Thank you Neil! related=http://videosift.com/video/Obama-Gives-Monsanto-Get-Out-of-Jail-Free-Card

Corporations and the US Government has tested many things on the American public and when people protest the answer is "Prove it hurts you." I'm sorry but that's not how it works, you have to prove that it doesn't hurt us, they onus is not on the people to bring evidence of it creating harm, the onus is on you.

So yeah because it's done in a lab by a corporation who is complicit in war crimes. Because it's done in a Lab by a government that is known for testing medicines on people without telling them. Because of these facts the onus is on you. PROVE that it is not harmful, create meaningful and effective regulation of GMOs and then THEN we might embrace all of it whole heartedly.

Until that time, these questions are valid despite what you think. It's the people in the black neighborhoods who hate cops, because the way the cops treat them. It's not an insane standpoint.

I love Tyson. But totally disagree with him on this...
Yes farm animals are 'engineered' but they are engineered via NATURE and NATURAL SELECTION over THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

Putting Jellyfish glow dna into mice is fucked up and would NEVER happen in NATURE.
INSERTING PESTICIDE PRODUCING GENES INTO FOOD IS SOO FUCKED UP FOR ALL OF NATURE.

Bee's anyone ?

Human's, Animals, Plants, we all share essentially the same cells.
So something that is designed to kill insects, if ingested by us, may fuck us up.

Also, WHY DO IT ? GM yields are not that astronomic.

Most of the food we grown is WASTED. Let's fix that first.

Yeah, this broke my heart when I saw it the other day. Sure we've been genetically modifying food for millennia, but I'm pretty certain none of that resulted in the new organism producing round-up-like pesticides on its own.
And I don't know why it has to be controversy when the general populace says it doesn't want to be some shit-corps fucking guinea pigs.

I don't know why somebody would ask a physicist about biology, agriculture and economy. And I don't know why he would choose to answer.

@Yogi

How can you prove a negative? Studies have consistently found no harm from commercially available GM foods. The one study to the contrary (Séralini, tumours in mice) was found to be fraudulent and retracted.

Even if the effects are not immediate, GM foods have been available since the mid 90s, you would expect after 20 years, for there to be a discernible harmful effect, if there is one.

@billpayer

One of the main benefits GM foods can provide is increased longevity and shelf, which help to reduce wastage.

GM yields in a Mediterranean climate for common western crops are not hugely improved. However, the benefits in harsh conditions to say drought and flood resistance are substantial.

This is particularly why it's so detrimental that the EU has rejected GM foods so universally. Domestic farmers may not see huge benefit, but African producers are forced to use substandard non-GM crops for both domestic and international markets.

This is because GM crops cannot be exported to the EU market and different crop types cannot be effectively segregated. This limits their yields, in turn raises prices in a region of the world with an unsustainable, rapidly growing population and increasingly harsh conditions from climate change driven desertification.

Sorry, man, I like you, but you're way off base here.

Farm animals weren't engineering by NATURE and NATURAL SELECTION, we did that shit. Bananas, wheat, dogs, horses, you name it, none of them exist now as they would without human intervention. Hell, there was a recent Top 15 video about his very subject.

We've been doing this for centuries and we've just gotten better at it.

Why do it? The yields might not be astronomical, but in lots of cases they enable some yield over nothing.

Should there be strong regulatory oversight? Of course, same way there is for any commercially produced food.

But the fact is, it's going to happen, and anyone who opposes it is pissing in the wind.

Ironically, I tend not to eat much GM food myself, simply because I like to cook and I like to eat locally source food. But I think it would be selfish in the extreme for me to deny people in less favourable situations (without easy access to arable land for instance) the opportunity to use these technologies.

This is exactly right.

"GMO" is agriculture taken almost to its purest form. We're rewriting the sheet music now rather than simply conducting the orchestra, but the end product is still to produce the symphony.

Instead of selecting for desirable traits over generations to get what we want, we can create it directly.

The problem, of course, is that some entities will and are using this new tool to do harm. If someone wants to protest that, I'll be right there with them, but don't ban hammers just because they can be used to hurt people. We have houses to build.

Ok guys, Genetically Modified Organism refers to both "artificial selection" and "genetic engineering". But both are not the same. Artificial selection has gone on for millennia while genetic engineering has been going on for only a few decades. Genetic engineering comes in many forms: gamma ray bombardments for chaotic mutations, splicing and dicing genes, implanting and hormonal reproduction of clones can indeed create many monsters both visible and invisible. The invisible monsters and the toxins they can create with their genes are the threat here. The manufacture of biological warfare, virus engineering and playing with the elements that make up life without understanding the consequences is the threat here. The bullying of corporations playing God and patenting their spreading genes are the threat here. Not the fact that apples or cows are bred to be bigger and juicier. Give me a fucking naive simpleton break, gawd that was disappointing.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

Well, I'm a biologist and a medical doctor. Am I qualified to answer?

The fact is, we use WAY more adulterated substances in medicine all the time. From antibiotics all the way up to chemotherapy and radiopharmaceuticals. If you reject GM food as "unnatural" then you should never go see a doctor and certainly never take a prescription medication. I guess you could go suck on a Willow tree if you had a headache, but I doubt it would be as good as manufactured aspirin.

I would also like an honest answer for the question, "Which is worse, world starvation or effects of GM food?"

Well, I'm a biologist and a medical doctor. Am I qualified to answer?

If you reject GM food as "unnatural" ...

I would also like an honest answer for the question, "Which is worse, world starvation or effects of GM food?"

The only problem i have with GM food is that the cultivation process on foods we eat now has happened over decades and millenia. GM allow shortcuts and we have no idea how those shortcuts affect nature. Or us when new substances are being inserted like pesticide resistance. When it happens slowly, there is more time to notice the downsides of those new traits. Other than that, it just the same process that happens in nature, we are the animals that eat the plant and are essential to it's propagation, nature doesn't care how.

My own biggest issue with GMO's is that the people in the FDA who approved them, are in almost all cases employed by the same companies that created them. In some cases, they are the exact same people. In other words, those who have a financial interest in selling them cannot be trusted to be honest. They've proven that too many times.

There's also the fact that this approach does not lead to a sustainable system. Increased resistance to roundup only causes ever-greater use of roundup, which leads to more roundup resistant weeds, which starts the whole cycle over again. This has already been demonstrated over the last decade, but is consistently ignored by GMO proponents.

Wow... So many great points here.
And lots missed by others.

@ChaosEngine I like you too. But the next posts after yours explains my point better. @Eukelek got the point correctly.
(The fact you don't eat it, or your local farm doesn't grow GM is telling and hypocritical)

There is a massive difference between selection using natural processes and GENETIC ENGINEERING.
One will only produce offspring that are genetically compatible.
The other is a crap shoot producing mixes of different taxonomy.
For fucks sake when could A FARMER BREED A MOUSE WITH A JELLYFISH, or mix SPIDER GENES WITH GOATS.
That shit is fucked up and only the tip of the iceberg.

You really want MONSANTO creating NEW SPECIES OF PLANT THAT ARE STRONGER THAN THEIR NATURAL COUNTERPARTS AND LACED WITH TOXINS AND PESTICIDES ????
It was Monsanto that developed AGENT ORANGE, and PCB's which THEY ALSO DENIED WAS HARMFUL EVEN THOUGH IT IS MASSIVELY CANCER CAUSING. They buried every study showing it was carcinogenic.


@nock . Yes I'm sure the medical profession has even crazier biology going on. But I would only use that shit IF I WAS GOING TO DIE.
NOBODY NEEDS GMO.
Now the medi-corps are using super viruses as vectors for 'custom' dna treatments.
Considering that the U.S. CDC was just admonished for improper practices contains viruses. How long before there is an incident that is completely synthetic (man-made) and completely irreversible.

@RedSky Sure Africa should grow whatever it needs to survive. But don't expect an export market for gmo.

@nock

If we accept that he is a very proficient physicist, then he is certainly able to understanding the scientific method - the attention to detail, the terms, the maths, the statistics.

A proficient physicist can spend weeks analysing a research paper written about their own particular field, needing hundreds of re-readings to understand everything.

I would say, on balance, NdT is very likely to be very capable of understanding of the biology with access to scientific research resources and reference materials. As for the chemistry - a lot of physics (especially the astro) IS chemistry; big bang nucleosynthesis, star nucleosynthesis, nuclear reactions, radioactive decay... Physicists joke that chemistry is just a subset of physics. And biology comes down to chemistry!

I think you're not giving him anywhere near the respect he deserves on this matter. He is not just a physicist - he's a scientist.

(Sorry if i'm a bit like a dog with a bone, i often think that real, well rounded scientific understanding isn't given the respect it deserves - no bias honest! But i would say that NdT could very easily conduct biological research if he found a subject that interested him in that area. Many of the tools are probably the same.)

I think NdT is fully qualified to discuss this subject. I never impugned his credentials. You may want to direct this comment @dingens

btw. You guys should all watch UTOPIA

(joke)

(but seriously it's a cool sci-fi series on channel 4 right now and hypothesizes on scenarios like Genetic Modification, Agribusiness, etc.)

http://videosift.com/video/Utopia-series-1
http://videosift.com/video/Utopia-series-two

What Neil deGrasse Tyson and some of the other scientists/doctors (myself include) have are saying is that the IDEA of GMO's is a great one. The fact that we can engineer our foods to get the traits we want or add additional beneficial traits is an incredibly useful tool. We've already engineered rice that is able to produce vitamin A, which has been a huge help for places with vitamin A deficiencies and we can engineer potatoes to absorb less fats and oils when we fry them, there is also a professor at SUNY-ESF who is using GMO's to try and save the American Chestnut tree from extinction.

GMing is simply another tool in humanity's struggle to survive. First it was finding which foods were safe to eat, then it was breeding organisms within species to make inbred organisms that had the traits we wanted (think cattle, dogs, cats, corn, banana's; some of these things are more inbred than the Hapsburgs), then we starting creating our own hybrids across different species, and now we have GMO's.

However, what I object to is the current corporate use of GMO's to exploit farmers over patents, and breed for traits that people do necessarily need. NdT I'm sure is not advocating for that, but is advocating for the use of transgenic organisms/GMO's to solve some of the world's most pressing issues.

GMO's are probably the most powerful tool we have to curb world hunger, and mal-nutrition, and it could also be the thing that allows humans to venture beyond the solar system. What the Sift seems to be objecting to, and the rest of the "developed" world is the use of GMO's by greedy corporations who care more about turning a profit than solving world problems (there isn't very much money in feeding the needy and hungry). They are the one's making what appear to me more or less useless and potentially dangerous GMO's. Turn your anger away from GMO's specifically and narrow it to the ill use of GMO's by greedy corporations.

Lastly, the argument that "we don't know what they'll do" is for the most part unfounded, there are a decent amount of studies (find them yourself sorry) which show that GMO's in general won't cause harm (though it really depends on what you're trying to make). The same argument was made about the LHC "We don't know what will happen when we turn it on!" but everyone was fine.

I don't understand why labeling is such a big issue. If there are people that want to avoid certain things, let them. Transgenic foods (where they use DNA from something completely unrelated to what they are modifying) could have allergy issues. Information about what you are eating is usually a good thing.

Unfortunately, @LooiXIV, in our world (and especially the USA), you cannot separate the IDEA of GMOs from the corporations that are making them and abusing our legal system to fuck everyone else over. They've ensured that. If you support GMOs, you effectively support Monsanto.

That's the entire purpose of making it illegal to label GMO-free foods.

So you can't prove a negative, let's inject chemicals into children? This world has almost been destroyed several times over because people just assumed things would be ok if they tried some shit. America was going to use Nuclear Bombs to clear a bit of Alaska and they couldn't do it because some eskimos said "You don't know what'll happen." They know now that basically all of north america would be destroyed.

So you come back with "Can't prove a negative" I come back with, STOP FUCKING WITH SHIT WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. You can trust the government and corporations all you want. I want them regulated. Plain and fucking simple.

So it's going to happen does that mean we should just give up and not regulate it?

It's amazing how many people here just TRUST Corporations. They're only ONLY interested in the bottom line. If they kill a few hundred people and can sweep it under the rug like GM did, why wouldn't they?

Department of Energy study says Fracking is Safe. Do you believe them? Also the idea that we'd allow Fracking BEFORE it's proven to not put harmful chemicals into our drinking water is absurd. Why would we conduct a mass experiment on the public, why aren't the chemicals released to the public.

I'm sorry but some of you guys are off the fucking reservation if you think that it's just ok to do experiments on humans. Let's just try shit and hope it doesn't kill everyone. Yeah that'll work. NO these corporations need to be stopped.

Did you read my post you quoted?

Let me refresh your memory:

Should there be strong regulatory oversight? Of course, same way there is for any commercially produced food.

OH OH Good @ChaosEngine says there should be strong oversight. Well while we're wishing for that how about we wish for a whole host of other things to happen that never fucking will.

YIPPIE Wishing is fun! Everyone get's a wish boys and girls. If you wish for your parents to stop raping you nightly I'm afraid we angels love watching it far too much to put a stop to it. LAH DEE DAH!

Make up your fucking mind. Do you want it regulated or not?

Because I can tell you what's not going to happen and that's getting it banned. It's too useful and too profitable. I think you're the one living in lala-land

Hello Chaos Engine.
It's not 'either or...'
It's not inevitable either.
Nor is it too useful or too profitable. (quite the opposite. Non GMO supermarkets are raking it in on both sides of the Atlantic)
It's an agenda than has been allowed to flourish, or massively sponsored by corporate interest (the huge campaign against GMO labels for example).

It can also be stopped.

By the great words of Senator Barney Frank "Arguing with some of you is like arguing with a table." I now have no interest in doing it.

I love 'Utopia' and I can add the Canadian science-fiction show 'Continuum' to that list, which criticizes the rise of corporations and portrays a dystopian future in which corporations have taken over the government and police force. Season 3 deals with a villainous corporation not so subtly named Sonmanto and also addresses the issue of GMO.

Good, Fuck Off.

His stance on this and global warming are just disgustingly biased, as if some generic lobby shill is talking. I am losing my respect for him very quickly.

Its not mainly about the direct effects. Its about the indirect effects. What patents on those GMOs can do, how farmers are treated, how surroundings respond to those plants (mono cultures), what those plants will do that you cant use without their special treatment, how powerful corporations will get if they have patents on food. Etc, etc, etc. For tiny bits of it imagine this: A state would prohibit use of unaltered seeds. Even in your tiny garden. You wouldnt be able to use the seeds from your tomatoes to plant new ones for the next year, because they are genetically altered that their seeds dont sprout or you need some kind of chemical for them to survive. Of course this chemical is also patented.Think about it. And now get this: Exactly this has already been suggested by the EU as a serious law.

The French/German TV station Arte made a very good documentary about this topic. You should watch it. Its available on Youtube. Also theres a well known 14 year old girl (prolly 15 now) who explains it to people like you. Google her.

And yes, I didnt name her and the documentary for a reason. You should research for yourself. Its a little test. If you dont even research these easy to find things, youre not even remotely close to being objective and I wont waste my time on you.

I assume you're referring to: http://www.upworthy.com/a-14-year-old-explains-food-labeling-in-language-even-condescending-tv-hosts-should-get-3

Ok...She explains what exactly? I'm pretty certain she doesn't even understand how genes work. She's a teen activist, not a scientist or doctor. I'm not saying that scientists and doctors are above reproach, but they at least have a basic understanding of the issues at hand with data to support their opinions.

I'm sure Monsanto is an evil corporation hellbent on profits at all costs, but the underlying concept that all GM food is bad for the planet and humans does not stand up to currently accepted scientific scrutiny.

Also, if this 14 year old girl and a documentary is the entirety of your "research", I'm not sure I should be wasting my time with you.

Yeah, I wasted my time. At least you researched it on Google (the documentary obviously not). But you didnt read it.
If you really mean what you say, after a little bit of research, completely ignoring what I said, just locking your jaw on direct consequences and still saying they are completely against GMO, then so be it.
But you know, your kind is addressed in that documentary and by that 14 year old too. AKA black and white thinkers - who are most of the time simple lobbyists. And why you think I or her are completely against GMO is beyond me either. I am against idiots like you who think this is a straight forward topic and just proudly call others out on their alleged hypocrisy, while you dont even understand the points they make, since they fall out of your black and white thinking.
Right now you appear as someone who says that there is no sugar in this candy, while its packaging, its taste and even its producer makes it clear that there is sugar in it.
Yeah well... whatever you say, Mr. "scientist"...

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Neils thoughts on the viral video

*** August 3, 2014 -- Anatomy of a GMO Commentary ****
Ten days ago, this brief clip of me was posted by somebody.

It contains my brief [2min 20sec] response to a question posed by a French journalist, after a talk I gave on the Universe. He found me at the post-talk book signing table. (Notice the half-dozen ready & willing pens.) The clip went mildly viral (rising through a half million right now) with people weighing in on whether they agree with me or not.

Some comments...

1) The journalist posted the question in French. I don't speak French, so I have no memory of how I figured out that was asking me about GMOs. Actually I do know some French words like Bordeaux, and Bourgogne, and Champagne, etc.

2) Everything I said is factual. So there's nothing to disagree with other than whether you should actually "chill out" as I requested of the viewer in my last two words of the clip.

3) Had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I've noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.

4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept.
b- Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
c- Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement on these matters.
d- Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market. To the extent that the production of GMOs are a monopoly, the government should do all it can to spread the baseline of this industry. (My favorite monopoly joke ever, told by Stephen Wright: "I think it's wrong that the game Monopoly is sold by only one company")
e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
f- Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.

5) If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct.

In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with.

Respectfully Submitted
-NDTyson

Very little in science is black and white. Big upvote for NDT's follow up though. Here is an extremely thorough rundown of many of the issues at hand written by an unbiased reporter: http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/

In article #2 he writes about FDA safety testing of GMO's, which, while "voluntary" are always performed. According to an FDA policy analyst he interviews, "(I) frankly cannot really envision any circumstances under which anybody placing a ‘bioengineered’ food on the market would have the temerity NOT to consult with (the FDA).”

In the next article, he writes about the perception that GMO's are the product of for-profit corporations and meets with plant scientists at UC Davis; a nonprofit, publicly funded university.

If you don't have time to read the entire series, then at the very least read his final article. His conclusions are well-tempered and thoughful.