Neil deGrasse Tyson Annihilates Anti-GMO Argument

a reply to: Astyanax

Lets see you show evidence to this quote you posted above. "No. Populations adapt slowly, over generations. Individuals either have adverse reactions bad enough to kill them or stop them breeding, or else they happily carry on munching as before."

There is a lot wrong with that. I doubt if you can come up with any evidence to substantiate that, because you don't even know where to look.

What about the ability to properly digest lactose, that took generations to develop. It was not a mutation but an adaptation by a lot of people in societies. Half the people in the world still cannot process milk past their childhood properly. This is just one of hundreds of examples,

I don't have to start listing evidence to you. Most people know that we evolved with environmental dietary changes. They can even trace your ancestors path through Europe using changes to your genome because of foods eaten in certain locations by communities.

If you are going to start challenging people, at least pick a subject where you can't be discounted so easily. You are using a normal trolling tactic in your posts. I'm not going to get caught up in trying to defend my post when it is basically right.

I read this thread title & my forensic neurocomputer could only interpret it as

"I am a shill & a fraud, please come troll me"

I could post a lot of links, as I'm sure we all could, but I'll let the almighty www.naturalnews.com speak for itself

www.naturalnews.com...

a reply to: rickymouse

Lets see you show evidence to this quote you posted above. "No. Populations adapt slowly, over generations. Individuals either have adverse reactions bad enough to kill them or stop them breeding, or else they happily carry on munching as before."

I am not obliged to post anything. You are the one with a claim to defend. Defend it or concede a walkover.

a reply to: Astyanax

alrighty then so it would appear the risks are high

Risks and Controversies Surrounding the Use of GMOs Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene expression. After all, such alterations can change the organism's metabolism, growth rate, and/or response to external environmental factors.

These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate. Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora. Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms would not only put humans at risk, but it would also cause ecological imbalances, allowing previously innocuous plants to grow uncontrolled, thus promoting the spread of disease among both plants and animals.

Although the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GMOs and other organisms cannot be denied, in reality, this risk is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a very low rate and, in most cases, cannot be simulated in an optimized laboratory environment without active modification of the target genome to increase susceptibility (Ma et al., 2003). In contrast, the alarming consequences of vertical gene transfer between GMOs and their wild-type counterparts have been highlighted by studying transgenic fish released into wild populations of the same species (Muir & Howard, 1999). The enhanced mating advantages of the genetically modified fish led to a reduction in the viability of their offspring. Thus, when a new transgene is introduced into a wild fish population, it propagates and may eventually threaten the viability of both the wild-type and the genetically modified organisms.

www.nature.com...

a reply to: Astyanax


HaHa.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

alrighty then so it would appear the risks are high

On the contrary, the article you cite says that the risks are generally quite low, and manageable. Read it again.

Here is the concluding paragraph.

GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment. If used wisely, they could result in an improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide. However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a case-by-case basis.

All new technologies carry risks. This has been the case since the discovery of the uses of fire. It is incumbent on us to understand these risks and guard against them through legislation and regulation. That is not the same thing as allowing policy to be dictated by the anxieties of an uninformed public.

as it states "if used wisely" can we be sure that is the case

a reply to: nugget1

Why am I being forced to pay a much higher price for organic food?

Monsanto aren't the only ones looking to make as much profit as possible.

Surely you're not that naive?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

as it states "if used wisely" can we be sure that is the case

It is up to the public and their elected representatives to make sure that it is.

Given the current level of public concern regarding GMOs, I think we can be fairly confident. Activity by researchers and corporations in this area is very closely scrutinized.

I am more concerned about the issue Cuervo raised earlier, that of commercial malfeasance based on patents, etc.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
I read this thread title & my forensic neurocomputer could only interpret it as

"I am a shill & a fraud, please come troll me"

I could post a lot of links, as I'm sure we all could, but I'll let the almighty www.naturalnews.com speak for itself

www.naturalnews.com...

This is parody, right?

You're mocking the mindless twits that believe the bile the "health wanker" spews, right?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

There are thousands of plant patents in Australia alone.

FULL LIST

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

as it states "if used wisely" can we be sure that is the case

It is up to the public and their elected representatives to make sure that it is.

Given the current level of public concern regarding GMOs, I think we can be fairly confident. Activity by researchers and corporations in this area is very closely scrutinized.

I am more concerned about the issue Cuervo raised earlier, that of commercial malfeasance based on patents, etc.

covered in the article

Unintended Economic Consequences Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will claim ownership of the organisms they create and not share them at a reasonable cost with the public. If these claims are correct, it is argued that use of genetically modified crops will hurt the economy and environment, because monoculture practices by large-scale farm production centers (who can afford the costly seeds) will dominate over the diversity contributed by small farmers who can't afford the technology. However, a recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third accrues upstream (Demont et al., 2007). These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial and developing countries. Therefore, the argument that private companies will not share ownership of GMOs is not supported by evidence from first-generation genetically modified crops.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Sure. But unlike the human-health and environmental consequences of genetically modifying crops and meat animals, the legal and proprietorial consequences are not felt so much in the rich world, where there are strong lobbies to protect consumers' and farmers' interests, but in poor countries like mine, which have little clout in the WTO and other international bodies, and where ignorance, lethargy and corruption allow those with money and influence to do pretty much as they please. These are real risks, unlike the largely spurious ones touted by the anti-GMO lobby in the rich world.

a reply to: onequestion

The debate should not be whether GMO foods are dangerous or not.

The debate and outrage SHOULD BE why is the gov't forcing people to be uninformed on what they choose to consume and feed their kids.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

as it states "if used wisely" can we be sure that is the case

It is up to the public and their elected representatives to make sure that it is.

Given the current level of public concern regarding GMOs, I think we can be fairly confident. Activity by researchers and corporations in this area is very closely scrutinized.

I am more concerned about the issue Cuervo raised earlier, that of commercial malfeasance based on patents, etc.

I am not sure how you draw these conclusions that govenment and people regulate big agri.. Monsanto self regulates using a virtual army worldwide of high powered lawyers. We are only holding our finger in the dike for now.

in the USA both bush and obama have appointed ex monsanto executives to most if not all regulatory positions.

The fox guardin the henhouse.

a reply to: manna2

I am able to draw this conclusion because I don't believe in the conspiracy theory in which a collusive elite of politicians and businessmen run the world. If that's what you believe, why bother discussing GMOs anyway? We're already screwed.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: manna2

I am able to draw this conclusion because I don't believe in the conspiracy theory in which a collusive elite of politicians and businessmen run the world. If that's what you believe, why bother discussing GMOs anyway? We're already screwed.

but there is only a small % of businessmen that rule the world. That is no theory. A clear and precise fact.

In the past and present it has only taken like 6% of the farmland and farmers that feed the world. It needs to stay as local as possible with reproducable means as convenient as possible to support the farmer to perform. Once they need a team of lawyers they own it. The farmer is gone and your local farmer is some factory in another country. Gmo's today are different from years past. They do not seek the best plant or animal for the environment to serve a people.

They seek proprietary controls to serve a corporate entity that could care less if it all damaged your health and forces you to serve into any of their other corporate interests to drain you of life, like health "care"

a reply to: manna2

Still. Not the point. None of that is an argument for or against GMOs.

Within the past year or so I have found myself rethinking my stance on GMOs. I think by themselves they aren't as bad as I thought. I still think Monsanto is a horrible, evil company. GMOs should be labeled, no question... doesn't matter if they are safe or not, people have the right to eat how they want and believe is best for themselves and their families. I don't like pesticide usage, it's bad for soil and worse for ever more scarce water supplies. Hemp would work just fine to deter pests.

One major thing I learned also is that the plants don't produce pesticide but are engineered to tolerate them. But again, I don't like the usage, it seems an endless cycle, pests adapt so they need to use more pesticide... but the pests never stop adapting.

I don't want to eat them and as much as I like Tyson, that's not going to change.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: manna2

Still. Not the point. None of that is an argument for or against GMOs.

it was the point to one of your references.

as for gmo's. Hogs are going infertile in 3 generayions eating gmo corn. Humans eat pork and corn.

colony collapse disorder is killing our bees. It too is being attributed to the gmo corn.

you are gambling