Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Go GMOs! Farmaceuticals Coming!

Julie Kelly writes in WSJ:
Despite what you may hear from the culinary elite, genetic engineering is winning the day and gradually overcoming their “Frankenfood” fear-mongering. A flurry of good news this year ought to convince the public, more than ever, of the safety and the tremendous promise of this technology.

On Dec. 8 the Food and Drug Administration approved a new chicken that has been genetically modified to treat a rare and potentially fatal disorder called lysosomal acid lipase deficiency. The chicken, which won’t be available as meat, produces eggs with an enzyme that replaces a faulty human enzyme, addressing the underlying cause of the disease. Add it to the small but growing class of “farmaceuticals,” including drugs made by transgenic goats and rabbits.
The idea that all GMO food is bad or dangerous is absurd.

Remember, humans are basically in the wild genetically modified amoeba (or something like that).



More here: Libertarianism and GMOs.


  1. Sooo... according to the War Street Journal, the FDA approved a Franken-chicken that won't be "available" to be eaten for meat (boy, that doesn't raise ANY red flags at all, no siree) but will lay eggs that, when eaten, replace "faulty" human enzymes in order to cure disease. Thus, at least some GMOs are "good" and "safe." Glad to know all that unpleasant "fear mongering" stuff about GMOs has been cleared up! /s

    Has Amazon put some "stipulations" in your advertising contract?

  2. Phew! And here I was worried about the unintended consequences of splicing genes that interact with each other in ways we still don't understand. But it's okay because RW and the FDA says it is.

  3. While I'm not rabidly against GMOs, the comparison between GMOs and "wild genetically modified amoeba" is, in itself, absurd.

    The "wild genetically modified amoeba" has experienced millions of years and hundreds of sextillion deaths to achieve that genetic modification. Genes created through "central planning" have no such filter.

    Any genetic modification that can create beneficial "farmaceuticals" can also create damaging effects since almost all drugs have side-effects for at least some percentage of the individuals that take the drugs.

    I'm not against GMOs, but I'm also not naive to possible dangers. Regardless of the potential danger, I don't want government to ban or promote GMOs (and you can be assured that government are trying to develop GMO weapons).

    1. Be aware that the biggest battle being fought is over LABELING, not whether GMOs are, or should be, approved for use.

      Companies that produce GMOs do not want to have to label that their products contain GMOs due to the fear that the public won't buy them. They have even gone so far as to push legislation that would forbid non-GMO products from being able to be labeled as 'NON-GMO'.

      "Big GMOs" argument is basically that their business should not be held hostage to the public's 'stupidity' in not realizing just how awesomely awesome their awesome products are.

      GMO products should have to be labeled as such, so that I may be able to make my own decision as to what I want to feed my family. How I make that decision is up to me. It may be smart, it may be not so smart, but it is MY decision to make.

      I really don't see why they are so worried. Boobus Americanus would willingly eat a piece of sh1t, as long as it had enough salt and sugar in it, and was cheap enough. I mean...look at what they eat now...

      For those who don't think that HOW food is produced matters, consider this...

      Farmed salmon and wild salmon are the same genetically, but farmed salmon is fed a diet of grain (primarily GMO grain, btw). Interestingly, this affects the color of the salmon, turning it grey. Since people won't generally eat a grey salmon (thinking there might be something wrong with it...hmmm), they add pink color to it. Don't believe me, just look at a package of farmed salmon. It will have 'color added' on it.

      But they are just the same, right???? I'm sure that there is lobbying going on right now to remove the requirement of adding that 'color added' label. Just 'confuses' us stupid Americans, right.

      I wonder if Bob thinks that accurate labeling should be required? Or at least not making is a crime to accurately label one's product as 'non-GMO'.

  4. The idea that FDA "approval" means something is safe is absurd.

  5. GMO foods have saved millions of lives in 3rd-world countries.

    1. :
      … the [green] revolution’s main success, its increase in agricultural yields, has been oversold. Yield growth across India actually slowed after the introduction of agribusiness. The environmental destruction is even more devastating. An overview in the December 2000 edition of Current Science notes: “The gree n revolution has not only increased productivity, but it has also [produced] several negative ecological consequences such as depletion of lands, decline in soil fertility, soil salinization, soil erosion, deterioration of environment, health hazards, poor sustainability of agricultural lands and degradation of biodiversity. Indiscriminate use of pesticides, irrigation and imbalanced fertilization has threatened sustainability.”

  6. How can you support GMOs knowing the revolving door of the FDA bureaucrats and big pharma/monsanto inc.? There is absolutely no mechanism for protection of property rights involved. I can be harmed by their products and not only can I not avoid it, it may even be forced on me (nurses forced to take flu shot).

    I try my best to buy organic but not because I believe all GMOs are bad but because I believe these companies control the FDA and the FDA is the most corrupt part of our govt...the revolving door rewards for FDA workers is proof of that. The FDA is a rubber stamp that has come to define the term "conflict of interest" in the modern era. If you think an organization can be that corrupt and still have any credibility as to what is or is not safe...well that is sad. Sad coming from someone who should know better.

    Why can't we have labels? Why?

  7. Blaming GMOs for the depredations of the FDA is like blaming guns for the mass murder in San Bernardino.

    1. You've got the cart before the horse my friend: I blame the FDA for GMO's not the other way around. Without the FDA rubber stamping the awful studies showing GMO "safety," they would never have been approved by the free market.

    2. That reminds me of an old joke phrase, "I wouldn't lie to you, just ask me I'll tell ya".

      That is the essence of GMO safety studies. Monsanto makes the product, monsanto says it's safe, the FDA takes their word for it and the rubber stamp follows. If you disagree with the FDA(monsanto) studies you are a heretic verging on global warming denier status.

      The inherent ethics and usefulness of GMOs is completely beside the point. The behavior that persists at the FDA surrounding the "science" of GMOs, vaccines, pharma drugs ect...should be enough for any sane person to question turning over our food supply to this cabal of globalists.

  8. A couple of years ago a teenager was getting some press for her anti GMO augments against adults. Search for Rachel Parent.

  9. Whether it is GMO, selectively breeding genetic modification is not inherently bad. But as most that read EPJ are aware and Jesse Traub has pointed out, the intent is not always what we humans get from our manipulations. So what do we do? Trust the FDA? I do not know of organizations, other than the FDA (if they do), that have access to the information on the modifications being done to be able to report to the public. Should we eat only plants and animals that have not been genetically modified by man? Is that possible? How about organic foods? The USDA certification is no guarantee and there is “contamination” of non-GMO crops by nearby GMO crops.

    What we need are free-market solutions. But there is not enough interest in private organizations that rate food (and many other products) because most people are indoctrinated into relying on the government. Most of these indoctrinated know the government does less than a good job but are still not interested enough in alternatives to make free-market solutions viable.

    So back to what do we do? In my opinion the best would be to have good knowledge of your food sources. Preferably knowing your farmers and ranchers. For many this is difficult and limits availability.

    For me, I want zero GMO’s of the slice and splice variety. The confidence I have in my meat supplier is high (pasture raised). I grow some fruits and veggies. Otherwise I am at the mercy of the local grocery store where I buy mostly organic which is probably legitimate but as I said may not be as advertised.

  10. RW is a big libertarian non-interventionist.
    Give me a break. The smart people that can't leave the economy, the environment, the school system, or any number of other things is suddenly going to intervene in our genetics and get it all right.

  11. Y'all should quit bitching. Not all producers would use GMOs, since there would clearly be enough demand for foods without GMOs. At least at first.

  12. GMOs being good or bad is a secondary concern at most. GMOs are not free market, that's the primary problem with them. In order to deal with market rejection (which rational or irrational makes no difference) their makers use government. That is the small group deciding what is good for people as whole even though individually people reject it. It's no different than a great number of things libertarians object to.

    Additionally GMOs have property rights and intellectual property rights issues. The company that creates a GMO crop, animal, etc owns the modification. The trouble is they have no way preventing the modification from spreading on its own, naturally other than using modifications to prevent the organism from reproducing. Lastly many of these modifications are to enable the heavy use of various chemicals. If a person wishes to avoid the chemicals knowing a food is GMO is a helpful clue.

  13. I find the whole topic of GMO interesting and I can see both sides of the argument for/against.

    I'm not familiar enough to know if the FDA runs interference on lawsuits stemming from GMO's they've approved in a similar fashion to the EPA in regard to harm caused by polluting corporations that harm others.

    Regardless, I have property rights concerns similar to a poster above, as an example- when Monsanto genetically altered corn contaminates fields of other growers that are trying to raise non GMO corn via pollination it doesn't seem like there's a ready remedy to the situation under the current legal system.

    I'm not necessarily against the notion of GMO itself, I just want to be able to make choices based on information that isn't fraudulent and of course, like most libertarians I'm all about protecting property rights.

    A mentor of mine in his late 70's pointed out to me over lunch once(and a discussion on GMO) that man has been genetically modifying his food for thousands of years, just not in the manner currently done due to technology.

    Before "GMO", man bred tomatoes, apples, beans & all sorts of other foods to a degree that they aren't currently close to what they were 10,000 years ago- BEFORE the actual current technology came into play.

    I think there's something to be said for nature's inherently self corrective nature when it comes to natural genetic modification/breeding vs the current gene splicing technology, BUT the fact remains that man has been toying with the genes of food for some time PRIOR to this latest round of technological advancement.

    (greetings from Canada tonight)