Neil deGrasse Tyson Annihilates Anti-GMO Argument

a reply to: DirtyD

Because unlike the average layman he knows how to read a scientific paper. Something most people on ATS don't know how to do, nor are they inclined to do so.

a reply to: projectvxn

Good point, yet his complete mirepresention of genetically modified foods calls into question his reading comprehension.

Could round up ready corn be created through generations of selective breeding?

Finally proof he's not perfect.

I take umbrage to the Patenting of a gene sequence, how can you patent a piece of corn, corn is corn right?

Life is life, no one can patent it, total corporate poppycock. granny smith APPLES, RED MAGOES etc no one owns it. get real.

Not to mention the seed cross pollination that innocently takes place with smaller farmers, if they harvest their own crop and the seed was fertilised by Monsato "dna" say through wind, the farmer gets sued, forced to pay for the crop or have it destroyed blah blah blah..

Grow your own veggies and tell me you cant taste the difference. If you can't you smoke or lie

So it is perfectly safe he says. By safe it means there will be no immediate response that will jeopardize your life. What about long term effects of consuming this. There is no testing required for that. It could just cause an imbalance because if the body does not recognize it or the body will think the food is a microbe and throw a little histamine response at it. No problem, if you cannot tolerate it well you will be classified as having autoimmune disease. There is no proof that it can cause problems because the regulations do not recognize long term consequences as relevant.

There is very little chance of proving that exposure to something like GMO is the cause of a disease also, because of all the other chemicals in our food. Which one or which combination could of caused your problems. It is not the food chemistry.... You have a genetic flaw because you cannot eat foods we generally recognize as safe. You are flawed, not the food we approve, go see a doctor.

I try to avoid a lot of things nowadays because I do not accept the parameters of their required testing. Maybe you do but I do not have to. It does not intimidate me, it is my right to deny eating something that is GRAS if I want to.

I do not feel inferior either because I do not believe as these people do. So they can call me nuts all they want, I would rather have energy and think clearer than to be suffering from eating foods that could possibly take that away.

originally posted by: eNumbra
a reply to: onequestion

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

I agree. I think the term GMO should be replaced with the term SMO (synthetically modified) so people can make the distinction.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

For 6,000+ years, man has lived off of the fruit of the earth. Why mess with the fragile balance of nature now? These GMO freaks are playing with fire.

originally posted by: rickymouse
So it is perfectly safe he says. By safe it means there will be no immediate response that will jeopardize your life. What about long term effects of consuming this. There is no testing required for that. It could just cause an imbalance because if the body does not recognize it or the body will think the food is a microbe and throw a little histamine response at it. No problem, if you cannot tolerate it well you will be classified as having autoimmune disease. There is no proof that it can cause problems because the regulations do not recognize long term consequences as relevant.

There is very little chance of proving that exposure to something like GMO is the cause of a disease also, because of all the other chemicals in our food. Which one or which combination could of caused your problems. It is not the food chemistry.... You have a genetic flaw because you cannot eat foods we generally recognize as safe. You are flawed, not the food we approve, go see a doctor.

I try to avoid a lot of things nowadays because I do not accept the parameters of their required testing. Maybe you do but I do not have to. It does not intimidate me, it is my right to deny eating something that is GRAS if I want to.

I do not feel inferior either because I do not believe as these people do. So they can call me nuts all they want, I would rather have energy and think clearer than to be suffering from eating foods that could possibly take that away.

This right here is perfect!!

Nice job summing up how they get away with slowly poisoning the American public and any other country Monsatan and company exhert their corrupt power upon.

I hope that NDT enjoys all of those perfectly safe GMO's however something tells me he does not have to shop in the same places as the peasants he talks down to.

a reply to: eNumbra
Right, his arguments are basically watered down for a layperson to easily say, yeah you know what, I never thought about that, but then on the other hand there are geneticists, chemists and big pharma that are quietly in the back corner sniggling to themselves like a bunch of teen pranksters who just pulled off the greatest gag on their teacher! giving fist bumps and hi fives to each other because their paid spokesman and poster boy is breathing new life into their nefarious molecular and genetic alteration of foods into completely different unclassifieable poisons, by shoveling mounds of horse manure to the dumbies who believe his simplistic comparisons and defenses, no Mr. Tyson you are mixing apples with oranges and expecting us to believe that GMO corn is the same as a seedless grape or arrived at the exact same way, no sir, not buying it, nice try though.

A reply to: eNumbra

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

When you cross-breed plants for 'disease resistance', this often involves breeding them to produce pesticides.

The most valuable form of resistance is where the pest cannot survive as well on one variety as on another. In some cases this can actually make the plants immune to attack, as is the case with the lettuces Avoncrisp and Avondefiance which were bred at the Institute of Horticultural Research, Wellesbourne during the 1960s, which are fully resistant to lettuce root aphid (Pemphigus bursarius). Source

Scientists are discovering more and more plants that produce natural bactericides, fungicides, and insecticides. Source

These pesticides, just like the ones produced by GM plants, are 100% organic and 'natural'. The plants are not producing DDT or anything like that.

The 'difference' argument is the one normally used to oppose those who point out that selective breeding, which has been practised for thousands of years, is the same thing genetic engineering. But I wish somebody — some coolheaded, scientifically literate somebody — would explain what the difference is and why they think it is significant. Because, for the life of me, I can't see it.

Cuervo makes the valid point that genetic engineering can lend itself to all kinds of skulduggery, such as attempts to patent useful crops or genomes, to create dependencies and monopolies. But that is a case for revising intellectual-property and consumer-protection laws to cover these situations. It is certainly not an argument for banning genetic modification. Like all technology, it is morally neutral. It's what people do with it that matters.

*

Reply to" BelieverPriest

I don't suppose being reasonable about this issue is going to win me many friends. Still, here is a photo of an ear of teosinte.


Teosinte is the ancestor of what Americans call corn.


Four thousand years of GM in the form of selective breeding did that. Yummy!

a reply to: onequestion

for such a smart guy(Niel that is)thats a stupid statement to make........

how can a scientist not see hes comparing apples and oranges not apples to apples............

Hes trying to co mingle two dif things under one term.........and its not the same.........

he is smart enough to realize that

Thanks for Shilling Neil!

a reply to: Astyanax

We adapt slowly to the foods we eat, over generations. Four thousand years to develop the corn to what it is today is all right, but recently, we have completely changed some foods. Even modifying foods crossing plant types, which by the way is not GMO. If you cross a carrot with asparagus, it isn't GMO and isn't really regulated as long as we don't die right after eating it.

They can cross wheat with stinging nettle if they want to get a desired characteristic using genetic modification but it is not considered GMO unless it incorporates a different type of life like animal or fungal or bacterial. Now since viruses aren't considered living, I wonder if there is any regulations in utilizing them?

How neat; love cross-agency opinions. Can't wait to hear Dr. Nega Beru, Director for the FDA's Office of Food Safety in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) provide his equally "authoritative" thoughts on cosmology...

originally posted by: Astyanax
A reply to: eNumbra

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

When you cross-breed plants for 'disease resistance', this often involves breeding them to produce pesticides.

The most valuable form of resistance is where the pest cannot survive as well on one variety as on another. In some cases this can actually make the plants immune to attack, as is the case with the lettuces Avoncrisp and Avondefiance which were bred at the Institute of Horticultural Research, Wellesbourne during the 1960s, which are fully resistant to lettuce root aphid (Pemphigus bursarius). Source

Scientists are discovering more and more plants that produce natural bactericides, fungicides, and insecticides. Source

These pesticides, just like the ones produced by GM plants, are 100% organic and 'natural'. The plants are not producing DDT or anything like that.

The 'difference' argument is the one normally used to oppose those who point out that selective breeding, which has been practised for thousands of years, is the same thing genetic engineering. But I wish somebody — some coolheaded, scientifically literate somebody — would explain what the difference is and why they think it is significant. Because, for the life of me, I can't see it.

Cuervo makes the valid point that genetic engineering can lend itself to all kinds of skulduggery, such as attempts to patent useful crops or genomes, to create dependencies and monopolies. But that is a case for revising intellectual-property and consumer-protection laws to cover these situations. It is certainly not an argument for banning genetic modification. Like all technology, it is morally neutral. It's what people do with it that matters.

*

Reply to" BelieverPriest

I don't suppose being reasonable about this issue is going to win me many friends. Still, here is a photo of an ear of teosinte.

Teosinte is the ancestor of what Americans call corn.

Four thousand years of GM in the form of selective breeding did that. Yummy!

Thank you for posting this and giving people a more comprehensive explanation of the point NDT was making.

I completely agree and even though I have tried to make this very point before, I think you did a better job by far.

a reply to: eNumbra

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.

As opposed to the once easily-swayed who are now dead-set on their opinions, regardless of whatever the facts may eventually turn out to be? Read into my comment however you like, I can guarantee I don't mean what you think I mean by it.

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.

Can you say that you honestly wouldn't have done the exact same thing were you in their shoes? What from your opinion may appear to be unethical may, from their stance look beneficial to society. I can't speak for them, I can only tell you to "broaden your horizons" which is probably code for something which I have yet to decipher.

that may be all well and good but genetically modifying plants to be resistant to poison means the plant retains some of that poison for us to eat...personally i wont eat the garbage ..knowingly that is

here from monsanto's website..

Features & Benefits Maximum profit opportunity with no-till and the Roundup Ready System. Efficiency—with reduced tillage and the system's unmatched weed control and flexibility, you get more time to spend where you need it most. Convenience—the system's simple, unsurpassed weed control takes the worry out of crop production.

www.monsanto.com...


the only reason for this is profit driven,these people do not care about peoples health

a reply to: F4guy

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

Nobody is FORCING me to buy organic food.
I have been around for quite a few decades now, and have learned that just because the FDA et al says something is perfectly safe doesn't mean it is.

I grew up in the Thalidomide era, and have witnessed many, many 'safe' food and drug fiascoes since then.

a reply to: projectvxn

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

There are a LOT of countries that have scientifically studied GMO's, and banned them as a result of their findings.

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.

Selective breeding IS NOT the same as genetically altering a species of plant or animal. GMO's are splicing genes together that would not ever occur naturally.
If you are comfortable with that, I don't mind.....but I fear 30 or 40 years from now science will be saying " oopsy doopsy; we had NO idea!"

a reply to: Astyanax

the difference between selective breeding and GM..hope this helps


What is the difference between selective breeding of plants and GMO? The difference in selective breeding versus genetically modifying a plant is significant. Unfortunately, those on the side of GMO's often infer that the process is the same. Though technology has helped both efforts, selective breeding does not allow for cross species (animal/plant, insect/plant) manipulation. In other words, breeding a new species of corn that grows better in New York by crossing a variety of corn from Europe with a variety of corn from the western USA makes sense. The traits exhibited by the 'new' corn are an improvement that allow better use of the soil, better use of water or fertilizers, and hopefully produces better yields. This has been done by farmers for ages and has resulted in nothing harmful to the human body.

In contrast, GMO's infer cross species modifications. The use of bacteria/insect/non plant DNA inserted into plant DNA resulting in a plant that produces it's own pesticide as a response to this manipulation. What's unclear but becoming less so is the health impacts on the body in regards to the ingestion of GMO's. We don't have any clear indications that the genes impacted by the GMO's are benign in the human body. Since the introduction of GMO's, a myriad of issues in the human body have increased. In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) stated that, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with genetically modified (GM) food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The facts are quickly gaining traction which is why 69% of the voters in California are in favor of the labeling of GMO foods.