Bill Nye the Scinece Guy on GMOs

[eridani]

http://www.upworthy.com/bill-nye-takes-on-a-controversial-issue-in-a-way-that-pretty-much-everyone-can-get-on-board-with?c=upw1

I know what you're saying. You're saying, "Look, we've been genetically modifying crops for years. And we're fine. What's the worst that could happen?". All right, try this. Let's say we genetically modify this corn so that when insects eat it, they die. Okay, then the wind blows some of the pollen from that corn over here into these weeds. Well they're really wild flowers, and there are butterflies that rely on these flowers, and they eat some of that pollen. And all the butterflies die. Okay, so there's a whole summer without very many butterflies. Now, these are the rare butterflies that fly at night, so the bats that would normally feed on those butterflies can't get enough to eat for a whole summer. So you don't have nearly as much success at making bat babies, so that next summer, there aren't nearly as many bats around to eat the mosquitoes. Ah! Now, these are the mosquitoes that carry a deadly disease. And they feed on your blood. And they give you that disease, and then we all die. See, that would be bad. Now I admit, I made this up. But are scenarios like this possible? Or is this just alarmist hype?

Now we've been farming for 15,000 years, carefully breeding species at the pace of the seasons. But now, it's possible to introduce a new species into the Earth's ecosystem, never before seen, practically over night.

And what's the hurry? It's not a race. We're the human race. So let's farm responsibly. Let's require labels on our foods. And let's carefully test these foods, case by case. That's the way I see it. And I'll see you next time on The Eyes of Nye.

[ZombieHorde]

1. I enjoyed the video.

I am currently against labeling, since I believe the fear of science hurts people, but I respect the opinion that says labels are good.

[eridani]

2. WTF does labelling have to do with fear of science?

What if people don't want to support fucking sociopathic corporations like Monsanto who make huge profits from suing farmers whose crops are contaminated by their patented material?

[Cha]

4. Really! "fear of science"?! For Crying OUT LOUD@! Gawd!

[ZombieHorde]

7. Anti GMO = anti vaxx = climate change denial.

Yes. Fear of science.

[merrily]

26. Labels provide information, that's all.

[alp227]

121. Like a label on a science textbook warning that evolution may be in doubt?

Any label can make any statement whether grounded in reality or not. Sadly, the anti-GMO complaints are as grounded in reality as claiming that Bigfoot exists.

[HuckleB]

171. +1

[merrily]

182. You know it's not like that at all.

[Scootaloo]

185. Actually, they wouldn't

1) All domestic food is "genetically modified." Whether in a lab over a single generation, or in the field over hundreds of generations, humans are, and have been, modifying the genetics of our food forever. That's the reality of the terminology; if it is not in a wild, untouched state, it has been genetically modified.

2) This being the scientific reality, what happens if measures are passed to require labeling of "genetically modified food"? Well, the big agri-corps will take it to court, first on the basis that it hurts business and therefore restricts trade. If they lose there (they probably won't, but if), then they will demand that the labeling be applied to all "genetically modified food." Which is, of course, every bit of food in th store that isn't harvested in the wild.

3) Information provided to you increases by 0%

And in all honesty, even if the labeling only got applied to the colloquial meaning of 'genetically modified' rather than its actual scientific meaning, even if the companies didn't fight it... what then? What, exactly, would a GMO label tell you? Not much of anything. Amusingly this would even leave some of the more toxic aspects of our agriculture - the hormone / antibiotic regimen of our meat and dairy producers, the over-use of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides in our fiends... all while giving you a false sense of security that doesn't increase your knowledge about anything.

You want to "be safe" from GMO foods? Work to end the ability to patent genes and organisms. it's the only way to move the industry towards more ethical use of the technology.

[merrily]

186. Thank you. I am totally confident that the combined resources of science and the US govt can

produce a label worded so that it yields information, rather than disinformation, if they so choose.

[Scootaloo]

188. Science isn't involved

It would be a compromise between the USDA and the companies in question, an arrangement that, given that the USDA is largely beholden to those companies, results in a favorable outcome from them.

What sort of information would be put on them, do you think? Telling you what genes have been altered? If you buy rice and it has a GMO: crtl and psy altered" do you have a clue what that means? If it told you where hte altered genes came from - say, a gene from the (very poisonous!) daffodil and a bacteria that lives in dirt... would you buy it? What if i told you this is the recipe for golden rice, a GMO cultivar of rice that produces beta-carotene in the grain and does nothing else unusual?

If you saw a package of beef labeled "MSTN: GDF-8 - HGNC:4223 2q32.1" do you have the first clue what you would be purchasing? What if it had a picture on it instead, and the cow looked like this:

"OH MY GOD THEY MADE A MUTANT FREAK COW IN A LAB!!!!"
Nope. That's the belgian blue, born and bred in the field. They have a mutation on the gene MSTN (HGNC ID HGNC:4223, located at 2q32.1 on the chromosone) that inhibits production of the protien myostatin (GDF-8); this protien inhibits muscle growth. No funky lab works here, just good ol' freakshow mutation followed by putting a bull on a cow.

[merrily]

189. Science might be helpful in coming up with wording. If I am mistaken, it's irrelevant to

the point.

Yes, I get that the FDA will, though it is not required to, negotiate wording of a label with the likes of Monsant. However, on its end, the FDA can consult with whomever the FDA thinks would be helpful. Whether that is scientists or farmers or consumers or teachers of Engish composition, that's up to the FDA.

If you saw a package of beef labeled "MSTN: GDF-8 - HGNC:4223 2q32.1" do you have the first clue what you would be purchasing?

Forgive me, but

As I said in my prior post, I am 100% that, in this nation of 350 million souls, and this multi-trillion dollar government of ours, and, for that matter, Monsanto and its ilk, there is capacity to come up with a label that is comprehensible to consumers and informative, if that is the goal. As the cliche goes, "If they could put a male on the moon and create an atomic bomb....."

[Scootaloo]

193. You're operating purely on faith

We live in a world where "natural and artificial flavors" is a legitimate entry on the mandatory list of ingredients for our food, and you expect a GMO label to give you useful information? Quick, without google, tell me everything you know about disodium pyrophosphate.

Plus when you remember that dairy products without rBGH have to label themselves to apologize for the dairy products that do use the hormone...? Where General Mills can claim its cereals are like some magical anti-heart attack talisman?

Labeling ain't gonna solve shit. If your worry is that GMO food may have deleterious side effects, then, again th best bet is to push for legislation banning the patenting of genes and organisms. This removes the profit motive and returns the research to, well, research purposes. Without hte profit motive, there is no 'gold rush" mentality, no urge to modify just to slap a patent down and run to the bank. No patented organisms means a lot fewer farmers in india guzzling pesticide to escape debt from the sed companies, too.

[NuclearDem]

195. I wish I could rec individual posts.

[merrily]

198. No, I am operating out of experience.

Quick, without google, tell me everything you know about disodium pyrophosphate.

Forgive me, but I am not interested in playing that particular game this morning. I may be one of very few, but I do indeed google every ingredient before I add any new item to my supermarket shopping list. I don't anticipate being deprived of google in the near future. Here's the first part of google on that:

Disodium pyrophosphate or sodium acid pyrophosphate is an inorganic compound consisting of sodium cations and pyrophosphate anion. It is a white, water-soluble solid that serves as a buffering and chelating agent, with many applications in the food industry. When crystallised from water, it forms a hexahydrate, but it dehydrates above room temperature. Pyrophosphate is a polyvalent anion with a high affinity for polyvalent cations, e.g. Ca2+.

Disodium pyrophosphate is produced by heating sodium dihydrogen phosphate:

So, what's your point about that?

As an aside good thing you told me science had nothing to do with writing a food label. Looking at the above and the other terms I've googled in the past, I might have thought otherwise.

[Scootaloo]

200. Yup, it's just a leavening agent

Point is, had you not googled that, would you know? No, it'd just be another collection of syllables in the chemical soup of the box of donuts I have handy right here. It would be meaningless, had wikipedia not been there for you. Unless, i suppose, you work with the stuff regularly.

and really, you stand there in the aisle, and google every ingredient on every item you pick up? I'm sure. I'm actually amazed you don't starve to death, you must have amazing thumb-typing speed!

It'll be the same with any GMO labeling. it can give you the information, but that information is largely going to be completely useless to you. Putting it in a useful form would need like, some sort of fold-out pamphlet or something. Which i'm sure you would stand there with a magnifying glass to get every last line of text, but, as we've covered, you're very exceptional.

[merrily]

208. But, my point is, I do google. Always.

and really, you stand there in the aisle, and google every ingredient on every item you pick up?

Nope. My prior post said I google before I add a new item to my supermarket shopping list. That, I do at home. The master list (actually a few) is online. Everything on the master list has been cleared at least once, including by brand. So, if I have four brands of flour on the list, each has been "google cleared" (if necessary) before making it to the master list.

Making the initial master list was an investment of time, but I did that long ago. I have to google only a new item that I never checked out before. Adding a new item or two to it once in blue moon takes very little time.

Because I also try to stay away from ingredients I have to google as much as possible, that, too, cuts down on time. For instance, I'd rather have a plain ole canned chick pea than one that has been made ever so slightly browner via a chemical additive that I would have to google.

It'll be the same with any GMO labeling. it can give you the information, but that information is largely going to be completely useless to you.

Just the opposite. Food labels have been extremely useful to me. Yes, maybe sometimes in conjunction with google, but so what?

And, if i am unusual, so what? People are just as free to ignore label info as I am to scrutinize it.

Besides, that may change. More and more people are getting more and more informed about what they are ingesting.

[NuclearDem]

194. It's not that simple.

This isn't like slapping a cancer warning on cigarette packs. Genetic modification is far too complex, and as Scootaloo said, too widespread to simply have a "Contains GMO" label, and going into any meaningful specifities would be way too far over the layman's head.

And as I've said repeatedly, the completely irrational and illogical wings of the anti-GMO crowd have all-but kneecapped labeling efforts through their continued FUD campaign. I all but despise Monsanto for their business practices, but the people who are speaking the loudest against GMOs are the people who are probably the least qualified to be speaking at all.

[merrily]

196. I never said it was simple. I do, however, aver it's not as impossible as it's being portrayed.

the people who are speaking the loudest against GMOs are the people who are probably the least qualified to be speaking at all.

Sometimes, I wish DU had more emoticons.

[Jim Beard]

205. Its very simple

If the DNA of any ingredient in the product is not within its natural genome, then it is a GMO.

[NuclearDem]

214. No, it's not.

You trying to claim that it is means that you're woefully uninformed on the subject.

[yellowcanine]

212. Someone should put a label on this pigeon.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CIRBn1Vfd2w/TFTB39W5BgI/AAAAAAAAAOE/WY1KqCqECaA/s1600/Jacobin+Pigeon.jpg

[Jim Beard]

209. This statement is whay too broad...

All domestic food is "genetically modified." Whether in a lab over a single generation, or in the field over hundreds of generations, humans are, and have been, modifying the genetics of our food forever. That's the reality of the terminology; if it is not in a wild, untouched state, it has been genetically modified.

The fact that over many generations there has been manipulation is irrelevant compared to the laboratory only use of creating a seed is only recent in the large number of years that there has been selection within its own plant family.

There has only been one animal that has been crossed by man that has different DNA and that animal will not reproduce. It really has to have mans help in crossing.

I doubt if you know what it is but then you can always google it.

[NuclearDem]

219. Given that description, I imagine it would be hard for someone to know what you're talking about.

Every offspring has "different DNA" from its parents to some extent.

I'll go out on a limb and assume you're talking about the geep chimera, and that you're referring to artificial manipulation, since there are plenty of other animals, including sterile ones, that have been produced through selective breeding by humans over the centuries.

[KittyWampus]

33. Your equation is wrong and would be insulting if it weren't so stupid.

Last edited Thu Oct 16, 2014, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

[BillZBubb]

80. Correct!

For someone who claims to believe in science, that "equation" is the opposite.

[Tumbulu]

93. + 1000!

[HuckleB]

144. That equation is quite correct.

Science doesn't care about which fears you chose to believe.

[Jim Beard]

220. Why is it you think your science is the only science.

Which Democrats are you supporting?

[HuckleB]

222. Science is science.

Pseudoscience is not science.

I will be a straight Dem ticket this election.

[sabrina 1]

235. More like Monsanto's science. They spend millions on political donations in this country and

while other developed countries are not buying their deceptions (they are now banned in 30 countries) apparently HERE in the US they are getting what they pay for. In 2008 eg, they donated 42% of their political donations to Dems, but in 2012 that % went up to 48%.

While the rest of the world has held them accountable for, eg, False Advertising, several countries have forced them to pay large sums in compensation, here in the US their well paid 'lobbyists' seem to keep them out of trouble, so far.

Iow, they LIE, have been prosecuted successfully for their lies, in the UK, France I believe and Brazil.

They managed to suppress a bill here that would forced exposure of their GMO food products. So as we all know by now, we have the Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

[pnwmom]

119. Anti-GMO labeling = climate change denial.

That makes lot more sense than your equation.

And anti-vax has nothing to do with either.

[ZombieHorde]

126. All three I listed are contradicted by science.

Additionally, many of the things people have stated about Monsanto in this thread isn't true.

[pnwmom]

175. There is NOTHING about truth in labeling that is contradicted by science.

In fact, science supports accuracy and openness, so science supports truth-in-labeling and not subterfuge.

[ZombieHorde]

226. I didn't list pro-labels, I listed anti-GMOs.

so science supports truth-in-labeling and not subterfuge.

The labels are subterfuge because they make consumers think there is a scientific reason to point out GMOs are present in the food.

[pnwmom]

239. There IS a scientific reason to label GMO's in food.

Without them, as the John's Hopkins scientist points out, it isn't possible to do epidemiological research.

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-consumers-be-worried-about-genetically-modified-food/there-are-plenty-of-reasons-to-worry-about-gmo-food

By Robert Lawrence Professor in Environmental Health Sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

There's much debate about the healthfulness or risk associated with consuming GMO foods, and the long-term health effects are unknown. But even if these foods were perfectly safe to eat—and that's a big "if," because we can't conduct epidemiologic surveillance or long-term population studies without product labeling—there are plenty of good reasons to worry about these foods.

One problem is the dangerous precedent being set, whereby corporations are permitted by the government to sell these foods without labeling them. In effect, consumers are being denied their right to know what they are buying and eating and are thus unable to make informed decisions.

SNIP

[ZombieHorde]

240. The FDA should know what is in the foods,

be able to conduct the needed research. Granted, this is putting a lot of faith in the FDA.

[pnwmom]

242. The FDA relies on industry studies. in the case of drugs, they rely on

both pre and post-market studies. These can be done post-market because drugs are clearly labeled.

But they can't be done on GMO products because they aren't labeled. This is a major issue because problems often come to light only after a drug or other substance is released into the general population. But the GMO producers are preventing any post-market research by opposing the labeling of their products.

[sabrina 1]

127. And just where did you get that not-so-scientific opinion from? Are you seriously supporting

Monsanto, a predatory, criminal Corporation, on this Democratic forum, or did I misread your comment?

[ZombieHorde]

131. The vast majority of studies say GMOs are good.

I don't think Monsanto is saintly, but many of the claims people are making about them in this thread is simply false.

There are a lot of myths surrounding GMOs, just like there are myths surrounding vaccines and climate change.

[sabrina 1]

140. Give us an example of the claims 'people are making' about Monsanto that are false.

Are you aware that over 30 countries now ban Monsanto GMOs and Roundup? Sure here in the US we are as always it seems far behind the rest of the world when it comes to protecting its people from Corporate Crimes, but the world is finally putting a stop to Monsanto's practices, thankfully.

I can't seriously believe any Democrat would be pushing Monsanto's propaganda. I thought this was something that Dems at least were fully educated about.

[ZombieHorde]

148. I have discussed this issue throughout this thread.

Reading the thread would be cool because then I wouldn't have to have the same discussion with each poster within the thread.

[pnwmom]

241. The GMO producers control the research by limiting the seeds, requiring purchasers to sign

contracts on the use of the seeds, and by retaining right of approval over publication of research studies.

If they want people to trust the safety of GMO's, then they need to allow the seeds by be used in research by independent researchers without the producers' approval.

[ZombieHorde]

243. That's a myth.

There have been many independent studies.

[pnwmom]

246. The "independent" researchers can only publish with the permission of the producers.

Maybe you define that as "independent," but most people don't.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”

Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech­nol­ogy.”

SNIP

[ZombieHorde]

249. Scientific American wasn't wrong when that article was published,

but the situation has changed since then. The ban was because anti-GMO folks posted a BS study about GMOs and butterflies that pissed off a lot of people, but the ban has pissed off a bunch more people, so it was lifted. Independent studies are allowed on GMO seeds, and many independent studies have been conducted.

[pnwmom]

250. Doesn't matter. GMO products were released during the years when the ban was in place,

and without labeling epidemiological follow-up studies of those GMO's (and new ones also) cannot be done.

If you believe in science, then you should support epidemiological research by qualified scientists, and for that labeling is necessary.

[eridani]

253. The vast majority say that they are an ecological disaster

Resistant weeds and killing off beneficial pollinators is now a "scientific" good thing?

[ZombieHorde]

259. Most of the ones I have seen didn't concern resistant weeds.

Did you know resistant weeds were being created by farming techniques before modern GMOs?

[eridani]

261. Isn't it wonderful to accelerate that process by 100-fold? n/t

[MH1]

190. No, anti-GMO is more like "Geo-engineering will solve climate change, so no worries".

They both rely on the premise that human technology just can't fuck this world up bad enough to be a real problem, and if we do fuck up, then human technology will save the day.

To equate anti-GMO to climate change denial and anti-vaxx is to demonstrate a stunningly low comprehension of ecology ... yet another failure of our educational system.

Edit to add: actually, climate change is being CAUSED by geo-engineering: the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (among other things) changing the composition of the atmosphere and the acidity of the ocean on a scale that is drastic to a vast number of species that really on them.

[roody]

197. You must know how stupid that is.

I just had a flu shot, and I avoid GMOs. Duh.

[ZombieHorde]

229. I'm not saying people who deny science on one will deny science on the others.

I am saying science denial for one is like the science denial for the others.

[closeupready]

231. lol

[ZombieHorde]

6. That is a myth.

There was a case, about 15 years ago, where Monsanto sued someone for using their product without paying. The farmer said his crop was contaminated, but the amount of crops were considered too high (lowest test was over 50%) for a wind-blown contamination. This one case, which didn't look good for the farmer being sued, is the basis for this myth. Not only does Monsanto not sue over trace amounts of contamination, but they will pay to clean up any contamination.

Monsanto does sue when people use their product without paying, which is understandable, in my opinion.

GMOs are currently people's best hope for ending world hunger. Monsanto is a leader in GMO technology. They are probably motivated only by profit, but their work will save many, many people.

[eridani]

9. There is no advantage to GMO whatsoever as long as it is controlled by corporations

Monsanto is a sociopathic entity, period. Like you, it doesn't give a flying fuck about superweeds or the destruction of beneficial insects. If it's sold for a profit, it fucks over small fry farmers by definition. The only acceptable GMO crops are golden rice and similarly developed products. Golden rice is being developed by a non-profit organization that gives away seeds for free and encourages farmers to save and replant seeds. No for profit proprietary product can do anything about hunger.

[ZombieHorde]

10. Are there any peer-reviewed studies

that demonstrate Monsanto's products kill more beneficial insects than other crops?

Are there any peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate Monsanto's products create superweeds, and demonstrates why superweeds are bad?

[eridani]

21. So many that it's hardd to track them all

Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But farmers sprayed so much Roundup that weeds quickly evolved to survive it. “What we’re talking about here is Darwinian evolution in fast-forward,” Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said.

Now, Roundup-resistant weeds like horseweed and giant ragweed are forcing farmers to go back to more expensive techniques that they had long ago abandoned.

Mr. Anderson, the farmer, is wrestling with a particularly tenacious species of glyphosate-resistant pest called Palmer amaranth, or pigweed, whose resistant form began seriously infesting farms in western Tennessee only last year.

Pigweed can grow three inches a day and reach seven feet or more, choking out crops; it is so sturdy that it can damage harvesting equipment. In an attempt to kill the pest before it becomes that big, Mr. Anderson and his neighbors are plowing their fields and mixing herbicides into the soil.



http://www.panna.org/blog/monsantos-superweeds-superbugs

Last week brought more bad news for Monsanto: the same phenomenon is also occurring in insect pest populations that are developing resistance to transgenic “Bt corn” in the Midwest.The Wall Street Journal recently reported Iowa State University’s findings that the corn rootworm is for the first time proving resistant to the insecticidal toxin, Bt, in transgenic corn in Iowa. Four days later, Business Week reported Bt corn plants in northwestern Illinois toppling over after root damage caused by the same insect, apparently as impervious as its Iowa cousins to the engineered Bt toxin. Likewise, insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops in India (where dramatic crop failures resulted) and South Africa has been reported.

This is a classic case of the pesticide treadmill. A pesticide application (whether sprayed the old-fashioned way or applied through a crop plant engineered to contain that toxin in its cells) typically kills many – but not all – of the targeted pests. Of those that survive, some will pass on their genetic traits of pesticide resistance to their offspring, gradually leading to a more and more resistant population. Farmers get trapped on this treadmill as they are forced to use more — and increasingly toxic — chemicals to control pest populations that continue to develop resistance to each new type or class of pesticides.

<snip>

The worst part about the latest GE fiasco is that it all could have been prevented. As early as 1993, scientists were warning about the inevitable rise of superweeds and superbugs. Ten years later, EPA sought scientific advice on how to manage the likely emergence of insect resistance to Bt crops. The Center for Food Safety’s Bill Freese describes how a majority of the scientists consulted by EPA at the time urged the EPA to require farmers to set aside a refuge of non-GE corn, comprising 50% of the total crop acreage, in order to slow the development of Bt resistance.

But that would have halved Monsanto’s seed sales! So EPA quietly sided instead with the only three dissenting voices in the group, going along with Monsanto’s recommendation for a much smaller 20% refuge.


http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16?years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

[nxylas]

24. Did you know that Monsanto invented Astroturf?

Not sure why I suddenly remembered that fact

[freshwest]

176. Correct! AstroTurf© was invented for a specific purpose, to replace living grass in the Astrodome:

Growing up in 'Space City USA' was interesting. We called the Astrodome 'The Doomed Stadium' for a while there. It had air conditioning and a lot of other innovations. It had some glitches, and one is what led to AstroTurf©:



Artificial turf first gained substantial attention in the 1960s, when it was used in the newly constructed Astrodome. The specific product used was developed by Monsanto and called AstroTurf; this term since then became a colloquialism for any artificial turf throughout the late 20th century.

AstroTurf remains a registered trademark, but is no longer owned by Monsanto. The first generation turf systems (i.e., short-pile fibers without infill) of the 1960s has been largely replaced by the second generation and third generation turf systems. Second generation synthetic turf systems featured sand infills, and third generation systems, which are most widely used today, offer infills that are mixtures of sand and recycled rubber...

Artificial turf first came to prominence in 1966, when AstroTurf was installed in the Astrodome in Houston, Texas. The state-of-the-art indoor stadium had attempted to use natural grass during its initial season in 1965, but this failed miserably and the field conditions were grossly inadequate during the second half of the season, with the dead grass painted green. Due to a limited supply of the new artificial grass, only the infield was installed before the Houston Astros' home opener in April 1966, the outfield was installed in early summer during an extended Astros road trip and first used after the All-Star Break in July. The use of AstroTurf and similar surfaces became widespread in the U.S. and Canada in the early 1970s, installed in both indoor and outdoor stadiums used for baseball and football. Maintaining a grass playing surface indoors, while technically possible, is prohibitively expensive. Teams who chose to play on artificial surfaces outdoors did so because of the reduced maintenance cost, especially in colder climates with urban multi-purpose "cookie cutter" stadiums such as Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium, Pittsburgh's Three Rivers Stadium and Philadelphia's Veterans Stadium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_turf

That was during the era and in an area that really was into science. Before the new Astroturf came into being:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-tea-party_b_4136722.html

I think you remember this because, either, you have a good memory, or the Koch Tea Party refuses to die, but that's because it's plastic!

[ZombieHorde]

57. OK, I've spent much of my morning looking for actual

peer-reviewed studies on this subject. It's kind of a pain in the ass. The term "resistant weed" seems to have greater yields (pun intended) than "super weed." Another difficulty is trying to pick a group of people that would be trusted here on DU. Are the EPA and FDA trusted groups?

One of the questions I really wanted answered was do GMO crops produce more resistant weeds than non GMO crops. I saw one chart that suggested they don't, but there wasn't any sources, so even though it confirmed by bias, I won't insult you by using it.

The EPA has solutions for resistant weeds, but I can't find the answer to my question.

Do you trust the EPA and/or the FDA?

[J_J_]

59. substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied.

This is the part a lot of people don't get.

Why is Monsanto splicing roundup into the crops?

So they can make it roundup ready, so they can dump large quantities of roundup (also good for monsanto profits) all over without harm to the plant.

This is all about Monsanto and Monsanto's profits, not about human health, and it has not been tested.

So we are all eating quite a bit more roundup than we use to, and they think we are the crazy ones to want it labeled?

[HuckleB]

115. What number?

And what is the difference in toxicity? Can you show us with research?

Can you show us what the regulations are regarding organic pesticides?

[merrily]

27. The real issue is not lawsuits but contamination of organic crops.

[ZombieHorde]

40. I'm not sure why that is an issue,

but Monsanto will decontaminate farms free of charge if any of their seeds are blown into other people's fields.

The organic crops are still considered organic if a few gmo seeds blow into the field, so there won't be a loss of money for the organic farmer.

Here is the policy if you would like to review it yourself.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5090396

[merrily]

43. You might tell that to the farmers in Oxaca, Mexico, who got their corn crops contaminated after

centuries of organic growing.

Besides, sorry, I know how corporations operate. That may be their policy on paper, but, when a claim is made, you bet they will do their best to ignore it. And I have read more than I ever would have wanted to about how crappy Monsanto is, including the lawsuit at the SCOTUS where Monsanta failed to comply with EPA regulations. Why would it comply with its own policy more than with EPA regulations?

Monsanto won that suit despite the EPA violations because the FDA and the Solicitor General supported it.

I have a right to know what I am putting into my body and organic farmers also have a right to grow organic crops without worrying if they are contaminated or not.

I don't know what interest you have in defending Monsanto, but I don't think many at DU are going to agree with it.

But, since this thread is about labeling, I will stick to that. As I said in another post, withholding information is almost never the correct answer.

[ZombieHorde]

45. The thread is about the video, which covered several GMO issues.

I just mentioned that I disagreed with the Nye's opinion on labels.

I have a right to know what I am putting into my body and organic farmers also have a right to grow organic crops without worrying if they are contaminated or not.

I respect your opinion.

I don't know what interest you have in defending Monsanto, but I don't think many at DU are going to agree with it.

I like to argue, and Monsanto's unpopularity coupled with many scientific studies makes it a fun subject for me. I don't disagree with the majority of DUers on many subjects, but this is one of them. That is my interest in defending Monsanto.

[merrily]

48. Okay, not this thread, but this subthread.

I stand by everything else in my earlier replies.

[bvar22]

65. This guy believed that we have the right to know what we are eating:

&feature=player_embedded

[ZombieHorde]

66. Do you think he still believes that? nt

[bvar22]

68. At the time, I believed it,....

...you know, all that "Hope & Change" BS.
Sure sounded good.

After his election, he immediately appointed Tom (Mr Monsanto) Harkin to head the US Dept of Agriculture,
and later, Micheal Taylor to be the Food Czar over at the FDA.



You will know them by their works,
not their promises or excuses.

[ZombieHorde]

69. I believed many of the things he said before his election.

In retrospect, I have no idea why I would believe any politician.

[HuckleB]

90. It's not.

All crops contaminate other crops. It's one of the strangest, most dishonest anti-GMO rants around.

[Tumbulu]

95. Oh no they do not, I am a seed breeder

and there are industry/county/ state wide protocols in place to protect seed integrity from contamination with other varieties of the same species.

Each crop has it's own rules and regulations and one does not produce certified or foundation seed without following the rules and paying for multiple inspections and equipment clean out. What was not put into place was a system of protecting non gmo seeds from genetic contamination from the gmo crops of the same species. These protocols can be put into practice and indeed should have been codified in the early '90's when these crops began to be commercialized.

[HuckleB]

96. Yes, they do.

If you are truly a seed breeder, you would know the reality of the matter.

Please don't play games. I way too old for that nonsense. There is nothing about GMOs that make them any more likely to share genes with other plants than any other plants are likely to do so. They all do it. Always have, and always will.

http://www.biofortified.org/2011/08/genetic-contamination-may-not-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

Now, can you please be honest? Thank you.

[Tumbulu]

111. I suggest that you stick to subjects that you have some knowledge of

and leave seed matters to people who now about them.

This is clearly not your field.

[HuckleB]

160. Is that why you can't support your claims?

That's very strange, indeed.

[Tumbulu]

94. Oh yeah? Do you work for Monsanto?

I know a number of organic farmers who had had to stop growing their seed crops because they will most definitely be contaminated and then they will lose their market- we must prove that our seeds are not contaminated to be sold as organic.

Monsanto has never offered to compensate anyone that I know.

You better believe that the organic seed breeders and seed producers are totally upset and worried.

[HuckleB]

97. Can you link us to the peer reviewed studies that prove your assertions?

Until you can, please stop making them. Thank you.

http://www.biofortified.org/2011/08/genetic-contamination-may-not-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

[Tumbulu]

106. If I am selling seed that is contaminated

and my customer plants it, harvests it and the buyer tests it and rejects the shipment due to contamination, who would ever buy seeds from me again? You don't think everyone would hear about it?

These policy papers are simply papers. And say that certification will not be revoked. But who cares about certification if the buyer rejects the shipment?

The buyers of the organic products test for contamination and reject the crops if they are. Period, It is nice what the certifiers say, but it is critical what the buyers pay for. Most won't buy it if it is contaminated.

And then the farmer sues the seed producer and there you are, out of business. And so no one in the seed business will risk planting a seed crop anywhere near a gmo crop that is wind pollinated. Or is self pollinated, they need to have their own processing equipment. These are all major barriers to business.

[HuckleB]

108. So you can't support your previous assertions.

Got it.

[Tumbulu]

114. No you obviously know nothing about my industry

I suggest that you stop.

[HuckleB]

132. Oddly, I've supported my assertions while you have not.

I don't think you know much about "your" industry.

[Lost In America]

120. So you can't prove your assertions that GMO doesn't contaminate other crops.

Duly noted.

[HuckleB]

133. All crops "contaminate" other crops.

Do you want to stop farming altogether?

What's your point?

[ZombieHorde]

101. That is not USDA policy, so I don't know what's going on with the farmers you know.

Here is the policy: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5090396

[Tumbulu]

109. It is a business policy

explained in the post above.

One does not need a peer reviewed study to see how many truckloads of organic crops have been rejected by buyers. It is a nightmare for growers and seed producers.

[HuckleB]

110. He's made the same claims repeatedly.

To date, he has not been able to support his claims with viable evidence.

[ZombieHorde]

113. Yeah. It's clearly not USDA policy.

I'm not sure what that poster is talking about.

[Tumbulu]

117. The USDA does not purchase the crops.

Customers do, and they test for gmo contamination.

It is not possible to be an organic seed producer and produce non contaminated seeds in many parts of the US anymore. We have to pick our locations very carefully and be vigilant about any gmo crops being grown anywhere near our seed locations.

We have to test our seeds regularly. it is our business practice, not a certification issue. But unless we can prove that our seeds are not contaminated, people will not buy them. Thye cannot take those sorts of risks.

[HuckleB]

136. Well, he's not talking about basic facts of plant genetics, that's for sure.

[Jim Beard]

146. No, no no

I am involved in organics and am fed up with you attitude. Your link no where does it say even %5 of GMO's are allowed. Try selling grains to the Japanese with a 5% GMO count. The phone conversation doesn't end with a goodbye. Same for the Germans.

Do you even read your links?

[belzabubba333]

36. good intentions pave the way to ... a what's that place again?

[ZombieHorde]

41. Definitely.

I hope these studies continue to make sure we have some idea of what we are doing.

[nationalize the fed]

105. "GMOs are currently people's best hope for ending world hunger."

Quick. Tell China. With many more people than the US

China pulls plug on genetically modified rice and corn

Now you're probably saying this is from a bunk site. Look at the source.

China’s Ministry of Agriculture has decided not to renew biosafety certificates that allowed research groups to grow genetically modified (GM) rice and corn. The permits, to grow two varieties of GM rice and one transgenic corn strain, expired on 17 August. The reasoning behind the move is not clear, and it has raised questions about the future of related research in China...

...China has nearly reached self-sufficiency in producing rice using conventional varieties, so the ministry has decided there is no need to commercialize Bt rice in the near future, says Huang Jikun, director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy. He says that with commercialization off the table, there was no point in renewing the certifications. Huang says "rising public concerns [about the] safety of GM rice" likely also played a role...

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/08/china-pulls-plug-genetically-modified-rice-and-corn

GMO? Just Say No Way!

Thanks for reminding me to re-distribute this SCIENCEMAG article about China saying NO to GMO. F*CK Frankenfood. Hard.

[sabrina 1]

137. Wow. I cannot believe I am reading this nonsense right here on DU. I have read it years ago

on right wing sites, 'GMOs are currently people's best hope for ending world hunger'. Unbelievable. You don't know much about this issue, do you?

What this giant Corporation, Monsanto has done is to CAUSE hunger by preventing the world's farmers from doing what they had done for centuries, FEED THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES. They are the cause of starvation, the cause of farmers, see India eg, committing suicide at huge rates because they have had their self sustaining livlihoods stolen from them by the Monsters at Monsanto.

Oh yes, they spread that propaganda to the uninformed, 'we are feeding the world', but I have never known an informed Democrat who feel that criminal lie.

I see it's necessary for DU to update the information on what Monsanto REALLY does and the lies and deadly practices they are known for.

[HuckleB]

142. Do you believe that GMOs have no place in the solution to world hunger?

Most people are not going to say they are the key, or the sole way to get there, but...

[sabrina 1]

150. I'll go with the experts and the growing rejection worldwide of Corporations like Monsanto who were

on their way to controlling the world's food source, a very dangerous thing. 30 Countries as of recently now BAN GMOs and Monsanto's products.

In what countries have GMOs helped end hunger? We know they have put millions of small farmers out of business, causing starvation in many places by getting laws passed by corrupt governments that take away those farmers' rights to own their own products.

[HuckleB]

153. First, Monsanto is one of several big companies in the business.

Despite the anti-GMO demonization, it's not the grand poobah they present it to be.

Now, can you answer the question.

Thank yoiu.

[sabrina 1]

169. Your opinion is becoming more and more the minority opinion, thankfully, after decades of

lying, deception, and secrecy, country after country is now banning them from operating and controlling their agricultural production. I am thrilled at the progress that has been made over the past few years to stop this giant, criminal corporation from continuing its damaging practices, and I'm being kind here, around the world.

[HuckleB]

170. Yes, at DU, my opinion is losing sway.

However, the reality is that the anti-GMO movement is completely based on lies and deception. It is aimed at increasing profits for "organic" companies. One of them, Whole Foods, is as big as Monsanto.

It's a strange thing to see so many good people conned by such obvious deceit. And that hardest part is that it's the poorest among us who will suffer the most from the anti-GMO propaganda.

Please don't pretend otherwise. You will learn the reality, eventually. Alas...

[sabrina 1]

173. If only. Monsanto was voted the 'most evil corporation' recently by 51% of respondents in a poll

which included such despised Corporations as BP. BP received only 20% for most evil.

So no, not just on DU by a long shot. When Whole Foods begins producing poisonous chemicals and distributing them GLOBALLY over DECADES, then I'll worry about them as much as I worry about Monsanto.

You really should not be defending that evil Corporation especially here where people tend to do their homework.

I am hoping to see them banned in even MORE countries over the coming years. It took a long time, decades more than it should have but better late than never.

[HuckleB]

201. LOL!!!!!!

You know that's a meaningless poll.

[sabrina 1]

232. Banned from 30 countries. The poll simply reflects the Global opinion of this evil Corporation.

[eridani]

255. GMOs developed by NON-PROFIT entities like golden rice certainly do

Monsanto is in the business of poison for profit, an entirely different matter.

[ZombieHorde]

147. Are there any studies about the events in India? nt

[sabrina 1]

172. Here are a few links regarding the tragedy of Indian Farmers.

The Seeds of Suicide How Monsanto Destroys Farming

This is a desperate attempt by Monsanto and its PR machinery to delink the epidemic of farmers’ suicides in India from the company’s growing control over cotton seed supply — 95 per cent of India’s cotton seed is now controlled by Monsanto.

Control over seed is the first link in the food chain because seed is the source of life. When a corporation controls seed, it controls life, especially the life of farmers.

Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the world is very worrying. This is what connects farmers’ suicides in India to Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty.

Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our planet, collecting rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original breeders.

Patents on seed are illegitimate because putting a toxic gene into a plant cell is not “creating” or “inventing” a plant. These are seeds of deception — the deception that Monsanto is the creator of seeds and life; the deception that while Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in debt, it pretends to be working for farmers’ welfare, and the deception that GMOs feed the world. GMOs are failing to control pests and weeds, and have instead led to the emergence of superpests and superweeds.

These are a few of the countries that now ban Monsanto AUSTRIA, BULGARIA, GERMANY, GREECE, HUNGARY, IRELAND, JAPAN, LUXEMBOURG, MADEIRA, NEW ZEALAND, PERU, SOUTH AUSTRALIA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, AND SWITZERLAND! A total of 30 so far have joined the growing bans on Monsanto and its GMOs and pesticides.

Monsanto Rural Debt and the Suicide Epidemic in IndiaMonsanto Rural Debt and the Suicide Epidemic in India]

The website of US-based biotech giant Monsanto boasts that the corporation qualifies as "a sustainable agriculture company."

Given Monsanto's legacy as a producer of the lethal defoliant Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, Southeast Asian agriculture would presumably beg to differ with this characterization.

Sustainability is also not the first word that comes to mind when contemplating Monsanto's policy of sowing the earth with genetically modified seeds that destroy soil and are designed with nonrenewable traits so as to require constant repurchase as well as acquisition of a variety of other company products like fertilizers and pesticides.

Nor would the term appear to define a situation in which nearly 300,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide since 1995 after being driven into insurmountable debt by neoliberal economics and the conquest of Indian farmland by Monsanto's Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton.

In tragic irony, many kill themselves by imbibing pesticides intended for their crops.

[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vandana-shiva/from-seeds-of-suicide-to_b_192419.html|

In 1998, the World Bank's structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds, which need fertilizers and pesticides and cannot be saved.

Corporations prevent seed savings through patents and by engineering seeds with non-renewable traits. As a result, poor peasants have to buy new seeds for every planting season and what was traditionally a free resource, available by putting aside a small portion of the crop, becomes a commodity. This new expense increases poverty and leads to indebtness.

The shift from saved seed to corporate monopoly of the seed supply also represents a shift from biodiversity to monoculture in agriculture. The district of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh used to grow diverse legumes, millets, and oilseeds. Now the imposition of cotton monocultures has led to the loss of the wealth of farmer's breeding and nature's evolution.

Of course Monsanto has denied any of this, and our media either tries to debunk the facts about the destruction of not just India's farmers but many other parts of the world, or cover them up.

There is an excellent documentary about all of this which I will post when I have more time to find it. Bush Sr. appears in it in a segment demonstrating Monsanto's promotional efforts, he was VP at the time.

Sorry to be so angry, but this truly is something I never thought we would have to redo on any Democratic website. I guess you have to keep on repeating thing or the Corporations will take advantage of our not doing so. And they spend millions to overcome the exposure of their practices.

[ZombieHorde]

233. Thanks for the links.

Unfortunately, there seems to be contradictory stories about the cause of the suicides. I need to find some actual sociological studies on the subject to make an informed opinion.

[HuckleB]

215. They're not because of GMOs.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-hard-look-at-3-myths-about-genetically-modified-crops/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/05/gmcrops-india

http://io9.com/the-gmo-mass-suicides-are-a-myth-1565342067

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gmo-and-indian-farmer-suicide/

[ZombieHorde]

234. The Scientific American article is interesting.

I like that it links to an actual study. That will give me something to chew on.

Personally, just the fact that the anti-GMO camp uses soooo much false information makes biased against all their claims.

[Cha]

8. FEAR of SCIENCE

Bullshit.. Fucking Monsanto, Syngento, GMO A$$holes..

[ZombieHorde]

11. If your opinion is based on peer-reviewed studies,

please link to them. If I am wrong about Monsanto, then I would like to know.

[LanternWaste]

38. If you can link to a peer-reviewed study indicating labels=fear, please link to them also...

If you can link to a peer-reviewed study indicating labels=fear, please link to them also... I too would like to know.

[ZombieHorde]

39. I never claimed labels cause fear.

The fear is already present.

[druidity33]

82. I think the issue here

is that Monsanto and corps of their ilk only allow studies on their PATENTED products with prior approval. Oh and guess what? They can withold the studies they don't like the results of. It's easy when you fund the institutions that study your products and you corner the market (the VERY LARGE market) in your milieu. You will be lucky to find ANY "peer-reviewed" study on a Monsanto product that was not funded in part by Monsanto.

[ZombieHorde]

86. That is another myth.

Independent people can and have studied their products.

[druidity33]

181. Feel free to post links to those... nt.

[ZombieHorde]

228. Would seeing independent studies

that concluded GMOs were beneficial change your mind?

[druidity33]

247. Would you

clearly define who funded the "independent studies" you refer to? Would you cite peer reviewed journals that confirm the accuracy of those studies?

[ZombieHorde]

260. Those are good things to consider, in my opinion.

Unfortunately for me, that involves a lot of dry reading. I'm currently going over a rather long document called A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research with the hopes of finding something that clearly matches your criteria.

This is that document: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7hhP5QasNtsX1AwV2YzNnlrZTA/edit?pli=1

If you don't like this document, please let me know.

[druidity33]

263. I'll check it out, thanks. nt.

[Cha]

15. "What if people don't want to support fucking sociopathic corporations like Monsanto who make huge

profits from suing farmers whose crops are contaminated by their patented material?"

They don't give a shit..

[ZombieHorde]

58. We don't care because that doesn't happen.

It's a myth.

[HuckleB]

98. Well, you've noted an anti-GMO fiction.

Monsanto doesn't sue for those reasons. On the other hand, the anti-GMO does lie a lot, and this is one of the lies it uses. I'm pissed off about how much the anti-GMO movement lies. Why aren't you?

[Prophet 451]

13. Don't be ridiculous

Look, let's leave aside the whole question of whether GMOs are a good thing, a bad thing or just a thing. Why shouldn't they be labeled? It puts more information in the hands of the consumer, it's already the law here (UK) and it hasn't noticeably hurt sales of products containing GMOs. If you want to argue that GMOs are good (or bad or whatever), then make that argument. But opposing labeling just makes the industry look like it has reason to hide and fear disclosure.

[Cha]

16. Mahalo, Prophet.

[ZombieHorde]

17. There are two reasons I'm against GMO labels.

1. I am concerned about American's fear of science/scientific ignorance. GMOs are very beneficial, and anything that hampers the growth of that scientific field will likely hurt people. You mentioned how labels in the UK haven't noticeably hurt sales, so labels in the US may not either, however, these are two different countries. Does the UK have issues with diseases making a comeback because of the anti-vaxx movement? The US has had this problem. How are they on climate change and evolution? If the UK has the same anti-vaxx problem, climate change problem, and evolution problem as the US, then the comparison would be more valid, in my opinion.

2. The labels would suggest there is something wrong with GMOs, which promotes scientific ignorance.

[Prophet 451]

19. OK, in response

1) We did see a decrease in vaccinations in the wake of the Wakefield study but that's now rebounded to a large extent. I couldn't find any decent stats on climate change, I'm afraid. On evolution, the most recent data I could find pegs support for evolution at around 50% (although that's probably due to ignorance, schools only started routinely teaching it about twenty years ago) and support for creationism/ID at 30-35% (again, ignorance is likely to be largely to blame there).

2) Not at all. Many things are required to be labeled. Here, a brief nutritional breakdown is required, for example. Also, I think you're neglecting the factor that will lead most people to accept GMOs: Laziness. If a consumer has to actively go out of his way to read labels and avoid GMO produce, the majority of consumers will simply not bother.

I am not anti-GMO (making no effort to avoid them, I probably eat them all the time), I am for putting more information in the hands of the consumer. If that information leads the consumer to avoid GMO produce, that suggests that the pro-GMO side are not managing to put their argument across properly.

[ZombieHorde]

20. I know my reasons against labels are based off speculation.

I hope you're right, in case GMO labels do become mandatory, but I also hope the labels are scientifically sound. Who gets to define what is and what isn't a GMO? How does the UK define GMOs?

Also, I think you're neglecting the factor that will lead most people to accept GMOs: Laziness. If a consumer has to actively go out of his way to read labels and avoid GMO produce, the majority of consumers will simply not bother.

Ha! You just may be right about that.

[merrily]

28. Withholding information is not a solution to your fear of alleged fear of science or alleged

ignorance on the part of the American consumer. Withholding information is almost never the correct answer.

Please stop conflating issues. Food and vaccinations and global warming are not all the same issue, regardless of your fear/claim that the same people can't handle info about any of them, ergo, withhold info about what I spend my money on and put into my body.

If you can't make your case about food labels without lumping them in with vaccinations and global warming, you weaken your own points about food labels.

[laundry_queen]

31. +1 nt

[HuckleB]

99. No company labels the technology used to create the seed.

Not one. So why do you think GMOs should be singled out?

Guess what, the whole anti-GMO deal is a marketing scheme by "organic" companies, using fear mongering to con people into spending more money on their high-priced products.

If it wasn't, then why aren't they asking for labels for every type of seed technology?

Hmmmmmmmm.

[Tumbulu]

122. Hmmm, let's see...you use a plasmid to introduce a gene that produces a toxin

in a form that has never been tested on a genetic marker that includes antibiotic resistance.....and then you infect the plant so that it now genetically produces a toxin that has never been tested in this form and then that pollen blows all over the place, killing who knows what? And then those plasmids jump from the roots of the plant and infect the soil microbes here and there and now they are producing the toxin in a form that has never been seen in nature before. All this done without an Environmental Impact Assessment, without normal EPA testing, without residue testing, non target toxicity analysis, no LD50's calculated. No idea what this new to us toxin breaks down into, or even how long it takes to break down. Or it' half life.

Oh this is the same as normal plant breeding??????

You clearly need to go back to school.

[HuckleB]

130. In other words, you don't know what your talking about.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Tumbulu]

141. Oh right, and you do?

I don't think so.

[HuckleB]

143. Yeah, I do.

Oh, I make mistakes, but I challenge my assertions, and I ask my questions to scientists who actually care about the consensus of evidence. Anecdotes do not satisfy.

By now, you should know that, quite frankly.

On edit: You just posted multiple long-debunked anti-GMO tropes. You've pushed those over and over again, and you've had the evidence shown to you. Why would you push them yet again? It's not ok.

[Tumbulu]

152. No, what you post is not OK

and anyone reading my posts can see that I actually work in these industries, after spending my youth working in labs.

I worked as a scientist and I now work as a seed breeder and organic farmer. I am a member of two seed breeding organizations and we meet regularly and discuss these issues that seriously threaten our industry.

You are out of place with these rude remarks. And they make it clear what your agenda is.

[HuckleB]

154. Anyone can see your claims.

And they can see that you fail to support them with science-based evidence, over and over again.

Why is that?

[Cha]

102. Really. Damn.

[eridani]

112. Didn't you know that withholding information promotes scientific literacy?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

35. Here's my two responses.

1. How does someone 'not eating GMO' cause disease to spread?

2. You say 'GMOs are very beneficial', but what health benefit is there from eating GM food as opposed to non-GM food? If there were such benefits, surely the GM producers would be trumpeting it from the heights, and would be DEMANDING GM labeling, so that people could know they were getting such health benefits. I've also seen studies that point to GM not actually really increasing yield, and plenty that suggest GM (that is weedkiller resistant) results in serious decline in beneficial insect populations that depend upon the wees that ARE killed by weedkiller sprayed on those crops.

So there are obvious problems for the environment secondary to the most prevalent uses of GM, but what are the benefits that you proclaim 'very beneficial'?

[progressoid]

61. The problem is defining GM

In the broadest definition, nearly every food you eat has been genetically modified.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

71. It's not my problem, or the problem of pretty much anyone who isn't a pro-GM booster.

We know what we're talking about, and it's not 'the broadest definition'. And really, the folks acting as boosters know exactly what we mean as well, but often do go back to arguments like 'the broadest definition', simply to keep throwing as much time-wasting arguments going as possible. We're talking about a very tight definition that actually requires high tech involvement to achieve. Not simply crossbreeding two prior non-high tech modified plants to get a new colour, or a specific flavour, or a breeding only a specific strain, or using grafting to regrow the exact same tree over and over on different rootstock. But actually using sections of genome snipped from some entirely different organism and inserting them into a different one using a laboratory.

And to be honest, the vast majority even of people leery of GM wouldn't probably get up in arms if you took some genes from plant A and stuck them into fairly closely related plant B simply because they made the stems a bit sturdier, so they stood up better to rain, or they stored water a bit more efficiently to survive droughts better. Most of them are ticked off because the GM that is used most often is all about poisons and poison resistances, and enabling certain plants to survive vast amounts of poison being dumped into the ecosystem. Poisons that cause all sorts of other problems. Do they care about 'vitamin A enhanced rice'? Probably not. They might even applaud it.

[eridani]

123. Golden rice is being developed by a non-profit corporation

They give the seeds away and encourage farmers to replant--the oposite of Monsanto. Also, they don't need to introduce genes for beta carotene synthesis--those are already in the leaves. It is only necessary to induce expression in the seeds as well.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

192. That's why I gave that as an example of the sort of 'GM'

that most GM opponents don't really care as much about. I'm sure there are a few folks out there who think even that's an abomination, but those are the people I would actually label 'anti-science'.

[Jim Beard]

204. Yes, in a broad definition

but almost of those have been selected from those within their own genome.

How do we know how these not natural foods will interfere medicines? Has every drug been tested for its compatibility with these GMO's.

[progressoid]

225. Medicines? Hell, we're also growing pharmaceuticals in our plants.

Sorry to freak you out but there are dozens of "pharming" trials out there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharming_%28genetics%29#List_of_originators_.28companies_and_universities.29_and_research_projects_and_products

It's a Brave New World

[BrotherIvan]

84. My question exactly

There has been no proof that GMOs are beneficial in any way. They have actually been proven to be more fragile than conventional plants and the yield is about the same.

That is a fatal flaw in the "pro-science" argument: accepting on faith that GMOs are better.

[Rex]

51. And hiding the ingredients fosters mistrust.

So regular food gets labels, but GMO is special and doesn't? You realize that will just backfire in the public arena?

[ZombieHorde]

53. They both have the same labels.

There is no scientific reason to single out one food over another food. Food labels should be about science, as opposed to politics, in my opinion.

[Rex]

56. I agree, a lot of people won't even notice they are buying GMO foods.

But without labels, some people get suspicious - as is our natural tendency of the unknown. IOW, I think we do more damage by not labeling all food products. GMO or not.

[Tumbulu]

125. Well, one difference is that the gmo plants were patented

and they were unique enough to be granted patents. Only because of the novel technology used to develop them.

Take a look at what the Union of Concerned Scientists has to say about the labeling of gmo's. Thier position is very sensible.

[HuckleB]

139. Funny thing. Many plants were patented before GMOs, and continue to be so.

Patent issues are not GMO specific.

[Tumbulu]

145. No, wrong again pal, they were the first open pollinated seed plants to be patented

and that is because prior to this new technology, we only could get PVP's not patents. Plant Patents were reserved for plants such as roses or oranges, and the patent was on the cross making up the hybrid.

For being a person who claims to know so much, I suggest that you do a little reading up on seeds and seed patent history.

The gmo crops were the first seeds to be patented by the USPTO. All the rest of us use the USDA Plant Variety Protection Service to register our varieties.

The USPTO granted the patents because the technology was so novel, so totally different from regular plant breeding.

[HuckleB]

149. You've yet to prove me wrong.

And yet again, you can't do it.

The history of patenting life
http://www.biofortified.org/2010/09/history-of-patenting-life/

[Tumbulu]

162. Yes, why don't you read through that history?

I don't need to read those papers, I have registered Plant Varieties and I have applied for and received patents from the US Patent and Trademark Office.

So, do your reading and get back to me.

[HuckleB]

164. So, your only response is another logical fallacy?

Prove that you know the stuff you claim to know.

Saying you do isn't going to do it.

[Tumbulu]

166. I think that you need to read the history, and if you wont read

what you posted, what is the point? Read the history and get back to me.

[HuckleB]

168. I know the history.

Why do you pretend to have knowledge you clearly do not possess?

[Tumbulu]

254. beyond ridiculous I will ignore now

Only the GMO people think they can rewrite facts and history along with life's code. Arrogance coupled with ignorance is a nasty combination.

[HuckleB]

92. No seed technology is labeled. Not one.

Thus, this is just a strange thing to say.

[Rex]

177. All they have to do is label food products.

That is all I am saying, no matter what is in the food. Not rocket science.

[HuckleB]

202. It's not rocket science. It's baseless fear mongering.

There is no justification for labeling, and knowing that the organic companies have worked tirelessly to demonize GMOs, while not saying one thing about other seed technologies, tells you everything you need to know.

[freshwest]

183. Agreed. Don't see why Democrats, who are into regulation and informing people, would object.

Just toss it in with the Nutritional Information. Some people don't care, they'd see it on there and say 'Meh.' Just like some don't care about calories, sodium or fats.

If the claim is going to be that the objection is not scientifically based, well, neither is the request from strict vegetarians or vegans about what is in their food. For some, it's a religious objection, or an ICK factor.

If you don't feel good about eating something, you should not be fooled into eating it. Or insulted for not wanting it. The profit motive should not prohibit consumer choice, it's their money.

[Rex]

47. If you believe the fear of science hurts people, then you are helping perpetuate that

issue by being against labeling. Think about it.

[ZombieHorde]

52. I don't think I have that much influence on other people.

I really doubt this DU debate will make a noticeable difference on the subject.

If you aren't really talking about me, and instead talking about the label debate in the US in general, then that would seem more likely to me, but still not very likely to perpetuate fear of science since I don't believe most Americans pay much attention to the GMO debates.

Prophet 451 said labels probably won't even matter since most people wouldn't read them anyway. I wonder how true that is.

[Rex]

54. Yes, not really about you - just in general. Humans are suspicious and curious by nature imo.

Even if people don't read labels, they will be instantly suspicious (IMO) if something is given the right not to be labeled - why? What could be in it that they don't want to label? Even if there is nothing wrong with content, human nature is one of suspicion. To me it is counter-productive NOT to label ALL food products.

Full transparency and let the chips fall where they may.

[Tumbulu]

104. I fear when science has not tested something that is new

and that is what the gmo's are. Untested by appropriate third parties.

Proper environmental impact studies should have been done, proper non target organisms toxicology work needed to be done.

These tests were not done for the Bt crops, and they should have been. The claim that the bt toxin expressed by the plants is the same as the crystal protoxin requiring a pH of 11+ to dissolve just shows the lack of credibility of those who pushed this technology out into the environment too fast.

The Union of Concerned Scientists supports labeling.

[HuckleB]

163. GMO plants have been tested more than any other type of plant.

So are you saying we just kill all our food?

I'm confused.

[pnwmom]

118. Scientific epidemiological studies of GMO's post-FDA approval cannot be conducted without

labeling, so if you support science, you should support labeling.

And it is just as necessary to be able to conduct epidemiological studies of GMO's -- after they're released into the broad population -- as it is with a drug.

[ZombieHorde]

128. Why is the label needed for the studies? nt

[pnwmom]

174. Because if people don't know that they have consumed a particular GMO product,

then no epidemiological study could connect the consumption to any symptoms that later developed.

When e-coli contaminates a food source and people become sick, it is possible to trace the source of the outbreak by interviewing people and learning what foods they ate that could have caused their symptoms. That's because people know if they've eaten beef or eggs or other food products.

But people don't know when they consume GMO products, so if any are producing negative effects in some individuals, it isn't possible for this to be traced.

Which is how the GMO producers obviously prefer it.

[ZombieHorde]

224. The researches can use the same methods they use for e-coli.

They can narrow down the brands, which should have been investigated by government inspectors, so the government will know what's going on.

[HuckleB]

227. The funny thing about that argument is that they're not asking for labels for all seed technologies.

Just GMOs, as if there was somehow more risk for GE created seeds.

It's not an actual fear. It's just another lame argument aimed at creating baseless fear.

Plus, since every GMO is different, the label tells people nothing that they can utilize in terms of information.

[ZombieHorde]

230. That is a good point. nt

[pnwmom]

244. Knowing the brand won't tell them whether it is a GMO product or not. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

245. Why wouldn't it?

The FDA should be going over the products they allow for US markets.

[madokie]

3. Bill Nye, what a guy

he makes science fun no doubt

[Cha]

5. Cool, he's my kind of Science Guy.. a smart one. Almost

diametrically opposed to Neil deGrasse Tyson on the whole GMO shit-fest.

[madokie]

14. I'm still blown away by what Tyson said

selective breeding and Genetically modifying a crop is not the same thing. Splicing of genes is working at the molecular level, hardly the same thing. In my way of thinking, that is.
Haven't heard much from Tyson since that, I haven't anyway

I'm impressed with Bill Nye. I missed him and his show so I'm a late comer in all things Bill Nye the science guy

[Cha]

18. Well, I haven't really known that much about Bill Nye but now I love him due to his common sense

above all on GMOs. Only a big part of the future of our Planet. We're fighting them like hell out here on our small beautiful Island.. that they're trying to desecrate.

We have a young former pro surfer and farmer who's running against the current fat-cat gmo promoter mayor.. a real David and Goliath story.

I'm late to the too.. but, never too late as they say, madokie!

[B Calm]

12. K&R

[RiverLover]

22. And then there's the health risk.

They're making our whole foods become processed foods and it ticks me off.


Major Study: Monsanto GMO Corn Can Cause Damage to Liver and Kidneys, and Severe Hormonal Disruption
Key study has passed through three peer reviews.July 2014

http://www.alternet.org/food/major-study-demonstrates-monsanto-gmo-corn-product-can-cause-damage-liver-and-kidneys-and

The study also found higher incidence of tumors & mortality in treated rats but Monsanto pressured them to retract because the rats used are known to have a high incidence of tumors...

"The rationale given for the retraction was widely criticized by scientists as an act of censorship and a bow to the interests of the GMO industry", says Robinson. "

[freedom fighter jh]

23. Not sure GMO farming always uses less pesticide.

Nye says GMO farming uses less pesticide. Isn't that nice and healthy? But in some ways it encourages the use of pesticide. For non-GMO crops, the pesticide Roundup is useable only near crops, not directly on them. But some crops have been genetically modified to be "Roundup ready," meaning they can be sprayed with the stuff directly. Thus the consumer gets much more Roundup with the GMO crops than with the non-GMO ones.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roundup_Ready_Crops

[HuckleB]

89. In most cases it does, when it you actually look at the science.

Sourcewatch is not a very good place to get your science, howver.

[freedom fighter jh]

187. What's your source?

Your statement cries out for support.

[freedom fighter jh]

191. You are right that I should have done better with a source.

I just grabbed the first one I could find. Not conceding that Sourcewatch is no good, just that I did not research it and I cannot vouch for it. Note that you didn't give a reason to consider it "not a very good place to get your science"; you just stated that it's not.

Forbes, on the other hand, is a solid publication with a reputation to protect. Check out this sourced article, "GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide, Not Less" http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/ . GMO crops mean more herbicide specifically and more pesticide generally.

Looking forward to hearing about your actual look at the science.

[HuckleB]

203. That study has been solidly debunked several times.

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/

[eridani]

257. There are lots of others that haven't been

http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16?years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

[ReRe]

25. What this reminds me of is the fact...

... that many of the problems in this country stem from biblical anti-science cretins.

[LawDeeDah]

29. Thank you, Mr. Science!

Last edited Thu Oct 16, 2014, 07:55 AM - Edit history (1)

When greed and profit at any chance permeates every corporation's mission statement, I am to believe that in the case of GMOs, there is this particular exception and we should trust knowing we are safe?!



No. Bleeping. Way.

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. excellent video - NOT anti-GMO - but a call for disclosure and testing case by case

That sounds reasonable and scientific to me.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. I don't see that we're 'fine'.

We have all sorts of health problems that have spread over the population, without ANY particular reason being identified as to how they're on the rise. So what does that mean? Despite scientific studies on anything and everything, we haven't figured out what's going on. According to the GMO proponents, the fact that we haven't yet found a way in which GMO is contributing to those problems with all the studies we've done, that makes them 'safe'. But the problem with that line of argument is that means everything else we've studied is 'safe', because we haven't found out how these problems are happening. But we have the spread of these problems, so obviously something, somewhere, is not 'safe', despite our studies to date.

And it's like doing math - not every link to a problem is direct. And life is incredibly complex, with not just a few variables, such as are present in the vast majority of scientific studies. Life has thousands of variables that all work together, and can't simply be plotted easily just because you change one, such as 'subjects eats GM food', but haven't tracked all of the other factors that feed into the response. Your example points that out. GMO may not directly affect bats, but indirectly, it alters the ecosystem, causing all sorts of secondary problems throughout the system.

There was a study somebody posted about a month or two back that suggested that some changes from ingesting GM food could actually be inherited. In which case, pretty much any study that depended on having a test subject who 'didn't eat GM' as a control could have skewed data if the subject's parent had eaten GM in the past, before the conception of the subject.

No matter how much people want to believe we already 'know enough', the reality is that biosciences are still in their infancy, and we've barely begun to scratch the surface of how incredibly complex life systems work at the micro level. There are still vast stretches of the genome that we have no idea about what biological processes they control or how altering them will change the animal/person in whom they are changed.

The hubris in claiming we 'know' things are 'safe', simply because we've tested for the most obvious and direct problems over and over and not found links among the things for which we've actually tested is amazing, and reflects a poor understanding of how science works. A scientist who actually knows what they're talking about would say 'Within the range of problems *for which we've tested*, GM appears to be safe', not 'simply 'GM is safe'. 'GM is safe' is a lazy, non-scientific statement made by people who simply want to arrive at a specific conclusion.

[Tumbulu]

129. +1000

[randome]

207. We will never be 100% certain of anything, no matter how much it's studied.

When anyone says something is safe, it should be assumed that means "so far as we know."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

213. I wouldn't say it should be assumed so

because that's NOT how the people who are saying it are using it, and they make that plain when you engage them for longer amounts of time. Instead, they make accusations of 'anti-science' as soon as you point out that their stance is one that shows a lack of understanding of what scientific studies actually show or don't show.

[G_j]

34. great video

thanks for sharing

[liberal_at_heart]

37. Sounds like he is taking a cautious attitude but not freaking out about it.

Farm responsibly, test foods, and label foods. Sounds a lot more reasonable than the people who totally freak out and say we should ban it all together.

[hifiguy]

42. Yes, and that is where I stand.

The law of unintended consequences applies to everything, and more study is required before coming to any hard-and-fast conclusions. The scenario discussed by Nye in the OP is not woo-woo BS like the anti-vaxers' nonsense.

[whatchamacallit]

44. "Peer Reviewed!!1" scream the authoritarians

You can tell the type by the singular crux of all of their arguments; "Yeah, well was it peer reviewed?" As if multiple scientists could never be mistaken or have an agenda... Dogmatic at best, unscientific at worst.

[NuclearDem]

49. Actually, unscientific is not understanding how peer review fucking works.

Nice try, though.

Christ almighty, your post reads like a creationist argument.

[whatchamacallit]

55. Uh huh

Your unwavering faith that this process ends all question and auto-transforms theory and opinion into fact, is way more akin to fundamentalism than my skepticism. Congratulations, genius.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

[NuclearDem]

63. And yet again, there you go.

The peer review process isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but my belief that it's a solid check against bias is founded in centuries of scientific method and research.

Your faith in your own belief--the denial of results and observation so that belief can be preserved--is akin to creationist or climate change denial argle bargle about a conspiracy among atheists and scientists to invalidate Christian beliefs about the world.

That "faith in science" meme is one of the dumbest out there.

Not to mention your blatant misuse of the word theory--if you're going to be discussing scientific method, you might want to learn what theory actually means. So, congratulations, two science denial memes in one post.

Look, if the science about GMOs ultimately ends up concluding that they're more harmful than not, I'll spin my beliefs on a fucking some and accept that. But as of right now, they don't conclude that.

[whatchamacallit]

70. Supercilious, belligerent, reactionary, reductionist...

Are you a scientist or do you just play one on the internet? An open mind and a little dispassion would make your self-awarded cred more persuasive. All you know about me is that I don't currently believe the science regarding the safety and benefits of GMOs is settled. If you feel that empowers you question my intelligence, have at it boss. The funny about your last sentence is that it seems you reserve the right to disparage anyone who challenges the information you rely on, until new data has you joining us. Lame way to operate IMO.

[NuclearDem]

72. Don't let your mind open so far it falls out.

No, I'm not a "scientist"; I'm just someone with a firm grasp of basic scientific principles.

And no, I don't consider the GMO issue entirely settled either, which you would have known if you'd actually read what I said about changing my beliefs if the science leads that way.

But you're the one writing off peer review, a foundational part of the scientific method, and mixing up terms left and right. Science is not a democracy, and you don't get to twist it to fit your own preconceptions of the world.

I'm not belligerent because you believe differently about GMOs; I'm belligerent for the same reason I'm belligerent towards creationists, climate change denialists, and anti-vaxxers: because you don't seem to think the basic rules of science don't apply to your way of thinking.

[whatchamacallit]

83. Since it seems this conversation is taking a slight turn for the better

Last edited Thu Oct 16, 2014, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

I'll simply clarify a point; I don't write off or reject peer review. It's obvious consensus is good when it comes to science, but often in these threads the phrase is invoked as the unassailable, argument-ending distinction. I bristle at the simplicity of that thinking.

[Luminous Animal]

60. Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research

Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=0

Biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry’s genetically modified crops, according to an unusual complaint issued by a group of those scientists.

“No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions,” the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops.

....

So while university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the seed companies. And sometimes that permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published, they say.

Such agreements have long been a problem, the scientists said, but they are going public now because frustration has been building.

“If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research,” said Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota, who was one of the scientists who had signed the statement.

[BrotherIvan]

85. ^^This!^^

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

Those who think the science is settled and that GMOs have been tested enough in the field and in the lab are falling for a nice PR mindfuck. If there truly was open, LONG-TERM testing of these brand new organisms which we are about to unleash on the environment, I, and likely most people would shut up about it. But the funniest part is the "science" people who call those who want MORE testing Luddites is simply idiotic.

[Tumbulu]

134. Yes, so true. It boggles the mind!

The Union of Concerned Scientists calls for safety testing and labeling.

Most scientists around the word ask for the same. it is just a group of noisy industry hacks here in the US who tow this ridiculous line.

[BrotherIvan]

159. But we're all so ignorant, the truth must be kept from us!

If that's your argument, you've already lost.

[HuckleB]

88. And then you repeat this old news?

Do you care about an honest discussion? It does not appear that you do.

[Luminous Animal]

100. Yes. I do. You do not, Pro GMO's say this is 30 years of settled science. A blatant lie.

Honesty menas admitting that the science was controlled by the industry. Honesty is recognizing that they control the research dollars of their product,

[HuckleB]

107. "A blatant lie."

Only if you ignore everything that we know about science. To say that is to go into the same territory as anti-vaxers and climate change denialists. It's just not reality.

[Luminous Animal]

116. Only if you ignored who controls that science. As did the lead industry. As did coal industry.

As did asbestos industry. As did the tobacco industry.

It is a FACT that Monsanto controls the research.

[HuckleB]

135. So you can't support your assertions. Thus, you make baseless claims about "control."

And it appears that you think you can just make it up from there.

That's really strange stuff, man.

[Tumbulu]

165. So true, and they are not to be trusted.

Notice how they pile on anyone who publishes any studies showing that there are things to be concerned about?

Notice how they have spend so many millions of dollars to keep their patented plants unlabeled?

[hifiguy]

64. The same authoritarian corporatist assholes

deny every single peer-reviewed scientific essay about climate change, though. I wouldn't take their bleating about this very seriously.

[HuckleB]

91. Really?

Can you point out the ones who do? And can you clarify the percentage of scientists who do?

Thanks!

[Rex]

46. That is all I ask, label food products correctly.

Transparency.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. If GMOs are so beneficial, why not advertise them or, at least, label them? K&R

[progressoid]

62. Bill Nye stole from Professor Proton!

[alarimer]

67. Note that he is talking about environmental effects as opposed to consumption.

To me, that is the only reason to be wary, because science so far shows that consumption is not harmful.

[Luminous Animal]

74. Science that is controlled by Monsanto, et.al.

Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=0

Biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry’s genetically modified crops, according to an unusual complaint issued by a group of those scientists.

“No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions,” the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops.

....

So while university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the seed companies. And sometimes that permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published, they say.

Such agreements have long been a problem, the scientists said, but they are going public now because frustration has been building.

“If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research,” said Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota, who was one of the scientists who had signed the statement.

[HuckleB]

79. Even then there were hundreds of independently funded studies.

The process has changed dramatically since then, and I suspect you know that. So why post five year articles that offer a version of reality that is not current?

[Luminous Animal]

81. And Monsanto controlled the publication. That was their terms for allowing the scientist access to

the seed.

And no, the process has not changed dramatically, despite Monsanto's PR. They still control which independent labs have access (big AG schools that support GMOs), they still control what the model the research takes (heavy on farming practices rather than human health) and they still can shut down the research at any time if the data isn't going their way.

Also, GMO advocates state that GMOs have been studied for 30 years and have shown no detriment to human health.

Well no, even if we grant Monsanto the largest leeway and suppose they are allowing unfettered independent testing (which my first paragraph reveals that they are not), it's only possible, though not probable, that studies on human health would be possible over the past 2-3 years.

[HuckleB]

87. You seem to have some things you want to believe badly.

Alas, the evidence does not support your beliefs.

I doubt you will change your mind. That's your choice. It sucks. But it's your choice.

You seem to think Monsanto has far more power than a company its size could ever have. You seem to be ignoring studies done around the world that come to the same conclusions as all the other studies. GMOs are safe and just as good as any other food source. A basic plausibility discussion would lead one to think that to be likely, as well.

The fear mongering against GMOs, on the other hand, is mostly based on deceit. Do you think that is ok?

[pa28]

73. Careful there Bill.

They'll be calling you an anti-science, tinfoil hat, conspiracy kook for wanting labeling and meaningful safety testing for GMO products.

[Cha]

76. Please let me just step in here and comment.. because I'm not talking to

those who have their little GMO points and are spewing them out all over this thread.

Bill Nye is the ultimate science guy and actually uses all of his brain on the dangers of gmo

[grahamhgreen]

75. If GMO's were good for us, they would WANT them to be labelled.

[NuclearDem]

78. You and I both know the more batshit labeling advocates

shot themselves and the rest of labeling advocates (which, surprise, includes me) in the foot on that by turning GMO into a term on the emotional charge level as baby eater.

Hysteria and hyperbole does backfire.

[grahamhgreen]

178. No one who wants to label dangerous food products is crazy, IMHO.

[alp227]

124. Like we need labels to remind us what's not harmful?

There's a reason warning labels exist on laundry detergent but not apple juice.

[grahamhgreen]

179. Anything that's "new and improved" is marketed as such, the fact they want to hide it, tells you its

a negative for their products.

[phleshdef]

167. I think they oppose labelling because it creates a possibly unnecessary stigma to the product.

[grahamhgreen]

180. If it was actually better, there would be no stigma.

[randome]

210. Which is why the GOP is an insignificant force in politics today.

People think with their emotions more than their scientific literacy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jim Beard]

218. Scientific literacy is on the side of those who want labels.

Try reputation.com

[phleshdef]

248. I figure some GMO foods are harmless while others are questionable.

I definitely believe there needs to be more research and I don't oppose labeling. But I was just saying, from a business perspective, that label is almost like having a surgeon generals warning on your product.

[unblock]

77. i think you're confusing him with gary scinece

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000641/

[nationalize the fed]

103. Excellent. Thanks for posting k/r

Really can't believe there are people especially here that are against labeling.

Why have food labels at all?

I won't be eating this frankenfood crap from Monsanto or any other corporation. And I'll be actively trying to make the case to anyone that will listen.

[Jim Beard]

236. I think they work for the "web washing firms".

they clean up all the bad stuff and present a statement of how good it is. Like companies hiring it own stooges to write consumer reviews.

[Tumbulu]

138. Excellent Bill Nye! He pretty much sums up what the Union of Concerned Scientists

has to say as well.

We need to know what the environmental impacts of these plants really are.

Pretty simple and basic science that was not done 20 or so years ago when these crops began being grown.

[HuckleB]

151. UCS is losing credibility, and impacts are being studied, and always have been.

Why pretend otherwise?

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/11/12/ugly-glare-on-union-of-concerned-scientists-consumers-union-and-anti-crop-biotech-activist-journalists-as-rna-gmo-danger-link-disintegrates-under-scrutiny/

[Tumbulu]

155. Oh there you go- pick on the Union of Concerned Scientists

because they do not support your gung-ho gmo's are wonderful meme and all scientists thing they are cool.

Honestly, give it a break.

[HuckleB]

157. You tried to use them in a classic logical fallacy.

They have ignored the science of the matter. How dare I point that out!!!!

[Tumbulu]

158. They have been a clear voice for the non bought off scientists in the US,

along with the Consumer Union Scientists.

Forget it HuckleB, it is ridiculous.

[HuckleB]

161. That's some cool, but baseless, propaganda you got there.

UCS appreciates your support.

Humans, well, not so much.

PS: http://www.science20.com/caution_pondering_scientist_ahead/confessions_organicmunching_genetic_engineer_no_prop_37_written-95993

[Cha]

251. Mahalo, Tumbulu.. I did not know about Union of Concerned Scientists..

"At least one major environmental impact of genetic engineering has already reached critical proportions: overuse of herbicide-tolerant GE crops has spurred an increase in herbicide use
and an epidemic of herbicide-resistant "superweeds," which will lead to even more herbicide use."

Genetic Engineering Risks and Impacts

MORE..
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture#.VEHLict0xjo

We'er fighting the GMO corps a$$holes on this Island like Hell.

[Tumbulu]

252. Oh Mahalo Cha

Oh what a brutal fight these arrogant pseudo scientists put up. The idiotic waste of time retorts right here on DU are an example of their tactics. They wear one down with endless mis truths, and insults and they bully as well. Try working in a lab with one or two of them! Yikes, I ran into an old coworker and asked her what she thought of GMO's. She also has an advanced degree in microbiology and worked on some of the first genetically engineered bacteria. She looked at me and said " I don't believe a word those lying monsters say, I buy only organic food when I can and hope they all get found out someday" And she is a prim and proper 70 + yr old now.

The lies, the bullying, the pretending to know the facts and the science would be embarrassing and pathetic on their own .....if they were not so well funded it would be comedic.

Thank you for fighting for our beautiful living earth.

Aloha.

[Cha]

256. Aloha and Mahalo to you, Tumbulu!

"She also has an advanced degree in microbiology and worked on some of the first genetically engineered bacteria. She looked at me and said " I don't believe a word those lying monsters say, I buy only organic food when I can and hope they all get found out someday" And she is a prim and proper 70 + yr old now".

Thank you!

Connecticut Becomes the First State to Require GMO Labeling

"The governor of Connecticut, Dannel Malloy, spoke outside of the organic restaurant, Catch a Healthy Habit, imploring others to consider joining the cause. “I am proud that leaders from each of the legislative caucuses can come together to make our state the first in the nation to require labeling of GMO’s,” said Malloy in Fairfield’s Daily Voice. “The end result is a law that shows our commitment to consumers’ right to know while catalyzing other states to take similar action.” -

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/connecticut-becomes-first-state-to.html#sthash.KxBlfExu.dpuf

Aloha nui loa

[HuckleB]

156. ASYMMETRY OF MISINFORMATION: From Krugman To GMOs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025678460

[freshwest]

184. Thanks for the video, always enjoy Bill Nye. I'm in favor of labeling, but the question at the end

Last edited Fri Oct 17, 2014, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)

is why I'm posting. He was very neutral, by the way. At the end he asked, what is the hurry?

The anwer to that is that there are those who see a lot more of what is happening to this planet because of the increase of population. It is turning into one big grid, industrialized like a planetary factory for food and other things that which people in their billions are demanding.

They demand it from their government, from the corporations and the Earth. As Nye says, we have changed the species and landscape in order to eat. We want some things that in the long term are very bad, such as cheap energy, constant stimulation and the 'freedom' to pollute.

So the demand for food is at an all time high, and the *evil powers that be* as some refer to them are racing to meet that need. It's not altruism, as it is profitable for them. People trying to steer things in a more positive way are not really listened to, all we say is that we want more.

Some fear GMO is a way to commit genocide, they say vaccines, GMO, and other scientific things are being used to kill people. They fear science because it is not always used for the good. Unless we think mustard gas, bioweapons and nukes are a good thing - but see, we don't want to own up to having the mentality of war criminal. I see us as part of the same system, just in denial, and it's easier to point a finger a them as examples, and claim we had nothing to do with the creation of the systems that do these things. I digress as usual, but I've been thinking about this for a long time and don't like what I see.

Some anti-science is really anti-corporate, anti-wealthy, anti-government, just against those we use when we like, and hate when we see what we contributed. Some voices are full of fear and outrage, saying that the Elite want to kill most of us off.

If so, they're doing a piss poor job. The population is not going down and we are pressing those who can get what we want for us to get it faster and faster.

That is why the hurry.

It's why people we might love otherwise in office, may be approving GMO. Because they're convinced, just like Truman, that things must be done for future generations that are hateful to us now. They believe despite the ill affects they will save billions of lives with it and so it's good. So they forge ahead.

The urgency is that we are reproducing at a faster rate than can be managed. Even a redistribution of wealth will not solve what we are doing to this planet every day. We're losing a lot of biodiversity to preserve ONE species.

I think we are unable to comprehend what we are and what we are doing. If we don't get a grasp on that, we're pretty been doomed. And it won't be the fault of those typically savaged on these things, they are just our scapegoats.

JMHO.

[B Calm]

199. Bookmarking!

[randome]

206. How would labels prevent pollen from being blown about?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jim Beard]

217. Try crossing soybeans, peas or beans with the wind. Wheat is also very

difficult to cross pollinate except by hand. You need very short distance requirements with most plants other than corn. I like labels. I'll bet you eat raw cookie dough.

[randome]

221. I'm no holier-than-thou, "if-everyone-did-what-I-do" character but...

...since I'm interested in staying healthy, I eat simply and little that's cooked. Vegetables, fruits, breads, and who cares what's the latest craze on the food shelves?

If people were truly concerned about their health -and most aren't- they would stop buying so much crap at the store. I can't imagine GMO peas having any effect on me but I'll admit not knowing everything there is to know on the subject.

I'd say that regular infusions of chips and chocolate and desserts have more of an effect on one's health than some equally modified new strain of potato.

I mean, talk about unnatural, take a look at what's in those chips someday!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[MH1]

238. The issue isn't whether or not GMO is healthy to eat, it is what GMOs do to the ecosystem.

This is the crucial point that some people honestly miss, and others avoid deliberately and deceitfully. (I don't know you and don't know which you are, so assuming the former.)

Humanity is absolutely dependent on the ecosystem in which we live. We depend on it continuing within certain parameters. If species suddenly die off at a massively faster rate than they can be replaced, the entire ecosystem could basically go off the rails as far as humanity is concerned. Similar to the danger from rapid climate change, an ecological cataclysm could occur faster than we could engineer our way out of it.

That's what it's about. NOT whether eating a GMO tomato will kill me. It won't. But the overuse of GMO plants COULD set off a chain of events that results in the inability of this planet to support anything remotely like the current 7 billion + inhabitants. (Take it a step further: as severe resource scarcity sets in, violent conflict increases, stability of world governments decrease, and ... how secure are all those nukes, anyway?)

[mountain grammy]

211. About 30 years ago, when the corporate giants were in full takeover mode

the food corporations promoted vegetable oil as a healthy food. They blasted coconut oil as unhealthy and went as far as to label foods with "no palm oils used." The FDA removed these labels because there was never any proof that palm oils were bad, and in fact, we probably wouldn't have massive obesity if Americans hadn't been so sold on vegetable oils and other unhealthy foods by the big food corporations. Now we're supposed to "trust" them to modify our crops? Let's be clear on the motivation of the corporations. The bottom line is profit. It's not about ending world hunger.

Bill Nye is right. Environmental impacts of GMO's won't be known for years. Label our food!

[Jim Beard]

216. To the science lovers avove all else. Didn't science create the atomic bomb?

There is science that is beneficial to many and then there is some that benefit a few. I really want to know how many people benefit from varieties of tomatoes that do not spoil and stay fresh in shipment. I see statements in large seed catalogs on many varieties about how and excellent "shipper" it is. Very pretty red but hard as a rock. I just quit buying them. Same with unripened peaches. I am fed up with the brown bag Ethelyn trapping treatment that works occasionally without starting rot where slightly bruised on the hard fruit before the rest of the fruit ripens. Science does not always benefit the public as much as the seller.

[randome]

223. Very true.

But it also shows, unfortunately, that too many people are wiling to line up for those "new, improved" varieties despite the downsides, even the lack of taste.

Science may benefit the seller more but the buyers certainly aren't using the votes they already have.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[NuclearDem]

237. Yes, genetic modification is equivalent to the atomic bomb.

Nailed it, champ.

[eridani]

258. Guess what? A few years ago I unscientifically switched my car insurance from State Farm to Allstate

I have no reason whatsoever to suspect major differences in claims processing. However, State Farm is a major donor to ALEC, and no other major insurance company is. Allstate already had my house insurance, so I just added car insurance to it.

I suppose the pro-Monsanto crowd will equate that to climate change denial and anti-evolutionism too.

I buy local eggs from free-range chickens also. There are studies showing them to be nutritionally superior to eggs from caged and hormone saturated chickens, but that is not my main motivation. I just don't want to torture animals to get useful protein and other nutrients.

Using my consumer dollars to support the kind of world I want to live in may be non-scientific, but is is sure the fuck not unscientific or antiscientific.

[eridani]

262. So, where are all the Monsanto apologists? <crickets> n/t