff is going to have cancer. Given that nobody is willing to take responsibility for testing this stuff, how can we possibly know?

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:13AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:13AM (#117100) Journal

              So spraying toxic gasses over people is OK, as long as it's not in a food product?

              The argument was that we shouldn't have businesses which have as part of their businesses, businesses which handle food products or kitchen machines and businesses which have toxic compounds because somehow they're going to mix the two.

              • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:29PM

                by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:29PM (#117217) Journal

                No, you're missing my point entirely to make it seem like I'm spouting nonsense.

                Of course there will be food and toxins produced by the same company; probably even mixed. Everything is toxic at the right dosage. Potassium Chloride is used for lethal injections...and also sometimes table salt. That's all fine.

                The problem is not that Monsanto produces toxins. The problem is that Monsanto, through their own negligence, poisoned and killed their customers. Combine that with the fact that they've released public statements claiming they have absolutely no responsibility to ensure the products they are selling are safe. They've publicly stated that their sole goal is to sell as much food as possible, as quickly as possible, with zero concern for if that food is actually safe for human consumption. You really don't understand why I would hesitate to do business with such a company? You really don't understand why I'm worried about a company that poisoned customers in the past, and won't even say they're *trying* to make sure they don't do it again???

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:08PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:08PM (#117302) Journal
                  You originally wrote:

                  the list goes on of GMO companies who have a conflict of interest in producing healthy, safe foods, but also deadly, chemical weapons.

                  and

                  The fact the previous CSA thinks it is madness to oppose these companies is sick. You cannot separate the modern GMO industry from these companies: they ARE the industry. Until that changes, the industry must be opposed.

                  You wrote what you wrote. If that seems like "spouting nonsense" to you, then maybe you should think more about what you write in the future.

                  As to your worry about such companies, that's what enforced regulation and liability laws are for. I see no reason to expect behavior which occurred under far more lenient regulatory systems and with considerable ignorance of the consequences to continue under today's far more stringent regulatory environment.

                  The problem is that Monsanto, through their own negligence, poisoned and killed their customers.

                  Note that most of the examples quoted so far aren't due to Monsanto's negligence, but rather the negligence of their customers such as the Vietnam War era Agent Orange case or the Argentina farmers case. There was a case where a town in the US became considerably polluted by dioxins due to Monsanto's actions, but those actions happened in 1940-1970 in a far more lenient regulatory environment.

                  You really don't understand why I'm worried about a company that poisoned customers in the past, and won't even say they're *trying* to make sure they don't do it again???

                  I think I quite understand. But I think you have better things to do with your time.

                  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:49PM

                    by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:49PM (#117350) Journal

                    You originally wrote:

                    the list goes on of GMO companies who have a conflict of interest in producing healthy, safe foods, but also deadly, chemical weapons.

                    and

                    The fact the previous CSA thinks it is madness to oppose these companies is sick. You cannot separate the modern GMO industry from these companies: they ARE the industry. Until that changes, the industry must be opposed.

                    You wrote what you wrote. If that seems like "spouting nonsense" to you, then maybe you should think more about what you write in the future.

                    Ah alright, I see why you're confused. But I never wrote either of those statements. You're quoting somebody else.

                    Why do you say Monsanto isn't responsible for the effects of Agent Orange? Perhaps if the military used it in violation to how Monsanto advised, but I've never heard anyone claim that to be the case. Otherwise there's no case for Monsanto here. In absolutely every industry, it IS the company's responsibility to ensure the products they sell are safe. That's why auto manufacturers do recalls -- because if their product isn't safe, they can get sued. That's why McDonald's lost that stupid lawsuit about the coffee being too hot. That's why even a bic lighter comes with a half dozen warnings. If you are injured using a product as advertised, the company is absolutely responsible for producing an unsafe product.

                    But hey, on the other hand, I'm not *entirely* opposed to taking responsibility for it myself. I think it's far from an idea solution -- that's why we have the FDA in the first place, every single person can't personally research every single product -- but that's a reasonable compromise. But the federal government says *I don't have that right*. I can't make an informed decision about this stuff if I'm not allowed to have any information. If they don't label GMOs, I can't know if I'm eating GMOs. If they won't let us make our own decisions about it, they should be damned sure this stuff is safe before they start adding it to all our food products.

  • (Score: 2) by Open4D on Friday November 14 2014, @06:01PM

    by Open4D (371) on Friday November 14 2014, @06:01PM (#115975) Journal

    Among others this included one from Sense About Science

    They also got a similar article into the New Scientist [newscientist.com].