Neil deGrasse Tyson tells GMO critics to "Chill Out"

[Boges]

I love how people, generally on the left, when discussing Climate Change talk about Science and Reason.

But when science comes about that can increase yield and quality of the food it's BAD!!!! You have to spend exponentially more on organic food that's not GMO.

Well everyone's favourite scientist tells you hysterics to CHILL OUT!

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, perhaps the country's most famous scientist, has a message for critics of genetically modified foods: "Chill out."

In a video we first saw at Mother Jones, he answers a question, asked in French, that roughly translates to: "What do you think about genetically modified plants?"

We have been genetically modifying food for "tens of thousands of years," he points out, and there's no reason to fear GMO foods created in a lab any more than seedless fruits created through selective breeding. GMO technology might scare people, he suggests, simply because "people don't fully understand it."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-believes-in-gmos-2014-7#ixzz394e78SGn

Edited July 31, 2014 by Boges

[Shady]

deGrasse Tyson is an alarmist, but at least he usually comes at things with some common sense as well.

[Mighty AC]

I personally don't have a problem with GMOs in theory, just with how the majority are used in practice. Manipulating genes to increase the nutritional value, growth rate or shelf life while reducing the need for water or chemicals is a great and worthwhile goal. In my opinion, it is more or less fast tracking what could be done with intensive, selective breeding practices.

However, in reality it seems that plant crops are simply being modified for the purpose locking up both seed and herbicide sales. GM varieties of corn, soy and cotton represent the vast majority of what is planted now. This has lead to a septupling of seed revenue for companies like Monsanto but that's about it. Chemical use is actually increasing mainly due to the creation of chemical resistant weed strains from just regular use, not overuse, of chemicals like glyphosate.

In addition to superweeds, studies are also showing harm to beneficial flying insects and caterpillars from GM corn pollen and the inevitable emergence of superbugs. Bt from GM corn crops also makes its way into the soil, where it can hang out for 8 months, harming non-targeted, organisms. The harm to beneficial insects and soil microbes may be no worse than the damage caused by traditional plants and chemicals but the point is GM crops are not being used to solve these issues. However, they do very successfully lock growers into using one particular brand of chemicals.

U.S. farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of "superweeds" and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

[GostHacked]

Incorrect. We have only been genetically modifying for the past few decades. Genetic modification is different from cross breeding , selective breeding, and hybridization. As a scientist, he should know the difference.

[Mighty AC]

Incorrect. We have only been genetically modifying for the past few decades. Genetic modification is different from cross breeding , selective breeding, and hybridization. As a scientist, he should know the difference.

He knows the difference. We also modify the genotype of a plant species through cross and selective breeding.

[overthere]

If you are interested in a discussion of both accidental and deliberate gene manipulation several thousand years ago, check out the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

It's an excellent and informative read about how some human societies moved from hunting/gathering to agrarian, and the profound impact it had on the planet then and now.

[TimG]

However, in reality it seems that plant crops are simply being modified for the purpose locking up both seed and herbicide sales.

I call BS. Farmers have absolutely no need to use GMO crops unless they increase their profits. If farmers are using more herbicide it must be because they are making more money than they would with the regular plants (i.e. they are growing more than they did before). This claim sounds like a fiction created by anti-GMO campaigners. Please back it up. Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

He knows the difference. We also modify the genotype of a plant species through cross and selective breeding.

In the past we used cross and selective breeding to make crops more resistant to pests. Now we are using GM more and more to make them resistant to pesticides and hebicides. There is a difference. Edited July 31, 2014 by Wilber

[Guest]

To me, GMO is like salt and sugar. As long as I can tell from the label how much I might be eating, I don't care.

[GostHacked]

He knows the difference. We also modify the genotype of a plant species through cross and selective breeding.

But GMOs are deliberate manipulation on the gene level. Very very different. This is messing with the DNA directly.

[GostHacked]

To me, GMO is like salt and sugar. As long as I can tell from the label how much I might be eating, I don't care.

You won't be able to tell though. Read a label and let me know if you can tell what is GMO and what is not.

[Guest]

Yeah, I guess I'm not saying I can. I'm saying I should be able to. I know it's a bone of contention with food providers. I think all GMO should be labelled.

Edited August 1, 2014 by bcsapper

[Bonam]

But GMOs are deliberate manipulation on the gene level. Very very different. This is messing with the DNA directly.

Why is messing with DNA directly and purposefully and with knowledge worse than doing so unknowingly by selective breeding and cross breeding?

[Mighty AC]

I call BS. Farmers have absolutely no need to use GMO crops unless they increase their profits. If farmers are using more herbicide it must be because they are making more money than they would with the regular plants (i.e. they are growing more than they did before). This claim sounds like a fiction created by anti-GMO campaigners. Please back it up.

There certainly is a promise of higher yields and less pesticide use but those gains are short lived. Glyphosate (Roundup) use initially drops for 2-3 years and then rises quickly as herbicide resistant superweeds cannot be killed with regular doses. Over the last 15 years glyphosate use has risen 10 fold and the number of chemical resistant weeds has increased 3 fold. As expected, such widespread use of a single chemical inevitably leads to resistance.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

Unfortunately, in the presence of resistant pests, yields are not keeping up with the increased cost of seed and chemicals, to the point that it becomes more profitable and productive to grow non-GM corn. According to Modern Farmer, growers switching back to traditional seeds are seeing increased corn yields of 15 - 30 bushels per acre, while also lowering their costs by $81 per acre. Additionally, GMO seed costs are typically 50% higher than traditional varieties and growers are starting to be offered premium prices for non-modified produce.

• The group Farm & Water Watch reported that 61.2 million acres of cropland in the US are plagued by weeds that are resistant to the popular glyphosate herbicides.
• The cost of growing one acre of non-GMO corn was $680.95, the cost of growing an acre of GMO corn was $761.80 according to Aaron Bloom. That means it costs $80.85 more an acre to raise GMO corn.
• GMO seeds can cost up to $150 a bag more than regular seeds.
• The market for non-GMO foods has grown from $1.3 billion in 2011 to $3.1 billion in 2013, partially because some Asian and European countries don’t want GMO seeds.
• Grain dealer Clarkson Grain pays farmers an extra $2 a bushel for non-GMO soybeans and an additional $1 a bushel for non-GMO corn.
• The market for non-GMO seed is growing. Sales at Spectrum Seed Solutions, which sells non-GMO seed, have doubled every year for the last four years. Sales at another company that markets non-GMO seeds, eMerge Genetics of West Des Moines, Iowa, have increased by 30 percent a year for five years.
• Spectrum Seed Solutions president Scott Odle thinks that non-GMO corn could be 20 percent of the market in five years.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/american-farmers-abandoning-genetically-modified-seeds-non-gmo-crops-are-more-productive-and-profitable/5366365

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/12/post-gmo-economy/

[TimG]

Unfortunately, in the presence of resistant pests, yields are not keeping up with the increased cost of seed and chemicals, to the point that it becomes more profitable and productive to grow non-GM corn. According to Modern Farmer, growers switching back to traditional seeds are seeing increased corn yields of 15 - 30 bushels per acre, while also lowering their costs by $81 per acre. Additionally, GMO seed costs are typically 50% higher than traditional varieties and growers are starting to be offered premium prices for non-modified produce.

Great - whatever increases farm productivity in the long run. The only danger that I see from GMOs if farmers could not access non-patented varieties if they so choose (to deal with problems like the ones you raise). Governments may have to sponsor seed banks to ensure availability. Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG

[kimmy]

However, in reality it seems that plant crops are simply being modified for the purpose locking up both seed and herbicide sales. GM varieties of corn, soy and cotton represent the vast majority of what is planted now. This has lead to a septupling of seed revenue for companies like Monsanto but that's about it. Chemical use is actually increasing mainly due to the creation of chemical resistant weed strains from just regular use, not overuse, of chemicals like glyphosate.

One of the most pervasive myths about Monsanto is that they have designed seeds that will grow sterile crops so that farmers will have to buy seed every year instead of saving seeds.

But Monsanto isn't selling such seeds, and neither is anybody else. And the overwhelming majority of farmers in developed nations buy their seed from commercial suppliers rather than using saved seed anyway. It's not because their crops produce sterile seed, it's because commercial suppliers sell seed that produces more consistent and higher yield.

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

*deleted

Edited August 1, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

One of the most pervasive myths about Monsanto is that they have designed seeds that will grow sterile crops so that farmers will have to buy seed every year instead of saving seeds.

Also, for those concerned about GMOs getting out in the wild, sterile seeds are an excellent safety measure. It is rather bizarre that the same people who complain about GMOs complain about measures that ensure they stay out of the wild. Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

One of the most pervasive myths about Monsanto is that they have designed seeds that will grow sterile crops so that farmers will have to buy seed every year instead of saving seeds.

But Monsanto isn't selling such seeds, and neither is anybody else. And the overwhelming majority of farmers in developed nations buy their seed from commercial suppliers rather than using saved seed anyway. It's not because their crops produce sterile seed, it's because commercial suppliers sell seed that produces more consistent and higher yield.

Very interesting, can you provide evidence/links for this?

[Bonam]

Please provide evidence that 1) commercial farmers actually saved seed before Monsanto and 2) farmers that want to save seed don't have the option of using regular varieties.

If you look into you will find that buying new seed each year is the norm and the fact that the seeds are sterile is irrelevant to most real farmers.

You might want to reread kimmy's post. It sounds like you are in agreement.

[TimG]

Very interesting, can you provide evidence/links for this?

It is common sense in a economy where specialization is the norm. Why would any commercial farmer want to fool around with saving seeds?

[TimG]

You might want to reread kimmy's post. It sounds like you are in agreement.

I already fixed it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Also, for those concerned about GMOs getting out in the wild, sterile seeds are an excellent safety measure. It is rather bizarre that the same people who complain about GMOs complain about measures that ensure they stay out of the wild.

That's a really good point.

[Moonlight Graham]

It is common sense in a economy where specialization is the norm. Why would any commercial farmer want to fool around with saving seeds?

I don't want "common sense" I want evidence. Facts.

[Moonlight Graham]

Here's an interesting article about "terminator" seeds from the esteemed science journal 'Nature':

A technology called a ‘terminator’ was never going to curry much favour with the public. But even Monsanto, the agricultural biotechnology giant in St Louis, Missouri, was surprised by the furore that followed when it patented a method for engineering transgenic crops to produce sterile seed, forcing farmers to buy new seed for each planting. In 1999, Monsanto’s chief executive pledged not to commercialize terminator seeds. The concept, if not the technology, is now gaining traction again...

So apparently these seeds were patented (which led to the controversy) but never sold them.

Also, for those concerned about GMOs getting out in the wild, sterile seeds are an excellent safety measure. It is rather bizarre that the same people who complain about GMOs complain about measures that ensure they stay out of the wild.

From the same article:

In a strange twist of fate, terminator technology has begun to look more appealing to environmentalists. Organic farmers want ways to keep genetically engineered crops from contaminating their fields, and food-safety groups are concerned about contamination of food crops with products from a new generation of crops engineered to produce chemicals or pharmaceuticals. By ensuring that genetically modified plants survive for only one planting, “that technology would have alleviated a lot of environmental concerns”, says Holman.