Bill Nye loves him some Monsanto and GMOs

[YellowSnow51]

Bill Nye, the bow-tied erstwhile kids' TV host, onetime dancer with the stars, and tireless champion of evolution and climate science, was never a virulent or wild-eyed critic of genetically modified crops. Back in 2005, he did a pretty nuanced episode of his TV show on it, the takeaway of which was hardly fire-breathing denunciation: "Let's farm responsibly, let's require labels on our foods, and let's carefully test these foods case by case."

In his book Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, published just last November, Nye reiterated these points. His concern about GMOs centered mainly on unintended consequences of growing them over large expanses-he cited the example of crops engineered to resist herbicides, which have been linked pretty decisively to the decline of monarch butterflies, which rely on abundant milkweeds, which in turn have been largely wiped out in the Midwest by GMO-enabled herbicide use. Nye praised certain GMOs, such as corn engineered to repel certain insects, but concluded that "if you're asking me, we should stop introducing genes from one species into another," because "we just can't know what will happen to other species in that modified species' ecosystem."

Now, Nye's doubts have evidently fallen away like milkweeds under a fine mist of herbicide. In a February interview filmed backstage on Bill Maher's HBO show (starting about 3:40 in the below video), Nye volunteered that he was working on a revision of the GMO section of Undeniable. He gave no details, just that he "went to Monsanto and I spent a lot of time with the scientists there." As a result, he added with a grin, "I have revised my outlook, and am very excited about telling the world. When you're in love, you want to tell the world!"

Monsanto's longtime chief technology officer, Robb Fraley, responded to the interview with an approving tweet featuring a photo of Nye at company HQ:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/03/wh

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

Well, he is a mainstream scientist so why wouldn't he?

 

[22*43*51]

Sounds like his trip to Monsanto was lucrative.

 

[SSG T]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Sounds like his trip to Monsanto was lucrative.

Monsanto has better bagmen than the SEC.

 

[HIWB]

Science rules

 

[Chillyhoff]

Has there ever been pure science with no Pre$et objective? Yes I am way too cynical for my own good.

 

[fredjr82]

Sounds like Sal may have sent a talking points email.

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by Chillyhoff:
Has there ever been pure science with no Pre$et objective? Yes I am way too cynical for my own good.

You're asking 2 different questions. Ignoring the obvious intent of the "$" in your sentence, the scientific method has an objective, whether broad or specific. "Is there life on Mars", or "is DNA a double helix". The scientific method doesn't operate effectively by saying "I hope to find anything and everything that's wrong with X by random chance". It works by asking a question, then testing if the hypothesis is correct by controlling variables in the experiment.

Regarding the money factor, sure, there's plenty of good science that isn't based on how much money one can make. It happens in thousands of universities and businesses every day. At the same time, just because the science ends up making money, doesn't mean it isn't good science. It's one of the many reasons peer review is so important.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by 22*43*51:

Sounds like his trip to Monsanto was lucrative.

Yes. Of course you're right.

 

[SalAunese]

Originally posted by fredjr82:
Sounds like Sal may have sent a talking points email.

Talking points? I don't engage in uneducated fear-mongering like the anti-GMO crowd does. I work with both organic and non-organic farmers and truthfully, most of you have little to zero clue what is going on behind the scenes or what drives organizations like EWG. I don't need to use "talking points" to prove a point.

This post was edited on 3/13 1:00 AM by SalAunese

 

[SalAunese]

If you're interested in learning about GMOs and the scientific studies behind them. You're more than welcome to attend this lecture.


http://www.talkingbiotech.com/

Professor Folta

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by SalAunese:

Originally posted by fredjr82:
Sounds like Sal may have sent a talking points email.

Talking points? I don't engage in uneducated fear-mongering like the anti-GMO crowd does. I work with both organic and non-organic farmers and truthfully, most of you have little to zero clue what is going on behind the scenes or what drives organizations like EWG. I don't need to use "talking points" to prove a point.



This post was edited on 3/13 1:00 AM by SalAunese

I think that's the issue here. I suspect people would not like what they see if they knew. It's pretty easy to look around me at the crap that's happening with people's health and notice that something's not right here, along with all the whistleblowers, revolving doors and other political corruption, supressed science, lack of science, peer reviewed science suggesting that it's harmful, etc. to know better than to stay away from GMOs as much as possible. When you walk into a bathroom and notice the toilet running and it smells poopy you assume someone pooped.
This post was edited on 3/13 11:47 AM by naturalbornhawk

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Nye's previous position sounds exactly like mine. Genetic engineering has tremendous potential and tremendous risks. We should definitely be investing in the research but we should be extremely cautious in the application.

If he is changing his position, I'll be interested to hear what he has to say. But I'd bet he is NOT changing that basic stance.

What I would expect if I "spent a lot of time with [Monsanto] scientists" is to come away excited about lots of very wonderful projects that could benefit mankind (and make good profit). But Nye (and I) already agree that there is marvelous potential benefit from GE.

I will only be surprised - and it will cause me to reassess my view of Nye - if he now supports a more careless (under-regulated) approach to GE products.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by HIWB:
$cience rules

Fixed it for you.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Nye's previous position sounds exactly like mine. Genetic engineering has tremendous potential and tremendous risks. We should definitely be investing in the research but we should be extremely cautious in the application.

If he is changing his position, I'll be interested to hear what he has to say. But I'd bet he is NOT changing that basic stance.

What I would expect if I "spent a lot of time with [Monsanto] scientists" is to come away excited about lots of very wonderful projects that could benefit mankind (and make good profit). But Nye (and I) already agree that there is marvelous potential benefit from GE.

I will only be surprised - and it will cause me to reassess my view of Nye - if he now supports a more careless (under-regulated) approach to GE products.

I completely agree with you. I am not against the basic idea of GMO. The problem is the current political system and lack of government oversight won't allow for the extreme caution.

No way he changes his basic stance, that would be too easy for most to give everything he has to say the boot, he of course knows that.

The problem is (from my previous post) that the toilet is running and the bathroom smells poopy. So my question is how is it that it's not a "careless and (under-regulated) approach to GE products" that is the current reality?


This post was edited on 3/13 12:18 PM by naturalbornhawk

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Nye's previous position sounds exactly like mine. Genetic engineering has tremendous potential and tremendous risks. We should definitely be investing in the research but we should be extremely cautious in the application.

If he is changing his position, I'll be interested to hear what he has to say. But I'd bet he is NOT changing that basic stance.

What I would expect if I "spent a lot of time with [Monsanto] scientists" is to come away excited about lots of very wonderful projects that could benefit mankind (and make good profit). But Nye (and I) already agree that there is marvelous potential benefit from GE.

I will only be surprised - and it will cause me to reassess my view of Nye - if he now supports a more careless (under-regulated) approach to GE products.

I completely agree with you. I am not against the basic idea of GMO. The problem is the current political system and lack of government oversight won't allow for the extreme caution.

No way he changes his basic stance, that would be too easy for most to give everything he has to say the boot, he of course knows that.

The problem is (from my previous post) that the toilet is running and the bathroom smells poopy. So my question is how is it that it's not "a more careless and (under-regulated) approach to GE products" that is the current reality?

We have a serious problem with the way this is covered. On one side we have the rabid free market types (and companies who have invested in GE) pushing the "government is always the problem" meme. Meanwhile we have the tree-hugger radicals using scare tactics to demand a total end to GMOs.

Of the 2 extremes, I worry more about the current winners - those who want to prevent or cripple government safety regulations. I wish the tree-huggers would have a better-informed, more nuanced position, but the truth is that if they win, they merely inconvenience us. Whereas if unregulated modified organisms get loose that have disastrous effects, it could be very hard or impossible to close that barn door.

Genetic engineering is the future. That's simply a fact. But Madame Curie correctly recognized that radioactivity was the future, too. Unfortunately, she carried some radium around in her pocket and eventually died from exposure. We need to be smarter than that - especially since we aren't just putting one person at risk when we act carelessly with the release of genetically engineered organisms.

 

[dalynchmob]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Nye's previous position sounds exactly like mine. Genetic engineering has tremendous potential and tremendous risks. We should definitely be investing in the research but we should be extremely cautious in the application.

If he is changing his position, I'll be interested to hear what he has to say. But I'd bet he is NOT changing that basic stance.

What I would expect if I "spent a lot of time with [Monsanto] scientists" is to come away excited about lots of very wonderful projects that could benefit mankind (and make good profit). But Nye (and I) already agree that there is marvelous potential benefit from GE.

I will only be surprised - and it will cause me to reassess my view of Nye - if he now supports a more careless (under-regulated) approach to GE products.

I completely agree with you. I am not against the basic idea of GMO. The problem is the current political system and lack of government oversight won't allow for the extreme caution.

No way he changes his basic stance, that would be too easy for most to give everything he has to say the boot, he of course knows that.

The problem is (from my previous post) that the toilet is running and the bathroom smells poopy. So my question is how is it that it's not "a more careless and (under-regulated) approach to GE products" that is the current reality?

We have a serious problem with the way this is covered. On one side we have the rabid free market types (and companies who have invested in GE) pushing the "government is always the problem" meme. Meanwhile we have the tree-hugger radicals using scare tactics to demand a total end to GMOs.

Of the 2 extremes, I worry more about the current winners - those who want to prevent or cripple government safety regulations. I wish the tree-huggers would have a better-informed, more nuanced position, but the truth is that if they win, they merely inconvenience us. Whereas if unregulated modified organisms get loose that have disastrous effects, it could be very hard or impossible to close that barn door.

Genetic engineering is the future. That's simply a fact. But Madame Curie correctly recognized that radioactivity was the future, too. Unfortunately, she carried some radium around in her pocket and eventually died from exposure. We need to be smarter than that - especially since we aren't just putting one person at risk when we act carelessly with the release of genetically engineered organisms.

It would be much more than an "inconvenience". If the anti-GMO side "wins", and end GMO's, there will be a great many people around the world who will die because of starvation. In places like the US, everyone would see a very significant price increase at the store.

GMO's allow us to produce the amount of food we do, take that away and you are hurting a lot of people.

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Nye's previous position sounds exactly like mine. Genetic engineering has tremendous potential and tremendous risks. We should definitely be investing in the research but we should be extremely cautious in the application.

If he is changing his position, I'll be interested to hear what he has to say. But I'd bet he is NOT changing that basic stance.

What I would expect if I "spent a lot of time with [Monsanto] scientists" is to come away excited about lots of very wonderful projects that could benefit mankind (and make good profit). But Nye (and I) already agree that there is marvelous potential benefit from GE.

I will only be surprised - and it will cause me to reassess my view of Nye - if he now supports a more careless (under-regulated) approach to GE products.

I completely agree with you. I am not against the basic idea of GMO. The problem is the current political system and lack of government oversight won't allow for the extreme caution.

No way he changes his basic stance, that would be too easy for most to give everything he has to say the boot, he of course knows that.

The problem is (from my previous post) that the toilet is running and the bathroom smells poopy. So my question is how is it that it's not "a more careless and (under-regulated) approach to GE products" that is the current reality?

We have a serious problem with the way this is covered. On one side we have the rabid free market types (and companies who have invested in GE) pushing the "government is always the problem" meme. Meanwhile we have the tree-hugger radicals using scare tactics to demand a total end to GMOs.

Of the 2 extremes, I worry more about the current winners - those who want to prevent or cripple government safety regulations. I wish the tree-huggers would have a better-informed, more nuanced position, but the truth is that if they win, they merely inconvenience us. Whereas if unregulated modified organisms get loose that have disastrous effects, it could be very hard or impossible to close that barn door.

Genetic engineering is the future. That's simply a fact. But Madame Curie correctly recognized that radioactivity was the future, too. Unfortunately, she carried some radium around in her pocket and eventually died from exposure. We need to be smarter than that - especially since we aren't just putting one person at risk when we act carelessly with the release of genetically engineered organisms.

One thing the companies who have invested in GE have done a poor job of doing is communicating the regulatory process by which their products are approved. Whether folks interpret it as "enough" or an "inconvenience" is another argument, but the fact of the matter is that every single trait is evaluated by at least 2 of the 3 main governing bodies that provide oversight for food and the environment (FDA[/URL]). In some cases, all 3 evaluate the trait. Allergenicity, toxicity, etc. are all part of this evaluation. In my opinion, many of the tree-huggers you mention don't understand this process at all. Cries of shillery (see this thread for a prime example), aren't advancing anything.
Fact: There are no other crops on the planet that are regulated and studied as rigorously as GE'd crops.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
We have a serious problem with the way this is covered. On one side we have the rabid free market types (and companies who have invested in GE) pushing the "government is always the problem" meme. Meanwhile we have the tree-hugger radicals using scare tactics to demand a total end to GMOs.

Of the 2 extremes, I worry more about the current winners - those who want to prevent or cripple government safety regulations. I wish the tree-huggers would have a better-informed, more nuanced position, but the truth is that if they win, they merely inconvenience us. Whereas if unregulated modified organisms get loose that have disastrous effects, it could be very hard or impossible to close that barn door.

Genetic engineering is the future. That's simply a fact. But Madame Curie correctly recognized that radioactivity was the future, too. Unfortunately, she carried some radium around in her pocket and eventually died from exposure. We need to be smarter than that - especially since we aren't just putting one person at risk when we act carelessly with the release of genetically engineered organisms.

I appreciate your middle position here. This is about how I feel about GW. We are stuck between the hair on fire folks and the deniers on that topic too.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by dalynchmob:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Nye's previous position sounds exactly like mine. Genetic engineering has tremendous potential and tremendous risks. We should definitely be investing in the research but we should be extremely cautious in the application.

If he is changing his position, I'll be interested to hear what he has to say. But I'd bet he is NOT changing that basic stance.

What I would expect if I "spent a lot of time with [Monsanto] scientists" is to come away excited about lots of very wonderful projects that could benefit mankind (and make good profit). But Nye (and I) already agree that there is marvelous potential benefit from GE.

I will only be surprised - and it will cause me to reassess my view of Nye - if he now supports a more careless (under-regulated) approach to GE products.

I completely agree with you. I am not against the basic idea of GMO. The problem is the current political system and lack of government oversight won't allow for the extreme caution.

No way he changes his basic stance, that would be too easy for most to give everything he has to say the boot, he of course knows that.

The problem is (from my previous post) that the toilet is running and the bathroom smells poopy. So my question is how is it that it's not "a more careless and (under-regulated) approach to GE products" that is the current reality?

We have a serious problem with the way this is covered. On one side we have the rabid free market types (and companies who have invested in GE) pushing the "government is always the problem" meme. Meanwhile we have the tree-hugger radicals using scare tactics to demand a total end to GMOs.

Of the 2 extremes, I worry more about the current winners - those who want to prevent or cripple government safety regulations. I wish the tree-huggers would have a better-informed, more nuanced position, but the truth is that if they win, they merely inconvenience us. Whereas if unregulated modified organisms get loose that have disastrous effects, it could be very hard or impossible to close that barn door.

Genetic engineering is the future. That's simply a fact. But Madame Curie correctly recognized that radioactivity was the future, too. Unfortunately, she carried some radium around in her pocket and eventually died from exposure. We need to be smarter than that - especially since we aren't just putting one person at risk when we act carelessly with the release of genetically engineered organisms.

It would be much more than an "inconvenience". If the anti-GMO side "wins", and end GMO's, there will be a great many people around the world who will die because of starvation. In places like the US, everyone would see a very significant price increase at the store.

GMO's allow us to produce the amount of food we do, take that away and you are hurting a lot of people.

See chapter 5.1 and 7:

http://responsibletechnology.org/media/docs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf

This, and glyphosate may be causing bee colony collapse disorder. We won't be able to properly feed ourselves much less the world if we aren't careful.

This post was edited on 3/13 2:36 PM by naturalbornhawk

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:


We have a serious problem with the way this is covered. On one side we have the rabid free market types (and companies who have invested in GE) pushing the "government is always the problem" meme. Meanwhile we have the tree-hugger radicals using scare tactics to demand a total end to GMOs.

Of the 2 extremes, I worry more about the current winners - those who want to prevent or cripple government safety regulations. I wish the tree-huggers would have a better-informed, more nuanced position, but the truth is that if they win, they merely inconvenience us. Whereas if unregulated modified organisms get loose that have disastrous effects, it could be very hard or impossible to close that barn door.

Genetic engineering is the future. That's simply a fact. But Madame Curie correctly recognized that radioactivity was the future, too. Unfortunately, she carried some radium around in her pocket and eventually died from exposure. We need to be smarter than that - especially since we aren't just putting one person at risk when we act carelessly with the release of genetically engineered organisms.

I appreciate your middle position here. This is about how I feel about GW. We are stuck between the hair on fire folks and the deniers on that topic too.

If it is possible GM crops/glyphosate are indeed in-part helping to cause the rapid increase in chronic disease, and the GM contaminates the non-GM permanently then is it not easy to see why people have their hair on fire?


This post was edited on 3/13 2:11 PM by naturalbornhawk

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

See chapter 7:

http://responsibletechnology.org/media/docs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf

This, and glyphosate may be causing bee colony collapse disorder. We won't be able to properly feed ourselves much less the world if we aren't careful.

Well that ruined my day. Life on this rock is going to suck in 50 years. Time to take fiddle lessons.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

See chapter 7:

http://responsibletechnology.org/media/docs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf

This, and glyphosate may be causing bee colony collapse disorder. We won't be able to properly feed ourselves much less the world if we aren't careful.

Well that ruined my day. Life on this rock is going to suck in 50 years. Time to take fiddle lessons.

Got any kids mwa? I can see where this matter would appeal much more to people with kids/grandkids.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Cudos to everyone............this was a well-informed debate. Wish more threads were like this here.

As for Bill Nye, I'll be waiting to see what he has to say...........but I highly doubt he's radically changing his position.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:
Got any kids mwa? I can see where this matter would appeal much more to people with kids/grandkids.

Nope and I agree. It almost makes one wonder if choosing to reproduce is morally justified. Bring a new mouth to feed into an over crowded world with over taxed resources seems like it might raise a few uncomfortable questions we don't often concern ourselves with in this nation.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:
Got any kids mwa? I can see where this matter would appeal much more to people with kids/grandkids.

Nope and I agree. It almost makes one wonder if choosing to reproduce is morally justified. Bring a new mouth to feed into an over crowded world with over taxed resources seems like it might raise a few uncomfortable questions we don't often concern ourselves with in this nation.

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:
This, and glyphosate may be causing bee colony collapse disorder.

This post was edited on 3/13 2:36 PM by naturalbornhawk

Can you link what you're referring to?
All signs so far point to mites, disease, and some insecticides being the main culprits.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Got any kids mwa? I can see where this matter would appeal much more to people with kids/grandkids.

Nope and I agree. It almost makes one wonder if choosing to reproduce is morally justified. Bring a new mouth to feed into an over crowded world with over taxed resources seems like it might raise a few uncomfortable questions we don't often concern ourselves with in this nation.

I agree.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by HIWB:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

This, and glyphosate may be causing bee colony collapse disorder.


This post was edited on 3/13 2:36 PM by naturalbornhawk

Can you link what you're referring to?
All signs so far point to mites, disease, and some insecticides being the main culprits.

For those that like videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HFDeno_5vU&feature=youtu.be

For those that don't:

http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BeesYet_Another_Suspect_in_CCD_2_.pdf

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by HIWB:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

This, and glyphosate may be causing bee colony collapse disorder.


This post was edited on 3/13 2:36 PM by naturalbornhawk

Can you link what you're referring to?
All signs so far point to mites, disease, and some insecticides being the main culprits.

For those that like videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HFDeno_5vU&feature=youtu.be

For those that don't:

http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BeesYet_Another_Suspect_in_CCD_2_.pdf

What you linked isn't a study. It's a book report on glyphosate and then a call to do a study.
Interestingly enough, from your pdf link: "glyphosate is not acutely toxic to bees".
Do you have a link to an actual study that shows causation of CCD related to glyphosate? Thanks.

 

[SalAunese]

Naturalborn seems to not to understand what a legitimate source is. I'm guessing someone that didn't have to do much research for their degree
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by dalynchmob:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Nye's previous position sounds exactly like mine. Genetic engineering has tremendous potential and tremendous risks. We should definitely be investing in the research but we should be extremely cautious in the application.

If he is changing his position, I'll be interested to hear what he has to say. But I'd bet he is NOT changing that basic stance.

What I would expect if I "spent a lot of time with [Monsanto] scientists" is to come away excited about lots of very wonderful projects that could benefit mankind (and make good profit). But Nye (and I) already agree that there is marvelous potential benefit from GE.

I will only be surprised - and it will cause me to reassess my view of Nye - if he now supports a more careless (under-regulated) approach to GE products.

I completely agree with you. I am not against the basic idea of GMO. The problem is the current political system and lack of government oversight won't allow for the extreme caution.

No way he changes his basic stance, that would be too easy for most to give everything he has to say the boot, he of course knows that.

The problem is (from my previous post) that the toilet is running and the bathroom smells poopy. So my question is how is it that it's not "a more careless and (under-regulated) approach to GE products" that is the current reality?

We have a serious problem with the way this is covered. On one side we have the rabid free market types (and companies who have invested in GE) pushing the "government is always the problem" meme. Meanwhile we have the tree-hugger radicals using scare tactics to demand a total end to GMOs.

Of the 2 extremes, I worry more about the current winners - those who want to prevent or cripple government safety regulations. I wish the tree-huggers would have a better-informed, more nuanced position, but the truth is that if they win, they merely inconvenience us. Whereas if unregulated modified organisms get loose that have disastrous effects, it could be very hard or impossible to close that barn door.

Genetic engineering is the future. That's simply a fact. But Madame Curie correctly recognized that radioactivity was the future, too. Unfortunately, she carried some radium around in her pocket and eventually died from exposure. We need to be smarter than that - especially since we aren't just putting one person at risk when we act carelessly with the release of genetically engineered organisms.

It would be much more than an "inconvenience". If the anti-GMO side "wins", and end GMO's, there will be a great many people around the world who will die because of starvation. In places like the US, everyone would see a very significant price increase at the store.

GMO's allow us to produce the amount of food we do, take that away and you are hurting a lot of people.

See chapter 5.1 and 7:

http://responsibletechnology.org/media/docs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf

This, and glyphosate may be causing bee colony collapse disorder. We won't be able to properly feed ourselves much less the world if we aren't careful.

This post was edited on 3/13 2:36 PM by naturalbornhawk

Thanks for linking that. While I am inclined to agree with dalynchmob that GM products will be an important way to feed people around the world, your article give some sensible reasons why that argument may not carry as much weight as I had thought.

Genetic modification of staple crops to increase or add needed vitamins and such strike me as wonderful ideas, even if they don't increase crop yields.

Genetic modifications to incorporate insecticide into a food plant make me nervous, even if they do increase crop yields.

While it's a good thing that we have agencies empowered to look at these products, are they doing a good job? How would we know? We have too many instances these days of the people to be regulated being the ones who write the laws that give them carte blanche. And when the right laws get written anyway, or were written in the past when consumer protection and other concerns held sway, Congress guts the effectiveness of these agencies by cutting their funding, or the Executive fills the oversight positions with industry people or political hacks beholden to the industries they are supposed to monitor.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by HIWB:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by HIWB:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:


This, and glyphosate may be causing bee colony collapse disorder.



This post was edited on 3/13 2:36 PM by naturalbornhawk

Can you link what you're referring to?
All signs so far point to mites, disease, and some insecticides being the main culprits.

For those that like videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HFDeno_5vU&feature=youtu.be

For those that don't:

http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BeesYet_Another_Suspect_in_CCD_2_.pdf

What you linked isn't a study. It's a book report on glyphosate and then a call to do a study.
Sure. Could you please point out to me where I claimed there was a study? What I said was this "glyphosate may be causing bee colony collapse disorder". Definitely well within the scope of the information I provided you.

Interestingly enough, from your pdf link: "glyphosate is not acutely toxic to bees".
Yes. Chronic. Still a problem.

Do you have a link to an actual study that shows causation of CCD related to glyphosate? Thanks.

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

What you linked isn't a study. It's a book report on glyphosate and then a call to do a study.
Sure. Could you please point out to me where I claimed there was a study? What I said was this "glyphosate may be causing bee colony collapse disorder". Definitely well within the scope of the information I provided you.

Interestingly enough, from your pdf link: "glyphosate is not acutely toxic to bees".
Yes. Chronic. Still a problem.

Do you have a link to an actual study that shows causation of CCD related to glyphosate? Thanks.

If that's your idea of within the scope of information, then I suppose semantics wins today. I should have just asked you to provide evidence that glyphosate is causing CCD. My fault.

Please provide a link to a study that glyphosate demonstrates chronic toxicity to bees. I'd like to read it.


This post was edited on 3/13 7:11 PM by HIWB

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Thanks for linking that. While I am inclined to agree with dalynchmob that GM products will be an important way to feed people around the world, your article give some sensible reasons why that argument may not carry as much weight as I had thought.

Genetic modification of staple crops to increase or add needed vitamins and such strike me as wonderful ideas, even if they don't increase crop yields.

Genetic modifications to incorporate insecticide into a food plant make me nervous, even if they do increase crop yields.

While it's a good thing that we have agencies empowered to look at these products, are they doing a good job? How would we know? We have too many instances these days of the people to be regulated being the ones who write the laws that give them carte blanche. And when the right laws get written anyway, or were written in the past when consumer protection and other concerns held sway, Congress guts the effectiveness of these agencies by cutting their funding, or the Executive fills the oversight positions with industry people or political hacks beholden to the industries they are supposed to monitor.

I'm assuming you're referring to current BT crops? 1) BT has been used in organic farming for the last 50 years and continues to be used today. 2) BT is a protein that's toxic only to insects. This isn't to take away that precautions must be taken when developing the products, but I also don't think chocolate is poison just because my dog will get sick if he eats it 3) Introduction of BT crops has been a significant contributor (if not the sole contributor) to the significant decrease in much more toxic insecticides being used in your food or in the cotton that makes your clothes.

I can't argue with your last paragraph because the degree of safeness will always be debatable, but in my opinion we can all be confident that the US has one of the most safe food systems on the planet.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by HIWB:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Thanks for linking that. While I am inclined to agree with dalynchmob that GM products will be an important way to feed people around the world, your article give some sensible reasons why that argument may not carry as much weight as I had thought.

Genetic modification of staple crops to increase or add needed vitamins and such strike me as wonderful ideas, even if they don't increase crop yields.

Genetic modifications to incorporate insecticide into a food plant make me nervous, even if they do increase crop yields.

While it's a good thing that we have agencies empowered to look at these products, are they doing a good job? How would we know? We have too many instances these days of the people to be regulated being the ones who write the laws that give them carte blanche. And when the right laws get written anyway, or were written in the past when consumer protection and other concerns held sway, Congress guts the effectiveness of these agencies by cutting their funding, or the Executive fills the oversight positions with industry people or political hacks beholden to the industries they are supposed to monitor.

I'm assuming you're referring to current BT crops? 1) BT has been used in organic farming for the last 50 years and continues to be used today. 2) BT is a protein that's toxic only to insects. This isn't to take away that precautions must be taken when developing the products, but I also don't think chocolate is poison just because my dog will get sick if he eats it 3) Introduction of BT crops has been a significant contributor (if not the sole contributor) to the significant decrease in much more toxic insecticides being used in your food or in the cotton that makes your clothes.

I can't argue with your last paragraph because the degree of safeness will always be debatable, but in my opinion we can all be confident that the US has one of the most safe food systems on the planet.

I'm a little surprised that you seem so trusting of a clearly underfunded and compromised regulatory regime operating, in many cases, under outmoded laws.

Also a little surprised that you pick just one instance of GE pesticide, argue against it and seem to feel that disposes of the entire concern. If the long term science says BT in those concentrations is safe, who am I to argue? But how comfortable are you without extended studies of other substances, as Monsanto and others try to rush to market?

Nor is direct harm to humans the only concern. We engineer pesticides into crops and then insects adapt. Now we have unnecessary pesticides in our food. Do we add more? We aren't just potentially harming kids (and adults and pregnant mothers, etc.), we are also changing the ecology where those plants are grown. What about birds, other insect life, worms, bacteria, etc.? It isn't just as simple as it doesn't seem to harm people - even if you accept that as totally true.

We have a number of odd things going on in the health arena in recent decades. The rise of asthma and serious allergies, just to name 2 that are routinely in the headlines. Is there any connection? Shouldn't we find out?

We want the benefits of GE. But we need to be safe about it. Profits should not trump safety. And when the folks earning (or hoping to earn) the profits are writing the laws and regulations, and/or buying the elections and politicians, we are exposing ourselves to unnecessary risks. Saying that we should just trust that we have a safe food system is not sufficient reassurance, in my view.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by HIWB:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

What you linked isn't a study. It's a book report on glyphosate and then a call to do a study.
Sure. Could you please point out to me where I claimed there was a study? What I said was this "glyphosate may be causing bee colony collapse disorder". Definitely well within the scope of the information I provided you.

Interestingly enough, from your pdf link: "glyphosate is not acutely toxic to bees".
Yes. Chronic. Still a problem.

Do you have a link to an actual study that shows causation of CCD related to glyphosate? Thanks.

If that's your idea of within the scope of information, then I suppose semantics wins today. I should have just asked you to provide evidence that glyphosate is causing CCD. My fault.

Please provide a link to a study that glyphosate demonstrates chronic toxicity to bees. I'd like to read it.





This post was edited on 3/13 7:11 PM by HIWB

In the video Dr. Huber refers to a study that was done by some woman named Falck? a few years ago. Apparently she put trace amounts (common ambient levels for her area) of glyphosate in the water for the bees and she noted a 34% increase in bee mortality. Google isn't much help in helping me locate the study. If I'm able to find it I'll post it.

As far as a study on chronic toxicity specifically I'm pretty sure we won't find one. It sounds like it's more of a deficiency issue where the glyphosate chelates with essential minerals the bees need to survive. That and it kills the gut flora of the bees which leads to the bees not being able to digest their food.



This post was edited on 3/13 8:15 PM by naturalbornhawk

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by HIWB:

I'm assuming you're referring to current BT crops? 1) BT has been used in organic farming for the last 50 years and continues to be used today. 2) BT is a protein that's toxic only to insects. This isn't to take away that precautions must be taken when developing the products, but I also don't think chocolate is poison just because my dog will get sick if he eats it 3) Introduction of BT crops has been a significant contributor (if not the sole contributor) to the significant decrease in much more toxic insecticides being used in your food or in the cotton that makes your clothes.

I can't argue with your last paragraph because the degree of safeness will always be debatable, but in my opinion we can all be confident that the US has one of the most safe food systems on the planet.

I'm a little surprised that you seem so trusting of a clearly underfunded and compromised regulatory regime operating, in many cases, under outmoded laws.

Also a little surprised that you pick just one instance of GE pesticide, argue against it and seem to feel that disposes of the entire concern. If the long term science says BT in those concentrations is safe, who am I to argue? But how comfortable are you without extended studies of other substances, as Monsanto and others try to rush to market?

Nor is direct harm to humans the only concern. We engineer pesticides into crops and then insects adapt. Now we have unnecessary pesticides in our food. Do we add more? We aren't just potentially harming kids (and adults and pregnant mothers, etc.), we are also changing the ecology where those plants are grown. What about birds, other insect life, worms, bacteria, etc.? It isn't just as simple as it doesn't seem to harm people - even if you accept that as totally true.

We have a number of odd things going on in the health arena in recent decades. The rise of asthma and serious allergies, just to name 2 that are routinely in the headlines. Is there any connection? Shouldn't we find out?

We want the benefits of GE. But we need to be safe about it. Profits should not trump safety. And when the folks earning (or hoping to earn) the profits are writing the laws and regulations, and/or buying the elections and politicians, we are exposing ourselves to unnecessary risks. Saying that we should just trust that we have a safe food system is not sufficient reassurance, in my view.

I never said we should just trust that we have a safe food system. I said that our food system is one of the most safe on the planet. Do you disagree? The governing authorities have adapted rules to regulate the new technology, have they not? What reasoning do you have that it is currently underfunded and outdated?

I picked BT because it's the most widely discussed, and widely used GE technology that is on the commercial market that has "pesticides engineered in" as you put it. If you'd like to discuss GE Papaya, we can but it isn't really the same. Other crop technologies (Roundup ready, 2,4-D, etc.) engineer resistance to compounds used in herbicides and operate by a completely different mechanism - but no one with a clear understanding of GE crops would ever say those crops have "pesticides engineered in". It seems that BT would then be the obvious point of discussion and not a surprise in this case.

I can see how my most made it seem like the only concern was harm to humans, but I'd already covered that in a previous post in the thread talking about EPA, FDA, and USDA oversight. No products are approved for commercial use without testing on a wide range of organisms. Again, in this case proteins are being engineered into crops that are only harmful to select insects. This is a fact based on the evidence at hand whether or not one decides to accept it as totally true.

Insects and weeds have adapted to pesticides since pesticides were invented. This is not a GMO phenomenon.

We have a number of explanations for recent health trends - our lives are prolonged due to advances in modern healthcare, thus, as the body ages and breaks down diseases occur. Meanwhile, we're all living a more sedentary lifestyle starting before elementary school, and we eat more processed food than ever before. I agree that we ought to find out the causes of health trends, but I also believe we use the evidence at hand and shouldn't speculate for the sake of vilifying an entire industry.

Regarding the bolded portion, do you have any examples of this? It typically takes at least 10 years to take a product from an idea to market with safety testing happening along the way. As stated before, there are no other crops that undergo this same type of scrutiny.

For the record, reduction of the amount of pesticides, both organic and conventional, in our food is a good thing.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

So, it's suspected that glyphosate kills the beneficial gut bacteria in a bee, potentially causing starvation in the abundance of food. So does glyphosate affect the gut bacteria of a human? It might make sense. In fact, Dr. Seneff came out with this idea before Dr. Huber did with the bees.

Seneff also seems to think that glyphosate has it's hand in the autism problem. As I stated before in a previous thread she says 1/2 of all children will have autism by 2025 if we continue our current path. The good thing about this to me is we shouldn't have to wait 10 years to see if she's at least close to being right. If she's right, we should be able to see some real movement in incidence in a relatively short period of time if the increase rate is anywhere close to being linear. Well, as long as our tracking can give us some somewhat real-time data. We're at 1/68 now. 1/10 in 2 yrs, 1/4 in 5.

HIWB, we've already hashed out several times Seneff's background and we all know a good portion of it is in computer science. It is what it is. So my question is, does the wise man who cares about his and his family's health wait and take his chances to see what happens? Does he buy into the Monsanto tobacco science telling him they are safe, completely ignoring everything that says they probably aren't? Does he drag his feet waiting for numbers to come out before he starts removing him and his family from the potentials, or does he remove himself from the potentials first?

Seneff may be wrong. I hope for our and our children's sake she is, but there's a certain something in me in the survival department that takes information like this and tells me if I am able, I should probably try to stay away from it.

http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/26/mit-states-that-half-of-all-children-may-be-autistic-by-2025/





This post was edited on 3/14 9:38 AM by naturalbornhawk

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

So, it's suspected that glyphosate kills the beneficial gut bacteria in a bee, potentially causing starvation in the abundance of food. So does glyphosate affect the gut bacteria of a human? It might make sense. In fact, Dr. Seneff came out with this idea before Dr. Huber did with the bees.

Seneff also seems to think that glyphosate has it's hand in the autism problem. As I stated before in a previous thread she says 1/2 of all children will have autism by 2025 if we continue our current path. The good thing about this to me is we shouldn't have to wait 10 years to see if she's at least close to being right. If she's right, we should be able to see some real movement in incidence in a relatively short period of time if the increase rate is anywhere close to being linear. Well, as long as our tracking can give us some somewhat real-time data. We're at 1/68 now. 1/10 in 2 yrs, 1/4 in 5.

HIWB, we've already hashed out several times Seneff's background and we all know a good portion of it is in computer science. It is what it is. So my question is, does the wise man who cares about his and his family's health wait and take his chances to see what happens? Does he buy into the Monsanto tobacco science telling him they are safe, completely ignoring everything that says they probably aren't? Does he drag his feet waiting for numbers to come out before he starts removing him and his family from the potentials, or does he remove himself from the potentials first?

Seneff may be wrong. I hope for our and our children's sake she is, but there's a certain something in me in the survival department that takes information like this and tells me if I am able, I should probably try to stay away from it.

http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/26/mit-states-that-half-of-all-children-may-be-autistic-by-2025/





This post was edited on 3/14 9:38 AM by naturalbornhawk

The wise man looks at evidence and determines if it is valid. The information you've referenced in this thread isn't based on experiments and validation - it's based on assumption. Huber decides to ignore all previous evidence and call for more study, and then you extrapolate that to "glyphosate may be responsible for CCD". Seneff used spurious logic and assumptions to write her book report that this graph does, and you extrapolate that to "glyphosate has it's hand in autism".

If we can agree that the above graph is absolutely ridiculous, then you'll agree that Seneff's conclusions are equally ridiculous. You can continue to keep referencing her book report, but I'm not going to entertain any more conversation about it. It's absolutely a waste of time.

No one is ignoring studies that say GMO/glyphosate isn't safe. The studies are peer reviewed and then determined to be valid - the same process applies to both sides. Does it not strike you as strange that these "studies" aren't published in reputable journals? Why hasn't Seneff landed a spot on ABC news to shout her findings from the mountaintop? When do we expect the EFSA, WHO, EPA, EU, AAAS, AMA, FDA, etc. to revise their positions on this subject due to her "findings"?