How your food would look if not genetically modified over millennia?

|

Ever wonder how your food would be without any human intervention over the course of agriculture history? For thousands of years, farmers have manipulated their crops to get the best yields and have resulted in many of the produce you see today.

Also, it’s informative to note that more than 3,000 grains, fruits and vegetables have been “created” in a laboratory by subjecting them with gamma rays and/or highly toxic chemicals to artificially scramble their DNA–and have since been marketed as organic, including Ruby Red grapefruits and almost of the most flavorful and top selling organic Italian pasta. Read about that here: Pasta? Ruby grapefruits? Why organic devotees love foods mutated by radiation and chemicals

Screen Shot 2014-06-19 at 9.43.46 AM

  • Douglas Ewer

    But direct modification is different WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

    • Jacob w

      “They blast the DNA with gold and other TOXINS!” That is the funniest shot I have ever heard…. “blasting DNA….” give me a break. Lol

      • Prism

        Where is that mentioned??

      • AB

        well yeah, why do you think they call it ‘golden rice’ if it doesn’t have gold atoms blasting into various rice DNAs

        • dmn88me

          It’s called Golden Rice because they added a series of genes to make it produce beta carotene.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

          If you’re going to talk, make sure you’re not talking out of your ass.

          • xxxyyz

            It’s called sarcasm because he said something different than he actually meant.

            If you’re going to comment, make sure you’re not talking like an asshole who didn’t listen before he spoke.

          • AB

            you’re very dumb, possibly due to nutrient deficiency. maybe you need golden rice in your life.

        • Ass

          before talking out of your ass make sure you’re not talking out your ass with his ass and your ass before an ass you ass ass ass ass

          • AB

            butt*

      • Codie Petersen

        They are refering to the gene gun. Personally other natural (viruses and bacteria) are more effective. But so what if they do. Who gives a fuck, it’s such an insignificant amount that they are using gold.

        • hydrocarbonharry

          nonsense. The ‘gold’ is the beta carotene from carrots.
          But the Luddites want third world children to die, rather than save them with a remarkable product.
          The only thing poisonous is the luddites who prevent sensible cures to their wild-eyed, unscientific ideology

          • Codie Petersen

            To be clear though they really do use gold in some cases. Although it is only on the original callus and last time I checked plants do not have the ability to replicate gold from sun energy. So I don’t see how that can be a huge concern for widespread contamination.

      • Dr. M

        Gold isn’t a toxin…

        • joecrouse

          yes it is technically its a heavy metal in large doses it very toxic

          • What isn’t

          • Shayla Gibson

            Most homeopathic medicines – unless you drink enough to hit a toxic quantity of water…

          • Anything is toxic if you have “too much” of it.

          • hydrocarbonharry

            GOLD IS INERT! IT DOES NOT CHEMICALLY REACT TO OTHER SUBSTANCES.

            IT IS NOT TOXIC!

            YES, I AM SHOUTING AT YOUR STUPIDITY!

          • Hadrian Embalsado

            As long it’s pure gold and not of its alloys and compounds.

          • joecrouse

            It does react its rather very reactive. (having a valence of 2. )which is less than that of carbon but more than that of say potasium.

          • Skye

            Calling others stupid before you’ve done you research is not wise. Get a life. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18521546

          • Dave

            Skye the article is very specific “colloidal metallic gold (CMG) in its nano-particulate form” do you realize the process to make gold into “colloidal metallic gold (CMG) in its nano-particulate form”. It not easy and has to be done in the lab, so your argument is a non-topical and a strawman.

          • Nathan Arce

            But… you’re oversimplifying. Gold as a metal is *biologically* inert; in other words, if you eat a chunk of solid gold, it’ll pass right through you, because it doesn’t react with the chemicals in the human body.

            It is not “chemically” inert. There are an abundance of gold salts and radioisotopes of gold that people ingest for chemical benefits, because gold that is already an ion or is a non-metallic-presenting radioisotope can react with plenty of biological chemicals. These same compounds are all toxic in large doses.

            When people talk about blasting DNA with gold, they probably mean a radioisotope of gold, not pure metal.

          • TheCrimsonFuckr

            It’s an inert heavy metal, it passes through you. That being said if the qualification for something being a toxin is now “in large doses is very toxic”, then just about everything in a multivitamin short of vitamin c is a toxin.

          • CruisingTroll

            Even Vitamin C is a toxin in large doses. I guarantee that if I dump a full load of Vitamin C from Big Muskie onto someone, they would die.

          • Hadrian Embalsado

            Sounds like an evil plan. I like it.

          • CruisingTroll

            When somebody complains, just explain it as a megadose to fight off a cold.

          • Hadrian Embalsado

            OMG IKR?

          • Patsy McMichael

            Well….that is why saccharin was taken off the market….lab rats were give saccharin “in large doses” over a long period of time and it caused cancer…..no more saccharin.

          • joecrouse

            actually you can OD on vitamin C too crimson. it destroys nerves.

          • Thøger RiveraThorsen

            Everything is toxic in large enough doses.

        • Dr. M

          In large doses darn near everything is toxic, water and oxygen two excellent examples – things we need to survive. But in large enough doses will kill us. Gold, in the doses used for medicine, is non-toxic. It is inert and will not react.

          • Jason Roder

            At the doses it would take to make gold toxic, you might just as well use it as a bludgeon. :P

        • Edmund

          It is when someone smacks you upside the head with a gold hammer.

      • silence

        it literally doesn’t say that anywhere. what article were you reading?

  • Brooke Heppinstall Kroenung

    Yes, I get it. I agree with it. But, a short comment on GM and hybridization should be offside here. Or come up w/an infographic on GE, GM, hybridization, etc..Define your terms. First year college!!

  • Dave Brown

    But….but….but…..this is “natural”!!!

    • Brian Gordon

      Just like asbestos and horse manure :-)

      • sotarrthewizard

        . . . and uranium and botulinin toxin are all natural as well !!!!

        • Rev. Blemmershit

          Ironically you chucklefucks are posting this on a website called “genetic literacy”.

          • sotarrthewizard

            Irony isn’t involved: this is pure sarcasm. . .

          • Kevin Schmidt

            Actually, the sarcasm is scientifically accurate.
            The word “natural” means nothing in the food industry.

          • Michael Thomas Flynn

            +1, if only for “Chucklefucks” lol

          • Kevin Schmidt

            Ironically, the chuckleheads who created this website are posting “genetic ILLiteracy” propaganda.
            Just ask any geneticist, who doesn’t work for Monsanto.

          • JP

            Ask any geneticist what exactly, Kevin?

            Are you actually disputing that there are major genetic differences between all modern crops and their ancestors?

          • Kevin Schmidt

            Do try to reframe the argument with a GMO straw man!
            Hybridization and GMOs are not the same, and you know it!
            All life evolves. There is no way to predict how a GMO can evolve. The law of unintended consequences can produce a new strain of food crop that can be even more toxic than the original GMO.
            If that were to happen with a widely grown food crop like corn or wheat, the US could be faced with the long term prospects of having to eradicate much of the crop, even on non GMO farms, for at least a year to insure the safety of the population.
            Gee, I wonder what that would do to food prices?

          • JP

            That could happen with literally any crop developed with literally any method. Ever heard of the Lanape potato? How about the homegrown zucchini that killed the man in Heidelberg, Germany last year? So I guess with your logic we should avoid all crops. Brilliant argument.

          • Kevin Schmidt

            You should avoid crops where naturally occurring poisons have been cultivated to be more toxic. DUH!
            Potatoes are naturally toxic anyway. They get very toxic when they grow eyes.
            Of course, no one died when the Lanape potato was developed, and the USA did not suffer from a potato famine.
            Not true for GMO crops.

            Got anymore GMO Monsanto straw men that need eradicating?

          • JP

            Please, enlighten me on who has died from GMO crops.

          • Бородатый Дядя

            Lots of people! Monsanto has gone to court to suppress it! Argle Bargle!

          • Leo

            Kevin, what is your scientific background?

          • md444444444

            Evil “reverend” bull$hit

        • pyro777

          Uranium is a radioactive metal and Botulinum Toxin is a bacteria. Neither are food unless of course you want to consider iron, copper, and everything else on this planet food as well.

          • Jason Roder

            Without iron you will suffer from anemia. I’m pretty sure going without copper will screw you up pretty bad too. Even cobalt has its metabolic uses.

            The dose makes the poison.

          • Kevin Schmidt

            Our bodies require organic compounds, not inorganic mineral elements, for our nutrition. We are not plants. If we could assimilate inorganic minerals, we would be able to eat dirt.

          • JP

            Actually, the human body requires many different inorganic substances.

            Iron, calcium, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, magnesium, zinc, manganese… the list goes on and on.

          • Kevin Schmidt

            In minute amounts those “substances” can be assimilated, but the bulk amount comes from organically bound elements. Just ask any nutritionist.
            By the way, how was your mud pie desert?

          • Kevin Schmidt

            Actually, the human body prefers those minerals, not substances, be organically bound.

            Seaweeds provide every trace mineral in easily assimilateable, organically bound compounds.

          • Бородатый Дядя

            Our bodies also require salt – an inorganic rock. Among other things. Do not trust your organic grocery clerk for scientific information.

          • Candy

            You are right Kevin. For instance, the human body cannot process synthetics. Proof in two words: side effects.
            As with all of the Monsanto trash that is produced here in the US, there are countries who have banned them. Monsanto, being the multi-billion dollar industry it is, received the support of Obama in 2009 with the Monsanto Protection Act. Coincidentally, Monsanto gave Obama Super Pac $8million in 2008 and 2012. Prior to that Obama made a promise he would protect Americans from them. Monsanto has spent big bucks bribing members on BOTH sides of the isle to protect their toxic crap they Force on the American people. You people are mullets if you play into these LIES!!

          • agscienceliterate

            Mullets? That’s a new one. Cool!
            Actually, dearie, Monsanto’s revenues are about the same as Whole Foods.
            I’m not going to address the rest of your conspiracy theories or your technical errors. You are way far gone on your woo train. Thus, I highly recommend that you stick to organic and non-GMO certified foods. Labeled in great big green letters. You don’t even have to think.

          • Candy

            Monsanto’s revenues about the same as WFM? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
            Work for Monsanto do you? Only a stupid employee would be as devoted to their trash as you are.

          • agscienceliterate

            Nope. I don’t work for Monsanto or any seed company. I don’t get paid by anybody. Look up the annual revenues yourself of Whole Foods and Monsanto.
            And then you can come back and apologize for being so arrogant.

          • Candy

            I’ll pass on the arrogance. I assume you aren’t too familiar with Financials. Statista says Monsanto’s NET was $15 billion for 2015. NASDAQ says WFM GROSS was $15 billion for 2015. A little bit of difference there. But I guess if you didn’t have time to critique my “errors” you obviously didn’t have time to get the correct numbers.

          • agscienceliterate

            I guess you won’t “pass on the arrogance.” In fact, you double-down on arrogance, with an underpinning of activist misinformation.

            Monsanto, Whole Foods sales and revenues:

            http://ascienceenthusiast.com/wholefoodsmonsanto/

            http://tacit.livejournal.com/596800.html

          • Candy

            Go ahead. Address my technical errors.

          • agscienceliterate

            Way too many for me to waste my time on. But read this – it shows clearly that Monsanto and whole foods each have about the same annual revenue of about $11 billion per year:
            http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/whole-foods-vs-monsanto-can-gmos.html
            You’re welcome. You can start groveling now with your apology.

          • Twan

            Well, one technical error seems your
            remark on “the body cannot process synthetics compounds”. This reminds
            the old idea concept of “vitalism”, believing that organic compounds contain a special vital
            force and can therefore not be made synthetically. This theory was officially
            disproved in 1828 by Friedrich wöhhler when he synthesized urea. Also, nearly
            all modern medication is synthesized. If with synthetics you’re thinking of plastics
            then don’t forget that we humans can’t even process such simple things as
            cellulose though it’s just a sugar polymer, and one of the most common products
            in nature.

          • agscienceliterate

            Others have already debunked your lie about “human body cannot process synthetics.” I will address your other tidbits of lies and propaganda:

            1). Lie. It’s a crops protection act.
            2). Lie. “Bribing members” — paranoid conspiracy
            3). Lie. “Toxic crap”– deemed safe by 240+ international safety, medical and scientific organizations
            4). Lie. “Forced…” (You have tens of thousands of organic and non-GMO certified foods to choose from)
            5). Lie. “Countries that have banned them” — banned their cultivation, not their import, particularly for their livestock.

            You have bought into the organic, anti-GE lies promulgated by the $60 billion organic industry. I won’t call you a mullet for buying into this woo, but you may want to examine your headgear before leaving the house today. That tinfoil hat makes you look even more wacko, dearie.

          • agscienceliterate

            Wrong.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “Botulinum Toxin is a bacteria”
            Nope, botulinum is the toxin produced by bacteria, most often Clostridium botulinum.

          • Kevin Schmidt

            So what? They are still all natural.

          • pyro777

            So is manure but you don’t see people eating that do you?

        • Kevin Schmidt

          Don’t forget mustard gas and anthrax!
          All natural!

    • Herbert Miller

      And hurricanes, smallpox bubonic plague, earthquakes Seriously Nature is not nice.

    • TheMagus84

      “But… but… but… the banana is supposed to prove the existence of God!!!”

  • Clifford Ageloff

    Why does my broccoli look like it the picture? Was it Heirloom broccoli?

    • How could it look like that? It’s inedible…It’s almost like a weed.

    • A

      I mean… that’s what broccoli looks like way past it’s harvest time when it begins to flower… Except I’d say broccoli looks a bit bushier.

  • shockadow

    Hello “load of shit” people. What other bullshit are you making up today?

    • Prism

      Not the type you guys make.. for sure.

    • disqus_zXLbNfw1Yi

      Nice – sparkling wit from a Natural News subscriber.

  • D Birkley

    These are distant cousins that are NOT the same as what we eat. The reason is that we have cultivated things for over 10K years and mostly things are what they seem. I grow heirloom tomatoes and they still look like tomatoes, but not to the extremes you see here. Someone is just trying to pull a fast one on us.

    • Prism

      No fast one here. I am an agriculturist and what they are potraying is true. They are not showing the full story though. The wild tomatoes are actually pretty tiny, the size of small marbles and very bitter. They still grow in the mountains of south India (where I am from). Also, the rice.. willd ones are simply not edible by modern man. Have you eaten wild chickens before they were bred and modified in to the fat ones we have now. Have you seen real silkworm moths (bombyx mori), they have lost their flight skills over 3000 years of domestication. Men have been genetically modifying everything and the latest molecular biology based modificiation is actually less harmful since we are only moving the gene we need rather than a whole family of them (in traditional breeding) just to get the one gene we want.

      • MrTomato

        Wild tomatos are not from India, but from the American continent.

        • Viriato77

          Well the picture above says, aubergine/eggplant so perhaps Prism mis-typed. Eggplants are an Old World crop plant. BUT eggplants and tomatoes are part of the same genus, Solanum which includes so common “wild” ancestor in India is not implausible.

          • Prism

            You are right. The same family solanaceae. Eggplants are also called Brinjals. Their wild relatives are found wherever the current cultivars are cultivated.

          • joecrouse

            tomatoes are also related to nightshade.

        • Prism

          Actually in south america. but their wild relatives are still present all over the world, as tomatoes were bred and cultivated for millenia. Tomatoes did not exactly wait till they were domesticised into the tasty red ones you know till they were suddenly exported from America to the rest of the world, you know. The transition as always was a gradual one, resulting in their relative wild cultivars spreading all through the world just like rice was.

  • me

    yeah and it would probably be much better for us too. Thanks for completely missing the point. There is a massive difference between Genetic modification and hybridization which even occurs naturally in some cases. Here is a thought, if you want to completely confuse everyone with your misinformation, perhaps disable the comment section. As you can see everyone here already aware of the difference. Go cash your monsanto check and think about it.

    • Reality

      It’s not misinformation, just because we now can modify genetics on a smaller scale directly doesn’t make it any different. Not to mention most of that stuff in it’s original form up there is poison to us. If we had not had used selective crossbreeding and other techniques to change the plants we wouldn’t be eating most vegetables we do today. We have been modifying the genetics of food and animals for thousands and thousands of years. Now we have the ability to it much more accurately without all the all guess work, which makes it a much safer process, but now people bitch. Fucking retards.

      • cmac

        We have ZERO idea what will happen when we insert fish DNA and pesticide absorbing genes into corn. It IS misinformation to compare that process to selective breeding dickhead. Fucking retard.

        • Andreas

          Maybe *YOU* have zero idea what happens. We don’t insert random fish DNA but a specific part with defined function. Just google the genetic code.
          I also never read any scientific paper where they inserted pesticide *absorbing* genes. They usually add pesticide destroying genes. Still, traces of the pesticides can remain on the leaves after harvesting, and that *is a real concern*. But DNA modification causes no harm at all.

          • cmac

            A specific gene, with a defined function in a fish may not have the same specific effect within a plant. To say they know exactly what will happen is BS. Do you know the failure rate in these experiments before they get a viable seed product? If it was so perfect and natural, it would just take on the first try. It doesn’t. It creates a bunch of failed organisms before they get it right.

          • Joshua

            Genes have the same effect no matter where they’re expressed. A “gene” as you know it, is nothing more than a series of nucleic acids that all ribosomes in Eukaryotic species associate with tRNAs carrying codon specific amino acids, which are linked together to form a protein that has a specific function. This is how they have taken GFP and put it in all sorts of animals (including the GloFish you can find at the local petstore). To be fair, protein function can be diminished or increased based on the environmental factors in which they are operating (i.e. temperature, acidity, etc), but to be clear, these are not usually concern as most organisms work in a defined homeostatic range that is known prior to vector introduction.

          • cmac

            Let me correct myself. The genes inserted were not inserted to absorb more residual from systemic pesticides, but that is the unintended result or roundup ready organism. I was using shorthand and presented my idea poorly.

            Systemic pesticides are chemicals that are actually absorbed by a plant when applied to seeds, soil, or leaves. The chemicals then circulate through the plant’s tissues, killing the insects that feed on them. Monsanto decided to make it more effective, which is why they modified the roundup ready line.Unfortunately the systemic pesticide residues don’t come out. No matter how hard they try they are still INSIDE the plant. They are still INSIDE the fruit, which we eat. An unintended consequence these masters of GMO didn’t see coming.

            The other unintended result of this experiment with GMO’s is what is killing the bees and causing colony collapse. Because the bees don’t know when the risk from systemic pesticides has diminished, they feed on the pollen when it is at it’s highest concentration, and bring that back to the colony. It is like releasing nerve gas inside the colony. Yet more unintended GMO consequences.

            SO when they tell you they know what that specific part of that specific gene will do and the consequences it will cause, it is complete bullshit and the height of arrogance.

            Their next answer will be to modify humans and bees to resist systemic pesticides. OR, we could just step back from this technology and produce higher yields like we always have, by selective breeding and evolution.

          • David Brown

            You are confusing herbicide tolerant crops with Bt crops. Perhaps you shouldn’t be accusing others of arrogance while simultaneously lecturing about things that you clearly don’t understand?

          • science rules

            Great job copying a blog post from “Motherearthnews” verbatim.

            Here’s what you need to understand. There is as much scientific consensus behind the viability and safety of GMOs as there is behind global warming and evolution. THis is why you can’t find a better source for your tripe than hippie natural medicine blogs.

            And yes, there cross species gene transfer happens all the time in nature it’s actually super common. Check the number of genes Humans share with Fish or Potatoes and prepare to be amazed.

          • Falcon D. Stormvoice

            There’s certainly more consensus for the safety and viability of GMO crops than there is for global warming. Unless, by global warming consensus, you simply mean the acknowledgement of the existence of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

          • Thøger RiveraThorsen

            The number of genes we share with fish and potatoes does not reflect the level of cross species gene transfer happening.

          • There is natural cross species transfer going on all the time. So what you are saying is that you support GMOs when there is no cross species events? Lots of new GM crops involve knocking out genes (such as allergenic proteins) or adding in species same genes. Glad to see you are open minded and embrace advanced GM breeding!!! Good to see an open mind.

          • doubting_rich

            Except that is not causing colony collapse. The pattern of bee population change (massively exaggerated by environmental activists of course) proves there is no connection to the pesticides claimed to be responsible.

        • David Brown

          Actually, the scientists working on these problems have a very good idea of what happens. And the reason why such transfers work in the first place is that all living organisms share large chunks of DNA. That’s right, there is a lot of fish DNA in you. Moreover, the results of transgenic breeding are thoroughly evaluated. Every new protein is tested for toxicity and allergens.

          If you have a strong argument to make, you shouldn’t have to repeatedly insult. Clearly you don’t know everything about the topic at hand, so perhaps if you engaged construstively in a dialogue you would be able to learn something.

          • Falcon D. Stormvoice

            “If you have a strong argument to make, you shouldn’t have to repeatedly insult.”

            Absolutely correct. Then again, this rationale also applies to the user named ‘Reality’.

        • lennyhipp

          “we insert fish DNA and pesticide absorbing genes into corn”
          PLEASE SHOW ME this was done in food.

          • There is no such thing as a “pesticide absorbing gene” let alone one put into corn. There is a gene that makes corn herbicide resistant and another that programs corn and other plants to release natural chemicals–bacteria used by organic farmers, and perfectly safe to humans.

        • Thøger RiveraThorsen

          Wow, the power of your arguments totally convinced me.

    • Andreas

      Most Anti-GMO websites disabled comments. Says a lot about an educated dialogue between the two sides.

  • Lulu

    Selective Breeding is not the same as Genetic Engineering!

    • Andreas

      Yes it is

      • cmac

        No, it really isn’t you freak. You can keep saying it is, but your ignorance does not trump facts.

        GMOs have genes in them they would never acquire through mutation or evolution in nature. It is grabbing whatever gene you like from any animal or plant and forcing it into a DNA strand regardless of consequence.

        Selective breeding is blending two extremely similar and compatible members of the same genus (and often species) to speed the evolutionary process.

        • David Brown

          Wow, ad homenim and ignorance in the same post. Selection involves selecting a particular plant for traits of interest and replanting the seeds from that plant to generate more of such plants. Farmers have used selective breeding for millennia. Crossing involves fertilizing one plant with the pollen from another, often substantially different plant. The results of a cross are often hard to fully predict. Mutagenesis is a technique whereby scientists cause rapid, random mutations in plant or seed DNA through radiation or chemical treatments, then screen these results for traits of interest. This has been used since the 1950s, and in fact is approved for certified organic farming. Mutagenic and transgenic techniques both introduce DNA sequences that would not likely be found naturally in the target plant (that is the whole reason for the use of these techniques), but of course due to natural mutations anything is possible. Without natural mutations we wouldn’t have the diversity of genetic material needed for traditional breeding.

          • Ellamenta

            Your argument would be more effective if it were not couched in such arrogant, dismissive, and insulting terms. Just saying.

          • And yet you ignore the insults being lobbed by people on your side, hypocrite.

          • Thøger RiveraThorsen

            You call the man ignorant but don’t actually address his arguments. You might moderated the statement a bit, but it still stands. You can do things with modern genetic engineering you would never be able to do with selective breeding and cross-breeding. Therefore, the positive experience gathered from millennia of farming is not actually useful in assessing the possible risks of modern genetic engineering.

          • David Brown

            You might want look up mutagenic breeding techniques, or radiation gardens. Mutagenesis is much riskier than transgenic techniques but mutagenic crops have been with us for 60 years and are even allowed in certified organic ag. We can do anything with mutagenic techniques that we do with transgenic techniques, it is just much slower, messier and less effective. The fact is that transgenic techniques are more precise than crossing or mutagenesis. And we have selected for 1000s of years traits that would never occur in nature. That is why most crops can’t survive and reproduce in the wild.

        • Lennyhipp

          “It is grabbing whatever gene you like from any animal or plant and forcing it into a DNA strand regardless of consequence”
          bwahahhahhahahaaaaaaaa! you’re an imbecile. SHOW ME evidence this is done. SHOW ME evidence GMO is ANY different than naturally hybridized produce.

        • Trolling for Hollers

          That’s better… get the name-calling right up front.

        • Falcon D. Stormvoice

          “GMOs have genes in them they would never acquire through mutation or evolution in nature.”

          You could get any gene through mutation, what a stupid thing to say.

          • Thøger RiveraThorsen

            But some would be incredibly improbable, practically impossible, so maybe it is not that stupid after all?

          • Falcon D. Stormvoice

            All evolution is incredibly improbable to the point of being practically impossible. But hey — monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare, all that jazz. You don’t get to cherry pick this as being the exception to the rule.

          • Thøger RiveraThorsen

            If it were practically impossible, it wouldn’t have happened. As you know, the improbability of evolution is cumulative, so the monkeys with typewriters argument doesn’t apply here (although creationists tend to think it does).
            On the other hand, certain processes cannot be broken down into smaller steps that each could survive. They are more improbable than the other very improbable things.

        • Kevin Folta

          I agree they are not the same. Genetic engineering is much more precise, predictable and safe. It is faster, more reliable and allows science to move traits through barriers that breeding can’t possibly tackle. Selective breeding is not natural, the products do not exist in nature and it requires human intervention. GM is just a precise and controllable extension of it.

        • joecrouse

          incorect. the Round up resistance gene developed from corn arose naturally from corn that was growing near train tracks treated by the Railroad they use ROUNDUP to clear weeds and well everything growing near the train tracks.

        • Brian

          Because plants would totally just do this on their own without human interference, amirite?

        • hydrocarbonharry

          SO you are content allowing millions of thrid world children die from malnutrition, than allow golden rice to save them.
          How MALTHUSIAN of you……………

          • Thøger RiveraThorsen

            Wow, that was taking it to the lowest level yet.
            You know, mosts people starving in the world do so because of poverty, in areas where the food is actually there but they cannot afford to buy it. If we really care about the starving children in the world, the really efficient solution would be political. No amounts of golden rice will save children from starving that are denied the food that already exists.

          • You can’t change politics overnight. You can provide vitamin enhanced food with no patent controls and at lower cost than conventional and far, far lower than organic farms. GM crops are part of the solution, not the solution. Those who take GM foods off the table are condemning people to die and suffer.

    • Luigi Novi

      Yeah, genetic engineering is SAFER. Genetic engineering allows the engineers to select precisely which genes they want and which they do not. In nature, this is not possible, because unknown genes can become expressed in a manner that can be more unpredictable.

    • joecrouse

      yep same thing there may be more steps in the end product but its manipulation on the genetic level

  • Hadrian Embalsado

    Anti-GMO’s are the reasons we can’t have nicer things.

    • Cecile Charles

      Yes, there is nothing like pretty poison.

      • Brian

        Except it’s not really poison.

        • Kim Morton

          True. It is much worse.

          • AHH!!!

            Silly.. What do you eat?.. Birch bark.. Practically everything we eat has been changed for the better by our scientists.

          • jajajajaja

            the issue is theres a difference between the genetic modification we have done through seed selection and splicing done in agriculture over the last few 1000s of years VS the genome chem. being done in the last half century.

          • Hadrian Embalsado

            Well we don’t have a millennium to feed the people in Africa.

          • Jim Holroyd

            The most populous states aren’t in Africa…China, India, USA and Indonesia…

          • Hadrian Embalsado

            Since they are dying?

          • Mauricio Quintero

            Oh, they are not as populated? Self centered biatch

          • paulalovescats

            Top ten countries. They were talking COUNTRIES. Not continents.

            China, India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Russia and Japan.

          • Karen Bracco Aguayo

            And that is the goal of these chemical companies… to feed Africa? Because it’s your perception that they simply cannot grow natural seeds? And that it’s not the African government that is the problem?
            I have never seen so many misinformed.

          • Nathan Arce

            Karen: It’s only thanks to GMOs that we can make crops that will successfully grow en masse in India, so those people can be fed. It’s not a matter of politics or whatever, the alternative of shipping food all the way over there in the quantities they need (they have a super-high population density) is just impossible.

            Africa doesn’t quite have the same issue of overcrowdedness, but I imagine GMO crops help them in the same way.

          • paulalovescats

            Yes. The difference is time. What exactly is the big deal? That GMO genes are mutant monsters that will take over my bloodstream? I’d worry more about the cookies and candy and soda I eat a lot.

          • Human scientists are much more precise than the genetic shotgun of random chance.

          • pyro777

            Human scientists are like kids playing god. Nature is a delicate balance, something that humans are not capable of. Ever wander why there’s more mental illnesses than there has ever been? GMOs are the reason even though scientists will never admit to it.

          • I think opposing biotechnology leads to mental illness, but doctors would never admit it!

          • lauriloo

            Stop watching so many sic-fi movies. It’s obvious you don’t have the ability to distinguish reality from fiction.

          • pyro777

            On the contrary you need to get your head out of your ass and wake up. Scientists are always playing around with things they shouldn’t. Viruses, DNA, cloning(http://www.roslin.ed.ac.uk/public-interest/dolly-the-sheep/a-life-of-dolly), atoms (and with them one of the worst weapons known to mankind), And all kinds of other unethical processes.

          • Jason Roder

            Well, yes it’s different. It’s more precise, and less prone to unintended side effects.

            It was traditional selective breeding that gave us the (unfortunately) poisonous Lenape potato, after all.

          • Jason Roder

            Since before we started to call them scientists, even. :)

      • Joey B

        Nothing like over the top rhetoric from people who haven’t got the first clue what they are talking about.

    • kns98

      says who? it’s not like the Anti GMOs are winning. Most of what you eat is probably GMO already. Do you want fries with that?

      • Hadrian Embalsado

        I want my fries with some GMO Ketchup.

        • kns98

          You should get them from McD’s. Eat them three time a day. It’ll do wonders for your digestive system.

          • Rev. Blemmershit

            GMO’s and cultivated plants are a bit different… It’s like how through breeding wolves we created dogs, a technically different species.

          • TRUTH

            No it’s not. breeding wolves to create dogs is still a natural process in which nature is forming the outcome of a NATURAL breeding that happens between two of the SAME SPECIES, even though it is still influenced by humans. GMO’S do not allow for the guidance of nature (which has far greater wisdom than us humans) and is a forced and entirely UN NATURAL process!!

          • None of the food you eat today was bred naturally. Italian wheat–the essence of the world’s best pasta–was created in a laboratory over many years of research by subjecting wheat varietals (which themselves were nothing like nature created them as they’ve been bred to carry multiple genomes to make them edible, which is not naturally found in nature) to bombardment by gamma rays and chemicals. Do you like Ruby Red grapefruits? I like the organic kind myself…the ones created in a laboratory in the 1940s over six years by radiating the seeds of “natural” grapefruits. Humans by definition change and manipulate nature–and we’ve done so for thousands of years. Nothing you eat is as nature created it. When man intervenes, the term “natural process” is meaningless.

          • stephen

            we havent irradiated for thousands of years. thats garbage. irradiating and blasting dna from a spyder into a goats egg was not done before recent times. Hybrids are fine, nature allows this to happen. GMO’s are not natural, they are unpredictable and in many cases very toxic. Dont confuse scientists who are experimenting on our food and animals injecting them with cross species dna with nature. Thats Frankenfood. Organically grown means no pesticides, no herbicides and not genetically modified. No one inject genes into ruby red grape fruit. I dont favor eating foods that are not natural. If you are confused about what is natural, then eat foods that are heirloom or any foods that existed before the current blight of science.

          • Luis Fernando Areán

            Blasting DNA from a spyder (sic) into a goats (sic) egg. That is not being done. You are as ignorant of basic scientific facts as you are of spelling.

          • Elena Bush

            I love science and think it’s pretty cool that this actually HAS been done. http://www.sciencechannel.com/video-topics/sci-fi-supernatural/kapow-superhero-science-spider-silk-gene-goats/

          • Luis Fernando Areán

            “I dont favor eating foods that are not natural”

            Well, then only eat the products of fishing, berry and mushroom collecting and hunting. Nothing else is natural.

          • bioarch1961

            And, those are questionable

          • agscienceliterate

            Frankenfood! That is so old school — it’s funny! The new meme, Stephen, is “shill.” Throw out “shill” accusations. “Frankenfood” just isn’t used anymore by your fellow smackdivists.

            Yes, ruby red grapefruit (it’s one word, just for future spelling; you’re welcome) is organic, and gentically modified through mutagenesis. Look it up.

            “Current blight of science” …. yeah, I know. Horrible. Modern medicines, computers, transportation ….. we oughta dump them all in accordance with your philosophy.

            Oh, and look up “organically grown.” They most certainly do use pesticides and herbicides, and some of them are quite toxic. All perfectly acceptable under USDA certification. Google it yourself and then come back here and apologize. Where in the heck did you get the idea that organic does not use pesticides?

            And tell us what kinds of grubs, worms, and seeds you eat. You DO eat cheese, right? Genetically modified. Betcha you didn’t know that. And betcha you didn’t know that every single “right to know” labeling proposal would exclude cheese, as well as many other GE foods, from having to be labeled.

            What is s “spyder” by the way?

            And what do you think “nature” is? I wonder if you’ll mail me your laptop and iPhone since they certainly are not present in the kind of “nature” you describe. And please also mail me your Starbucks card.

          • Jason Roder

            Protip: The blight here isn’t science. It’s Ludditism.

          • Brett Dailey

            Hate to burst your bubble but organic does not mean pesticide free. In fact, the are several “all natural” pesticides that farmers can and DO use on their organic crops while still being legally organic that are actually WORSE than the not natural pesticides.

          • Nelson Spence

            Organic foods ARE grown with pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides. There are dozens of FDA approved substances to be used in organic farming, many of which are more toxic and harmful to the environment than their synthetic substitutes.

          • Miguel Corleone

            There is no science to place your statement in fact.

          • Joy Rose

            Why isn’t anything humans do “natural”? Did nature not produce us? What’s the difference between a human cultivating a sheep and an ant cultivating an aphid? The latter is natural, and the former is not?

            When we change and manipulate nature, why is that suddenly no longer considered “natural”?

          • agscienceliterate

            Joy, you’re preaching to the choir by directing that comment to Jon Entine. You need to address it instead to the Stephens on this site who are enamored by their fairy tale visions of the word “natural.”

          • Joy Rose

            I was responding to someone who said that none of the food we eat is “natural”, since humans have already altered it through breeding.

            I am not on the crusade of convincing people that food is okay even if it’s been manipulated by humans. I am merely pointing out that, if humans are part of nature, than food that has been bred/genetically manipulated by humans is also part of nature and thus natural.

          • fiets

            There is a distict definition in natural and artificial. It’s a fact. But I think you’re meaning to say that artificial food isn’t all bad too. :)

          • fiets

            By definiton, there is a distict difference between natural and artificial. It’s created by humans :).
            But I think you’re meaning to say that artificial food isn’t all bad
            too. :)

          • Joy Rose

            Not really.

            I’m meaning to say that food that is created by humans can only be artificial if humans themselves are in some way not natural.

            What makes us not part of nature? Why are we considered in some way artificial, when birds making dye for their nests out of berries, or ants herding and ‘milking’ aphids, or beavers damming streams and building multi-room lodges are all natural?

            Why is building homes, making dye, and herding animals suddenly “artificial” when humans are doing it?

          • agscienceliterate

            Joy — Exactly. Many other animals (beavers, for one very clear example, and ants) highly manipulate their environments. Is that “natural”? Certainly. And as you say, whatever humans do is also, by definition, “natural,” unless we’re from outer space. And even that would part of the nature of the universe.

            And Fiets certainly can’t be arguing that Dutch canals in Amsterdam or the seawalls in Northern Holland are “natural.” If “natural” was the guiding principle in her country, she’d be under water.

          • Austin

            “Whatever humans do is also, by definition, “natural,” unless we’re from outer space. And even that would be part of the nature of the universe.”

            Wait. If everything in the universe is natural and nothing is unnatural, then natural becomes a meaningless term except when used to describe any and every entity or process in existence which would be pointless because said entity or process exists therby negating the need to label it as natural and thus….. natural ceases to exist…..

            Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue.

            ;)

          • x man

            Natural ceased to exist the day humans started experimenting with natures product to make a so called better higher yield fruit or vegetable. theres nothing on the market that can be bought that is natural,it has in someway been modified,the people that believe different are buying into the propaganda of commerce.

          • Austin

            Nope. Humans are animals that exist in nature. By definition, human experimentation and manipulation of our environment is part of nature, aka natural. Just because you don’t agree with something humans have always done that is part of why we have succeeded as a species, doesn’t mean you get to rewrite the rules and change the definitions of words in protest.

          • Peter Hric

            You just can’t say the word “succeeded” as a species. With this natural manipulation and creation we are on a way to destroy this very nature of our planet. Altering plants genes is artificial modification to its gradual natural development and evolution. If it helps to get better plants, resistant, more potent but at the same time harmless to us, its ok. Getting the plants seedless so you are only one possessing the seeds its not good and should be avoided. And please dont say we are ahead of the game or succeeding in anything. After centuries we still fight, have wars, destroying forests and seas for monetary gain. I would say we are failing pretty fast.

          • Austin

            Your opinion is not the measure by which the success or failure of a species is determined. We manipulate our environment and our food in order to suit our needs. Evolution doesn’t just happen. There have to be outside forces working against an organism that it must change itself in order to accommodate. Just because you saw a YouTube documentary about Monsanto doesn’t suddenly mean edible bananas are bad because we manipulated and changed them completely over time from the barely edible fruit they used to be. You have your opinion. I have mine. I’m not here to argue with you, no matter how much smoke you blow.

          • Peter Hric

            I havent said the bananas are bad or any gene modification is bad. I replied to your statement as success of species. If you meant the technology and knowledge to do gene manipulation that I agree with. But overall its obvious that we need to work on ourselves as a humanity and our relationship with nature and how we treat her. Thats all. Its not my opinion its a general fact. ;)

          • Austin

            We have to learn to treat each other right before we can learn to treat nature right.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Seedless fruit was an innovation to fill a market niche. Consumers like seedless fruit. It is easier to eat and more urbane without all that seed spitting and so on. I don’t believe seedless fruit is a nefarious conspiracy to control the world and destroy the planet. Do you Peter, seriously?

          • Peter Hric

            Where did you get the idea of controlling the world and destroying the planet dear Farmer. All I said was that it, as an idea, may be an agenda of some corporation(not world domination, but seed domination). It may not, who knows right? :) Dont be so quick on judgement. I dont believe so too.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Oh c’mon, If you think a seed company could force all competition into extinction by introducing a seedless variety into the market you have no idea how to craft any kind of an evil agenda, my friend.

            As for human capitalists being on a greedy headlong rush to destroy the planet, cut the crap. Look to yourself to see if you aren’t at the root of the problem — greedily demanding and consuming those planet-trashing products, all that food that must be grown at environmental cost…and that ultimately you convert into nothing more significant than unsightly flab and a steady stream of human excrement that gets processed into municipal waste and dumped into a landfill somewhere.

            Yeah, it’s a fine urban/suburban luxury to consume lavishly and wonderful fun to cluck your tongue and point your finger in unison with so many other entitled fools. And you wonder why there still are wars?

            Now how do you propose to become part of the solution?

          • Peter Hric

            You are right. I try to buy things from producers that use recycled materials, food that is bio and so on. I support organizations that try to make things better through different donations etc. I do my part to the best of my ability.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yeah, you go through the motions, it gives you moral license to criticize, you think…but you still represent the market whose demand we produce and sell into, do you not?

            Where the hell do you self-righteous scolds think all that coal and oil and iron ore disappear to? You know, the byproduct of capitalists’ frantic work digging up and destroying the planet — do you think they burn it all on site and pile the remainder in big slag heaps somewhere?

            You try to use recycled, right, that let’s you off the hook. Sure it does. And I suppose you recycle your human waste into replacement tires and seat covers for your electric car. What is wrong with you people?

          • Peter Hric

            Whats wrong with you? You dont have a car? You dont buy groceries? Are you really that perfect? If so, then I must bow down your highness lol. Whats wrong with us. You see there is still chance to run for president I think :D

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Well now, I do all of those things…and more, much more! I am a consumer, as well as a producer.

            As a consumer I drive demand for production, thus I tap natural resources, I pollute to have those products delivered to my fingertips. And I do not blame any of that on greedy capitalists plundering the forests and oceans (or the air, the freshwater, the landscape, the public safety, blah, blah, blah). Nope, it’s me and you, Petie, billions of guys like me and you doin’ it.

            You made the charge against producers for destroying the forests and seas for monetary gain. I merely point out producers tap natural resources and pollute to satisfy consumers like you and I. I will further point out the fact most of our consumption, yours and mine, amounts to no palpable consequence in the world. We squander products principally for our own ease, amusement and ego, leaving behind us nothing concrete except the CO2 we exhale and the excrement we deposit, a couple hundred pounds of embalmed flab and flesh posed in a luxury grade coffin. The produce of an entitled lifetime of driven dissipation and intellectual fluff.

            So, for those like yourself who like to say the environmental blame is on the producer, the capitalist, I repeat my fair and reasonable question — What is wrong with you?

            Care to post a straight answer this time Peter? What is wrong with finger pointers like you?

          • J. Randall Stewart

            Peter, FwaD makes an excellent point below. Producers produce exactly what consumers demand. Period.

            You will have to change demand and you can’t do it by lying. You have to do it with truth.

            GMO crops can be anything–they can be either bad or good or neutral. They are not inherently any of those.

            When lies are spread about GMO crops, it dismisses everything else that organization has to say.

            Here are a few lies being told now:
            GE crops are worse for the environment.
            GE crops take more pesticides.
            GE crops cause more superweeds.

            Anyone telling these lies is hurting the environmental cause.

          • So very true. But not everyone who lives in the suburbs or the city is an over-consumer. I have pretty much everything I need and now regularly donate to environmental charities.

            I know one thing. I am not going to complain about the price of organically grown food ever again.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            One doesn’t need to be an “over-consumer” to be contributing to the problem. Simply consuming is the driving force. Like you, I too have pretty much everything I need now and that comfort was accumulated out of society as a ripple effect and drain on our resources and environment. Just because it is in the obscure past does not cross it off the accounting ledgers.

            Oh, and the donations to environmental charities and the overpriced organic food purchases — those are nice gestures, but only gestures when you consider your wealth was created by exploiting and polluting somewhere else in our world and your consumption of that organic food results in fully as much human excrement being processed into municipal waste and dumped in a landfill somewhere (or excrement deposited in a leaky septic system in the ‘burbs somewhere) as consuming conventionally produced food.

            It’s all too easy to be caught up in the feel-good sensation of going through the politically correct motions…

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071606839.html

          • James Edwards

            At some point consumers can shift market demands but they can also be constrained by the suppliers if they refuse to shift their processes, resources, etc to align with that consumer shift – or they mitigate the shift to hold on to the more profitable business model. If the food isnt grown, people arent going to buy the alternative that isn’t there. Not enough would grow their own food to make any significant financial impact – the only way these businesses would shift their model.

            You don’t think that consumers aren’t influenced by things like…marketing or policy? Its hard to know how to change when so much of our time is consumed by advertising telling us what to do. Any average consumer is influenced by this, maybe none to the wiser their are alternatives because that’s all they see.

            Or policy, which also influences consumers, but they have little to zero influence back. Large organizations spend billions to influence factors outside of their company, in favor of more control…over consumers, over markets, over profits. I admire you biting the bullet and taking the blame but I wouldn’t absolve Big Ag or other corporate greed from having significant influence on the consumer base.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yeah, damned humans ruin everything. Where the heck did these unnatural humans come from, anyway? Mars? Some unnatural universe? What?

            So the rich question is: What do we do about ridding the planet of humans in order to restore the proper “natural” order of things?

          • We grow monocrops of GM Corn and BTmaize and hope that it DOES in fact cause cancer and wipe half the human population out?

          • Farmer with a Dell

            False hope that. Harsh reality is those technological advancements only make food supplies more abundant, safe and affordable, sustaining the population. Curses, foiled again!

          • gmoeater

            Thank God for that. And you should, too — without this modification, you would be very unlikely to be here, typing away on your laptop and drinking your cappuccino and eating literally a choice of thousands of healthy foods each day. Yeah, want talk unnatural? Look in the mirror, and be thankful. And then google, on your unnatural laptop “naturalistic fallacy.”

          • Damo

            So you mean back around the time people started harvesting that one species of grain that decided to keep its seeds rather than shed them in the wind?

            Or when we took crab apples and decided to start breeding them for heft and sweetness?

            Or the ancient americans who took this one grain and began to breed it for larger kernels and more of them?

            Cause this stuff has been happening for thousands of years.

          • hyperzombie

            ” theres nothing on the market that can be bought that is natural,it has in someway been modified”
            Brazil nuts are not modified in anyway and some berries. That is about it.

          • gmoeater

            I think you got it! Austin, I would love an example of something that you might consider “unnatural.” Aside from Donald Trump’s hair. (And in that instance, sadly, nature DID cease to exist.). Glue sniffing is perfectly natural. Maybe not so smart, but whateva.

          • Austin

            Just one example? Sounds easy enough. Justin Beiber. Case closed. ;)

          • gmoeater

            Ah. With ya there. Maybe we’ll be lucky, and he won’t breed, if he hasn’t already. Natural selection is a bitch.

          • Zak

            Love the airplane reference!

          • Do they use genetic engineering to do it?

          • J

            A beaver dam or aphid farm are not natural. They do not occur without the influence of either beavers, aphids or ants. Ergo, not natural, but manufactured.

          • agscienceliterate

            Interesting. OK, what in your opinion in accordance with that bizarre interpretation “…without the influence…” IS “natural” ?

          • fiets

            It’s only a word for that humans did it… :(

          • fiets

            Or maybe robots! :)

          • fiets

            ar·ti·fi·cial
            ˌärdəˈfiSHəl/
            adjective
            adjective: artificial
            1.
            made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural.”her skin glowed in the artificial light”

            If you want to reconsider the definition of this word in the english language and substitue it for your opinion, you’re in the wrong discussion. It’s gliding a bit off-topic here…

          • Joy Rose

            I’m not arguing that the word is being defined incorrectly. I’m arguing that the word itself is a problem if you believe that human beings (along with everything else) simply evolved from the same sources all those years ago.

            The word itself was taken from the Latin and applied to the English language several hundred years before Darwin, when *everyone*, regardless of religion, believed that Man was a special creation made differently and separate from the rest, collectively called “nature”.

            In that context, it made perfect sense to claim that what humans did was “changing nature”, because humans were not considered to have had the same source and status. Why would it still be the proper term to use today?

          • fiets

            use the word physics, then you don’t have to switch between natural and artificial…

          • Joy Rose

            I generally don’t use the word “physics” when describing biological science with an emphasis on genetics.

            Just like I don’t use the term “electrical engineering” when talking about physics, or the term “forensic artist” when talking about electrical engineering.

          • Lauren Miller

            Hello Joy. By your logic, since everything which humans do is “natural”, nothing can be “unnatural”, either. If this were the case, then the word “nature” would be useless since it literally describes *everything*.

            But note that I said “useless” and not “meaningless”. I fully agree with you—when analysing the actual meaning of “nature”, we recognize that humans and their actions really are just a component of nature. But if we start analysing the actual meanings of *all* words, we’ll find that those words don’t really exist in an absolute and real way, either.

            However, if you view words as tools for communication, it’s easier to see the usefulness of our technically-not-correct word “natural”. For instance, it’s much easier to say “This hole was formed through natural processes” than to say “This hole was formed by non-human processes.”

            But you’re right, it’s a problem when people disassociates themselves from nature, and then assumes that nature is somehow better than our non-natural selves with no other justification. Nature has been quite brutal on us for the vast majority of our animal existence. But now that we are equipped with the tools to understand the laws which govern nature, we can use our growing knowledge of nature to improve our lives which nature itself created.

            Ultimately, though, I think that humans are just afraid of change. We often conflate nostalgia with how things ought to be.

          • Jer

            I thoroughly enjoyed this run down. Thank you.

          • Trevor A. Goring

            i get what you are saying. and u are right. whatever changes and is created on this planet is part of its natural evolution. respect.

          • Zak

            I completely agree and have been contemplating it for years lol. Another great example for your argument is honey. Bees literally mass produce honey, the only for that animals create and humans eat) and they call it natural and organic.

          • SistahB

            You’re brilliant.

          • JamesB

            I get your general direction and fully agree, but the word natural specifically excludes humans. if it were as we think though, there wouldn’t be any need for the word as literally everything would be natural.

          • Joy Rose

            I agree with you. The reason I pointed it out here is not due to any desire to remove any distinction between nature-made and man-made, but to confront the attitude that ‘man-made’ is in some way intrinsically harmful because it was made by man and not by something else.

            I do, also, believe in my own religious faith that man is separate, special, and good, an ‘animal-spirit hybrid’ as it were, tasked with the care, maintenance, and enjoyment of the earth. As such, ‘man-made’ is the ultimate fulfillment of nature rather than its ultimate evil.

          • Mlema

            I would say that whether or not something made by man is the ultimate fulfillment of nature or its ultimate evil depends on the specific thing that’s man-made. Humans have created things both good and evil.

          • gmoeater

            “Fulfillment of nature”…? I didn’t know that nature gave a damn. And “evil” …? Pretty religious stuff here, Mlema. And “….depends on the specific thing….” Can you be more specific? Guns? Vaccines? Houses? Cars? Internet? Clothing? Food? What are your particular standards for deciding whether a man-made thing is “fulfillment of nature” (didn’t know she cared) or “evil”? Who whispers in your ear?

          • Mlema

            Joy Rose was the one who said “I do, also, believe in my own religious faith that man is separate,
            special, and good, an ‘animal-spirit hybrid’ as it were, tasked with the
            care, maintenance, and enjoyment of the earth. As such, ‘man-made’ is
            the ultimate fulfillment of nature rather than its ultimate evil.”

            and my comment was a reply to her. So I know you’d like to have an argument with me, but your argument is with Joy Rose and you’ve apparently not understood my comment. I happen to agree that ‘man as the ultimate fulfillment of nature’ doesn’t really say anything, and I also agree that it would depend what specifically we’re talking about as to whether it’s good or evil.

            So, sorry – but you can’t have an argument with me today. Try Joy Rose instead for a change gmoeater.

          • Joy Rose

            gmoeater very likely understands my point, which has nothing to do with anything you responded to it. You raised a brand new argument against mine, claiming that man’s “good” actions were defined by the “ultimate fulfillment of nature”, and man’s “evil” actions were defined by “nature’s ultimate evil”.

            My argument has been that, IF you are going to take the position that nature is god, THEN you cannot say that anything man does is good or evil. IF you define what man does as good or evil, THEN you must be honoring a god above nature, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

          • Mlema

            Joy Rose – I never argued nature as god. The comment you replied to
            was the very first comment I made on what you were saying. I asked you
            if nature was your god because you said:

            “I do, also, believe in my own religious faith that man is separate,
            special, and good, an ‘animal-spirit hybrid’ as it were, tasked with the
            care, maintenance, and enjoyment of the earth. As such, ‘man-made’ is
            the ultimate fulfillment of nature rather than its ultimate evil.”

            “F you are going to take the position that nature is god, THEN you cannot
            say that anything man does is good or evil. IF you define what man does
            as good or evil, THEN you must be honoring a god above nature, whether
            you are willing to admit it or not.”

            I completely agree with that statement. Perhaps I hadn’t read enough of your earlier comments to understand. I think that in discussions like this the word “natural” is meaningless. Either everything we humans do is natural, or none of it is. It just depends on how you want to define the word.

            But make no mistake – gmo eater was just trying to start an argument with me because I take a skeptical viewpoint on gmos. He replied to my comment as if I were the one saying that man is the ultimate fulfillment of nature. Man is of nature, no doubt. I do not believe nature is God. And if there’s any “ultimate fulfillment” of anything, it’s man’s opinion, because nature doesn’t do “ultimate fulfillment”.

            Thank you

          • Joy Rose

            “Either everything we humans do is natural, or none of it is. It just depends on how you want to define the word.”

            That has been my exact point, from the beginning, in a nutshell.

          • James Edwards

            this is the definition of natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind – so, things that are natural, but manipulated and modified by humankind, is now not natural. I guess we haven’t been eating natural things for a while now, huh? I’ll still take the items with less synthetics and GMOs

          • Joy Rose

            Totally missing my point.

            If it’s manipulated by mankind, no matter how mankind manipulated it, then either it is natural by dictionary definition, or human beings are not a part of nature.

            The very term ‘unnatural’ or ‘artificial’ when referring to works of a human being are *based on* the belief system that human beings were created as different sorts of things as ‘the rest of nature’ and given the rest of nature over which to superintend.

            If we’re going to base science on the theory that human beings evolved just like everything else, we cannot call the works of human beings ‘unnatural’ any more than we can use the term to describe a bird’s nest, an anthill, or a honeycomb.

          • James Edwards

            Just because something exists within nature and modifies natural things, does’t preclude the end result to still be natural. The action of processing and modification denatures things. When you start to process things in ways that never can occur in nature with out that process being administered, is when things become unnatural. Evolution, for example in this case would make man natural as that occurred organically. What doesn’t happen organically is splicing completely unrelated organisms and species together to make synthetic items – which is so far from your examples of an anthill that I question those as even being serious. The process to create those things do not require anything that isn’t already as is, it is just combining structures, not injecting DNA from a honeycomb into an anthill for a super strong and binding anthill. Is that not a clear difference? Or are you going to argue that someone naturally thought of the idea to modify DNA, therefore, it’s still natural?

          • Joy Rose

            DNA splicing is also just combining structures.

            Are you going to argue that someone supernaturally thought of the idea to modify DNA? That the human intellect is something that goes beyond the markings of nature, the evolutionary process, the ‘circle of life’, etc.?

            You certainly can, if you wish, and then I would agree with you that, according to a worldview that believes that humans are set apart from that which is natural, what humans do is not by definition ‘natural’. In which case it would certainly make sense that you would refer to DNA splicing as ‘unnatural’ and/or ‘artificial’.

          • Joy Rose

            There is a specific type of female wasp which seeks out a roach and stings it with a special poison, which inhibits the chemical that makes it avoid danger. She then takes it by the antenna, totally docile, down to her burrow. It lays down obediently. She lays an egg on its stomach, loosely fills in the burrow for safety, and leaves.

            When the egg hatches three days later, the larva spends the next eight days eating the roach. It eats the roach’s organs in just the right order to keep the roach alive until the very last day.

            When the last organ in the roach has been eaten, the larva uses the roach’s empty carapace as a protective shell in which to pupate.

            Mlema, would you consider this to be the ultimate fulfillment of nature, or its ultimate evil? If it is the fulfillment of nature, then what would you think that humans could do which is “evil” according to nature, if killing another animal by eating its organs in the right order to keep it alive for over a week is “good”?

          • Mlema

            I would say there is no “ultimate fulfillment of nature” What does that even mean? Evil and good are human judgements. Nature doesn’t judge. I’d say it’s evil to torture any living thing. We don’t know what it means to either the wasp or the roach to live the life they live. We project evil onto the relationship you’ve described. For all we know the roach is in ecstasy – or has no feeling at all after a certain point. In fact, I’m not sure what your question has to do with what I said. Was the development and deployment of the atom bomb on Japan “the ultimate fulfillment of nature because it was man-made?

            There’s a parasitic fungus that grows out of caterpillars and humans have found it provides a large number of medicinal benefits. So what?

            Perhaps you’re simply saying that man is “good” BECAUSE he’s the fulfillment of nature? Is nature your god?

            Sorry. I guess I don’t really get what you’re saying. It seemed like you were saying that if something is man-made it’s the fulfillment of nature – so not evil. I’m just saying that man makes good and evil alike.

          • Joy Rose

            Ah, see, I was responding to this:

            Mlema Joy Rose • 18 hours ago

            I would say that whether or not something made by man is the ultimate fulfillment of nature or its ultimate evil depends on the specific thing that’s man-made. Humans have created things both good and evil.

            …………………………….

            That’s why I questioned your use of the term “ultimate fulfillment of nature” and your designation of “good” and “evil” as being connected to the “ultimate fulfillment of nature” or “its ultimate evil”.

            You were the one arguing nature as god. I was the one refuting it by pointing out that human beings perceive actions within nature as “evil”, while, IF nature was god, there could not possibly be anything evil in any animal’s nature.

          • Mlema

            Joy Rose – I never argued nature as god. The comment you replied to was the very first comment I made on what you were saying. I asked you if nature was your god because you said:

            “I do, also, believe in my own religious faith that man is separate,
            special, and good, an ‘animal-spirit hybrid’ as it were, tasked with the
            care, maintenance, and enjoyment of the earth. As such, ‘man-made’ is
            the ultimate fulfillment of nature rather than its ultimate evil.”

            Perhaps we actually agree that it’s man who assigns the values of good vs. evil? I don’t necessarily believe that man has been “tasked with the care, maintenance, and enjoyment of the earth” though. OR, if he is – he’s not necessarily doing a good job. I think physical laws rule this world, and as far as spiritual, I really have nothing to comment on in that area.
            Thank you

          • Joy Rose

            Being that I do believe that man has been tasked with the care, maintenance, and enjoyment of the earth, I do not believe that man is the one who ultimately assigns the values of good vs. evil.

            The very fact that I believe man to be “separate, special, and good” should suggest that I do not take nature as god.

            If you have nothing to comment on in the area of spirituality, then I can be certain that we do not agree.

          • Mlema

            Joy Rose – The reason I have nothing to comment on in the area of spirituality is because I don’t believe that discussing spirituality in this context is a valuable use of energy.

            So, the only thing you can disagree with me about, based on what I’ve said, is: that you disagree that discussing spirituality in this context is a valuable use of energy. That would mean that you do feel that discussing spirituality in this context is a valuable use of energy.

            As far as what I have to say about spirituality, I’m simply not saying it. So there’s no way for you to know whether or not you and I agree on anything you’ve said about spirituality. Therefore, you can’t be certain whether or not we agree in that regard.

          • Joy Rose

            Well, that was twisted.

            Suppose I were to say, “Well, I agree that discussing spirituality in this context is a waste of energy. Therefore, the only thing you could be disagreeing with me on is whether spirituality exists and, since I believe it exists, that makes you a total and complete atheist no matter what you say.”

            What would you think of my logic if I did that to you?

          • Mlema

            This isn’t about your logic. It’s about what you’re actually saying.
            quote:
            “If you have nothing to comment on in the area of spirituality, then I can be certain that we do not agree.”

            If I made no comment, then you don’t know whether or not we agree. Why is that twisted? It’s just about what we’ve both said.

            But it points me back to a question about something else you said:

            “I do believe that man has been tasked with the care, maintenance, and
            enjoyment of the earth, I do not believe that man is the one who
            ultimately assigns the values of good vs. evil.”

            How is man tasked with the care and maintenance of the earth? Almost all of life on earth would be just fine without man. The only species I can think of that would be affected without man are domesticated crops and animals like our pets and the animals that people eat.

            The earth was here before man, and man seemed to be having a negative impact on every other species. The only way I can see that man might be beneficial to “the earth” (meaning life on earth) is if man were someday able to avert a comet or some other celestial disaster that would otherwise kill everything. But currently the chance is greater that we are the ones who will kill everything.

            If man isn’t the one who assigns the values of good vs evil – then who is doing it? No one is judging animals as doing evil things. I don’t think it’s evil that a wasp kills a roach to reproduce. I wouldn’t want to be treated like the roach – but that doesn’t make the wasp evil. But if a person tortured me I would say that was evil – but I wouldn’t say the person was evil. I would say they were sick and I would try to forgive them if I lived. Some people might say that’s crazy – but if I have any form of spirituality it’s this: love your brother. And love includes forgiveness.

          • Joy Rose

            After scolding me for assuming that we disagree in matters of spirituality, you have confirmed by elaborating on your spiritual beliefs that we disagree in matters of spirituality.

            You’re trying very, very hard to pick a fight with me. Just a moment ago, when you were scolding me for assuming that we disagree, you said that you weren’t *going* to elaborate because it wouldn’t add anything to the debate, something with which I agreed, even as you told me that I did not so that you could explain why you must be right and I must be wrong.

            Is this because you didn’t realize when you first replied to my comments that I was not in disagreement with you? Do you feel as if you have to win some sort of victory somewhere to justify getting involved? Or is something else driving you to do this to yourself?

          • Mlema

            Joy Rose, I was just trying to figure out what you were saying. I don’t see where anything that you’ve said would allow me to know that we agree in spiritual matters. You believe that good vs evil is assigned by some agency other than man. I don’t see any evidence of that.

            I felt compelled to point out that some of what you’re saying is contradictory. I don’t really feel that we’re arguing. I still don’t understand what you’re saying about man and nature / good and evil. I didn’t scold you. I just pointed out that you were making assumptions about whether or not we agree on matters of spirituality after I said I had no comment to make on spirituality.

            If you could explain what you mean when you say “”I do believe that man has been tasked with the care, maintenance, and enjoyment of the earth, I do not believe that man is the one who ultimately assigns the values of good vs. evil.”

            maybe I’d stop picking on you. After all, my original comment to you was simply: “I would say that whether or not something made by man is the ultimate
            fulfillment of nature or its ultimate evil depends on the specific thing
            that’s man-made. Humans have created things both good and evil.”

            Then you told me about the wasp and the roach. Then I thought we agreed that either everything is natural or unnatural. But then there was the whole thing about spirituality and good/evil. I still don’t understand what you’re saying about humans/ good/ evil/ spirituality. So forgive me. If you don’t want to try to explain, that’s fine.

            edit: one other question is: what do you mean when you say “the ultimate fulfillment of nature”? Do you mean man as the most intelligent and facile creature that nature has produced? I can understand that and perhaps just don’t understand your terminology.

          • Mlema

            To try to tie this to GMOs – it’s impossible for a GMO to be evil. But if you pirate the genetic information of crops owned by people of a specific region and culture, modify them with a patented gene and then sell them back in a way that no longer allows those people to grow their food without technology contracts and purchasing seeds every year – that smacks of evil to me.

          • Guest

            That sounds really bad! Do you have some examples?

          • Mlema

            What I just gave you was an example – but I’m assuming you want an instance where this has occurred? One would be Monsanto’s biopiracy in India, where the company was sued for “stealing” eggplant genomes to modify and commercialize. Another would be in Europe, where the European Patent Office is allowing Monsanto to scour soybean genetics in order to locate genes that might help in climate adaptation – so they can patent and commercialize them.
            https://no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/information/news/monsanto-bio-piracy-supported-european-patent-office

            Before bt cotton in India, farmers had hundreds of hybrids that they’d mostly developed themselves. Now it’s difficult to obtain non-bt seeds. And it’s not for lack of trying, since the plants have become susceptible to secondary pests and yields are falling.

            90% of the corn we grow in the US is gmo – meaning the biotech company that produced it has control over the seeds. But maize was indigenous to the Americas and people who want to grow corn shouldn’t have to go on a treasure hunt in Mexico for hardy seeds free of tech contracts.

            And regarding industry advocate’s pointing out the fact that most of what we grow is hybrid and needs to be replanted – yes that is true. And while this isn’t the same as simply patented seeds, our country has a centralized government and the financial stability required to support this kind of agriculture. Many nations where Monsanto et al want to distribute their products do not provide this sort of infrastructure. So patented GE seeds that replace those nations sovereign agricultural genetics, to me: it’s rather evil. Is that too strong a word? After all – it’s just business. But it’s about the means of survival. No one should have control over seeds except those who grow them. If with awareness and by contract the farmers in the US or other developed nations want to grow crops that won’t grow again, or can’t be grown again without violating a contract, that’s fine with me. But I don’t like these global corporations going into nations where farming has no market control and hawking their wares like they’re magic, and basically taking away their control over their own survival.

            Please don’t misunderstand – I very much support the west’s involvement in improved agriculture in the 3rd world. I believe this ought to be tailored to the environment, economy and culture in those countries. Often that means IPM instead of pesticides and gmos – because these countries have more labor than money.

          • gmoeater

            Mlema, you have been advised over and over that patents have been around on all types of seeds since 1930. Why do you keep harping on this same tired old meme? Are you just a slow learner?
            OK. Slowly now.
            1). Farmers willingly sign contracts.. They are not forced into buying any type of seed or signing any contracts.
            2) Golden Rice is not a product of Monsanto. Get off the paranoia wagon about this corporation.
            3) No country has an “obligation” to purchase technology from any other country. No country is being forced into any type of technology.
            Got it now?

          • Mlema

            “you have been advised over and over that patents have been around on all
            types of seeds since 1930. Why do you keep harping on this same tired
            old meme? Are you just a slow learner?”

            Exaggerate much?

            1) I never said anyone was forced into anything.

            2) I never said anything about Golden Rice and I’m not sure where you got that bit. It’s very weird and you might want to think about why you thought I said something about Golden Rice because if you don’t know why you are perhaps in need of evaluation.

            3) Never used the word “obligation” or even talked about obligation, so why are you putting that word in quotes?

            If you’re going to reply to my comment, make sure you’re replying to my comment.

            PS – GMOs mostly start out as patented hybrids before they’re engineered to be patented GMOs. No one is prevented from re-planting a hybrid, but in this country our commodity agriculture mostly doesn’t require saving seeds – which don’t always do well from hybrids anyway. Less developed countries have always saved seed which can be planted again. In the US, farmers are sued for saving GMO seed. They’re not supposed to do it. Hundreds have settled out of court, even when innocent. But this is completely different than patented hybrids, and even more different from the way farming is done in some other countries.

            I may not reply to any more of your comments because you don’t seem to be reading very carefully. First you replied to me as if I were the one saying what actually had been said by another commentor. Now you’re trying to correct me on things I haven’t said.

            Sorry. But if you write another reply to me that has nothing to do with what I’ve said, I may not reply.

          • Joy Rose

            If we are to agree that spiritual matters are irrelevant to the discussion, then explaining what I mean about man’s task on this earth would be violating that.

            If something is part of nature, then it is natural. If it is not part of nature, then it is unnatural.

            This is a completely separate matter from whether something is good or evil, except in the instance that one believes that “good” and “evil” is ultimately determined by nature, in which case nature is one’s god.

            I do not fall into that category.

            If I did, then I would be a hypocrite to claim that anything that man did was any less than the ultimate fulfillment of nature, same as the wasp and the roach.

            If nature is, as such people generally say, built on random chance, then the ultimate fulfillment of nature does not require facility or intelligence, so, no, I was not saying that man was the most intelligent and facile creature that nature has produced. I wouldn’t say that anyways, because, as noted above, nature is not my god, and therefore the phrase “that nature has produced” is irrelevant to my spiritual beliefs.

            But all of this is, as I noted to begin with, completely irrelevant to my original point: IF one believes that man is not in any way supernatural or extra-natural, IF one believes that man is, indeed, produced by nature, THEN man cannot by definition do anything “unnatural”, even if he is breeding animals or vegetables for man-desired traits.

          • Mlema

            OK. Thanks for taking the time to explain more. I honestly didn’t get what you were saying. But I’m still confused about some of it. I admit, I’m about to try to pin you down on something. So, to your original point:

            “IF one believes that man is not in any way supernatural or
            extra-natural, IF one believes that man is, indeed, produced by nature,
            THEN man cannot by definition do anything “unnatural”, even if he is
            breeding animals or vegetables for man-desired traits.”

            Agreed. But, even if one believes that man IS supernatural, or extra-natural – how does that make anything he does in this world unnatural? that is, you’re saying that man isn’t wholly produced by nature, because he’s a sort of spirit hybrid, who is separate, good, etc. , but you’re still saying that everything is either natural or unnatural (I think we agreed on that point)

            How are you reconciling these two things?

            Perhaps man isn’t quite completely natural, but what he does here on earth is?
            Thank you

          • Joy Rose

            Ah, I see where your confusion comes in.

            I’m not arguing my side.

            I’m pointing out the inherent logic problem in those who basically worship nature, and yet claim that man is capable of doing anything unnatural.

            If one believes that man *is* supernatural or extra-natural, the rules have changed. Similarly, if he is a hybrid, then the rules have changed. A man who is something *other* than purely an animal produced by evolution *can* take actions which are not “natural”.

            But too many people try to play both sides. They claim that there is nothing other than nature, and then they decry some of man’s actions as “unnatural”.

          • Mlema

            So, you DON’T believe everything is either natural or not natural. You believe that both natural and unnatural exist in the world.

            So, why did you say that what you were saying from the beginning was that everything was either natural or unnatural? That’s not what you believe.

            I don’t see where anyone who is saying that gMOs are “un-natural” is saying there is nothing other than nature. In fact, that’s the opposite of what they’re saying. They’re saying GMOs are un-natural – so by that very fact they’re not saying that there is nothing other than nature.

            To me, arguing about GMOs based on whether or not they’re natural is ridiculous because one CAN argue that anything man does is natural, since he is an animal and has the same instincts as any other animal, whether he finds he has some higher calling or not or whatever.

            But here at the end of our discussion, I can say that I do agree with you in this: you can’t claim that something natural is better when in reality anything man has developed is either natural because man is part of nature, or unnatural because it was developed by man.

            Thanks again.

          • Joy Rose

            This would be the first time in a while that I’ve come across someone incapable of grasping the notion of examining a viewpoint that is not your own for the purpose of edification.

            I thought that skill was still taught universally in highschool and college.

          • Mlema

            “This would be the first time in a while that I’ve come across someone incapable of grasping the notion of examining a viewpoint that is not
            your own for the purpose of edification.”

            If you were just trying to edify yourself, you should have said so. I have no problem with that.

          • Joy Rose

            Judging by other comments to my initial post, several other people were able to understand and appreciate my point.

            If you were not interested in edification, however, you probably should have been replying to someone else.

          • Mlema

            I’m always interested in edification. But i probably shouldn’t have replied to your post.

          • Mlema

            addendum – Joy Rose, you say:

            “If something is part of nature, then it is natural. If it is not part of nature, then it is unnatural.”

            My lengthier reply is ultimately about what you’re saying in this statement. I don’t think the statement means anything because you’re just defining natural as part of nature. You’ve already agreed with me that everything is either natural or unnatural.

            If man is not completely natural (as you’ve suggested, he is separate, etc) then – you seem to be admitting that some things can be natural and some things can be unnatural.

            There’s a contradiction there. Do you believe that everything is either natural or unnatural? Or do you believe that some things aren’t natural and some things are?

            I’m not trying to trip you up. And in order to show that, I’ll tell you what I think. I think the words natural and unnatural have been coined in order to differentiate between things that occur without man, and things that are man-made. That’s not the only way those words are used. But, that would mean that none of agriculture is natural. However, it could also in a smaller context mean that a comparison between breeding methods could be more or less natural. So it would only be in comparison to how reproduction would happen in nature.

          • Joy Rose

            What you are asking me to explain is, by your own claims as well as mine, beyond the scope of this discussion.

          • Mlema

            No, it’s not. It’s exactly what the discussion has been all about. You have to define natural before you can talk about natural vs. not natural.

          • James Edwards

            What if nature is your God but nature doesn’t define things in terms of good and evil, like your God?

          • Joy Rose

            That’s easy. If nature is your god and your god doesn’t define things in terms of good and evil, then even the most blatant DNA manipulation of food cannot by definition be unnatural/artificial or evil.

          • James Edwards

            How would DNA manipulation not be unnatural in that case? Nature isn’t my God, but even if it was, I don’t see how the definition of evil and good defines what is natural and unnatural. If you define something as evil, it can still be natural and vice-versa. DNA mods may not be “evil” according to a pagan, but it can still be unfavorable. The textbook definition of natural, is, not made by humans. Humans came about on this natural habitat of a planet long after it was a natural habitat for millions if not billions of other species. So by that definition, as well as, that logic, we are unnatural.

          • Joy Rose

            If humans are unnatural because we “came about” on this planet long after it was a natural habitat for millions or billions, what about bees? Specifically, honeybees?

            What about ants? What about the sparrow? The sparrow has been observed to change over the last 200 years. Are sparrow nests unnatural?

            The textbook definition of ‘natural’ as ‘not made by humans’ only makes any sense of humans are not part of nature. What makes a caveman’s bow unnatural and a chimp’s ant-stick natural?

            Man is part of nature, according to evolution and those who worship nature as a god. DNA is also part of nature. Man fiddling with DNA is no more unnatural than a squirrel storing an acorn.

            Unless, of course, man’s origin is other than natural. In which case, you’ve rather sharply diverted from the modern origin theory taught in schools.

          • James Edwards

            I am not saying a caveman’s bow is unnatural, especially in comparison to a chimps. Things that are made in labs, with synthesized chemicals, processes, and unnatural equipment are not comparable to a caveman bow and a monkey using a stick – you are combining to very different things. What I am saying is unnatural, is something like fake boobs, for example. Would you consider those real, even if Man was considered natural? If you are saying everything is natural, including things that man does/creates, it would seem so. After all, man designed a way to process silicon in a manner than allowed us to inject it into ourselves and thus modify our body composition and the result is an altered human. No. That is unnatural. Stop thinking in absolute terms. Humans can be of natural origin and carry out unnatural conclusions because our minds enable us to. That is completely different than a sparrow building a nest, or evolving over generations, none to the wiser it is changing. Survival instincts are natural, like building a nest for shelter, or making a bow to hunt food. That is how animals think, to our understanding at least, in terms of survival and what do I need to do to stay alive. We innovate and think of unnatural things, luxuries, wants, desires, new technologies that have little correlation with nature. Man can still be a part of nature – as per evolutionary thoughts and definitions, and still produce unnatural things due to the nature of our consciousness and ability to innovate.

            The thought to modify DNA is not unnatural or supernatural, but the actual changing of DNA in a way that cannot occur outside of the aid of unnatural substances, products, and processes, I would deem, unnatural. It doesn’t even have to be DNA-based as per my above example. A caveman making a bow is an innovation, but there is nothing that is unordinary occurring, if anything, he probably saw monkey using a stick and thought to use one for things too. A chimp that gets implants, is not natural, even if a naturally evolving man performs that surgery. I think as you are illuding to in your other comment, the human consciousness and intellect may go beyond the realm of natural.

          • Joy Rose

            If you believe that there is part of the human intellect that reaches into the supernatural, then surely the actions that spring from it would not be natural.

            That makes total sense. No problem there.

            I’m wondering if you are trying to make my point out to be a window and to look through it to see what’s on the other side. My point is a mirror, and it reflects your own worldview.

          • James Edwards

            I like and think the point of man being natural and his actions being natural is interesting and your comments intrigue me, but when I hear all these other numbnuts talking about how synthesized food is natural I just can’t agree! I really just feel that synthetics and GMOs are harder for our body to process and overall pose more risk to human health than would other undoctored crops, saying that the former are natural just condones it, which I have to disagree with. Do you believe that human intellect reaches the supernatural? Are you saying you agree with that notion (mirror) or are you saying that I am seeing through your point (window)?

          • Joy Rose

            You’re starting to get it. :) My point is meant to be thought-provoking, not adversarial.

            What I mean by “window” and “mirror”, though, is that my point is meant, not to explain or discuss how I see the world, but to give you things to think about how you see the world. If there is nothing but the natural, man cannot be or do anything artificial. If man is doing something artificial, there must be something beyond that which is the realm of nature.

            But to go from mirror to window for a moment, I myself believe that man is a ‘spiritual hybrid’ in which the natural and supernatural are combined. So in my case, I may well claim that some actions are natural and others are not.

            Natural or not… I don’t assign “good” and “evil” to “natural” or “artificial” or vice versa. I believe that there are flaws in both. As such, I don’t decide whether GMO’s are good or evil based solely on whether they are “natural” or “artificial”. My own personal belief based on what I’ve seen is one of skepticism. I don’t think that we know enough yet to be fiddling the way that we’re fiddling, and I am concerned that we are going to find out the hard way that the GMO crops lack something that we didn’t know we needed for them to have.

            Then again, I am also skeptical of the type of feed used in mass farming. Putting aside controversies about MCD and suchlike, I’ve found that chicken eggs from chickens who eat things like dandelion leaves and insects, and meat from cows which are grass-fed rather than corn-fed, contain better levels of important nutrients and healthier fats in healthier ratios. Being that I am already skeptical of modern practices, you bet I am skeptical of GMO’s as well.

          • James Edwards

            Hahaha I think we are more or less on the same.page. I also like thought provoking convos, doesn’t always represent how I really feel or what I believe. I do still think there’s a line to draw. Is a computer application natural or virtual? A human developed it!

          • Joy Rose

            I think the first question I would have to ask is: Is ‘virtual’ not ‘natural’?

            If so, then does that mean that your imagination is artificial?

            How difficult the line is to draw really depends on where you draw it and why. ;)

          • agscienceliterate

            Then you believe foods created through mutagenesis in the lab, including organic, through chemical baths and irradiation, are unnatural, right?
            What the heck do you eat, anyway? Be specific. List a typical day’s worth of food, and where you get it, and if you think that food is “natural” or not.

          • James Edwards

            No, mutagenesis can occur spontaneously in nature, fake tits, do not. Neither does certain things that are done to foods that are produced and consumed. Who cares at the end of the day if it is natural or not, there’s a chance it’s not ideal or compatible with certain people…

            Such as myself! I may a bit of an exception as to what I eat. I have interstitial cystitis (google it, it’s an interesting one) and as a result I essentially have an intolerance to acidic foods, processed foods, and other foods that are inflammatory. I am not perfect, but luckily I live near a MOM’s Organic Market that sources and sells produce and meat from local farms that have sustainable and humane processes. I also shop at Trader Joe’s that varies in what is organic and not, but I’ll buy organic if they have it. A typical day for me is somewhat like a Paleo diet, all whole foods, but no tomatoes, fruits, or acids like vinegar or soybean oil, chocolate, coffee, alcohol (smh). I typically eat yellow squash, zucchini, mushrooms and fresh herbs, garlic, with either chicken, ground turkey or steak. I have eggs, bacon, sometimes mixed in with it all. Other squashes, cauliflower, sweet potatoes, generally all whole foods, avoid grains as much as possible as they are also inflammatory.

          • agscienceliterate

            Well, you certainly have a cute tight little definition of “natural” all made up for yourself, then. Cool. Stick with it. You really believe organic is “natural,” then? Wow, you are living the Mercola and Oz dream then, and lining their pockets at the same time. Don’t look too deeply into it, or you will find you don’t want to eat that, either. Just eat away and read your food bible. You’ll probably do just fine. Sort of.

            For the rest of us, who don’t have your gut problems or your cognitive problems, we will stick to GE foods, despite your rigid prosetylizing about what is “natural” or not.

          • James Edwards

            Haha alright, I certainly will. And I have no idea what you are referring to with the Mercola, what I assume is Dr. Oz, never watched that, but I will continue to reap the health benefits and reduced risk over the alternative GE foods that you like. I’m not alone either many others think that it is less than smart to put synthetics and chemicals inside of your vital organs and expect the results to be the same or better than ones that are free or significantly reduced in toxin levels…sucks if you are wrong, if I am, whatever, at least it’s no worse.

            What, do you think the organic farming industry is a conspiracy or some ploy to take money from people? A scheme against the capitalism of GE food and ploy to regulate big business in that industry? What. A. Joke.

            What do you consider to be natural? What is your twist on “organic”?

          • Guest

            horizontal gene transfer across species and kingdoms, has been known to occur “naturally”, that is, without human intervention, so by your own reasoning genetic engineering is just as natural as mutagenesis.

          • agscienceliterate
          • James Edwards

            There’s a huge difference, by the way, between breeding or cross breeding plants for characteristics, and “modifying” them by inserting DNA from an organism it cannot NATURALLY breed with into its genetic makeup.You would be exceptionally naive to think as well, that because something is ‘man-made’, that it is intrinsically ‘safe’ or a natural product of this planet. I get the point, but you must draw a line. Creating synthetic properties that are not found in nature, I would say starts to cross that line, despite a part of nature making it. It still is creating an unnatural product/property. Man made plastic…but that is probably the most unnatural thing ever made, as the earth literally cannot processes and breakdown plastics. If you are going to be an absolutist, there is no point in arguing. But I still resent that because something is made made, its probably more reason to question it, considering the main motivating for humans these days *money*.

          • Guest

            As stated above DNA has been inserted from one species to another “naturally” via horizontal gene transfer, so your argument is moot.

          • Uaquo

            The term “natural” is being employed here as “that which occurs in nature WITHOUT human interference”.

          • Joy Rose

            Aye, but the point is, it is being employed on purpose in such a way as to designate human interference as *inherently* evil, for no more reason than that the interference is human, and that’s where the issue lies.

          • Because we now have the power to wipe out entire species. That kind of power is hitherto unprecedented in nature.

          • Joy Rose

            So if I can show you other organisms and/or parts of nature that have wiped out entire species, would that prove that those organisms/parts are also no longer natural?

          • Extinction Six

            The difference between natural and artificial selection, is that a human (artificial selection) will select favourable qualities that support (human or economic) interests i.e. more milk production (cows), less aggressive temperament (wolves to dogs), more egg laying capacity (chickens) these traits are favoured and are artificial chosen to breed a specific lineage – these selection techniques turn a wild species to a domesticated one, essentially rendering it useless to its environment, losing its ecological role and (in most cases) losing its instincts so it cannot survive in the wild. Natural selection is a process by which thousands of variables are at play slowly dictating the genetic lineage of any given species, and the traits that are favoured are ones that are most beneficial in adapting to its environment. No human on earth understands all the variables driving natural selection, its too complex and by interfering in the process we create artificial (unnatural) environments & artificially selected (unnatural) species – this all destroys nature.

          • Joy Rose

            Ants herd and milk aphids. Are aphids no longer natural? Or is it only unnatural if human beings do it? Are human beings solely and inherently not part of nature?

            By your argument, either humans are unnatural (e.g. if you believe that the world exists through evolution, you must believe that humans came into being in some other fashion), *or* every symbiotic relationship in the natural world is also unnatural.

          • Christina Brooks

            This comment should have way more ups/likes.

          • Why? It’s wrong.

            It falls into the anthropogenic fallacy by suggesting that “nature” is guided, has intent and has knowledge about what it’s doing.

            A more accurate way of describing that analogy would be to say that unguided natural selection is a cannon (100’s of thousands of genes being changed in an uncontrolled manner), guided natural selection is a shotgun (thousands of genes being changed in a mostly uncontrolled manner) and GMO is a scalpel (typically less than 10 (I don’t recall the source now) genes being changed in a very controlled manner).

          • Nathan Arce

            All of life began because the sun was blasting compounds with radiation for millions of years.

          • fiets

            Yes, but now you’re referring to things smaller than a cell. Nobody understands it anymore and thus it is scary. :)

          • Melissa Toye

            Your points are what we have been lead to believe, but even organic farming allows for cell fusion and manipulation with artificial insemination and radiation. You can read the details here: http://www.health-smart.org/

          • Alex Bede

            Human selected breeding is not “Natural breeding” Anymore than a forced marrige is a choice. But it also is not Genetic Modification.
            Irradiated Mutation is completely different.

          • Luis Fernando Areán

            Nature has wisdom. The stupidity one needs to read. No, Nature has no wisdom. There is nothing ihnerently superior to being natural, other than superstition.

          • David Martin

            Arguably, wolves weren’t bred, they moved in and got increasingly good at exploiting/cooperating with their new partners.

          • Wrong. Selective breeding is breeding done with human intervention. The romanticized “guidance of nature” is B.S. The guidance is provided by humans. Period.

          • SunShine

            the roses you buy today aren’t the result of a natural process…. nor the wheat..or the grains you eat.. or the fruit you eat.. or.. it’s all been altered by humans or you would not have food to eat.. there would not be enough..

          • Librarygal

            Story: At one time in Human history a lone wolf arrived. The Humans accepted the Wolf with conditions. Bonds were made, children and pups helped. Dogs were bred. We love them, we need them, they need us.

          • Jess

            I take it no one ever mentioned to you that humans are part of nature…

          • Damo

            And you are just as stuipid as the guy above you.

            Nature has not produced the food we eat–humans have.

          • Carlosaurus Rex

            Breeding dogs isn’t natural – it’s artificial. Just as artificial as breeding/ cultivating vegetation. Most GMOs follow the same pattern.

          • Kimon Frousios

            In fact, NATURE is so wise that many of the dog breeds suffer from multiple side-effects like genetic defects and getting sick easily…

            Humans are a product of and part of nature. If Nature is wise, we are part of it. Everything we do is by definition natural. Be it breeding, irradating or gene editing.

            To get a pug out of a wolf, you are essentially changing so many genes that by comparison adding a vitamine gene to rice is a laughable change.

          • Wil

            GMO doesn’t mean we fucked around with gene splicing, it just often just means it’s been selectively cross-bred. Get your facts straight before you ge t heated.

          • not as stupid as u

            that is false selective breeding is not natural u dummy

          • not as stupid as u

            ur really stupid

          • Biology Pedant

            No, dogs are technically the same species as wolves.

          • kiljoy616

            Correct most of the poster up top are fools who drank the cool-aid long ago.

          • jasphen

            Incorrect. Dogs are Canis familiaris, Wolves are Canis lupus.

          • ^ Has to be kidding me

            So you’re saying we changed their genetics.

            In effect. Modifying them?

          • kiljoy616

            That is really what we are seen in the article not GMO. GMO is modifying them at the genetic level meaning that you could have something that looks exactly like a normal plant but who knows what is in it. Article sound like a paid ad.

          • Sicilian Pecan Rican

            I agree a paid ad.. by the GMO people

          • Jason Roder

            Genes don’t know what species they come from, only what protein they code for. Also, your “who knows what’s in it” argument is bullshit–the researchers who created the plant know what’s in it, or they wouldn’t have bothered with genetic engineering techniques in the first place.

          • stephen

            we never blasted cross species genes into wolves eggs or fed them bacteria with tainted dna to see what turns up. that is not what GMO is. Hybrids by selective breeding is fine. GMO is not.

          • RJB

            Can you please elaborate using scientific terms and credible sources? Thanks!

          • lauriloo

            why not? There’s no proof it’s bad. Are you against all scientific advances then? Do you live in the forest in a thatched hut?

          • Luis Fernando Areán

            That is NOT what genetic engineering does. YOu don’t “blast” mindlessly to see what turns up. That is what they do with radiation. You know what a spliced gene will do. Do you think Bt food has that natural insecticide by chance? No way. It was meant from the start.

          • agscienceliterate

            Stephen, lots of strange presumptions and opinions here. Your reaasoning is less than clear, your non-explanation less than stellar. Please educate the rest of us on what you mean by “Hybrids by selective breeding is fine. GMO is not.” Questions you need to answer if you expect to be even a wee bit credible:

            1) What do you think a hybrid is? Why are hybrids “fine”?
            2) What do you mean by “fine”? Safe? cheap? Endorsed by Food Boob?
            3) Why is selective breeding “fine”?
            4) Do you oppose mutagenesis? (you’re eating it)
            5) Why is “GMO” not okay? What do you believe “GMO” is?

          • Brady Mitchell

            First, lets address the dog issue… most dogs are NOT related to wolves. Actually, very few are. There were dogs before the first one was adapted to become a mans pet.

            And likewise, man has been modifying plants since he first cultivated them.

            These are FACTS that cannot be disputed.

          • Vierotchka

            The two have nothing in common. No DNA segments from totally different organisms have been spliced into the DNA of wolves or into cultivated plants.

          • Brian Frang

            Dogs are not a separate species from wolves. The grey wolf, Canis lupus comprises over 40 subspecies, including dingoes (C. lupus dingo), domestic dogs (C. lupus familiaris), the nominate species, the Eurasian wolf (C. lupus lupus), the northwestern wolf (C. Lupus Occidentalis), etc… All of which are capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring, meaning the even chihuahuas are wolves.

          • SunShine

            Huh? dogs and wolves came from one much older wolf-like ancestor..

          • SirViP

            Actually dogs didn’t “come” from wolves. Wolves and dogs both share a common ancestor. Wolves and dogs are cousins, not one being the descendant of the other. You don’t know how evolution works lol

          • Hutchsj

            Well, see, they are not different.

          • Damo

            WOW! You are a moron. Dogs and wolves are not different species.

            Grow up and stop practicing your freedom of speech until you are educated about what you are talking about.

          • Carlosaurus Rex

            Dogs aren’t a different species to wolves; they’re a sub-species *of* wolf, and can still interbreed.

          • HarryWiggs

            Not because they’re GMO; that’s because it’s bad food.

          • David San

            natural is most thing that humans does not do or create ^^

            2. to cause a problem and then sell a solution have been always a nice business pattern.

            3. and who really think that monsantos gmo, ge or whatever is here for something good, must really dreaming 24 hours ^^

            if someone would do it research and get the bigger picture, no one would dare to use the term, conspiracy theory.

            rockefellers monsanto (our food), pharma (mainstream medicine/health care)
            and rothschilds, friends of course,
            both are in banks, oil, gas and media controlling.

            who does control, mostly,

            1. what we eat, by recommendation of companies that are not just bad, also connected to some persons/families/banks who are not here for our best interests.

            2. plus sells doctors drugs instead of give us truth health.

            3. get us distracted and control what we think with lies by medias.
            also hollywood and music industry does a nice job to our kids.
            plus, video games, cars/sports, porno, model industries.

            4. controles countries by banks money and energy (oil, gas)

            5. you checked out, agreement ttip, ceta, tisa and tpp? who does make the laws/rules and decisions for countries? big companies, pharma and banks?
            does belongs to who? are, some groups, families.

            and gmo and ge is probably just here for our best because we live in that nice world. hahahahahaha. dozens of big problems around us, daily and everywhere and we can not solve them? because some key players at all governments are so uncorrupt?

            and we are so active and fit, (health).
            right ^^
            THE BIGGER PICTURE,
            ROCKEFELERS AND ROTHSCHILDS.
            good morning.

      • Matthew Curry Pye

        They won in europe…

        • Only for imports. It’s perfectly legal to create and sell GMOs in Europe.

          Why is it an imports-only ban? Because the ban was pushed by European farmers worried that the elimination of trade barriers by the newly-created European Union would lead to Europe being flooded by American foodstuffs, thus putting the European farmers out of business.

          In other words, the “European GMO Ban” the anti-GMO folk love to talk about is a trade-protection bill in disguise. If European nations really thought GMOs were bad for people, why did they exempt Europeans from the ban?

      • Robin

        In terms of public consciousness they’re definitely making progress peddling their BS.

      • Kevin Schmidt

        Actual peer reviewed research says. Stop believing the junk science that does not conform with the scientific method.

    • Mom on Fire

      Like cancer??? :). Plus these pictures are ridiculous. Do your research and not look at propaganda. It’s amazing even from this sight how many people are brain washed into believing we need to rely on corporations to feed us. I have come to learn we are disabling ourselves by not learning about food and just trusting some stranger to feed us. I think plastic in Subway bread doesn’t sound very good, but millions have been eating it, unknowingly. We are at a crisis. 50 years ago 1/3 of the nation were farmers using only 2-3 pesticides on crops, now with GMO’s, only 2 percent are farmers and they now use 60-70 pesticides on our food. Umm I think all the poisons have gotten to your brain.

      • Hadrian Embalsado

        I wish we knew what foods have pesticide in them.

        • deedee

          ALL foods have pesticides.

          • kiljoy616

            Wrong. Look it up before you pose fool.

          • RJB

            I suggest you research further before you post.

      • Brian

        This comment is so rife with inaccuracy it’s not possible to address it.

        • That’s what Gish Gallops are designed to do: Toss out nonsense in amounts so great that it’s impossible to properly address each item. The nonsense spewers do this deliberately because they know the facts aren’t on their side and so want to shut down the discussion.

        • Jason Roder

          So you’re saying it qualifies as “not even wrong”, right? :)

      • Typical Gish Gallop. Thanks for the tacit admission that you’re wrong.

    • brittany

      GMOs are linked to many health issues though ….

      • Hadrian Embalsado

        What health issues? Any death counts yet? Haven’t people forgot how agriculture works?

        • Notice that Brittany used the weasel word “linked”.

          I can “link” Thomas Jefferson to HAL9000. In fact, I just did, by putting them in the same sentence.

      • Show me the peer-reviewed scientific studies that back this claim.

      • FourEyedGeek

        Organic food is responsible for people’s deaths, not just health issues. The E.Coli bacteria in manure used as fertilizer for organic food has made it into peoples food causing many cases of food poisoning and death, synthetic fertilizer doesn’t contain E.Coli.

    • Ramon Casha

      It’s a bit silly to say that in an article that shows what has been achieved without genetic engineering :)

    • Candy

      What? You mean like an iPhone or something? What does this mean?

      • Hadrian Embalsado

        Having less or no hungry people in the world is a nice thing.

        • agscienceliterate

          Unless you’re Candy, who doesn’t give a damn about other people, and only cares about her own rigid activist ideology. Typical first world privilege.

  • cmac

    This is how your food would look if selective breeding and hybridization had not occurred. This is not the same as genetic engineering, where salmon DNA is inserted into a tomato, or nightshade DNA is inserted into corn. One is a natural process. The other creates frankenfood that could not occur in nature as it might with hybridization.

    They are completely different processes. Hope those Monsanto shill checks warm your pocket for this misinformation, dickhead.

    • Andreas

      With genetic engineering you get clones of the plants with just one gene added.

      By selective breading, you mix up the ~ 57000 genes randomly from mother and father.

      Believe it or not, GM is safer than traditional breeding.

      And no, I don’t get paid by Monsanto (though I’d really like that :D ), I just informed myself about GM.

      • cmac

        More BS andreas. With selective breeding you are blending two pairs of 57000 genes that are compatible and meant to pair up and replicate in the hopes a few pairs change slightly. You are simply speeding up the natural process of mutation and evolution. This is a tried and true method used for thousands of years.

        Wish Genetic modification, you are introducing a gene that has never and would never find it’s way into those same 57000 base pairs and forcing an organism to completely change it’s nature. This is bypassing evolution and there is no knowing the consequences. This method with unknown consequences that has been around for less than a decade.

        • enmaku

          There is no such thing as a gene that “doesn’t belong” in one species or “does belong” in another. It’s not like adding some salmon DNA to corn turns corn into salmon.

          For the most part, the only thing DNA really does is code for a sequence of amino acids that self-fold into structured proteins. If we find a protein in one genome that could be useful to another it’s usually pretty trivial to snip out the section of the genome that codes for it and insert it elsewhere. This has become a controversy because the usefulness and safety of many proteins is not adequately proven, but those aren’t the ones we’re transplanting.

          Sure, cutting and pasting about 200 base pairs can do scary things like make a mouse glow in the dark, but it can also do awesome things like make crops that can grow with less water or produce safe natural pesticides within its own cells.

          In short, you’re not being served some kind of experimental fish-corn hybrid, you’re being served a very well-tested known-safe piece of corn that produces one or two additional proteins that corn doesn’t normally produce. Those proteins represent a tiny isolated change that it’s quite easy to test the safety and efficacy of and the science is NOT out on this.

          GMO crops feed much of the developing world and countless lives have been saved by more resilient strains of various crops being available in those markets. It’s predicted that without GMO crops as much as a third of the world would have nothing to eat. Like them or not, these safe GMO crops are saving a lot of lives, so maybe you should leave the conversation alone unless you’re ready to tell me which third of all humans we should kill to switch back to the old way.

        • Guest

          Look up conjugation, transduction, and transfection. You’re clearly not informed on how genes can species hop and it’s important that you know the basics before you say that a gene cannot or will not end up in one species from another. There is a concept called specialized transduction that is especially relevant.

        • Jason Roder

          You need to get over this “meant to” nonsense. There is no “meant to” in nature.

    • David Brown

      We have been eating frankenfood since the 1950s, when researchers started using mutagenesis to randomly scramble plant and seed DNA. Just about everything we eat has a mutagenic ancestor.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/mutant-crops-drive-basf-sales-where-monsanto-denied-commodities.html

      But yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a dickhead and a shill for Monsanto. I guess that line of reasoning certainly allows you to feel that you are always right. But it probably gets in the way of learning.

    • lennyhipp

      “where salmon DNA is inserted into a tomato”
      PLEASE SHOW ME where this has happened. Also, GMO food goes through MUCH MORE testing than normally hybridized food does.

      • There are no GMO tomatoes so no salmon DNA has been inserted into a tomato. It’s a silly thought anyway as DNA sequences that code for proteins are not species specific. You share DNA with both tomatoes and salmon, for example.

    • Trolling for Hollers

      I have always found that name-calling is a great way to elevate a discussion and set up an audience to be more receptive to what follows. You should have used it up front to be more effective.

  • Scott Whitehurst

    Genetic selection and genetic modification are two different things.

    • Andreas

      Tell me the difference, please.

      • JamesPHoward

        What, if any, difference is there between genetic modification and synthetic biology? Do you see them as equivalent?

  • sid

    bull shit..these are some wild progenitors and has nothing to do with GM

  • Selective breeding of organisms over millennia = genetic engineering of DNA?

    Well, I guess if your salary depends on believing that.

    • David Brown

      Not identical, but the larger point is that we have been deliberately genetically modifying plants for millennia. And actually Europe does import food from us. Moreover, the scientists in these nations agree overwhelmingly that transgenic crops are as safe as conventionally bred crops.
      http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/chief-eu-scientist-backs-damning-news-530693

      • By your definition, would children of arranged marriages qualify as a GMO?

        • Thøger RiveraThorsen

          Prize for weirdest, most off-the-wall comment goes to this one, I think.

        • Jason Roder

          If it was done as part of a eugenics program, perhaps. Selective breeding is all about arranging genes. Modern genetic engineering techniques are faster, more precise, and therefore less prone to misfires like the (poisonous) Lenape potato.

  • JamesPHoward

    In cases involving genetic code, is hard not to jump to software analogy. The entire mechanism of natural selection involves occasional “bugs that are really features” that propagate across a species. Selective breeding does indeed speed this up, but is essentially the same mechanism- and it *does* have maladaptive results, but these failures are simply discarded.

    As with code, there can be unanticipated interactions, and the magnitude of these can only be increased by more extensive slicing- again, emergence of this kind is central to the mechanism of evolution. Nor is human intervention infallible- see, for example, the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

    Any sane person would have to conclude that there *is* an increased risk of introduction of maladaptive/poorly understood code through more aggressive intervention, but there is *also* an increased opportunity for greater advances. Am unsure why this essentially probabilistic tradeoff is resulting in people fighting like Sneetches.

    • Nate Fries

      most reasoned response here.

      but you are aware that no scientific studies have actually found any harm in GM crops (and managed to stand up to peer review), and many peer-reviewed studies affirm their safety, correct? So while there is definitely greater risk, it would appear that either the scientists in control of the modification process have similarly discarded any failures they produced, or at least that thousands of trained research scientists have failed to find evidence of the harm that the anti-GMO crowd believes in.

      The English language has many words to describe statements that are at odds with all available evidence. Pick one.

    • MargaretRC

      Any maladaptation that a GMO transfer of genetic material might cause would be to the organism into which the gene was inserted, not to the people that eat that organism.

      • Thøger RiveraThorsen

        Or to the ecosystem into which the plants are introduced.

    • Thøger RiveraThorsen

      Best response in this thread so far!

  • Anne-Maren Jansen

    But today, do we not live longer lives than ever in human history?

    • Cecile Charles

      Nope, mostly only a few people live longer, and there is a 4000% increase in medical problems. The United States is one of the few countires that supports the use of GMO foods and the health of the nation shows how bad it is when consumed. The Monsanto Corporation, the world’s largest purveyor of genetically modified food seeds, is combating a growing worldwide opposition to GM foods.

      Can Monsanto change? Can Monsanto be prodded into another business strategy? And if so, will other GMO seed sellers such as Dupont follow suit? Businesses are typically in it to make money:

      Even businesses that develop products that ultimately hurt people or harm the planet. It may take some concerted efforts among consumers and legislators, but eventually, especially among larger publicly-held companies like Monsanto, when the customers stop buying their goods, they can lose control over the market and be forced to make strategy changes.

      This may be precisely what has prompted Monsanto to acquire companies that utilize natural cross-breeding methods. Contingency planning may become more vital to Monsanto as growing genetically modified crops face partial or complete bans in the following countries:

      Germany

      Germans have banned the growing of all GMO crops.

      Ireland

      GMO crops have been banned from growing in Ireland, and Ireland has a voluntary GM food labeling system.

      Austria, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg and Bulgaria

      These countries have banned GMO crops and have banned the sale of GM foods in their countries.

      France

      France has banned the growing of GM crops. As of May 16, 2012, France has re-instituted its ban on Monsanto’s MON810 GM corn from being grown in the country. A high court in France overturned a 2008 ban last year, but growing sentiment in France pushed the French minister of Agriculture to reinstate the ban this past May of 2012.

      Madeira

      The island country off of Portugal banned growing GMO crops in 2010.

      Switzerland

      The Swiss banned the growing of all genetically modified crops, as of 2005, and this ban has been extended through at least 2013.

      Mexico

      As of October 2013, the Twelfth Federal District Court ordered the Mexican government to ban the planting of all genetically modified maize (corn), as well as halt all commercial pilot test plots. As to whether this will translate to a complete ban of GMOs in Mexico remains to be seen.

      Japan

      Japanese law bans the growing of any genetically modified seeds or crops in Japan. However, Japanese food manufacturers are actively importing “Roundup Ready” GMO canola grown in Canada primarily to manufacture canola oil. As a result, scientists have found that the GMO canola variety is now growing wild along roadsides and ports that have been the supply line for canola importation.

      Australia

      Australians have been successful in banning GMO crops from being grown in South Australia and in Tasmania.

      New Zealand

      Kiwis have banned the growing of any GMO food in the country.

      India

      India’s cotton farmers experienced a disaster with their 2007-08 crop of cotton when they used Monsanto’s GM cotton seed. Over 125,000 Indian farmers committed suicide because their crops were so bad that they lost their farm and homes to banks.

      In 2010, the government instituted a ban on GMO eggplant due to this tragedy and further information provided by scientists and agricultural experts. The Bt Brinjal variety was banned due to concerns of the seeds contaminating other self-sustaining crops.

      The Monsanto seeds are also “terminator” seeds, which require the farmer to purchase the seeds – at a price 1,000 times the price of a normal seed – each year from Monsanto. With natural seeds, farmers often produce their own seeds to plant the next year.

      Thailand

      After GMO papayas began to contaminate other cropland in field trials, Thailand has been working to reduce their use of GMO crops. Japan then banned the importation of Thailand papayas (as well as papayas from Hawaii – which are now predominantly genetically modified).

      Georgia

      In December of 2013, the nation of Georgia passed a law banning the importation of genetically modified seeds into the country without a specific license to do so. The country’s Environment Minister Khatuna Gogaladze stated:

      “The purpose of the bill is to create a single state system of bio safety that will regulate the use of living genetically modified organisms.”

      • Cecile Charles
        • Alan

          Lots of very inaccurate information on this page you posted to …firstly the Indian farmers suicides wasn`t because of GMO`s, it was because of drought and not enough water to grow crops.

      • Brian

        Speaking for Ireland, that was strictly to protect current agricultural business and ensure that GMOs wouldn’t get into non-GMO crops. It has nothing to do with health concerns.
        You’re taking quite a lot out of context for your pet cause, and providing nothing but rhetoric to back your statements.

        • It applies to the rest of the EU as well.

          Note that it’s not illegal for European farmers to grow and sell GMO products. It’s only the importation of GMO products that’s illegal.

          Why? Because the creation of the European Union meant that the trade-protection laws of its member states had to be dismantled, and European farmers feared being put out of business by waves of American imports. The solution? Creating a trade barrier that pretended to be something else – in this case, a trade barrier that “banned” GMOs, but only imported ones.

      • john s

        That is, without a doubt the stupidest thing I have ever read on the internet. Congrats. “Only a few people live longer” Cripes!

        • maxxiscopolis

          He is right. International Herald Tribute in 2002, the journalist Barbara Crossette said the following: “In South Africa, the life of a baby should be 66 years; AIDS has cut
          that to 47. In Zimbabwe the drop has been to 43 years from 69. In
          Botswana, it is 36 years, down from 70 years.” Child mortality skewed numbers tremendously in the pre-oil era (plastics, pesticides, fertilizers, etc…) When looking at the majority of the world, i/e outside the developed corridor, life expectancy has not shifted considerably in the past 100 years.

      • hydrocarbonharry

        Clueless raving by another ideological LUDDITE

      • Meira Frankl

        Mostly only a few people live longer!??!!? You’re saying that the average life span has not more than doubled?!?!?! Are you on crack?

        • Thøger RiveraThorsen

          In fairness, the average life span could have doubled with only a few people living till 1000 years of age…

      • TheCrimsonFuckr

        tldr, I did read when you said “no”, and that’s bullshit, there have been times in human history when the life expectancy was around 40 or lower.

      • Thøger RiveraThorsen

        “The United States is one of the few countires that supports the use of GMO foods and the health of the nation shows how bad it is when consumed.”

        That is about the poorest reasoning I have seen in a very, very long time. The short answer, of course, is “no”.
        Unlike most other commenters here, I do think there are valid reasons to be skeptical of GMO use. This is absolutely not one of them.

      • Robert Alexander

        well you seem to spread as many lies as this website does…

    • silence

      What is your point, I am under the age of 15 and I constantly wish I grew up in a time when everything was as the God Force (or whatever you want to call it) placed it. The Energy that created us and continues to guide our lives is far more powerful than any egotistical human ever was or will be. We need to stop trying to modify the world and leave it to creation to do what it has always done. I honestly don’t have any more care about how the government deals with its problems (that it started), I just hope that in the next lifetime I am no human because they seem to be going nowhere but backwards (despite what I’ve been told), slowly but surely killing the Earth. Maybe someday people will listen to the silence, go into themselves, and finally realize what they are doing wrong. Your lifespan is meaningless if you do nothing worth while. I apologize if what I’ve written is not what you’d like to hear but this is what I’ve found to be true.

      • Jason Roder

        No. There is no sentience other than our own directing the world. There is no plan, no “order” that we should return to. We need to learn not to crap where we eat, environmentally speaking, and to waste less, but neither of these mean crawling back into the cave like you seem to think we should.

  • John John John

    Farmers saving and passing on seeds from plants with desirable traits for the last ~20,000 years is the EXACT same thing as molecular biochemists in laboratories using viral vectors in transgenic engineering to transfer genetic material between organisms that are in different families or kingdoms, for the last 20 years. Anyone who considers the possibility that these processes might perhaps be different in some way is clearly scientifically illiterate and anti-science.

    • Jason Roder

      You’re right, they are different: the scientist is going to do a better job, given his superior tools and knowledge.

  • John John John

    Farmers saving and passing on seeds from plants with desirable traits
    for the last ~20,000 years is the EXACT same thing as molecular
    biochemists in laboratories using viral vectors in transgenic
    engineering to transfer genetic material between organisms that are in
    different families or kingdoms, for the last 20 years. Anyone who
    considers the possibility that these processes might perhaps be
    different in some way is clearly scientifically illiterate and
    anti-science.

    • Jeff Gauch

      Got it in one.

      Aside from sequence, there’s no difference in DNA between species – otherwise genetic engineering wouldn’t work. The sequence doesn’t survive the digestive environment, so any regulatory genes we modify cannot effect us. That leaves the products of genes: proteins. Here’s a dirty little secret: your body neither knows, nor cares, where a protein comes from. It is either food or – far less common – a toxin. Proteins that are safe in one organism do not become toxic just because that protein is produced in a different organism.

      It’s not like your digestive enzymes sit around going “Om nom nom, wait, is this a fish protein? I thought we were eating tomatoes, why the fuck is there fish protein? GAAAAAH CANCER ALL THE THINGS!!!” Otherwise Taco Del Mar would be one of the biggest carcinogens on the planet.

    • Bullet Gibson

      “the EXACT same thing as molecular
      biochemists in laboratories using viral vectors”.

      No, it’s not. When they do it by “saving and passing on seeds from plants with desirable traits for the last ~20,000 years” THEN it will be, as you put it, “”the EXACT same thing”. Why do people feel the need to exaggerate?

      • Falcon D. Stormvoice

        Going to the store is like, so totally the same thing as going to Church. Saying ‘hello’ is the >exact< same thing as saying 'salutations'.

        Yeah, no two things are exactly the same, otherwise they'd be the same thing. It's almost criminal to waste any of the finite server space on the world wide web on such inanity. Next, they'll be telling us that analogies aren't comprised of 1:1 ratio comparisons.

    • Thøger RiveraThorsen

      Wow, anti-science even? How’s that for a scientific statement?

    • Voice o’ Reason

      All you posters that cannot understand the difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering – John John John is having a laugh at your expense. The general level of this discussion is lower than one might hope for such an important issue.

  • Azlorn Magus

    “I always find it humorous when people don’t believe in science or scientific consensus, or peer reviewed studies yet they have no problem using computers, the internet, transportation, or any of the millions of other ways science has improved our lives.

    If you really think all the scientists are wrong then shut your computer off, leave your house, and go live in the woods naked with only the tools you make yourself from other tools you made out in the woods like in minecraft survival.

    If you’re not willing to do that then maybe, just maybe, you might want to give people who have been studying a particular subject their entire lives the benefit of the doubt until you can prove them wrong?”

    ~Azlorn

    • Bullet Gibson

      The scientists in Germany, England, France, Belgium and many other countries disagree with you and GMOs are banned in Europe and most of the rest of the world. Where are you getting your scientific consensus from? Making it up?

      • Falcon D. Stormvoice

        Germany also bans great video games for a lot of illogical reasons. You need to provide actual proof, not simply imply that Germany and France have some hidden proof that they are operating with.

      • Tom Boniecki

        GMOs are banned in Europe and some other countries because of politics and a popular demand not because of science. Same as ban on gay marriage or marijuana.

        BTW, farmers are suing in many of those countries for the right to plant GMOs and they are winning because the opposition can’t present any evidence to the courts that goes beyond “this just doesn’t feel right”.

      • Millie_Woods

        The same scientists that say global warming is an unprescedented disaster. There’s no money in saying that global warming is a hoax or approving GMOs. More money…er I mean, more study is always needed.

        • TheCrimsonFuckr

          That’s right, because if you want the real boo koo bucks, you become a scientist. So tired of all those elitist scientist making millions of dollars for their contributions. We need to stop giving scientists our tax dollars and never bail the scientists out again.

          • Millie_Woods

            I’m opposed to bailouts for corporations and banks and faux-science. They all consume taxes with negative results.

      • Alan

        GMO`s are not banned in these countries you mention only certain one`s are, not ALL gmo`s… where are you getting your false info from are you just making it up LOL

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union

      • Loren Eaton

        Check your facts, bullet-man. The National Academies for all of those countries believe that GMO is perfectly safe. The EU has cleared many crops for sale and cultivation but the individual countries are blocking it (read: not following their own rules).

      • The EU’s GMO “ban” is a trade protectionist device in disguise.

        How do we know this? Because it targets imports, and was put in place just as the EU was making its members drop their old trade protection laws. The farmers of Europe feared being put out of business by a flood of American foodstuffs, and so the anti-GMO dodge was adopted as camouflage for a new form of protectionism.

    • Falcon D. Stormvoice

      You don’t really have to test if it’s poisonous, since DNA is not toxic. All you have to test is whether the alteration went as planned, which can be done with a microscope.

      The people who are concerned with poison are the anti-GMO brigade, who have run test after test to try and prove that there’s something wrong with genetically manipulating food, only to come up empty-handed.

      • Thøger RiveraThorsen

        Since we do not completely understand how genes work, ion theory an alteration could, as a side effect, make the organism produce toxins.

        • Falcon D. Stormvoice

          Well, good thing we have the anti-science nutjobs doing test after test in vain.

          But really, I precisely said that you can use a microscope to see that the alteration went as planned. You can even run toxicology tests. What kind of scientifically illiterate fool thinks we still test whether things are poisononous by feeding them to things until they get sick.

          Well, except for the anti-science nutjobs who forcefeed corn to already sick rats until they expire just to ‘prove’ their point.

  • Shane

    I live in a country without GMO and the stuff doesnt look like this…..it looks like it’s supposed to but it doesnt last as long maybe not as big…..but I can tell you it tastes a whole lot better because everything is always fresh….I say also I tend to be a lot healthier eating the non GMO food….I have crohns disease and I ‘ve went in remission both times I’ve went to Peru to live for extended amounts of time!

  • John Copley

    I view gmos made by companies like the transformer and he-man cartoons in the 80s. They made the cartoons to sell toys. Monsanto and the like make gmp to sell their pesticides. I view cross pollination differently than making a plant that is more tolerant to soaking up chemicals.

  • Neurotic

    Everyone is so smart. But what is the compulsion for everyone to be such assholes to eachother?

  • Mark Langlois

    Natural Selection is genetic manipulation. We have been genetically manipulating our food for millennia, which I think is the point.
    The problem with GMO foods isn’t that they are bad for you.
    Its the PATENTS that companies like Monsanto have on them that makes them able to sue a farmer for growing crops from the seeds of his last crop, or suing his neighbor because of cross pollination..

  • Teresa Trujillo

    Genetic selection and GMOs are not the same thing. Selection means you pick the best natural traits and breed to those standards, creating better looking, tasting, and/or more productive plants and animals. GMOs mean that you introduce genetic material from other sources (insects, viruses, etc) into an existing food source to give it qualities that the plant–and now animals–didn’t posses in its natural form. Very different processes with very different outcomes. Don’t let them lie to you!

    • gager

      Nonsense…nature would try all combinations given enough time. There is no such thing as “natural” form.

      • Teresa Trujillo

        Adding genetic material from dissimilar species has no basis in nature at all. GMOs create “frankenstein” plants and animals from unrelated genetic material.

        Don’t let the big multi-national bio companies play on your lack of knowledge in biology basics to play with you emotions.

        Read a high school biology text on genetics. Plants and animals don’t breed in nature. But, a GMO plant or animal will have genetic materials inserted from other life forms, including viruses and things that are dangerous to humans.

        • gager

          Try understanding a biology text…all genes are made of the same genetic material. That is why a trait from a plant can be inserted into an animal. It is not frankenfood…it is a shortcut that would take a very long time in nature. That is why animals can eat plants and that is why traits from one plant can be applied to another plant.

          • Teresa Trujillo

            Yes, I know that all genetic material is made from the same base material at a molecular level. But, all genetic information is not the same. A horse and a donkey can be mated together to produce an mule, but a mule cannot produce another mule because of mutations that are not compatible.

            An ass is an ass, but not all idiots are created equal. Muleheads who adopt the multi-national corporate line that “we would have got there anyway several millennium from now if it wasn’t for our intellectual prowse” completely miss the point.

            Mankind is already suffering from the untested results of frankenfood. It just might be several generations before your child’s grandchildren can no longer reproduce because their genetic material has been corrupted by your decisions today.

          • gager

            You assume “suffering”. More research has been performed on GMO than on what people consider “normal” food. You should know that “normal” food may be dangerous to your health.

          • Teresa Trujillo

            It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to draw a straight line between the
            food we put in our bodies and the science that allows more and more
            poisons to enter the food chain.

            Everything in life is dangerous at some level–even your house cat.

            Studies with GMO corn and heritage corns with wild squirrels show that the squirrels will refuse to eat the GMOs but devour the heritage corn. Why?

            At the same time that GMOs have started dominating the marketplace, we have had an explosion in gluten intolerance, diabetes, and obesity. All of these are issues that start with the food we eat.

            Most GMOs are designed to allow the use of more and more pesticides and herbicides–herbicides that break down into artificial estrogens in the body, There have been documented drops in male fertility and increases in female reproductive cancers–all tied to increasing estrogens. P.S. estrogens are a known cause of weight gain.

          • gager

            “…and the science that allows more and more
            poisons to enter the food chain.” Laughable, you know nothing about which you post. Take a look at the food pyramid endorsed by the government. That is the cause of obesity and diabetes.

      • cmac

        I see your logic, because spider and salmon pollen will eventually make it on to a corn field in Nebraska. Brilliant!

        • gager

          A gene sequence that gives a spider or a salmon a specific attribute is not the same as a spider or salmon gene. Every single stalk of corn in a field has a different genetic signature and through mutation it would eventually have the gene sequence that replicates the attribute that a spider or a salmon have.

    • MargaretRC

      Gene transplants are just a different way to accomplish the same goals as selecting and breeding, only faster–and with more options. Do you know how many foreign genes from other organisms all of us have in our own genomes–that got there naturally? I agree with Carl E Mott III that the whole patenting thing is a bit of a problem, but other than that, I see no scientific draw back to GMO. And I used to be a rabid anti GMO. But the science just doesn’t support that stance.

      • cmac

        No, they really aren’t. The changes of salmon DNA gently blowing across a corn field and magically fertilizing the corn to make a new hybrid are …ZERO.

        • MargaretRC

          True, but that could happen just as easily with selectively bred plants as GM plants. GM isn’t some some special process that makes seeds more likely to fly away and cross contaminate other plants/fields. That’s the nature of plants. Organic farmers should not, granted, lose organic certification from accidental fertilization like that, but it’s not unique to GM.

  • Stacy

    I don’t think people mind this kind of modification. The issue I have with GMO’s is when they make “RoundUp Ready” corn

    • gager

      Why?

    • joecrouse

      the round up ready gene actually occurred naturally through natural selection. Look up how they discovered it.

      • Thøger RiveraThorsen

        The issue is not one of “it’s unnatural, it’s bad”. The issue is that round-up ready corn spurs the increased use of roundup instead of pursuing natural alternatives, which can lead to more roundup trickling down into ground water drinking water supplies, as well as the problems introduced by the extensive monoculture that this leads to.
        Plus, of course, the power balance introduced by this, which is not in small farmers’ favor.

        • Natural is not safer. Many natural pesticides are more toxic and less targeted than synthetics. Glyphosate is less toxic than salt and is not mutagenic or carcinogenic and is biodegradable. Levels in water supplies are 100s of times lower than are found to be potentially harmful. GMOs do not promote monoculture any more than conventional or poor farming organic farmers. More small farmers worldwide use GMOs than large farmers…85-15 ration by farms.

  • Carl E. Mott III

    Plant modification has created most fruits and vegetables we know and eat and I don’t find that a problem, it’s the patenting of these newer varieties that is the problem, especially when the wind blows and they cross pollinate making farmers down wind liable.

    • Carl, there is not one documented case of ‘cross pollination making farmers downwind liable’–not one on record. That’s a scare myth perpetrated by those ideologically opposed to GM crops. Cross pollination does occur but unless it’s deliberate, there is no liability. Never been case prosecuted in the world for unintended cross pollination.

      • CLQ

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser The first field was accidentally contaminated, but Monsanto sued this Saskatchewan farmer because he kept the seed from the first field and planted it the next year. They were successful. I am all for GMO food, I think it’s a brilliant application of solid science, but I don’t like the fact that they can do these sorts of things and are supported by our courts.

        • sky

          No, CLQ, you are simply passing off an internet lie. He was sued because he replanted GMO and then sprayed everything with roundup so that he could get the benefits of the roundup ready crop without paying for it. This guy knowingly planted GMO crops, doused it with herbicide, and got made a hero. Laughably, this is the very best that the anti-GMO folks can do when asked for an example of the terribleness of Monsanto.

  • Guest

    breeding is different from mucking about with dna codes of creatures that would never breed like jellyfish and plants…

  • Cecile Charles

    I prefer non GMO foods. everything that is GMO tastes like cardboard.

  • Nicky Altieri

    This above NOT GMO, this is the result of hybridization, tow types of corn pollinated together, two types of broccoli pollinated. Genetically Modified Foods cross a specie of one kingdom with another. For instance taking the gene, and most often several, from an mammal and adding it to a plant. Or a bacteria with a plant, or genes from a fungus with an animal, like a Salmon crossed with genes from a spider.

  • Lisa McPherson

    There is a huge difference between breeding to optimize genetic material that a species has, and hacking genes from a completely unrelated species onto it. There is a huge difference between cross-breeding different $fruit plants of the same species that are very fleshy, and splicing a fish gene onto a plant, in hopes of making it more frost resistant.

  • Pat

    Natural breeding is a LONG way from the kind of artificial genetic manipulation being used by such organizations as Monsanto. I m surprised any educated person would equate the two!!

  • Jari N

    How cute to call it genetic modification. It’s called selective breeding.

    • WalterBannon

      not too bright, are you

    • Same thing. The tools we have for it these days are much improved, better understood and tested in labs before being release into wider, more open testing environments.

      • cmac

        Not the same thing, no matter how many times you repeat it. There is a clear definition of the two, and they are not the same.

  • 19strings

    I think part of the reason the GMO debate is so complicated, is because the motivations of capitalists do not always align with the best interest of everyone and everything else. (gulf oil spill anyone?) That a company like Monsanto – whose herbicide applications have had unintended consequences on the monarch butterfly, for example, is also involved in researching and producing GMO’s, is part of what makes folks bristle. Monsanto seems suspect because they don’t always get it right – but would never acknowledge that. In my view, the decision to destroy milkweed to protect crops has created new problems that may be worse than what that was meant to solve. But we hear no acknowledgment from Monsanto that perhaps destroying milkweed was not the best plan.

    So, what may be valid science insofar as GMO’s are concerned, may look dubious to the average consumer who is also aware that the profit motive can lead to bad decisions, (and in other industries, too many Superfund sites). Is it reasonable to be suspicious of the motivations of profit driven companies? Absolutely. The tobacco industry alone has certainly proven that they will say anything to get consumers to believe a harmful product isn’t harmful for the purposes of self preservation and profit. So, it’s hardly surprising then, that people are suspicious of corporations motives when it comes to GMO’s and anything else that either is harmful, or seems harmful.

    One reason the science angle is failing to reach doubters – is because the corrupting influence of money and power is real, and as long as profiteers are the ones deciding the best way to manage our shared resources (such as BP, Exxon, Monsanto, Enron, etc), chances are good, the average consumer and probably the environment are on the short end of the stick. Does that mean the science on GMO’s is wrong or misleading? Not necessarily. But the behavior of so many greedy industries/corporations has sewn reasonable doubt for many consumers, and who can blame them?.. Belief in science alone is not enough because unfortunately, on the spectrum of human behavior, exploitation is always possible and even the least informed consumer knows at least that much. How do you reach them?

    • Ofay Cat

      Interesting comment. The problem with allowing ‘others’ so do the deciding on what happens with big issues around food and energy production is that he very vocal and often professional protest class from the left would have us shut down all energy projects or make them unprofitable to satisfy the carbon haters.

      Further, most do not understand what it takes to feed SEVEN BILLION on a daily basis.

      Huge population reduction would be helpful and welcomed by the left, but that is impractical at this time.

  • simus1

    Organo-morons have way too much time on their hands.

  • walrus sucks like the rest

    Sharks with frikkin’ laser beams…..

  • Tamara Copple

    Please provide the original source of these photos and some documentation that describes what we are looking at. I need verifiable facts, not more facebook ready memes, to combat the GMO haters.

  • Robert of Ottawa

    Hey great resource to educate the enviro-fascists.

  • Witchwindy

    Except this was NOT done by injecting genes from some other species entirely, which was not possible until recently; so all this was done in the past by merely crossbreeding within the same species. BIG difference there.

    • You should search for “Horizontal Gene Transfer”. The argument your trying to make happens in nature already.

  • Bob Brown

    In the Caribbean we have been exporting non GMO bananas for decades. In my 45 years I’ve never seen one that looks like the one pictured here – I call bullsh*t.

    • Bob, I believe you missed the point. Non genetically engineered bananas have been modified over hundreds of years, mostly in a laboratory, to get to the current Cavendish and other popular bananas. The point of the graphic is that there is no such thing as “natural” foods or crops…they have all been modified by man. If we only ate “natural” foods, as they evolved naturally in nature, you would be eating the banana that you see pictured here. All food today has been genetically altered by humans.

      • cmac

        Again, you are outright lying. Please collect your check from Monsanto Joe and go home.

        The Cavendish was not created by genetic modification, but by selective breeding. That selective process may have happened in a laboratory with a greenhouse attached, but it is not genetic modification (which by definition is taking the DNA of one species and placing it into the DNA of another species.

  • Dave

    Do not argue with the folks who don’t like GMO’s. If they honestly label all the GMO foods then all those dumb, liberal, whiny, retards will starve and America can make a come back.

  • ronalddwyer

    Really?? Using this logic what will happen to humans?

    • We have the fossil record to show what *has* happened. What *will* happen is open to debate.

  • Patsy McMichael

    There is a difference between grafting strong or desirable crop baring stems onto strong root baring stems….or weeding out the weak crops so they don’t seed and get replanted and altering the basic genetic structure of the seed nucleus. Humans have been doing selective “breeding” of plants and animals…which is favoring the desirable product for reproduction over the undesirable….since human began cultivating crops and live stock, but 100 or a thousand years ago there was no knowledge of genetics within the cells….today there is. You can’t compare what humans did 100 or 1000 years ago to what is being done in a lab today.

    • montana83

      So, if it occurs slowly it is good. If you use science instead of stone age trial and error it is bad. Uh huh. Whatever.

    • sky

      Why, not, Patsy? We are simply doing what they did with more intelligence. It’s called progress. You know, the same thing that made it possible for you to post on the “internet”.

  • Charles S. Couraud

    There is a HUGE difference between selective cross pollination and adding say mackerel genes into plant life. I have had personal experiences with Genetically altered plants producing very different vegetables each generation you replant seeds by saving the seeds from the previous years crop. Many new GMOs are not sustainable or predictable. In my own experience.

    • guest

      No, there isn’t.

  • fjord

    ha. my broccoli already looks like that lower right picture.
    got too hot and it bolted. Or I planted too late.
    Also, the new fad is a broccoli with more stem than “head”. Yuck.

  • Alexander Meander

    i do not think the language here is accurate. or rather, it portrays the idea that there is not a difference between GMOs & trait selection. genetic modification in a laboratory is much different than trait selection via seeds through the generations.

  • scientist guy

    hey monsanto, i like your propaganda site. it look so authentic.

    • Since you have no facts, you lob a non sequitur. Nice.

  • Thøger RiveraThorsen

    Genetic Engineering is not the same as selective breeding. Selective breeding is much slower and more restricted in what is possible than GE. Equating the two is no more literate that saying “natural is good”.

  • Tracy Armbruster

    This is not strictly true… ‘Genetic modification’ means that a gene from one completely separate organism – like the bacteria, bacillus thuringiensis, for instance, which is inserted into the DNA of BT corn – so in essence it is a combination of two separate organisms. The above modifications noted in the pictures are as a result of selective breeding or hybridisation.

  • chia49504

    There is no proof of this whatsoever since they haven’t changed in the last 200 millennia. This is a statement made to justify GMO foods, and to not cause problems with their cash flow.

    • “There is no proof of this whatsoever since they haven’t changed in the last 200 millennia.”

      Citation needed.

  • Darin

    This is probably the least informed conversation of GMOs I have ever seen.
    1. Selective Hybridization is NOT GMO, and yes, even selective hybridization has led to a **great loss of nutritional value** for our food, modern corn is so nutritionless they only give it as feed for the last few years of a cow’s life because THEY DIE EATING IT
    2. GMO is not controlled, the genes are changed randomly by spraying in the general area of the trait, and the results are quarantined and tested for allergens (meaning things that can kill you, not just give you a runny nose). When they find the least offensive strand, they market it, but they don’t test it long term for health side effects.
    3. GMOs are BANNED in three dozen developed countries, and they all wonder how the US, with “freedom of the press”, continues to allow suppression of GMO labelling
    4. Roundup (Glyphosate) is being sprayed at record levels because of the GMO strain of roundup ready crops, creating super weeds that they are now using Agent Orange to kill (the same chemical that wrecked our Vietnam Veterans). Roundup is also banned in several countries because independent studies show it has neurotoxic effects and several people wonder why the epidemic raise in Autism seems to correspond exactly with the raise in use of Roundup.
    These plants might not look appetizing, but I am sure they contain all the vitamins and minerals we need to thrive nutritionally, because Nature wasn’t concerned with making plants that can survive a long trip to the grocery store and wait for days to be bought and eaten.

    • This is probably the least informed conversation of GMOs I have ever seen.

      (1) Selective hybridization is exactly the same as genetic engineering although GE is more precise and far safer, as novel proteins are tested for allergenicity and overall testing is done, unlike in hybridization. Corn is quite nutritious, depending on its variety, and is a great source of a variety of vitamins. There is not one documented case of any animal dying from eating either hybrid or GMO corn. Much of organic corn is hybrid as well.

      (2) Modern GE is extremely controlled, with trackers inserted and monitoring, so geneticists can pinpoint with precision where the gene has been inserted and track its effects (which we know in general are extremely limited). Modern techniques “spraying genes randomly”. That’s pure hogwash, and reflects an ignorance of modern GE. Allergens are in all foods. GE foods are the only foods tested for allergens, and are fare less potentially dangerous than organic foods or non-GMO conventional foods, which do not undergo allergenic testing or tracking. There have been numerous longterm studies on GE foods that have shown no harmful effects, which is why every major international oversight agency in food and genetics and general science has endorsed the safety and sustainability of GE foods.

      (3) GE is banned in 2 or 3 countries in the world but not one major industrial country (Peru is one of the three). Almost every major industrial country uses GM for animal feed and almost every one allows it as food; no mainstream scientific agency in the world has recommended banning GM foods–not one.

      (4) Glyphosate use has grown, as it replaces more toxic chemicals such as atrazine or others even far more toxic. Overall, the toxic component of agrochemicals has down as glyphosate use has gone up–bulk liquid are meaningless, the only real measure of impact is LD50 rates. Glyphosate is less toxic than table salt. According to every major oversight agency in the world, glyphosate is not carcinogenic, it is not an endocrine disruptor and it is biodegradable, meaning it does not impact ground water. Glyphosate is not “consumed” in biologically meanigful amounts so attempting to link it to one condition or disease is absurd. There is no biological link that’s been shown between autism and glyphosate–zero–in any study;none between glyphosate and any serious health problem. Correlation is not causation. The rise in autism also is correlated with the rise in organic food sales; deaths and illnesses linked to consumption of organic foods from fecal contamination and natural bacteria like e coli; and to rise in vitamin supplements–all meaningless correlations. .Agent orange has never been used on crops. 2-4d is a pesticide used on crops (but differently at a different times than glyphosate). It was an ingredient in Agent Orange but was not the ingredient that caused human harm. Here is an article explaining its use in agriculture: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/01/06/agent-orange-gmo-after-usda-backs-24-d-seeds-michael-pollan-marion-nestle-lead-activist-hype-of-discredited-link/

      The old plants shown have negligible nutritional value in comparison to modern varieties.

      • Voice o’ Reason

        Mr. Entine, do you really want to be quoted as saying “Selective hybridization is exactly the same as genetic engineering…”? This is obviously not a dialogue for scholars, but with a motto like “Where science trumps ideology” shouldn’t you be using some of that science to clarify and educate?

    • The “GMO Ban” of the European Union only affects imports.

      I repeat: The “GMO Ban” of the European Union only affects imports.

      It’s trade protection by another name. It was created when the EU’s member nations had to give up their trade protection laws (which kept their farmers from drowning in a flood of cheap American imports) as a condition for joining the EU.

  • Botanist

    This is so ignorant. Those have been selectively bred not genetically modified. Its not the same! Thinking so makes you look worst than the most ignorant of the anti-gmo activists.

  • TRUTH

    These pictures are ridiculous examples by the way! These pictures are of the ancestors of vegetables that have been changed over time by selective seed saving of humans. WHICH IS NOT GENETIC MODIFICATION!!! Genetic modification did not give us the vegetables we know today! Selective seed saving did!!!

  • Marie Fontaine

    I would say this is more like selective breeding rather then genetically modified. Take for instance wild cabbage, which modern broccoli came from, we didn’t genetically modify a single species to become broccoli over night. It took years of selective breeding by changing the growing environment to eventually get broccoli, unlike using chemicals to genetically modify a plant and having that chemical affect our health. I’m not saying that all GMO’s are bad, in fact I think GMO’s can be a great thing. We just have to make sure, when having this debate, we know the difference between selective breeding over time and GMO.

  • Shaaayyy

    so what? is gmo food safe? I need some pros …

  • Dave Laneve

    Bullshit, GMO is recent, tampering with genetics, the examples they are showing are simply selective breeding, NOT GMO.

  • the facts
  • Joseph Vreeland

    more like the genetic idiocy project, food has been grown on this planet for thousands of years before any kind of genetic modification ever took place at all, and before any of you genetic idiots get started cross pollination has nothing at all to do with genetic modification…. soooooo all of you are happy with the herbicides and pesticides that are being spliced into the foods you are eating and you pay no attention at all that Monsanto is owned an operated by none other that Pfizer and how much cancer and other diseases have increased since the beginning of genetically modified foods? or about the fact that they are also spraying and splicing the DNA of plants with Agent Orange? That’s right Glyphosate is one of the main active ingredients in Agent Orange, and I don’t know about you but I have a bone to pick with Monsanto for the shit they pulled in the Vietnam war… so before falling for the bullshit of the media and of these fucking pharma bitches why don’t you do some real research about what adding a genetically modified food can actually do to your system…. its either that or keep making these fuckers rich

    • Jason Roder

      Nope. We’ve been modifying genetics from the time we first decided to replant from just the best crops.

      Also, Agent Orange and glyphosate are not even close to the same thing.

      • Joseph Vreeland

        O.o you’re a fucking idiot too look it up Glyphosate is the main active ingredient in Agent Orange, same thing that splenda creates when you cook it, so why don’t you go suck some down, same shit different name kind a like neo-tame that is used for aspartame

        • Jason Roder

          You repeating your lie will *not* make it true.

          • Joseph Vreeland

            dude really if you are that blind you are not even worth the time, go suck down more fluoride and more GMO crops and enjoy the time you have left…. peace out see ya

          • Jason Roder

            So you’re suggesting that I should drink water that will help prevent tooth decay and eat food that can be grown in greater amounts under more differing conditions with less use of resources? I think I can manage that.

          • Joseph Vreeland

            dude really if you are that blind you are not even worth the time, go suck down more fluoride and more GMO crops and enjoy the time you have left…. peace out see ya

  • Steven Carrier

    genetically optimized is not genetically modified

    • Eco-Sustainable

      Genetically modified IS genetically optimized!

  • Foodmiagi

    If nothing was genetically modified then the world’s population would be about 25% of the current number. We would probably not be here because our ancestors would have starved and died.
    If you allow no genetic modification, food will become scarce and expensive. The world’s poor will starve and you will be constantly hungry.
    I’ll bet you will gladly eat GMO foods when that happens.

  • Ray Comfort

    You mean god didn’t design bananas to perfectly fit into the human hand? Mind = blown.

  • bruce

    My philosophy is you are what you eat . its not nessarily about feeding the population more effectively if think its more the teildinghe big big buck of yeilding more productive crops with longer shelve life. Who’s to say over time whether producing GMO produce will eventually modify us by eating them. Food for thought

  • Jazmyn Mur

    wow

  • Mlema

    a comment and a question:

    I think this post needs a new title:

    “How your food would look if not artificially selected over millennia?”

    Interchanging the terms “genetic modification” and “artificial selection”
    (or “selective breeding) confuses two different technologies. The term “genetic modification” is used to refer to methods developed in recent decades, which allow for moving genes between species that wouldn’t otherwise cross-breed, while artificial selection refers to what most people commonly think of as intervening in reproduction that can normally happen, but in a way that attempts to develop particular traits.

    They’re not the same thing, and it’s inaccurate to use the terms interchangeably.

    My question is: can the author provide some listing of the claimed 3000 grains, fruits and vegetables created with mutagenesis? Most mutagenesis has been done with flowers and other ornamentals. I don’t think there are 3000 food plants from mutagenesis. I’d like to see the source on that.

    • Eco-Sustainable

      “..artificial selection refers to what most people commonly think of as intervening in reproduction that can normally happen, but in a way that attempts to develop particular traits.”

      Artificial selection is artificial. It doesn’t “normally” happen. The only reason artificially selected plants exist is because of human intervention. Otherwise the probability of their existence in the wild would be very very very low.

      “My question is: can the author provide some listing of the claimed 3000 grains, fruits and vegetables created with mutagenesis?”

      http://mvd.iaea.org/

  • JustGreat

    I have no problem with any of the foods in the picture. Probably cause I can cook. They are still propaganda though.

    • Eco-Sustainable

      You may interpret it as “propaganda”, but it is also the truth. A very inconvenient truth to the misanthropic natural-loving folks. Fruits yesterday and fruits today aren’t the same anymore, thanks to human intervention.

      • Good4U

        You are correct. Fruits yesterday (as in more than 10 thousand years ago) were more toxic, less productive, more disease prone, less useable, than fruits today, thanks to human intervention. You seem to have your head screwed on straight, which is a rare thing for commenters on these sorts of blog sites.

  • kiljoy616

    What a bunch of bullshit, these is what food would look like if it had not been modified by conventional means. GMO has absolutely nothing to do with this. I can see the sheeple and the paid poster pulling crap out of their ass to state this article is true.

  • stephen

    gmo companies dont want people to know whats in their foods. if its safe, then why hide it? Fact is, its not safe. Not every scientist supports GMO despite what you say. Many are sounding the alarm. Its not an exact science and the crude approach at GMO development has created many dangers to our food supply. I want my corn to be corn. I dont want people inserting cross species dna into it, only to find out later that it was making people sick. GMO is not as nutritious, did not stand up well at all to the 2012 drought/famine in the midwest US into Eastern Canada. So many lies. Find out how many in the leadership of Monsanto, Bayer, Dupont etc. eat gmo products.

    • Stephen, In most cases there is no GMOs in foods that were genetically modified so labeling would be deceptive…it would not tell anyone what you say people want–“what’s in their foods.” GMO corn or soy or sugar is no different than organic or conventional; they were just grown with different methods. Humans are made of cross species DNA by the way, and we can be assured, a few million years into evolution, that it has no harmful effects. Also you must enthusiastically support gene editing which involves no gene transfers between species…most of the new GM foods going forward will be the result of gene editing, so it’s good to know you have no objections over that! Good start. There is no relationship between nutrition and GMOs except in a few instances, such as Golden rice or vitamin enhanced cassava, in which the GMO version is far more nutritious. It’s also safer in some instances. GMO corn does not develop killer mycotoxins–much safer and more nutrition. There is zero relationship between surviving drought and GMO, except for the fact that there are new strains of both hybrid and GMO seed that are drought resistant–a true advantage that even organic farmers are taking advantage. I’m glad some facts and science were able to persuade you!

      • Now you are REALLY demonstrating scientific ignorance! You can’t be serious – – – are you really assuming that the natural processes that take place over thousands of years, and today’s GMO-industry genetic modifications are the same? Remember what happens when you ASSUme – – – you are trying to make an ASS out of U and me.

        Jon, from reading your posts, it is obvious that you have an above average functioning brain; However, scientific logic is often missing. How else could one explain your – almost hysterical – urge to justify GMOs – – especially in the light of the ever increasing risks and negative findings?????
        THINK, JON – – – THINK – – – AND THINK AGAIN!

        • Good4U

          Hi “Dr.” Who’s the one that is not thinking? Apparently in your “Dr.” training you missed the class about transformation. Let me bring you up to speed, “Dr.” Transgenesis and genetic transformation have been going on since the beginning of life, more than a billion years ago. Microorganisms and viruses (which are not organisms) move genes from one cell to another all the time. It’s happening every minute of every day, all around you, and inside of you. It’s happening right now, inside your gut. It’s happening in the soil, on plants, in animals, in every biome on earth. As a “Dr.”, you should already know that. If you don’t, please go back to school and become someone with an above average functioning brain.

          • gmoeater

            I think, from his rambling bumblings and fearful speculation, that he is not a “doctor” at all. Unless he bought his degree somewhere online. All this stuff is so basic, and so obvious. Even a high school student knows this stuff.

          • Good4U

            Agreed. Plus, he’s a dilettante. None of my professors ever referred to themselves as “Dr. XYZ Ph.D.”, and I certainly never have. To do that constitutes obnoxious puffery. The way he writes is weird too. Definitely not trained in the sciences. His citation of the notorious Seralini fraud pretty much nails it. He doesn’t even know the slightest thing about toxicology or biochemistry.

          • gmoeater

            And he won’t, or can’t, answer the very simple questions I asked a few days ago, that any junior-high school science student could answer. Weird. His website is truly bizarre.
            Maybe I should bill myself as a heart surgeon.

          • Dear Good4U: Thanks for commenting. Gives me a chance (as former professor of chemistry) to educate – – even the obnoxious El Toro Poo Pooers like you. But mostly because others who read this will be made aware of new studies – – like glyphosate damaging the heart, California EPA classifies it as carcinogen, and more!

            1) Same response to you – – above – – as I wrote to Jon Entine.
            2) You must be one of those Trolls – – parroting GMO El Toro Poo Poo – – that were called attention to by the media; even the NY TIMES reported it.
            3) Natural processes and GMO-industry (I define them as) aberrations the same? Now YOU go back to school! – – – well, only if you had been there – – your statements make me doubt it – – before, and really did get a degree in any science????? Well, probably not; why else this anonymity – – usually goes along with WannaBes.
            4) So, why all the problems – – tumors, organ malfunctions, kidney failure(s), heart problems:
            http://www.gmoseralini.org/en
            5) GLYPHOSATE IT BINDS MINERALS AND CUTS OFF THE PRODUCTION OF NEUROTRANSMITTERS AND
            HORMONES….A VISUAL CONNECTION OF THE ROUTES OF DISEASES AND CANCER
            http://www.academia.edu/5772865
            6) Cardiotoxic electrophysiological effects of the herbicide Roundup® in rat and rabbit
            ventricular myocardium in vitro
            Cardiovascular Toxicology, October 2015, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 324-335
            First online: 02 December 2014
            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12012-014-9299-2

            And – in parting – from Tufts U: Half of the (GMO) Studies Find Cause For Concern … The Other Half Are Studies By the GMO Food Industry itself. SAYS IT ALL!
            Please comment again; I have soooooooo much info/references.
            PS: Its now 26 nations banned GMOs.
            See, and if you can comprehend all of the above, it’s really Good4U !

        • gmoeater

          Hans — (your website is a hot mess of irrational and inflammatory gobble-de-gook thoroughly debunked by mainstream science, by the way …. please have a student clean it up) —

          Of course GE technology isn’t the same. GE crop technology is much more precise, involving just one gene, after considerable testing. With strict oversight. You can’t say that about foods produced through mutagenesis (look it up, doctor) or organic foods that have been hybridized for centuries. So where’s your beef? Do you have a problem with mutagenesis of conventional and organic foods? If not, why not? There are unpredictable results with many genes blasted by chemicals and irradiation, with no oversight at all. You ok with that, but not with genetic engineering? Not very consistent or credible from a logic-based observation.

          You make a lot of unverified presumptions, based on fear, fearmongering, and irrational speculation. You really are a scientist? Your words don’t reflect that you think even vaguely like one. Interesting. Do you know the difference between correlation and causation? Your rambling mess of a website wanders all around with vague mentions of increasing autism, cancer, who knows what else. Certainly, as a scientist, you are not making the common ignorant fallacy of correlating diseases with GE technology, are you? If so, I’m sure you have credible justification, right?

          Plese clarify your comment “…..especially in the light of the ever increasing risks and negative findings….” (I’ll ignore your dramatic multiple question marks and capital letter shout-outs). Would love to see what ya got in the way of credible background info to justify this statement. “Think,” indeed. Yeah. Do that.

          And please tell us who pays you.

  • Larry Ft Pierce

    I went to a fancy food market; couldn’t decide which to buy, apple-flavored bananas or banana-flavored apples.

  • Larry Ft Pierce

    !!!!!

  • Vierotchka

    This is not about GMOs, it is about selection. No foreign DNA have been introduced.

    • Good4U

      Sorry, but you don’t understand biochemistry. There’s no such thing as “foreign DNA”. DNA is the same, regardless of where it comes from. It’s all made up of just 4 chemicals. Where did you get the idea that there’s foreign DNA? Did you think some DNA mysteriously appeared from outer space?

  • Jehayland

    Modern techniques of genetic modification and traditional processes of selective breeding are two completely different things.

    Conflating the two is unhelpful.

    • Good4U

      You are correct. The above article parses (separates) the two quite eloquently. The point of the article is that the traditional processes are much less precise, i.e. much more random, than transgenic modification. Traditional breeding, which includes crossing one species with another, along with mutagenesis by exposing plant cells to radiational and chemical agents that change DNA in totally unpredictable ways, are what brought food to your table. If there is conflation about that with biotech then you missed the point of the article. I personally prefer the latter. I want more biotechnical genetic modification, not less. I want the more precise methods to be used, which are now possible with biotechnology, but weren’t when all of the above listed crops in this article were being developed. Let us know if you prefer the less predictable, more hazardous methods to continue to be used.

  • ~D| Coffee

    GMO’s simply manipulate the environment, which could be through selective breeding, which messes with genes in a “natural” way,

    I’m saying that GMO’s aren’t that bad, as long as they are “natural”.

  • Allan

    We Need No More GMO’s!
    —GMO?—BAD!!!—

  • Librarygal

    Corn and Watermelon, both GMO’s for many hundreds of years, are my Favs!

    • Librarygal

      Oh, and probably, potatoes as well. Mashed with lots of butter and milk from GMO cows!

  • Ethan

    Shots fired 😂

    • Ethan

      @hadrian embalsado

  • K Miller

    It is dishonest to equate hybridization with genetic modification. Hybridization has gone on since the beginning of time and is a natural, potentially beneficial process. Genes within species are involved. GM moves genes between species, which is how problems arise. The latter is also very unstable, which is why weeds are becoming round up resistant like the plants having the resistant genes. The GM plants shed the genes and they get into the weeds.

  • BeaDandelion

    Who says those vegetables were supposed to look like that?

  • Kevin Schmidt

    Orwell is turning in his grave! This Monsanto propaganda website should be called the Genetic ILLiteracy Project.
    For thousands of years, humans used cross breeding techniques.
    It was literally IMPOSSIBLE to genetically breed anything until the techniques was perfected within the last 20 years.
    Also, no sane person who knows anything at all about irradiation wants to eat anything that has been irradiated, because all irradiated food is dead food, which is the point of irradiation.
    Personally, I think this website can be sued for several violations of federal law.

    • agscienceliterate

      Then there are many organic foods you do not eat that are irradiated. You must have a hard time finding stuff to eat that meets with your approval.

  • gene fulton

    You rely on ignorance to conflate hybridization with gene-splicing!

    • Good4U

      This site would like to rely on well educated readers who really care to learn something about transgenesis, and who have a genuine work ethic so that they could understand agriculture. As it is, this site seems to be attracting a few of the other types who are ignorant, sanctimonious, self-centered bloviating buffoons who don’t give a flying phuque about how their food comes to them, just gimme it, and make sure it’s (check one or several of the below listed features):
      [ ] organic
      [ ] cage free
      [ ] corporation free
      [ ] not tested on animals
      [ ] homeopathic
      [ ] fertilized with only natural manure
      [ ] PETA approved
      [ ] consumed by the IARC in expensive European restaurants at U.S. taxpayer expense
      [ ] not the subject of a Hollywood movie
      [ ] identical to that which was eaten by paleolithic humans
      [ ] blessed by Dr. Oz, Mercola, Food Boobs, and other east Indian dietary counselors who appear on TV after the Jerry Springer show gets finished with people beating each other up

  • Barbie

    When plants are modified by means available to primitive farmers, such as cross-breeding and choosing the healthiest plants to repopulate their crops, there is nothing being added or subtracted that nature could not do on its own. But I dare you to find a single plant we eat now that has a salmon gene in it that nature put there. The fact that some items currently produced for sale were created by irradiation or chemical does not make them particularly attractive. I don’t eat ruby grapefruit, and would not, now knowing its genesis. So far, the chemical industry has not shown an understanding of the long-reaching consequences of its interventions. I would cite DDT and dioxin as two such chemicals. Tell me why we should assume that we know enough genetics to know that intersplicing a gene from a completely different species does not have unintended consequences. The hubris of scientists has no bounds.

    • Good4U

      News flash, Barbie, salmon (and all fish) contain many of the same genes as do plants, and in fact as do you. Organisms have been trading genes since the beginnings of life on this planet. It’s all quite natural, and it’s happening right now, in the soil, in plants, in animals, and even inside you! You may think that’s yucky, but it’s going on right now, in your own belly (I know, eeeewww!). In fact, even though you are a Barbie, and you do go to the spa every day, and eat nothing but “organic” green things from Hole Foods or Chipotle) you are basically a walking, talking(?), breathing GMO! Super cool, huh Barbie?

      • Barbie

        We have many of the same genes, but we do not have genes grown in another species and specifically evolved to operate in some way in that species, then transplanted back to us To say so is foolish and unscientific. When scientists take a gene from a species and plant it in a new species, they do so in a deus ex machina way, taking no thought to the ways in which its natural host triggers that gene and when it triggers that gene. For example you cannot clone a cat and get a cat that looks like the one you cloned. All cats carry all the information for every color cat cat you can imagine. What determines the color of the clone is when it is triggered in the cat. The matter of a few seconds can change a cat from tricolor to orange and no scientist can tell you what color that clone will be until it is born. There are other genes in the universal list of genes that have similar properties. How do we know what genes are being transferred and whether or not they have this characteristic, that it will change what it does depending on when it is triggered. We are playing with something we don’t even begin to understand the complexities of, just as we did with DDT and dioxin, and we’re saying it’s safe because it hasn’t gone wrong yet. Organisms that exchange genes have some basic rules and there is no sign we understand any of them. we do not that it is the way viruses become more virulent, but i don’t think that is what you’re trying to say. But it should be a warning shot across the bows of all GMO experimenters. Not all intermingling of genes is beneficial, and only arrogant sons of bitches believe that they know everything about it.

  • Wayne Matheson

    Like always most comments here are either for or against. Generally whenever there is a disagreement, there are reasons for both sides, with those reasons comes a whole lot of passion and with that passion reason flies out the window leaving comments like many on this topic.

    As a species we have flourished because of modifying our environment. This includes selective breeding and now genetic engineering. But as a species we have also had the spanish inquisition and a couple world wars, and even now in one of the most peaceful times in history there is a hell of a lot of horror going on creating a lot of fear. The reason for this is because some people are greedy, more are very caring but most are ignorant of many truths on whatever the topic is.

    I personally believe GMO’s are just a technology, not good or bad. The poorer regulated any industry or technology, the more likely it is to be exploited to the detriment of our planet and our society, over regulation or bad regulation can cause as much harm.

    I believe GMO’s are fairly well regulated, but the GMO companies have a lot of money and power going into getting what they want. Our general society has a whole lot of passion and ignorance going into getting what they want. This is such a recipe for disaster, but it does balance itself out somewhat. Still, I am surprised our system works as well as it does.

    This article is 100% truth, like many articles on the GMO side. But like articles from one side of any argument, this is just designed to make their side look good. This doesn’t talk about the orange goo from the pesticides, fertilizers, fungicides and herbicides that fill the perimeter ditches and leaches into the ground water or goes directly in to the tributaries of our rivers. Sure this happens anyway, but if every plant we grow is protect against one kind of poison, that kind of poison gets used a whole lot more and every form of life that is killed or adversely affected by that poison is going to have a cascading affect up the food chain. But this is not all of GMO’s some require less or no poisons because they are resistant to illnesses yet are painted with the exact same brush as the roundup ready crops. (even the roundup ready issue by itself is much more complex and I will avoid for now)

    So for all the GMO haters. GMO’s could be one of our best ways to save the environment. To all the GMO lovers, believe it or not some CEO’s have done things that have caused slow and agonising deaths to hundreds of kids and covered it up because it was making money.

    The best way forward is to not say no to any form of technology but to make those who choose to use it, in addition to their companies, liable for damages to the environment, society and/or individuals when done out of ignorance and more so done with full knowledge. Politicians should have even stronger penalties imposed on if they neglect their duties whether out of greed or apathy. Giving our kids a better education would help. Not allowing our democracies to be bought by corporations would be good too.

  • Scientist

    From where the heck did u come with this invention and trying to sell to ordinary people. Shame on you for supporting big corporations. At the end of the day u did not realize that your children could not be lucky as you are…

    • Good4U

      If you are truly a scientist then “u” would know how to spell “you”. One needs to be educated in order to do that sciencey stuff. Oh, and “corporations” are not the only entities doing genetic modification. In fact the earliest approved transgenic crop was done by an academic institution. To rail against “corporations” illustrates another fault in your educational process. Take a look around and tell us anything you see that was not made or delivered to you by a “corporation”.

  • J. M.

    There is a difference between hybridization and ripping cells apart in a lab.
    I’m all for natural hybridization, but if you have to take it into a lab and rip it apart at a molecular level to MAKE it work, that’s wrong.

    • agscienceliterate

      Then you have problems with organic ruby red grapefruit, right? Created through mutagenesis in a lab by guys in white coats, using chemicals and irradiation to randomly scramble genes. Perfectly safe. Even with no testing, no oversight, and no regulation. You have problems with that? If not, why not?

      • Barbie

        Actually, I do.

        • agscienceliterate

          What do you not have problems with?

    • Good4U

      Why is it wrong? Transgenesis (what you term “ripping cells apart”, and “ripping [DNA] apart at a molecular level”) is happening all around you, right now, as you sit and muse about GMOs. Microorganisms of thousands of different species are trading DNA back and forth every second of every day, in the soil, on plants, in animals, even right inside your own gut. That’s right, new GMOs are being formed right now, not by humans, but by other living things. In fact, it’s been happening since the beginning of life on earth. Humans are only late-comers to this GMO stuff. You just may not have known it; but now you do!

      • Barbie

        It’s happening in micro-organisms, not laboratories. The ones that work live, or turn into toxic bugs that kill people. That’s how viruses work. It doesn’t mean it’s benign and it certainly doesn’t mean that scientists can do it safely. Something that happens naturally, as you claim is happening, has various natural measures to insure that it is safe at some level, but some of the viruses that are doing this are anything but safe. We do GMOs slightly differently from these microorganisms, and we don’t have any of the checks on what we do that nature supplies the little dudes. You’re conflating what happens naturally in living tissue, and what some brilliantly bought scientist does in a lab. They aren’t the same.

    • agscienceliterate

      Then you oppose all foods, including organic, created through mutagenesis, correct?

  • Lola Coulombe

    You really have to be stupid to believe this troll article.” Genetically modified for millennia”? Whoever wrote this pile of crap doesn’t even know what Genetically modified means. The cross-breeding of plants is NOT genetic modification, neither is natural selection genetic modification. GMOs are plants that have had their DNA modified by adding genetic material from other sources including animal.

    • Good4U

      It’s not a pile of crap, Lola. Try reading some textbooks, or even just some good articles in magazines such as Smithsonian if you don’t wish to read science books. You probably aren’t aware either that genetic modification via transgenesis (sometimes referred to as GMOs) is happening all around you. Microorganisms of thousands of different species are trading DNA back and forth every second of every day, in the soil, on plants, in animals, even right inside your own gut. That’s right, new GMOs are being formed right now, as you sit at your keyboard. In fact, it’s been happening since the beginning of life on earth. Humans are only late-comers to this GMO stuff. You just may not have known it; but now you do!

      • Lola Coulombe

        You are way out of your league here. What you know of science would fit in a comic book, which is probably where you got your information. Believe in your Monsanto crap if you like, but stop spreading disinformation you ignoramus troll. For your information, I have an MA in biology, and whatever you have read, you have obviously misunderstood. Go get a real education!

      • Lola Coulombe

        You are way out of your league here. What you know of science would fit in a comic book, which is probably where you got your information. Believe in your Monsanto crap if you like, but stop spreading disinformation you ignoramus troll. For your information, I have an MA in biology, and whatever you have read, you have obviously misunderstood. Go get a real education!

    • agscienceliterate

      Give one example of a plant that’s been modified with animal genes.
      You can’t. There are none.
      (And you pretend to have an MA in biology?? )

      • Lola Coulombe

        Actually, though an ignoramus like yourself is not likely to know this information, tomatoes were bred with fish genes to make them tolerant to cold, way back in the 70s. Now go read a real book. Perhaps you could start with grade school material and work your way up.

  • Lola Coulombe

    Lets not forget that heritage seeds are available. These have been saved from plants that have been around for a very long time and kept by indigenous peoples among others. GMOs threaten to weaken all the natural strains of food with terminator seeds – that is plants that cannot even reproduce from their seed, therefore forcing us to keep on buying Monsanto monster plants. What is really terrible is that Monsanto’s GMOs are all “Roundup Ready”, that is they contain poisons that remain in the plant and cause tumors in mammals. There is a lot of information about this and so there is no excuse for this type of ignorance as displayed by this idiot troll.

    • agscienceliterate

      You have an MA in biology and you don’t know that there are no “terminator seeds” ? What kind of activist pseudoscience sites do you read?

  • Lola Coulombe

    WARNING! THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY A MONSANTO TROLL.

  • Aun Tie Canuck

    Bullfeathers! Selective breeding for desirable traits is NOT genetic modification. Shame on your for parading your ignorance in public like this. Your poor mother must be mortified and ashamed of you!

  • YOUR_MASTER

    What an independent farmer does to increase his yield is his business, at least they don’t have in mind to fuck us up, the worst he can do is cross a fucking branch with another to get something tastier. What a corporation does to our bodies is everyone’s business, because they definitely see us as cattle, and wanna fuck us up. GREAT CULLING!

  • TTigerLily

    No. What bs. there is a world of difference in the selective breeding of natural plants over CENTURIES, and the genetic slicing and dicing of Monsantos Frankenstein creations , like its cotton with its bug gene and the one that prevents it from ever seeding.
    They need to stop playing God.

    • agscienceliterate

      You are quite confused. Look up mutagenesis. There is no “bug gene” in cotton. There are no terminator seeds.

      • TTigerLily

        No, Im not in the least confused but you appear to be in dire need of some educational assistance.

  • Bullshit carrots are not an Original Plant.

  • Patricia Oliveira

    This is SO WRONG!!!
    Selective breeding for desirable traits is NOT the same has genetic modification the genes of a plant.
    How can this site says that is for genetic literacy?

    • agscienceliterate

      How specifically is genetically engineering crops wrong? Did you know that in thousands of plants produced through mutagenesis, including a number of organic foods you probably eat, thousands of genes are scrambled randomly in a lab via chemical blasts or irradiation, with no oversight or testing?
      You would do well to read about genetic engineering, how it is done, and what effects it has on our food supply. Read the excellent book “Tomorrow’s Table,” written by geneticist Pamela Ronald and her organic farmer husband, Raul Adamchak.
      Genes have been altered for thousands of years. It is now being done with more accuracy and precision.

  • Superfly

    Most of the foods in our grocery stores are GMOs and have been for 60 years or more and everyone has been eating them whether you think you have or not.They are obviously safe as those of us who have taken decent care of our bodies are still in excellent shape at the ripe old ages.don’t buy into the hype because that’s just what it is 95% BS

  • Boneva

    Quite interesting, enlightening, and sophisticated conversations, to which I enjoyed reading. However, as a lifelong qualified health practitioner, researcher, and educator on these subjects, perhaps we all would do better before making a point with the alleged “Facts”, to understand, who wrote those facts, and what their agenda might be on both sides. I don’t wish to divulge everything I know here, but would encourage you to understand that though like you, I love and admire true Science, and credibility (that is when it is fully credible and integral), you must dig deeper. In other words, when we give our own experience and research away to the partial truths of large organizations which greatly benefit from them, we can ignorantly sell our soul to its’ devil.

    True science is open to all possibilities, and increases, changes and grows revalidating and invalidating much of its discovery and rediscovery. Try out the FDA leading causes of death in America, (such as the 4th leading cause being legal ADR’s, adverse drug reactions, which many can be prevented with a simple code marker lab test, to which they and big Pharma are aware) and where the US ranks (very far down the list) in world health, even compared to some 3rd world countries, even though we possess the best universities, hospitals, medical and technical equipment, educators, opportunity, money, etc.; Do your research on true Codex Allimentarius rules of the powers that be in our country and some others. Perhaps consider who is tied into Monsanto and the money being passed about, in other words, who stands to gain from it and why, not to mention how we believe whatever we are told by such authorities.

    There is nothing wrong with credibility or profit for the right reasons on either side, being a workman is worthy of his hire, but I enjoy knowing their agenda, who they really help besides themselves and most of all, yes, MOST OF ALL, put consider putting your arguments to the test, because there is no substitute for putting them to the test with your own well-being if you believe them, then the proof is in the pudding/results, which I and my colleagues have generally done. There are thousands already, who can validate and have done so throughout history, including Hippocrates, medically coined as the “father of medicine”, who stated, let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food. Unfortunately, if our soil, air, water, and food is highly contaminated today, we can always grow our own organic food, although some are prevented even doing this.

    There will always be and always have been people on both sides of any debate or discussion who use, take advantage and propagate, however, while you are contemplating, before responding or reacting too quickly, also notice why the Okinawan Centenarians by the hundreds climb trees picking limes daily, exercise together, live over 100 easily without our American illnesses, have healthier relationships, etc, and not as much education to argue with. (see youtube) Consider the vast ages of the Hunza people, or Anne Larkins from Miami who was on the program, “The Doctors” because in her 70’s looked 40 and how she got this way, (I have spoken to her several times), and thousands more throughout history. This is not exceptional, only that they live differently than most of us; there are so many not enough room here to site, but I suggest we stop arguing our point long enough to investigate experience of thousands on both sides. I’ve done my homework for 30+ years both educationally, current studies, experimentation, investigation, etc. and assisted hundreds with improving their well-being, including my own family and friends. So until you have done the same, I don’t have the time or strength to argue here. Just thought you might dig a little deeper folks, experiment more with and without, using what you have and what may be safer, and also considering, the spirit, soul and body are one unit, with different functions, one affecting the other. We all are part of the problem and the answer, not just bantering about it, but becoming true researchers behind the research, and looking beyond credibility of people also into the credibility of nature, humanity, experience, practice, and all possibility. This would require us to incorporate more humility, and child-like wonder again, so we come into it with no agenda, but rather complete openness. I love physics and learned that the more Einstein, Tesla, and many others delved in this way, the more convinced they became of universal truth, not just scientific facts, which like religious facts are still often interpreted by humans to some extent. Don’t lose your sense of wander in your concerns, become explorers in your journey and quest for truth, because one thing I and my colleagues both medically and alternatively have chuckled about, is that the more we know, we see how much more there is to know….There is always more!!!

  • Darryl FukThat Boyd

    But but but the typos.

  • Anonamus Chicken

    I love reading the debate that goes on with these things….some of it is greatly amusing, especially the roastings…