Neil deGrasse Tyson gets to the bottom of GMOs

[Quixote1818]

[errant boy]

1. Bookmarked for viewing later

Thanks for posting this, Quixote!

[Control-Z]

2. K&R&Bookmarking for later.

Thanks for the post!

[Equinox Moon]

3. Yep, I definitely want to watch this later.

[Alternative Facts]

4. Can GMOs be patented?

Can GMOs be patented?
Yes. In 1980, the US Supreme Court ruled in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that genetically altered life can be patented.

Anyone who buys GM seeds typically has to abide by certain restrictions. For instance, farmers who buy soybeans that have been modified to be resistant to Roundup herbicide sign an agreement saying they will use the seeds for only one planting and won't save the seeds from the beans they grow for a second planting.

The companies argue that patents are necessary to spur innovation. Critics argue that the patent system has given seed companies disproportionate market power over GM crops — the 10 biggest seed companies now control roughly 73 percent of the industry.

https://www.vox.com/cards/genetically-modified-foods/can-genetically-modified-foods-be-patented

[longship]

5. Even in non-GMO Ag, seeds are not kept to plant next year.

The farmers buy new ones every year, because seeds from the hybrid cultivars are no more productive than those from the GMO ones. And this is in spite of any patent or not.

Also, patents expire.

Also, hybrid seeds are also patented!!!

[Alternative Facts]

9. Monsantos Dirty Little Secret

In 2005, Monsanto grabbed 40% of the U.S. seed market and 20% of the global seed market when it bought out Seminis, making them the largest seed company in the world. This purchase gave them control over the genetics for 55% of the lettuce on U.S. supermarket shelves, 75% of the tomatoes, and 85% of the peppers, with strong holdings in beans, cucumbers, squash, melons, broccoli, cabbage, spinach and peas!

One of the main reasons that Monsanto and other biotech companies have bought up so many seed companies is to use the germplasm (DNA) of those non-GMO varieties in their future GMO products.

You see, the dirty little secret of the GMO industry is that most of the traits that they brag about trying to create (like drought tolerance, greater nutrition, etc.) are actually the product of traditional breeding.

By buying up all the seed companies, Monsanto can literally steal the work done by thousands of gardeners and farmers over generations to produce quality hybrid varieties with beneficial growing traits. Then they can slip a “Round-Up Ready” or other proprietary gene into it and call it their “own”, and sell it with patent restrictions.

This is not a company any gardener would want to support.

[longship]

11. It always seems to be about Monsanto. Why???

Trying to connect Monsanto to all GMO crops is a fucking lie. Most genetic research is publically funded in academic institutions. Many GMO crops are open sourced. The Monsanto connection fails all over the place.

Likewise, trying to connect glyphosate to all GMO crops is also a common anti-GMO lie.
Glyphosate is one of the safest pesticides, which is why so many people use it. It's much safer than many alternatives. (And BTW, Monsanto's patent has expired, so that connection is null and void, too.)

Here's some science. All crops and animals that we eat are, in one way or another, genetically modified. Humans have been doing the same for upwards of 10,000 years, since the founding of agriculture began. All life on our planet shares a common genetic heritage. We share genes with every lifeform here. That means that there is no such thing as a human gene, an ape gene, or even a bacteria gene. Gene transfer between species happens naturally and has since life originated here nearly four billion years ago. For Christ sakes, we share over 60% of our genes with the Cavendish banana!

There has not been one GMO crop that has been shown to be deleterious to health. Not one.

It makes absolutely no scientific sense to oppose GMO food, none whatsoever.

Of course, genetic modification should be regulated, just like hybridization is, just as GMO already is. For details, see the FDA.

Ask Hawaiians about their papaya crops, saved by genetic modification. Then there's yellow rice. And then there's eggplant in Africa.

Sometimes one has to just stand up for the science. The anti-GMO crowd are not doing themselves any favors by making stuff up.

Note: There is not now, nor has there ever been a fishmato. Yet another anti-GMO fictional scary story.

You want a discussion about GMOs? Let's stick to the settled science, and the facts.

Thank you for your time.

Much appreciated.

[airplaneman]

6. An interesting article that discusses the movie Food Evolution.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/06/food_evolution_is_correct_on_gmos_and_unconvincing.html

I found this statement to be true from the above article:
"GMOs are not associated with sustainability and healthy foods".

So saying GMO are safe does not change the fact they are probably not a good idea.

-Airplane

[shenmue]

7. Um, no

[Archae]

8. MONSANTO! Drink!

Seriously, the Jeffrey Smith groupies will be along in 3-2-1...

[rwsanders]

10. A couple of things that I have read that usually get breezed over...

Discover Magazine just did and article on GMOs, so I'm hoping by writing in I can get a current answer about these issues.
The first was that inserting a gene is not enough to guarantee safety or that you will get what you think you will on the other end; simply because after proteins are produced, all organisms modify them to some extent: cutting, adding, etc. So the modified product could be completely different.
Second studies were showing that bees and other pollinators avoided GMO organisms. Although I guess this wouldn't apply to corn as that is wind dispersed pollen.
Finally, Monsanto is so determined to gain a monopoly that if genes from a GMO are found in a farmer's field, even if it was transferred by wind or pollinators, they are pursuing legal action against them for "stealing" seeds. They are also coming down hard on farmers that want to carry seeds from year to year the old way.
Sorry, don't have sources, but despite ringing endorsements from Bill Nye and others, I'm not sold yet. But maybe someone could summarize this presentation as I didn't have 20 minutes to watch it either.

[longship]

13. Well, here.

First, humans have been inserting genes into food for thousands of years, since the beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry. Nothing we eat is not genetically modified. None of it. Further, nature inserts genes through natural processes. Organic foods include those with forced mutations, both by chemical and radiation. You share 60% of your genes with a Cavendish banana. For details, pick up just about any high school biology textbook.

Second, the bee problem cannot be pinned to GMO plants. Here: https://gmoanswers.com/are-gmos-causing-decline-bees

Third, this: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/01/04/gmo-patent-controversy-3-monsanto-sue-farmers-inadvertent-gmo-contamination/

There are some sources you were needing.

I am not trying to sell you anything, other than that the science says genetic modification is neither new, nor is it unsafe.

My best to you.

[torius]

12. If they are safe then why do so many countries ban them?

[longship]

14. Because they listen to people who are not scientifically literate.

And the organic food lobby is fighting genetic modification using pseudoscientific arguments, all falsified by the science.

I do not understand such thinking. The science is what it is. Denying that science gets us nowhere.

Hope you are well.

[gyroscope]

15. They ban it because of common sense

consumption of a chemical product that kills plants and animals (ie: Roundup weedkiller) is almost guaranteed to have adverse effects on humans as well.

[cab67]

16. That's not really the same thing.

Overuse of ag chemicals is a real problem, but not all transgenic foods are "Roundup-ready" or whatnot. The bans include all transgenic crops.

And ironically, none of the EU countries (to my knowledge) completely bans Roundup or similar herbicides. Some of them are moving in that direction (esp. France), and others ban it for non-commercial use, but the EU itself does not ban it, and in fact renewed its authorization of glycophosphate late last year. This falsifies the claim that ag chemical use is behind the GMO ban; if the problem is herbicides, why ban the crops but not the herbicides themselves?

[gyroscope]

17. The EU doesn't ban GMO, but does mandate labeling

if GMO is so great why are companies like Monsanto so strongly opposed to labeling? If I had a great product to sell I would want all my customers to know about it, not keep them in the dark because I had something to hide. Consumers have a right to know what is in their food and a right to make an informed choice. Tobacco companies were/are opposed to labeling because they had something to hide.

Monsanto claimed their DDT pesticide was safe until it was banned as a carcinogen in the 1970s. Why would anyone ever trust these crooks? They ought to be shut down imo.

[cab67]

18. Problem with labeling -

is that every product sold at the grocery store, with the possible exception of unflavored bottled water and wild-caught seafood, would have to be labeled. Every one of them. All crops and livestock are genetically modified. What GMO skeptics oppose are transgenic crops. That’s the term you should be using.

And products made from transgenic crops are safe for consumption. There is absolutely no reason to label them.

There’s also a PR problem. I had a GMO opponent flat-out admit on DU that we must use the misleading term GMO, and not the more accurate transgenic, because it carries a negative connotation and would dissuade people from consuming perfectly safe food.

[gyroscope]

20. That's your opinion.

And products made from transgenic crops are safe for consumption. There is absolutely no reason to label them.

That's your opinion. The tobacco companies said the same thing about cigarettes. Monsanto said the same thing about DDT until it was banned in the US as a known carcinogen. Do you think DDT is harmless and safe?

There’s also a PR problem. I had a GMO opponent flat-out admit on DU that we must use the misleading term GMO, and not the more accurate transgenic, because it carries a negative connotation and would dissuade people from consuming perfectly safe food.

So we should stop requiring tobacco companies to label their products because it might harm their PR? Boo hoo cry me a river. The interests of a private corporation is more important than the public's right to know in your opinion? I can tell you are a supporter of Citizens United.

Poll: Most Americans support mandatory GMO labeling
http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/261763-poll-most-americans-support-mandatory-gmo-labeling

[longship]

22. Not opinion. It's science!

I know some people don't like the science. But that doesn't give them the right to make shit up, which is what the anti-GMO crowd does, mostly.

And the GM versus transgenic argument is equally non-scientific. There are no human genes, cauliflower genes, bacteria genes, ape genes, etc. There are only genes, shared by all life forms on Earth. You share over 60% of your genes with a Cavendish banana. You are as much a banana as a human.

I know this is tough for the anti-GMO crowd, but the science is what the science is.

There is nothing wrong with genetically modified food. You've been eating it your entire life, as have all humans for thousands of years. That's the facts.

[gyroscope]

23. Sure, if you believe the industry funded "studies"

the World Health Organization says otherwise, calling glyphosate a probable carcinogen.
The warning label on Roundup itself states it is a known carcinogen.

The unbiased non-corporate funded research says nicotine, DDT and glyphosate are known carcinogens.
That is a fact.

Corporations Like Monsanto Have Hijacked Higher Education

In another example of "follow the money," a new report by Food and Water Watch has found that a quarter of research funding at land grant universities comes from corporations, compared to less than 15 percent from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), giving big companies like Monsanto a stronger foothold than ever in higher education.

According to the featured article by Jill Richardsonii, a whopping $7.4 billion flowed from big corporations to agricultural research in 2006―an astounding amount that's compounded by the fact that, in 2005, a third of agricultural scientists also reported consulting for private industry.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/16/monsanto-funding-future-farmers.aspx

[cab67]

27. grummmmmmmble......

You do know that glycophosphate is not a GM food - right?

[longship]

28. Ah! The Monsanto ploy again.

I took that on above.

And you cite that lying idiot, Joseph Mercola??? Why do anti-GMO folks have to lie to make their case?

If folks want to have a meaningful discussion, they should stick to the real science, not made up shit by idiot anti-science ideologues.

I don't know who's worse. The climate science deniers, the anti-vaccination kooks, the anti genetic modification ideologues, or the evolution denying creationists. They are all the same to me.

Sorry for being harsh, my friend, but you are not helping your case.

[gyroscope]

30. So the WHO are lying? And there's no corporate money flowing into our universities?

You really are clueless if that's what you believe. I suggest you inform yourself.

Public Universities Get an Education in Private Industry
Can academic researchers remain impartial if they are beholden to corporate money?

The Atlantic

At the University of California, Davis, researchers are regularly invited to attend on-campus meet-and-greets with potential corporate funders to discuss possible sponsorship opportunities. Handshakes and business cards are routinely exchanged—so are nondisclosure agreements.

Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist at U.C. Davis, says such meetings and the attendant nondisclosure agreements are commonplace and that it’s university administrators—rather than the corporations themselves—who encourage their professors and researchers to attend. Eisen describes one meeting in which a company started out by passing around a document. “It was a 13-page agreement, and I refused to sign it,” Eisen says. “I said: ‘Look, there are 20 things in here I don’t understand and 15 things I completely disagree with. There’s no way I’m signing it.’”

But, unlike Eisen, many in the scientific community and academia do sign the NDAs—creating blind spots that make it impossible for the rest of the world to discern whether a corporation has had any undue influence on research. I spent a year poring over documents and talking to universities, companies, lawyers, and researchers to figure out what kind of role corporate funding plays in public-university studies across the United States. Nearly all of the people I spoke with talked about the increasing ease with which corporate representatives have access to researchers, although some were more comfortable with the arrangement than others.


https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/04/public-universities-get-an-education-in-private-industry/521379/

[longship]

31. Okay.

This is about the science, not anybody's personal opinions about the science.

And how food is handled legally is totally irrelevant to the scientific question of whether genetically modified food (everything humans eat) is safe. It is safe and has been for thousands of years.

We can have a reasoned discussion on regulations as long as they are informed by the science.

Silly GMO labels and bans are non-starters. All food is genetically modified. All of it. That's what the science says.

Let's start there.

[cab67]

26. I disagree with one of your claims

And the GM versus transgenic argument is equally non-scientific.

As far as definitions are concerned, it's not. There are many ways organisms can be genetically modified. Transferring genes from one species to another is one of them.

[longship]

29. Over 60% of your genes are shared with the Cavendish banana.

Don't get me started about the number of genes you share with E. coli bacteria. (About 7%)

You are transgenic with every lifeform on Earth.

Science!!! It's cool!


And guess what hybridization does? That's right, it transfers genes. And guess what nature does? Transfers genes between diverse life forms. That's how you share genes with every other lifeform on Earth. There are no bacteria genes, human genes, avacado genes, ape genes. There are just genes doing their gene things, making amino acids, and eventually proteins and stuff.

[cab67]

33. that's not what transgenic means.

That's homology. We share a bunch of our genomes with other organisms because we share a common ancestor. (Lateral transfer can occur, and that may explain some of the similarities with other organisms, but most of the similarities come down to old-fashioned ancestry and descent.)

Hybridization isn't quite the same kind of gene transfer that goes on in a lab when a gene from one organism is transferred to a distant relative.

[longship]

35. But I don't think one can argue that they're qualitatively different.

For Pete's sake, farmers are forcing mutations using radiation and chemicals. That's even A-Okay with organic farming. Now there is no argument that that isn't safe. (No doubt it is safe.)

I am trying to steer the discussion away from the science, which anybody who understands it agrees that it is settled. Genetic modification is safe, even what you are calling transgenic. But I would prefer not to get involved in semantic arguments here. My field is physics, not biology, so I may not always use the precise terminology. Mea culpa.

However, anybody who claims that GMO is unhealthy simply because transgenic genes might be unhealthy has to answer for the percentage of genes humans already share with all life on Earth. That fact pretty much falsifies that claim. There are no bacteria genes, human genes, ape genes, etc. There are just genes, many of which are shared across the vast landscape of life forms.

And all GMO food is already thoroughly tested for safety. Not one has been shown to be unsafe. Not one!

A good discussion would be to ditch the labeling arguments and discuss regulation and testing. IMHO, that would be a productive avenue.

[cab67]

24. no.

That's your opinion.

Well - no. That's pretty much an objective fact at this point. Foods made from transgenic crops, by themselves, are just as safe as those made from other kinds of GMO crops (the kind used by farmers before the rise of modern genomic science).

The tobacco companies said the same thing about cigarettes. Monsanto said the same thing about DDT until it was banned in the US as a known carcinogen. Do you think DDT is harmless and safe?

Non sequitur for two reasons:

1. The tobacco companies, and those making DDT, were making their claims in the face of substantial scientific evidence contradicting their positions. In this case, there are no scientific studies showing transgenic crops to be a health hazard. (And for most people, DDT is actually not that bad in small amounts - its primary danger was in environmental damage when used over large areas.)

2. As I said above, transgenic crops are not all made by Monsanto. I don't care for Monsanto's business practices, either - but that doesn't mean the transgenic crops they make are necessarily bad for people, nor does it cast aspersion on the crops made elsewhere.

Poll: Most Americans support mandatory GMO labeling

Poll: most Americans in 2003 supported the invasion of Iraq. Public opinion about something is not necessarily the best gauge of its wisdom.

http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/

[gyroscope]

32. The difference is

1. The tobacco companies, and those making DDT, were making their claims in the face of substantial scientific evidence contradicting their positions. In this case, there are no scientific studies showing transgenic crops to be a health hazard. (And for most people, DDT is actually not that bad in small amounts - its primary danger was in environmental damage when used over large areas.)

The higher education system was a lot more independent back then. There was relatively little if any corporate funding of university research back then. But as we know nowadays everything is for sale, including our politicians and even the researchers at our most prestigious universities. Thanks in part to large cutbacks in federal funding of academic research and corporate money rushing in to fill the void.

2. As I said above, transgenic crops are not all made by Monsanto. I don't care for Monsanto's business practices, either - but that doesn't mean the transgenic crops they make are necessarily bad for people, nor does it cast aspersion on the crops made elsewhere.

Never said they were. You can add Dow, DuPont, Bayer, etc to the list of agrichemical companies that have a history of morally questionable practices.

[cab67]

34. I'm actually part of the higher education system - professor at a large research university.

I take exception to your assertion that "the researchers at our most prestigious universities" are for sale. I am not, nor have I ever been. I collaborate with geologists, biologists, and physical anthropologists, and none has ever been for sale - even those who've accepted private-sector funding (see below).

Your assertion that we were "a lot more independent back then" is not entirely accurate. I agree that industry-funded research should be viewed carefully, but (a) not all industry-funded research is, by definition, baloney and (b) not all research into transgenic crops is industry-funded.

Most of my research funds are federal (NSF), and none has come from a private company, but I've had friends and colleagues over the years who've gotten support from the private sector. In some cases, it was a disaster - they faced nondisclosure agreements and problems when their results didn't comport with the corporate message - but in most, it was actually very successful. And this was pure, inquiry-based research - not applied science.

And for what it's worth, my colleagues have reported similar problems working with NGOs and state-level agencies. Depending on the political winds, there may be pressure to support a particular party view. But if you've ever encountered a working scientist, you'd know that the vast majority are impossible to silence. We love what we do way too much for that. We may withhold some data if there's a publication embargo, and there are a few who've lost their ethical way (see, e.g., people with advanced degrees who continue to deny global warming; they're a tiny minority, but they exist), but the idea that large numbers of scientists can be made to toe a company line, for any reason, is laughable.

[gyroscope]

37. Interesting

thanks for sharing that.

I'm sure the vast majority of public sector scientists have a great deal of integrity. But human nature being what it is, it is hard for anyone to say no to millions of dollars of corporate 'grant' money. You have to ask what is the motive for a company like Monsanto or duPont to give away such large sums of money in the first place? Corporations are not charities. I don't think they would be doing it if they weren't certain it would be to their benefit.

And those NDA agreements they want you to sign? Signing one of those things may make one akin to Stormy Daniels whoring herself to Trump imo. So much for transparency and integrity.

What I don't get is why the GMO industry, or anyone, would be opposed to NEUTRAL labeling? What are they hiding?

By neutral labeling I mean labeling that simply identifies something as a GMO made food product, not a warning label like cigarettes have. Not one that is large and prominent like the warning labels on cigarette packs, but in small discreet lettering on the back of the package similar to the ingredients list on every food product. Neutral labeling in the EU for example doesn't state whether GMO is good or bad, but simply that it is present. Every food company in the US is required to list the ingredients in their products. Why should GMO products be treated any differently?

Let everyone consumer decide for themself. Judging by this thread there are plenty of GMO supporters to keep the industry in business so they won't be going out of business, with or without the labeling. They will still have millions of supporters and customers who believe in the benefits of GMO, and that is fine.

In a free democratic society every person should have the power to decide for themself, not have their choices taken away and dictated to them by the corporate oligarchy.

[cab67]

38. A better idea

would be to indicate the ag chemicals used on a crop. For reasons already discussed, labeling GMO foods is pointless - pretty much everything is GMO. Including vegetables and fruits labeled ‘organic.’ And, the products in and of themselves are perfectly safe - and not all of the research showing that us backed by corporate money.

The real threats are the herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotics used in large-scale farm operations. These are what cause environmental damage and pose risks to human health. Those should be indicated somewhere.

[gyroscope]

39. That could work too

most food in the US is GMO, but not all. more and more grocery chains in the US are carrying a line of certified non-GMO food products, not just Whole Foods. The popular Silk brand of almond milk is certified non-GMO, for example. its seems to be a growing trend. its not possible for most of us to avoid consuming GMO products but it can be reduced for those who are inclined.

[cab67]

40. some sincere advice -

Nearly all of the "non-GMO" certifications are horseshit. Really. I'm not trying to be difficult here - just honest. Those certifications should be disregarded.

[gyroscope]

41. To clarify

for the purpose of this discussion I define GMO as genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup. So a non-GMO certified product would not be (or shouldn't be) resistant to Roundup but could possibly be gene-modified in other ways.

[cab67]

19. Also -

You do realize that not all transgenic crops are made by Monsanto - right?

[gyroscope]

21. Did I say they were?

what is your point?

[cab67]

25. you keep coming back to the issue of Monsanto's trustworthiness.

My point stands.

[gyroscope]

36. dupe