Monsanto

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hold up there just a minute. Glyphosate is an herbicide, not an insecticide.

Shhhhhhh! Let him go. Are you trying to ruin our fun?

 

[L.Y.S.]

This.

Politicians ignore science and listen to their Oprah-watching constituents. It's all about getting re-elected. I think part of it is also that Monsanto is huge and American.

So lack of competition doesn't equate to a lack of options?

 

[psionl0]

Hold up there just a minute. Glyphosate is an herbicide, not an insecticide.

Oh! Well that's different. Weeds don't evolve.

Or is it?

Some crops have been genetically engineered to be resistant to it (i.e. "Roundup Ready", also created by Monsanto Company). Such crops allow farmers to use glyphosate as a post-emergence herbicide against both broadleaf and cereal weeds, but the development of similar resistance in some weed species is emerging as a costly problem.

 

[ThunderChunky]

A more sensible way of saying that is that if you become dependent on GM seeds then it may become uneconomic to try to revert back to the non-GM seeds.

If your neighbour grows GM crops then you would probably have to do likewise to compete. If roundup resistant GM crops lead to the rise of super-insects, then it may no longer be feasible to use non-GM crops because they wouldn't be able to cope with the amount of roundup needed to control the evolved insects. Antibiotic resistant diseases didn't become a problem in hospitals until antibiotics were over-used.

Use of pesticides can lead to resistant pests. This has been studied, is a concern for the industry, and there are recommendations out there for farmers on how to help slow this down (keep a section of crops untreated, etc). No one cares more than the guy actually selling the resistance crop, because it's his product that will lose value.

This isn't any an argument against GM crops or pesticide use. If there had never been antibiotics there would be no antibiotic resistance bacteria, but then the regular bacteria would be killing us to. Same applies for pests. Either all pests are the problem or just the super pests.

 

[marplots]

Use of pesticides can lead to resistant pests. This has been studied, is a concern for the industry, and there are recommendations out there for farmers on how to help slow this down (keep a section of crops untreated, etc). No one cares more than the guy actually selling the resistance crop, because it's his product that will lose value.

This isn't any an argument against GM crops or pesticide use. If there had never been antibiotics there would be no antibiotic resistance bacteria, but then the regular bacteria would be killing us to. Same applies for pests. Either all pests are the problem or just the super pests.

Does it work the other way too? If I have plants with no resistance to pests, do they eventually develop resistance?

And if they then develop resistance naturally, do the pests then develop resistance to the resistance?

The flaw must be that the picture is too cartoonish, too linear, too one-dimensional.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So lack of competition doesn't equate to a lack of options?

I would think it does. Luckily this is not a problem in the seed business.

 

[Skeletor]

Use of pesticides can lead to resistant pests. This has been studied, is a concern for the industry, and there are recommendations out there for farmers on how to help slow this down (keep a section of crops untreated, etc). No one cares more than the guy actually selling the resistance crop, because it's his product that will lose value.

This isn't any an argument against GM crops or pesticide use. If there had never been antibiotics there would be no antibiotic resistance bacteria, but then the regular bacteria would be killing us to. Same applies for pests. Either all pests are the problem or just the super pests.

Pesticides are regularly reformulated, not much different than the antibiotics that go after the resistant bacteria. That 'battle' isn't going to end, so long as we grow our food where others (pests) can take a nibble.
I like to put it this way: If I grow something that I want to eat, I want to let it grow in such a way that nothing prevents it to grow to its full potential, and that nothing tries to eat it along the way.

Does it work the other way too? If I have plants with no resistance to pests, do they eventually develop resistance?

And if they then develop resistance naturally, do the pests then develop resistance to the resistance?

The flaw must be that the picture is too cartoonish, too linear, too one-dimensional.

I can't help but wonder if the wheat found in Oregon might have been simply a strain of wheat that became glyphosate tolerant. Since there are weeds that exhibit glyphosate tolerance, after thousands of plantings, shouldn't we expect to see naturally occuring glyphosate tolerant crops?

 

[Snarf]

This seemed relevant:

http://youtu.be/HIXER_yZUBg

The scary part about this video is how the 14-year old activist got on the anti-gmo bandwagon after doing 'research' for a school presentation.

I'm assuming that kids nowadays do their research mostly on the Internet, but dear lord, with all the bad info on the net to begin with how do these kids even stand a chance when they google a topic like this?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The scary part about this video is how the 14-year old activist got on the anti-gmo bandwagon after doing 'research' for a school presentation.

$100 says her "research" was streaming Food Inc on Netflix.

 

[Skeletor]

This seemed relevant:

http://youtu.be/HIXER_yZUBg

The scary part about this video is how the 14-year old activist got on the anti-gmo bandwagon after doing 'research' for a school presentation.

I'm assuming that kids nowadays do their research mostly on the Internet, but dear lord, with all the bad info on the net to begin with how do these kids even stand a chance when they google a topic like this?

Yeah it seems like she was well prepared for that exchange...but I can't say she 'won' any of the arguments she was confronted with. O'Leary acknowledged that GMO labeling will probably be the rule in the near future, but they brought up the best point of all: virtually all the food we consume is genetically modified in some way. She was also kind of rude when O'Leary was about to present the video of his daughter who had done research for both sides of the GMO debate.

But is she a shill? Wow, I haven't heard that term applied to one of these activists before. She definitely has the anti-GMO talking points down pat.

$100 says her "research" was streaming Food Inc on Netflix.

Not to mention hours of woo on Youtube. How does a 14 year old comprehend the science involved in all of this if it weren't for Youtube to 'explain' it to her?
Did anyone see all the related videos? This girl seems to be the rising star of this 'movement.' I feel kinda bad for her though, it seems like she's being used. I hope her parents keep an eye on her when she's at all these protests and rallies.

 

[Snarf]

But is she a shill? Wow, I haven't heard that term applied to one of these activists before. She definitely has the anti-GMO talking points down pat.

She may not be a shill, but I'm willing to bet there's not one adult in her camp that thinks it's a bad thing for her to be spewing their brand of stupid on their behalf.

This blogger touches on the issue of using children in activist campaigns. Different issues, but same general idea applies. Some highlights:

It seems that WWF had been visiting primary schools to “educate” children on the dangers of chemicals, giving them stuffed panda bears, the name of their constituent MEPs and stamped envelopes. You can tell ten-year-olds to write a letter to Santa Claus, and they will. But when you tell a child to write to a politician on your behalf, you are using them as lobbyists.
Environmental activists seem to have no hesitation in using children to emotivise their issues – sustainability is about their future. So getting children to stand up and simplify a complex problem and shame adults who dare seek a rational discussion is very attractive. If the end (“saving the planet”) is so great, then are the means (using children) justifiable?

http://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2013/07/15/how-to-use-a-child/

 

[Snarf]

More evidence of activists using kids to promote their brand of stupid.

In one of the most disingenuous scenes in Seifert’s film, he takes his two young sons Finn and Scout to a cornfield. Back in the day, he explains, children could scamper through such fields carefree. But now farmers grow so-called Bt corn, which has been genetically engineered to produce a pest-killing toxin. So, Seifert reasons, the plants themselves are toxic and before he and his sons can enter the cornfield, they need to take some precautions. The Seifert boys pull on white biohazard suits and gas masks and dash off, filming all the while. Seifert loses his sons amid the stalks at one point, but once he relocates them they leave the field and fall exasperated on the ground. Visibly upset, one of his sons begs for water.

 

[Skeletor]

More evidence of activists using kids to promote their brand of stupid.

That is, in a nutshell, what we're dealing with...theatrics being presented as evidence.

From the review:

While making his film, Seifert could not be bothered to seriously review the facts. “I didn’t really dig too deep into the scientific aspect,” Seifert told Nathanael Johnson of Grist. “It was almost more of the cultural phenomenon of our widespread ignorance because I feel that we’ve been intentionally kept in the dark, and then asking the question, ‘How is it possible that we’re all eating this every single day, and no one even knows what it is?’”

 

[Snarf]

That is, in a nutshell, what we're dealing with...theatrics being presented as evidence.

Theatrics is being too nice. As he stated to Grist:

“The power of a film is to—if it’s a good film—allow people to feel something,”

Which is his way of saying "Shut your brain off, and let the propaganda work its magic"

 

[Skeletor]

After almost over a year of hibernation, this thread's back!

I'm doing a speech on GMOs in my Public Speaking course, and there's this guy in the class that seems to attach himself to every bit of woo he can get. 9/11 (he specifically said Building 7) and "not believing the official story" is going to be his topic; he had strong opinions regarding GMOs and the failure of the GMO labeling measure on Tuesday here in Oregon. Someone thoughtfully brought up Neil deGrasse Tyson's views on GMOs, and this dude just shot it down, dismissing the opinion of one of the smartest men in the world.

I can counter all of the arguments this guy makes, but I think I'll give proof from research rather than appeal to authority by invoking our favorite astrophysicist. I gave out a survey before our class ended today, intending on getting data from the students' knowledge of the truth about GMOs. I intend on using that data to fine-tune my presentation. Any ideas on what research to present?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

See if he can answer this:

 

[Skeletor]

See if he can answer this:

That image is going straight into my slideshow! Thanks Scrut!

I plan on zeroing in on a few different areas:

1. Bt Corn
2. Tomato with fish DNA
3. Pollination of non-GMO crops

I surveyed the class, and a lot of people are completely mislead about what GMO foods are even sold here. 80% of them think tomatoes, apples and oranges are GMOs.

 

[GlennB]

An 'opponent' might point out that the worry isn't about the chemical constitution of the food (as per those identical diagrams of sucrose) but about the unforeseen consequences of GM characteristics spreading where they weren't intended. Or the social cost of GM, or whatever.

Similarly proponents of so-called organic farming don't rely entirely on arguments about nutrition to support their pov.

In short, the sucrose diagram might prove to be a trap that catches you. Be pepared

 

[asydhouse]

An 'opponent' might point out that the worry isn't about the chemical constitution of the food (as per those identical diagrams of sucrose) but about the unforeseen consequences of GM characteristics spreading where they weren't intended. Or the social cost of GM, or whatever.

Similarly proponents of so-called organic farming don't rely entirely on arguments about nutrition to support their pov.

In short, the sucrose diagram might prove to be a trap that catches you. Be pepared

I agree. That diagram is a condescending, patronising and smug assumption of intellectual superiority. It smacks of arrogance and is an insult pretending to be innocent.

As GlennB notes, it completely fails to address the actual concerns of the opponents to GM, setting up a straw man that assumes that opponents are just dumb and hysterical.

In fact, the opponents assume that commercial companies like Monsanto are looking for ways to exploit the poor, maximising profits whilst pretending to be doing work that should benefit all of us. It's more a political question than one of science.

There's a need to open channels of communication. That can only be done with an attitude that grants your opponents the intelligence to comprehend your information. Insulting them and making yourself look like an arrogant dick does not help.

That said, in a specific dialogue where the quality of consumer's experience is the issue, that diagram would be a very concise way to answer such concerns.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Tomato with fish DNA

A common misconception. Point out that there is no such thing as "tomato DNA" or "fish DNA". There's just DNA. Each living thing is made up of some combination of DNA. I forget the example that is always used, but we share 40% of our DNA with a, lets say, mushroom. Does that mean we are 40% mushroom? Of course not.