Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Patents Politics Science

Stop Bashing GMO Food, Say 109 Nobel Laureates (nytimes.com) 470

The New York Times reports: More than 100 Nobel laureates have a message for Greenpeace: Quit the G.M.O.-bashing. Genetically modified organisms and foods are a safe way to meet the demands of a ballooning global population, the 109 laureates wrote in a letter posted online and officially unveiled at a news conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C...

"Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production," the group of laureates wrote. "There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity."

Slashdot reader ArmoredDragon writes: As an echo to that comment, one of the key benefits of GMO is increased crop yield, which means a reduced need for deforestation to make way for farmland. GMO food such as Golden Rice, which improves the micronutrient content of rice, and Low Acrylamide Spuds, which are potatoes engineered to have reduced carcinogen content compared to their natural counterparts, can possibly solve many health problems that are inherent with consuming non-GMO produce. And for those concerned about patent-related issues, many of these patents have recently expired, which means anybody can freely grow them and sell the seeds without the need to pay any royalties.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stop Bashing GMO Food, Say 109 Nobel Laureates

Comments Filter:
  • Quit it already! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @11:38AM (#52433647)
    Facts schmacts, evidence be damned. 95% of the GMO bashing dosent involve facts, evidence, critical reasoning or any type of actual science outside of social. Just like vaccines, more "scientists" decrying the naysayers won't help. Now if 109 music, movie and sports stars came forward we may be talking some actual change in perception.
    • by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @11:48AM (#52433737)
      Actually, social science is important for the GMO debate: a significant portion of it is how it makes people dependent on corporations with tight imaginary property control and what impacts that could have in the long run. That remains even if the biological arguments of the opposers to GMO are shown to be invalid.
      • by lucm ( 889690 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @11:52AM (#52433767)

        Did you even read thhe summary? Hint: look at the last sentence.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          what? Now we can grow round up ready corn for free? I personally wouldnt want the round up in my water and now we have the superweeds that don't respond anyways. Now those questionable genes are out there to pollute the corn. Do those genes without the roundup provide added fitness considering the way they were added? Do you know why the Svalbard Global Seed Vault exists or who runs it?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          This is not about specific crops. This is general risk. What is the point of doing GMO research, then? Or is everyone going to be using 25 year old crops? Wouldn't it be better for the society to agree on some kind of international legal and financial framework that would fund public research in GMOs?
          • The better solution is to not allow the patenting and copyright of what would otherwise be unprocessed food. Biological processes are too random to allow it to be under such control. You can copyright/patent the process, but not the product once it is out in the wild, "contaminating" everything around.

            Apples are a 2000 year old food, clones from grafting. 25 years is a short time. Let's wait a few generations to see what mutates before we decide it is unequivocally harmless.

          • Wouldn't it be better for the society to agree on some kind of international legal and financial framework that would fund public research in GMOs?

            This I think is the key to the problem. GMO technology could do bad things if it is not handled responsibly and in today's world the only thing you can trust large corporations to do is to look after their short term financial interests even, stupidly, when that damages their long term interests...and before you come up with counter examples just remember that the CEO can change so even if a company is ethical now there are no guarantees for tomorrow.

            I would absolutely trust the work done by publicly fu

          • by lucm ( 889690 )

            Wouldn't it be better for the society to agree on some kind of international legal and financial framework that would fund public research in GMOs?

            It would be awesome. Throw in cancer research and fighting AIDS. Now that we all know what's on the wishlist, do you have a plan to make this happen, given the huge success rate of international cooperation?

      • by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @12:19PM (#52433947)

        Tight corporate IP control and the potential for homogeneity in the food supply are both valid concerns wrt/ GMO food. But aside from the occasional, non-specific, and inarticulate rant of "Monsanto is teh evilz!"; a very tiny minority of the anti-GMO crowd addresses either of those issues.

        Instead, it's nearly all incoherent rants about how "frankenfood" is not what "mother nature" intended for us to eat. They don't cite scientific research to support their arguments, they cite "alternative medicine" websites and some random person's blog. They don't use dispassionate reason and peer review, they use scare tactics and heartstrings. Sorry. But these are not the sort of people with whom I care to have any sort of conversation.

        We can solve the corporate control problem with patent reform. Drop them back to the original term of 14 years, close the "change one minor thing and re-patent" loophole, and make damn sure they STAY at 14 years and don't let them ever become renewable or extended and grow out of control like copyright has. Frankly, I don't begrudge a business a 14-year monopoly on "super rice" or "Roundup Ready" whatever... Or, for that matter, a song or a movie, 14 years would be perfectly fine and respectable for copyright too... so long as everything did truly enter the public domain at the end of that term.

        The problem of very productive GMOs encouraging homogeneity in the food supply would be a bit harder and would require more nuance, and possibly regulation, to solve. But I'm sure if we disregard the scaremongers and consider things reasonably; we could work the problem and figure a solution.

        • There has always been a homogeneity problem. Well before GMO. One has little to with the other. Look at nonGMO bananas, rice, oats, soy, and potatoes.

          You can count on one hand all the globally mass produced variants of the above. To mass produce, we standardize and thus homogenize.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by jedidiah ( 1196 )

            Yes, there has always been a tendency for large corporations to overshadow culinary diversity. That is not an excuse to embrace something that's not just a monoculture but a monoculture that's owned lock stock and barrel by some megacorp.

            I turn my nose up at GMO food for the same snooty reasons I would turn my nose up at boring varieties of produce in general.

            Concerns about safety and patent abuse don't even have to enter the picture.

            That is why this whole big fat appeal to authority is just such big fat no

        • "We can solve the corporate control problem with patent reform." -- No, we can't. It literally cannot be done. It is not impossible, but it will not happen on a timeframe to make a difference in the gmo debate. So most of your comment goes out the window.

          Inb4 With that attitude of course not... I do everything I can reasonably do in support of copyright and patent reform. The legal minefield is just too complicated to make meaningful changes without a dug in obamacare level fight. And money will win that on

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

          Tight corporate IP control and the potential for homogeneity in the food supply are both valid concerns wrt/ GMO food. But aside from the occasional, non-specific, and inarticulate rant of "Monsanto is teh evilz!"; a very tiny minority of the anti-GMO crowd addresses either of those issues.

          That's not true. I find it's more like 50-50. People are starting to figure out the social, political and economic problems associated with GMOs.

          Me, I don't care about food safety. If I did, I wouldn't have eaten that

        • Re:Quit it already! (Score:4, Informative)

          by SlaveToTheGrind ( 546262 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @01:45PM (#52434509)

          It's amazing how much misunderstanding of the U.S. patent system (and its history) you've packed into a single sentence.

          Drop them back to the original term of 14 years

          Sounds enticing on the surface, but keep in mind that was 14 years from issue. The U.S. didn't start measuring term from filing until 1995. Before that, people like Jerome Lemelson could manipulate the system by keeping applications tied up in the Patent Office literally for decades, all the while massaging the claims to cover wherever the market happened to be going in the meantime, and still get 17 years of fresh term when each patent finally was issued. I doubt you really want to go back to that kind of a system. And given that it can often take 3+ years for the Patent Office to examine a patent, the current term of 20 years from the filing date isn't effectively that much longer than the scheme you're proposing going back to.

          close the "change one minor thing and re-patent" loophole

          No such "loophole" exists. Right now today, advances over the prior art are only patentable if they would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 35 U.S.C. 103. If your real quibble is that the Patent Office issues too many patents with claims that actually would have been obvious, I won't disagree, but the solution is to more consistently enforce the rules that currently exist, not change them. The new procedures put in place by the America Invents Act (such as inter partes review) are helping with this a great deal.

          and make damn sure they STAY at 14 years and don't let them ever become renewable or extended and grow out of control like copyright has.

          Nobody is suggesting doing any of these things, so there's nothing to "reform."

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by KiloByte ( 825081 )

      Facts can be cherry-picked, or, as in this case, lumped into one basket when you need to look for differences.

      GMO in general are not harmful. Certain modifications by Monsanto, and nearly 100% of their tactics, are massively harmful.

      • The real risk inherent in genetically modified organisms involves the fact that genetic manipulation is becoming increasingly arbitrary, with new techniques that essentially allow building up of genomes or sections of them from human-designed or computer-designed combinations of the basic letters AGTC.

        Thus it will become possible to create organisms that are almost arbitrarily different than existing organisms.

        It is far from inconceivable that one of these substantially-artificial organisms could take over

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Now if 109 music, movie and sports stars came forward we may be talking some actual change in perception.

      I think you hit the nail on the head. No teen or millennial gives a shit about what some egghead scientist with decades of experience says, but if Kanye or Kim Kardashian or Daenerys Targaryen came out in favor of GMOs then you'd get a tidal wave of popular support. Facebook would explode with 'Likes" for GMOs and the debate would be over.

      But seriously, you're right. No one under 30 or 40 is going to waste their time listing to "facts" and "research" and boring old stuff like that. They want titties and sic

    • Now if 109 music, movie and sports stars came forward we may be talking some actual change in perception.

      A large number of the NLs that signed have exactly as much biology/nutritional experience as movie and sports stars.

      Understand that I do not have an issue with the proper and safe application of gene manipulation in the food chain or elsewhere. My issue rests entirely on NLs leveraging their social status to sway opinions in matters in which they are no better qualified than Bono or Mike Tyson. NLs should know better, and it diminishes the title when this happens.

      This does not apply to the NLs on th

      • > NLs leveraging their social status to sway opinions in matters in which they are no better qualified than Bono or Mike Tyson.

        I bet you can't name a single nobel laurete who isn't OBVIOUSLY smarter than Mike Tyson in general. Any NL is highly literate, which makes them more qualified than Tyson on any subject other than perhaps boxing, and ear bitingb

    • Patents, related collusion/corruption are the main problem with GMOs my friend.

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @03:11PM (#52434977)

      GMO is for Liberals
      As
      Global Warming is for conservatives

      Liberals have a hard time realizing that something is safe.
      While conservatives have a hard time realizing that something is dangerious.

      We need to take the political nonsence out of science and teach science as it suppose to be a method of determining truth by a rigorous set of rules. Let's not put on TV every new hypothesis and call it a theory. So people jump blindly on scientific guesses before the process runs it corse.

  • by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @11:39AM (#52433653)

    So far all I hear are a bunch of "concerned" people with various naturistic hippybullshit beliefs, or unspecified concerns over "genetic modifications", ignoring the wide variety of things that are being done, and the fact that everything we eat has been genetically modified by cultivation or quicker means. We should not create new religions, prove it or it doesn't exist.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by reboot246 ( 623534 )
      Hear this ----> glyphosate resistant weeds.

      Don't go playing God until you know what you're doing.
      • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

        Hear this ----> glyphosate resistant weeds.

        Now explain to us why glyphosate resistance is bad. No, really. Are we reserving glyphosate for some distant future when weeds become mobile super predators, and nobody's publicized the fact?

        Glyphosate was a broad spectrum herbicide that could only be used to annihilate plant cover. Roundup-ready crops added a gene that provided glyphosate resistance, allowing gyphosate to be used like a selective herbicide. We have plenty of non-selective herbicides. We ha

    • I'm not convinced that, with sliding genes and epigenetic changes, and other ways to modify expression, that we understand all of the risks.

      Can't prove it is bad without the science to prove it is harmless. So standoff.

      I'm fine putting it in starving nations and letting nature sort it out, but I think eating it directly is premature, since I have a choice.

      The entire point of this account is to point out to people how they have made decisions or opinions or assumptions without having enough data. Especially

  • Oh really (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sigvatr ( 1207234 )
    Yeah that's all fine and good but have you read *obscure mommy blog article*
  • More than 100 Nobel laureates also think that everyone should stop worrying about AI's turning into SkyNet.

    Along those same lines, more than 100 Nobel laureates think that the undead apocalypse will never happen.
  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @11:44AM (#52433703) Journal

    "But I read on the internets that GMO food is made by Big Corporation whose only motive is to line their pockets, not help people. These foods will change our DNA to make us docile and less fertile so the elites can lord over us. And the food tastes like crap, too."

    Yet when asked to show the evidence for such statements they always come back with, "I can't remember" or we find out the source they read is nothing but a conspiracy web site or a completely discredited report.

    But they'll continue to maintain they're right and everyone else, including every scientist who performed a study showing there is no issue with GMO food, is wrong and is only saying things are okay because they're in the pocket of Big Corporation.

    • by Morpeth ( 577066 )

      Pro-vaccine but anti-GMO here, don't lump people into one group. Some of us are concerned about ecological implications of GMO as well as predatory and questionable business practices of companies like Monsanto. GMO isn't JUST about the food, there's a bigger picture to take into account.

  • Information is key (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzyf ( 1129635 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @11:45AM (#52433713)
    I was previously against any GMO food, but after learning more about the subject it might not be that bad. I'm not saying GMO is solid, but it certainly is not one sided evil. I think the challenge for both perspectives is real information. Currently it's mostly FUD (on the no side) and Marketspeak (on the yes side).
    Information is key.

    I can recommend listening to dotnetrocks geek out on GMO here https://www.dotnetrocks.com/?s... [dotnetrocks.com]

    I know .net is not popular around these parts, but the geek outs on dotnetrocks is really cool. Richard is awesome at reading up on specific topics, and that show really has some cool insight into gmo. They even made a followup in may. Also worth listening too.
  • one of the key benefits of GMO is increased crop yield

    Only if you use the farming methods which are already devastating our cropland. Contrary to popular belief, organic farming doesn't mean that you only use stuff on the USDA approved list. It means a cyclical system in which feces gets returned to the fields. This is a perfectly safe thing to do if you observe basic safety standards, and if you're not overmedicating your population so severely that their waste becomes a health hazard on that basis; crap left to sit around for a year turns into dirt. It can happen much more quickly if you add a little compost and stir it occasionally, but that's not strictly necessary. Or you can use systems like AIWPS [sdsu.edu] to permit the use of ordinary flush toilets and sewer architecture.

    Tilth is not in itself inherently harmful, although it is unnecessary and a waste of energy input. Monocropping is inherently harmful, especially when it is done continuously, without the benefit of crop rotation. This has become more and more common in factory farming. This is essentially hydroponic farming in a soil medium. Everything that the plant needs has to be supplied manually, and it's done using synthetic fertilizers made from petroleum.

    It's not that GMO is inherently bad. It's that the majority of it is controlled by untrustworthy assholes who use it to no good end. They're patenting life and selling it back to us.

    • by Khyber ( 864651 )

      "Only if you use the farming methods which are already devastating our cropland. "

      In what world does hydroponics not apply to GMO?

    • This is a perfectly safe thing to do if you observe basic safety standards, and if you're not overmedicating your population so severely that their waste becomes a health hazard on that basis; crap left to sit around for a year turns into dirt.

      Enjoy your parasitic Helminth worm infestation...

      This is precisely how plagues start.

      • crap left to sit around for a year turns into dirt.

        Enjoy your parasitic Helminth worm infestation...
        This is precisely how plagues start.

        If only you had ever composted anything, you would know that heat alone will solve that problem if you only put all the crap in one pile.

        • I'm going to side with every state and federal regulatory agency in the US, which bans any use of human waste on food crops, over your assertion that it's trivially easy to render safe.

    • in which feces gets returned to the fields

      I guess we finally know the meaning behind your username...

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @11:52AM (#52433763)
    when companies like Monstanto can't use our patent system to control people's access to food. I've seen poor countries have to turn down offers for free grain because they can't risk the GMO stuff being planted and then their farmers getting shaken down. It's _food_. Just regulate it already so there's enough profit motive to keep people interested as opposed to living like god-kings.
    • by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @01:10PM (#52434285)

      Why don't you bash Monsanto instead of bashing GMOs? It's like bashing Ford for bad drivers.

      • It's more like bashing Ford for it's role (along with GM) in, say, killing off public transit or the electric car. The producer is distorting the market and large parts of human civilization for their long term profit; and doing it at a scale that's hard to grasp...
      • Its like Ford towing away your current car, putting in their own car in its place and then demanding money from you for the car they just put in stating that because its in your parking spot you own it and have to pay them for it.

    • Just regulate it already so there's enough profit motive to keep people interested as opposed to living like god-kings.

      1. How much is "enough profit motive to keep people interested"?
      2. How do you know "companies like Monsanto" are currently making more than that? (Bonus question: If they are, how much cheaper do you think their products would be at the "enough profit motive" level?)
      3. How would these companies continue to have "enough profit motive" to engage in R&D in a world where farmers need only buy seeds from them once, then replant saved seed every year thereafter?

  • Modified over tens, hundreds, or thousands of years of selective breeding for the desired traits.

    Just kidding, kinda.

    I do wonder a bit though when we start putting arctic fish genes into plants to make them frost tolerant[1]

    Or "insecticides" into food crops[2]

    I do want plenty of testing before it starts showing up grocery store shelves.


    [1] http://www.public.iastate.edu/... [iastate.edu]
    [2] http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/vista... [uiuc.edu]

  • ...but none of those dangers are the ones the anti-GMO idiots are ranting about. And they're mostly philosophical or theoretical dangers, such as effects of biological "intellectual property". Meanwhile, they discount that GMO food could be safer, via having reductions in natural toxins or artificial pesticides. Also GMOs have an intelligent design process plus testing (rather than random mutation and no testing). For a good laugh, compare the list of dangers an environut claims vs those from a biologist.

  • Assume all modifications are safe.

    Are all humans working with them perfect and not malevolent? (No.)
    Can we ensure no cross contamination or impact to other species (plants, insects, whatever) is ever possible? (No.)

    Further:

    A select few individuals on the planet control the vast majority of the food supply. They control the direction its going, the cost to buy seeds, and the seeds themselves because they've been engineered not to germinate or produce viable offspring past the first generation.

    The food sup

  • I have over and over gripped about the same thing. Seriously, the lack of logic on ithe anti-GMP types is nothing less than amazing.
    The reason why ppl scream about GMO food is that a FEW of the modifications has been to make these plants resistant to round-up. TO be honest, that is stupid that they are doing that. It will only be a matter of time before that gene is spread to weeds and make worthless. That is real. However, the question of how that gene will move is not from human intervention by from n
  • To be clear, while I have some hesitation about GMOs, a lot of it is about the ecological uncertainties (what happens if the 'Frankenfish' gets into the wild and out competes/outgrows wild salmon) and the corporate practices behind it (Monsanto monopoly and aggressive practices against independent farmers, etc).

    It's not just about gene splicing or wearing tinfoil hats, there are very legitimate concerns about GMOs.

    Also, don't lump everyone together, I'm 100% pro vaccine, but I do have reservations about GMO

  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @12:11PM (#52433893)

    I believe that the food itself is probably OK for human consumption although GMO food (especially tomatoes) does seem to have much less and/or odd flavour. I think the biggest risk about GMO food is oddly overlooked, and that is that it will lead to a varietal monoculture controlled by a single company (Monsanto). Do you really want a single corporate with their thumb on all corn production for example? Do you really want to loose your choices of different varieties of things?
    Also look at what happens when a disease hits a monoculture, It already happened to bananas in 1965, and even todays bananas still seriously risk going extinct. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/... [cnn.com]

    • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      Bananas are identically cloned plants though, GMO corn and soybeans are not. For the GMO crops they just need the desired genes in the plant. That doesn't require cloning the plant, just careful monitoring and controlled pollination to make sure the desired genes remain dominant. Bananas, Apple Trees, etc, don't grow from seed. Every apple from a particular variety comes from a single parent tree that cuttings were taken from. If you plant the seeds from a honey crisp, for example, you will get an apple tr
  • by gerddie ( 173963 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @12:12PM (#52433899)
    One should always hear both sides, and this article [washingtonpost.com] does exactly this with an update. About the bashing of ‘Golden’ rice Greenpeace says:

    Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn’t even exist.

    And about alternatives;

    The only guaranteed solution to fix malnutrition is a diverse healthy diet. Providing people with real food based on ecological agriculture not only addresses malnutrition, but is also a scaleable solution to adapt to climate change.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      Fuck Greenpeace. They don't want us to "meet the demands of a ballooning global population"

      They want us to die.

      Anything that doesn't involve hairshirts, self-loathing, and hundreds of millions of dead humans getting off the planet to "let nature heal" is beyond those assholes.

  • GMOs could be a fantastic boon for humanity. the keyword is could. The sad fact is that current engineering efforts directed toward making food have all been toward making food more addictive. They want people to buy more and more food even if it kills them and guess what, it is killing people. [who.int]

    I fear we may end up with monstrosities like sugary vegetables and based on what I've seen in the market, this fear is justified.

  • Not as long as companies can patent the genes and basically force farmers into submission.

  • GMO's could be safe, but a significant portion are not. Thanks to our "for sale" highest bidder government, who allow substandard testing regimes to be accepted in the approval process.

    Their is a world of misery headed our way thanks to these vested interests. The public is right to not trust these people. Is it any wonder why medical issues seam to be consuming ever more resources and funds look at the source, the food we eat.

    • Got any proof that a significant portion is not safe to humans? Humans are living longer and healthier than at any time in history, so you better have some strong evidence proving GMO is bad.

  • The laureates are looking at it strictly through the lens of science. They are correct given the logic and brief history of experiments to date. Not qualified to fact-check it myself so I'll believe them.

    However if they are being 100% honest they must admit they ignore the issues around how that science is being applied and used for real business. For example it enables the establishment of monoculture in the food supply puts it at high risk of infection. As went the Gros Michel so goes the Cavendish soon.

  • The statistics used to say that GMO foods will not create a problem. They are heavily flawed and in serous need of a bit of applied chaos math with genetic outcome variations. The 'safe margin' used in the generation of mutation included no viral strains present in the habitats where the foods are raised. Scientists have definitely not finished mapping the proteins responsible for cell behavior when a cell is presented with infection. This means that we HAVE NO IDEA what viruses may or may not arise fro

  • by Squirmy McPhee ( 856939 ) on Saturday July 02, 2016 @01:00PM (#52434227)

    My problem with GMOs is not that the scary stuff that Greenpeace peddles, but the business practices of companies like Monsanto. I also have a problem with the supposedly "pro-science" folks who are anti-GMO labeling on the basis that scare-mongering will keep people from buying GMO-labeled products. I have a Ph.D. in a scientific field and one my absolute most deeply held beliefs is that nothing is more anti-science than withholding information. Don't like what people do with that information? Tough. It's your responsibility as a scientist or pro-science person to educate your audience. Telling people they've got it wrong and don't worry, they should just trust you, and no, we're not going to have a conversation about this is flat out anti-science, period, end of story. If you want people to be OK with GMOs, fine, I agree with you, but it do your job as a scientist, give people complete information, and help them understand the issue instead of making them feel like they're too stupid to understand it.

    By the way, one of my other deeply held beliefs is that if you are a scientist and you cannot explain your field to a layperson in a way that they can understand, you probably don't understand your own field very well. In other words, if your excuse is that people are too uneducated to understand, then I think you need to reassess how you're explaining things. You're the educated person, the onus is on you to share your knowledge. If you can't do that, shut up.

  • After years of research scientists are still debating if milk is good or milk is bad. They are still debating carbs vs fats vs protein ratios for humans.So what does this mean. More useful would be to comment on what will happen if Trump comes in power. That will still be considered logical with respect to Democracy atleast and anyone can comment on Democracy.
  • It was all about bashing Monsanto — the "evil" [investopedia.com] company, that specialized in GMO seeds and holds thousands of patents [gmoanswers.com].

    European competitors in particular were so afraid of it rising, they started a PR campaign to mongering fears of GMOs. The campaign created public's perception so negative, some countries (France, Germany) ban GMOs outright and vandals attack growers. Lately Monsanto (and DuPont) must've started fighting back, because American media began defending the technology — even calling its opponents "anti-Science" [nytimes.com] (where have I heard that before?).

    But now that a German firm is seeking to buy Monsanto [bloomberg.com], Europeans need to be disabused [bloomberg.com] of their misconceptions [dw.com] too.

    GMO-haters have nothing but FUD — they've heard it is (or may be) dangerous, but don't know why — somebody told them... See also "chemtrails" and "Trump is racist".

    Unfortunately, even in the US food can not be labeled "Organic", if it contains GMOs [usda.gov]...

  • I will eat GMO foods all day. I'm not worried about eating them. But I think it's crazy to assume that artificially introduced genes in plants and animals will not spread throughout whole species over time. That kind of regulation just can't be enforced enough. And there are so many mechanisms at play in DNA that we only partly understand. A researcher could write over some 'junk' to add genes to rice, and then it turns out the 'junk' contained a RNA suppressor of a crop-destroying rice virus. We don't know
  • Genetically modified organisms and foods are a safe way to meet the demands of a ballooning global population, the 109 laureates wrote in a letter posted online and officially unveiled at a news conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C...

    No, they don't actually know that, they can't...

    Why? Because they don't have hundreds of years of experience with it, and that much at least will be needed to know if we are totally screwing with our food supply or not...

    This is our food, without it, we all die. This is one of the most important things we can touch, next to our air and water...

    We don't have any idea what the long term evolution changes will be to the general food supply with all our tampering, but I do know that we already have narrowed d

    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      a) Do you think it's worse than "naturally" breeding a monoculture of cattle, fruit (bananas, etc.) for farming? Because that's been going on for THOUSANDS of years.
      b) We don't have hundreds of years of experience with plastic. Or many oil derivatives. Or electromagnetism in devices held next to your head. And yet all the same scaremongering bollocks applies to those too. When it comes to that quantum mechanics is only 100 years old, really, and do you whine that we might be destroying the universe by

  • crops/species invading and replacing natural non patented species we have every right to bash them and question them.

  • Here is what really happened:http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/01/107-nobel-laureate-attack-on-greenpeace-traced-back-to-biotech-pr-operators/

Neutrinos are into physicists.

Working...