Neil deGrasse Tyson Annihilates Anti-GMO Argument

There has been a considerable amount of discussion and debate regarding the safety of genetically modified food. Though the topic has been researched over and over again, there isn’t evidence that eating conventional produce will cause disease, despite whatever the scientifically-illiterate Food Babe has to say. In fact, over 2000 studies have found GM food to be perfectly safe. Genetic modification is simply a tool, and like all tools, it's how you use it that matters. L3FTQ1GtO3Qe5bBB.99

IFL Science



He says we have genetically modified everything since its enception through artificial selection. Silk cannot exist in the wild.

a reply to: onequestion

I think there's a pretty substantial difference between cross-breeding and genetically modified to produce it's own pesticides.

Perfect now I can take everything this man says with a grain of salt.

I get his point to an extent, but this does not put my mind at ease with what Monsanto is up to. They do not have a very good ethical history and the thought of them controlling the food supply is disturbing to say the least.

a reply to: eNumbra

Science is the new religion.

But...but...he's a scientist so he must be right! Right?

There's a huge, massive difference between GMO's and selective/cross breeding .

a reply to: onequestion

Don't get me wrong; GMO foods might be perfectly safe.


But comparing genome sequencing and gene modification is not the same as cross-pollination and frankly, comparing the two using a celebrity scientist such as Tyson is a fantastic way to silence the more easily swayed.


This is of course focusing on the health factors of GMOs, and not touching the incredibly unethical way Monsanto controls its patents and extorts farmers.

I shall continue to be skeptical of every individual that the MSM puppets around like the end all be all authority on how the universe/nature works.

As people have already stated, there is a difference between what Monsanto and company are doing and selective breeding.

Hint, one destroys the soil, one does not.

That's fine if HE thinks it's perfectly safe.
If it's so safe, why is Monsanto spending millions to prevent labeling it?
Why am I being forced to pay a much higher price for organic food?

I hope the ghost of Carl Sagan haunts this fool forever.

a reply to: DirtyD

Lol.

I really LOL'd at this one.

originally posted by: nugget1
That's fine if HE thinks it's perfectly safe.
If it's so safe, why is Monsanto spending millions to prevent labeling it?
Why am I being forced to pay a much higher price for organic food?

And who exactly is putting a gun to your head and "forcing" you to buy organic?

a reply to: onequestion

I've used that exact same argument before when debating this with my wife. But what he seems to not consider is that, with every jump in science we make, we should do it with caution.

We've manufactured and manipulated nature since we've settled down and stopped hunting and gathering. We've been doing that for sooooo long and have gotten to where we are. Now, with modern GMO science, we can skip centuries of trial and error by doing it in a lab. That is reason for concern right there. Beyond that, there are also questionable motives behind why we do it.

If the science were more open-sourced and less proprietary, it wouldn't be scrutinized like it is now. GMO, as a science, isn't evil at all but that doesn't mean that Monsanto and similar corporations aren't doing nefarious things with it. I'm optimistic with science, in general, and I totally see GMO being used to create extra nutritious foods without built-in pesticides. I fully expect to one day see fruit and veggies on the shelves that cure specific diseases or give you certain traits.

But to defend current GMO practices with this argument isn't very fair. I'm a bit surprised he said all this without at least prefacing his argument with something about why scrutiny is not a bad thing with scientific breakthroughs. It's what they are supposed to do as scientists.

a reply to: onequestion

Its how you use it. Exactly. I agree with him, I haven't jumped on the Monsanto bad-wagon yet, but that's not to say I won't. It depends on how its used. I will say I tend to think the whole "organic" movement is the crap counterpart to the Monsanto is evil movement.

a reply to: nugget1

Organic foods require an entirely different method of production and processing. Not to mention the fact that organic farms are usually smaller, don't have the supply lines that larger farms do, and the food itself does not keep very long so it requires more stringent methods of transport and storage.

The fact is there have been many studies done on GM foods. Not one of those studies has proven that GM foods are harmful.

Dr. Tyson, on the other hand, is correct in saying that we have been genetically modifying food for over ten thousand years. Selective breeding IS genetic manipulation. We're just getting better at it now.

I've always found him to be a shill, but then again I'm of the opinion that SETI is a joke and anyone serious about the subject would laugh at the notion of using all this technology to look out there when certain segments of the population have had communication for thousands of years, this tends to confirm that view.

He's nothing but the new hyped up ambassador of science, pseudoskeptics will default to his position in lieu of a peer review process held to an impossible standard.

He's a funny guy though, I'll give him that.
Funny but clueless about a great many things that some of us have had the privilege of knowing about.

Dark secrets of the soul and the agony of a thousand fallen angels, we offer you the sublime ecstasy of the Dark Prince of Pleasure and all you want to talk about is astronomy?
The stars themselves once lived and died at our command, yet you still dare to oppose our will. How low we have fallen, that no one remembers our name, the songs we used to sing are nothing but memories now, trapped as they are in eternity.

a reply to: onequestion

Remember this man is a part of the system.Produced by the system.
He is a mainstream cosmologist, he makes a living believing in and perpetuating lies.When did
this man's every word all of a sudden become holy? Because I missed that train.

Monsanto is in the business of making toxic poison and killing people.They've been doing it since their beginning and now we are all supposed to trust them to supply us with food? Nice idea, food with the poison already
built in and advertised as such.

Any defense of companies creating GMO foods like Dow or Monsanto lose instant credibility with me regardless of who
is defending. With the sudden rebirth of the small urban organic gardens all over the world and more and more people
turning away from eating poison, Mr. Tyson's words ring hollow with me and millions more.There's a big difference between crossed fruits and crossed livestock and pesticides built into wheat! It's not even a valid argument. It just sounds more like talking points created in a meeting room by a bunch of Monsanto stiffs. That question could have been staged for all we know.I'm sure Mr Tyson gets paid from many different revenue streams....

a reply to: onequestion

No doubt a very intelligent man, with a very strong liberal agenda.
I prefer my food without modification of genes to produce pesticides and God knows what else.

I would like to see food labeling and let the consumer decide. If you want cheaper, GMO food, I'm not going to stop you.

I like NDT but I can't say I agree with him here.
It's also not the first time he's shown his ass so to speak.
I heard him on The Joe Rogan show make a similar analogy about another subject which I now forget
and thought "but that isn't the same thing" but it's Neil Degrasse Tyson who questions Neil Degrasse Tyson?

I've similar criticisms of Michio Kaku, I heard him on coast to coast scaremongering about asteroid attacks months after it had been essentially debunked on here.

I don't dispute that in their fields and probably other parts of life they are geniuses but not all knowing entities.

a reply to: mark1167

Well put.

It's also important to note that NGT is an astrophysicist, so why would his opinions on genetics and agriculture hold any more weight than the average layman?