Neil deGrasse Tyson tells GMO critics to "Chill Out"

[TimG]

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

NPR good enough?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies. This is especially true of corn farmers, who've been growing almost exclusively commercial hybrids for more than half a century. (If you re-plant seeds from hybrids, you get a mixture of inferior varieties.) But even soybean and cotton farmers who don't grow hybrids were moving in that direction.

[Moonlight Graham]

NPR good enough?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

Yes, thanks Tim.

[Moonlight Graham]

NPR good enough?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

Another interesting quote from your link:

Myth 5: Most seeds these days are genetically modified.

Actually, surprisingly few are. Here's the full list of food crops for which you can find GMO varieties: Corn, soybeans, cotton (for oil), canola (also a source of oil), squash, and papaya. You could also include sugar beets, which aren't eaten directly, but refined into sugar. There's also GMO alfalfa, but that goes to feed animals, not for sprouts that people eat. That leaves quite a lot of your garden untouched.

GMO versions of tomatoes, potatoes, and rice have been created and approved by government regulators, but they aren't commercially available.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

I was a critic of GMOs but this thread and some research has swayed me. Darn I love science & facts:

Massive Review Reveals Consensus on GMO Safety

"The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops."

That's the conclusion from a team of Italian scientists, who just completed a thorough systematic review of the scientific research conducted on genetically modified (GM) crops in the past decade. Their work is published in the journal Critical Review of Biotechnology.

Led by Alessandro Nicolia, an applied biologist at the University of Perugia in Italy, the team collected and evaluated 1,783 research papers, reviews, relevant opinions, and reports published between 2002 and 2012, a comprehensive process that took 12 months to complete. The records covered all aspects of GM crop safety, from how the crops interact with the environment, to how they could potentially affect the humans and animals who consume them.

I think a much bigger concern should be pesticide and fertilizer use. I also wonder about the antibiotics and steroids/growth hormones etc. given to animals.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

I was a critic of GMOs but this thread and some research has swayed me. Darn I love science & facts:

I think a much bigger concern should be pesticide and fertilizer use. I also wonder about the antibiotics and steroids/growth hormones etc. given to animals.

I would agree that pesticide and antibiotic use are significant concerns as they provide the needed conditions to encourage the evolution of increasingly more resistant bacteria and viruses, which will be harmful in the long run. One can take the view that in the long run technological progress will outpace biological evolution, and that we will therefore always stay ahead of "superbugs" and such, but personally I think there is wisdom in using pesticides and antibiotics only when truly necessary to avert catastrophe, not simply as a way to boost short term yields by a few %.

GMOs on the other hand hold the promise of developing crop species that will not need pesticides and antibiotics, so hopefully this field of technology can get past the public reluctance to embrace it and go on to unlock its full potential.

[Mighty AC]

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

My comment about locking up seed and herbicide sales refers to the fact that growers are tied to a specific seed and chemical combination both produced by the same company. I wasn't referring to sterile seeds. Genetically modified crops have been far more successful at increasing revenues for companies like Monsanto than than limiting chemical use or improving yields.

[Moonlight Graham]

I would agree that pesticide and antibiotic use are significant concerns as they provide the needed conditions to encourage the evolution of increasingly more resistant bacteria and viruses, which will be harmful in the long run. One can take the view that in the long run technological progress will outpace biological evolution, and that we will therefore always stay ahead of "superbugs" and such, but personally I think there is wisdom in using pesticides and antibiotics only when truly necessary to avert catastrophe, not simply as a way to boost short term yields by a few %.

True. There's also the health safety concern of many of these lab-created/chemical pesticides & fertilizers, along with the hormones/antibiotics and "sewage sludge" fertilizers. I also have concern for the damage to wildlife from all of this. Consider that huge swaths of farmland, often formerly natural grasslands habitats driven to near-extinction, are food sources and habitats for birds/bees/insects etc. If you kill insects and their predators off and/or prevent them access to food in these fields, this harms animal life tremendously, and has contributed to the crisis over shrinking bee populations etc.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/behind_mass_die_offs_pesticides_lurk_as_culprit/2228/

Behind Mass Die-Offs, Pesticides Lurk as Culprit In the past dozen years, three new diseases have decimated populations of amphibians, honeybees, and — most recently — bats. Increasingly, scientists suspect that low-level exposure to pesticides could be contributing to this rash of epidemics.

...

Today, drips and puffs of pesticides surround us everywhere, contaminating 90 percent of the nation’s major rivers and streams, more than 80 percent of sampled fish, and one-third of the nation’s aquifers (ie: groundwater, also used for drinking water). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, fish and birds that unsuspectingly expose themselves to this chemical soup die by the millions every year.

...

In Germany, France, Italy, and Slovenia, beekeepers’ concerns about neonicotinoids’ effect on bee colonies have resulted in a series of bans on the chemicals. In the United States, regulators have approved their use, despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency’s standard method of protecting bees from insecticides — by requiring farmers to refrain from applying them during blooming times when bees are most exposed — does little to protect bees from systemic pesticides.

[GostHacked]

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

It contractual. They cannot save any of the seed for next years harvest, unless they pay for it. That is the one major thing that has changed in farming.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

Monsanto patents many of the seed varieties we develop. Patents are necessary to ensure that we are paid for our products and for all the investments we put into developing these products. This is one of the basic reasons for patents. A more important reason is to help foster innovation. Without the protection of patents there would be little incentive for privately-owned companies to pursue and re-invest in innovation. Monsanto invests more than $2.6 million per day in research and development that ultimately benefits farmers and consumers. Without the protection of patents, this would not be possible.

When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us. More than 275,000 farmers a year buy seed under these agreements in the United States. Other seed companies sell their seed under similar provisions. They understand the basic simplicity of the agreement, which is that a business must be paid for its product. The vast majority of farmers understand and appreciate our research and are willing to pay for our inventions and the value they provide. They don’t think it's fair that some farmers don’t pay.

It's all about money for Monsanto.

Typically farmers would save their seed for next years crops. But when using patented GMOs, the farmer can no longer do that without getting sued into oblivion. This is a threat to the farming industry and our dinner tables on the whole.

[GostHacked]

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.

Monsanto did a test of wheat GMOs in the Mid-USA over a decade ago. They since cancelled that project. Real kicker now is that the damage is already done and the GMO strain is still showing up.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/06/us-usa-monsanto-lawsuit-idUSBRE9530U320130606

Article from 2013

(Reuters) - American wheat farmers and a food safety advocacy group filed a lawsuit Thursday against biotech seed developer Monsanto Co, accusing the company of failing to protect the U.S. wheat market from contamination by its unauthorized wheat.

The petition, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, seeks class-action status to represent other farmers it says were harmed by lower wheat prices as some foreign buyers have shied away from U.S. wheat.

It names Clarmar Farms Inc., farmer Tom Stahl, and the Center for Food Safety as plaintiffs.

The suit follows a similar action filed Monday by a Kansas wheat farmer, alleging that he and other growers have been hurt financially by the discovery of an unapproved biotech wheat that Monsanto said it stopped testing and shelved nine years ago.

You still sure they are doing what they can? There is not a farm on this planet that has not been affected by GMOs.

[GostHacked]

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

Saving the seeds is what makes farming ... wait for it .. SUSTAINABLE !!!! You know, the thing that the UN loves to trot out.