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.

(Mother Jones)   Cosmos star Neil deGrasse Tyson gets back in the ring with the Anti-GMO crowd for a little more rope-a-dope   (motherjones.com) divider line 39
    More: Interesting, deGrasse Tyson, genetically modified organism  
•       •       •

4541 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 05 Aug 2014 at 4:18 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-08-05 05:04:28 PM  
3 votes:

wildcardjack: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

Don't skip the 50-60 years we spent making genetic freaks through radiation exposure. No one seems to complain about Ruby Red grapefruit.


Finding Organic Ruby Red grapefruit is the best.

GMO is going to be a key tool in keeping populations fed, not because of herbicide resistance or pesticide production, but because climate could change our cropland faster than we can use traditional breeding techniques to adapt.

And, you can use GMO to prove your rice or wheat has the genes you want (and it will be 100% rice or wheat), then take the originals and breed them together using good "old fashioned" breeding techniques.

And Neil makes a point I've tried to make, but I obviously lack the platform he has.

If you don't like corporate domination of agriculture, focus on that.

Have problems with monoculture?  Focus on that.

Don't use GMO as a catch all for the things are are very wrong and problematic with our current food production system.  Labeling isn't going to stop monoculture or even put a dent in Monsanto's or ConAgra's profits.  Monsanto has "regular" seed stock you know, and ConAgra will still do whatever it is they do, they'll just use whatever crops they end up using for it.
2014-08-05 05:03:55 PM  
3 votes:

BafflerMeal: lindalouwho: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

He has many fields of expertise, but he is first and foremost a scientist. So, no.

It's good to know that an astrophysicist is an expert in every field.


Google is your friend.

Also, brilliant people don't have to know everything when they have access to other brilliant people to ask and educate themselves on matters that interest them.

Only trolls and those who are ignoble distort the the original intent of a statement.
2014-08-05 04:34:52 PM  
3 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".


Don't skip the 50-60 years we spent making genetic freaks through radiation exposure. No one seems to complain about Ruby Red grapefruit.
2014-08-05 03:57:45 PM  
3 votes:

stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".
From my first link:
"Humans have been domesticating plants and animals since around 12,000 BC; the process of selective breeding, in which organisms with desired traits (and thus with the desired genes) are used to breed the next generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is the oldest form genetic modification. "


Selective breeding will yield a red tabby cat.  But in order to make a cat glow in the dark, you need a GMO.
2014-08-05 03:44:38 PM  
3 votes:

stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.


"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".
2014-08-05 05:54:16 PM  
2 votes:

Bith Set Me Up: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.


Yet an astrophysicist could probably explain the functions of the various parts of a cell and a microbiologist could probably tell you how a star is formed.

Generally speaking, anyone with a PhD in one science has, at least, foundational knowledge of other sciences.

When NdT talks about GMO foods, he's not speaking from expertise, but from general scientific literacy.
2014-08-05 05:15:04 PM  
2 votes:

Bith Set Me Up: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.


Pretty much that.  Working in transplant research I have worked with a PHD, MD who believed in the great flood and working as an engineer I have worked with a peer who believe that there are internal combustion engines that run on water.  I like NGT a lot, but being a scientist in one field does not make one a scientist in every field, and it is quite possible to have myopia even where the scientific method is involved.
2014-08-05 05:05:01 PM  
2 votes:

lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?


It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.
2014-08-05 03:42:52 PM  
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.


GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.
2014-08-05 03:30:15 PM  
2 votes:
It's these times, when I see the wacko anti-GMO leftwing folks actually weirdly cross the line and end up with the wacko right wing folks.The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish, has been changed from its original origins to the standard we enjoy today.

i1.squidoocdn.com

It has nothing to do with either killing us or God. So won't both sides STFU.
2014-08-05 02:54:53 PM  
2 votes:

quatchi: The smart money is betting on

science in this fight.
2014-08-05 02:24:35 PM  
2 votes:
The smart money is betting on NdGT in this fight.
2014-08-06 07:38:20 AM  
1 votes:
I like the guy (Pluto may or may not have had it coming,) and I am not and anti-GMO nutter, but I wish he would stick to the Astrophysics stuff. I think the celebrity thing is getting to him, like a Hollywood actor/actress who thinks their opinions on everything are important enough to share with the world.

Resist the dark side Neil


www.astro.caltech.edu

sites.psu.edu
i.kinja-img.com
2014-08-05 09:38:26 PM  
1 votes:

luidprand: MechaPyx:
My objections are thus: I'm uneasy about mucking with our food supply.

The artificial selection we've been engaged in for millennia has been slow and done on a more localized scale. It takes longer for something to go wrong and it was limited to a smaller area. The damage could be contained. Monoculture food crops makes our food supply more vulnerable. If something goes wrong it can very easily affect our entire food supply.


[www.historyplace.com image 346x203]

This happened many times before recombinant DNA or big agribusinesses came into being. If anything, truck farming and GMOs from labs have reduced dust bowls and almost eliminated famine (at least where an external political pressure isn't enforcing one, like Ethiopia in the 80s, or the ones now where European agriculture has pressured African states to turn away GMO food relief from Canada and the US).


GMOs are a greatly beneficial technology but have the potential for harm as well. Recombinant DNA tech seems like it could help maximize the potential benefits but could also increase the risks. I think we should continue to develop this tech but with caution and an awareness of the potential dangers.

As for megacorps, I trust them to do what's in THEIR best interests but that's not necessarily what's good for me or everyone else and quite frankly, I don't think large monopolistic corporations can be trusted with that kind of power over our food supply. They certainly can't be trusted with self regulation with regards to safety and environmental concerns. Unfortunately the agencies that enforce regulatory precautions are subject to undue influence and corruption so the can't be entirely trusted either.
2014-08-05 09:12:13 PM  
1 votes:
MechaPyx:
My objections are thus: I'm uneasy about mucking with our food supply.

The artificial selection we've been engaged in for millennia has been slow and done on a more localized scale. It takes longer for something to go wrong and it was limited to a smaller area. The damage could be contained. Monoculture food crops makes our food supply more vulnerable. If something goes wrong it can very easily affect our entire food supply.



www.historyplace.com

This happened many times before recombinant DNA or big agribusinesses came into being. If anything, truck farming and GMOs from labs have reduced dust bowls and almost eliminated famine (at least where an external political pressure isn't enforcing one, like Ethiopia in the 80s, or the ones now where European agriculture has pressured African states to turn away GMO food relief from Canada and the US).
2014-08-05 08:17:43 PM  
1 votes:

RexTalionis: someonelse: It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

How about judging his arguments on the merits of that argument (and the evidence underlying it) instead of worrying about whether you should afford him more or less weight on the basis of his background?

Is that somehow a crazy idea?


I already said that I largely agree with him and think he's awesome. I was referring to the implication upthread that he had more authority on this issue because he is a scientist, which I don't really think he does in this case. But maybe I inferred something that wasn't implied, since hardly anyone else had the same reaction.
2014-08-05 07:27:43 PM  
1 votes:

BafflerMeal: Pretty sure humans and rats can't reproduce with plants. Or pigs and rabbits with humans. It's one thing to discuss selective breeding or natural selection, but it's disingenuous to try and talk around recombinant dna.


Is that really so unnatural? Viruses are quite capable of taking DNA from one host species, incorporating it into its own genome and the reinserting it to another hose species in a naturally occurring process.
2014-08-05 07:06:25 PM  
1 votes:

Billy Liar: Pro-GMO or No-GMO, I think what's on ballot measures is the question of whether GMO products should be labelled as such, so that people can make a choice,  not whether they should exist.


Sure. We can put those labels right next to the ones that state whether the food was ever within 20 feet of a microwave or air conditioning, cuz a lot of people believe those are dangerous, too.

Or, instead of labeling food based on the pseudo-science crisis of the moment, we properly educate the public about what they should and shouldn't be afraid of.
2014-08-05 06:56:26 PM  
1 votes:

lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.

OK, but Google brings up, almost exclusively, links to this same story. I see that he has strong opinions that seem well thought out. What I don't see is that he has any particular background in this subject that makes his opinion any more worthwhile than your average Joe who is well-read and interested in this subject. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Let's try this: NdGT is an expert in ballroom dancing because he has won awards for it. NdGT is an expert in GMOs because ..?...

He is a Science Communicator.
He has the information that those particular scientists have. And I would think he has formed opinions on his own, based on that knowledge.

Think about it like this: with,say, climate change, many people have an opinion. Some of those people have done a lot of reading on the subject, based on the present day known science. Som ...


Would you go to a Podiatrist instead of an OB/GYN? They're  both MD's...
Just because NdGT is intelligent, educated and on TV doesn't make him omniscient and no, he doesn't have access to secret information they only give to  Scientific Educators.

/I happen to agree with his opinion on this subject but not because he's the one saying it.
2014-08-05 06:54:42 PM  
1 votes:

someonelse: It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.


How about judging his arguments on the merits of that argument (and the evidence underlying it) instead of worrying about whether you should afford him more or less weight on the basis of his background?

Is that somehow a crazy idea?
2014-08-05 06:35:52 PM  
1 votes:

satanorsanta: That is actually the point of the article. The difference is that there are plenty of non-GMO versions of each plant, but they are not compatible with the pesticides sold by those companies and cannot be without genetic modification.


That's really a different issue though.  I certainly agree that we can debate and criticize specific applications of genetic engineering.  Where I have an issue with when people start throwing around words like "Frankenfood".  Guess what?  Your body doesn't care which organism a particular gene came from.  It's all C, N, O, S and P in the end.
2014-08-05 05:56:09 PM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".


Um, no.  GMO is exactly what it says: genetically modified organism.  Many GMO's involve simply modulating the expression of existing genes.  You don't need a lot of fancy genetic modification to make a leaner cow or a bigger tomato, just turn on the right genes.  What you're referring to is recombinant DNA technology, and we heard the same alarmism about it in the 70's that we do now.  Genetic engineering is just an umbrella term to describe modifying an organism's genome through biotechnology.  The only difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding is technique and precision.
2014-08-05 05:43:04 PM  
1 votes:
Some of us object to GMOs despite understanding the science and safety perfectly well. What we object to is the prospect of megacorporations like Cargill or Monsanto controlling food production, for example by producing seed lines that have to be repurchased or relicensed each year; or crops that can only be treated with insecticides and weed killers that they alone produce. And you know what? We don't trust Cargill or Monsanto or their ilk with that kind of power, and with good historical reasons.

In other words, Monsanto, Cargill and others want to bring the equivalent of DRM to our basic food supply -- now, raise your hand if you think DRM has even been a good thing for the consumer?

Now, I will freely award 1,000 points to anybody who can manage to engage with the actual point I'm making here, rather than pretending I'm an anti-science left-wing neo-hippy fearmonger. And by the way, the reason the GMO fight continues is precisely because it's supporters fail to recognize this objection and address it.
2014-08-05 05:42:41 PM  
1 votes:

meat0918: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with

I think you're the only one claiming he is an expert in the field.


I think he's trying to claim it's an appeal to authority.  Which is rather off the mark, imo.  An intelligent, well-researched opinion can be simply that.  It just LOOKS like an appeal to authority because he happens to work in an intellectual field and the majority of anti-GMOers....well let's just say they aren't.
2014-08-05 05:32:01 PM  
1 votes:

lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.

Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.


OK, but Google brings up, almost exclusively, links to this same story. I see that he has strong opinions that seem well thought out. What I don't see is that he has any particular background in this subject that makes his opinion any more worthwhile than your average Joe who is well-read and interested in this subject. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Let's try this: NdGT is an expert in ballroom dancing because he has won awards for it. NdGT is an expert in GMOs because ..?...
2014-08-05 05:24:14 PM  
1 votes:

someonelse: lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake

I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.


Again. Google.is.your.friend.

As an aside, he's also won gold medals in Latin Ballroom dancing.

People can be many things that you're unaware of.
2014-08-05 05:19:07 PM  
1 votes:

lindalouwho: someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.

BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake


I understand that he's an intelligent, educated person, of sound judgment, and I am interested in what he has to say about most anything he chooses to address. But his education is in astrophysics.
2014-08-05 05:13:31 PM  
1 votes:

someonelse: lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?

It does, (and again I cannot believe I am taking issue with NdGT, because he is awesome and I would climb that man like a tree) but I fail to see why his opinion on, say, the patenting of seeds should carry more weight than anyone else's.


BECAUSE HE IS A SCIENTIST WHO IS EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT.

/sorry for yelling, but cripes sake
2014-08-05 05:12:47 PM  
1 votes:
By the way.

Farmers can legally save certain RoundUp Ready Soy this year.
2014-08-05 05:05:59 PM  
1 votes:

lindalouwho: Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."

You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?


What he was saying was someone who specializes in a specific field can be as uninformed about a completely different field as the average person. For instance, it's not a very good idea to ask a microbiologist a question about astrophysics or vice-versa.
2014-08-05 04:59:52 PM  
1 votes:

Bith Set Me Up: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?



"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."


You aren't saying GMOs today don't involve science, are you?
2014-08-05 04:59:36 PM  
1 votes:

lindalouwho: someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?

He has many fields of expertise, but he is first and foremost a scientist. So, no.


It's good to know that an astrophysicist is an expert in every field.
2014-08-05 04:57:45 PM  
1 votes:

someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?


He has many fields of expertise, but he is first and foremost a scientist. So, no.
2014-08-05 04:52:23 PM  
1 votes:

someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?


upload.wikimedia.org

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."
2014-08-05 04:43:11 PM  
1 votes:

someonelse: I don't disagree with my make-believe brainiac boyfriend, but isn't this a bit out of his purview?


He's a celebrity.  Nothing is out of the purview of a sleb.
2014-08-05 04:41:59 PM  
1 votes:
Pro-GMO or No-GMO, I think what's on ballot measures is the question of whether GMO products should be labelled as such, so that people can make a choice,  not whether they should exist.

That's all.  Now I have to go back to burning my flag, which the SUPREME COURT says that I HAVE TO DO.
2014-08-05 03:51:13 PM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: Marcus Aurelius: stpauler: The GMO banana, aka the Cavendish

I hate to break it to you, but the Cavendish was discovered long before GMO technology existed.

GMO technology is prehistoric, about 12000 BCE.So no, the Cavendish has not been around as long with the stone age ending between 6000 and 2000 BCE.

"GMO" technically refers to the use of genetic engineering to extract a gene from one organism, and splice it into the DNA of another organism.  This was first done in 1973.  You are thinking of "selective breeding", not "genetic engineering".

From my first link:
"Humans have been domesticating plants and animals since around 12,000 BC; the process of selective breeding, in which organisms with desired traits (and thus with the desired genes) are used to breed the next generation and organisms lacking the trait are not bred, is the oldest form genetic modification. "
2014-08-05 03:18:34 PM  
1 votes:
A GMO label sprained my ankle.
2014-08-05 03:16:08 PM  
1 votes:

netizencain: quatchi: The smart money is betting on science in this fight.


Isn't that what I said?
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

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