Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Neil DeGrasse Tyson Tells Bill Maher That Anti-Science Liberals Are Full of Shit Too [View all]HuckleB
(35,773 posts)241. The science of Europe agrees with Tyson.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
Just like the WHO and many more scientific organizations.
American Association for the Advancement of Science: The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)
American Medical Association: There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)
World Health Organization: No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)
National Academy of Sciences: To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified. (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)
The Royal Society of Medicine: Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA. (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)
The European Commission: The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies. (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)
American Council on Science and Health: [W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology. (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)
American Dietetic Association: It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management. (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)
American Phytopathological Society: The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity. (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)
American Society for Cell Biology: Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants. (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)
American Society for Microbiology: The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life. (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)
American Society of Plant Biologists: The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people. (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)
International Seed Federation: The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment. (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed. (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)
Crop Science Society of America: The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology. (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)
International Society of African Scientists: Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution. (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)
Federation of Animal Science Societies: Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption. (http://bit.ly/133F79K)
Society for In Vitro Biology: The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling. (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)
Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption. (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)
Society of Toxicology: Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods. (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)
Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture - Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations. (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)
French Academy of Science: All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria. (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health. (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)
International Council for Science: Currently available genetically modified crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate. (http://bit.ly/15Hn487)
-----------------
Politics are not science. They should be informed by science, but, when it comes to some things, it's not in some places.
Just like the WHO and many more scientific organizations.
American Association for the Advancement of Science: The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. (http://bit.ly/11cR4sB)
American Medical Association: There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. (http://bit.ly/166OUdM)
World Health Organization: No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. (http://bit.ly/18yzzVI)
National Academy of Sciences: To date more than 98 million acres of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified. (http://bit.ly/13Cib0Y)
The Royal Society of Medicine: Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA. (http://1.usa.gov/12huL7Z)
The European Commission: The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies. (http://bit.ly/133BoZW)
American Council on Science and Health: [W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology. (http://bit.ly/12hvoyg)
American Dietetic Association: It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management. (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE)
American Phytopathological Society: The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity. (http://bit.ly/14Ft4RL)
American Society for Cell Biology: Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants. (http://bit.ly/163sWdL)
American Society for Microbiology: The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life. (http://bit.ly/13Cl2ak)
American Society of Plant Biologists: The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people. (http://bit.ly/13bLJiR)
International Seed Federation: The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment. (http://bit.ly/138rZLW)
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed. (http://bit.ly/11cTKq9)
Crop Science Society of America: The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology. (http://bit.ly/138sQMB)
International Society of African Scientists: Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution. (http://bit.ly/14Fp1oK)
Federation of Animal Science Societies: Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption. (http://bit.ly/133F79K)
Society for In Vitro Biology: The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling. (http://bit.ly/18yFDxo)
Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption. (http://bit.ly/166WHYZ)
Society of Toxicology: Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods. (http://bit.ly/13bOaSt)
Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture - Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences:Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations. (http://bit.ly/17Cliq5)
French Academy of Science: All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria. (http://bit.ly/15Hm3wO)
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health. (http://bit.ly/17ClMMF)
International Council for Science: Currently available genetically modified crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate. (http://bit.ly/15Hn487)
-----------------
Politics are not science. They should be informed by science, but, when it comes to some things, it's not in some places.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
342 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Neil DeGrasse Tyson Tells Bill Maher That Anti-Science Liberals Are Full of Shit Too [View all]
cleanhippie
Jun 2016
OP
He is not saying "all" liberals are anti science. He pointed out a particular part of the liberal
Lint Head
Jun 2016
#4
For some, there are only two good kinds of science: Evolution and Climate Change
FrodosPet
Jun 2016
#43
You forgot about astronomical science is bad because it offends volcano spirits
Fumesucker
Jun 2016
#72
So you admit that you don't read the content of the posts of pro-science posters.
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#313
And for some, logical fallacies such as Denying the Antecedent is also good
LanternWaste
Jun 2016
#268
Aaaaand that's how & why science is foolishly applied to questions it cannot answer. NT
MisterFred
Jun 2016
#198
I think what is most frustrating, especially with Liberals, is that despite the evidence...
cleanhippie
Jun 2016
#12
Sometimes we aggressively tear people down for their beliefs because those beliefs are dangerous.
Act_of_Reparation
Jun 2016
#112
Yes, and then they refuse to vaccinate their kids in the future, and try to convince other...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#123
As the mother of a child with autism, this board can sometimes be tiresome. nt
msanthrope
Jun 2016
#18
That applies to so much more than anti-science as well...Religion is another problem area.
cleanhippie
Jun 2016
#17
I disagree. I learned about Evolution and the universe's true age in Catholic school
AllTooEasy
Jun 2016
#169
It's also true that a number of Jesuits have made significant contributions to science
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#172
Yep. Lack of proof of a connection is different from proof of a lack of a connection. I am all for
GoneFishin
Jun 2016
#65
Tyson lost me on the GMO thing, why should I believe a physicist about GMOs?
A Simple Game
Jun 2016
#209
Everything you've said about GMO is also true of every other plant breeding method
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#187
True of every other method, really? When you can cross breed a fish and a tomato plant
A Simple Game
Jun 2016
#210
Sorry, after rereading I see my mistake about your post. But as long as I'm here...
A Simple Game
Jun 2016
#221
To say a plant that produces insecticides is "no different" from one that doesn't...
immoderate
Jun 2016
#80
First off, a lot of plants produce insecticides, many of which you eat, and they are natural...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#83
No different from a safety standpoint. Call it a flippant use of words, but no more than that...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#91
Huh, what does that have to do with GMOs? Why are you changing the subject? n/t
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#100
I can't follow your link walk, where is this study about antibiotics and why is it inadequate? n/t
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#106
Animal testing with controls would be good. Real tests on animals are very rare.
immoderate
Jun 2016
#117
How do you differentiate between "real" tests and what is already done?
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#120
Because we know what's in the plants in question? Its not that complicated. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#140
Hell, supplements and "alternative medicine" herbalism isn't tested hardly at all...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#125
That's assuming that your bottle of St. John's Wort actually contains St. John's Wort...
Act_of_Reparation
Jun 2016
#149
OK. Short version. I don't think there is evidence to declare that GMO foods are safe.
immoderate
Jun 2016
#265
Which GMOs and why? Is there a specific trait or expressed, modified gene that you find problematic?
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#271
This is precisely the closed mind mindset of denialists. Evidence means nothing to you...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#284
Why aren't the feedlot studies enough? Teflon is a novel substance...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#293
Here's an example, can you give any reason to test sugar produced from...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#306
The weight of evidence isn't the same for every study, some are outright fraudulent...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#110
Define open-minded, because to me, its following the evidence wherever it may lead...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#144
Benbrook's debunked "study" doesn't change all the other studies, never mind the meta analysis.
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#275
Thank you for confirming that your focus is finding cherry picked individual claims...
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#288
There are many places where you can actually discuss all of these with actual scientists.
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#292
Those science blogs generally link to other studies and meta-analysis, single studies...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#283
Most of this is outside of my expertise, so I have no problems referring to primary sources and...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#299
I already posted other research, including a meta analysis, that shows his claims are off base.
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#278
It depends on why one isn't convinced, is it for ideological reasons or evidentiary reasons?
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#55
Exactly, and in the process, they close their minds to anything that may challenge their beliefs. nt
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#145
We just want GMO's LABELLED. They are used to sue organic farmers, and that too is BS.
grahamhgreen
Jun 2016
#162
Yes. They sue for patent infringement when their genes are found in other plants
grahamhgreen
Jun 2016
#311
From my personal experience, GMO hysteria appears to be a bipartisan phenomeon.
Tommy_Carcetti
Jun 2016
#30
It's not just your experience polling data has shown this too. It's not that liberals are immune to
Johonny
Jun 2016
#34
Don't erect a strawman of science just to try to validate woo, woo is a specific term...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#59
science allows for reasonable doubts about the safety of vaccines and GMOs
Fast Walker 52
Jun 2016
#48
What reasonable doubts? The evidence in-hand should remove that from a rational thinker.
cleanhippie
Jun 2016
#50
Not sure why you even bothered to mention "altering the immune system" every disease alters the...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#89
The point is that you are basically speculating about potential problems, and failed to point...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#336
there are vaccines that are not used widely because the side-effects are more frequent
Fast Walker 52
Jun 2016
#58
Uhm, not sure how that is relevant, no one is saying all vaccines should be used...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#64
Theoretical science is a conservative and constantly evolving methodology that adjusts to discovery.
PufPuf23
Jun 2016
#61
that was one definition of safety I put out there for the sake of argument
Fast Walker 52
Jun 2016
#335
You have a leaking heart valve. Take two stalks of celery and call me in the morning.
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#208
Exactly, its ridiculous, and they push this "doctors are just pill pushers" meme, and yes...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#236
Not really. The fact that biological evolution occurred is settled science.
yellowcanine
Jun 2016
#77
If we can't agree that some things are "settled science" it gives the anti-science folks an opening
yellowcanine
Jun 2016
#82
No, "Settled Science" is not dogma. It is the acceptance of overwhelming evidence.
yellowcanine
Jun 2016
#96
Because not everyone is convinced by evidence, they have faith, and ideologies they need to...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#101
Let's use gravity as an example. It's a theory. Theory is the best you get in science
Gore1FL
Jun 2016
#197
Conflating issues--there's science, then there are (greedy) pharmaceutical firms
ecstatic
Jun 2016
#92
I don't see how following the scientific consensus, when one exists, is a fallacy...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#111
Only if you blindly follow it, and yes there are problems with the practice of publishing...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#116
Yeah, I mean, we can both agree that there are people who blindly dismiss studies and consensus
qdouble
Jun 2016
#118
I guess that is true, but it really does depend on what you are criticizing, and..
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#119
Well I will agree with you there, that most of the time disagreeing with the consensus or a study is
qdouble
Jun 2016
#122
That's the thing, when advocacy groups run away with ONE study, as if it were definitive...
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#124
Knowing when to question individual studies, and when to acknowledge consensus are both important.
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#235
Meh. The right *are* worse - the writer is wrong, and DeGrasse Tyson tends that way
muriel_volestrangler
Jun 2016
#108
He's right. Only caveat I would add is, we shouldnt lump together "alternative medicine"
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2016
#138
Alternative medicine is that which has no efficacy over a placebo proven by the scientific method
Major Nikon
Jun 2016
#190
right, but one of the problems I've encountered with trying to explain why homeopathy is bullshit
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2016
#194
Unfortunately, he lumps all alternative medicines together, ant that too, is bad science!
grahamhgreen
Jun 2016
#161
I know just as many liberal leaning religous that believe the earth is 6k maybe 10k
Rex
Jun 2016
#168
Maher is right -- it's ridiculous to claim that Democrats and Republcans equally deny science
fishwax
Jun 2016
#176
Everything. It's anti-government right-wing hate radio that is trumpeting the anti-vaccine crap....
Spitfire of ATJ
Jun 2016
#258
You'll tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself about others so you can ignore the evidence.
HuckleB
Jun 2016
#266
Gratifying to know that there's always someone somewhere willing to tell someone else they're full o
LanternWaste
Jun 2016
#267
This is absolutely true. Absolutely. One sees it all the time, right here at DU.
NNadir
Jun 2016
#301