Neil deGrasse Tyson clarifies his remarks, re: GMOs.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

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&quot
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]

1. No one has ever asked for labelling of GMOs created by nature

and I predict that the good scientist will set off a new shit storm because of that flippant remark.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

3. Uhmmm... He said that all food is essentially GMO...

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]

8. It was dismissing the call for GMO labelling thru a lazy, flippant remark.

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]

11. No, he's pointing out that ALL food is GMO...

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]

18. That * I* keep saying?

Are you confusing me with someone else?

[bananas]

25. The first GMO's were created in 1973, the first GMO food was sold in 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

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>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic_organism

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&quot .

<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]

26. It was NDT who made that claim...

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]

29. Nope - NDT is wrong - he even admits he doesn't know what he's talking about.

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):

http://www.nature.com/news/fields-of-gold-1.12897

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 nature’s bounty even more desirable.

As a series of articles in this week’s 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]

35. If it's genetic code has been changed, then it is genetically modified...

Also, he doesn't speak French, so he guessed.

But hey, you're a scientist, right?

[bananas]

37. GMO refers to how it was modified.

"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]

51. No, "GMO" just means "genetically Modified organism."

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]

55. No, "transgenic", "genetically engineered", and "genetically modified" are synonymous.

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

Feature Review

Molecular Psychiatry (2004) 9, 326–357. 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: [e-mail]

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]

72. No, I think you're the one misunderstanding

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]

64. Thank you, very true and explodes the talking point of pro-GMOers..nt

[Warpy]

10. He's correct. People have been selectively saving seed for thousands of years

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]

12. Actually, sterile seeds is NOT a trait of GMO...

It is a trait of CERTAIN types of GMO.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. I note the good Doctor Neil says both that ALL food is GMO and that SOME food can be patented

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]

50. That's a point I've made before

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]

96. That is a very good point.

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]

49. I hope so.. the whole "nuanced" thing was "flippant", imv..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5333854

[Scootaloo]

52. Well, that's because there aren't any

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]

2. I appreciate

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]

89. People should learn and think for themselves.

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]

91. Can you fix this link?

I'd like to read it, but it looks like you linked to the editing screen instead of the post.

[JackRiddler]

101. Sure. Done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025321673

[HuckleB]

105. Shiva is not credible.

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]

99. Uhm, GMO-Agriculture is basically all food we eat from before the advent of modern genetic...

engineering. Its the reason why bananas are edible, grains produce as much flour as they do, etc.

[HuckleB]

100. Indeed.

[LWolf]

110. Selective cross pollinating

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]

4. I am fortunate to live in California.

Lots of grocery store food is now labelled NO-GMO.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

5. That's everywhere...

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]

9. I'll be looking for it in Iowa next week. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

13. Walk into a Whole Foods, Trader Joe's...

Hell, even Publix here in FL.

[roody]

14. Do you think they are lying about

the no bovine growth hormone also?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

15. That is a federal law...

Kind of like saying "organic". Those have federal definitions, and must be adhered to. GMO does not. Kind of like saying "all natural".

[roody]

20. We see more of this every day.

http://www.nongmoproject.org/

[TransitJohn]

39. It certainly is marketing.

Does this look any healthier than other shit you buy at Safeway or where ever?

[KurtNYC]

40. they say they verify it -- they don't?

http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/

[Dems to Win]

6. DDT, Love Canal, Lead gasoline and paint, Asbestos insulation.....brought to us by SCIENCE!

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]

7. 20 years of scientific research behind this...

Thousands among thousands of independent (ie, not corporate sponsored) studies...

And once again, GMO =/= Monsanto. And this article isn't about Monsanto.

[wisechoice]

17. who are those thousands of thousands

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]

19. Universities...

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]

53. ...You say through the internet, via a computer, powered by electricity...

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]

78. And Neil Degrasse Tyson

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]

16. Is he blind to the possibility of man-made catastrophe?

Seems so.

[Archae]

22. Or maybe...

He's relying on science and not hysterics?

[Archae]

21. Anti-GMO'ers, like most other woo believers, mostly belong to one of three groups...

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 &quot 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]

23. The repurposing of the word "organic" is itself nothing more than a marketing tool...

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]

24. Absolutely.

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]

28. That's because most of the 'organic' food sold in grocery stores

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]

47. you are anti science

Science has spoken that organics contain less pesticide.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/12/organic-food-study_n_5579174.html

[Dr Hobbitstein]

60. The word "organic" existed LONG before pesticides...

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]

65. now we have to argue about what word we should using?

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]

73. I'm not questioning shit...

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]

75. Why is that relevant to this discussion?

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]

81. That's 100% false and can be debunked with a 15 second Google search.

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]

31. There are legitimate concerns about GMO. However, the woo collective ruins it for everyone.

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]

38. The purpose of GMO is for corporate shitstains to sue people like Percy Schmeiser

--when pollen drift contaminates their crops with patented material.

[bananas]

32. Based on this thread, it's the pro-GMOers who are woo-woo.

They have no clue about the science, the technology, or the history.

[chrisa]

36. Both sides are absolutely clueless. That's why the debate is so silly.

Research is really what is needed - not internet activism (for either side) that's based on rumors and moral panic.

[BillZBubb]

43. If research is really needed, then don't we need activism to prevent premature market entry?

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]

46. That's a good point.

[wisechoice]

66. middle ground is labelling

Pro gmo guys are so arrogant that they know everything and want to decide for everyone what we should eat.

[chrisa]

77. Labeling is not a bad idea. People should know what they're eating.

If not labeling, then that information should at least be somewhere available to the public.

[JackRiddler]

102. Certainly not about the politics.

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]

104. Shiva is only about politics and self promotion.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/05/09/how-seeds-of-a-false-story-took-root-and-spread/

[PatSeg]

76. Characteristics I've noticed about Pro-GMO'ers on numerous sites

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]

95. Why Vaccine and GMO Denial Should be Treated Equally

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/08/07/vaccine-gmo-denial-treated-equally/#.U-VIyYBdUy7

[Chathamization]

27. Saying all food comes from GMOs is pretty disingenuous. Tyson's either ignorant or dishonest here.

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]

30. I love it when people call NDT "ignorant...."

Right.

[bananas]

33. In this case, NDT is ignorant - and wrong. nt

[Chathamization]

34. I said "either ignorant or dishonest". My guess is the later. He either doesn't know the meaning of

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]

45. I do think the good doctor stepped out of his field of expertise into a mine field.

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]

63. He's "ignorant" (a) because they think they know more than this brilliant man. They fucking don't,

and (b) he's "ignorant" because they don't agree with him. So they must resort to ad hominem attacks. Typical.

[wisechoice]

67. there are scientist who have published result that gmo are unsafe

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]

108. Not scientists that haven't been debunked.

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]

48. I'm kinda of surprised at all this shite coming from him. I'd read about how he was suppose to

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]

59. I'm surprised too.

I'm also surprised at how many people don't understand what GMO means.

[HuckleB]

106. He's right.

Just because you don't want him to be right, does not change the fact that he is right.

[Cha]

107. No he's dead wrong because he is.

[HuckleB]

109. No, he's right.

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]

42. I wonder whose checks he is cashing

[KurtNYC]

58. Don't know but these are the entities spending money to stop consumer choice:

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents cereal-maker General Mills, among others, is leading the charge against Vermont. The other groups are the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.
...
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 nation’s 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]

61. You know who else is fighting labeling?

Whole Foods. It would hurt their bottom end if everything had to be labeled. Would open the doors for more competition.

[wisechoice]

68. and monsanto

And a lot of pro gmo guys for the same reason

[KurtNYC]

69. Not true by a long shot...

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:

Whole Foods co-CEO Walter Robb told Fortune’s Beth Kowitt that his company had a number of strategies to fend off its rivals, including offering more competitive pricing as well as investing in technology to offer services like food delivery and online orders.

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]

74. Whole Foods spent almost 200K in 2009 to fight GMO labeling...

http://www.alternet.org/food/whole-foods-sincere-about-its-support-labeling-genetically-modified-foods

[KurtNYC]

80. Perhaps you read that wrong...

from the first paragraph of the article you linked:

the leadership of Whole Foods Market on September 11 endorsed Proposition 37, the California Ballot Initiative to require mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods.

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:

in 2009 WFM spent $180,000 lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have granted farm workers (the same farm workers who pick the fruits and vegetables sold in WFM stores) and other food workers the right to form unions and enjoy collective bargaining rights with their employers.

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]

90. He could be just misinformed.

Sure he is a swell guy and know astronomy and physics, doesn't make him an expert on every subject.

[joshcryer]

44. I agree with him except on patents.

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]

54. I don't get how for someone so intelligent that he fully trusts the FDA

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]

86. People "fully" trust the FDA, CDC, etc

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]

56. On conflating intentional breeding with genetically modified organisms

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]

71. +1

Tired of hearing that shit here too.

[PatSeg]

83. We had a discussion on another thread

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]

57. It doesn't surprise me

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]

62. His attempts to set the record straight didn't.

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]

92. Climate change deniers have been pushing the same garbage - "The climate is always changing!"

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?&quot . 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!&quot , they really don't deserve to be part of the debate.

[Iron Man]

70. Like it or not, if we want to keep eating the way we do

we need GMOs. Drought areas like California will benefit from crops that can survive with less water than normal.

[NickB79]

79. Someone needs to photoshop tire tracks over NDT's face

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]

84. It's okay to disagree with someone without throwing them under the bus.

[NickB79]

85. I agree. Now, tell that to some on this thread. NT

[Distant Quasar]

82. Tyson's mistake

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]

87. are these 250 scientists not upto NDT standards since he knows all fields

"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]

88. Thanks for that!

[HuckleB]

103. Actually, just because they call themselves scientists, doesn't mean they are scientists.

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]

93. nyuh uh! Because @#@%#^@!!

[HuckleB]

94. How Scare Tactics on GMO Foods Hurt Everybody

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528331/how-scare-tactics-on-gmo-foods-hurt-everybody/?utm_campaign=socialsync&utm_medium=social-post&utm_source=twitter

[Dr Hobbitstein]

97. You need post this as on OP.

Good stuff!

[HuckleB]

98. It is, but the last time I posted an OP on GMOs, it was killed by a jury.

No one who is reasonable understands why, and since I ended up suspended, I have to lay low.

[wisechoice]

112. what about scare tactics against labeling?

[HuckleB]

113. Labeling is all about fear mongering.

Start with the beginning of the equation.

[Prophet 451]

111. He has an opinion, and I profoundly disagree with it

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]

114. Can you prove any of your beliefs with a consensus of scientific evidence?

[Prophet 451]

115. No, because they're not the kind of thing science deals with

Questions of morality are not within the wheelhouse of science. They're more within the realm of philosophy or consumer law.

[HuckleB]

116. Actually, science can inform morality.

In this case, those who chose to bash NDT, are ignoring the reality of the science, and, thus, lying. That's immoral.

[Prophet 451]

117. I'm not bashing NDT

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]

118. The morality of agra practices can be assessed with evidence.

His is assessment of those is not something that's just a vague idea.

[HuckleB]

119. WHAT THE HATERS GOT WRONG ABOUT NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON’S COMMENTS ON GMOS

http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/14/what-the-haters-got-wrong-about-neil-degrasse-tysons-comments-on-gmos/

This is the best piece on the issue to date!