General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNeil deGrasse Tyson clarifies his remarks, re: GMOs.
This comes from NDT's Facebook page:
*** August 3, 2014 -- Anatomy of a GMO Commentary ****
Ten days ago, this brief clip of me was posted by somebody.
http://bit.ly/Xg0y7R
It contains my brief [2min 20sec] response to a question posed by a French journalist, after a talk I gave on the Universe. He found me at the post-talk book signing table. (Notice the half-dozen ready & willing pens.) The clip went mildly viral (rising through a half million right now) with people weighing in on whether they agree with me or not.
Some comments...
1) The journalist posted the question in French. I don't speak French, so I have no memory of how I figured out that was asking me about GMOs. Actually I do know some French words like Bordeaux, and Bourgogne, and Champagne, etc.
2) Everything I said is factual. So there's nothing to disagree with other than whether you should actually "chill out" as I requested of the viewer in my last two words of the clip.
3) Had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I've noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.
4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept.
b- Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
c- Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement on these matters.
d- Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market. To the extent that the production of GMOs are a monopoly, the government should do all it can to spread the baseline of this industry. (My favorite monopoly joke ever, told by Stephen Wright: "I think it's wrong that the game Monopoly is sold by only one company"
e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
f- Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.
5) If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct.
In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with.
Respectfully Submitted
-NDTyson
https://www.facebook.com/neiltyson/posts/10204439688771816
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and I predict that the good scientist will set off a new shit storm because of that flippant remark.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)It's just where it was created. And even so, most "natural" GMO were created by humans.
He also didn't say that people are asking for 2 labels, he stated that labeling GMO would require ALL food to be labeled as GMO as all food IS GMO.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)People who want GMO labelling aren't asking for F1 hybrid vegetables or pluots to have labels, they're asking for labels on laboratory GMOs that would not have occurred naturally (or at the very least would be extremely unlikely to occur naturally.)
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)That's a fact. So, if you label one type, you'd have to label another. He's not addressing what people want, he's giving his opinion.
And most of the food that you keep saying occurred naturally did not. It was done with human intervention. Just not in a laboratory.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Are you confusing me with someone else?
bananas
(27,509 posts)Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. <snip>
An organism that is generated through genetic engineering is considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMOs were bacteria in 1973 and GM mice were generated in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994. <snip>
<snip>
Genetically modified organism
(Redirected from Transgenic organism)
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Organisms that have been genetically modified include micro-organisms such as bacteria and yeast, insects, plants, fish, and mammals. GMOs are the source of genetically modified foods and are also widely used in scientific research and to produce goods other than food. The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism' defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology" .
<snip>
Claiming that "ALL food is GMO" is anti-science, anti-technology, and just plain ignorant.
It's anti-science because many scientists worked long and hard to understand genetics and to create the tools to directly alter genes. To claim "ALL food is GMO" is to devalue science and technology and the work that goes into creating them.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And he's a well respected scientist.
A banana that we eat is NOTHING like a wild banana. This was done through genetic modification, however that modification was not done in a laboratory, it was done through years and years of hybridization and genetic mutation. The end result, however, is the same. Doing it in the lab speeds up the time immensely.
Read the article, watch the video. NDT (a scientist) is correct here. Wikipedia is not a scientific source.
bananas
(27,509 posts)The video clip starts with NDT asking "Des plantes transgenique?"
Then he guesses that refers to GMO's.
Well, if he knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't have to guess.
You don't like wikipedia, here's a reference from Nature magazine (although you probably never heard of Nature magazine before, it's one of the most respected science magazines):
Nature | Editorial
Fields of gold
Research on transgenic crops must be done outside industry if it is to fulfil its early promise.
01 May 2013
It was 30 years ago this month that scientists first published the news that they could place functional foreign genes into plant cells. The feat promised to launch an exciting phase in biotechnology, in which desired traits and abilities could be coaxed into plants used for food, fibres and even fuel. Genetically modified (GM) crops promised to make life easier and natures bounty even more desirable.
As a series of articles in this weeks Nature explores, things have not worked out that way (see page 21). The future matters more than the past, but when it comes to GM crops, the past is instructive.
<snip>
They use the term "GM" correctly - NDT doesn't.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Also, he doesn't speak French, so he guessed.
But hey, you're a scientist, right?
bananas
(27,509 posts)"Transgenic" sounds the same in French in English.
Either NDT knew what it meant or he didn't.
He says he didn't.
"Transgenic", "genetically modified", and "genetically engineered" all refer to the same process.
NDT guessed correctly, and now admits he doesn't really know what those terms mean.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It makes no statement about the process by which that modification was achieved - fifty generations of breeding on a far, or one generation of splicing in a lab. Both are "GMO."
bananas
(27,509 posts)That's the terminology, and if you didn't understand that, you've misunderstood everything you've read about it.
Every field has terminology specific to that field.
Here are two examples showing how the terminology is used:
1) If you go to Monsanto's website http://discover.monsanto.com/sustainability/
and scroll down a little more than halfway down, you'll see this table:
Currently, there are 8 commercially available GMO crops:
Corn
Soybeans
Cotton
Alfalfa
Sugar Beets
Canola
Papaya
Squash
These crops are not genetically modified:
Honeycrisp Apple
Seedless Watermelon
No Tear Onions
Grape Tomatoes
Wheat
Broccoli
Baby Carrots
I can't make a screenshot right now, the actual page has little green drawings of the various foods above their names,
the gmo foods have light green drawings, the non-gmo foods have dark green drawings.
2) An example of the terminology in published peer-reviewed scientific papers:
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v9/n4/full/4001457a.html
Molecular Psychiatry (2004) 9, 326357. doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001457 Published online 13 January 2004
In search of a depressed mouse: utility of models for studying depression-related behavior in genetically modified mice
J F Cryan1 and C Mombereau1
1Neuroscience Research, The Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Basel, Switzerland
Correspondence: JF Cryan, PhD, Psychiatry Program, Neuroscience Research, The Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, WSJ 386.344, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel CH-4002, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]
Received 23 July 2003; Revised 15 September 2003; Accepted 15 September 2003; Published online 13 January 2004.
Abstract
The ability to modify mice genetically has been one of the major breakthroughs in modern medical science affecting every discipline including psychiatry. It is hoped that the application of such technologies will result in the identification of novel targets for the treatment of diseases such as depression and to gain a better understanding of the molecular pathophysiological mechanisms that are regulated by current clinically effective antidepressant medications. The advent of these tools has resulted in the need to adopt, refine and develop mouse-specific models for analyses of depression-like behavior or behavioral patterns modulated by antidepressants. In this review, we will focus on the utility of current models (eg forced swim test, tail suspension test, olfactory bulbectomy, learned helplessness, chronic mild stress, drug-withdrawal-induced anhedonia) and research strategies aimed at investigating novel targets relevant to depression in the mouse. We will focus on key questions that are considered relevant for examining the utility of such models. Further, we describe other avenues of research that may give clues as to whether indeed a genetically modified animal has alterations relevant to clinical depression. We suggest that it is prudent and most appropriate to use convergent tests that draw on different antidepressant-related endophenotypes, and complimentary physiological analyses in order to provide a program of information concerning whether a given phenotype is functionally relevant to depression-related pathology.
<snip>
Using genetically modified mice to study depression
Depression: still an unmet medical need
Depression is one of the most serious disorder in today's society.1 The World Health Organization predicts that unipolar depression will be the second most prevalent cause of illness-induced disability by 2020,2 and recently published data suggest that the current lifetime prevalence for depression is as high as 16.2% in the US adult population.3 Further, ... <snip>
<snip>
If you think they're talking about cross-breeding, you'll completely misunderstand the paper.
They are talking about technologies which allow direct manipulation of the genome.
These methods are very different than cross-breeding.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No, the paper clearly is not talking about crossbreeding. However, crossbreeding is a method of genetic modification - sometimes it's even a means of transgenics, and if it's intentional with a planned result, it's genetic engineering.
It's like how a cube is a polyhedron, but not every polyhedron is a cube; These are inclusive terms, of which cross-breeding is part.
StopTheNeoCons
(892 posts)Warpy
(111,261 posts)and probably longer than that, trying to save the seed that produced the best food crops with the highest yields.
An example of this is the lowly cabbage which farmers turned into broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, bok choi, and many other varieties, all of which descended from a leafy generic cabbage that grew nearly everywhere.
So yes, we've been manipulating plant genetics for a very long time. The differences with GMO are that genes that were never part of the original plant are being inserted and seed can't be saved for the following year since it is all sterile. That latter part is a major problem in the developing world since pollination of non GMO crops with GMO pollen is occurring.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)It is a trait of CERTAIN types of GMO.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So he either believes all food could be patented or that not all food is GMO, that not all genetic alteration is of the same sort. That is, his own language indicates two distinct types of modified foods, some are invented and patentable, some are evolutionary and natural, a product of time and generations. Fairly large distinctions yet he claims there are no distinctions.
I
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)If you want to label all food as 'gmo' because you are being disingenuous about GMO and hybridization being exactlythesamething then you either patent ALL food, or NONE. how about we make the labeling distinction "if you can patent this plant it should be labeled."
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)I don't know the fancy words, but when you take DNA from a one species of plant and put it into the DNA of another species of plant, it is very, very very different from crossbreeding types of strawberries to end up with big garden strawberries, or cross-breeding oranges and mandarins to get clementines.
Cha
(297,240 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Nature is the baseline, what you are modifying. Modification is simply the actions of humans on that organism's genetics (though I suppose it could be argued that certain other animals have an effect - perhaps aphids are modified by ant domestication, from some variety of bug that pooped less sugar?)
Basically, if it's domesticated, it's genetically modified.
And what that means, as regards the labeling movement... is that food companies will take the case to court to have every farmed food labeled as "GMO." Maybe take up Tyson's advice and seek out differential labeling between "lab" and "field" - though I'm sure even THAT would be likely to backfire in a similar way.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)that he addressed those nuances at this point. Those WERE the basis of my objections.
I still really don't want GMO-laboratory food supplies. The potential for misuse and abuse is too great for me.
To be honest, though, I would prefer less GMO-Agriculture as well. Patented seeds, hybrid seeds...I don't like our food supply depending on them for a variety of reasons.
In this, I disagree with deGrassi Tyson: I don't think that we have all "bought into" our capitalistic society; we were born into it, whether we support it or not.
There are some things I don't think should be owned. Much of what capitalist societies see as "property" with "market value" are not things that were "invented." I don't think air or water, for example, should be owned. Neither do I think that the seeds produced by my plants should be "owned" by someone else.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 9, 2014, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)
Nevertheless, as an authority on this issue, Vandana Shiva has obvious cred and qualifications as well as the arguments over the estimable astrophysicist, pop-science celebrity and usually decent spokesperson for good causes, Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025321673
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I'd like to read it, but it looks like you linked to the editing screen instead of the post.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)She has been caught in many lies, including about her own credentials.
http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/ecofeminist_dr_vandana_shiva_farmers_who_use_gmos_are_rapists-100234
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)engineering. Its the reason why bananas are edible, grains produce as much flour as they do, etc.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)and seed saving is not the same kind of modern genetic engineering in the modern discussion, and I think we all know that when we are talking GMOs, it's that modern genetic engineering that we are referring to. Pretending that it's not is disingenuous, to say the least.
Nobody created modern grains by splicing non-grain dna into grain in a lab.
And even selective breeding has been proven to be harmful. For example, the turkeys that I don't eat, that are available in grocery stores across the nation every November, have been so intensely bred for heavy breasts that when fully mature the birds can't walk, and they can't breed naturally. I have ethical concerns with that, if nothing else.
It's not a protest against selective breeding of plants and animals done in a responsible, ethical manner.
And, of course, it's still possible to eat home grown, open pollinated plants and ethically home-raised meat. More possible for some than others, depending on where you live. "We" is not universal.
roody
(10,849 posts)Lots of grocery store food is now labelled NO-GMO.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)It's called marketing.
You know what's funny though? I can stick a NO-GMO label on a GMO product with zero repercussion. Why? Because it's nothing more than a marketing tool.
roody
(10,849 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Hell, even Publix here in FL.
roody
(10,849 posts)the no bovine growth hormone also?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Kind of like saying "organic". Those have federal definitions, and must be adhered to. GMO does not. Kind of like saying "all natural".
roody
(10,849 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Does this look any healthier than other shit you buy at Safeway or where ever?
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)There is good reason to be skeptical of scientific 'progress,' and scientists should be a little bit humble in pushing the next new thing on people. I support the Precautionary Principle.
I support seed savers, organic farmers, and backyard gardeners. I think that "Freedom to Garden" should be recognized as a natural human right, including saving seeds to plant next year without having to write a check to Monsanto. I support Percy Schmeiser.
I saw a cute sticker that said: Eat Organic Food! Or, as your grandparents called it, "Food"
I want future generations to be able to grow and eat the plants that my great grandparents enjoyed.
No, my farmer ancestors did not mix a fish gene into their corn seed. Nature places limits on cross-breeding that GMOs obliterate.
Monsanto, with the full support of the US government, wants every seed planted on this Earth to contain their 'patented' genes so that they receive money every single time. No way will I support their effort, ever.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Thousands among thousands of independent (ie, not corporate sponsored) studies...
And once again, GMO =/= Monsanto. And this article isn't about Monsanto.
wisechoice
(180 posts)Where do they get the money for that study? Is government doing studies?
There is no monetary incentive for anyone to do these studies to prove the goo is unsafe. We all know what gmo is. To argue about semantics is silly. Words get meaning by what everyone is using it for. To take it and slice it and analyse it to confuse issues is ridiculous.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Gov't research grants. Et, al.
The same way MOST scientific studies get done. Not all scientific study is profit driven. Hell, most of it probably isn't.
Also, you wouldn't do a study to PROVE it is unsafe. You would do a study to test the safety of it. Which has been done. Thousands of times. With the same results.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Also it's through science that the problems you outlined were rooted out, proven, exposed,and fixed (within the realm of current ability.) And actually, asbestos' harmful properties are a pretty recent discover, in comparison to how long the stuff has been being used. So you should probably be praising science for getting it out of there.
Science isn't hte problem. Profit motive is. nearly every problem you can think of here, is due to someone looking to make a quick buck, or to protect the bucks they already have (the lead paint / gasoline one, for instance - Tyson covered that one nicely in his Cosmos series.)
Rather than freaking out about the "evils of science," you need to be freaking out about the corrupting power of greed.
PatSeg
(47,454 posts)did a segment on one of his Cosmos shows about leaded gas and paint. He praised the geochemist Clair Patterson who fought the lead industry who in turn hired scientists to insist over and over again that leaded gas was safe - "nothing to see here folks".
Tyson very effectively showed how an industry can misrepresent science, buy politicians, ignore facts, and affect regulation of their products. The hypocrisy is stunning!
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)Seems so.
Archae
(46,328 posts)He's relying on science and not hysterics?
Archae
(46,328 posts)Some though belong to more than just one group, and some, like David Icke and Mike Adams belong to all three!
1. The smallest group, those who are certifiably crazy. Paranoid schizophrenic. "The voices told me GMO's are bad..."
2. A larger group, those with an agenda, and anyone critical of the agenda pushers is "EEEEE-VIL" or a " Fill in the blank corporation) shill."
The agenda among GMO-woo spreaders is to preach to the unwashed, that only "natural" is good.
Usually.
3. Third group is the largest.
They are in it for the $$$.
You think "organic" isn't a multi-BILLION $$$ industry?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And it's done well.
Under the ACTUAL definition of the word "organic", GMOs would be there. As would the ashes in my stone ashtray. And my stone ashtray.
Archae
(46,328 posts)I see this "organic" scam every time I go to my local supermarket.
Organic food is 2 or even 3 times higher in price.
Doesn't look or taste any different, and according to *GASP* scientists like Tyson, it's not different.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)is produced by the very same people selling the non-organic food. Someone posted a graphic about it a few weeks back, showing how much overlap there is.
When I grow my own, or buy direct from specific, small volume producers who are NOT simply growing the same, tasteless monoculture varieties of food designed to last longer and look better on supermarket shelves, whether organic or not, but are actually growing heirloom varietals, the difference in taste is incredible.
wisechoice
(180 posts)Science has spoken that organics contain less pesticide.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/12/organic-food-study_n_5579174.html
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)It's a scientific term that has NOTHING to do with food, but with matter. Anything containing carbon compounds is organic. Anything NOT containing carbon compounds is inorganic. For instance, organic chemistry has nothing to do with the way food grows, but with a good knowledge of organic chemistry, one could mix up some great LSD.
It was repurposed in the early 00's by the health food industry and their lobbyists.
wisechoice
(180 posts)Scientist did some study and published the result. You are so arrogant that you think you know everything and ridiculed organics. According to you guys, no one should question scientific results. Otherwise you are anti science. Are you anti science?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)All I stated is that the current use of the word "organic" started as a marketing term in the early 2000's. That is 100% fact. Before that, it NEVER had ANYTHING to do with the way food was grown, but was a SCIENTIFIC TERM that referred to anything made of carbon compounds. That is also 100% fact.
You, are being obtuse. Poor choice.
wisechoice
(180 posts)Trying to figure out where it originated and what organics means is not what the issue is we are fighting for. We all understand what "organics" means. The scientist and science has been using this word and many others. Words can have different meaning depending on the context. There is no marketing stuff going on here using word "organics". It is Monsonto that has been doing the marketing and pumping millions to make sure there is no label for GMO food.
And USDA uses the word "organics" as
"Organic agriculture produces products using methods that preserve the environment and avoid most synthetic materials, such as pesticides and antibiotics. USDA organic standards describe how farmers grow crops and raise livestock and which materials they may use." I think this is a fair use of the word organics.
And it was not coined recently to market organics food
"The term organic farming was coined by Lord Northbourne in his book Look to the Land (written in 1939, published 1940). From his conception of "the farm as organism," he described a holistic, ecologically balanced approach to farming.[11]
In 1939, influenced by Sir Albert Howard's work, Lady Eve Balfour launched the Haughley Experiment on farmland in England. It was the first scientific, side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming. Four years later, she published The Living Soil, based on the initial findings of the Haughley Experiment. Widely read, it led to the formation of a key international organic advocacy group, the Soil Association."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_organic_farming
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Finding out that a statement one calls "100% fact" is actually 100% false would hopefully lead that person to realize that they're in no position to act as the arbiter of what is or is not true.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Many of them are either badly-misinformed Facebook / Tumblr-ites, or unfortunate souls who bought fringe talking points of the woo-spewing "natural only!" crowd. Their "There be dragons!" type philosophy of keeping everybody fearful of science would make even the most hardcore right wing anti-science extremist proud. The other type buys every scare chain mail / Tumblr image they see.
Why can't we just meet at the middle and judge GMO on a case-by-case basis? Both sides immediately jump to extremes and engage in serious confirmation bias abuse.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--when pollen drift contaminates their crops with patented material.
bananas
(27,509 posts)They have no clue about the science, the technology, or the history.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Research is really what is needed - not internet activism (for either side) that's based on rumors and moral panic.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Right now, many GMO food products are entering the market with inadequate investigation. How do we stop that to allow real research to be done without activism?
chrisa
(4,524 posts)wisechoice
(180 posts)Pro gmo guys are so arrogant that they know everything and want to decide for everyone what we should eat.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)If not labeling, then that information should at least be somewhere available to the public.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)In practice, GMO is a tool for corporate dominance and for forcing annual tributes from farmers who can't afford it. The question of whether a practice is inherently safe avoids the questions of who is deploying it and to what end.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025321673
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)PatSeg
(47,454 posts)1. They are dismissive of anything that disagrees with their position and keep repeating the same thing, the same thing, the same thing over and over again.
2. They call people who disagree with them, "crazy", "paranoid", "gullible", "stupid", etc. - love to push those buttons!
3. They often pick fights and belittle others, which frequently results in their posts being hidden.
4. They claim to be liberal, open minded, and some kind of "expert", but they rarely say anything that fits on a liberal forum.
There's a lot more, but I'm getting tired.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)It's pretty clear what people mean when they use the term. Redefining the term to argue against a straw man is a pretty clear sign that Tyson is arguing in bad faith.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Right.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)the term GMO or knows it and is pretending it means something else. But since it's a beloved pop-scientist we're talking about here, please, continue sticking your fingers in your ears.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Trying to conflate naturally evolved, crossbred, or other varieties of food products with what the term GMO means in current usage is not correct. He's trying to make a point by doing that, but it isn't a convincing one.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)and (b) he's "ignorant" because they don't agree with him. So they must resort to ad hominem attacks. Typical.
wisechoice
(180 posts)And it is ok for him to go out of his field and ridicule and argue about semantics of gmo? Now who is arrogant and start acting like they know all fields of science?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Oh, and when there are 2,000 studies show them to be safe vs. one or two poor studies with questionable outcomes, that doesn't mean they're not safe.
Cha
(297,240 posts)be so brilliant and all. Well, it just goes to show ya.. that nobody is perfect. "Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature.. " Disingenuous bullshit.. That's mother nature.. Doesn't mean Monsanto and copy cats can come along and fuck with Mother Nature.
"4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept."
And, that's one of the gawd damn problems isn't it?.. the freaking gmo seeds "infringing on the rights" of other farmers who don't want their gd seeds blowing into their fields and gardens.
c- "Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement(sic) on these matters."
Nice of him to give "developing countries" a pass.
" e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family."
Oh haha.. Talk about "flippant".
bananas
(27,509 posts)I'm also surprised at how many people don't understand what GMO means.
Just because you don't want him to be right, does not change the fact that he is right.
Cha
(297,240 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The reality is that GMOs have been proven to be safe via research, just as much as vaccines have been proven to be safe and climate change has been proven to be occurring and related to human causes.
This is not an actual debate of science. It is only related to bad fear mongering which cannot be supported by science. That's why a scientist like NDT gets frustrated, at times.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)...
The Snack Food Association is a Virginia trade group representing 400 companies worldwide, including manufacturers of potato chips, tortilla chips, cereal snacks, pretzels, popcorn, cheese snacks, meat snacks, pork rinds, snack nuts, party mix and corn snacks, along with other product categories, according the lawsuit.
The International Dairy Foods Association, is a Washington, D.C.-based group representing 550 of the nations milk, cheese and ice-cream companies. The group represents the $2 billion New England dairy giant, Hood.
http://vtdigger.org/2014/06/13/gmo-lawsuit-lays-industry-strategy-fight-vermont-law/
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Whole Foods. It would hurt their bottom end if everything had to be labeled. Would open the doors for more competition.
wisechoice
(180 posts)And a lot of pro gmo guys for the same reason
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)1) Whole Foods is committed to labeling GMO with or without state and fed laws. March of 2013:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/whole-foods-gmo-labeling-2018_n_2837754.html
2) "Doors" already wide open and WFM knows it (see 3 below). WalMart has already started selling organics at conventional prices and at 25% below national competing brands. WalMart picked up the Wild Oats brand that the FTC made WFM abort a merger with. March of 2014:
http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2014/04/10/walmart-and-wild-oats-launch-effort-to-drive-down-organic-food-prices
Also looking for growth via sales of non-GMO organics: Costco, Sprouts, Fresh Market, Trader Joe's and Natural Grocers
3) Whole Foods business model differs from other supermarkets and big box stores by offering in-store prepared foods, supplements, and bath and beauty products (all higher margin than produce). They describe their strategy for holding off competitors like this:
http://fortune.com/2014/07/30/whole-foods-third-quarter-earnings/
Whole Foods strategy of pairing take-out food with groceries is now being replicated by other chains. Take-out food from WFM takes business away from fast food and fast casual dining outlets (Chipotle, Bennigans, etc.) and is higher margin than groceries, especially fresh produce. WFM's strategy does not include fighting labeling and perhaps this is because their better than industry profit margins are not coming from produce, fruit and veg sales.
http://fortune.com/2014/07/30/whole-foods-third-quarter-earnings/
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)from the first paragraph of the article you linked:
They did so with some stated reservations but nowhere in that article or anywhere else does it say that WFM spent $200K fighting against Prop 37, which, again, they endorsed.
The only thing it says about WFM spending money in there is this:
Farm workers unions is a completely separate issue that has nothing to do with GMO or GMO labeling (and no surprise since Mackey is a major league libertarian).
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Sure he is a swell guy and know astronomy and physics, doesn't make him an expert on every subject.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Agricultural developments were historically done by universities. Privatization efforts made us basically give over that research to corporations. It's a really bad thing.
You shouldn't be able to patent genes you discovered. Only genes you've invented.
PuraVidaDreamin
(4,101 posts)With the revolving door allowing past congress members to become
lobbyists for big AG and for past Big AG executives to become
high level employees for the FDA.
apples and oranges
(1,451 posts)We tend to pick and choose which organizations we'll believe. Of course, people who disagree with the organizations we support are labeled as "anti-science" idiots. Funny how that works.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Tyson is babbling an industry talking point here. You cannot, for example, cross breed spiders and goats. No intentional selective breeding will produce a goat that produces spider web material in its milk. On the other hand:
Researchers from the University of Wyoming have developed a way to incorporate spiders' silk-spinning genes into goats, allowing the researchers to harvest the silk protein from the goats milk for a variety of applications
Read more at: http://phys.org/news194539934.html#jCp
Now perhaps this is a hugely beneficial advance, a benefit to all of society, but what it isn't is the same process of selective breeding that produced silk worms and milk cows.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Tired of hearing that shit here too.
PatSeg
(47,454 posts)and since then I've been looking for trends. Noticed this one today - "Chance of serving on juries - 0%" And you were right, one or two go away and someone else takes their place with the same talking points.
madokie
(51,076 posts)at all that his comments were taken out of context and reported as fact
Lot of that seems to go around these days
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)He clearly is not well informed on this subject. The "it is just like selective breeding" is a canard that has been making the rounds for the last year or two, and it is completely bogus.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)At least the Iraq War apologists haven't started that yet ("Saddam had WMDs! Are you saying that ### tons of explosives wouldn't cause mass destruction?" . When someone's argument rests on redefining words, it's usually a good sign that they're just trying to disrupt things.
One of the few things that the people who are working on GMOs and the people who are opposed to GMOs seem to agree on is what GMOs are (the same definition given by FAO here). If someone is either ignorant or dishonest enough to act as if it has a completely different meaning ("All organism are GMOs! All of their genes vary from the organisms that came before it!" , they really don't deserve to be part of the debate.
Iron Man
(183 posts)we need GMOs. Drought areas like California will benefit from crops that can survive with less water than normal.
NickB79
(19,243 posts)Seeing as how many DUers so readily throw him under the bus.
One day, he's DU's shining hero in the fight against anti-science conservatives.
Then, he's out on his ass. Funny, that.
Cha
(297,240 posts)NickB79
(19,243 posts)Distant Quasar
(142 posts)is thinking rationality has any place in the political debate over GMOs. We will eventually have labeling whether it makes any scientific sense or not, because it gives people the illusion of control in a time when the natural order appears to be crumbling around us.
wisechoice
(180 posts)"Never in the history of agriculture has a technology been so controversial as Genetic Engineering (GE)/Genetic Modification (GM) of crops. The unpredictability and irreversibility of Genetic Modification (GM) as a technology and the uncontrollability of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) in the environment, coupled with scientific studies pointing at the potential risk to human health and environment, has resulted in a controversy across the world around the safety as well as the very need for introducing such potentially risky organisms into food and farming systems. These concerns, incidentally, have been raised first and foremost by scientists who are free of vested interests, on scientific grounds."
http://indiagminfo.org/?p=649
What about these 297 scientists?
"The number of scientists and experts who have signed a joint statement[1] saying that GM foods have not been proven safe and that existing research raises concerns has climbed to 297 since the statement was released on 21 October"
http://www.ensser.org/media/0713/
PatSeg
(47,454 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Learn about the reality of ENSSER: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/05/27/gmo-science-denialists-ensser-challenges-who-national-academy-of-sciences-on-gm-safety/
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Good stuff!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)No one who is reasonable understands why, and since I ended up suspended, I have to lay low.
wisechoice
(180 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Start with the beginning of the equation.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I think it is immoral to allow the patenting of any lifeform (especially when it's just been discovered rather than invented), I think it sets a very, very dangerous precedent and I think the selling on non-prerennial seeds are just a way for Big Agra to gouge the farmer. I also think a GMO (in the modern sense, that was a pointless distinction Dr Tyson made) labelling law should be an obvious way to give the consumer more information.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Questions of morality are not within the wheelhouse of science. They're more within the realm of philosophy or consumer law.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)In this case, those who chose to bash NDT, are ignoring the reality of the science, and, thus, lying. That's immoral.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Dr (or is it Professor?) Tyson is one of the brightest men alive and knows more about his science than I ever will. I'd never disparage his scientific knowledge. That said, his opinions on questions of legality and morality are just that, opinion, and one is free to disagree with him, as I do. When NDT speaks on the science of GMOs, he is speaking on the facts as they currently stand and I concede that ground to him. However, when he speaks on the morality of Agra practices, he is speaking of his opinion and to assume that one cannot disagree with that is simply an appeal to authority.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)His is assessment of those is not something that's just a vague idea.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)This is the best piece on the issue to date!