Neil deGrasse Tyson responds to anti-GMO critics
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-liberal-science-denial-and-gmos/
= new reply since forum marked as read
what I really wanted to say would have gotten my post hidden too.
Of course a highly teratogenic substance like glyphosate shouldn't be mentioned in that interview
it's proof that he doesn't hate Michelle Obama.
Aren't you special?
You need to put a warning before hilarious posts like that...I can only LOL so many times in the office before people start coming over wondering
Or do you think maybe somewhere in the place most call reality they spliced some other gene that doesn't make a tomato a tomato?
Kinda sucks when you unwittingly completely destroy your own argument complete with cartoonish buffoonery, eh?
Look, there it is! The dreaded Frankenfood! No-shit, that's just what it looks like
Never mind that it was never commercially produced and looked nothing like the picture, grab the torches and pitchforks dudes, we've got work to do! Where's that picture of Monsanto with the skulls and shit?
Now, a corny cow....yummy!
I have to say, I can't believe what I am seeing here. Dr. Oz...OK; NDT...heretic! Actually, given some of the responses, I have my own theory.
And that "alternative" medicine quacks do it for the good of humanity while Big Pharm is all about the money.
Can't reason with some people, their fantasies are much more interesting than facts.
GMO isn't really agricultural science, it's just a way for a malevolent entity to feed us Soylent Green.
It'll show up in grocery stores any day now.
But that's all you people know how to do. When someone disagrees with you, you spread lies about them.
Yep, you and the pro-lifers got a lot in common.
or logic
Copper sulfate is one of the most commonly used pesticides approved by the NOP. It kills the shit out of bees and has a much higher toxicity than glyphosate. It will fuck up your liver and other internal organs and has a high environmental impact, but fuck all that shit. Let's talk about glyphosate, because one WHO organization contradicted the body of evidence regarding it as a carcinogen and put it in the same category as coffee and shift work unlike pretty much every single regulatory agency on the planet.
The great part about being anti-GMO is you can just post links from discredited quacks and completely ignore any available alternative and pretend weeds and bugs just don't really need to be treated at all.
Never participated in these threads on DU before yesterday, now I'm glad I did.
I DON'T believe what you say because it's demonstrable nonsense.
From your own link:
Following the recalls, 51 people reported adverse effects to the FDA; these reports were reviewed by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which determined that 28 of them were possibly related to StarLink.[32] The CDC studied the blood of these 28 individuals and concluded there was no evidence the reactions these people experienced were associated with hypersensitivity to the StarLink Bt protein.[33]
So some company illegally distributed a product for human consumption that was never approved for human consumption and this is somehow evidence that GMO makes people sick, even though it never made anyone sick. Then you threw Bt corn in there with no citations of it ever making anyone sick just for shits and giggles as if that is supposed to prove anything.
Then you post a marketing video on an organic company that produces organic packaged salad greens, as if such organic products have never caused kidney failure and killed people.
If you knew more about the propaganda you're posting, you might know that "organic" doesn't mean "organic" and never has, there are several synthetic substances which are allowed for use under the NOP. The Organic Consumers Association has been protesting this for years, usually showing up at the NOSB meetings. Guess which companies are on the NOSB? Well one of them is the very company you are promoting as some kind of organic utopia which has never existed and never will, simply because organic practices can't produce all foods at the level required for mass production (which Earthbound Foods is well aware, but doesn't give a shit). And even if this utopian dreamworld ever did become reality (it never has), the very best you'd be left with is "organic" pesticides which are less effective and often far riskier than their synthetic counterparts, which the promoters of the organic utopia never quite get around to acknowledging. Instead they throw rocks at synthetic products and pretend the alternatives which never existed in the first place are better.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/05/controversy-erupts-over-synthetics-in-organic-agriculture/#.VTpRTJNGSjM
"synthetic life forms"
Neither does selective breeding and pretty much every other "conventional" method of DNA alteration at the cellular level, which is a good case for why they are used in the first place.
Yes indeed.
But let's just pretend all of it is. Ask an anti-GMOer what's wrong with Round up and you'll get either all sorts of discredited pseudoscience and blatant conjecture with zero basis, or you simply get ad hominem gibberish and name calling. Even if you get anything that approaches any sort of reality based argument, it always assumes that any alternative is better, when in actually all alternatives are worse and some of them are far worse all the way around in terms of health and environmental effects.
You also don't get a flush toilet without technology, which isn't exactly a good argument for shitting in a bucket. So if you ask what's wrong with the technology, you get appeals to ignorance and other assorted fallacies, again assuming you get anything at all that rises intellectually above ad hominem.
Well, pretty much all of them currently in production because they all have attributes that make them superior to the alternative. That's why most GMO crops in the US enjoy 90%+ market share. Not a food, but this pretty much sums it up:
Sure, this is because GMO requires testing and conventional does not, so the "crap technology" has produces zero detrimental effects to humans in 15 years of use, you can't say the same about untested conventional varietals.
News flash: ALL pesticides eventually result in resistance. Meanwhile Round up still controls for thousands of weeds including those you listed provided best practices are followed. No other pesticide comes close. So once again you are throwing rocks at technology while conveniently failing to offer up any alternative which works better. It's kinda like arguing with the chair.
Luddite dinner bell!
DING DING DING
where have I seen this article before...
Then there's the totally irrational minds of the largest and most respected scientific organization on the planet.
http://www.aaas.org/news/statement-aaas-board-directors-labeling-genetically-modified-foods
But hey, the totally rational and totally "liberal" Dr Oz says GMOs need to be labeled, so there you go.
How are the results predicted? Is pleiotropy taken into consideration? How?
--imm
The keyboard doctors have spoken! More likely they went and googled all their information, not like any of them have a clue about the topic.
I don't know the last part, because the DU GMO Experts didn't have the ability to tell me what would happen if we labeled all food products. JUST GMO food products!
SO...people would freak out if GMO products are labeled! THIS from a diehard GMO supporter!
AND THEY expect ME to be all science-ish...when that is the BEST they can come up with!?
"...they keep claiming I must have been paid off by Monsanto."
-- NGT
Don't bother reading the op, just shriek SHILL!!1! and run out of the room.
Again...
"...they keep claiming I must have been paid off by Monsanto."
-- NGT
See, the last few letters in Monsanto can be changed slightly to become Monsatan, and it's fitting because Monsanto is EEEEEEEVVVVVIIILLLLLL.
Checkmate, Monsatan! I fucked with your name! Why is everyone laughing? I'm being serious!
