Pharyngula

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | October 26, 2009 3:42 PM

Do you tweet, PZ?

Posted by: Samia | October 26, 2009 3:47 PM

Now I know they're evil...!

Posted by: formosus | October 26, 2009 3:50 PM

Shows you how much the anti-GM group actually cares about the facts. They're nothing move than a bunch of reactionaries.

PS: Damn comment system!

Posted by: Travis | October 26, 2009 3:53 PM

Wow, paranoid. Never let facts get in the way of your preconceptions.

Posted by: 386sx | October 26, 2009 3:54 PM

Someone is discreetly putting messages on Twitter?

Posted by: turnipthebeets | October 26, 2009 4:00 PM

How do you discreetly post a message on Twitter? Doesn't that eliminate the point of Twitter in the first place?

Posted by: skeptical scientist | October 26, 2009 4:06 PM

It's so annoying trying to have a reasonable debate with paranoid conspiracy nuts. Do people who unequivocally oppose all engineered foods also think that the fluoride in the municipal water supply is an attempt to poison them? Do they not realize that humanity has been engineering its food for millennia?

Posted by: Daogred | October 26, 2009 4:16 PM

My favorite irrationality was the debate among overly observant Jews and vegetarians over whether the use of genes derived from animal cells used in vegetables voids said GMO veggie from their diets.

Posted by: Chris Whitman | October 26, 2009 4:29 PM

Well, if a GMO patent is owned or licensed by a company making use of animal experimentation, and you happen to be against animal experimentation (or even specifically non-medical animal experimentation, as many people I know are, for example), then isn't it only rational not to want to give that company your money?

I'm glad it's your 'favorite irrationality,' but I think you can make a pretty good case for not wanting to contribute to companies who make a profit from the mistreatment of animals. And whether or not you agree or consider it perhaps too extreme, I hardly think it's as laughable as you're making it out to be.

Posted by: DagoRed | October 26, 2009 4:46 PM

But, yes, boycotting a company -- rather than a product -- based on the ethics of the people can always a viable rationalization.

Posted by: t3knomanser | October 26, 2009 5:34 PM

Can I have a cut of your Monsanto money? I voted! I totally earned it!

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 26, 2009 5:46 PM

Why is everybody here treating this as a black-and-whiter?

Certain forms of genetic modification are very helpful; others (such as incorporating BTI (bacillus thuringiensis israelensis, iirc) into crop plants will lead only to evolved resistance to what is now a useful biological pest management tool (while apparently damaging the butterfly population); others are nothing more than part of ploys by would-be monopolists such as Monsanto to gain a complete hammerlock on world agriculture.

I refuse to vote on anything "framed" in such Manichean terms.

Check out the Council for Responsible Genetics for more informed and nuanced analyses.

Posted by: Andrew | October 26, 2009 6:04 PM

#24 - If you take a look at the two groups, you might better understand the black-and-white delineation seen here.

The way I see it, it isn't "GMOs are good" vs. "GMOs are bad", it's more like, "group adhering to science" vs. "group failing to acknowledge the science."

Here is a member of Biofortified in the other Pharyngula thread:
"One of the things that we try to talk about on our blog is that it isn't about pro-GMO or anti-GMO, or should be that is. There are issues with genetic engineering that we need to discuss as a society, but the attention that needs to be paid to that is instead going to distractions such as 'OMG teh GMOz are going to keeel us!'"
(Karl Haro von Mogel)

Which I more than happily support.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 26, 2009 6:18 PM

To follow up on #21's comment, here's a video of his TED Talk (17:32). It's not a substitute for the book, but it's well worth watching, wherever you happen to stand on the issue. He's a very engaging and charismatic speaker.

Posted by: Karl Haro von Mogel | October 26, 2009 6:21 PM

"When I saw that registration was required, I decided not to bother. Thanks to the competitor for changing my mind! Go Biofortified!

Robert B / @RobsterFCD"

I don't know whether to ask GM Watch to apologize, or apologize to GM Watch for not thanking them for their help in recruiting votes!

I suppose PZ's check was lost in the mail...

Keep it coming folks! Can we reach 1000 before the contest is over? Thanks to everyone who has voted!

Posted by: Wonko the Sane | October 26, 2009 6:43 PM

From the perspective of someone into genetics there is nothing wrong with GMOs, apart from a few minor concerns about protein folding. All the Frankenfood stuff is clearly misleading and silly. Comparing brute force evolution to conventional breeding is also silly.
From a medical point, there does not seem to be a higher risk associated with GMOs, though this would be easier to prove if consumer goods were actually labelled. Also, I think people should be offered a choice(same goes for nano particles in my chocolate wrappers, damn it).
From the view of an ecologist, GMOs will lead to a fucking disaster with regard to monopoly, pest resistance as well as genetic diversity in plants that humanity depends on.
So there are actually at least three points to be discussed that would lead me to a different answer.
As a molecular ecologist, I'd start being sceptic in my own field first, all the better to argue. And look at the money trail, that thankfully does not lead to PZ.
Cheers,
Wonko, leaving the Asylum again..

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 26, 2009 6:51 PM

What do you mean "us", Brown Man?

Posted by: llewelly | October 26, 2009 7:26 PM

In truth, PZ, your motive is far more sinister than anything the folks at gmwatch imagine.
Admit it, PZ. You voted for biofortified because you're hard at work developing your own army of genetically modified cyber-squid.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 26, 2009 8:04 PM

Abstruseoddity: I don't think Pierce has been with "us" very long.

FYI, I recently celebrated my fourth anniversary of commenting at Pharyngula.

The phireworks were phantastic.

Posted by: Peter B. | October 26, 2009 8:51 PM

Pro-GMO German here. Our culture is so thick with anti-GMO hysteria and misinformation that even public universities doing safety studies on modified plant varieties have to operate under constant threat of vandalization. Thanks PZ and all for helping to stem the tide of stoopid.

Posted by: Mike Wagner | October 26, 2009 9:12 PM

When they let their readers know about things like this it's "grassroots".

When you let your readers know about this, you are an industry shill working against the free world.

Shame on you, PZ, shame! (giggle)

Posted by: Snoof | October 26, 2009 9:30 PM

Don't you know that _asking_ people to _vote_ is _un-American_? You know who else asked people to vote? Obama, that's who!

Posted by: Pareidolius | October 26, 2009 9:41 PM

Just the merest mention of Monsanto and the spittle flies. We need to add Monsanto to Godwin's Law.

Posted by: The Chemist | October 26, 2009 10:37 PM

"super-anti-opposed"

I'm also not not not good at keeping my double negatives in check.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 26, 2009 11:16 PM

... the spittle flies. ... ill-informed luddism ...

What are y'all talking about?

Have you never heard of Percy Schmeiser?

Posted by: Ewan R | October 26, 2009 11:47 PM

That'd be the Percy Schmeisser who purposefully selected for and saved enough seed to plant ~1000 acres by spraying his own crop with roundup?

The handful of people Monsanto has gone after have been in violation of the law. Nobody has been prosecuted for accidental pollination or presence of patented traits - there may be a vague arguement about how the traited seeds ever got onto schmeisser's land, but his actions from that point on are clearly based around a sound knowledge of how roundup-ready technology works, and assuming an even vague understanding of the law there has to have been an awareness that certain lines had been crossed.

Also while there is not a single GM product on the market yet for increased yield (although arguably roundupready2yield soybeans fall into this category - possibly released after the report) there is an undeniable trend associated with the use of GM crops which shows yield increases over and above those you'd see with breeding alone (look at how stagnant European yields, and wheat yields have been in comparison to GMed crops) and across vast areas insect control genes categorically do add up to increased yield - the vast increases in yield and income seen in India with the introduction of GM cotton being an obvious case in point - with the recent introduction of Bt Brinjal (eggplant I believe...), and the possibility of bt corn also in India soon one can only hope that the yield benefits are similar (despite the trait not being specifically designed around yield).

In the next few years drought tolerance genes will hit the US marketplace (probably globally a few years after that) which will undoubtedly see increases in yield in areas which suffer from transient drought, with promises of a purely yield transgenic in the works, aswell as nitrogen efficiency.

(as I am paid by Monsanto the positive aspects of this post can be roundly ignored and the bashing can continue)

Posted by: GeneGreen | October 27, 2009 12:17 AM

"providing breeding expertise aswell as GM drought resistance" ?

How about providing some food for some starving people without gouging them over and over.

Posted by: Chris Whitman | October 27, 2009 1:17 AM

Most of Monsanto's issues have been justified, huh? Because even Wikipedia records trouble over their dumping of toxic materials, convictions for bribery and litigation over false advertising, etc. etc.

It isn't like I think they're any less moral than your average enormous multinational, but no, I don't trust them not to screw over anyone and everyone for financial gain.

Posted by: Woko the Sane | October 27, 2009 3:28 AM

Ahh, Monsanto for the good of humankind. Would that be the same company that gave us "Agent Orange", poisoned the environment with PCBs and drove small scale farmers in India into suicide in droves? I can truly see their humanitarian roots.
At least Bill Gates does some good with his foundation.
Cheers and bygones

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | October 27, 2009 4:00 AM

Montsanto - isn't this the company that had Fox firing reporters for refusing to lie?

Ultimately leading to a court case which established the precedent that having ethics in US news media can in fact, be a firing offence?

Posted by: Ewan R | October 27, 2009 8:31 AM

Woko - I believe it was the US government that "gave us" agent orange (alongside all the other less soundbitey agents, which also suffered from contamination with dioxins, often moreso than orange), and um, used it, Monsanto and other companies were essentially mandated by the government to manufacture it - I can see how in the political climate of the US that saying no to the government in aiding a war effort would have been an utterly stellar move.

The Indian farmer suicide issue is a case of spin from anti-GM folks - if you look at the numbers it is apparent that the introduction of GM cotton in india had no impact on the tragic nubmer of farmer suicides and most likely has a lot more to do with lending practices for the same farmers - as average income and yield shot up for adopters of the technology, and as the tech is pretty much ubiquitous now, it cannot really have been that bad.

Sadly I dont have a comeback other than time for the PCBs.

Posted by: Ewan R | October 27, 2009 11:51 AM

Steve - interesting read, not sure that I agree with the bulk of it, particularly in regards to the WEMA project itself.

The critique of the green revolution fails to mention the impact in terms of lives saved - which I believe is estimated at close to a billion, and for which Norman Borlaug received a Nobel prize.

Redistribution is all well and good if there is a system to support it, but given that most of the world's food is grown outside of Africa, and that Africa already imports ~25% of its food - redistribution of food grown externally is only a way to further undermine African food security (unless a complete new world order is instituted and the redistribution remains a permanent unchangeable) - the overthrow of free(relatively...) market economics would also be required to get the food to where the need is greatest (I shan't comment on whether this would be a good or bad thing, just that it is a highly improbable occurance)

Whereas a greener green revolution would, in my eyes at least, be great for Africa (even if it were to lead to people moving from arable land to urban centers - a pattern which pretty much corresponds to a transition from 3rd world like conditions towards 1st world conditions - which I guess could be seen as a bad thing in some people's eyes, but I dont believe that the bulk of an entire continent should be consigned to live in the middle ages because of the dewy eyed concepts of people who've never had to endure a subsistence style life) - if we can get crops which are more water efficient, use less nitrogen (probably an even longer term goal, although a lot of breeding research in Europe is focused in this area), don't require pesticides etc then essentially what you are looking at is a green revolution without quite the same demands on infrastructure and resources - which, while we wait for political stability, appears to me to be a great boon.

I also disagree with the idea that biotech traits are in any way a substitute for farmer knowledge. A substitute for unavailable resources perhaps (be that insecticide, water, land, or perhaps a lot more importantly for many farmers - time). A farmer who farms without knowledge of what they are doing will not be helped out by any amount of technology, they'll simply end up with a barren field full of dead cutting edge research.

Posted by: astrounit | October 27, 2009 2:19 PM

Douglas Watts, #57: "This is a truly pathetic thread. If PZ told you folks that eating a pound of strychnine was safe, you would do it."

No, we wouldn't. No, he wouldn't suggest anything remotely of the kind and no, his reader "folks" aren't nearly as hopelessly dumb as you like to think.

You have a problem. Maybe it's just because you labor under a confusion, of being incapable of making a distinction between rational thinking that independently happens to converge on a fairly common result and the automatic knee-jerk reaction to any appearance of consensus, which you immediately identify as the necessary result of some preaching leader.

Except PZ ain't a "preacher", in no way, shape or form. He doesn't have to be. Not when people arrive at their own conclusions that happen to coincide with each other, and not when people happen to freely agree with him.

And you have the audacity of that fictional Satan you likewise worship, make no mistake, to suggest that whatever PZ suggests is some sort of Guiding Influence by Clever Edict or Plebiscite, which his "minions" cannot resist?

Can you possibly be that stupid?

Or let's look at it this way: when was the last time you went to confession?

I humbly suggest that your next visit to the confessional should include a description of how you so readily bear false witness against your fellow man.

Talk about pathetic? Like maybe some asshole schmuck making broad insinuations that have absolutely no resemblance to the actuality? Or like the lying ignoramus you must obviously be to make such a remark?

Now THAT would reasonably qualify as "pathetic", wouldn't you agree, you irresponsible putz?

-

BTW: HEY HEY!!! YIPPEE!!! I'm able to visit Pharyngula without my computer crawling to a dead halt AND resume commenting without fuss.

Wha hoppen???

It's like I've entered an alternative universe where I can actually scroll a page on Pharyngula without any resistance. Without having to reboot my entire system.

I am BLOWN AWAY...and as happy as a frog comfortably perched on a lily pad nabbing passing mosquitos.

Something must obviously and actually have been done correctly for a change...will Great Wonders Out of the Clear Blue never cease?

Whatever. At long last. At long LONG last. I can now say this: "THANK YOU ScienceBlogs".

Hope it lasts.

Posted by: Wonko the Sane | October 27, 2009 7:08 PM

@ Ewan,
begging to disagree, Bt resistance has evolved naturally in local populations of Plutella xylostella (Diamondback moth), Helicoverpa zea (Bollworm), and resistant breeds of Heliothis virescens have been bred from natural populations in the lab. One will have to see whether the refuge concept will be able to counter this.
DDT resistance btw. has also developed in some mosquito populations. The case for continued use of DDT can be made in some parts of the tropics, and though banned it is still applied in some countries. If you read "Silent Spring" and look at the issue from an ecological viewpoint, there are better ways to combat malaria, for one education about standing water, subsidised mosquito nets, biological agents like Mesocyclops, etc.
What I meant in regard to the bacteria is that all carbon based chemicals, including insecticides, will eventually become nutrition for at least some bacterial organism. The odds are even against Bacillus thuringiensis that is coevolving with its enemies, but not with a plant clone that incorporates just one or two of its genes.The larger the quantities of any substance applied, the greater the chance of this happening. In Australia soil bacteria enzymes that break down organochlorides are used to decontaminate equipment used for insecticide spraying. I just wanted to point out that if horizontal gene transfer was indeed as common in nature as some posted in this and PZ's GM yum yum thread, it would also be possible for the traits to be passed by vectors to pest species. The mentioned ability to break down organochlorides has also evolved in the meantime in bowfly maggots.
Also, secondary pest species can benefit greatly from the use of specific targeted insecticides, I recall an article this summer about the Chinese successfully using GM crops against one species of pest only to have their harvest destroyed by another species (Lygas bug?)that saw an opportunity for a free lunch.
To my knowledge herbicide use has also increased in many cases, due to emerging higher levels of resistance and wrong usage aka. stupidity (spray 'em all, god will sort 'em out attitude).
Perhaps people should pay more attention to ecology and rethink large mono cultures. The easiest way to avoid huge losses caused by pests is to switch crops every once a while. This is of course not an option for huge specialised factory farms, but who wants those anyway (hurray for buffalo commons).

Posted by: Ewan R | October 27, 2009 10:00 PM

Wonko -

Oddly I hadnt come across the specific resistances mentioned - somewhat confusing as I'm sure I had this arguement with someone in the past 6 months and didnt turn up anything... I guess my journal searching needs a little polishing as given the species names... there they were. Although not exactly in worrying numbers - and according to

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-0493(2003)096%5B1031:IRTTBC%5D2.0.CO%3B2

resistance in heavy adoption areas is not seen to be rising (and as far as I could find in my exhaustive 5 minute search field resistance occured prior to the introduction of GM Bt)

and

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h732m275137t3714/

claims that Helicoverpa zea which have resistance to the toxin itself, dont have a functional field resistance.

The general consensus in recent articles is that field resistance is a non-entity

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-0493(2003)096%5B1031:IRTTBC%5D2.0.CO%3B2

is another recent article which has the rather bold statement that - "Despite expectations that pests would rapidly evolve resistance to such Bt crops, increases in the frequency of resistance caused by exposure to Bt crops in the field have not yet been documented." which supports my stance somewhat - it would appear from this subset of articles that field Bt resistance is more a result of Bt use as a spray or in one of the other applied forms, and not as a result of transgenic Bt.

The secondary pest thing I also recall - although I have a vague recollection (which at 8:40pm is as good as its going to get for the moment - I'm not feeling overly scientific right now) that this was linked to poor practices in the field such as a complete lack of refuge - I believe that Monsanto Bt accounts for a spectacularly small percentage of Chinese Bt cotton (in the order of 1% or so if memory serves) so the stewardship guidelines for the other 99% could well be questionable... if only Monsanto held a monopoly position perhaps this would never have occurred....
clearly it is a potential problem, but given the monumental success of Bt in various crops globally it is a problem which does not appear to have raised its head on many occasions.

Herbicide useage, in terms of the environmental equivalent impact (I can dig out the paper if required) has, as far as I know, decreased as a result of the introduction of RR crops - there are instances of roundup resistant weeds in some areas, which always appears to cause I huge fuss - my question is always - without the use of roundup and roundup resistant crops what exactly would the difference be? Given that these weeds apparently are uncontrollable by any other means, how exactly would not ever having used RR crops have helped the situation? At worst it bought the land a few more years under cultivation (as controlling the issue with roundup in a field full of non RR crops would have had the rather unfortunate effect of wiping out your entire crop)

On the point of B.t evolving in step with its enemies - great, everyone working on insect control transgenics retains an ever evolving arsenal against pests - being cynical about commercial transgenics one could imagine that this is infact the perfect situation as you have the opportunity to release a new product every 5-10 years and so dont have to worry about your patent running out - just about the competition getting the patent on the newest, coolest, Bt toxins which evolution can provide.