General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMoJo: What Did Monsanto Show Bill Nye to Make Him Fall "in Love" With GMOs?
Last edited Wed Mar 11, 2015, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)
What Did Monsanto Show Bill Nye to Make Him Fall "in Love" With GMOs?By Tom Philpott * Wed Mar. 4, 2015 * Mother Jones
Bill Nye, the bow-tied erstwhile kids' TV host, onetime dancer with the stars, and tireless champion of evolution and climate science, was never a virulent or wild-eyed critic of genetically modified crops. Back in 2005, he did a pretty nuanced episode of his TV show on it, the takeaway of which was hardly fire-breathing denunciation: "Let's farm responsibly, let's require labels on our foods, and let's carefully test these foods case by case."
In his book Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, published just last November, Nye reiterated these points. His concern about GMOs centered mainly on unintended consequences of growing them over large expanses—he cited the example of crops engineered to resist herbicides, which have been linked pretty decisively to the decline of monarch butterflies, which rely on abundant milkweeds, which in turn have been largely wiped out in the Midwest by GMO-enabled herbicide use. Nye praised certain GMOs, such as corn engineered to repel certain insects, but concluded that "if you're asking me, we should stop introducing genes from one species into another," because "we just can't know what will happen to other species in that modified species' ecosystem."
Now, Nye's doubts have evidently fallen away like milkweeds under a fine mist of herbicide. In a February interview filmed backstage on Bill Maher's HBO show (starting about 3:40 in the below video), Nye volunteered that he was working on a revision of the GMO section of Undeniable. He gave no details, just that he "went to Monsanto and I spent a lot of time with the scientists there." As a result, he added with a grin, "I have revised my outlook, and am very excited about telling the world. When you're in love, you want to tell the world!"
Monsanto's longtime chief technology officer, Robb Fraley, responded to the interview with an approving tweet featuring a photo of Nye at company HQ:
Tweet: "Thanks @BillNye for visit & advancing #science understanding. Look forward to more discussion! http://bit.ly/1EUeUuu * 9:01 AM - 27 Feb 2015
It will be interesting to hear what wonders within Monsanto's R&D labs turned Nye from a nuanced GMO skeptic to a proud champion.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/what-did-monsanto-show-bill-nye-make-him-stop-worrying-and-love-gmos
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MisterP
(23,730 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)not a molecular geneticist or philosopher of science (you need like a double PhD to even start to even understand all the ins and outs of plausible propaganda)
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)his major work experience before becoming 'the science guy' was at Boeing.
Now that figures.
Nye began his career in Seattle at Boeing, where (among other things) he starred in training films and developed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor for the 747.
Later, he worked as a consultant in the aeronautics industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye
Can I say, "Who cares what Bill Nye thinks" yet?
*I'm* more qualified on this question that he is -- (Higher level degree, more closely related degree & work experience).
Just not as famous.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I'm a mechanical engineer by training and work in aerospace. But I'm a huge science geek and read lots of scientific articles and even journals.
I won't get into the issue of whether engineers are scientists, per se, but I will say that many engineers are at least sciencey enough to develop at least a layman's expertise in a variety of scientific areas.
For example, I am not a biologist, but I have done a lot of independent study in evolutionary biology and believe I understand to a high degree, for a layman.
But Nye isn't on thin ice here. Most genetic botanists are very comfortable with the concept of GMO's. They certainly DO have the appropriate credentials if you dismiss Nye or myself as just being peon engineers. The trick comes in from unintended consequences (like the the prolific use of pesticides with crops engineered to be immune to them causing devastation to beneficial insect populations), and in the dubious practice of licensing fees for self-producing seeds.
I'm not aware of any major scientific organization who believes there are SAFETY issues with GMO crops (correct me if I'm wrong). And frankly, as we progress in them, they could significantly alleviate hunger... if we can get by the profit issues.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)read a lot as well.
But you guys don't accept me as an 'expert' and there's no reason anyone should think a mechanical engineer with a BS is one.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)No it hasn't been "decisively" linked.
First the anti-GMO crowd said the pesticide in GM corn was killing Monarchs. This argument was destroyed by the National Academy of Science.
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.long
Now the argument is that milkweed destruction by Roundup is what's causing the decline of Monarchs. That argument is equally nonsensical and the problem is they don't consider the alternatives. Studies that link cause and effect are nonexistent as are any studies that compare GMO to non-GMO crops. Were it not for Roundup ready crops, farmers would still be killing milkweed by other methods more harmful to the environment. Were it not for bt crops, farmers would be using more broad spectrum pesticides that would be killing more monarchs.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 11, 2015, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)
That means they don't want milkweed on their farms. No one can blame them. Thus, if we want to help the Monarchs, we need to figure out a solution that works for the farmers, not just pretend that it's the big bad chemicals and GMOs.
Bringing light in the discussion about GMOs?
http://ajstein.tumblr.com/post/40504136918/bringing-light-in-the-discussion-about-gmos
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)corn acreage has increased in the last 10-20 years is to make ethanol with -- an energy black hole.
US farm acreage has been declining since the 50s. If we were 'trying to grow as much as possible" we wouldn't be taking land out of production, and we'd be growing food in our suburban back yards.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And failing to respond to the content of people's posts.
That's why there is no point in discussing anything with you.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)propaganda points.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Nothing changes your religious views.
#irony #honestymatters
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)biology at Sweet Briar College who has studied the monarch migrations for decades. In a paper last year, he cited three major factors: Deforestation in Mexico, recent bouts of severe weather, and the growth of herbicide-based agriculture destroying crucial milkweed flora in the Midwest.
LB: The three big reasons: Severe weather was working against the butterflies for the last two years. Another is the progressive deterioration of the overwintering habitat in Mexico due to illegal deforestation. But the third and probably the most egregious problem is the result of industrialized agriculture in the Midwest.
BP: You also mentioned Midwestern agriculture as a third factor in the decline. What's happening there?
LB: The most catastrophic thing from the point of view of the monarch butterfly has been the expansion of crops that are planted on an unbelievably wide scale throughout the Midwest and have been genetically manipulated to be resistant to the powerful herbicide Roundup.
These crops are planted in the grassland ecosystems of the United States, where the monarchs do most of their breeding. And normally in that area there are milkweed growing all over the place on the agricultural fields and the edges of fields and the sides of roads. There are 108 species of milkweed in the United States — the whole monarch migration evolved in relation to evolution of this milkweed flora.
Anyway, where they use these herbicides, it kills all emergent seedlings and all the emergent perennial plants. A paper last year by John Pleasants of the University of Iowa and Karen Oberhauser of the University of Minnesota estimated that 60 percent of milkweed has been eliminated from the grassland ecosystem. We're not just talking about one species, we're talking about the entire native flora being eliminated.
The other thing herbicides do is kill sources of nectar. This is important: When monarchs come back (to the United States) they lay their eggs on milkweed, the caterpillars hatch out in four or five days and develop over a period of two or three weeks, then form the chrysalis, then a week later it hatches into an adult. These adults initially have about 20 milligrams of fat in their body that's carried over from larval development. But the butterflies that migrate back (to Mexico) have about 125 mg of fat. All that additional fat is gotten from drinking nectar from wildflowers. And this agriculture is killing off the wildflowers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/03/why-are-the-monarch-butterflies-disappearing/
http://www.monarchbutterflyfund.org/node/137
Dr. Lincoln Brower describes himself as “a student and admirer of the monarch.” He probably knows more about monarch butterflies than anyone else in the world!
Dr. Brower has studied monarchs for over 50 years! He has written so many scientific papers about monarchs that it takes 15 pages just to list their titles. Dr. Brower was studying monarchs even before the over-wintering colonies in Mexico were known to science. He conducted the early research there and he continues to do research in Mexico today.
http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/monarch/BrowerBio.html
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If the alternatives aren't considered, blaming it on GM crops is completely meaningless. You can grow milkweed and corn in the same space.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)declines. Monsanto's Roundup, not the GM crops Monsanto creates to *use* Roundup. But they kinda go together.
Did you even read the post, or do you just have a standard spiel you go into when anyone criticizes GM agriculture?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If there were no such thing as GMO and Roundup, would the monarchs be better off or worse off?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)the Monarchs would be in use, is that correct?
If fhat's your assumption, it can't be proven.
What we *do* know, at this particular moment in time, under this particular set of conditions, is that there's good evidence Roundup is killing crucial Monarch habitat, and thus killing Monarchs.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If you can't consider the alternative, you can't prove GM crops and Roundup are to blame. And yes, it is just that simple unless you believe correlation = causation.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)laughable.
there's no known mechanism that links pirates and temperature causally; unlike the proposed causal link between round-up and declining milkweed and other plant life affecting monarchs.
Tracking the Causes of Sharp
Decline of the Monarch Butterfly
A new census found this winter’s population of North American monarch butterflies in Mexico was at the lowest level ever measured. Insect ecologist Orley Taylor talks to Yale Environment 360 about how the planting of genetically modified crops and the resulting use of herbicides has contributed to the monarchs’ decline.
University of Kansas insect ecologist Orley R. “Chip” Taylor has been observing the fragile populations of monarch butterflies for decades, but he says he has never been more concerned about their future.
Monarchs are beloved for their spectacular migration across Canada and the United States to overwintering sites in central Mexico — and back again. But a new census taken at the monarchs’ wintering grounds found their population had declined 59 percent over the previous year and was at the lowest level ever measured.
In an interview with Yale Environment 360 contributor Richard Conniff, Taylor — founder and director of Monarch Watch, a conservation and outreach program — talked about the factors that have led to the sharp drop in the monarch population. Among them, Taylor said, is the increased planting of genetically modified corn in the U.S. Midwest, which has led to greater use of herbicides, which in turn kills the milkweed that is a prime food source for the butterflies.
“What we’re seeing here in the United States,” he said, “is a very precipitous decline of monarchs that’s coincident with the adoption of Roundup-ready corn and soybeans.”
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/tracking_the_causes_of_sharp__decline_of_the_monarch_butterfly/2634/
It's not flakes making such claims, BTW: and their research has nothing to do with correlations between pirates and global temperatures.
Yale Environment 360 is a publication of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)None of it considers the alternative. The demand for corn has skyrocketed over the same time period which means more corn would have been planted regardless of whether GM and Roundup existed or not. This is the 2nd time I've mentioned this and the 2nd time you've ignored this simple reality. If you're just going to parrot out the same information that pretends effect equals cause, I really have no interest in replying again as you're not offering any new information.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)gm crops and roundup, something worse would be killing monarch butterflies?
in other words, you've already conceded that Monsanto's herbicide is killing monarchs?
the demand for corn hasn't "skyrocketed." US corn acreage is down (2014 acreage), and lower than it was in 2007.
And we both know such "demand" is highly artificial anyway. For example, is the use of corn for ethanol a result of 'demand,' and if so, whose? Considering that market is largely a creation of government mandates.
Non-ethanol uses of corn did not increase over the past decade, but “The Ethanol Decade: An Expansion of U.S. Corn Production, 2000-09” reported that while annual U.S. ethanol production increased nine billion gallons, harvested corn acreage increased 10 percent, or 7.2 million acres, in the same period. Corn used for ethanol increased by 3.7 billion bushels, while total corn production increased by 3.2 billion bushels.
http://www.agri-pulse.com/ERS_cropland_8192011.asp
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The burden of proof is on those who make the hypothesis in the first place.
There isn't even a consensus that the monarch population has declined at all in the last 15 years.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00158.x/epdf
Considering 2007 was a bumper crop for corn, your assertion, while true, is certainly misleading and just not that relevant.
The whole 'GM corn is causing the decline of the monarch' argument assumes it's the responsibility of farmers to grow a weed that has zero economic value over a cash crop, which is ridiculous any way you stack it.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)when the increase is all due to the energy sink of ethanol production and cozy relationships with government on the part of players like ADM & Valero.
Yes, farmers have no responsibility whatsoever to allow anything to survive that doesn't provide them with income, I see your perspective now. Makes perfect sense.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I point out that corn production has definitely increased over the past 15 years and somehow the reason why makes this misleading?
Please say you are shitting me.
At any rate I'm done here. I have no interest in pursing this level of silliness from someone who pretends to lecture me about what makes perfect sense.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)for energy-sink corn-based ethanol that consumers didn't really want, didn't really understand, but were forced to buy, that's a little different than normal 'increased demand'. There's no increased demand for corn, not for human consumption and not for feed.
I'm a little tired of arguing with people whose idea of refuting arguments = throwing out one "online" study and claiming it settles the question, when it's completely irrelevant to the question under discussion. But you haven't got more ammunition, that's the real problem.
Once considered the green dream of the environmentally sensitive, ethanol has become the province of agricultural giants that have long pressed for its use as fuel, as well as newcomers seeking to cash in on a bonanza.
The modern-day gold rush is driven by a number of factors: generous government subsidies, surging demand for ethanol as a gasoline supplement, a potent blend of farm-state politics and the prospect of generating more than a 100 percent profit in less than two years.
The rush is taking place despite concerns that large-scale diversion of agricultural resources to fuel could result in price increases for food for people and livestock, as well as the transformation of vast preserved areas into farmland.
Despite continuing doubts about whether the fuel provides a genuine energy saving, at least 39 new ethanol plants are expected to be completed over the next 9 to 12 months, projects that will push the United States past Brazil as the world's largest ethanol producer.
That the United States is using corn, among the more expensive crops to grow and harvest, to help meet the country's fuel needs is a testament to the politics underlying ethanol's 30-year rise to prominence. Brazilian farmers produce ethanol from sugar at a cost roughly 30 percent less.
But in America's farm belt, politicians have backed the ethanol movement as a way to promote the use of corn, the nation's most plentiful and heavily subsidized crop. Those generous government subsidies have kept corn prices artificially low — at about $2 a bushel — and encouraged flat-out production by farmers, leading to large surpluses symbolized by golden corn piles towering next to grain silos in Iowa and Illinois.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/25ethanol.html?pagewanted=all
Marr
(20,317 posts)than genetic engineering, per se.
If X amount of land in every X amount of acreage had to be set aside for natural growth, perhaps this could be reversed.
Genetically engineered crops have increased food output exponentially over the last few decades, as I understand it. Surely there are ways to keep progressing in those venues while managing any unforeseen negative effects that might pop up.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)The green line shows exponential growth (as opposed to linear (blue) and cubic(red) growth):
"Exponential" by Exponential.png: Lunkwillderivative work: McSush (talk) - Exponential.png. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Exponential.svg#/media/File:Exponential.svg
Are you sure that's what you mean?
The lily population doubles in size every day and if left unchecked will smother the pond in 30 days, killing all the other living things in the water.
Day after day the plant seems small and so it is decided to leave it to grow until it half-covers the pond, before cutting it back. They are then asked on what day half-coverage will occur.
This is revealed to be the 29th day, and then there will be just one day to save the pond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
Marr
(20,317 posts)My point is the same.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)I wonder who's making that argument, and on what basis.
I've heard something more like "GM has the *potential* to greatly increase production," not that it's already done it.
Marr
(20,317 posts)wheat in India almost 100% in a few years. And that's just one region and one crop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2015, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)
GMOs. He did conventional breeding, irradiation, etc. GM is direct modification of the genome. Conventional breeding, etc are indirect.
An organism that is generated through genetic engineering is considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMOs were bacteria in 1973 and GM mice were generated in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering
The novel technological development of the Green Revolution was the production of novel wheat cultivars. Agronomists bred cultivars of maize, wheat, and rice that are generally referred to as HYVs or "high-yielding varieties". HYVs have higher nitrogen-absorbing potential than other varieties. Since cereals that absorbed extra nitrogen would typically lodge, or fall over before harvest, semi-dwarfing genes were bred into their genomes. A Japanese dwarf wheat cultivar (Norin 10 wheat), which was sent to Washington, D.C. by Cecil Salmon, was instrumental in developing Green Revolution wheat cultivars...
With advances in molecular genetics, the mutant genes responsible for Arabidopsis thaliana genes (GA 20-oxidase,[18] ga1,[19] ga1-3[20]), wheat reduced-height genes (Rht)[21] and a rice semidwarf gene (sd1)[22] were cloned. These were identified as gibberellin biosynthesis genes or cellular signaling component genes. Stem growth in the mutant background is significantly reduced leading to the dwarf phenotype. Photosynthetic investment in the stem is reduced dramatically as the shorter plants are inherently more stable mechanically. Assimilates become redirected to grain production, amplifying in particular the effect of chemical fertilizers on commercial yield.
HYVs significantly outperform traditional varieties in the presence of adequate irrigation, pesticides, and fertilizers. In the absence of these inputs, traditional varieties may outperform HYVs. Therefore, several authors have challenged the apparent superiority of HYVs not only compared to the traditional varieties alone, but by contrasting the monocultural system associated with HYVs with the polycultural system associated with traditional ones.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Technologies
Borlaug received his B.Sc. Biology 1937 and Ph.D. in plant pathology and genetics from the University of Minnesota in 1942. He took up an agricultural research position in Mexico, where he developed semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties.
During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations.[9] These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution...He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
IOW, Borlaug did his most significant work before there was such a thing as a GMO; he was 59 by the time the first genetically modified organism (a bacteria) was created in 1973.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.
Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concludes that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report finds, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices..
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html#.VQEpmWctGic
Previously, Dr. Gurian-Sherman worked at the Environmental Protection Agency where he examined the human health impacts and environmental risk of genetically engineered plants. He also worked in the Biotechnology Group at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and he served on the Food and Drug Administration’s inaugural advisory food biotechnology subcommittee.
Dr. Gurian-Sherman earned his doctorate degree in plant pathology from the University of California Berkeley. He conducted post-doctoral research on rice and wheat molecular biology at the U.S. Department of Agriculture laboratory in Albany, California.
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3242/dr-doug-gurian-sherman-joins-center-for-food-safety-as-director-of-sustainable-agriculture-and-senior-scientist
Marr
(20,317 posts)Particularly the part about genetically modified crops being unavailable in the areas where food shortages are sharpest, due to cost.
I'm seeing some critiques of that Failure to Yield report that counter it's premise though. I'm afraid I don't have time to read through it too thoroughly right now-- I'll have to come back to it. But thanks for the info.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)"Particularly the part about genetically modified crops being unavailable in the areas where food shortages are sharpest, due to cost."
I didn't see that part -- could you cut & paste it? Thanks.
Marr
(20,317 posts)discussions I skimmed through as I was looking for related info. Sorry about that. If I stumble on it again, I'll post it here.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)out.
And I only had to go to the second name on that paper to find someone with a Monsanto connection.
Dr. Richard Hellmich
Assistant Professor & USDA Research Entomologist, Iowa State University
http://www.monsanto.com/knowledge-research-programs/pages/advisory-committee.aspx
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Do you think it's a bad idea for the industry to support university research in areas that are beneficial to both the industry and consumers? Do you even know if Hellmich was collaborating with Monsanto at the time, or did you just dig this up on a google search? Even if he was the very best you have is still ad hominem nonsense.
The National Academy of Science is hardly concerned with your ad hominem accusations. They selected scientists from a broad spectrum, including the industry, to produce an informed result. Had you gone much farther in your ad hominem investigation you would have also found people from universities, the USDA, and the Union of Concerned Scientists all of which were involved in the research.
The allegation, published in the Journal Science suspected a link between bt corn and monarch deaths.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6733/abs/399214a0.html
That study destroyed that link. It's been out for over 10 years and nothing has refuted it.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)authors of the paper. Shall I look at the rest?
There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person’s claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person’s interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false.
So while noting that at least one of the authors of the paper has ties to Monsanto doesn't prove the paper is false (which, you'll note, I didn't claim), it does give the public reason to be suspicious.
Now, shall I look at the rest of the authors?
As for that paper: what is the ground-breaking claim you think should have been refuted, and what relation does it have to the herbicide ROUND-UP (and thus, indirectly, GM crops) killing Monarch habitat (and thus Monarchs)?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)cut across their neutrality is not an ad hominem argument until I claim that their results *must be* false on that basis.
Any scientist whose income depends on a corporate interest, and gets paid to do science that affects the bottom line of that corporate interest, should be scrutinized. That's not ad hom, that's good sense.
ananda
(28,858 posts)... and I don't mean veggies.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)nt.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)and feel in love with it.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)PS:
Bringing light in the discussion about GMOs?
http://ajstein.tumblr.com/post/40504136918/bringing-light-in-the-discussion-about-gmos
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- Take off your blinders......
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Point me to a proper scientific peer reviewed study and we can discuss it.
Archae
(46,322 posts)We can change our minds based on actual evidence.
Not wild hysterical accusations of "frankenfoods" or "poison" or "shills."
I used to believe Eric Von Daniken, and his "Chariots Of The Gods" stuff.
But I was shown on "Nova" and in credible science books how Eric Von Daniken made stuff up.
Even to the degree of flat-out fraud.
All the available credible evidence says GMO's are safe, and can be better than so-called "organic" food.
Most of the accusations come from two "graduates" of the Maharishi Yogi's "university."
I have no worries about GMO's, and will eat them with no worry.
And have more of my money in my pockets that doesn't go to "organic" farmers.
Logical
(22,457 posts)You and I had a same experience.
I believed in that also and Nova turned me into a science guy!
I remember the made up stuff about alien landing strips! And "no way humans could of built them".
I also am not worried about GMOs.
Archae
(46,322 posts)They also did a program about the "Bermuda Triangle," the tale-spinners ended up looking like liars.
Even the so-called "Flight 19" was blown completely out of proportion by making stuff up about them.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)You would think it would be harder to fool people in the internet age since there is soooo much more information.
But sadly, it's seems to work the opposite way...
Logical
(22,457 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Aside from his work at Boeing.
Archae
(46,322 posts)A "degree" from an unaccredited diploma mill, started by the Maharishi Yogo to teach "Yogic Flying."
(People who bounce on mats with their legs crossed)
Or "scientific journals" that will publish stuff by "The Simpsons" if they get the check in the mail.
Not to mention "researchers" who do sloppy and discredited "research."
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)merits of GMOs. My friend's husband has an MS in engineering and a significant work history; maybe he should go on TV too.
ProfessorGAC
(65,001 posts)So, unless one is a credentialed expert in a specific field, one cannot have an opinion that is still rooted the in fhe fundamental of science?
Really? You sure you want to ride that train?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)'science' -- like thousands of BS science graduates all over the country.
Like someone with a BS in Physical Therapy, for example.
But a bachelors of science in a field completely unrelated to even basic biology on its own doesn't mean anyone should pay close attention to his opinion.
me·chan·i·cal en·gi·neer·ing: the branch of engineering dealing with the design, construction, and use of machines.
The only reason anyone pays attention is because he's 'famous' and is on TV. well, so is Kathy griffin.
And Nye's own food habits give me reason to suspect he's not going to be eating many GM foods himself.
ProfessorGAC
(65,001 posts)I'm not a molecular biologist either. I actually am a scientist with multiple advanced degrees. (OK, so one of them is an MBA.)
I would think my opinion is as valid as most to listen to, EXCEPT that of a fully qualified expert.
Now, if i'm doing a conversation on climate change and i start blaming unicorns for it, you would have a perfectly reasonable cause to dismiss my opinion out of hand.
But, if i have an opinion of GMO's and it doesn't exactly suit you, but it is based upon a fundamental understanding of science, how to analyze data properly, and draw meaingful conclusions from the information, it should be ignored just because i'm not a molecular biologist and that i'm not famous.
Seems a slippery slope to "nobody gets to have an opinion, except in their own narrow field of expertise."
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)related research and my profs did GM research.
Nye is a mechanical engineer who eats organic food and frequents vegan restaurants.
here's another ME definition:
The role of a mechanical engineer is to take a product from an idea to the marketplace.
http://me.columbia.edu/what-mechanical-engineering
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Very boring. And, no I won't waste my time on you again. You don't want to discuss the matter at all. Heck, if you're so much more on top of the issue, head on over to GMO Skepti Forum on Facebook, and discuss the matter there. That would be interesting to watch.
As for science, if you understand it, why do you ignore it?
http://kfolta.blogspot.ca/2014/01/false-equivalence-raises-its-ugly-head.html?m=1
Goodbye.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)shills... every damn time.
...until you do a bit more Googling on Dr. Folta. From which we learn that he is a contributor to the Biology Fortified blog. Per the Source Watch entry...
Well, big fracking whoop, you might be thinking. The guy writes for a blog that was launched with support from the GMO industry. (Here's one of the Tweets the quote above refers to and here's more info on CBI, whose member companies include BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta.)
Indeed, that fact in and of itself is hardly conclusive evidence of any tie between Dr. Folta and the "Big 6". Until, that is, we learn Dr. Folta is also an Independent Expert for gmoAnswers.
This is getting interesting now. You see, gmoAnswers is ...
... funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta. Our members are dedicated to the responsible development and application of plant biotechnology. -- About gmoAnswers
Do any of those names ring a bell?
Now let me be perfectly clear. I do not know Dr. Folta. I hope he is a very nice man and that he genuinely believes in the causes he helps promote. Is he a Monsanto shill? His direct and indirect connections to corporations producing GMOs are, to put it mildly, a bit dodgy. What's good for GMO is good for Dr. Folta, to paraphrase Engine Charlie...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/01/1333678/-Some-GMO-supporters-just-might-be-Monsanto-shills-after-all#
Funny you have these types, and only these types, at your fingertips. You never search the literature or do your own research. You just quote Koch-funded commentators, and scientists with Monsanto connections.
How coincidental.
Here's another coincidence: there's a Bill Nye connection too!
The Science Guy never responded. [H]e has received another invitation to discuss his opinion about GMOs. It comes from three graduate students who have just shared their letter with me (also supplied by Kevin Folta to the GLP)...
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/08/deafening-silence-from-bill-nye-to-kevin-folta-gmo-debate-challenge/
the pieces are starting to come together....connect the dots....
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You can't support your anti-GMO BS with actual science, and so you continually play this unethical game of character assassination. It's one ugly, unethical game. Kevin Folta is an honorable scientist.
Yes, Folta, asked Nye to debate him on GMOs. How dare he do that!
The pieces are together. GMOs are safe. The science is abundantly clear. Unethical character assassination via conspiracy theory nonsense does not change that in any way, shape or form.
Interestingly, you fail to notice that Shiva makes 40K per college appearance to spread her lies. Interestingly, you don't care about that. Nor do you care about how she misrepresents her education and many other things.
You owe me and DU an apology for this behavior.
PS: You can't debunk anything posted on GMOAnswers with actual science, so why does the funding matter, if the content is accurate?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)The dots will be connected.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You can't support your claims, and you've been called on it over and over again, and you still push your BS.
You owe me an apology.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
You are now on ignore. I have only one other person on ignore.
On edit: It's interesting to note that the individual in question continues to respond to this post, even though I can't see the responses.
Oh, goodness.
PS:
AAAS Scientists: Consensus on GMO Safety Firmer Than For Human-Induced Climate Change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,001 posts)Doesn't address my concern. At what point does someone get to posit an opinion based upon science fundamentals?
Only Hawking, Penrose and Guth can talk about cosmology?
Only Ben Carson can talk about neurology? (Let's hope not! Who want to hear anything from that guy.)
GAC
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)particularly important or that anyone else should pay particular attention to it.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Wow. That is way out there. What field is your doctorate in?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Boeing is the sum total of Nye's formal "science" experience. IOW, none at all the life sciences.
He studied machines and mechanics.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Just wondering what gives you all of the authority to make arguments all while saying he has no authority to do the same.
Rex
(65,616 posts)No wait.. they fed him TO Experiment #703.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
booley
(3,855 posts)As I recall what Nye said was he was worried that we really didn't' understand the effect GMOs would have on the environment.
(and yes I understand not all GMOs are the same. Each has to be examined on a case by case basis. GM papayas are not the same as round up ready corn)
And so far I have yet to hear it. What I have heard from random people is that anyone who has reservations about any GMO's is somehow anti science.
This is especially annoying since it would be amazing if adding a new organism didn't have an effect on the rat of the living things around it. You know, if we thought about the science of how living things interact?
there is actual science that shows that yes, The use of GMO crops have either directly or indirectly affected ecosystems:
Round up ready corn has led to increases in herbicide use (since it's designed to allow earlier and larger amounts of herbicide then farmers could use before)
Bt Corn has also created insecticide resistant root worms that specifically eat the very plants meant to kill it.
http://www.wired.com/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/
And while I don't' doubt that the vast majority of GMOs are safe for moist of us to eat, some people do already have a sensitivity to plants that naturally have insecticides (any of the night shade family like tomatoes and eggplants). Adding genes to produce insecticides is a pretty common GMO nowadays. Indeed, that's why GMOs have caused a reduction in insecticide use.
But since we don't (won't) label how are these people going to necessarily know what they eating might make them sick? Are there any studies on this? (I wasn't' able to find any) Because this seems to have been a good question to have asked BEFORE 2/3rds of the most ubiquitous crop in North America was engineered with this property.
and no, saying the good parts of GMO crops (like decreased insecticide use) doesn't' mean the bad parts don't matter.
And we can't' just stop at the science. We also have to look at how the technology is used. That root worm thing was totally predicted by scientists who had a plan to avoid it. A plan Monsanto said was unnecessary and farmers ignored.
Now maybe I am wrong. Maybe GMOs are some kind exception and won't (somehow) cause a selective environmental pressure, won't create these huge swaths of potential food for whatever organism learns to adapt to it.
But as I said, so far no has bothered to explain why evolution suddenly ceases when you engineer a plant and put in an ecology surrounded by all these other living things.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)becoming the "Science Guy". That's the sum total of his science background.
IMO, Nye's opinion about GMO's is about as significant as that of any other citizen with a BA/BS.
booley
(3,855 posts)He does (or at least has in the past) taken the time to learn about other scientific fields and explain them to laymen. He teaches that science is accesable to anyone and everyone if they take the time to learn it.
Which makes him more then just "any other citizen" because of the influence he has.
And why if he can't explain for instance why he was wrong before to worry that adding novel organisms could have an effect on the environment, that's very not good.
I mean I could be wrong and maybe this isn't' as big a problem as I think.
But if I follow the evidence like NYE has always said to do, then yes GMOs have an effect not the ecology. Not all of it positive.
(hell I just found out even that "lower insecticide use" may not be true any more since insects have begun to adapt and that's caused farmers to … you guessed it.. use more insecticide.)
Sorry for the rant. Nye happens to be a personal hero of mine. It's sad to think there's even a possibility he sold out.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... you realize that any possible risk from GMOs is even bigger for other seed development technologies. Yet, the people who are anti-GMO don't have concerns about other seed development technologies. That's what makes the whole public "debate" bizarre, because there isn't any big debate in science circles, except over pros and cons of specifics with figuring out the best way to move forward.
Those risks have been assessed over and over and over again. Sometimes an individual has to back away to see the full picture, especially when fear mongering is added to the discussion, as is prolific with this topic. That's likely what happened for Nye. That's been the story for many people who used to be "against GMOs," including myself.
booley
(3,855 posts)"Yet, the people who are anti-GMO don't have concerns about other seed development technologies."
Sure about that? Because I have seen similar concern over say , coating seeds in neonicotinoids which is not genetic engineering.
Or maybe you meant something else.. which is hard to say since you don't' really provide many specifics to argue for or against.
So it just seems you just assumed that.
"because there isn't any big debate in science circles, except over pros and cons of specifics with figuring out the best way to move forward."
Ok vastly increased herbicide use, that seems like a debate about a very important con. Sure it's a specific organism.. but an organism that is the largest crop in the united states. Which makes it not trivial. Especially since the effects are already fanning out to other organisms. Weeds that ever more herbicide resistant is a HUGE deal since so far our only means to deal with it is to add even MORE herbicides (which has all sorts of negative effects that go far outside any particular corn field)
I mean Saying "the best way forward" just seems like a meaningless statement. It not only tries to cast anyone who disagrees as luddites, but it assumes that the path we are on is necessarily good or that we can't change it. We either blindly accept that all GMOS are good without question or else we go back to horse and buggy says when famines were common, as if there is no middle ground.
"Those risks have been assessed over and over and over again. "
All the risks? Ok. Don't' remember any scientific study ever being absolute or definitive. But ok. Though I would point out even if what your said was true, we already have real world examples where even when the risks were known and a plan was formulated it didn't matter because the technology wasn't' used responsibly. And it only took a few people to ruin for everyone forever.
For the record I am not against GMOs in principle. But the fact is we had only a hazy understanding of how all the links in an ecosystem worked without adding new organisms. So how did our understanding suddenly become absolute with GMOs? Because that is what is required to say that we know there is "no risk".
It just boggles the mind to claim that GMOs are unlike every other kind of technology and won't have unintended consequences. And by and large the people who control GMOs (and lots of other agricultural technologies) aren't' caring about those consequences until after they have already appeared.
if we are going to follow the evidence, that means ALL the evidence. Not just the good parts we want to believe.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You are just parroting anti-GMO propaganda, much of which is not accurate, and I'm done refuting the BS.
You don't know the first thing about coated seeds, so don't repeat propaganda about the matter.
ALL the evidence is followed, but a tiny study that no one can repeat is an outlier. It's time for you to understand how science works. You can't debunk thousands of studies with a tiny N "study" that has been shown to be BS by everyone.
It's time to wake up to reality.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)up links to stuff connected to the kochs or Monsanto.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You don't. Your attacks against me are unwarranted in any way. You owe me an apology.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You cannot support your claims with science, and so you play the ugly game of character assassination.
Meanwhile, you fail to notice that Vandana Shiva makes 40K per college appearance to spread her lies. Interestingly, you don't care about that. Nor do you care about how she misrepresents her education and many other things.
Note on edit: I have put the poster to whom this responds to, and who also likely responded to this on ignore.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)how do you keep responding to my posts when you have me on ignore, btw?
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- Those are the ones what gets 'em every time......
K&R
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)finally successful.
Even though Nye eats organic and vegan food himself, I guess GM food is OK for the peasants.
and I guess people consistently touting Koch-funded PR are likely affiliated with the kochs.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Besides, I thought this whole thread was about bringing his reliability into question.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)or scientific judgment into question?
I know a lot of our resident 'scientists' think organic is bunk so it's strange they cheer Nye on on the topic of gmos.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I hope that made sense to you, because it's not doing anything for me.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)bunk) & now loves gmos (which many of the same DU scientists think are great).
More a question of both parties' consistency. or lack of it.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Maybe he's looking at different data than I am. Frankly, he can make the decision for himself and it's not my business.
It would be inconsistent if he ate organic foods due to opposition to GMOs while subsequently endorsing GMOs. But since I don't know why he eats organic, I can't speak to that.
There's no inconsistency here, and frankly, it's irrelevant what one person thinks on the matter--that's an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)I don't claim.
it's ok, most people don't know what a logical fallacy is. they think even bringing up people's interests and connections is a logical fallacy in and of itself.
but it's not.
you have to make a claim or an argument and base it on the fallacious item to have a fallacy.
but I didn't do that, did I?
I claimed Nye was inconsistent to suddenly support gmos (while supporting organics); I didn't claim he was wrong about gmos.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You seem to think I give a shit about what Bill Nye thinks about organics or GMOs, though I don't, and are thus trying to convince me there's some sort of inconsistency going on.
Bill Nye can hold whatever belief he wants about GMOs and organics, and to think that it's relevant to me in some way just because he's Bill Nye is ridiculous.
Monk06
(7,675 posts)Nye could have avoided smiling while making it obvious he's been bought.
But no worries he still 'believes' in evolution.
Climate change$ We'll see after we've inspected the quality of your fabric, as the cockneys say.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)He talks about his vegetable garden, squeezing juice from trees in his yard, drinking organic shade-grown coffee, eating at a vegan restaurant...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-domains-t.html
a typical dinner is a salad and a spinach pizza. and his "comfort food": "A single slice of organically raised bacon, from the froufrou hippie grocery down the street. Fry that with a few leaves of my homegrown chard."
and he likes gmos.
okey. I wonder if he's going to eat them himself though, or if he just thinks they're ok for others. the lesser orders, say.
another interesting thing about bill Nye: he was married by rick warren.
Nye left the relationship seven weeks later when the marriage license was declared invalid.[54] In 2007, Nye received a protective order against Tindall after an incident in which she came onto his property and used herbicide to damage his garden...
Nye describes himself as agnostic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye
mmonk
(52,589 posts)definitive. Meanwhile, those of us that defend truth in labeling, a hardship to no one, will probably still be called anti-science even though we aren't.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The science to date is very clear. No matter how much more clear it gets, the anti-GMO propagandists will keep pushing their propaganda. The same thing happens with the anti-vaccine movement, and all the other conspiracy nonsense that the Internet has helped proliferate.
booley
(3,855 posts)IF saying something is what it is is demonizing it, what does that say about the product?
I dont' recall any similar movement to fool people into taking vaccines and not tell them it was vaccines they just took.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Why aren't all foods developed using mutation breeding labeled?
Hmm.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Its what they do.
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)This is from December 2014:
(Note: The "Genetic Literacy Project" is run by this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Entine
and connecting the dots will take you to a lot of interesting places, and explain why certain posters here keep posting stuff from Koch-funded organizations, for example. I don't have time or energy tonight to lay it all out, but maybe another day.)
Some of you might recall the open letter from Kevin Folta, a University of Florida plant scientist (Monsanto linked ), inviting Nye to participate in “a forum at a major university for a civil, evidence-based debate on the benefits and risks of agricultural biotechnology.”
The Science Guy never responded. He has received another invitation to discuss his opinion about GMOs. It comes from three graduate students who have just shared their letter with me (also supplied by Kevin Folta to the GLP):
Dear Mr. Bill Nye and Dr. Kevin Folta,
We are graduate students at Purdue University studying plant physiology, biochemistry, and human nutrition ....we recognize that farmers, who are stewards of their land and environment, are choosing to plant genetically modified crops...
Recently, Mr. Bill Nye made unsupported comments about genetically modified crops that alarmed us. ... Dr. Folta, a professor and department chair of the University of Florida’s Horticulture Department, has a long standing reputation of echoing the scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified crops and seems to hold views that are perpendicular to Mr. Nye’s.
....It seems fair that Mr. Nye be given the opportunity to support the assertions that he made, but using the support of rigorous, peer-reviewed science that closely adheres to the scientific method that he has championed throughout his career.
...We are willing to arrange a venue and provide moderation in a debate like those both of you have participated in previously and can be flexible to accommodate both of your busy schedules.
Sincerely....
If the Purdue grad students receive the courtesy of a reply, the GLP will let everyone know, as of course will Keith Kloor or hatched the idea. As of now: defining silence. Stay tuned.
Read full, original blog: Bill Nye Gets Invited to Attend Another GMO Debate
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/08/deafening-silence-from-bill-nye-to-kevin-folta-gmo-debate-challenge/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Climate change is real and GM technology is safe, but those in denial want to undermine the public understanding of science with misinformation and pseudo-debate
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/09/gm-opponents-are-science-deniers
The complete lack of ethics of the anti-GMO movement is astounding, and yet too many DUers continue to fall for the despicable tactics. It's time to do the right thing, and stand up against the anti-GMO lies.
served on the scientific advisory board at Evogene... (the) Israeli agriculture-biotech firm works closely with Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta and others. She also served on the board of Sigma-Aldrich...provides services and products - including transgenic animals - to agricultural biotech companies.
And she herself is one of the early patent-holders on transgenic technologies...
http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13374
The Raven-Monsanto equation includes the Garden's multimillion-dollar research centre - The Monsanto Center.
And it doesn't stop there, as the St Louis' paper, The Riverside Times, noted in 1999: 'The Garden received $3 million from Monsanto in their last fundraising campaign... Monsanto also contributed land and a large chunk of the $146 million startup money for the Danforth Plant Science Center (a project Raven was instrumental in getting off the ground).
Monsanto matches its employees' contributions to the Garden ($225,000 last year) and contributes to the operating fund ($25,000 last year). Trustees give privately, too, and in past years the Garden has had Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro, Monsanto vice president Tom K. Smith and Monsanto research-and-development director Howard Schneiderman on its governing board.
Now the Garden is collaborating with Monsanto's nutrition sector on a food library, collecting samples of all plants used worldwide as foods and medicines. (The World Resources Institute lists Monsanto as a bioprospector since 1989 and lists its collector, as of 1993, as the Missouri Botanical Garden.)
When Confluence, an environmental quarterly, criticized Monsanto, the Garden's PR woman pulled it from their literature table.'
At the time that was written, Raven's wife was Monsanto's Director of Public Policy, Kate Fish, leading to jokes that even Raven's sex life came corporate-sponsored...Raven played a key role in getting the Golden Rice publicity bandwagon rolling, after its inventor... had his paper...rejected by the journal Nature.
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/44-2005/4125-peter-raven-and-transgenes-in-mexican-maize-892005
Phillip Sharp...is Institute Professor (highest academic rank) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the Department of Biology and the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research...
Sharp co-founded Biogen (now part of Biogen Idec), Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and Magen Biosciences, and has served on the boards of all three companies.[16]
http://ki.mit.edu/people/faculty/sharp
