Skip to main content

View Diary: Neil deGrasse Tyson upsets the anti-GMO applecart (390 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Which anti-GMO applecart? (11+ / 0-)

    I don't particularly fear the health consequences of eating glyphosate resistant food, but that doesn't mean I want to buy it.

    There are reasons for being against genetically engineered food that don't involve hysteria or being a Neo-Luddite.

    "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

    by progdog on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:21:49 AM PDT

    •  Do you know how long Roundup lasts in the sun, (3+ / 0-)

      after being sprayed on a crop?  The breakdown rate of the compound into "useless" after it dries?

      That's important to know if it's something you are worried about.  

      I know that, because I have treated many animals that have been harmed by getting into Roundup-sprayed weeds, either eating them or rolling in them.

      That's readily available, fully-accurate toxicology info.  

      "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

      by mumtaznepal on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:58:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What reasons? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tommy T, Rick Aucoin

      I'm not sure I've seen any good reasons.

      •  I disagree with the IP law behind patenting seeds (11+ / 0-)

        and licensing them to farmers. If somebody buys something, they should be able to do what they want with it. Nobody should get to say "you have to throw away all the seeds that your crops produce or we'll sue you," and I don't see how you can make an argument that it benefits farmers or consumers.

        http://www.monsanto.com/...

        Are you more concerned with trying to make people look ridiculous than you are in having a conversation? Linking to a list of Snopes articles on Monsanto as a response is disingenuous at best.

        "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

        by progdog on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 01:15:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Compromise so we can get the benefits of science. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          progdog, Catte Nappe

          I linked to the snopes page to indicate that's the quality of discussion I expected to hear on this issue.

          If we're going to go forwards from this point on in a capitalist society, yet still want people to expand on food science, you need to have patents allowable on engineered foods made with that science.  I don't see any way around it.

          I agree it's stupid.  Science shouldn't be for-profit.  The world should not be based on a consumerist economy.  It's destroying the planet and will probably kill our great-grandchildren.  But that's not the world we live in.  So we must make pragmatic concessions so we can get the benefits from science that we need.

          Until we live in the world I'd rather have, I'll support whatever thing will give us more science.

          Because we need to do all the science.  To save us from all the other science.

          •  Pragmatic concessions are fine with me (5+ / 0-)

            Being so callously dismissive of other people is not.

            I understand your point of view and I don't hold it against you, but mine is equally valid. I don't fault the corporations who use this business model because they are compelled to do so by our economy. To the extent that I can, I would like my life practices to be consistent with my economic philosophy, and so that is what drives my decisions.

            There are also many ways in which patent law could be changed to help science while ensuring companies can profit from their research. That thing would give us more science for doing the science to save us from the other science.

            "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

            by progdog on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 01:55:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Until we adopt scientific humanist ideals... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              progdog

              If we could substantially revise our economic system, how science is funded, how patents work, etc...  I'd be on your end of things.  Science should be for the people.

              But I doubt that's going to occur anytime soon.  Until the day those changes can be made- and happen- I'll support the best option available out of a list of shitty options.

              I strongly suspect that labeling GMOs would have a significant detrimental long term impact on food science.  And right now, with climate change such a big deal for the future, that could make a big difference in terms of lives.

              If you disagree, that's fine.

            •  The both of you DO realize that many farmers (4+ / 0-)

              in India have committed suicide because of GMO patent laws. They have to purchase the seed at a high price, purchase the pesticide/herbicide and fertilizer specified by the company (Monsanto) and are not allowed to save the seeds for the next years planting. They were going bankrupt within a few years owing way more in loans to the seed company than they could ever pay off.

              People in Canada and the US with fields adjoining a Monsanto crop field were told to destroy their crops because of possible cross pollination. They lost an entire years crop, with no compensation.

              I'm glad you're both so comfortable with the patent laws.

              A fo ben, bid bont. - Welsh proverb. ( translation: If you want to be a leader, be a bridge.)

              by Gwennedd on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:28:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  But that's not a GMO issue (4+ / 0-)

          If you want to label patents, label patents. But there are patents on 100+ types of lettuce--and there's not a single GMO lettuce on the market.

          Linux for Lettuce

          Patents already cover everything from “low pungency” onions to “brilliant white” cauliflower, and a gold rush is taking place, with seed companies scrambling to claim what territory remains. Since 2000, lettuce alone has garnered more than one hundred patents; an additional 164 are pending.
          This terrible conflation of the issues is exactly the problem here. Punishing GMOs by not buying them doesn't touch this at all.

          And what if there are off-patent GMOs? The first soybean comes off patent really soon. Punishing that defeats your purposes as well.

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

          by mem from somerville on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:26:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site