I'm not against GM, I'm against companies OWNING genes.
That's a reasonable position, although, while that's frequently said, but it's actually very rare to find someone who actually believes that. A lot of people who say 'I'm not anti-GM, but...' are actually anti-GM, with the second half of that sentence being some weak justification. Many 'not anti-GMO' people are also against GMOs like Rainbow papaya, Golden Rice, and Cornell's Bt eggplant, both of which farmers are allowed, even encouraged, to save seed. They are even against government made GMOs, like HoneySweet plum, or those GM grape rootstocks in France that were recently burned by arsonists. They also disregard and make up facts about commercial GMOs, which is a lot like saying 'I don't like Big Pharma so I'm going to claim vaccines cause autism.' It's not a good thing.
I personally think that people or companies should be able to have reasonable patents on things like that, which plant patents have done long before genetic engineering (of course, they should have to go through some level of reasonable independent testing and all). That's my opinion there. Disagreeing with a view on social issues is fine, just so long as you don't pass it off as science, which so many do.
You might like to know that non-corporate GMOs are increasing in number faster than corporate ones. There's a lot being done by universities and NGOs all over the world. Unfortunately (due in part to the anti-GMO movement) it is so hard to get those GMOs approved for commercial growing that only big companies can afford to spend the time and money needed to get the FDA/EPA/USDA seal of approval, and near impossible to get it approved in the EU (not sure about other places where they grow GMOs, like China, India, Argentina, or Iran). I swear, I would not be surprised if Monsanto was supporting the anti-GMO movement...
Natural News? Seriously? Hint: a site that promotes homeopathy, reiki, and magic silver as cancer cures and says the vaccines cause autism isn't a good source of information. Great example of crank magnetism though.
Crap like this is what pisses me off. No, Monsanto is not your friend, but then you have clueless people railing against them with no idea as to what is actually going on, and that just makes the whole issue that much harder. I won't listen to the medical opinions of a doctor who uses the terms brain and heart interchangeably, and I won't listen to agricultural opinions of people who use pesticide and herbicide interchangeably. And you know so many are only against Monsanto because they do genetic engineering, and, at this point in time, anti-GMO is just another form of baseless pseudoscientific crank denialism woowoo. "I saw Splice once, so I know more about genetic engineering than geneticists!" No, you don't, you just can't be effed to crack a book before protesting. They're like the anti-vaxxers and alt-med quacks who rant about companies like Pfizer and Merck, not because of the bad things those companies actually do, but because said cranks don't understand the science behind pharmaceuticals/vaccines. Then people like me, who do understand the science behind GMOs, the science behind what Monsanto does, are left in the awkward position of defending Monsanto for the sake of accuracy.
By all means, keep an eye on them, they are not to be trusted, hell, it looks like they may have lied about the yield of there latest generation of soybean, but keep it in the real, don't try to pass off anti-Monsanto sentiment as actual science, and stay away from tinfoil land. When the two major points in an agreement are backed by moneyed interests and and the ignorant yet vocal, it makes it really hard to find the truth.
They? Yeah, because all genetic engineers are part of a single monolith./sarcasm
First off, herbicide resistant crops are, contrary to the ramblings of a bunch of people whose education in genetics consists solely of having seen Jurassic Park once, actually fairly useful to the farmer, and pretty beneficial to the environment. Yeah, spraying herbicides (even ones that degrade quickly like glyphosate) probably hurts the environment somewhat, but by allowing no-till farming, they've done a lot less harm overall. Think of it like shooting yourself in the foot to cure brain cancer. It's useful to the farmer because they have more flexibility as to post emergent applications, and because hand weeding is a pain in the ass.
As for yield, that's just wrong. There's not too many that directly increase yield, but you don't have to do directly modify something to yield higher to have higher yield (although it certainty wouldn't hurt and I'm sure there are some folks working on it). Bt crops increase yield, especially in third world countries. Disease resistant GMOs, like the Rainbow papaya, can stop the crop from dying. How's this for increasing yield, without GMO papaya, there would be no papaya industry in Hawaii. There is one, BioCassava, that is specifically designed to be larger. Recently in China, they got some pretty big yields out of a rice plant with corn genes in it (though this news is only about two weeks old, so I can't comment much on it). And, though it isn't a plant, the GM AquAdvantage salmon grows visibly larger than non-modified salmon. Probably quite a number more in the works.
To say that increased yield is propaganda, quite frankly, is simply untrue.
He probably means things that are propagated asexually and don't come true to seed. Superior varieties of apple can't be grown from seed. Well, I mean, yeah, they can, but due to the genetic variability of apple seedlings, it is very uncommon for, say, a Fuji seedling to be anything like the parent Fuji. Bananas, not sure about their variability, but most varieties of them are also reproduced asexually. Tomatoes, got me there, they'll self pollinate pretty nicely and make nearly genetically identical seeds. Maybe he meant potatoes? Anyway, even if made unintentionally, it's a good point. There are many varieties of such crops that do not come true to seed that we must also ensure survive. Case in point, right now, hundreds of unique varieties of plants like that at the Pavlovsk station in Russia are scheduled to be paved over.
I think it's kind of funny how countries outsourced jobs to China telling themselves that they're innovating countries that develop things, not produce them, and now...whoops, China doesn't actually care about their IP.
Nope. Those are legitimate concerns, but not what organic is about. Organic proponents are concerned, first and foremost, that antibiotics aren't natural. That they can cause dangerous resistant strains to emerge is a secondary issue. Factory farming conditions are a separate matter entirely; plenty of factory farmed organic meat out there. It would be like if you thought gremlins were in your car and it turned out you happened to have a loose spark plug...sure, you're right about one thing, but you're still superstitious. Just because organic is right about some things (and indeed they are) doesn't mean organic isn't naturalistic mumbo jumbo. Remember, every snake-oil peddling quack in the world encourages proper diet and exercise; doesn't mean they're not full of crap. And speaking of which, seeing as how people who didn't go for science based medicine fell in with auras and vibrations, why should anyone think that those against science based agriculture won't do the same? It really isn't that unfair of a comparison. You don't have to support bad farming practices to understand that organic is wrong.
Organic proponents, the people who equate natural with superior. Guess I should have been more specific. Seeing as how the top post got modded flamebait too, I guess you're right about magical thinking right here. Care to point out my strawmen? Spend enough time reading organic claims, you'll find everything I said about their beliefs is pretty much true.
Ever seen the episode of Penn & Teller where they fed people an organic banana and a regular banana. People generally found the organic one to taste quite a bit better. They fed them two halves of the same banana. Maybe the organic food you're getting is local, or is a superior variety. Sounds a bit dubious that it would taste better just because it was only fertilized with cow crap and only sprayed with naturally occurring pesticides.
At some point we will have to sustain the production with only atmospheric nitrogen.
Maybe it could be done. With proper crop rotation, crops modified with nitrogen use efficiency technology,, or inoculations of nitrogen fixing bacteria we can at the very least reduce the need of nitrogen input, hopefully to sustainable levels.
The next revolution can happen, but it will be biological, not chemical.
No, not really. Organic is still mumbo jumbo. You're assuming that organic all but invented those things...contrary to popular organic opinion, they did not. They just latch onto them. Sure, they make some good claims that are scientifically verifiable, like the importance of maintaining a healthy microbiological community in the soil, the need for biodiversity in the food supply to prevent disease, and promoting low input renewable biological techniques like crop rotation and companion planting methods, but then they heap on the mumbo jumbo with their asinine fear of chemicals (yes, all of them...organic proponents seem unaware that naturally occurring compounds like menthol hesperidin, and capsaicin are also chemicals), their anti-science luddite attacks on genetically modified crops (which have reduced pesticide use and soil damage by way of no till agriculture), and their claims that a plant really cares if a nutrient ion came from horse crap or a nutrient salt.
They're like the alternative medicine woowoos; sure, eating right and getting exercise is a good idea, but using a twig to cure cancer is not, and in both cases, that they are right about some things does not mean that they aren't using magical thinking and pre-scientific nonsense. Any correct conclusion they arrive at they come to for the wrong reasons. For example, they may be right in their claims of organic producing more antioxidants, however, this is not because they're magically natural and natural is better in every way, but because stressed plants tend to make more of those, and organic plants are usually going to live a tougher life. So, they might be correct, but for the wrong reason. To use an analogy; just because a compulsive gambler wins every now and again doesn't mean they don't have a problem.
Now, while factory farming has plenty of flaws, and the antibiotic use is indeed troubling to say the least, hormones, heck, you eat plenty of those to begin with in meat, and pesticides, organic uses them too, they just avoid any modern one that has gone through safety studies. Be cautious sure, but make sure you're not getting you information about any given hormone or pesticide from some scientifically illiterate reactionary source.
Re:Israel is an interesting exercise in Game Theor
on
Gambling On Bacteria
·
· Score: 1
Or the number of children the Israeli army hides behind while firing at the enemy then cries about how inhumane said enemy is when they defend themselves with the number of children the Palestinian army hides behind while firing at the enemy then cries about how inhumane said enemy is when they defend themselves.
Pigs, not cops. If they're on a power trip, as the one in this case clearly was, guess which one, by definition, they must be. Of course a proper society needs some sort of law enforcement, no one is saying otherwise. What it doesn't need are assholes with radar guns raking in money with various types of bullshit speed traps, who have no qualms about ruining lives because someone grew the wrong plant and cover for their buddies when they themselves get caught doing wrong. Protect & serve = cop. Harass honest citizens = pig. Whichever a cop is more likely to be doing, whether they're more likely to be helping people & society with a real issue, or just getting in the way and being a predatory parasite, determines which they are.
If you outlaw guns/encryption, only outlaws will have guns/encryption...but perhaps more importantly, those who do have them will now be criminals as well. How convenient.
Ok, maybe that's how you are, but understand, if that truly is how you feel, you are a minority. Most people who claim to be anti-Monsanto just make that claim in an attempt to give themselves an air of legitimacy. Monsanto is not the only GMO producer out there. There's other big companies like BASF & Bayer in Germany, Syngenta in Switzerland, Dow & Dupont also in the US. There's some smaller companies like Aqua Bounty, the guys releasing the GMO salmon (which is naturally being opposed, although there is no logical argument against it), and others like Florigene in Australia, Metahelix in India, Evogene in Israel, Pannar in South Africa. There are GMOs produced by nonprofits and universities and governments, like the HoneySweet plum by the USDA, Rainbow papaya by the University of Hawaii and Cornell, Bt eggplant by Cornell, Bt rice in Iran (don't know who did it there but it should be telling that even the scientist in a country such as Iran know the value here), Biocassava & Golden Rice by other organizations, and plenty of others done by various universities all over the globe.
If you're against Monsanto, ok, fine, but understand, the vast majority of the people who claim to be anti-Monsanto are only anti-Monsanto because they are truly anti-GMO, and also oppose all those I listed too. That is anti-science. Heck, those irrational self righteous willfully ignorant brain dead technophobic science hating luddite assholes at Greenpeace still want you to think that GloFish are dangerous. So, what I'm saying is, it's fine if you just don't like Monsanto, it really is, but that is truly rare. What the vast majority of that movement is about anti-science, of that you can be certain. When they're opposing all GMOs, every last one of them (like the guys who destroyed the GMO grapes in my last post), and have to resort to lying to make a point (even Monsanto's GMOs are safe and effective, contrary to all the fearmongering), there's a big problem.
Yes. This times a hundred. Times a million. Pseudoscience at best, dishonest at worst. I too am really glad he gives genetic engineering it's props, because anti-GMO really is the new anti-vax. Just because you can't be bothered to listen to a valid source doesn't mean that the people who know what the hell they're talking about are in some grand Monsanto/Shadow Government conspiracy to be evil. The scientific evidence is in. It's been it. The idea that they are inherently dangerous to human health is laughable (and growing even less plausible every day), they are a benefit for farmers, and they are a net positive to the environment. Deputing these facts without adequate information to go against them, which is what pretty much every anti-GMO group on the planet does, is not insightful or thought provoking, it's denialism, plain and simple. The modern controversy surrounding GMOs is is no longer a scientific debate, it's a popular one, largely with biologist, horticulturists, botanists, microbiologists, zoologists, toxicologists, geneticists, biochemists, and farmers on one hand, and people who think that an appeal to nature is a valid argument on the other, and even that doesn't make sense considering that we selectively breed crops for various mutations for thousands of years (as anyone who has even a passing understanding of corn genetics will tell you) and that the odds are pretty darn good that every plant we eat has picked viral, bacterial, and fungal DNA at some point, probably insect DNA too. Human DNA is at least 3% virus. We are, in a sense, genetically modified organisms ourselves.
Here's a good example: A few weeks ago, some anti-science arsonist assholes burned down a GMO grape test field in France. They were government developed, so the claim that they're against corporations doesn't apply. They were virus resistant, so the claim that they're against chemicals was out. They were rootstocks, and since roots don't produce flowers, their claim that they're afraid of cross pollination and wild GMOs is out. The health concerns, even if they had any merit to begin with, are also out, because again, the GMO part was only the root, not the grape. Why are they against them? Because they're GMO. They're against genetic engineering because it's genetic engineering. They've decided that genetic engineering is bad, and base everything else on that decision. They start with the conclusion, and make everything else fit that. Hundreds of studies showing they're wrong is part of the conspiracy, scientific consensus is part of the conspiracy, and every relevant expert who knows what they're talking about is in on it too, and therefore, anything that disagrees with their premise is easily dismissed, knowledge because a vice, ignorance a virtue.
This topic deserves more publicity than it gets, it really does. I think that this is a truly fascinating area (as a look at my comment history will reveal). I love plants and horticultural science, and I think it is just amazing what we can do with them now, what we might be able to do in the future. We are living in interesting and exciting times. We can increase output, decrease need for inputs, help preserve the soil and the environment. We can help the people who need it most grow more nutritious food. We can lessen or eliminate the problems caused by pests and diseases. Someday I might have a mango or cashew or cacao or coffee or lychee tree here in the northeast US. This is what people are really working on. This isn't sci-fi, it's real, and it is just a shame that we have people with all the intellectual integrity of your average homeopath attacking it and generally trying to influence the general population with cheap scare tactics. And it's almost funny, these people think they're being insightful when all they're going is displaying their own ignorance. It would be like someone claiming that the moon must be hollo
That's why you can never trust those claims. The proponents will claim 'I got better while taking homeopathic caffeine' or whatever, meanwhile they were also taking real medicine (or the problem just goes away naturally), but guess which one they think worked? The alt-med bullshit. Like in that Hauser case, where that kid's mom took off with hum when the court ordered her to seek real treatment. The tumor got bigger without chemo, smaller when chemo was started again, yet his mom claims it was the herbs and ionized water that did it, not the medical treatments. And the thing is, these are the testimonies that the horseshit peddlers will slap on there products' labels too. Incredible.
Your last line is almost right, but still, kinda wrong, considering that children can be the victim of their parents' irrationality, they can sucker the desperate and hopeless (even against their better judgment), that some of these people can hurt other unrelated people by buying into the anti-vax strain of bullshit, and that these people can and do form interest groups to foist their anti-scientific beliefs upon everyone else, and this expands to cover other areas of science, like radio towers & wi-fi, genetic engineering, ect. If it was just them, whatever, but it is more than just a single festering sore, it is a spreading cancer. How to stop it, how to get irrational people to listen to you, how to effectively communicate to people who are convinced they have it all figured out really haven't got a clue, I don't know, but it must be done. I want to see humanity have continuous perpetual improvement & advancement, and that's not going to happen when we have people who think the fifteen minutes they spent listening to Alex Jones means as much as the lifetime a scientist's spends on that subject.
But of course, I'm clearly being paid hundreds of millions of dollars by the Big Pharma/Shadow Government to cast doubt the amazing powers of pseudoscience based medicine, so I guess you can't trust what I say.
Just so you know, first link, widelydiscredited. Bad methodology, cherrypicked data, and never once mentioned a scientific reason as to why GMOs would be dangerous (they never do). Second, I've heard of those, but never one endorsed by the scientific community, nor one that could point to a reasonable cause for the animals' behaviors. It would be a real surprise if animals could detect subtle genetic changes but would still eat everything else. Third, can't find the link right now, but I read that it is somewhere in the range of 1 out of 50,000 monarchs that would be affected by that pollen (given the range and spread and that sort of thing) even if we accept that report, which, again, I haven't heard overwhelming confirmation of, and keep in mind, even if we accept that, it is generally believed that Bt crops tend to increase nontarget insect biodiversity and reduce pesticide applications, so even if we accept the thing about the monarchs, it is a trade off situation, not a loss with no gain.
Genetic engineering is a very controversial area, don't be surprised if you read a lot bad science about it. I mean, there are dozens of studies 'proving' that homeopathy works, that doesn't mean it does. The general scientific consensus among biologists, botanists, horticulturists, zoologists, microbiologists, biochemists, geneticists, ect., is that they're safe and effective. Sure, there might be patent stuff to work out, but that doesn't effect the crops themselves, and there might even be environmental side effects (although, not using them could be worse), but it is generally beneficial.
Your last paragraph is way off though. Just because there is a dispute (largely between scientists and laymen, what should that tell you?) does not mean we should forgo them. There is an equally valid dispute over the safety and effectiveness of vaccination, and whether or not they cause autism, and pharma patents on them, and every now and again a bad batch makes minor headlines (or is used sensationally by bad or biased journalism); should we stop vaccinating too? Just because a small vocal group of scientifically illiterate cranks muddy the waters for people who don't closely follow the subject? There is a dispute, yes, but it is, by and large, a manufactured controversy, an ultimately popular debate but not a scientific one.
I doubt even that would work for the hard core ones. For average people, maybe, but the loud fearmongers, never. Any agronomist, botanist, horticulturist, biochemist, geneticist, zoologist, microbiologist, ect., who endorses what the current evidence about GMOs says, that being that they do exactly what they're supposed to do safely and effectively, is, in their eyes, part of Monsanto's conspiracy. 'How much is Monsanto paying you' is the response you get to pointing out that all the good studies (dishonest discredited baloney aside) show positive effects of GMOs and lack of health detriments. They believe that all the relevant experts, all over the world, are being bribed. The result of this is that ignorance is considered a benefit, and experience & expertise a negative. So, that group is kind of a lost cause, they'll always be there in the bowels of the internet using half truths and whole lies to spread their scare stories, just like the anti-vaxxers & friends, but definitely, we need more public awareness of not just this subject reaching average people who might buy into the anti-science side if they keep hearing it again and again, but also about agriculture in general. We in developed countries are fortunate enough to not need to be directly connected with our food, and that's great, but that doesn't mean we should forget about it. Biotechnology, and agriculture in general, needs a Carl Sagan.
I think we're generally on the same page, but I just want to get out that there really are good people out there who genuinely want to use this technology to help people, like the Rainbow papaya guys, who encourage people to save and plant their GMO seeds. Just because there are corporate creeps out there shouldn't take away from those people's work, because often times the people who dislike Monsanto oppose everyone else who works with genetic engineering, and that's not right.
Although about Monsanto's donation, since I often find myself in the awkward position of defending them for the sake of accuracy, that's not actually true. Monsanto was donating normalhybridseeds. Not patented GMOs. I honestly don't know if they tried to give GMOs, I guess it wouldn't surprise me, but they didn't donate them.
Also, just so you know, NaturalNews is well known for lying. If they said the sky was blue, I'd go outside to make sure. We're talking about a site that promotes homeopathy, germ theory of disease denialism, the idea that vaccines do not work and cause autism, the idea that chemotherapy doesn't work and cancer can be cured by the snakeoils they conveniently sell, and of course, the idea that GMOs are dangerous...every type of quackery and crankery imaginable, a very anti-science site. Read more here. Just thought you should know, linking to NaturalNews
They're related because the parent poster seemed to indicate that lack of a global food shortage was an argument against GMOs. You do realize that not all GMOs are made by companies, right? Let me be very clear: Monsanto does not own science. Look at Golden Rice or BioCassava. There are scientists from the University of Cornell who want to modify local, open pollinated varieties, sell them at cost, and teach farmers to save their seeds. The Monsanto thing has nothing to do with it. Even if it did, that didn't stop farmers in India from taking GMO seed (cotton I believe) from test fields and growing them themselves after seeing their superiority. Sure, there are other things that can also be done, and many of the should be, but they're not in conflict with genetic engineering any more than airbags are in conflict with seatbelts; they're not mutually exclusive. Genetic engineering is just a means of improving a plant, it is not a way of life. What is wrong with wanting to give people who need it the best seed possible? Yes, there should not be patents (or at least enforced ones) on their seed, but using that as an argument against the use of genetic engineering in those countries makes about as much sense as saying that we shouldn't send them polio vaccines or malaria/AIDS drugs because of pharma patents.
It's largely been that was since people started buying and selling hybrid seed in the early 1900s. Farmers found that spending X more for seed was OK if they made an extra X+Y. That is hardly unique to Monsanto or genetic engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not against GM, I'm against companies OWNING genes.
That's a reasonable position, although, while that's frequently said, but it's actually very rare to find someone who actually believes that. A lot of people who say 'I'm not anti-GM, but...' are actually anti-GM, with the second half of that sentence being some weak justification. Many 'not anti-GMO' people are also against GMOs like Rainbow papaya, Golden Rice, and Cornell's Bt eggplant, both of which farmers are allowed, even encouraged, to save seed. They are even against government made GMOs, like HoneySweet plum, or those GM grape rootstocks in France that were recently burned by arsonists. They also disregard and make up facts about commercial GMOs, which is a lot like saying 'I don't like Big Pharma so I'm going to claim vaccines cause autism.' It's not a good thing.
I personally think that people or companies should be able to have reasonable patents on things like that, which plant patents have done long before genetic engineering (of course, they should have to go through some level of reasonable independent testing and all). That's my opinion there. Disagreeing with a view on social issues is fine, just so long as you don't pass it off as science, which so many do.
You might like to know that non-corporate GMOs are increasing in number faster than corporate ones. There's a lot being done by universities and NGOs all over the world. Unfortunately (due in part to the anti-GMO movement) it is so hard to get those GMOs approved for commercial growing that only big companies can afford to spend the time and money needed to get the FDA/EPA/USDA seal of approval, and near impossible to get it approved in the EU (not sure about other places where they grow GMOs, like China, India, Argentina, or Iran). I swear, I would not be surprised if Monsanto was supporting the anti-GMO movement...
Natural News? Seriously? Hint: a site that promotes homeopathy, reiki, and magic silver as cancer cures and says the vaccines cause autism isn't a good source of information. Great example of crank magnetism though.
Crap like this is what pisses me off. No, Monsanto is not your friend, but then you have clueless people railing against them with no idea as to what is actually going on, and that just makes the whole issue that much harder. I won't listen to the medical opinions of a doctor who uses the terms brain and heart interchangeably, and I won't listen to agricultural opinions of people who use pesticide and herbicide interchangeably. And you know so many are only against Monsanto because they do genetic engineering, and, at this point in time, anti-GMO is just another form of baseless pseudoscientific crank denialism woowoo. "I saw Splice once, so I know more about genetic engineering than geneticists!" No, you don't, you just can't be effed to crack a book before protesting. They're like the anti-vaxxers and alt-med quacks who rant about companies like Pfizer and Merck, not because of the bad things those companies actually do, but because said cranks don't understand the science behind pharmaceuticals/vaccines. Then people like me, who do understand the science behind GMOs, the science behind what Monsanto does, are left in the awkward position of defending Monsanto for the sake of accuracy.
By all means, keep an eye on them, they are not to be trusted, hell, it looks like they may have lied about the yield of there latest generation of soybean, but keep it in the real, don't try to pass off anti-Monsanto sentiment as actual science, and stay away from tinfoil land. When the two major points in an agreement are backed by moneyed interests and and the ignorant yet vocal, it makes it really hard to find the truth.
They? Yeah, because all genetic engineers are part of a single monolith./sarcasm
First off, herbicide resistant crops are, contrary to the ramblings of a bunch of people whose education in genetics consists solely of having seen Jurassic Park once, actually fairly useful to the farmer, and pretty beneficial to the environment. Yeah, spraying herbicides (even ones that degrade quickly like glyphosate) probably hurts the environment somewhat, but by allowing no-till farming, they've done a lot less harm overall. Think of it like shooting yourself in the foot to cure brain cancer. It's useful to the farmer because they have more flexibility as to post emergent applications, and because hand weeding is a pain in the ass.
As for yield, that's just wrong. There's not too many that directly increase yield, but you don't have to do directly modify something to yield higher to have higher yield (although it certainty wouldn't hurt and I'm sure there are some folks working on it). Bt crops increase yield, especially in third world countries. Disease resistant GMOs, like the Rainbow papaya, can stop the crop from dying. How's this for increasing yield, without GMO papaya, there would be no papaya industry in Hawaii. There is one, BioCassava, that is specifically designed to be larger. Recently in China, they got some pretty big yields out of a rice plant with corn genes in it (though this news is only about two weeks old, so I can't comment much on it). And, though it isn't a plant, the GM AquAdvantage salmon grows visibly larger than non-modified salmon. Probably quite a number more in the works.
To say that increased yield is propaganda, quite frankly, is simply untrue.
He probably means things that are propagated asexually and don't come true to seed. Superior varieties of apple can't be grown from seed. Well, I mean, yeah, they can, but due to the genetic variability of apple seedlings, it is very uncommon for, say, a Fuji seedling to be anything like the parent Fuji. Bananas, not sure about their variability, but most varieties of them are also reproduced asexually. Tomatoes, got me there, they'll self pollinate pretty nicely and make nearly genetically identical seeds. Maybe he meant potatoes? Anyway, even if made unintentionally, it's a good point. There are many varieties of such crops that do not come true to seed that we must also ensure survive. Case in point, right now, hundreds of unique varieties of plants like that at the Pavlovsk station in Russia are scheduled to be paved over.
They're just keeping you safe from your money, civilian.
I think it's kind of funny how countries outsourced jobs to China telling themselves that they're innovating countries that develop things, not produce them, and now...whoops, China doesn't actually care about their IP.
Nope. Those are legitimate concerns, but not what organic is about. Organic proponents are concerned, first and foremost, that antibiotics aren't natural. That they can cause dangerous resistant strains to emerge is a secondary issue. Factory farming conditions are a separate matter entirely; plenty of factory farmed organic meat out there. It would be like if you thought gremlins were in your car and it turned out you happened to have a loose spark plug...sure, you're right about one thing, but you're still superstitious. Just because organic is right about some things (and indeed they are) doesn't mean organic isn't naturalistic mumbo jumbo. Remember, every snake-oil peddling quack in the world encourages proper diet and exercise; doesn't mean they're not full of crap. And speaking of which, seeing as how people who didn't go for science based medicine fell in with auras and vibrations, why should anyone think that those against science based agriculture won't do the same? It really isn't that unfair of a comparison. You don't have to support bad farming practices to understand that organic is wrong.
Organic proponents, the people who equate natural with superior. Guess I should have been more specific. Seeing as how the top post got modded flamebait too, I guess you're right about magical thinking right here. Care to point out my strawmen? Spend enough time reading organic claims, you'll find everything I said about their beliefs is pretty much true.
Ever seen the episode of Penn & Teller where they fed people an organic banana and a regular banana. People generally found the organic one to taste quite a bit better. They fed them two halves of the same banana. Maybe the organic food you're getting is local, or is a superior variety. Sounds a bit dubious that it would taste better just because it was only fertilized with cow crap and only sprayed with naturally occurring pesticides.
At some point we will have to sustain the production with only atmospheric nitrogen.
Maybe it could be done. With proper crop rotation, crops modified with nitrogen use efficiency technology,, or inoculations of nitrogen fixing bacteria we can at the very least reduce the need of nitrogen input, hopefully to sustainable levels.
The next revolution can happen, but it will be biological, not chemical.
No, not really. Organic is still mumbo jumbo. You're assuming that organic all but invented those things...contrary to popular organic opinion, they did not. They just latch onto them. Sure, they make some good claims that are scientifically verifiable, like the importance of maintaining a healthy microbiological community in the soil, the need for biodiversity in the food supply to prevent disease, and promoting low input renewable biological techniques like crop rotation and companion planting methods, but then they heap on the mumbo jumbo with their asinine fear of chemicals (yes, all of them...organic proponents seem unaware that naturally occurring compounds like menthol hesperidin, and capsaicin are also chemicals), their anti-science luddite attacks on genetically modified crops (which have reduced pesticide use and soil damage by way of no till agriculture), and their claims that a plant really cares if a nutrient ion came from horse crap or a nutrient salt.
They're like the alternative medicine woowoos; sure, eating right and getting exercise is a good idea, but using a twig to cure cancer is not, and in both cases, that they are right about some things does not mean that they aren't using magical thinking and pre-scientific nonsense. Any correct conclusion they arrive at they come to for the wrong reasons. For example, they may be right in their claims of organic producing more antioxidants, however, this is not because they're magically natural and natural is better in every way, but because stressed plants tend to make more of those, and organic plants are usually going to live a tougher life. So, they might be correct, but for the wrong reason. To use an analogy; just because a compulsive gambler wins every now and again doesn't mean they don't have a problem.
Now, while factory farming has plenty of flaws, and the antibiotic use is indeed troubling to say the least, hormones, heck, you eat plenty of those to begin with in meat, and pesticides, organic uses them too, they just avoid any modern one that has gone through safety studies. Be cautious sure, but make sure you're not getting you information about any given hormone or pesticide from some scientifically illiterate reactionary source.
Or the number of children the Israeli army hides behind while firing at the enemy then cries about how inhumane said enemy is when they defend themselves with the number of children the Palestinian army hides behind while firing at the enemy then cries about how inhumane said enemy is when they defend themselves.
Pigs, not cops. If they're on a power trip, as the one in this case clearly was, guess which one, by definition, they must be. Of course a proper society needs some sort of law enforcement, no one is saying otherwise. What it doesn't need are assholes with radar guns raking in money with various types of bullshit speed traps, who have no qualms about ruining lives because someone grew the wrong plant and cover for their buddies when they themselves get caught doing wrong. Protect & serve = cop. Harass honest citizens = pig. Whichever a cop is more likely to be doing, whether they're more likely to be helping people & society with a real issue, or just getting in the way and being a predatory parasite, determines which they are.
Seeing them unable to enforce the ones that are deserved would be just as distressing as seeing them creating ones that don't exist.
Huh? Seems to me that it'd be better to a handful of exceptionally excessive speeders go on their way than have a bunch of other people get the shaft.
If you outlaw guns/encryption, only outlaws will have guns/encryption...but perhaps more importantly, those who do have them will now be criminals as well. How convenient.
Ok, maybe that's how you are, but understand, if that truly is how you feel, you are a minority. Most people who claim to be anti-Monsanto just make that claim in an attempt to give themselves an air of legitimacy. Monsanto is not the only GMO producer out there. There's other big companies like BASF & Bayer in Germany, Syngenta in Switzerland, Dow & Dupont also in the US. There's some smaller companies like Aqua Bounty, the guys releasing the GMO salmon (which is naturally being opposed, although there is no logical argument against it), and others like Florigene in Australia, Metahelix in India, Evogene in Israel, Pannar in South Africa. There are GMOs produced by nonprofits and universities and governments, like the HoneySweet plum by the USDA, Rainbow papaya by the University of Hawaii and Cornell, Bt eggplant by Cornell, Bt rice in Iran (don't know who did it there but it should be telling that even the scientist in a country such as Iran know the value here), Biocassava & Golden Rice by other organizations, and plenty of others done by various universities all over the globe.
If you're against Monsanto, ok, fine, but understand, the vast majority of the people who claim to be anti-Monsanto are only anti-Monsanto because they are truly anti-GMO, and also oppose all those I listed too. That is anti-science. Heck, those irrational self righteous willfully ignorant brain dead technophobic science hating luddite assholes at Greenpeace still want you to think that GloFish are dangerous. So, what I'm saying is, it's fine if you just don't like Monsanto, it really is, but that is truly rare. What the vast majority of that movement is about anti-science, of that you can be certain. When they're opposing all GMOs, every last one of them (like the guys who destroyed the GMO grapes in my last post), and have to resort to lying to make a point (even Monsanto's GMOs are safe and effective, contrary to all the fearmongering), there's a big problem.
Yes. This times a hundred. Times a million. Pseudoscience at best, dishonest at worst. I too am really glad he gives genetic engineering it's props, because anti-GMO really is the new anti-vax. Just because you can't be bothered to listen to a valid source doesn't mean that the people who know what the hell they're talking about are in some grand Monsanto/Shadow Government conspiracy to be evil. The scientific evidence is in. It's been it. The idea that they are inherently dangerous to human health is laughable (and growing even less plausible every day), they are a benefit for farmers, and they are a net positive to the environment. Deputing these facts without adequate information to go against them, which is what pretty much every anti-GMO group on the planet does, is not insightful or thought provoking, it's denialism, plain and simple. The modern controversy surrounding GMOs is is no longer a scientific debate, it's a popular one, largely with biologist, horticulturists, botanists, microbiologists, zoologists, toxicologists, geneticists, biochemists, and farmers on one hand, and people who think that an appeal to nature is a valid argument on the other, and even that doesn't make sense considering that we selectively breed crops for various mutations for thousands of years (as anyone who has even a passing understanding of corn genetics will tell you) and that the odds are pretty darn good that every plant we eat has picked viral, bacterial, and fungal DNA at some point, probably insect DNA too. Human DNA is at least 3% virus. We are, in a sense, genetically modified organisms ourselves.
Here's a good example: A few weeks ago, some anti-science arsonist assholes burned down a GMO grape test field in France. They were government developed, so the claim that they're against corporations doesn't apply. They were virus resistant, so the claim that they're against chemicals was out. They were rootstocks, and since roots don't produce flowers, their claim that they're afraid of cross pollination and wild GMOs is out. The health concerns, even if they had any merit to begin with, are also out, because again, the GMO part was only the root, not the grape. Why are they against them? Because they're GMO. They're against genetic engineering because it's genetic engineering. They've decided that genetic engineering is bad, and base everything else on that decision. They start with the conclusion, and make everything else fit that. Hundreds of studies showing they're wrong is part of the conspiracy, scientific consensus is part of the conspiracy, and every relevant expert who knows what they're talking about is in on it too, and therefore, anything that disagrees with their premise is easily dismissed, knowledge because a vice, ignorance a virtue.
This topic deserves more publicity than it gets, it really does. I think that this is a truly fascinating area (as a look at my comment history will reveal). I love plants and horticultural science, and I think it is just amazing what we can do with them now, what we might be able to do in the future. We are living in interesting and exciting times. We can increase output, decrease need for inputs, help preserve the soil and the environment. We can help the people who need it most grow more nutritious food. We can lessen or eliminate the problems caused by pests and diseases. Someday I might have a mango or cashew or cacao or coffee or lychee tree here in the northeast US. This is what people are really working on. This isn't sci-fi, it's real, and it is just a shame that we have people with all the intellectual integrity of your average homeopath attacking it and generally trying to influence the general population with cheap scare tactics. And it's almost funny, these people think they're being insightful when all they're going is displaying their own ignorance. It would be like someone claiming that the moon must be hollo
That's why you can never trust those claims. The proponents will claim 'I got better while taking homeopathic caffeine' or whatever, meanwhile they were also taking real medicine (or the problem just goes away naturally), but guess which one they think worked? The alt-med bullshit. Like in that Hauser case, where that kid's mom took off with hum when the court ordered her to seek real treatment. The tumor got bigger without chemo, smaller when chemo was started again, yet his mom claims it was the herbs and ionized water that did it, not the medical treatments. And the thing is, these are the testimonies that the horseshit peddlers will slap on there products' labels too. Incredible.
Your last line is almost right, but still, kinda wrong, considering that children can be the victim of their parents' irrationality, they can sucker the desperate and hopeless (even against their better judgment), that some of these people can hurt other unrelated people by buying into the anti-vax strain of bullshit, and that these people can and do form interest groups to foist their anti-scientific beliefs upon everyone else, and this expands to cover other areas of science, like radio towers & wi-fi, genetic engineering, ect. If it was just them, whatever, but it is more than just a single festering sore, it is a spreading cancer. How to stop it, how to get irrational people to listen to you, how to effectively communicate to people who are convinced they have it all figured out really haven't got a clue, I don't know, but it must be done. I want to see humanity have continuous perpetual improvement & advancement, and that's not going to happen when we have people who think the fifteen minutes they spent listening to Alex Jones means as much as the lifetime a scientist's spends on that subject.
But of course, I'm clearly being paid hundreds of millions of dollars by the Big Pharma/Shadow Government to cast doubt the amazing powers of pseudoscience based medicine, so I guess you can't trust what I say.
Just so you know, first link, widely discredited. Bad methodology, cherrypicked data, and never once mentioned a scientific reason as to why GMOs would be dangerous (they never do). Second, I've heard of those, but never one endorsed by the scientific community, nor one that could point to a reasonable cause for the animals' behaviors. It would be a real surprise if animals could detect subtle genetic changes but would still eat everything else. Third, can't find the link right now, but I read that it is somewhere in the range of 1 out of 50,000 monarchs that would be affected by that pollen (given the range and spread and that sort of thing) even if we accept that report, which, again, I haven't heard overwhelming confirmation of, and keep in mind, even if we accept that, it is generally believed that Bt crops tend to increase nontarget insect biodiversity and reduce pesticide applications, so even if we accept the thing about the monarchs, it is a trade off situation, not a loss with no gain.
Genetic engineering is a very controversial area, don't be surprised if you read a lot bad science about it. I mean, there are dozens of studies 'proving' that homeopathy works, that doesn't mean it does. The general scientific consensus among biologists, botanists, horticulturists, zoologists, microbiologists, biochemists, geneticists, ect., is that they're safe and effective. Sure, there might be patent stuff to work out, but that doesn't effect the crops themselves, and there might even be environmental side effects (although, not using them could be worse), but it is generally beneficial.
Your last paragraph is way off though. Just because there is a dispute (largely between scientists and laymen, what should that tell you?) does not mean we should forgo them. There is an equally valid dispute over the safety and effectiveness of vaccination, and whether or not they cause autism, and pharma patents on them, and every now and again a bad batch makes minor headlines (or is used sensationally by bad or biased journalism); should we stop vaccinating too? Just because a small vocal group of scientifically illiterate cranks muddy the waters for people who don't closely follow the subject? There is a dispute, yes, but it is, by and large, a manufactured controversy, an ultimately popular debate but not a scientific one.
I doubt even that would work for the hard core ones. For average people, maybe, but the loud fearmongers, never. Any agronomist, botanist, horticulturist, biochemist, geneticist, zoologist, microbiologist, ect., who endorses what the current evidence about GMOs says, that being that they do exactly what they're supposed to do safely and effectively, is, in their eyes, part of Monsanto's conspiracy. 'How much is Monsanto paying you' is the response you get to pointing out that all the good studies (dishonest discredited baloney aside) show positive effects of GMOs and lack of health detriments. They believe that all the relevant experts, all over the world, are being bribed. The result of this is that ignorance is considered a benefit, and experience & expertise a negative. So, that group is kind of a lost cause, they'll always be there in the bowels of the internet using half truths and whole lies to spread their scare stories, just like the anti-vaxxers & friends, but definitely, we need more public awareness of not just this subject reaching average people who might buy into the anti-science side if they keep hearing it again and again, but also about agriculture in general. We in developed countries are fortunate enough to not need to be directly connected with our food, and that's great, but that doesn't mean we should forget about it. Biotechnology, and agriculture in general, needs a Carl Sagan.
....is a bad idea, as is posting before rereading your comment to make sure you didn't forget something.
I think we're generally on the same page, but I just want to get out that there really are good people out there who genuinely want to use this technology to help people, like the Rainbow papaya guys, who encourage people to save and plant their GMO seeds. Just because there are corporate creeps out there shouldn't take away from those people's work, because often times the people who dislike Monsanto oppose everyone else who works with genetic engineering, and that's not right.
Although about Monsanto's donation, since I often find myself in the awkward position of defending them for the sake of accuracy, that's not actually true. Monsanto was donating normal hybrid seeds. Not patented GMOs. I honestly don't know if they tried to give GMOs, I guess it wouldn't surprise me, but they didn't donate them.
Also, just so you know, NaturalNews is well known for lying. If they said the sky was blue, I'd go outside to make sure. We're talking about a site that promotes homeopathy, germ theory of disease denialism, the idea that vaccines do not work and cause autism, the idea that chemotherapy doesn't work and cancer can be cured by the snakeoils they conveniently sell, and of course, the idea that GMOs are dangerous...every type of quackery and crankery imaginable, a very anti-science site. Read more here. Just thought you should know, linking to NaturalNews
They're related because the parent poster seemed to indicate that lack of a global food shortage was an argument against GMOs. You do realize that not all GMOs are made by companies, right? Let me be very clear: Monsanto does not own science. Look at Golden Rice or BioCassava. There are scientists from the University of Cornell who want to modify local, open pollinated varieties, sell them at cost, and teach farmers to save their seeds. The Monsanto thing has nothing to do with it. Even if it did, that didn't stop farmers in India from taking GMO seed (cotton I believe) from test fields and growing them themselves after seeing their superiority. Sure, there are other things that can also be done, and many of the should be, but they're not in conflict with genetic engineering any more than airbags are in conflict with seatbelts; they're not mutually exclusive. Genetic engineering is just a means of improving a plant, it is not a way of life. What is wrong with wanting to give people who need it the best seed possible? Yes, there should not be patents (or at least enforced ones) on their seed, but using that as an argument against the use of genetic engineering in those countries makes about as much sense as saying that we shouldn't send them polio vaccines or malaria/AIDS drugs because of pharma patents.
What'd you say? I was too busy pulling my foot out of my mouth. Can't believe I did that. That was stupid.
It's largely been that was since people started buying and selling hybrid seed in the early 1900s. Farmers found that spending X more for seed was OK if they made an extra X+Y. That is hardly unique to Monsanto or genetic engineering.