Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow NPR Got It Wrong on Monsanto's Superweeds (or how NPR gullibly accepts industry apologists)
For much of the 1980s ... scientists in Monsanto's budding agriculture-biotechnology wing struggled mightily to find a gene that would effectively confer Roundup resistance and also allow plants modified with it to grow robustly. After years of near misses and tantalizing failures in the lab, they "discovered that nature had trumped all of their efforts."
Their eureka moment involved a vast Luling, Louisiana, chemical factory where Monsanto manufactured Roundup...
People from the company's cleanup team collected sludge samples ... until the GMO team thought to look there. When they did, they found the gene they were looking for in that glyphosate-laced sludge from Luling a gene that "proved to tolerate Roundup far better than any gene the scientists had created in the laboratory," and didn't interfere with plant growth.
...
All in all, I think Charles is being too generous to Monsanto scientists in uncritically reporting their claims that they were shocked, shocked by the emergence of superweeds. Their explanation reminds me of a famous quote from the writer who could be thought of as industrial agriculture's first prominent critic, The Jungle author Upton Sinclair: "It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding."
Full article: http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/03/monsanto-scientists-superweeds-NPR
Their eureka moment involved a vast Luling, Louisiana, chemical factory where Monsanto manufactured Roundup...
There are glyphosate residues in the ponds, in the mud at the bottom pf the ponds, and in the soil alongside. Those residues exert a steady pressure on the population of microorganisms in the water and the soil, eliminating those that are sensitive to glyphosate and selecting for those that are less vulnerable.
People from the company's cleanup team collected sludge samples ... until the GMO team thought to look there. When they did, they found the gene they were looking for in that glyphosate-laced sludge from Luling a gene that "proved to tolerate Roundup far better than any gene the scientists had created in the laboratory," and didn't interfere with plant growth.
...
All in all, I think Charles is being too generous to Monsanto scientists in uncritically reporting their claims that they were shocked, shocked by the emergence of superweeds. Their explanation reminds me of a famous quote from the writer who could be thought of as industrial agriculture's first prominent critic, The Jungle author Upton Sinclair: "It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding."
Full article: http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/03/monsanto-scientists-superweeds-NPR
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1461 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How NPR Got It Wrong on Monsanto's Superweeds (or how NPR gullibly accepts industry apologists) (Original Post)
salvorhardin
Mar 2012
OP
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)1. gullible or complicit, tough call, fine line
salvorhardin
(9,995 posts)2. Meh. I prefer to be generous.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)3. Truly nothing personal meant here, but
that in a nut shell is why Democrats lose, imo.
The whole bleeding heart part of the liberal, progressive, Democratic POV just causes us to seem weak and motivated by emotions instead of logic.
Generosity instead of suspicion causes any type of counter measures to be deployed way too late.