Skip to main content

Well, the newest minion into the hall of fame is none other than Neil deGrasse Tyson! That's right, despite having no relationship with Big Ag, Monsanto, or a job associated with them in any way--Neil is being called an ignorant shill all over the place. Let's take a look at some of the examples:

At SFgate, in response to: Neil deGrasse Tyson tells GMO-haters to ‘chill out’, we have the erudite "eru" with this claim:
 photo Neil_shill_zps6aec414c.jpg

But wait, there's more! The notorious FoodBabe thinks this:

Is he hiding under a rock and playing dumb? Or just placating to the big food and chemical companies?
Yes, Neil is playing dumb. Of course. It couldn't be that he's looked at the evidence and the claims. A number of scientists have offered to help her understand--well, a lot of things--but she's not really interested in their help. Kevin Folta has had this experience:
 photo kevin_folta_fb_zps9c185f4f.jpg

Fans of the FoodBabe have a lot of things to say about this.
 photo Neil_douche_zps460bf94a.jpg

 photo moonlanding_zps781b75e2.jpg

 photo cornballmf_zps1fc72baf.jpg

 photo media_puppet_zps8d3bbc7c.jpg

 photo wakeup_moron_zps324ed025.jpg

 photo paying_lies_zps77763214.jpg

 photo psycopath_zps26cb2c74.jpg

 photo chuck_dropkick_zps9f07dc62.jpg

That's just the current page--there are 907 comments, and remember--they delete the scientists.

Now, I don't really think Chuck Norris is going to "drop kick this bozo". But, it's not the first time in the last couple of weeks that there has been a call to violence on this topic. Some of you may know that Mike Adams had a bizarre call to list folks who he thinks are enemies of humanity, who should be...well...let's hear from him, via Mike Adams, Monsanto, Nazis, and a Very Disturbing Article:

This official ceremony sends a message to the world, and that official message from the nation of Germany to the rest of the world says that it is the moral right — and even the obligation — of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity.
This was followed up by a Monsanto Collaborators hit list. It has been taken down, but you can find reports of it all around the tubz. Here's one example: Are these science writers and publications facing death threats for covering GMOs? Although that piece comes from a site primarily for science journalists, the list also included scientists and folks you may know like Steve Novella and Orac. In some cases it was also bundled with anti-vax rhetoric. Orac's designation was "Key perpetrator of the poisoning of hundreds of millions of children with GMOS and vaccines".

Since that site is no longer available, Neil won't be making the list. But I'm sure there are a lot of folks who want to see him on it--as we can see from the discussion around the internet. And don't pretend it's only one site--everywhere this story appeared there were similar types of responses. Not all of them are frothing rabid people with spelling challenges. For some, the name calling and lying is enough.

 photo neil_shill3_zpsa4a64270.jpg

 photo jpmorrison_shill_zps02dcaaba.jpg

As a new Monsanto Minion, though, he's in good company. You know who else has been called that? Elizabeth Warren. That's right--the Organic Consumers' Association awarded her the title. Activists subsequently pulled a stunt at the Congressional Offices to present these awards.  photo warren_minion_zpsb0259303.jpg

Part of me thinks it's amusing that Neil deGrasse Tyson and Elizabeth Warren get the same treatment I do around the web. But seriously--cut this shit out. This Monsanto mania is really becoming pathological. This unhinged lashing-out at people who have evaluated the science and come to the conclusion that GMOs are not the spawn of Satan is really nuts. Let's make a few things clear. You'd think this would be obvious to the reality-based community, but apparently it's not.

  • Because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are paid by Monsanto.
  • Because someone writes about GMOs does not mean they are a shill or a troll.
  • We all know "industry talking points" is code for shill. Cut that shit out too.
  • Stop pretending you don't know this crap is going on, and get a grip.
  • You have to excommunicate these fringy nutbags from this cause. They are making you look insane if you align with the anti-GMO stuff. Some of them are writing the legislation. Troofers make terrible allies, as do AIDS-deniers and anti-vaxxers.
  • Start looking at quality information. I cannot understand why people keep clinging to the fringiest outliers on this topic--if you did the same thing on climate change you'd be laughed right off this site.

It's really frustrating to see scientists, doctors, and science writers get this kind of treatment. And so far, as Ezra Klein notes, the left hasn't been over-run by this fringy bunch. Why Neil deGrasse Tyson's dismissal of anti-GMO concerns matters:

GMOs are actually an example of liberalism resisting the biases of its base. Though there's a lot of mistrust towards GMOs and fury towards Monsanto among liberals, the Democratic Party establishment is dismissive of this particular campaign.
But I know some of you are trying.

It's could hurt the party's chances if this unleashes on Hillary, as I've already noted. Do you think attacks like this on Elizabeth Warren are helpful?

And if people weren't so clouded by the fog of misinformation on this subject, I'd think they'd be stunned to realize what it looks like to be a scientist on this side of this issue. If nothing else comes from this Tyson episode, a close-up realization of that would be worth it to me. Look in the mirror.

Originally posted to mem from somerville on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 04:03 PM PDT.

Also republished by Science Matters.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What's sad about the NdGT smearing was (21+ / 0-)

    he never said a damn thing about Monsanto. For all anyone knows he could hate Monsanto with the burning passion of ten thousand white hot suns. But he understands science and his understanding of science tells him that GMO isn't "frankenfood" or somehow creating fishmatos or will cause us to start going an extra hand on top of our heads.

    GOP 2014 strategy -- Hire clowns, elephants, and a ringmaster and say "a media circus" has emerged and blame Democrats for lack of progress. Have pundits agree that "both sides are to blame" and hope the public will stay home on election day.

    by ontheleftcoast on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 04:15:21 PM PDT

  •  You can't selectively breed a jellyfish gene (4+ / 0-)

    into a plant. Tyson may be great at astrophysics & media but I am not impressed by his analysis of GMOs. OTOH, he's entitled to his opinion like everyone else. Some of his critics have jumped into the shark pool.

    “Industry does everything they can and gets away with it almost all the time, whether it’s the coal industry, not the subject of this hearing, or water or whatever. They will cut corners, and they will get away with it. " Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D, WVa

    by FishOutofWater on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 04:17:17 PM PDT

    •  We have been selectively breeding (19+ / 0-)

      pesticide-producing plants for millennia.

      Organisms themselves have been crossing species barriers for a long time.

      The fish-plant (which doesn't exist, except on that idiot troofer's car) is a widely misused and misunderstood claim. There's no speciesness on a single gene stretch of DNA. Putting human insulin into bacteria does not make bacteria human.

      What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

      by mem from somerville on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 04:26:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Image the "life begins at conception" crowd (8+ / 0-)

        having to struggle with human DNA in E. coli that produce insulin. Does some fragment of a human soul get created from the DNA? Are trillions of soul fragments created and destroyed every time a batch of insulin is produced?

        GOP 2014 strategy -- Hire clowns, elephants, and a ringmaster and say "a media circus" has emerged and blame Democrats for lack of progress. Have pundits agree that "both sides are to blame" and hope the public will stay home on election day.

        by ontheleftcoast on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 04:30:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right. But on this topic (6+ / 0-)

          there's a scary amount of people who also screech "GMO means God Moves Over" and related crap.

          They have no idea how parallel they look to the same type of BS from the right.

          What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

          by mem from somerville on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 04:38:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  All these exponential confluences, (0+ / 0-)

            Monsanto gets bashed more for their political
            and corporate policies than their science.

            If Chuck Norris wanted to go all Walker Tejas Ranger
            on the former Monsanto attorney sitting on the SCOTUS,
            I am sure I would not be the only one to have queasy
            mixed emotions about such dog whistling vigilantism.

            Would that be considered profiling? Police brutality?
            Would Norris even be able to tell the difference
            between Thomas and Tyson, in his advanced dotage?
            Could I get the GE popcorn concession for that bout?

            Equating single issue wacko internet newsblog story
            commentrollery as a credible political threat to the legions
            of Hillbots everywhere? Show us the Venn on that one.
            I think the exact opposite of your hypothesis might be
            more or less true. Isn't politics more about emotions?  

            It's not like scientists didn't, not so long ago, offer proof
            that certain humans were not as worthy as some others.
            I am not so sure about the peer reviews on those studies.

            And the whole Godwinesque spectre of importing the best
            teutonic minds to fuel the cold war space race definitely
            has paid tremendous dividends for human progress,
            especially if we need to, as any TV astrophysicist will tell
            you is cosmically certain, immigrate to another solar system.
            Moral and political considerations notwithstanding.

            I was reading just this morning from
            last months WIRED about a couple of
            previously neglected native species that
            show great promise towards avoiding well...this.

            Was the cause of this famine drought, pestilence,
            war, logistics, or crony capitalistic imperial greed?
            Can science help us answer and solve such questions?
            I would have to argue possibly, conditionally, yes.

            Also from the same issue, a story about scorpion venom
            being used to aid in the treatment of incurable disease,
            with some solid reporting on the burgeoning field of
            bio engineered immune response treatments, which
            anyone who has say, lost family to any type of cancer,
            would certainly welcome and celebrate, and yes, even support.

            I bring up these two science stories mostly for their
            positive aspects, which is not so unusual for the ever
            glibertarian editors of WIRED, grain of sodium chloride and all.
            I mean, Jerry Seinfeld on the cover, riffing on social media
            and cyber culture netiquette, with designer fashion pics.

            I did not even know that this particular dust up, or
            as it is called now, Haboob, had even occurred.
            I haven't been watching Neil on Fox, even though I
            have always enjoyed and admired his work on PBS.

            I do agree with you that the irrational knows no party
            boundaries, and I don't ever expect you to admit that
            the uneducated and willfully ignorant have many good
            and historically proven reasons to distrust some of the
            less than disinterested parties "scientific" agendas.

            Thanks for bringing this all to our attention,
            and for all of your other efforts. I hope they help.

            The persecution of "the left" at Daily Kos... (76+ / 1-) reminds me of the War on Christmas. I'm a Silly Rabbit. by Trix on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:39:00 PM CDT

            by Larsstephens on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 01:23:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Nice straw man & guilt by association smear. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens, Crider

        Nice work!

        I have no objections to pharma using bacteria to produce insulin. It's a very constructive use of GMO technology that has no apparent risk to the environment. The bacteria are contained in the pharma facility and have no competitive advantage if they escape. It's the type of GMO technology that saves lives.

        “Industry does everything they can and gets away with it almost all the time, whether it’s the coal industry, not the subject of this hearing, or water or whatever. They will cut corners, and they will get away with it. " Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D, WVa

        by FishOutofWater on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 07:59:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, you can (8+ / 0-)

      There are an amazing amount of ways for genes to mutate. Translation, replication, insertion, deletion, etc. At some point our ancestors had two whole chromosomes merge into one. It's why the great apes have 48 chromosomes and we have 46. You can actually see the remnants of the old chromosomes in ours. As for "foreign" material it's been thought for some time that mitochondria was a parasite the become accepted into our cells. So it's highly unlike, especially by random means, but thru extreme stress, high number of generations with large numbers of offspring, and maybe a little radiation thrown in to speed things up (and yes, radiation is one way mutations occur naturally) it could be possible to breed a stretch of DNA that happened to be identical to the DNA from a jellyfish in a plant.

      GOP 2014 strategy -- Hire clowns, elephants, and a ringmaster and say "a media circus" has emerged and blame Democrats for lack of progress. Have pundits agree that "both sides are to blame" and hope the public will stay home on election day.

      by ontheleftcoast on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 04:28:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  what I want to know is, (3+ / 0-)

      why is putting a jellyfish gene into a plant so horrible? As opposed to, say, a viral gene, or a gene from another plant?

      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 08:44:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He seems to be simplifying the issue (8+ / 0-)

    I certainly value his opinion but am not sure his equating cross breeding as was known to exist prior to the last 30-40 years of lab manipulation is equal to Monsanto or whoever engineering corn to be able to withstand being sprayed with RoundUp without suffering any damage....or breeding plants that kill insects and then expect that will have no ill affects on the humans that consume that food.

    The current breeding is not about creating a better food product.  It's about creating a more profitable commodity.

    Then there is the whole licensing, can't replant the seed issues.

    The problem isn't just in the science behind how these things were created.  It's how they are applied/used/controlled.  Outcomes matter, not just how things were created.

    You can bomb the world to pieces but you can't bomb it into peace - michael franti

    by FarmerG on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 04:30:53 PM PDT

  •  Just as arrogant and obnoxious as anti-vaxxers... (10+ / 0-)

    but emboldened by their superior numbers.

  •  Wait... (9+ / 0-)

    There was a cover-up of the moon landing? Wow, they sure did a crappy job if that's the case. I was 4 and I remember it distinctly. Mostly because I vomited all over my father the moment Armstrong set his foot down. So I think he remembers it, too.

    Whatever, Tyson was born in 1958. Which would have made him at the time of the moon landing, let's see... 11. Give or take.

    Back on topic - I'm not entirely comfortable with some of the GMO stuff that goes on, but I'm even less comfortable with the difficulty many people seem to have accepting that there is a method to science, and it doesn't care about our feelings or our politics.

    Which is exactly how I want my science.

    "Tea is soothing. I wish to be tense." - Rupert Giles

    by CelticOm on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 04:53:17 PM PDT

  •  Here's an honest attempt by one (6+ / 0-)

    who is worried (read that as concern troll if you want) about GMOs.

    First, I am not a scientist. I flatter myself to think that I'm at least open to science, but I can't pretend my experience or knowledge is very deep.

    Selectively breeding hybrids within a genus seems as related to GMOs to me as time travel is connected to a model T. Part of the reason hybrids arrived at sexually is less worrisome is the time element. Sure, with mixing DNA and natural mutations relatively big changes may occur in shockingly short time frames compared to  non-manipulated evolution. GMOs appear to be vastly more sudden.

    I am aware of common, "safe" ingredients that can be combined into more malignant or even lethal substances, and also of combinations that are safe, but whose elements could be very dangerous (e.g. sodium chloride). It isn't clear to me that we could know the risks (including long-term exposure or high dosages) of many GMOs.

    A challenge that I hope those with greater understanding of GMOs than I have will respond to is addressing the normal fears many have about food supplies. This really needs to be done on a level that virtually anyone can understand.

    Consider that among Carl Sagan's greatest accomplishments wasn't teaching astrophysicists new information about the cosmos, it was inspiring the awe of regular people--lighting fires within some that has taken them to the pinnacle of scientific understanding. This won't be easy; as they say little worth doing is.
     

    If your strategy depends on having fewer people show up to vote, that is not a sign of strength. That is a sign of weakness. President Obama

    by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 04:53:47 PM PDT

    •  I'd start by asking... (3+ / 0-)

      what your concerns are founded in?  What makes you think, in the first place, GMO's might pose some kind of health risk?

      •  First I recognize that mutations (5+ / 0-)

        may be beneficial or they may be unhealthy.

        Increasing the pace of mutations may increase the risks they pose, right?

        The results of combinations that couldn't occur in nature might be less predictable than say joining a prized bull with an award-winning heifer.

        If your strategy depends on having fewer people show up to vote, that is not a sign of strength. That is a sign of weakness. President Obama

        by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 05:12:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK... (8+ / 0-)

          but mutations are common in nature.  Generally they are considered beneficial or deleterious based on how they affect an organism's fitness.  Cultivation and selective breeding largely render this irrelevant, as less fit varieties can thrive under cultivation.  The yellow dessert banana is the result of a mutation of red or yellow cooking bananas.  Mutations in tomatoes cause them to be resistant to Verticillium Wilt.  They have been artificially crossbred with mutant tomatoes which are resistant to Fusarium Wilt.  The result is a plant which is resistant to both diseases and which probably wouldn't be found in nature.  But even if it was, so what?  Why is a natural hybrid of two mutated plants less likely to be unhealthy than one produced by selective breeding?  And why is a mutant hybrid produced by selective breeding less likely to be unhealthy than a plant with a genetically engineered mutation?

    •  Thank you for making an effort. (10+ / 0-)

      There are a lot of scientists and allies trying to help. I don't want to cover it all in this diary, but that's what I mean about finding credible sources.

      These include, for starters:
      Kevin Folta's Illumination blog: http://kfolta.blogspot.com/
      Biofortified: http://www.biofortified.org/
      Skepti-forum: http://www.skeptiforum.org/...

      And if you have specific questions, the forums can be really helpful for that, if you don't find what you needed in a site search.

       

      What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

      by mem from somerville on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 05:17:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I fully intend to check these sites (3+ / 0-)

        out, but I think it might also be worth it to continue to use this site. Both sides really have a lot to gain from it.

        People who are unsure of the science, or our ability to understand it, can obviously learn from those with better understanding.

        People who totally get the science may benefit from the experience of explaining it to non-scientists.

        If your strategy depends on having fewer people show up to vote, that is not a sign of strength. That is a sign of weakness. President Obama

        by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 05:25:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, I used to be here (7+ / 0-)

          and tried that for a while. You can look through some of my old diaries.

          But the shill-calling and troll rating made it clear that no education was going to occur. I used to end up spending all my time in the diaries saying "No, I do not work for Monsanto".  The threads were useless.

          Maybe things have changed. And I think with an election coming up it may be time to revisit.

          What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

          by mem from somerville on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 05:31:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I just saw a tweet (5+ / 0-)

          that reminded me of this piece too, might be helpful for some folks:

          On GMOs & Changing Your Mind…

          Also, at his site, you can download a free book of essays by scientists that were aimed at non-scientists. It's the one on the right side called "The Lowdown on GMOs". That might have some useful things.

          What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

          by mem from somerville on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 05:42:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The tweet wasn't all that helpful (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Emilyruth, houyhnhnm

            for me as I'm not so much an opponent of GMOs as someone who just doesn't trust them; a skeptic, not a cynic, maybe.

            "The Lowdown on GMOs" on the other hand looks very promising. I have no idea about the author, but tend to resist arguments "from authority" anyway. He makes his points clearly and rationally, and scored big with me by admitting that there are verified negative aspects of using GMOs (page 38 of the free e-book download).

            I would have missed the link, it blends in so well, had you not pointed it out. Thanks.

            My remaining worry about GMOs remains the rate of change.

            While dog breeders have developed some varieties that suffer immensely in order to satisfy owners desires, even the most unhealthy (e.g. born without eyes, terribly weak hearts, etc.) took centuries to create.

            While I would always hope for a more humane approach, with GMOs the changes are so abrupt that "experiments" now or in the future may progress further than they should before errors or missteps are detected.

            If your strategy depends on having fewer people show up to vote, that is not a sign of strength. That is a sign of weakness. President Obama

            by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 10:51:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The concern about the timeline (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Had Enough Right Wing BS

              confuses me. I don't know how to make you understand that mutations are sudden events. Sometimes they are accidents in replication. Sometimes they are based in stress. I saw a great paper about plants shaking up their genomes in times of climate change--eons ago. They aren't waiting for other stuff to co-evolve. A new form of rust evolves--plants have to get with the program ASAP. And they don't give a shit about the rest of the environment, they just have to get past the rust.

              But if you think about all modern breeding techniques--even organic--you are always introducing something with new traits. Period. That's the goal. There's no timeline difference if you release a new organic sunflower, a new conventional sunflower, or a new GMO sunflower.

              The only difference is the GMO one is far more precise--which I guess would mean less impact on the ecosystem if you are worried about new genes and combinations of genes.

              What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

              by mem from somerville on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 04:32:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  As far as the timeline (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                houyhnhnm

                I do understand that mutations are sudden, whether an organism reproduces sexually, asexually, or as a result of scientists modifying them genetically.

                I think that paragraph contains a key element. Just as sexual reproduction makes mutation more common (increasing the speed of evolution compared to asexual reproduction), I was thinking that genetic modification would allow even faster evolution--not all of which may have desirable outcomes. This might mean worse outcomes for the organism, but it could also mean detrimental outcomes for organisms that eat the "new" life form.

                Like people who didn't trust microwave ovens (at first) to warm their hotdog, I may just need time myself to see that this really is safe.

                If your strategy depends on having fewer people show up to vote, that is not a sign of strength. That is a sign of weakness. President Obama

                by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 05:32:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  um . . . . . . (0+ / 0-)

                  Genes that are eaten, cannot be expressed.

                  That is physiology 101.

                  You ate several billion genes today for breakfast. Not a one of them did a damn thing to you.

                  I really wish the anti-GMO fringers would learn some basic biology.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:52:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My understanding is likely not (0+ / 0-)

                    at the same level as yours.

                    I wasn't thinking that genes consumed might be "expressed." They may still be detrimental to an organism that ate (or inhaled) them--I'm thinking in terms of tobacco or anthrax.

                    Now do I think biologists, perhaps seeking to use their intellect to help feed a hungry planet, would intentionally poison the food supply? That is obviously very unlikely.

                    Although I have seen attitudes from both pro- and anti-GMO groupies that are rude, I think the motivations on both sides are mostly good.

                    Toning down the rhetoric might allow for better communication.

                    If your strategy depends on having fewer people show up to vote, that is not a sign of strength. That is a sign of weakness. President Obama

                    by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 02:29:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  your understanding seems nonexistent (0+ / 0-)

                      neither tobacco nor anthrax have stuff-all to do with genes or ingesting them.

                      With all due respect, what would allow for better communication is if you learned what the heck you are talking about before talking about it, instead of talking about things you know nothing about.

                      I really wish the anti-GMO fringers would learn some basic biology.

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 02:31:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  ps--if you'd like to ask some questions instead of (0+ / 0-)

                      pronouncing opinions on topics you don't know anything about, I'd be happy to answer your questions and teach you some basic biology (though I suspect you'd just reject all the answers anyway since I'm obviously part of the corporate conspiracy).

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 02:36:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  btw---the genes used in GMOs have (0+ / 0-)

                  already existed for billions of years.  None of them are new.  Monsanto did not make any of them.  All Monsanto has done is take a gene that already exists in one species and moved it to another species. Whatever environmental effect that gene will have, has already happened.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:54:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  GMOs move one gene.... (4+ / 0-)

      while hybridization move entire chromosomes and all their genes and is vastly more disruptive to a genome.  

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

      by murrayewv on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 01:16:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rachel Carson used to be laughed at.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashy

      Now, they aren't laughing, because she was correct.

      We have a right to know what is in our food.

      LABEL IT. No big deal. LABEL IT.

      •  Rachel Carson (0+ / 0-)

        was a big fan of using biological rather than chemical means to control pests.

        What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

        by mem from somerville on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 04:33:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, label it, and then studies can be done (0+ / 0-)

        In huge populations, to see the long term effects, if any.

        Let those that care have the knowledge, and be the control group, and those that don't can be the group that it is tested on. Give those that can't afford organic all the time a chance to make informed choices.

        Without that, there is no way to tell long term what any effects might be.

        It would also help for those with allergies, so they can avoid the things that they have problems with. There are so many different kinds, it's important that people are able to know what is in the food.



        Women create the entire labor force.
        ---------------------------------------------
        Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 07:20:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  studies have already been done on huge populations (0+ / 0-)

          for over two decades.  You and I and everyone else in the US have been eating GMOs now for 20 years, whether you like it or not. All 300 million of us.

          And none of it has had any documented health effect at all, anywhere.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 10:35:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  See, that's where you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

            I stopped eating most of them as soon as I figured out they were sneaking them in.

            That's the point, if they are labeled, we can see who got more, and who got less, and see if there is a difference.

            The key word you use here is "documented." How would it be documented, if there is no control group? There have been many things that have increased in occurrence, but how to trace them to any particular thing?

            Label it, have people be aware, then they can be questioned about it when and if they end up with something.



            Women create the entire labor force.
            ---------------------------------------------
            Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

            by splashy on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:12:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  os--allergens already have to be labeled (0+ / 0-)

          That is not an issue.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 10:35:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm allergic to beef and pork (0+ / 0-)

            If some genetics from them were inserted, how would that be labeled?

            Who knows what else I or others might be allergic to, unbeknownst to us? Give us a chance to figure out if we have a reaction what could be causing it.

            For instance, corn products pretty much always make my GI tract hurt, unless they are organic. What could be causing that?



            Women create the entire labor force.
            ---------------------------------------------
            Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

            by splashy on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:15:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  allergens already have to be labelled (0+ / 0-)

              by law.

              That is not an issue.

              For instance, corn products pretty much always make my GI tract hurt, unless they are organic. What could be causing that?
              (sigh)  Whatever.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 10:29:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Where is this sudden pro-GMO push coming from? (4+ / 0-)

    Maybe the "G" part of GMOs isn't in-your-face toxic, like including mercury in salad greens would be, but I've never seen any compelling demonstration that genetically modifying food was actually safe and harmless.  You know why?  There isn't any.  And frankly, an entity like Monsanto (or anyone who does their dirty work for them) pisses me off by preventing me from having any kind of choice in the matter - I practically cannot avoid consuming GMO food because (1) it's damned well everywhere, and (2) Monsanto has seen to it that food labels will not tell me a food product contains GMOs.  My reaction, in this set of circumstances, to those who bleat that GMOs are safe (no matter their credentials)?  F$ck you.  You remind me of the cigarette companies that used to tell me smoking was safe.  (And the same to those who would compare me to the anti-vaxxers.)

    "Democrat" is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective. "Republican" is an idiot. Illigitimi non carborundum. Regardless of Party. The license plate I want? OMG GOP WTF

    by TheOrchid on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 05:22:40 PM PDT

    •  You have numerous options (6+ / 0-)

      You can purchase organic, and you have the non-GMO project label.

      But thanks for the demonstration of Monsantomania.

      What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

      by mem from somerville on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 05:33:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And thanks for the demonstration... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens, Crider, Emilyruth

        ...of Monsantophilia.

        "Democrat" is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective. "Republican" is an idiot. Illigitimi non carborundum. Regardless of Party. The license plate I want? OMG GOP WTF

        by TheOrchid on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 11:48:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Way to miss the point (0+ / 0-)

          of this entire thing. I'm shocked, of course.

          What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

          by mem from somerville on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 06:37:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just admit it (0+ / 0-)

            You've got a crush on Monsanto.

            "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

            by Crider on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 06:52:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just admit it (0+ / 0-)

              You are incapable of rational thought on this. Thanks for the evidence.

              What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

              by mem from somerville on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:05:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  do I need to post again my "reasons to hate (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              houyhnhnm

              Monsanto?  OK, here goes:

              my gripe with GMOs is political and economic. I am adamantly against the way GMOs are used as a weapon by Monsanto and others to club competition and build a vertical monopoly in which an entire sector of the economy is locked into feudal subservience to them. I also don't think ANYONE has any right to patent a natural product for private profit. And the way Monsanto uses its economic and political power to control all information and debate about its product, is intolerable in any democratic society.

              BUT

              All of the "scientific arguments" I've seen from the lunatic fringe element are nonsense that should not fool a fourth-grader. The anti-science element of the anti-GMO movement is a fringe, just as much as the creationists or anti-vaxxers are. Their methods are the same, their cultlike ideology is the same, and their hostility to science is the same.

              They deserve no respect. At all.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 08:25:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Neil is fabulous (0+ / 0-)

              But he is not a biologist!

      •  Purchasing organic is great (0+ / 0-)

        If you have that much money.

        Labeling it is the way to go. That will help a lot. Give people the knowledge they need to make informed decisions.



        Women create the entire labor force.
        ---------------------------------------------
        Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 07:21:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why do you think you are different... (7+ / 0-)

      from an anti-vaxxer?  It's common for them to claim that vaccines have not been adequately studied, or that we don't know the long term effects.  And they also have their profit-driven corporate bugaboo that is corrupting all the science that shows them to be wrong.

      •  At least vaccines have a demonstrable... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens, Crider

        ...benefit, like preventing your kid from dying of polio.  Makes perfect sense.  What's the benefit of GMOs?  To make money for the Monsantos of the world, and not really much else.  The benefit to the end user?  From where I sit, practically non-existent.  The risk/benefit ratio is completely different.  Unless, of course, you're drinking genetically-modified Kool-Aid.

        "Democrat" is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective. "Republican" is an idiot. Illigitimi non carborundum. Regardless of Party. The license plate I want? OMG GOP WTF

        by TheOrchid on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 11:42:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Increased crop yields to feed a too large (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mem from somerville, billybush

          Global population? Enhanced nutrition (golden rice) to combat vitamin deficient disease?

          But fuck- GMO bad and those people that die and suffer- good for the planet? :/

        •  That's a pretty thin argument. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mem from somerville, houyhnhnm

          Science is either true or not true regardless of who it benefits.  Anyway, it's basically the foundation of anti-vaxxer arguments. The health risks of vaccines, they say, are greater than the benefit they provide, and the push for vaccines is designed to create profits for pharmaceutical companies.  As for your risk/benefit ratio, you'll have to show that the risks of GMO's is greater than zero, which you have not done.  You'd then have to contrast that with benefits of GMOs like rice that contains beta-carotenes or higher levels of iron, or which causes allergy resistance.  There is even a GMO cholera vaccine in development.  Minimizing the benefits of vaccines is another anti-vaxxer tactic.

        •  At least vaccines are labeled (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          splashy

          The pro-GMO bullies don't think people in a free society should have the right to know if the corn on the supermarket shelf is full of RoundUp herbicide.

          "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

          by Crider on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 06:54:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's not a single label bill (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kasoru

            that would tell you anything about Roundup. That's what I keep trying to tell you. It is what you claim you want to know, but there's not a single bill yet that would tell you that.

            You don't even have the basic grasp of what you are asking. It's really sad.

            What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

            by mem from somerville on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:07:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  um . . . . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kasoru

            the non-GMO corn gets sprayed with Roundup too.

            But you already know that.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 08:26:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But, not as much, because it can't take it (0+ / 0-)

              And it does not have BT engineered into every cell.

              Just label it, so those that want to can avoid it. It's quite simple. If it's not a problem, then why not?



              Women create the entire labor force.
              ---------------------------------------------
              Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

              by splashy on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 07:29:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  horse shit (0+ / 0-)

                Nobody has showed me any measured data that the amount of Roundup per acre is any higher on GMO fields than it is on non-GMO.

                Bt works by attacking specific proteins in an insect's stomach. Humans do not have that protein. Bt has no effect on humans.

                Bt has also been sprayed on crops for almost 100 years now, and has had no demonstrated ill effects on anyone.

                I have no gripe with labeling.  I have a gripe with using bullshit arguments that are flat-out wrong, not true, contrary to reality, to GET labeling.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 10:02:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Setting aside the personal attack as a distraction (8+ / 0-)

      Who proved that smoking was dangerous?

      Scientists.  Using the methods of Science to suss out the truth, in the face of longstanding opposition from powerful interests who were trying to stop them.

      It wasn't the activists, it wasn't the natural healers, it wasn't the politicians.

      The true lesson of the tobacco fiasco, the Merchants of Doubt story of Oreskes and Conway, is that the truth can not be hidden indefinitely and it will come out sooner or later.

      Because when you get down to it, Science is not rockets and lasers and giant atom smashing machines: it is the quest for reliable knowledge.  Individual scientists can make mistakes, some are frauds, some are corrupt, but Science the institution is the best tool - self correcting to the extent possible - that we know for getting at the heart of the nature of the world.

      So my advice is that you get to know some scientists.  You will find that we love to talk about our work, that we enjoy figuring things out, and that we really really really like to help people.  And if we work together we can get to the truth as expeditiously as possible, which would be much more productive than standing around hurling abuse at one another.

      Vai o tatu-bola escamoso encontrar-me onde estou escondendo? Lembro-me do caminho de ouro, uma pinga de mel, meu amado Parati (-8.75,-8.36)

      by tarkangi on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 07:10:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would say it's coming from (4+ / 0-)

      the heating up of the overall war on science. Whether the issue is to do with reproduction or climate change or the history of the Earth/life on Earth there is a very vocal segment that just rejects the scientific point of view.  

      The legitimizing attention that they command from the media is not like anything I remember in my lifetime. It is very scary.

      I'm not going to try to address the other points in your comment. There are others here who can (and have over and over) do that better than I can.

      One thing that does strike me about the comments of people who weigh in passionately on the side of labeling is that they seem to assume that there is such a thing as "GMOness".  To me this is not a scientific construct.  It's on a par with "irreducible complexity"  or "kind".

      Light is seen through a small hole.

      by houyhnhnm on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 07:26:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of COURSE there is a demonstrable "GMOness"... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TakeSake, Larsstephens

        ...to foods, and it can be quantified much as fat, carbohydrate, and protein content can be quantified (you just have to have the food processors analyze the sources of their ingredients and quantify them).  But of course, some folks really don't care what they put into their mouths.

        No wanting to eat GMOs arises from a "war on science" or is a "rejection of a scientific point of view"?  I really had to laugh at that one.

        "Democrat" is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective. "Republican" is an idiot. Illigitimi non carborundum. Regardless of Party. The license plate I want? OMG GOP WTF

        by TheOrchid on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 11:47:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  well obviously this sudden pro-GMO push is coming (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mem from somerville, houyhnhnm

      from the fact that Monsanto pays us all.

      (snicker)

      I've never seen any compelling demonstration that genetically modifying food was actually safe and harmless.  You know why?  There isn't any.  
      Actually there is--and it's been the biggest experiment ever conducted on human subjects: we've all (me, you, our neighbors, everybody) been eating GMO foods every day for the past 20 years. Several hundred million people just in the USA alone. And it has had no measurable harmful effects attributable to GMO on us. None. Not a one. Anywhere.

      If you disagree (being a scientist and all) then please by all means (1) show us these harmful effects, and (2) show us what mechanism GMO produces them by.

      Since no one else has been able to do any such thing (except for Dr Huber and his magic microbe that nobody but him can see), you can win that next Nobel Prize in medicine.  Have at it.

      PS--the nice folks running the "labeling" campaigns keep telling me that the issue isn't about any "harmful effects" from GMO no sirree bob it's just about freedomz and democracyz.  Are THEY full of it, or are YOU? Are there harmful effects from GMO, or aren't there? Make up your minds.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 05:33:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Even if GMOs are 100% safe... (8+ / 0-)

    I'm still going to resist them.  This issue is not just about food safety.  It is about corporate control over the global agricultural production system, the food distribution system, land tenure, farmer rights, land use, loss of agricultural genetic diversity, soil and water conservation, water quality, soil health, the fate of pollinators, wildlife in the landscape, and the health of local communities and economies.  Even great scientists are often poor interdisciplinary thinkers.  They know their dots; they don't necessary know how to connect dots.

     

    •  Not one of those things (12+ / 0-)

      requires GMOs.

      And this bizarre fixation on blaming GMOs is getting in the way of actually acting on some of the other stuff.

      What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

      by mem from somerville on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 05:55:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I endorse this comment (3+ / 0-)

        The present stalemate, with both sides dug in to its respective positions and slapping back at every perceived insult, is in fact the best gift we could hand to Monsanto and the other perpetrators of sub-optimal agricultural practices.

        Vai o tatu-bola escamoso encontrar-me onde estou escondendo? Lembro-me do caminho de ouro, uma pinga de mel, meu amado Parati (-8.75,-8.36)

        by tarkangi on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 07:14:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  oddly enough, when I say the very same thing (0+ / 0-)

      I get accused of being a Monsanto shill.

      Too funny.

      My opposition to GMOs is based on social, economic and political factors---GMOs are used by corporations as a weapon to eliminate competition, to establish a vertical monopoly, and to lock the entire agricultural sector into a semi-feudal dependence; Monsanto's efforts to control both the use of its products and the release of information about it are intolerable in a democracy; and I do not think ANY natural process should be patentable for private profit. And I'm all in favor of regulating the usage of Roundup and every other pesticide to levels that are not damaging to the environment--and if that means Monsanto's GM crops become impractical or not worth the trouble, then tough shit on Monsanto. (shrug)

      BUT . . .  using arguments such as "eating GMOs causes cancer!!!" or "GMOs remove nutrition from food!!" that are incorrect, factually wrong, and simply not true, does not help us. It only makes us ALL look uninformed, it hands Monsanto a big club to beat us all over the head with, and does us far more harm than good.

      There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Monsanto and its practices. We don't need to make stupid shit up.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 05:40:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well what I'd like to know is what evidence is (7+ / 0-)

    there that Monsanto isn't in on a large conspiracy to corner the worlds food supply then insert some sort of self destructive gene into the wheat and soy and rice and then we all die!!!!?

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 05:46:41 PM PDT

  •  Mem,, I had a couple thoughts, no this isn't one (5+ / 0-)

    more unserious joke comment thank you very much.

    Maybe just write your diaries straight and play the comments for yuchs? Food issues elicit strong and not necessarily science informed or even logical, and I doubt you'll change many minds in the comments. It's like MSG or gluten. The modern wealthy folks are very into food.

    If you are going to write on these subjects (fluoride on the side with your GMOs?) you have to be ready for some push back, some of it unyielding. Remember, your post is maybe being read by fifteen or twenty for ever one comment. Science is worth advocating for.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 05:58:05 PM PDT

    •  I've tried a number of strategies (5+ / 0-)

      and different situations call for different methods. Also, different people require different amounts of either hand-holding or dope-slapping.

      But I am so tired of this echo chamber on this topic, and I think some tough love is how I want to approach this right now. I think a lot of folks who make the wildest claims aren't used to getting push back. It's time they had some.

      I'm especially tired of seeing scientists get abused like Neil and Kevin--from our own allies on most other issues. I don't think they realize how big of assholes they are. Nobody tells them, because of the echo problem.

      What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

      by mem from somerville on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 06:08:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nobody Ever Tried Tough Love on the Hippies. (4+ / 0-)

        That's why they continue to be such a bane of both parties.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 06:27:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This whole Tyson "Chill out" thing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens, mamooth

          was a milder version of it. It was pretty definitive and clear. In that "end of discussion" kind of way.

          And it seems to be really rocking people. I cannot believe the amount of media that's gotten. I was collecting some of it: https://storify.com/...

          I know some scientists have been quibbling with the exact phrasing, and some people like Kevin Drum didn't like the argument. But it was a huge overall win in messaging, I think.

          What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

          by mem from somerville on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 06:51:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  lol. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mem from somerville

          Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

          by the fan man on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 09:57:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, they just arrested, beat and killed them (0+ / 0-)

          That's all.

          That's why so many headed for the more rural areas, and worked on alternatives ways to live for decades.



          Women create the entire labor force.
          ---------------------------------------------
          Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

          by splashy on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 07:32:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I read a comment from a scientist a month ago (5+ / 0-)

        I forget who or what the circumstances but he/she said they no longer post diaries as he just got shouted  at by the ideologues.

        When it's a different subject than one's specialty or when one has a degree but no experience, it's different. But University professors or researchers when discussing their subject of expertise are invaluable.

        I recently read a great op ed to the times on autism by a scientist who does research on the syndrome (if that's what you call autism). It was great. He is also a Kossack but didn't post it here. Our loss.

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 07:04:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was probably me (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          palantir, Larsstephens, ban nock, mamooth

          But I decided to try again, because with the elections coming up I'd rather work on these allies than try to find new ones.

          It's not like a female scientist would be really at home on the right...

          But geez, on this topic it's such a slog. The layers of bad information you have to dig out before you can even begin to have a sane discussion--it's nearly impossible.

          I'm hoping that the "chill out" will cause at least some fans of Neil to sit up and wonder why he thinks this way.

          What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

          by mem from somerville on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 07:10:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  alas . . . (3+ / 0-)
          But University professors or researchers when discussing their subject of expertise are invaluable.
          . . . the kookers have already decided that any such person is "just a shill".

          (shrug)

          There's no way to win this argument. It's simply not a science argument--it's about ideology, and ideology is impervious to argument. The chimp brain will believe what it WANTS to believe, period.

          All we can do is laugh at them, ridicule them, and shame them into shutting up. Like we do with people who think the earth is only 6000 years old or who think Obama or Putin is a space alien.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 04:32:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I'm thinking a certain segment will (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mem from somerville

    no longer trust Neill on any subject.

    Personally, I think it's a mistake to take the "all selective breeding is the same" approach since horizontal gene transfer is not the historic mechanism for crop development. But to try to get anti-GMO advocates to think any deeper than "fields good, labs bad" takes having an open mind. (Getting them to understand any of the selection methods you've listed above, resistance of weeds to herbicides pre GMOs, that the amaranth superweed is one nasty plant that you can't even mechanically control, or that most modern tree fruit are clones with zero genetic diversity doesn't seem to work either.)
    I keep going back to the sociology experiment done in Germany in the 90s with GMO crop scientists and anti GMO advocates. It took 2 years of weekends in a locked room (in a beautiful castle) to get them to understand each others position. A draft statement was assembled on methodology, containment of field trials, etc. when some company (not the EVL one i think) said screw it and started field trials before a final version was released. AntiGMOers had their paranoid fear confirmed, this was all a ruse to get them to stop protesting while Monsanto et al did an end run. (At least one marriage between warring participants took place however. Love conquers all!)

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 10:16:14 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, perhaps. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      the fan man

      I don't think his case would have been the one I would have made first. But he's a professional science communicator and has a better grasp of what's effective on people.

      And you know what happened? Almost every headline I saw said "Chill out" or said "cut the fear" or something like that. So I think it was a net good for a teeny off-the-cuff unstructured video.

      And this went far and wide. Even the Daily Mail and RT had those headlines. I was watching.

      The result: a lot of conversations. Where there's more time to get into some details, some specific examples.

      I know there is a population of unreachables. But some of the fence-sitters might re-think this at least.

      What will happen the next time the mob comes?--Neil deGrasse Tyson

      by mem from somerville on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 04:41:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just label them (0+ / 0-)

    Let us know, and everyone know, so that studies can be done long term.

    Why not?



    Women create the entire labor force.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 07:10:32 AM PDT

    •  I got no gripe with labeling (0+ / 0-)

      My gripe is with using bullshit arguments that are simply not true, to GET labeling.

      There are plenty of good reasons to hate Monsanto and what they do with GMOs. We don't need to make stupid shit up.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 10:37:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site