Or how is it that you missed those news? Are those tomatoes even still on the market? I doubt it.
You're probably thinking of the Flavr Savr tomato. That one made the news, but involved the silencing of an enzyme involved in fruit degradation. It had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was referring to things like the breeding Solanum lycopersicoides into cultivated tomato. These sorts of things happened a bit earlier, but I recall no fanfare or protest when for example the Plum Regal tomato containing the Ph-3 genes for late blight resistance from Solanum pimpinellifolium hit the market.
When most people say 'genetic modification' what they mean is genetic engineering, which is to say, recombinant DNA techniques, which is different than so-called 'conventional' breeding techniques (for example inserting a spinach gene into an orange for disease resistance which is not naturally present in the citrus genepool), although not different enough to warrant the baseless opposition to it . Unfortunately, most people do not know what they are talking about when it comes to plants, agriculture, and genetic engineering
But I absolutely agree with you that the world should stop bending over to appease the anti-GE contingent. They are the anti-vaxxers of agriculture, and the effects the opposition to genetic engineering has had on the world are just as obscene.
Rinse it thoroughly several times (when water runs off it the water should be clear) and throw it in a rice cooker. I like to make a bed of it and throw something else on top, like a curry or stir fry, much like one would use rice.
Yes, cross breeding is genetic modification. When you breed, you mix genes from different varieties, sometimes even different species, and select the genetic combinations which are the most favorable. Breeding absolutely is modifying the genetics. True, it is different from genetic engineering, but you are still making modifications. This is why the term 'GMO' is a rather poor term.
Or, as in this case removing a gene to make something Monsanto can patent and profit more from while not really understanding (or perhaps they do but just don't care) the consequences of doing so.
Plenty of plant varieties are patented and sold for profit, genetically engineered and not. No one gets on Zaiger Genetic's case over pluerries, or UoM's case over Honeycrisp (the patent has since expired), or complains that Driscoll's breeds patented berries. If you don't like that, I don't see you offering to pay the salary of the people who keep the food supply afloat in a world with ever evolving pests, pathogens, and environmental stresses that you never consider because we do our jobs well enough that they never affect you.
Your accusation that genetic engineering is not well understood is just outright patently false. It is used as a valuable tool in basic research all the time, and on the applied side if anything, there's too much regulation on GE crops. It's gotten to the point where most publicly funded genetic engineering work never sees the light of day.
In this case, good on the hipsters though. Supporting the cultivation of 'new' species is how you increase the biodiversity of the food supply, which brings all sort of benefits. It is great to see more research and funding going to the support and promotion of less commonly cultivated crops.
Now if only we could get them to stop saying things like 'these benefits could be gained without the use of genetic modification' as if genetic engineering is a bad thing.
GMO = Man fucking about with genes that may or may not produce something good or bad due to a complete lack of long term studies (i.e. 50+ years).
That's a ridiculous standard. Do you also hold that Wifi and microwaves should undergo a half century of testing?
When someone can explain to me an actual reason as to why genetic engineering is fundamentally different from all the other similar things which occur in nature, then I'll consider advocating a half century of testing. However, the anti-GMO crowd has had over two decades to make their case to the scientific community though, so I'm not holding my breath.
The point is to state things in a scary way and hope people mistake that for a rational argument. I hate those three tired tropes in the parent poster's comment. 'GMOs produce pesticides and resist poisons!' It only sounds scary to the uninformed.
First, all plants produce chemical defenses, aka pesticides. This is basic botany. An organism that can't run or swat back against the trillions of insects that want to eat it as to evolve defenses somehow. They use chemical defenses. Domestication has removed some of those defenses to make plants more palatable to humans, but that's how things work in nature. Some genetically engineered crops have a protein which kills certain types of pests. It doesn't affect humans. Hyping up that there is a pesticide in corn is just ignorant. Of course there are pesticides in corn, it's corn. Even your organic, all natural, 'Non-GMO verified' corn still has pesticides in it.
Second claim, about resisting pesticides, yes, some crops do resist certain herbicides. This enables fewer application of fewer herbicides with less need for soil degrading tillage. For all the hate this attracts, I've yet to see anyone say they want to go back to the old ways of tilling for weed control, which destroy topsoil and promotes fertilizer runoff, and of using a wider range of more toxic herbicides at different stages of crop growth. People complaining are more than free to propose better weed control methods instead of presenting basic realities of farming in a fearmongering manner with no proper context. If you can control weeds without herbicides, I'm sure farmers would love to cut that expense from their budget.
And on the topic of genes from sexually incompatible organisms, also already done. It's called embryo rescue, and it can be used to hybridize things that would not naturally be able to cross. No one complained when it was used to bring disease resistant genes into tomato. Genetic engineering is taking this a step further, yes, but merely stating that we are bringing genes in from different species is not making a point.
Honestly, I get why people think some of these things are scary, but I do wish they would spend just a little time reading up on the matter from reputable sources before assuming they see the flaws that scientists and farmers do not.
If it's got a bitter taste, are you rinsing it enough? I find bitterness can be an issue if it is not thoroughly rinsed several times before cooking. There's also some pre-rinsed brands on the market now.
Also, maybe try the red quinoa if you can. Personally, I think the red one on the market is better than the white varieties.
That's a workable issue. Plenty of foods have been bred out of more toxic wild ancestors, like the solanine removed from potatoes or the erucic acid removed from canola. Most plants did not evolve to have their roots or leaves eaten; domestication made them favorable to human consumption. Knowing how to make things better is the first step toward doing it.
Saponins I think are less of a concern, since they're usually pretty easy to wash off of commercially processed quinoa. I'd be more concerned with producing low oxalic acid varieties.
No, because a keyboard & mouse is a far superior for playing an FPS than a controller. I'm not sure how anyone can consider that a topic of debate as the summery implies. A keyboard and mouse allows you to independently move and aim with greater ease and higher precision than a controller. The issue here would be that people using a keyboard & mouse against console gamer using a controller puts the controller users at a severe disadvantage.
Forget obscure, old is enough. Copyright should exist as a means of supporting creative works, not a way for large media corporations to sit on something in perpetuity and collect revenue with the only expense being 'investments' in congress to extend copyright.
I'm more than willing to pay for something new because that supports the production of creative works I like enough to give time and money to. Music, movies, books, video games, sure, I will and do buy them. But there's are many things out there that are several decades old and should have fallen into the public domain years ago, and for those I feel no such moral obligation. If the media companies want to avoid piracy, they've got options. I pay for Netflix, I pay for Amazon Prime, there's plenty of options for them to get a piece of the pie even with things that really should be free anyway. If they can't play nice and want to prove just how greedy they are, screw 'em.
You're technically right, but the big factor at the crux of the matter is the if they get in part. Paying the way for 'one of the good ones' doesn't mean there is not still a huge classism problem in these schools.
Not just that, but those with means have much more opportunity to do the exceptional things so-called elite colleges are looking for. Feeder schools with high rates of getting pupils into elite schools are a thing for a reason. An average kid with means is still much more likely to have an outstanding resume than an exceptional one student from a more modest background.
Apologists will say admissions at these places are money blind, but the reality is they just use proxies. It's the class equivalent of saying 'I'm not racist, but I won't hire people with funny names like Jose, Latasha, or Ahmed.'
The old saying 'Elite schools are where the wealthy launder privilege into credentials' once again holds true, and still no one cares. No one is holding them accountable for their classism. Point it out and some asshole accuses you of 'class warfare.' Far as I'm concerned, their should be an academic boycott of these places until conditions improve. It is baffling to me that, for all the progressives in academia, no one wants to touch this subject.
That's a useless suggestion: people who need organ donations are generally not suitable to donate, and they know it long ahead of time.
Except in cases of injury, or where only one organ is the problem.
Well, one reason is a concern that doctors and hospitals might be less interested in saving you if that means potentially damaging donatable organs. There are many other reasons as well.
Considering that, far as I can tell anyway, virtually every medical organization on earth denies that happens, that seems an extremely unlikely and unreasonable concern. I would not be surprised if there were isolated incidents, but by that logic you should wear body armor in case someone stabs or shoots you. I think its much more reasonable to trust the opinions of major medical organizations than put stock in baseless fears pulled out the usual place.
Good point, I forgot to apply Hanlon's razor to the situation. I should have said prick or conspiracist with unreasonable fears. If there were any evidence whatsoever that organ donors die at a higher rate in emergency situation (are emergency medical staff even aware of your status in those situations?), it would be huge medical ethics news. Somehow I doubt that is the case.
I think they should be tied together. Unless you have some sort actual medical reason as to why you should not be an organ donor (HIV infection, ect.) opting out should put you on the bottom of the donation list should you need it. If you contribute to the system, you get priority if you need the system. Otherwise, you go to the back of the line. Don't expect to receive if you're not willing to give.
I just don't get the mentality of people who refuse organ donation. If you're dead, you're dead, why take other people with you? It's one last act of good that could save lives and, seeing as how you're never going to use them again, costs you absolutely nothing. How big of a prick do you have to be to look at that proposition and reject it?
It's (kind of) both. It is true that a lot of pruning and training goes into getting fruit trees to be the desired shape, but there is also a genetic component. Trees which have been bred to be short (and usually also cold tolerant & disease resistant) are used as rootstocks for a lot of fruit trees, with the above ground portion that produces the fruit being grafted onto those roots. The end result is dwarf trees that are easier to work with. True, this isn't genetic engineering, but it is a bit more than just pruning.
The ultimate thing about farming is that it is not easy. Harvesting of fruits and vegetables, in particular, is long, hard, laborious work. As economies develop, there's going to be less people wanting to do that for the prices consumers want to pay. Mechanized harvesting is already employed in a lot of agronomic crops (corn, rice, wheat, soy, ect) and some horticultural crops. The difficulty is going to be getting machines that are able to tell when to pick, how to pick, and how to avoid damaging the crop. Some things might still have to be done by hand (pruning of tree fruit, which is an art and a science, comes to mind), but in general, mechanized agriculture will be the future, and I think that's a good thing.
Also a scientist; I say it's not even piracy. Piracy is downloading something you didn't pay for. If I download, for example, the new Star Wars VII or Civ 6, that would be piracy, because I would be getting something that someone else made, with their money, with the intention of making a return on that investment, without paying a fair price for it.
On the other hand, if you download something that was made at a public institution, build and run with public funds, by a group in some part funded by public money grants, than that is not stealing; that is getting what you are owed. Demanding that someone should have to give $39.99 to some leech-weasel publishing company to get access to something they already paid for is the real piracy going on here. Elsevier and their ilk are stealing from the public.
Science needs to be open to everyone, not just those of us lucky enough to have institutional access (and hell, where I am, I don't even have easy access to all years for all journals, stupid as that is). I've no sympathy whatsoever here for them, and I'd bet they don't even lose money anyway when some curious individuals 'pirate' scientific articles, because most people aren't going to pay $40 for something that may or may not be pertinent to what they want to know. I'm not at all one of those people who rejects the idea of copyright and IP in general, not at all, but Elsevier and the rest of them are thieves, and they can take their copyright and shove it up their ass.
If science piracy is giving the public access to what they are entitled to and supporting the principle of scientific openness for all people, than long live science piracy.
Bollocks, what of all the GE crops like Golden Rice, BioCassava, Bangladeshi Bt Eggplant, and Brazilian golden mosaic virus resistant beans developed exactly for that purpose? These of course are equally opposed by anti-GE activists, probably more so because of how they disprove your claim. Besides that, GE is such a broad term that you might as well say cooking exists solely to make McDonald's money.
You are right that political issues don't make you anti-science, but the vast, vast majority of complaints about GE crops I see claiming to be 'political issues' are simply nonsense dressed up to justify irrational opposition. I'm not sure which specific patent problem you are referring to though.
You are also right that we need better regulation. The regulations on GE crops are so strict right now that only one non-corporate GE crop is presently in use right now...the Rainbow papaya, developed by the University of Hawai'i, and even the creator of that one believes that the only reason that one made it is because it was released before the regulations became stricter. Very recently we saw approval of an apple by a smaller company. If you want to avoid excessive corporate control by Monsanto (which by the way isn't actually a monopoly considering that the are several other similar companies out there, like Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer Crop Science, and Dow AgroSciences) then what we need are regulations that will allow innovations like this to actually come to use instead of being shelved indefinitely, which is the fate of most university developed GE crops.
Slashdot Mirror
1) It's possible to feel that Trump is right on some issues like the H-1Bs but still wrong on others and/or a raging asshole.
2) Jailed? If he's lucky. Trump has in the past implied Snowden should be executed, and his CIA director has explicitly said as much.
3) Don't make this partisan; Obama had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. He didn't.
Or how is it that you missed those news? Are those tomatoes even still on the market? I doubt it.
You're probably thinking of the Flavr Savr tomato. That one made the news, but involved the silencing of an enzyme involved in fruit degradation. It had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was referring to things like the breeding Solanum lycopersicoides into cultivated tomato. These sorts of things happened a bit earlier, but I recall no fanfare or protest when for example the Plum Regal tomato containing the Ph-3 genes for late blight resistance from Solanum pimpinellifolium hit the market.
When most people say 'genetic modification' what they mean is genetic engineering, which is to say, recombinant DNA techniques, which is different than so-called 'conventional' breeding techniques (for example inserting a spinach gene into an orange for disease resistance which is not naturally present in the citrus genepool), although not different enough to warrant the baseless opposition to it . Unfortunately, most people do not know what they are talking about when it comes to plants, agriculture, and genetic engineering
But I absolutely agree with you that the world should stop bending over to appease the anti-GE contingent. They are the anti-vaxxers of agriculture, and the effects the opposition to genetic engineering has had on the world are just as obscene.
Rinse it thoroughly several times (when water runs off it the water should be clear) and throw it in a rice cooker. I like to make a bed of it and throw something else on top, like a curry or stir fry, much like one would use rice.
Yes, cross breeding is genetic modification. When you breed, you mix genes from different varieties, sometimes even different species, and select the genetic combinations which are the most favorable. Breeding absolutely is modifying the genetics. True, it is different from genetic engineering, but you are still making modifications. This is why the term 'GMO' is a rather poor term.
Or, as in this case removing a gene to make something Monsanto can patent and profit more from while not really understanding (or perhaps they do but just don't care) the consequences of doing so.
Plenty of plant varieties are patented and sold for profit, genetically engineered and not. No one gets on Zaiger Genetic's case over pluerries, or UoM's case over Honeycrisp (the patent has since expired), or complains that Driscoll's breeds patented berries. If you don't like that, I don't see you offering to pay the salary of the people who keep the food supply afloat in a world with ever evolving pests, pathogens, and environmental stresses that you never consider because we do our jobs well enough that they never affect you.
Your accusation that genetic engineering is not well understood is just outright patently false. It is used as a valuable tool in basic research all the time, and on the applied side if anything, there's too much regulation on GE crops. It's gotten to the point where most publicly funded genetic engineering work never sees the light of day.
In this case, good on the hipsters though. Supporting the cultivation of 'new' species is how you increase the biodiversity of the food supply, which brings all sort of benefits. It is great to see more research and funding going to the support and promotion of less commonly cultivated crops.
Now if only we could get them to stop saying things like 'these benefits could be gained without the use of genetic modification' as if genetic engineering is a bad thing.
GMO = Man fucking about with genes that may or may not produce something good or bad due to a complete lack of long term studies (i.e. 50+ years).
That's a ridiculous standard. Do you also hold that Wifi and microwaves should undergo a half century of testing?
When someone can explain to me an actual reason as to why genetic engineering is fundamentally different from all the other similar things which occur in nature, then I'll consider advocating a half century of testing. However, the anti-GMO crowd has had over two decades to make their case to the scientific community though, so I'm not holding my breath.
The point is to state things in a scary way and hope people mistake that for a rational argument. I hate those three tired tropes in the parent poster's comment. 'GMOs produce pesticides and resist poisons!' It only sounds scary to the uninformed.
First, all plants produce chemical defenses, aka pesticides. This is basic botany. An organism that can't run or swat back against the trillions of insects that want to eat it as to evolve defenses somehow. They use chemical defenses. Domestication has removed some of those defenses to make plants more palatable to humans, but that's how things work in nature. Some genetically engineered crops have a protein which kills certain types of pests. It doesn't affect humans. Hyping up that there is a pesticide in corn is just ignorant. Of course there are pesticides in corn, it's corn. Even your organic, all natural, 'Non-GMO verified' corn still has pesticides in it.
Second claim, about resisting pesticides, yes, some crops do resist certain herbicides. This enables fewer application of fewer herbicides with less need for soil degrading tillage. For all the hate this attracts, I've yet to see anyone say they want to go back to the old ways of tilling for weed control, which destroy topsoil and promotes fertilizer runoff, and of using a wider range of more toxic herbicides at different stages of crop growth. People complaining are more than free to propose better weed control methods instead of presenting basic realities of farming in a fearmongering manner with no proper context. If you can control weeds without herbicides, I'm sure farmers would love to cut that expense from their budget.
And on the topic of genes from sexually incompatible organisms, also already done. It's called embryo rescue, and it can be used to hybridize things that would not naturally be able to cross. No one complained when it was used to bring disease resistant genes into tomato. Genetic engineering is taking this a step further, yes, but merely stating that we are bringing genes in from different species is not making a point.
Honestly, I get why people think some of these things are scary, but I do wish they would spend just a little time reading up on the matter from reputable sources before assuming they see the flaws that scientists and farmers do not.
If it's got a bitter taste, are you rinsing it enough? I find bitterness can be an issue if it is not thoroughly rinsed several times before cooking. There's also some pre-rinsed brands on the market now.
Also, maybe try the red quinoa if you can. Personally, I think the red one on the market is better than the white varieties.
That's a workable issue. Plenty of foods have been bred out of more toxic wild ancestors, like the solanine removed from potatoes or the erucic acid removed from canola. Most plants did not evolve to have their roots or leaves eaten; domestication made them favorable to human consumption. Knowing how to make things better is the first step toward doing it.
Saponins I think are less of a concern, since they're usually pretty easy to wash off of commercially processed quinoa. I'd be more concerned with producing low oxalic acid varieties.
No, because a keyboard & mouse is a far superior for playing an FPS than a controller. I'm not sure how anyone can consider that a topic of debate as the summery implies. A keyboard and mouse allows you to independently move and aim with greater ease and higher precision than a controller. The issue here would be that people using a keyboard & mouse against console gamer using a controller puts the controller users at a severe disadvantage.
The big difference is that things you own and operate are not part of one's body. The pacemaker is.
Forget obscure, old is enough. Copyright should exist as a means of supporting creative works, not a way for large media corporations to sit on something in perpetuity and collect revenue with the only expense being 'investments' in congress to extend copyright.
I'm more than willing to pay for something new because that supports the production of creative works I like enough to give time and money to. Music, movies, books, video games, sure, I will and do buy them. But there's are many things out there that are several decades old and should have fallen into the public domain years ago, and for those I feel no such moral obligation. If the media companies want to avoid piracy, they've got options. I pay for Netflix, I pay for Amazon Prime, there's plenty of options for them to get a piece of the pie even with things that really should be free anyway. If they can't play nice and want to prove just how greedy they are, screw 'em.
You're technically right, but the big factor at the crux of the matter is the if they get in part. Paying the way for 'one of the good ones' doesn't mean there is not still a huge classism problem in these schools.
Not just that, but those with means have much more opportunity to do the exceptional things so-called elite colleges are looking for. Feeder schools with high rates of getting pupils into elite schools are a thing for a reason. An average kid with means is still much more likely to have an outstanding resume than an exceptional one student from a more modest background.
Apologists will say admissions at these places are money blind, but the reality is they just use proxies. It's the class equivalent of saying 'I'm not racist, but I won't hire people with funny names like Jose, Latasha, or Ahmed.'
The old saying 'Elite schools are where the wealthy launder privilege into credentials' once again holds true, and still no one cares. No one is holding them accountable for their classism. Point it out and some asshole accuses you of 'class warfare.' Far as I'm concerned, their should be an academic boycott of these places until conditions improve. It is baffling to me that, for all the progressives in academia, no one wants to touch this subject.
That's a useless suggestion: people who need organ donations are generally not suitable to donate, and they know it long ahead of time.
Except in cases of injury, or where only one organ is the problem.
Well, one reason is a concern that doctors and hospitals might be less interested in saving you if that means potentially damaging donatable organs. There are many other reasons as well.
Considering that, far as I can tell anyway, virtually every medical organization on earth denies that happens, that seems an extremely unlikely and unreasonable concern. I would not be surprised if there were isolated incidents, but by that logic you should wear body armor in case someone stabs or shoots you. I think its much more reasonable to trust the opinions of major medical organizations than put stock in baseless fears pulled out the usual place.
Good point, I forgot to apply Hanlon's razor to the situation. I should have said prick or conspiracist with unreasonable fears. If there were any evidence whatsoever that organ donors die at a higher rate in emergency situation (are emergency medical staff even aware of your status in those situations?), it would be huge medical ethics news. Somehow I doubt that is the case.
I think they should be tied together. Unless you have some sort actual medical reason as to why you should not be an organ donor (HIV infection, ect.) opting out should put you on the bottom of the donation list should you need it. If you contribute to the system, you get priority if you need the system. Otherwise, you go to the back of the line. Don't expect to receive if you're not willing to give.
I just don't get the mentality of people who refuse organ donation. If you're dead, you're dead, why take other people with you? It's one last act of good that could save lives and, seeing as how you're never going to use them again, costs you absolutely nothing. How big of a prick do you have to be to look at that proposition and reject it?
It's (kind of) both. It is true that a lot of pruning and training goes into getting fruit trees to be the desired shape, but there is also a genetic component. Trees which have been bred to be short (and usually also cold tolerant & disease resistant) are used as rootstocks for a lot of fruit trees, with the above ground portion that produces the fruit being grafted onto those roots. The end result is dwarf trees that are easier to work with. True, this isn't genetic engineering, but it is a bit more than just pruning.
The ultimate thing about farming is that it is not easy. Harvesting of fruits and vegetables, in particular, is long, hard, laborious work. As economies develop, there's going to be less people wanting to do that for the prices consumers want to pay. Mechanized harvesting is already employed in a lot of agronomic crops (corn, rice, wheat, soy, ect) and some horticultural crops. The difficulty is going to be getting machines that are able to tell when to pick, how to pick, and how to avoid damaging the crop. Some things might still have to be done by hand (pruning of tree fruit, which is an art and a science, comes to mind), but in general, mechanized agriculture will be the future, and I think that's a good thing.
Also a scientist; I say it's not even piracy. Piracy is downloading something you didn't pay for. If I download, for example, the new Star Wars VII or Civ 6, that would be piracy, because I would be getting something that someone else made, with their money, with the intention of making a return on that investment, without paying a fair price for it.
On the other hand, if you download something that was made at a public institution, build and run with public funds, by a group in some part funded by public money grants, than that is not stealing; that is getting what you are owed. Demanding that someone should have to give $39.99 to some leech-weasel publishing company to get access to something they already paid for is the real piracy going on here. Elsevier and their ilk are stealing from the public.
Science needs to be open to everyone, not just those of us lucky enough to have institutional access (and hell, where I am, I don't even have easy access to all years for all journals, stupid as that is). I've no sympathy whatsoever here for them, and I'd bet they don't even lose money anyway when some curious individuals 'pirate' scientific articles, because most people aren't going to pay $40 for something that may or may not be pertinent to what they want to know. I'm not at all one of those people who rejects the idea of copyright and IP in general, not at all, but Elsevier and the rest of them are thieves, and they can take their copyright and shove it up their ass.
If science piracy is giving the public access to what they are entitled to and supporting the principle of scientific openness for all people, than long live science piracy.
Bollocks, what of all the GE crops like Golden Rice, BioCassava, Bangladeshi Bt Eggplant, and Brazilian golden mosaic virus resistant beans developed exactly for that purpose? These of course are equally opposed by anti-GE activists, probably more so because of how they disprove your claim. Besides that, GE is such a broad term that you might as well say cooking exists solely to make McDonald's money.
Monsanto's first generation of GE soybean went off patent a while back and anyone can now use it. Unlike copyright, plant patents do actually expire.
You are right that political issues don't make you anti-science, but the vast, vast majority of complaints about GE crops I see claiming to be 'political issues' are simply nonsense dressed up to justify irrational opposition. I'm not sure which specific patent problem you are referring to though.
You are also right that we need better regulation. The regulations on GE crops are so strict right now that only one non-corporate GE crop is presently in use right now...the Rainbow papaya, developed by the University of Hawai'i, and even the creator of that one believes that the only reason that one made it is because it was released before the regulations became stricter. Very recently we saw approval of an apple by a smaller company. If you want to avoid excessive corporate control by Monsanto (which by the way isn't actually a monopoly considering that the are several other similar companies out there, like Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer Crop Science, and Dow AgroSciences) then what we need are regulations that will allow innovations like this to actually come to use instead of being shelved indefinitely, which is the fate of most university developed GE crops.
Censorship laws don't have to make sense or be applied consistently; they just have to give power to rulers looking to put enemies in jail.