Planting GMOs Kills So Many Bugs That It Helps Non-GMO Crops (arstechnica.com) 282
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: One of the great purported boons of GMOs is that they allow farmers to use fewer pesticides, some of which are known to be harmful to humans or other species. Bt corn, cotton, and soybeans have been engineered to express insect-killing proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, and they have indeed been successful at controlling the crops' respective pests. They even protect the non-Bt versions of the same crop that must be planted in adjacent fields to help limit the evolution of Bt resistance. But new work shows that Bt corn also controls pests in other types of crops planted nearby, specifically vegetables. In doing so, it cuts down on the use of pesticides on these crops, as well.
Entomologists and ecologists compared crop damage and insecticide use in four agricultural mid-Atlantic states: New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Their data came from the years before Bt corn was widespread (1976-1996) and continued after it was adopted (1996-2016). They also looked at the levels of the pests themselves: two different species of moths, commonly known as the European corn borer and corn earworm. They were named as scourges of corn, but their larvae eat a number of different crops, including peppers and green beans. After Bt corn was planted in 1996, the number of moths captured for analysis every night in vegetable fields dropped by 75 percent. The drop was a function of the percentage of Bt corn planted in the area and occurred even though moth populations usually go up with temperature. So the Bt corn more than counteracted the effect of the rising temperatures we've experienced over the quarter century covered by the study.
Entomologists and ecologists compared crop damage and insecticide use in four agricultural mid-Atlantic states: New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Their data came from the years before Bt corn was widespread (1976-1996) and continued after it was adopted (1996-2016). They also looked at the levels of the pests themselves: two different species of moths, commonly known as the European corn borer and corn earworm. They were named as scourges of corn, but their larvae eat a number of different crops, including peppers and green beans. After Bt corn was planted in 1996, the number of moths captured for analysis every night in vegetable fields dropped by 75 percent. The drop was a function of the percentage of Bt corn planted in the area and occurred even though moth populations usually go up with temperature. So the Bt corn more than counteracted the effect of the rising temperatures we've experienced over the quarter century covered by the study.
Insect's revenge (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Insect's revenge (Score:5, Interesting)
We already have roundup-resitant amaranth. I can't wait for BT resistant insects.
BT-resistant moths were found in Hawaii about 20 years ago, and were the likely result of an organic farmer who overused the pesticide/bacterium/whatever you want to call it.
Overuse of any pesticide, organic or not, leads to resistance - and embedding Bt into plants basically qualifies as overuse. Planting a monoculture of GMO corn in the same spot, year after year, surrounded by non-GMO corn growing in the same spot, year after year, is almost certainly going to lead to Bt becoming useless in the fairly short term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Resistance is inevitable for broad spectrum pesticides. Not all resistance mechanisms will be highly energetically unfavorable, eventually all control mechanisms will fail. Nature works with millions of narrow spectrum pesticides, slowly becoming less effective while new ones evolve (or occasionally species go extinct when a pest is suddenly unopposed, no problem, millions more where that come from). Humans accelerate this by orders of magnitude by just spamming a handful of broad spectrum pesticides. We sp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Insect's revenge (Score:2, Informative)
Bt is an organic pesticide. The organic farmers use pesticides just as much as non-organic farmers. In many cases they use more pesticides because the organic pesticides are not as effective and long lasting.
Some of our most common and effective non-organic pesticides are just synthetic analogues of organic pesticides that have been tweaked to enhance effectiveness and stability, e.g. pyrethrin/permethrin, spinosad/spinetoram, nicotine/neonics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's some trickery that is done with refuges and GMOs, to try to slow down the insect population's ability to resist bt toxins and their family members, but yes, ultimately there will be resistance to any and all pesticides and herbicides: The best we can hope for is good agronomy to slow it down, but that's difficult to enforce, as the behaviors that mitigate the risk also lower yields, and ignoring this kind of risk for a bit more yield this year is very tempting.
In practice, what is supposed to happen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Insect's revenge (Score:2)
So what happens if you create sterile conditions for crops, as a way to control insects?
You get your "certified organic" label because you're literally torching the earth with propane instead of planting friendly alternatives like BT corn.
Re: Insect's revenge (Score:2)
Bt is an organic pesticide. Organic farmers spray it in vast quantities
Yes, I'm very well aware of that. But BT corn is Teh Ebil GMO, so in their world it's not "organic".
Don't expect consistency from these fucktards.
Isn't that just called "herd immunity"? (Score:2)
Bees are bugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just in case anyone thought that a bug-free world would be a wonderful thing.
And imagine how deep we'd be in elephant shit w/o the dung beetle [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't matter (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm against GMO's until the owners of said GMO's stop trying to sue the shit out of farmers for incidental cross pollenization of crops. It's 100% out of their control and is a natural occurrence. If we could untangle GMO's from that shit, you'd see much less resistance to it.
Re:it doesn't matter (Score:4, Informative)
I'm against GMO's until the owners of said GMO's stop trying to sue the shit out of farmers for incidental cross pollenization of crops
No one has done that. You're a victim of propaganda. If you're talking about Bowman v Monsanto, it wasn't incidental cross pollenization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: it doesn't matter (Score:2)
Re: it doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
GMOs might have looked like a good idea in the 1970s.
Now everyone with a clue about agriculture knows we don't need them.
Right. Except for the teeny tiny fact that anyone who knows anything about agriculture actually says the exact opposite of that. Otherwise you're 100% correct!
Re: (Score:2)
Like everything the situation is perhaps slightly more complicated than we would like it to be, and there are groups on both sides who are heavily invested (financially or ideologically), hence vocal and unwilling to give any ground at all.
For links, I found this document [un.org], which was presented to Human Rights Council of the UN, by their appointed 'Special Rapporteur', last year to be rather an eye opener.
I have previously seen documentaries about the widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides and their effec
The driving point in all of this is ++Profit (Score:3)
It cannot be what may not be is the policy.
The minds of the actors in this game are convoluted and corrupt.
Good luck!
Translation (Score:3)
In other words, we expect you to pay up even if you don't use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not such good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Well when you considering that "Flying Insects Have Been Disappearing Over the Past Few Decades, Study Shows [slashdot.org]" and that "Even Common Species Are Becoming Rare [slashdot.org]", this may not such good news after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of that is from habitat destruction. This is even true where you might not notice. For example: in Florida and Virginia, because of some poorly-written Federal laws and European trade behaviors, we tear down complex native forests and replant them with pine monoculture. The replant should be a semi-natural using the same native species and attempting to encourage sparse repopulation in a first pass followed by natural spread to fill.
Yes, we no longer need to guard the pantry (Score:3)
We poisoned the food instead. But don't worry, they say this poison is friendly. Friendly to us, our bodies, our guys, our microbiome, our unborn children, to plants and insects we need to survive, to our ecology.
Like Casper, the friendly ghost.
And Monsanto will charge them for it (Score:2, Interesting)
(for varying values of Monsanto)
They already do it when the seeds drift.
If they can show the benefit of the GE crop has drifted they will assign a value to that benefit and send a lawyer and an invoice.
https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That article profiles Gary Rinehart. The suit against him was dropped, once it was determined his nephew was the one planting seed on Gary's property (with permission). The seed was patented seed (despite non-patented varieties being available, including saving seed if they liked).
Because Gary refused to talk to the lawyers to settle this before going to court (he kicked them out in ~ 2 minutes) they had no choice but to take it to court. Again, they dropped the case, and identified someone who was in viola
More plant diversity = more bug diversity (Score:2)
Good! how about intelligent use of GMO? (Score:2)
Sterile GMO bug killing plants YOU DO NOT EAT which exist solely to kill pests! ,etc.)
No contamination, corps get their money replanting without banning sane farming (seed collection, replanting, not infecting the genepool
Time for the rodent eating venus fly trap mixed with snake DNA!
How about a spider plant-- made with real spider DNA?
Scarecrow plants... ah, no... we didn't put in human DNA... (hey, did that plant just move towards us?)
Instead of wasting efforts to hide harm done to our foods by biohacking
Science, wonderful stuff (Score:2)
You hypothesize, you experiment, and then comes the bit that a lot of people struggle with - you LEARN. And then, the even harder bit, you don't repeat the mistakes.
GMO, as practiced in the early days, was a disastrous mistake.
GMO, as practiced now, is not peer-reviewed, is patented to prevent testing of claims, and is wrapped in trade secrets. That puts it closer to witchcraft than science.
GMO, as it could be done, would be properly and independently tested, peer-reviewed and would not involve non-specific
GMOs kill pollinators (Score:2)
Planting BT GMOs kills most Moths and Butterflies in the area around the field, as well as in it.
Moths and butterflies are pollinators, so killing most of them means killing most of their pollinated plants.
Many pollinated plants have very specific pollinators, so killing the moths and butterflies kills the pollinated plants.
Many times, if the species is not wiped out, the bugs will develop resistance in the survivors.
So eventually some of the bugs could come back slowly, in areas not inclement to the bugs.
A
Re:Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:5, Funny)
Are you a bug?
Re: (Score:2)
> Are you a bug?
My rare condition that you've never heard of is due to a malfunction in a gene we have in common with slime mold. If you are enough of a science groupie to defend Monsanto, then you should also believe in evolution and grok the possibilities there.
Re:Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:5, Funny)
> Are you a bug?
I'm a feature.
Re: (Score:3)
I see that you don't recognize that you've just made an argument and refuted it, all in one run-on sentence.
The rest of your post if chock full of false limiting assumptions, hyperbole, and silly panic.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think peanuts are poison?
Re: (Score:2)
please, let's not bring Jimmy Carter into this.
Re:Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:5, Insightful)
explain how it is that corn that kills bugs isn't poisonous?
Oxygen is poisonous to many living things.
Re: (Score:2)
Oxygen? That's a toxic chemical! I'll stick with all natural organic cyanide [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Growing anything to decent yields involves pesticides, in one form or another. Your typical Non-GMO, certified organic produce gets sprayed with pesticides too, it's just a list of old pesticides. Heck, compounds that you naturally find in many plants harm insects already. Humans have an immune system: Do you think that plants are helpless? What we do with pesticides, and GMOs in particular, is to make the plants 'win' their race vs insects and diseases faster than they would without is. Now, what really ma
Re: (Score:3)
Hm, missed biology classes often?
Like to recall what the lethal dose is to kill a kg of bugs and what it is for humans?
Ah, ha? Does it ring s bell?
No? Then shut your mouth.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:4, Insightful)
explain how it is that corn that kills bugs isn't poisonous?
Explain how chocolate which kills dogs isn't poisonous?
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... chocolate contains a toxic alkaloid, just in low concentrations. Your dog is less-good at metabolizing it properly.
Re: (Score:2)
So is oxygen. We're just good at living with just the right amount of it. Breath pure O2 for several hours straight will render you blind, unable to go back to breahing normal air, followed by nervous system shutdown and then death.
The concentration makes the poison
Re: (Score:2)
explain how it is that corn that kills bugs isn't poisonous?
Explain how chocolate which kills dogs isn't poisonous?
Bad example... Chocolate is poisonous. Humans can simply metabolise more of it. Chocolate contains Theobromine, which is the poisonous bit. However it has such a weak effect on us humans that it takes approximately 40 KG of milk chocolate to create a potentially fatal dose.
With pesticides, they're usually targeting a receptor or chemical that humans simply don't have.
Re: Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:2)
Have you ever heard the phrase "couldn't see the forest for the trees"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The things that kill bugs don't affect humans most the time.
Plants do have toxins which affect mammals to various degrees. For example, after a drought in Texas the surviving grass was fairly toxic to cows and it put off seed that produced grass that was fatal to cows.
Many foods humans eat require fermentation, cooking, aging, grinding, washing, deskinning and other preparation methods.
And it's a problem when humans eat these food "raw". Raw vegetables can be bad for you. Juicing uncooked Kale, Broccoli
Re:Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:4, Informative)
Plants do have toxins which affect mammals to various degrees.
I've got a plant growing in my yard that can give you a heart attack if consumed in large enough quantity (and it's not very much). If you use a hydrochloric acid bath to extract the alkaloids, wash away the l enantiomer with Chloroform (only the l enantiomer is soluble), extract the d enantiomer in ether (both are soluble), and then remove the single oxygen atom from the molecule using a volatile hydrocarbon as a wash, you get a white powder called d-n-methyl-alpha-methyl-phenyl-ethyl-amine hydrochlorate salt, or d-Methamphetamine HCl for short. Not something you want in your body.
If you nibble on it a bit, it'll clear your sinuses.
the surviving grass was fairly toxic to cows and it put off seed that produced grass that was fatal to cows.
Apparently the toxin in peanuts was evolved through selective breeding. By accident.
Let's not get into the whole capsicum annum species.
Many foods humans eat require fermentation, cooking, aging, grinding, washing, deskinning and other preparation methods.
Taro root, along with anything else containing oxalic acid or calcium oxalate.
Raw vegetables can be bad for you
Soy beans.
Re: (Score:2)
Bt corn contains a protein toxic to insects. If you consume said protein, it denatures in your stomach acid and becomes an amino acid nutrient source for you.
We used to spray Bt on crops, meaning anything that touched it--lady bugs, mantises, honeybees, the like--would pick up residue, and end up ingesting the pesticide. Now we put it into the plant by genetics, and so insects have to eat the plant to ingest the chemical. They chew on corn leaves and die.
Considering that the bugs damage plants becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, some things are poisonous to other creatures but not humans, and vice-versa. Dogs can't eat as much chocolate as humans and survive. Chocolate is thus a poison (toxin) but it's harmless to Humans (and many other animals).
Some of it comes down to pH, Human stomachs are acidic, insect guts are basic. It makes sense that strong chemicals in the complete opposite direction (pH wise) are going to have different effects.
Re: Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:5, Insightful)
What a massive load of fear mongering bullshit... The pesticides you're celebrating killed bees and other animals, seeped into drinking water, caused a worldwide spike in cancer, thyroid disease, and sterility. The GMO "pesticide" you're decrying is entirely natural and non-toxic to anything except for a few specific species of insects.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless there are side-effects from its widespread use that are not apparent from small scale use. Like most of nature, it depend upon probabilities.
Also, it is probably not a wise idea to screw with the bottom of the food chain, especially when we live at the top.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Did we know those pesticides were going to do all that before we started using them? I guess we knew they were harmful to humans, but never thought it would do all the things you describe.
I wonder what history will tell us about these "natural" solutions in GMO food. I'm no expert, but gut bacteria (for example) is just getting some attention, and isn't well understood. Do we know (for example) that eating GMO food doesn't harm gut bacteria? What about the bajillion other things we need to keep us alive and
Re: Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
butbut! GMO! evil! the devil! Unnatural!
PLEASE let us educate our GMO fearing, but responsible friends that love nature, that GMO tech is not dangerous, but PATENTS on FOODCROPS are!
#monsantostillevil
Re: (Score:3)
Just because that particular thing is natural in one organism, doesn't mean that it's OK to put it into a different one.
Welp, there goes our stem-cell research, then. /sad-trombone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole "gluten free" diet craze and celiac disease may be more of an allergy to genetically modified wheat than gluten
In Europe we basically have no GMO corn/wheat. Nevertheless quite a few people have problems with gluten.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Silly person. You’re using these pesky things called “facts” where as the GP’s fact-free opinion is clearly superior and more correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in SE Europe, and compare to us, the rest of you don't even eat wheat or wheat products.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole "gluten free" diet craze and celiac disease may be more of an allergy to genetically modified wheat than gluten
In Europe we basically have no GMO corn/wheat. Nevertheless quite a few people have problems with gluten.
For the most part "problems" with gluten in Europe are imagined... Same goes for anywhere else. Very few people actually have Celiac or a gluten intolerance and most people pretending gluten is a problem for them are just following a fad diet.
It's got nothing to do with whether wheat is GMO or not.
Re: Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in the pre-GMO days, sprayed pesticides could be washed off. Sprayed pesticides are primarily concentrated on the OUTSIDE of vegetables. Husks and pod shells are typically discarded and protect our food from being contaminated by pesticides. It was more labor intensive for the farmers, sure, but the food was likely healthier for consumers.
Healthier except for the people ingesting the pesticides that had contaminated their drinking water?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Why would producers genetically modify crops to tear up your guts from the inside? That does not sound like a viable business strategy (nor legal).
Based on that we would have no cigarettes, booze, opiods, lead paint, asbestos, or exploding cars.
Do you have such naieve blind faith in government too?
Re: Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:5, Informative)
Corn, wheat, and soybeans were some of the first crops to be genetically modified.
Total hogwash. There is no commercially grown GMO wheat, and neither corn nor soybeans contain gluten.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it doesn't kill us right off the bat, but I suspect it still does some damage to our guts.
I don't. The Cry toxin produced by Bt crops works by binding to a receptor that mammals simply don't have.
I am very leery of eating popcorn nowadays because it seems to irritate my guts quite a bit.
Popcorn is a specific variety of corn. People don't seem to realize it, but field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn do not come from the same types of corn. A lot of field corn is GE, some sweet corn is GE, but there are no genetically engineered popcorn varieties on the market.
Reducing pesticide sprays SOUNDS like a good thing, until you realize that the GMO plants and produce are pesticides themselves, inside and out.
What do you think is happening when non-transgenic crops are conventionally bred to more pest resistant? Chemical defenses, otherwise known as pesticides, are a key method of defense for a kingdom of organisms that can't swat at the things eating them. All plants produce pesticides, every last one of them. Every species you eat brings you more and more pesticides. With genetic engineering, they're just doing one more. I don't see that as alarming in the slightest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well for one there does not exist any GMO popcorn so your troubles with popcorn must definitely does not come from GMO:s. Secondly the exact method how BT works is well known and only effects insects, in fact BT is actually naturally produced and is also used as a pesticide by non-GMO farmers (including organic farmers).
And no you cannot just wash off sprayed pesticides, the pesticides leaks down into the ground where the plants roots are and thus is also gets inside the plants. Compare this with a GMO such
Re: Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:2)
Agree with all you said but I think your corn reaction could be a lifetime worth of systemic damage caused by eating plain, non-GMO corn. Unlike us, the original Americans knew corn is harmful without processing. Please google https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
nixtamalization... this (Score:2)
nixtamalization [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I am very leery of eating popcorn nowadays because it seems to irritate my guts quite a bit.
Check your gall bladder.
I had a similar problem several years ago. I'd go the movies and get the ginormous tub of popcorn. I'd wake up in the morning with a pain. But it would be gone by lunchtime.
Then it was a sharper pain in the morning. But it would be okay by lunchtime and be gone by dinner. But it took longer and longer to recover and the pain was worse and worse.
Finally, when it was really bad, I went to the hospital. I was thinking it might be my appendix or something. Turned out my gall bladd
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Can somebody who knows more about this (Score:5, Informative)
Bees consume pollen from Bt corn. It seems to not affect them in the slightest [umd.edu], in terms of survival, weight, and colony performance. Study notes there are many fiddly-bits we could look into to determine if Bt-fed bees are identifiably-distinct from non-Bt-fed bees.
They fed these bees using pollen cakes wholly made of Bt corn pollen, so they have maximized the diet. The only bees with a distinct statistical outcome are those fed Imidacloprid (flea killer).
Re: The benefits of GMO corn.... (Score:3, Informative)
Equate to large tumors in mice
NEWSFLASH: Rats bred specifically to develop tumours tend to develop tumours. This groundbreaking revaluation brought to you by "Dr" Seralini.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The benefits of GMO corn.... (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps ironically, in most cases this would be more healthy than either GMO or non-GMO corn.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Except (Score:3)
Killing bugs isn't a good thing.
You're right, mass starvation is a good thing. We need a good famine or two to kill off the idiots who don't understand the value of pest control.
Re: (Score:2)
There's this concept of living in harmony with nature and using old techniques to control pest issues
News flash: since the first protohominids learned to use tools, hunt as a team, and deliberately plant crops, we have not been
"in harmony with nature." Humans have despoiled "nature" in every continent and island on Earth. To live "in harmony" we'd need to start by killing off 99.9% of all current living humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it depends. If the bug population was only so big because they were feeding off of our agriculture, it's probably not bad. Agriculture creates its own little ecosystem. If you spend much time around corn and soybean fields, you'll notice an inordinate amount of mice and feral cats. The fields present a habitat where the mice thrive and the mice present a habitat where cats and owls thrive. The fields and their homogenous makeup that extends for thousands of acres reduces biodiversity and causes the
Re: (Score:2)
And Vaccines! A lot of them are made with genetically modified organisms as well. /s
Re: Just say NO (Score:5, Informative)
"Vaccines are beneficial, GMO has yet to offer any significant benefit."
Except the removal of various pests from destroying our crops? Avoiding famine is a fairly significant benefit.
"Vaccines are peer-reviewed, GMO is not."
Yes, and no. If you are speaking in a strictly academic sense, then yes, I concede that vaccines may be more closely reviewed than GMO crops. However, GMO crops are still closely watched, by the producer of that seed, the farmers who grow it, and the government.
"Vaccines are not made with the sort of GMO that is of concern."
Oh, I think it is of some concern. Fear of GMO leads to fear of Vaccines -> I imagine there is a wonderful diagram that shows a beautiful convergence between people who fear GMO, and Anti-Vaxxers.
"Only a moron links unassociated issues. Don't be a moron."
Ad hominem.
"Oh, and get off my lawn."
You seem to be associating my high uid with age; this is not the first account I've made on /. (lost the password to the original).
Re: Just say NO (Score:5, Informative)
Vaccines are beneficial, GMO has yet to offer any significant benefit.
Total utter bullshit. GMO has proven to be incredibly effective at its goals, primarily among them is increasing crop yields. The number one reason behind destruction of forests and other habitats is to make way for more farmland. GMO has already gone a long ways in reducing the landmass AND water required for farming. The reason you don't know this is because you're willfully ignorant about it and you're only willing to look for something bad to say about it.
Why do you think farmers have adopted it en masse, in spite of patent royalties often attached? Because it still reduces their cost. (Once Monsanto's glyphosate resistance patent expired, many university and other sources began giving the seeds away for free because they recognize its environmental benefits.)
I don't know your motivations, but presumably they include one or all of:
- Generally thinking natural is either usually or always better (false)
- GMO is a corporate conspiracy (false)
- GMO causes cancer (this is a whopper: the scientist who tried to prove GMO causes cancer committed scientific fraud, just like the one who tried to prove vaccination causes autism)
- GMO is deleterious to human health (false)
- GMO is bad for the environment (another whopper, people who talk about bad agricultural practices and tie them to GMO conveniently ignore that all of those apply to traditional crops as well.)
- GMO contaminates wild plants (In the past this was feasible, but not anymore.)
- We don't know what all genetic modification does, therefore it's better to ban it (false and false; unlike other methods of getting plants to have desired traits, we know EXACTLY what the modification did because it is very precise and targeted, whereas other methods we have no idea what all changed.)
- OH MY GOD FRANKENFOOD! They put a salmon gene in the tomatoes they sell! Scary! (This was actually an experiment to better understand how certain genes work. They've done similar things like put eye genes from a rabbit into a fruit fly, replacing its own eye genes. This was an experiment to prove that genes are modular between species. I somehow doubt they intend to put fruit flies on store shelves.)
- GMO is bad because Monsanto (This is easily the most senseless argument. Yes, Monsanto has a history of unethical behavior, and yes, they hold a number of gene patents. But this is as senseless as saying that we should stop using computers because of Microsoft and Google.)
Tese arguments are all very similar (if not the same) as the arguments anti-vaxxers use. They also, like you, believe that their hated subject provides no benefit. This is why those of us who take a more objective approach to this can't tell the difference between you and anti-vaxxers: You're the same thing, only with the sole exception that you're against GMO instead. Much like vaccination, nearly every scientist that has gone against GMO has credibility problems.
I'm not surprised that there are more anti GMO people than anti-vaxxers though, namely because of the billions of dollars spent to lobby against it, as well as paying lots of money to commission studies to try to find anything that they possibly can to use against it. The organic industry (which has huge profits and deep pockets, and many big name brands you see at every grocery store, gives them lobbying money) is trying its hardest to gain regulatory capture by having its biggest competitor banned.
Greenpeace is also lobbying against this, and in a really bad way: Organic food, which they promote, is BAD BAD BAD for the environment. Really, it is, and the fact is that it doesn't actually provide any proven benefit at all. Organic is incredibly wasteful on both landmass and water usage. Essentially, organic is what you get when you revert agricultural technology to what we had in the 1950s. If the whole world suddenly went on an organic diet, you would see mass famines overnight -- including
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But how about the insects that are beneficial for us humans one way or another? They may as well be impacted by this and that's concerning.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for your insightful and well thought out post. I particularly enjoy the part where you back up your assertion with anything at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does everything need to have a negative trade off?
Sure it is great for stories but in real life things are not fair or balanced.
They are usually trade off of some sort, they are not usually a measurable 50/50 split. Often they are 80 good and 20 bad. In many was it is less of a trade off but an opportunity cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Conservative crazies are worried about chemtrails and fluoridation. Liberal crazies are worried about GMO and vaccination. Keep it straight!