Neil deGrasse Tyson on GMOs

[grzegorz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ecT2CaL7NA

[KEND]

I commend Tyson for popularizing science but I am afraid he is way off base in this one. Like Dawkins , another hired gun, he demonizes the opposition. Raising the specter of a Luddite opposition, false analogies, putting all genetic modifications in the same basket tut tut, you have become a politician, appeasing your University fund contributors. We know many products are modified taste wise and additive wise but its on the label, if its innocuous why not put it on the label, if I am going to risk eating a food I would like to know the poison, whether it be additive or coloring,. The widespread use of Roundup a carcinogen and destroyer of insects necessary for the bio eco structure [I remember when DDT was similarly regarded as a savior], the lack of studies on the modified corn, soy etc and its effect on the digestive system, come on that's science, isn't that what you are supposed to represent.

[grzegorz]

I don't see him taking the money and saying whatever "they" want to hear.

I actually agree with him. The problem is as your post mentions people immediately mix in pesticides (and Monsanto) and actually organic produce usually needs and uses more pesticides as it is and the truth is those other two areas are separate from creating a GMO.

I'm really not for or against, but I do think people have a tendency to lump all GMOs under one umbrella labeling it all bad. Whereas I imagine a case by case basis would give us more accurate information.

One point someone made is that no one has died from a GMO.

[wiesiek]

there was photo of the gmo corn and regular one./ No topic thread/
Wild squirrels tested it...


GMO was only lightly touched .

During my years in US I was eating "organic" eggs only!
but
here in Poland regular eggs taste similar,
try organic here - and feel the difference!

[Franklin]

I don't see him taking the money and saying whatever "they" want to hear.

I actually agree with him. The problem is as your post mentions people immediately mix in pesticides (and Monsanto) and actually organic produce usually needs and uses more pesticides as it is and the truth is those other two areas are separate from creating a GMO.

I'm really not for or against, but I do think people have a tendency to lump all GMOs under one umbrella labeling it all bad. Whereas I imagine a case by case basis would give us more accurate information.

One point someone made is that no one has died from a GMO.

i think perhaps whoever asked this question really wanted his opinion on the matter
too bad he gave a complete bullshit answer...

essentially he doesn't answer the question at all

he skirts the topic and doesn't
give his opinion of genetically modified food at all (the GMOs- that he was asked about)
instead he talks about something entirely different

first he says- people are afraid of a new and emerging science
and then he says that we have been doing this since we started to cultivate our food.. (thousands of years ago)

the first part- he is surprised that people fear a new and emerging science...
himself as a scientist- perhaps he should fear that a new and emerging science is thrust upon the public..
(and laws passed to obfuscate that fact in labeling and packaging)
unless the public is the large scale human trial..

ken's point about DDT -- is not that pesticides and GMOs are in the same boat
but I believe he is pointing out that we have done things like this in the past with disastrous consequences..
like what happened with DDT-- its safe for wide spread use-- its used-- destroys the environment and people's health -- is banned-- 30-40 years later the damage is still felt in a very real way..

and as for Tyson equating what people have done in agriculture over the centuries to what is being done with GMOs today
they are very very different things...


and this is just wrong actually

actually organic produce usually needs and uses more pesticides as it is

organic produce doesn't need more pesticides...
but produce that is labeled as organic and certified as organic is very often produced with the use of pesticides..
these pesticides are of course different from ones used in non organic farming...
but i would not say that they use more then non organic farming...
for a large organic monoculture farming operation - i would guess that measure of pesticide use is probably the same
but they are pesticides that are OKed for organic farming
most people don't know that

actually -- modern farming practice of huge mono-culture operations (organic or conventional)is what requires the pesticide use
because it creates an environment where there pests are drawn to that one abundant food source..

natural farming methods create a more bio diverse environment
where there is a balance -- and pesticide is not needed..
unfortunately this is not the way things are done
instead-- modern agriculture is a very depleting process- destroying the richness and fertility of the soil as well as leaving chemicals behind in the soil and in the run off

as for what tyson says about there not being anything in the wild to eat..
and if there is it doesn't taste good...
that has not been my experience..
the apples i used to eat as a kind in my great great grandfather property--
tasted much better then anything you can get in a store... (they were much smaller thoguh-- that is true..)


actually if people in the US turned their front and back yards into small scale urban farms..
it would solve much of the problems (that GMOs are on paper trying to solve)
but thent here would not be much profit in that
and too bad there are laws and regulations that keep some interested people from doing this to their yards...



Franklin

[Franklin]

oh and just to expand on how GMOs and what humans have been doing to cultivate their food for centuries
is or is not the same thing

if we follow- Mr. Tysons logic that they are in fact the same thing
then by extension we would have to conclude that he would also look favorably upon the genetic manipulation of human fetus
because you know -- that's essentially the same thing humans have been doing for centuries by reproducing..

[Franklin]

I know this not related...
and not about GMOs

the related part.. is when you call out the people who say its completely safe
they very rarely will put their money where their mouth is....

its completely safe to consume..
ok i have some here- do you want to drink it now...
no i'm not stupid...

[grzegorz]

there was photo of the gmo corn and regular one./ No topic thread/
Wild squirrels tested it...


GMO was only lightly touched .

During my years in US I was eating "organic" eggs only!
but
here in Poland regular eggs taste similar,
try organic here - and feel the difference!

True but I don't think it's the same thing. Cage free chickens produce the eggs with the highest nutrients. I don't think GMOs have anything to do with eggs directly unless we're discussing the diet of said chickens.

[grzegorz]

Again pesticides are not related to GMOs. If someone is concerned about pesticides they should grow their own, which is the only way to truly know how your food is handled.

I think the debate is more of conventional farming versus organic farming, which is fine but I don't have any issues with changing a singlegene to save Florida oranges. Just label it and let people decide meanwhile scores of people will still continue to give Whole Foods their Whole Paycheck.

Naturally everyone wants organic, myself included, but I find it interesting that the anti-vaccinations crowd are also on the anti-gmo train and don't trust what the scientists say. Some even believe that Monsanto controls the weather to stop organic growing.

[grzegorz]

A good anti-GMO video.



http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=87p49NLeI_s

But I still believe it would be more accurate to research item by item and reduce strong pesticides.

This to me is impressive.

Spinach may save Florida oranges.

http://wivb.com/2014/11/13/spinach-may- ... trus-crop/

[Franklin]

Again pesticides are not related to GMOs. If someone is concerned about pesticides they should grow their own, which is the only way to truly know how your food is handled.

I think the debate is more of conventional farming versus organic farming, which is fine but I don't have any issues with changing a singlegene to save Florida oranges. Just label it and let people decide meanwhile scores of people will still continue to give Whole Foods their Whole Paycheck.

Naturally everyone wants organic, myself included, but I find it interesting that the anti-vaccinations crowd are also on the anti-gmo train and don't trust what the scientists say. Some even believe that Monsanto controls the weather to stop organic growing.

cool that you are growing your own

i wish more people would do that..


i think the debate should be about monoculture vs more traditional methods
the way people are doing organic these days is not much different from conventional monoculture
it is actually expensive to get certified as organic..

sometimes the better option is to get to know and buy produce from smaller scale farmers
they might not be certified organic-- but they might actually be using more natural methods - and growing without pesticides
you got to get to know them to find out..
usually the people doing this are pretty friendly and want to talk about what they are doing because it is something they believe in...


i think organic is just the new buzz world from the media
people need to educate themselves as to what that actually means
example- my parents will buy stuff that says all natural on the packaging.. and what they think that means as opposed to what it actually means are two completely different things..

as for the people who believe some crazy things..
well at least it keeps the world a little bit interesting...

[grzegorz]

I think we agree more than we disagree. With corporations like Monsanto I don't blame people for mistrusting all GMOs.

I also agree with Weisiek, it's much better to when you buy bread that goes bad in two days than whatever it is that they sell us in the US thank goodness this is changing and people are becoming more aware.

I wish they could all be grass fed cows. The way we treat our livestock is horrible too. I respect those who go vegetarian.

[wiesiek]

G., - I was thinkin`
more about :
how sense of taste direct your choice ,
now
we can dig it more and ask: why?

[Steve James]

Tyson is an astrophysicist, not an expert on biology, agriculture or genetics. His views on gmo foods are those of a layman, just like ours. Imo, he trusts the opinions of scientists over that of laypeople. However, that trust can be misplaced because scientists working for companies that promote gmos are interested in profit. Otoh, I also think that people are talking at cross purposes. Tyson is right that genetic engineering has always been part of agriculture. However, people are rightly concerned about some forms of genetic modifications. I agree with Greg that it's necessary to look at it case by case, instead of arguing that gmos are "bad" or good.

[Franklin]

Tyson is an astrophysicist, not an expert on biology, agriculture or genetics. His views on gmo foods are those of a layman, just like ours. Imo, he trusts the opinions of scientists over that of laypeople. However, that trust can be misplaced because scientists working for companies that promote gmos are interested in profit. Otoh, I also think that people are talking at cross purposes. Tyson is right that genetic engineering has always been part of agriculture. However, people are rightly concerned about some forms of genetic modifications. I agree with Greg that it's necessary to look at it case by case, instead of arguing that gmos are "bad" or good.

genetic manipulation through what is basically plant eugenics is much different from actually going and altering the genes in a laboratory
first point would be that the ospring plant would be limited to the genes of the parents... in what we have been doing for centuries
going in and manipulating and putting whatever you want is a far leap from that...

actually what we have been doing for centuries to our plants is actually a problem now...
we have lost a lot of diversity...
and this is forcing us to develop stronger pestisides, and have people push for the GMO stuff as a solution
because a single predator could wipe out an entire crop easily.. because there is no diversity...


the assumption that people have that science is an infallible god.. well you really just have to see the state of what we have created with it
and ask-- where is the long term benefit????...

antibiotics- have saved lives
but we are reaching a crisis where they are not working anymore...
we are racing to develop stronger and stronger anitbiotics because the bugs have mutated with the goal of survival..

industrial waste, pollution, smog
yes we have goods and transportation
but our oceans are waste dumps..
and how about global warming anyone...

i could go on and on..
we have created a lot of problems and seems we are not anywhere at finding the solutions to the problems that we created..

--edit-- ------
for anyone who says this is the cost of advancement
no this is the cost of technology and science used to make a profit
while not thinking about the long term results
-----------------------------


and in most of these cases..
when we came out with this stuff... we were happy... "look how great this is"
then some decades later... "wait, hold up a second... what is causing this problems... "

so when something new science breakthrough..
is being pushed as what will save our world hunger issues...
its complete BS man
people should be afraid... and should speak out...
and ironically with modern technology we can to some extent...

its nice to say it should be evaluated on a case by case basis..
but come on, we live in the real world....
its not going to be case by case
there are huge corporations pushing this technology and backing it with lots of money...
because they want to make money...



Franklin