Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Science)   Ten of the biggest myths about GMOs, spread by hippies and exploded by Popular Science   (popsci.com) divider line 120
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5265 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Jul 2014 at 12:16 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-11 10:36:26 AM  
So what. That whole article is just science covering up for more science. Everybody knows that GM crops are, like, totally and completely bad, capable of wiping out the whole planet from a single field of popcorn.

I know this, because a cute high-school girl standing in front of WalMart with a clipboard told me. The same one that refused to take any science classes, and the last book she read was about colored dogs driving cars.
 
2014-07-11 10:38:27 AM  
Is this the place where the shills are going to confabulate selective breeding with frankengene splicing?
 
2014-07-11 10:42:12 AM  
Not really "exploded"...

3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.

So-called terminator genes, which can make seeds sterile, never made it out of the patent office in the 1990s. Seed companies do require farmers to sign agreements that prohibit replanting in order to ensure annual sales, but Kent Bradford, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, says large-scale commercial growers typically don't save seeds anyway. Corn is a hybrid of two lines from the same species, so its seeds won't pass on the right traits to the next generation. Cotton and soy seeds could be saved, but most farmers don't bother. "The quality deteriorates-they get weeds and so on-and it's not a profitable practice," Bradford says.


Monsanto can still sue you if you have their corn in your field, even if it ended up there by accident.
 
2014-07-11 10:47:12 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Not really "exploded"...

3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.

So-called terminator genes, which can make seeds sterile, never made it out of the patent office in the 1990s. Seed companies do require farmers to sign agreements that prohibit replanting in order to ensure annual sales, but Kent Bradford, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, says large-scale commercial growers typically don't save seeds anyway. Corn is a hybrid of two lines from the same species, so its seeds won't pass on the right traits to the next generation. Cotton and soy seeds could be saved, but most farmers don't bother. "The quality deteriorates-they get weeds and so on-and it's not a profitable practice," Bradford says.

Monsanto can still sue you if you have their corn in your field, even if it ended up there by accident.


Which is bullzhit.
If a farmer's apples fall on your side of the fence, they are your apples.
Long honored element of Law we modeled our system upon.
 
2014-07-11 10:48:30 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Not really "exploded"...

3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.

So-called terminator genes,   ...    The quality deteriorates-they get weeds and so on-and it's not a profitable practice," Bradford says.

Monsanto can still sue you if you have their corn in your field, even if it ended up there by accident.


That is certainly true, (although anyone can sue anybody for anything). But I suspect it has more to do with maintaining their intellectual property rights than actually worrying about a a few stray corn plants. It is the same reason Pepsi used to sue restaurants when people asked for a Coke and got Pepsi. If you don't have a record of asserting your IP rights, it makes recovering damages for true infringement a lot harder.
 
2014-07-11 10:50:26 AM  
... should have been "same reason Coke used to sue restaurants....

Still too early in the AM to worry about sugar water.
 
2014-07-11 10:53:09 AM  

mr_a: But I suspect it has more to do with maintaining their intellectual property rights than actually worrying about a a few stray corn plants.


The thing about corn though is that it's wind pollinated. The farmer next door may not want the GMO pollination, but he may get it anyway.

What I'm saying, basically is that Monsanto is charging farmers to have their corn raped.
 
2014-07-11 10:59:32 AM  
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farme r s-fields.aspx


Monsanto claims to have never done that, which I sort of believe. The last thing they want is any more bad publicity wrapped around GM.

And while farmers have a legitimate gripe about GM pollen invading their corn fields, it is really no different than any other type of corn. I suppose a farmer could sue Monsanto for lost crop value from having his corn contaminated with GM genes, but I doubt a court would give him much sympathy. Wind pollination would seem to be an act of god type of thing, and GM crops are legal to grow. Doesn't seem like it would be any different than trying to sue a neighboring farmer for the weed seeds that blew over.

And I can't imagine the legal team that Monsanto would have ready to take on Farmer Brown.

Of course I am not a geneticist, lawyer or farmer.
 
2014-07-11 11:21:14 AM  

snocone: Is this the place where the shills are going to confabulate selective breeding with frankengene splicing?


No, this is the thread where people who don't understand genetics throw around words like "frankengene" as if they mean anything.
 
2014-07-11 11:27:50 AM  
snocone:If a farmer's apples fall on your side of the fence, they are your apples.
Long honored element of Law we modeled our system upon.


Plant patents have been recognized since 1930. If the apple falls on your field, you can eat it. But if it's patented, you can't attempt to propagate the parent for commercial purposes without paying the patent royalty. THAT'S what our law is modeled upon.

No farmer has ever been sued for accidentally propagating patented crops, or for growing them for personal use. Every single lawsuit has resulted from intentional infringement - farmers spraying roundup on a portion of their fields where they expected their crops to be "accidentally" wind-pollinated by a roundup-resistant crop, to kill off any plants that didn't "accidentally" get the gene so they can "accidentally" plant them without paying royalties. That is theft, just as much as if Taiwan Semiconductors started manufacturing I7s and trying to sell them.
 
2014-07-11 11:31:56 AM  

Mentat: snocone: Is this the place where the shills are going to confabulate selective breeding with frankengene splicing?

No, this is the thread where people who don't understand genetics throw around words like "frankengene" as if they mean anything.


You're late!
 
2014-07-11 11:33:33 AM  

Enigmamf: snocone:If a farmer's apples fall on your side of the fence, they are your apples.
Long honored element of Law we modeled our system upon.

Plant patents have been recognized since 1930. If the apple falls on your field, you can eat it. But if it's patented, you can't attempt to propagate the parent for commercial purposes without paying the patent royalty. THAT'S what our law is modeled upon.

No farmer has ever been sued for accidentally propagating patented crops, or for growing them for personal use. Every single lawsuit has resulted from intentional infringement - farmers spraying roundup on a portion of their fields where they expected their crops to be "accidentally" wind-pollinated by a roundup-resistant crop, to kill off any plants that didn't "accidentally" get the gene so they can "accidentally" plant them without paying royalties. That is theft, just as much as if Taiwan Semiconductors started manufacturing I7s and trying to sell them.


And let us not forget that other countries around the world have different "laws" that vary.
 
2014-07-11 11:35:38 AM  
And I hollered someone fade me
But the passengers they knew right from wrong
 
2014-07-11 11:57:50 AM  

snocone: And I hollered someone fade me
But the passengers they knew right from wrong


So what boat are we rocking, exactly? Or is that posted in the wrong thread?
 
2014-07-11 12:05:36 PM  
I am pro science and not a loon, and don't regurgitate talking points from any sources. However, I'm old enough to remember when scientists, in good faith and using the most up-to-date knowledge available, assured us that using lead in paint was a good thing, or that asbestos as a building material was perfectly safe, or that thalidomide was a safe anti-nausea drug for pregnant mothers.

In other words, although science is a good thing, it isn't right 100% of the time all the time, and sometimes the consequences don't manifest for decades and sometimes are particularly dire. In the case of GMOs, my concern is that all use of them be clearly labelled, so that those of us who prefer to not be guinea pigs can make an informed choice. People are free to pick and choose their own demons (MSG, nitrites, gluten, aspartame, etc), they key is that those potential demons be clearly labelled.

That way if I want to spend and extra $1/pound for non-GMO apples, I'm free to do so. I already do that with organics. It's not that I think organics are some kind of perfect or revolutionary food, it's that I'm playing the odds that over the course of my lifetime I will potentially achieve a benefit to my health and lifespan from investing in foods that are raised in a more healthful manner, from my perspective.

I'm also not dogmatic, I eat all kinds of crap from time to time (Cheetos, soda, McDonalds), but I lean towards more healthful choices. Short of raising all my own food, the only way I can make informed choices is clear labeling.  That way, I can fight my demons (real or imagined) and you can fight your demons, all of us armed with more information to assist us in our particular crusades.
 
2014-07-11 12:16:10 PM  
That getting bitten by a Genetically Modified Spider is the same thing as getting bitten by a radioactive one.

baltimorepostexaminer.com
 
2014-07-11 12:23:22 PM  
the GMO products I object to are the ones designed so the producers of poisons can sell more poisons

round up ready!  soon to cause SUPER WEEDS.

not harmed by our most toxic chemicals, but destroys the food chain!
 
2014-07-11 12:26:05 PM  

EngineerBoy: I am pro science and not a loon, and don't regurgitate talking points from any sources. However, I'm old enough to remember when scientists, in good faith and using the most up-to-date knowledge available, assured us that using lead in paint was a good thing, or that asbestos as a building material was perfectly safe, or that thalidomide was a safe anti-nausea drug for pregnant mothers.

In other words, although science is a good thing, it isn't right 100% of the time all the time, and sometimes the consequences don't manifest for decades and sometimes are particularly dire. In the case of GMOs, my concern is that all use of them be clearly labelled, so that those of us who prefer to not be guinea pigs can make an informed choice. People are free to pick and choose their own demons (MSG, nitrites, gluten, aspartame, etc), they key is that those potential demons be clearly labelled.

That way if I want to spend and extra $1/pound for non-GMO apples, I'm free to do so. I already do that with organics. It's not that I think organics are some kind of perfect or revolutionary food, it's that I'm playing the odds that over the course of my lifetime I will potentially achieve a benefit to my health and lifespan from investing in foods that are raised in a more healthful manner, from my perspective.

I'm also not dogmatic, I eat all kinds of crap from time to time (Cheetos, soda, McDonalds), but I lean towards more healthful choices. Short of raising all my own food, the only way I can make informed choices is clear labeling.  That way, I can fight my demons (real or imagined) and you can fight your demons, all of us armed with more information to assist us in our particular crusades.


I sort of agree with you- the right to pick your own unhealthy habits.

But I think the problem with GM is how much tinkering do you do before you call something GM. Obviously if you insert genes from an electric eel into carrots to develop vegetables that electrocute insect pests, that qualifies...but what about the more simple crosses that are part of the food chain.

As i understand it, most things done by "gene splicing", whatever that really means, could, and have been, accomplished by simple cross-breeding. I would bet that some percentage, like 99.9999. of everything we eat, is not a naturally occurring plant (or animal) species. Bananas, and most seedless fruits are obviously the result of crosses or cloning, but humans have probably been doing genetic selection since cro-magnon man started the first marijuana grove.

So I see your point, but have no idea how you would enforce it. And if I were Con-Agra, I would just slap the GM label on everything to avoid lawsuits...and take my chances that if 90% of everything in the store has a GM label, people will learn to ignore it.
 
2014-07-11 12:28:03 PM  
www.blahblahblahg.com
 
2014-07-11 12:32:47 PM  
I'll bee on the lookout for proof of this.  Oh wait, I can't because THEY'RE ALL DEAD
 
2014-07-11 12:33:22 PM  
Eat what you want to eat, I will eat what I want to eat. As fortunate white people living in the USA we have that choice...
 
2014-07-11 12:36:56 PM  
Gee, right off the bat in first item in the list

"In that sense, GMOs are not radical at all. But the technique does differ dramatically from traditional plant breeding. "

Because "not radical" is exactly the same as "does differ dramatically ", right?

Pretty sure that "dramatic difference" is why the critics think it is radical.  Or maybe PopSci has a different definition of what "dramatic difference" means.
 
2014-07-11 12:37:02 PM  
Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in the U.S. since these GMOs were introduced in 1996. But glyphosate is among the mildest herbicides available, with a toxicity 25 times less than caffeine.

I have no problem with Roundup, but what is the definition of "toxicity" here?
 
2014-07-11 12:37:52 PM  
Claim: 7A) The use of Roundup-ready seed crops has helped to eliminate a lot of milkweed, the sole food plant of monarch caterpillars. The largest cause of monarch die-off is the loss of milkweed-rich habitat.
 
2014-07-11 12:40:09 PM  
I wish my employee would read this article. He thinks Monsanto is the evilest corporation ever and that all of the world's problems would be fixed by converting to verticle farming. I keep telling him that things like GMOs and verticle farming aren't enemies, they're allies and neither are actual stand alone solutions. Of course, I also just had to explain to him that sunscreen doesn't cause skin cancer and what the meaning of "trace amounts" means in the context of potentially harmful compounds. One day I might actually get through to this guy, but the way he just blindly believes any website on the Internet regardless of credibility makes me less than hopeful. He's already invested half of his life into this type of half-assed, selective "research", so I'm hoping actual scientific knowledge will curb that gullibility.
 
2014-07-11 12:40:23 PM  
9) Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species.

This has been been partly debunked. Bt insecticides attach to proteins found in some insects' guts, killing select species. For most insects, a field of Bt crops is safer than one sprayed with an insecticide that kills indiscriminately. But monarch butterflies produce the same proteins as one of Bt's target pests, and a 1999 Cornell University lab experiment showed that feeding the larvae milkweed coated in Bt corn pollen could kill them. Five studies published in 2001, however, found that monarchs aren't exposed to toxic levels of Bt pollen in the wild.

A 2012 paper from Iowa State University and the University of Minnesota suggested glyphosate-tolerant GMOs are responsible for monarchs' recent population decline. The herbicide kills milkweed (the larvae's only food source) in and near crops where it's applied.


So, in other words, this "myth" is actually true.

10) Claim: Modified genes spread to other crops and wild plants, upending the ecosystem.

The first part could certainly be true: Plants swap genetic material all the time by way of pollen, which carries plant DNA-including any genetically engineered snippets.

According to Wayne Parrott, a crop geneticist at the University of Georgia, the risk for neighboring farms is relatively low. For starters, it's possible to reduce the chance of cross-pollination by staggering planting schedules, so that fields pollinate during different windows of time. (Farmers with adjacent GMO and organic fields already do this.) And if some GMO pollen does blow into an organic field, it won't necessarily nullify organic status. Even foods that bear the Non-GMO Project label can be 0.5 percent GMO by dry weight.

As for a GMO infiltrating wild plants, the offspring's survival partly depends on whether the trait provides an adaptive edge. Genes that help wild plants survive might spread, whereas those that, say, boost vitamin A content might remain at low levels or fizzle out entirely.


So, another "myth" that's actually kind of true. Great!

And I like that several of these are only "myths" because farmers won't use pesticides to excess and will scrupulously rotate their crops and engage in other forms of moderation. Whew, glad we don't have anything to worry about, then.
 
2014-07-11 12:43:47 PM  

mr_a: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farme r s-fields.aspx


Monsanto claims to have never done that, which I sort of believe. The last thing they want is any more bad publicity wrapped around GM.

And while farmers have a legitimate gripe about GM pollen invading their corn fields, it is really no different than any other type of corn. I suppose a farmer could sue Monsanto for lost crop value from having his corn contaminated with GM genes, but I doubt a court would give him much sympathy. Wind pollination would seem to be an act of god type of thing, and GM crops are legal to grow. Doesn't seem like it would be any different than trying to sue a neighboring farmer for the weed seeds that blew over.

And I can't imagine the legal team that Monsanto would have ready to take on Farmer Brown.

Of course I am not a geneticist, lawyer or farmer.


The only damages to the farmer contaminated with GM pollen would be the loss of seed stock.  The resultant fruit would bare the genetic makeup of the parent plant.  Think of it this way.  My roma tomatto plant are surrounded by some better boys, beefksteaks and some really neat heirlooms I have found.  The roma plant will only produce a roma tomato and not a beefsteak.
 
2014-07-11 12:43:55 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Gee, right off the bat in first item in the list

"In that sense, GMOs are not radical at all. But the technique does differ dramatically from traditional plant breeding. "

Because "not radical" is exactly the same as "does differ dramatically ", right?

Pretty sure that "dramatic difference" is why the critics think it is radical.  Or maybe PopSci has a different definition of what "dramatic difference" means.


It's almost like they're trying to see things from more than one perspective and decide to provide both. The bastards. They're right, though. Genetically altering crops has been around for a long time. If farmers in the 1700's had access to the technology to do the type of genetic modification that GM corporations do, they would have used it. Instead they got weak crops and famines. Which is really worse? Full bellies or empty fields?
 
2014-07-11 12:46:16 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Not really "exploded"...

3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.

So-called terminator genes, which can make seeds sterile, never made it out of the patent office in the 1990s. Seed companies do require farmers to sign agreements that prohibit replanting in order to ensure annual sales, but Kent Bradford, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, says large-scale commercial growers typically don't save seeds anyway. Corn is a hybrid of two lines from the same species, so its seeds won't pass on the right traits to the next generation. Cotton and soy seeds could be saved, but most farmers don't bother. "The quality deteriorates-they get weeds and so on-and it's not a profitable practice," Bradford says.

Monsanto can still sue you if you have their corn in your field, even if it ended up there by accident.


And that's my problem with GMO.  Not the GMO crops themselves, but what companies like Monsanto have been allowed to do with them in the legal realm.
 
2014-07-11 12:47:24 PM  

Uzzah: 9) Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species.

This has been been partly debunked. Bt insecticides attach to proteins found in some insects' guts, killing select species. For most insects, a field of Bt crops is safer than one sprayed with an insecticide that kills indiscriminately. But monarch butterflies produce the same proteins as one of Bt's target pests, and a 1999 Cornell University lab experiment showed that feeding the larvae milkweed coated in Bt corn pollen could kill them. Five studies published in 2001, however, found that monarchs aren't exposed to toxic levels of Bt pollen in the wild.

A 2012 paper from Iowa State University and the University of Minnesota suggested glyphosate-tolerant GMOs are responsible for monarchs' recent population decline. The herbicide kills milkweed (the larvae's only food source) in and near crops where it's applied.

So, in other words, this "myth" is actually true.

10) Claim: Modified genes spread to other crops and wild plants, upending the ecosystem.

The first part could certainly be true: Plants swap genetic material all the time by way of pollen, which carries plant DNA-including any genetically engineered snippets.

According to Wayne Parrott, a crop geneticist at the University of Georgia, the risk for neighboring farms is relatively low. For starters, it's possible to reduce the chance of cross-pollination by staggering planting schedules, so that fields pollinate during different windows of time. (Farmers with adjacent GMO and organic fields already do this.) And if some GMO pollen does blow into an organic field, it won't necessarily nullify organic status. Even foods that bear the Non-GMO Project label can be 0.5 percent GMO by dry weight.

As for a GMO infiltrating wild plants, the offspring's survival partly depends on whether the trait provides an adaptive edge. Genes that help wild plants survive might spread, whereas those that, say, boost vitamin A content might remain at low levels or fizzle out entirely.

So, another "myth" that's actually kind of true. Great!

And I like that several of these are only "myths" because farmers won't use pesticides to excess and will scrupulously rotate their crops and engage in other forms of moderation. Whew, glad we don't have anything to worry about, then.


The "myth" part deals with the myth that it harms a wide variety of beneficial species, when in truth science has only found one type of beneficial species that it could harm. As for the second one, yeah, that's hardly a myth if it can and does happen.
 
2014-07-11 12:47:26 PM  
Not quick enough on the draw to beat the "Monsanto is teh debbil" copy pasta.
 
2014-07-11 12:48:31 PM  
I honestly don't give a rat's ass about GMOs.

Monoculture scares the piss out of me.
 
2014-07-11 12:52:26 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Not really "exploded"...

3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.

So-called terminator genes, which can make seeds sterile, never made it out of the patent office in the 1990s. Seed companies do require farmers to sign agreements that prohibit replanting in order to ensure annual sales, but Kent Bradford, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, says large-scale commercial growers typically don't save seeds anyway. Corn is a hybrid of two lines from the same species, so its seeds won't pass on the right traits to the next generation. Cotton and soy seeds could be saved, but most farmers don't bother. "The quality deteriorates-they get weeds and so on-and it's not a profitable practice," Bradford says.

Monsanto can still sue you if you have their corn in your field, even if it ended up there by accident.


No they can't.
 
2014-07-11 12:53:09 PM  

timujin: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Not really "exploded"...

3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.

So-called terminator genes, which can make seeds sterile, never made it out of the patent office in the 1990s. Seed companies do require farmers to sign agreements that prohibit replanting in order to ensure annual sales, but Kent Bradford, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, says large-scale commercial growers typically don't save seeds anyway. Corn is a hybrid of two lines from the same species, so its seeds won't pass on the right traits to the next generation. Cotton and soy seeds could be saved, but most farmers don't bother. "The quality deteriorates-they get weeds and so on-and it's not a profitable practice," Bradford says.

Monsanto can still sue you if you have their corn in your field, even if it ended up there by accident.

And that's my problem with GMO.  Not the GMO crops themselves, but what companies like Monsanto have been allowed to do with them in the legal realm.


I think the potential legal ramifications have more to do with GMO hate than actual GMOs do. I've never heard that type of heavy handed anti-GMO rhetoric from someone that wasn't rabidly pro-organic or had some other kind of inane agenda to push. The facts of the matter at hand completely overshadow the boogie-man, Umbrella Corporation-like mentality people assign to GM companies, as well they should. Once you start blindly believing things just because you like the way it sounds or because it "makes sense to you" you're no longer viewing the world scientifically. You're damn near practicing a religion.
 
2014-07-11 12:55:06 PM  
As with most things in the world, there will be people who eat "GMO" foods because they have no choice.

There will be people who have the choice and buy "organic" foods either because money isn't an issue, or they actively choose to spend a greater portion of their money on what they consider "better food" because food quality takes precedence over other things.

And there will be people who have the choice and have other priorities, so choose to buy whatever is most convenient and reasonably priced.

Because it's a question of personal priorities, the latter two types of people will never understand one another.
 
2014-07-11 12:56:59 PM  

tricycleracer: Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in the U.S. since these GMOs were introduced in 1996. But glyphosate is among the mildest herbicides available, with a toxicity 25 times less than caffeine.

I have no problem with Roundup, but what is the definition of "toxicity" here?


The LD50.

My favorite example of this is the "you start eating caffeine and I'll start eating Uranium. Gram for gram, you will die first."
 
2014-07-11 12:58:50 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: That getting bitten by a Genetically Modified Spider is the same thing as getting bitten by a radioactive one.

[baltimorepostexaminer.com image 300x274]


... because getting bitten by a radioactive spider would work out exactly like it did in the comics to begin with.
 
2014-07-11 01:01:48 PM  

lostcat: As with most things in the world, there will be people who eat "GMO" foods because they have no choice.

There will be people who have the choice and buy "organic" foods either because money isn't an issue, or they actively choose to spend a greater portion of their money on what they consider "better food" because food quality takes precedence over other things.

And there will be people who have the choice and have other priorities, so choose to buy whatever is most convenient and reasonably priced.

Because it's a question of personal priorities, the latter two types of people will never understand one another.


If organic farmers where able to meet the demand of those that have no choice, they would be the ones providing the food. But they can't because organic farming just isn't capable of sustaining large populations of people in other countries. So again, if the choice is between a full belly and an empty field, there's not really much of a choice at all. People need food. Maybe in 60 years we'll know for sure if GMOs cause adverse health problems, but right now there are absolutely no indications that this is true. I'm not saying we should stop vetting or researching GMOs, but we should definitely stop assuming it's evil just because it's "man-made". People have no problem wearing man-made clothes or consuming man-made liquids or using man-made products to clean, sanitize, or even treat diseases, but man-modified crops? That'll give you the cancers for sure!
 
2014-07-11 01:02:31 PM  
Since GMOs are so safe, we can go ahead and label them as such, yes?
 
2014-07-11 01:04:41 PM  

tricycleracer: I have no problem with Roundup, but what is the definition of "toxicity" here?


Ironically enough, Round-Up is causing environmental harm via its inert ingredients (the surfactants used interfere with amphibian reproduction).
 
2014-07-11 01:07:09 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Monsanto can still sue you if you have their corn in your field, even if it ended up there by accident.


Anyone can sue you for anything.
 
2014-07-11 01:10:20 PM  

EngineerBoy: That way if I want to spend and extra $1/pound for non-GMO apples, I'm free to do so. I already do that with organics. It's not that I think organics are some kind of perfect or revolutionary food, it's that I'm playing the odds that over the course of my lifetime I will potentially achieve a benefit to my health and lifespan from investing in foods that are raised in a more healthful manner, from my perspective


Theres a sucker born every minutes.
 
2014-07-11 01:12:19 PM  
Sounds like this "article" was written by a PR flack, not someone who understands the science.  The first sentence of the "refutation" of Claim 1 contains a pretty big error:

"Humans have been manipulating the genes of crops for millennia by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits. (A perfect example: the thousands of apple varieties.)"

The myriad varieties of apples come from the genetic diversity of apples themselves, not from any human manipulation.  Plant 100 apple seeds gathered from the same tree, and you will get 100 different kinds of apples, none of which are identical to the parent.  When humans find a "good" apple, that variety is propagated by grafting.  No human genetic manipulation is involved.
 
2014-07-11 01:15:40 PM  

lostcat: As with most things in the world, there will be people who eat "GMO" foods because they have no choice.

There will be people who have the choice and buy "organic" foods either because money isn't an issue, or they actively choose to spend a greater portion of their money on what they consider "better food" because food quality takes precedence over other things.

And there will be people who have the choice and have other priorities, so choose to buy whatever is most convenient and reasonably priced.

Because it's a question of personal priorities, the latter two types of people will never understand one another.


There is a third type, which I fit in. Those who can easily afford to buy organic but are simultaneously scientifically literate and concerned with global food productions role in global peace.

Since the topic of the quality of organic foods when compared to GMO and non-GMO controls has been heavily researched, we can use the data that there is zero benefit to organic farming practices to make informed decisions about our food production methodologies. That is when my type if person interacts with the types as you have indicated that but organic for.... "reasons". Because we exist in a free society people of this type are freely allowed to say what ever they want regardless of the overwhelming evidence that invalidates their claims. This is no different than the way claims regarding horoscopes, alt medicine, and 9-11 conspiracies are honestly believed by those propagate them. For the most part, they are harmless.

Organic farming practices on the other hand generally has a lower yield with zero marginal benefit. If these practices become widespread it has the potential to contribute to global instability and hence isn't harmless if it becomes a national farming policy. This drives the "third" group of people insane.
 
2014-07-11 01:19:28 PM  

tricycleracer: Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in the U.S. since these GMOs were introduced in 1996. But glyphosate is among the mildest herbicides available, with a toxicity 25 times less than caffeine.

I have no problem with Roundup, but what is the definition of "toxicity" here?


In the upper Midwest Glyphosate breaks down in about three days and no longer exists as a chemical.   In Drier areas it can be longer.

The other issue is when you rotate crops the next year you use a different chemical, killing off all the Glyphosate resistant plants.
 
2014-07-11 01:19:53 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Because People in power are Stupid: That getting bitten by a Genetically Modified Spider is the same thing as getting bitten by a radioactive one.

[baltimorepostexaminer.com image 300x274]

... because getting bitten by a radioactive spider would work out exactly like it did in the comics to begin with.


If you drink radioactive cheetah blood, you can become super fast, like a cheetah.
 
2014-07-11 01:21:34 PM  
#1 and #2 tell me the author of the article does understand the difference between selective breading of hybrids and GMO.
 
2014-07-11 01:22:00 PM  
9) Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species.
http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/article_image_sma l l/public/GMO_09.jpg?itok=kqp9eAJh" src="http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/article_imag e_smal l/public/GMO_09.jpg?itok=kqp9eAJh" alt="" title="" style="border: 0px; height: 90px; max-width: 100%; width: 90px; transition: opacity 0.3s ease-in-out; -webkit-transition: opacity 0.3s ease-in-out; opacity: 1; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px; float: left;">
This has been been partly debunked. Bt insecticides attach to proteins found in some insects' guts, killing select species. For most insects, a field of Bt crops is safer than one sprayed with an insecticide that kills indiscriminately. But monarch butterflies produce the same proteins as one of Bt's target pests, and a 1999 Cornell University lab experiment showed that feeding the larvae milkweed coated in Bt corn pollen could kill them. Five studies published in 2001, however, found that monarchs aren't exposed to toxic levels of Bt pollen in the wild.
A 2012 paper from Iowa State University and the University of Minnesota suggested glyphosate-tolerant GMOs are responsible for monarchs' recent population decline. The herbicide kills milkweed (the larvae's only food source) in and near crops where it's applied.


So, please explain why we have colony collapse in the US and France doesn't (ban on GMO, specifically Neonectonoids)
 
2014-07-11 01:22:01 PM  
I eat GMO's cause I hope they'll give me superpowers!
 
2014-07-11 01:22:37 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Since GMOs are so safe, we can go ahead and label them as such, yes?


Very simple answer. The same ignorance that causes people to believe that GMOs are unsafe generally causes people to interpret any label as a warning that something isn't right.


If you put two cans if soup with the same packaging on the shelf, but slap a label on one that says "perfectly safe" people will choose not to buy it. People are inherently suspicious.

People who advocate for the label know this is a side-effect, but hide behind the claim that they just want to inform consumers. The reality is they want people to be afraid and demand non-GMO food.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report