Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson And The Left’s Problem With Science

neil.degrasse.tysonEarlier this week Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson told people to “chill out” about GMOs, and as a result, a lot of people got really upset with their science hero for not catering to their inability to understand science.

Genetic biology is not his area of expertise, but then again, Dr. Tyson does have a better education and understanding of science than probably 99.5% of the general population. However, if you look at his Facebook page, you’ll see that not being able to grasp science didn’t stop dozens, if not hundreds, of people from angrily voicing their displeasure with his opinion. Below the jump, you’ll find a few of the upset notes left on his page from some fans.

The most recent comment posted to his page as I’m writing this was from someone called “Desdemain” who went with the passive-aggressive “I’m so hurt” approach:

For you to come out in support of GMOs, while insecticide is at this very moment being sliced directly into the food we eat, is either a bribe, criminally negligent or entirely ignorant. I am hurt because the pedestal I put you on was unwarranted. Not that it means much to you, but you have 1 less friend today.

Then there was Bryan:

Neil, my friend, I respect your points but you totally miss the problem with GMOs. You asked us to go out and eat non-GMO food but is not a reality for most of the population because large artificial entities control the food. That is the bigger problem. You have basically given a free pass to organizations like Monsanto who have manipulated and killed many people’s livelihoods. And whether anyone agrees with GMOs or not, is it not a basic human right to know what we are eating? You are seemingly siding with corporations to block a freedom of information from the people of all countries. I really like all of the work that you are doing but please see the bigger implications next time.

A guy named Travis called him a “sellout” and also posted this:

Okay, stop being so naive. The founder of Monsanto is also leader of the FDA who controls everything, they Co operate with the health care system (now takong over the medical marijuana industry.) They are ruthlessly greedy men who cash out on misery. They will stop at nothing to control you. It’s common sense.

Someone named Richard had this to say:

After your stance on GMO’s it’s tough to take you seriously. In fact you’ve lost all your credibility with me. I lost a ton of respect for you and your work is now tarnished.


Then a guy by the name of Robbie dropped this hard to read blurb in the comments section. Pro tip: break up your paragraphs, people are more likely to read it.

You are dead wrong about GMOs. Here are most people’s problems with GMOs, which Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson completely ignores. First of all, most GMOs are made by Monsanto…a chemical company who brought us Agent Orange and PCBs and has poisoned millions of people throughout the years. This is Fact. Secondly, whether he or anyone else deems GMOs safe, is besides the point, it’s about having our right to choose what we put in our bodies. Last of all, he never mentions super bugs and super weeds. Weeds and bugs are adapting to Gmo crops, the pesticides aren’t killing them anymore…so the pesticides they spray on said crops keep getting stronger and stronger. At the same time, the EPA ups the level of toxicity deemed safe for human consumption. GMO manufacturers keep making stronger poison as nature adapts, hence strengthening the poison sprayed on the food we eat, then the EPA is in lock step in raising the levels that are safe for us. Do you see the problem here? We are progressively being poisoned by stronger and stronger pesticides. These pesticides are poisoning Insects, plants, animals, the earth, the water table and us. Fluoride is in pesticides as well, therefor we are also being drugged. fluoride is a drug. GMOs are a massive experiment and we are all the Guinea pigs. This video and article do not prove GMOs are safe, this simply prove Neill Degrasse Tyson is an arrogant douche bag. Doctors used to say smoking cigarettes was safe and were wrong. Doctors and scientists all claimed heart disease was caused by fat and cholesterol and were wrong FOR YEARS, it is caused by inflammation. Mr. DeGrasse Tyson is wrong on this one.

While Robbie may have had some good points about pesticides, he went off the deep end with the conspiracy nonsense about experimentation and fluoride.

Continued on page 2


Comments

Facebook comments

Pages: 1 2

  • Shelley Jones Beek

    These are not anti-science comments – they bring up important points. Even the fluoride guy. Flouride was recently labeled a neurotoxin in the Lancet, one of the oldest and most respected medical journals. Your anti-science examples are non-sensical.

    You also seem to be critical of people’s desire to be informed about what kind of food they are eating. Is this desire somehow antI-science? Oh, I put a paragraph break in so it is more likely my comment will be read (not that that has ever affected my reading of a comment if I thought it was interesting).

    • hyperzombie

      Is this desire somehow antI-science?

      Yes, because you want the safest form of plant breeding labeled and ignore all the other more dangerous ways to breed plants.
      I you were advocating that all plant breeding techniques needed to be labeled, I would think it at least semi-logical.

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        I am very curious about other more dangerous plant breeding methods. Could you tell me about them?

      • hyperzombie

        Radiation Mutagenesis, Chemical Mutagenesis, Wide cross hybridization, in situ embryonic replacement, Backscatter crosses, Zinc finger nuclease, and dozens of others. using pollen is so 1890s.

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        Okay, so you are talking about increasing mutation rates in plant germ cells and targeted mutagenesis. And you think that when desired mutations are isolated with these methods and turned into consumed crops perhaps people might want to know about this as well. Hmm. You may be right. In the past we relied on spontaneous mutations arising and then using selective breeding to get the trait we wanted. Now we are not so patient. I have a friend who dreamed of knocking out the gene that produces caffeine in coffee beans (after she isolated it). If she had been successful using methods that did not involve inserting the DNA from a different species into the coffee plant, would the public want that to be labeled?
        I don’t know. On the one hand there is always the chance that these mutations could arise spontaneously, eventually, which is not the case with the transgenics, even if a retrovirus were involved. But the changes are happening in our food so much faster than ever before. The amount of gluten in our wheat is exponentially higher than it was 100 years ago and this change (that probably happened in a laboratory) that has not been talked about is having a major effect on some people’s health.
        I think I would prefer a lot more transparency in all the science involved in food production. I prefer to not be left ignorant. And I prefer to not be told to “chill out” if I want that transparency about the food I am eating.
        I would be interested to know what information you have on genetic manipulation that has been done in crops we are currently consuming. Thanks for the different perspective.

      • Jonathan Zwart

        For someone who is obviously informed, you are easily offended, have you see anti-Monsanto and anti GMO adds? Some people should chill out. Tyson has reached mass appeal and the masses are not informed, yet they are freaking out.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      So did you actually READ the Lancet article? Try reading this:
      ” “A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fl uoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44 Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies. Further characterisation of the dose–response association would be desirable.”

      Their sole reference – 44:

      Choi, AL; Sun, G; Zhang, Y; Grandjean, P. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 2012; 120: 1362–68.

      Yes, its the paper that get’s the most tweeting, facebooking and blogging from anti-fluoride activists – the paper I analysed in Quality and selection counts in fluoride research. The review that based its conclusion on a few less than randonmnly selected poor quality papers.”

      http://openparachute DOT wordpress DOT com/2014/02/20/repeating-bad-sicence-on-fluoride/

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        I did not read the article as I do not wish to subscribe to Lancet. But I am going to trust Lancet and what they review and publish over you.

      • Brian

        The Lancet did not validate the claim, so the only thing you can trust is that the paper did include a citation to a paper which relied on Chinese papers on village fluoride. No quality US or European peer reviewed study has found any validity to the fluoride scare.

      • Stephen W.

        The Lancet published Wakefeild’s study – good on you for just trusting them without looking into it. 🙂

    • Stephen W.

      Everything is can be toxic, it just takes the proper dosage. The fact that something is neurotoxcin is irrelevant. These are anti-science comments because they don’t properly take into account the present state of data that we have.
      People are already informed as to what’s in there food. They don’t want GMO, they can organic – there are already accommodations for their religious dietary dogmas.

  • chaserblue

    My big problem with GMO is not so much the science, it’s the corporation behind it. Monsanto has proven over and over again that the only thing they’re interested in is controlling the world food supply. They sue farmers right out of business that won’t bend to their will, they’ve poisoned people before and didn’t really care, they bought off tests, they’ve maneuvered their way into the top spot of the FDA so they can pass whatever they want, and they refuse to label their “modified food” so that people can decide for themselves.
    These are NOT the actions of a benevolent benefactor. These are the actions of thugs and criminals. This may just be my opinion, but I’m not wrong. If it was so harmless and benign, why the thug tactics?

    • Brian Novotny

      My sentiments exactly, add to that the neocontinoid pesticides killing off the bees really makes one wonder what their true agenda is.

      • hyperzombie

        neonicotinoid pesticides according to the latest research are not much of a factor in CCD if any, it is a novel mite spreading a virus.

      • Mackinz

        Except Monsanto has, literally, nothing to do with neonicotinoids and the science actually points towards the Varroa Destructor Mite.

      • Brad Farnsworth

        And now, scientific evidence is mounting that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide RoundUp also causes birth defects. A new generation of babies born near fields of “RoundUp Ready” (genetically modified) soy in Argentina are suffering birth defects as terrible as those found in the Agent Orange contaminated areas of Vietnam. A new report published this month alleges that regulators and the pesticide industry have long known about the RoundUp-birth-defect link – some for more than two decades – but kept the details hidden from the general public.

        According to the report, co-authored by a number of scientists and published by Earth Open Source, Monsanto’s Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, causes birth defects as well as “endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer” at amounts equivalent to pesticide residue found on produce.

        In honor of the victims of Monsanto’s Agent Orange on the 50th anniversary of its first use, Len Aldis of the Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society is calling for “an international ban on all products of Monsanto and that would and must include GMO.”

      • Mackinz

        If you are going to plagiarize the Organic Consumers Association, please say so.

        I’d love to see the so-called scientific evidence.

      • Brad Farnsworth

        When you work for Monsanto say so Mackinz

      • Mackinz

        Shill gambit.

      • Jan Civil

        What scientific evidence? It could not be more clear that you have not bothered to check this.

        “A new report published this month alleges that regulators and the pesticide industry have long known about the RoundUp-birth-defect link.”
        You’re just a parrot regurgitating things you think sound right.

      • Brad Farnsworth

        On December 8, Pesticide Action Network and Beyond Pesticides joined beekeepers from around the country incalling on EPA to pull a neonicotinoid pesticide linked with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) off the market immediately. Our call is based on a leaked EPA memo that discloses a critically flawed scientific study, thus suggesting there may be imminent hazards to honeybees posed by continued use of clothianidin, the pesticide in question.

        CCD is the name given to the mysterious decline of honeybee populations across the world beginning around 2006. Each winter since, one-third of the U.S. honeybee population has died off or disappeared. CCD is likely caused by a combination of pathogens, the stresses of industrial beekeeping, loss of habitat and more. But many scientists believe that sublethal pesticide exposures are a critical co-factor potentiating this mix. In the U.S., agencies are focused on research, trying to quantify these risks. In Germany, Italy and France, they decided they knew enough to take action years ago, banning suspect neonicotinoid pesticides. Bee colonies there are recovering and beekeepers here are outraged.

        Several issues are at play: poorly conducted science, a broken regulatory system that puts chemicals on the market before testing them, lack of transparency and, most critically, the survival of honeybees and commercial beekeepers.

      • Mackinz

        Because, of course, two activist groups opposed to pesticide would oppose the use of pesticides that they think are linked to the deaths of insects.

        That is not evidence.

        Way to plagiarize from websites.

      • buricco

        Half true – pretty sure the science DOES finger the neonicotinoids, but they’re Bayer, not Monsanto.

      • Mackinz

        The popular (mis)conception is that the science points to neonicotoids as the sole cause of CCD. This is unsure. In fact, the science is still not confident in any which way. There are numerous issues and some scientists think they are all a factor.

        Varroa is currently the most likely, speaking solely from the science. Neonicotinoids are considered the most likely due to various anti-pesticide, and/or environmental groups (and they do have an effect on bees, do not get me wrong).

        I’d link to stuff, but my last posts with links weren’t approved so…

      • ishmael2009

        True. I do wonder if perhaps neonicotinoids may have played a role in weakening the bees immunological system leaving them more open to the mite than they were previously, but that’s difficult to know. Nature is not stable as some like to think. It goes by boom and bust. The question is, to what extent have pesticides hampered the recovery of certain insect species?

      • Jim Bean

        You think the use of neocontinoid pesticides is limited to GMO-variety crops?

      • Dan

        So you’re a conspiracy theorist?

    • Jeremy Rawley

      Where do you get it in your head that Monsanto or any other company “bought off tests”? And if they really bought their way into the FDA, why does it take so long for GE crops to gain approval? If they really did so, you’d think they’d rush these plants through.

      • chaserblue

        The Nutrasweet trials and tests were bought off. That stuff is poison, and they still pump it into people at an alarming rate. That was a Monsanto pet project until they sold it. You can’t get many doctors today that think anything is wrong with it because they bought the results they wanted from the testing they did. And do you think for one solitary second that they put the head of the FDA up there as a mere coincidence?.

      • Jim Bean

        Monsanto bought off the tests. The Doctors are bought off. The head of the FDA is a stooge. And you are among the few remaining souls left who are on the up and up and have clear vision. Is that what I am to conclude?

      • chaserblue

        No..
        There are a lot of people that know this. You would know this too if you actually did the homework and stopped jumping on the first bandwagon that you think makes you look good. Why don’t you investigate the entire Nutrasweet debate. Why don’t you see who is in charge of the FDA. These aren’t secrets. They are easily accessed.

      • chaserblue

        And FYI, I didn’t say the doctors were bought off, they’re just spewing the garbage they were fed. But a lot of them are actually looking into it now…So it may take them awhile, but they’ll figure it out.

      • liaisonsus

        Yes they placed to Fox to mind the hen house!

      • Nan Racu

        I haven’t met a doctor yet who had anything good to say about artificial sweeteners.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I’m a physician. I don’t care one way or another about artificial sweeteners.

      • ishmael2009

        “That stuff is poison”.

        So is chlorine or fluoride. Are you saying you want the water that comes out your tap to be completely untreated for deadly bacteria? Or do you understand the first rule of toxicology which is that the poison is in the dose and that something can be beneficial at one level and deadly at another?

      • Matthew Reece

        Part of the idea of cheating is to avoid getting caught. If this happened (and I do not know whether it did; just bear with me), they would need to make it look like nothing was amiss. Rushing something through regulatory barriers that keep other technologies in limbo for years (or even decades) would be a red flag for watchdog groups.

      • denxerw2000

        Big money buys studies since long before the GMO issues. It’s standard practice.

        And not to remind how the nowadays so banal practice of the revolving doors, is the last thing that would help one built trust in the dealings between the big lobbies and the administrations

      • Kenneth Williams

        It’s pretty naïve to think that a HUGE corporation would not hire its own scientists and pay them off to come up with favorable results. Maybe you’re simply too young to remember how big tobacco did the exact same thing back in the 60s to fend off needed regulation. Sadly, there are many scientists who sell their souls to big business. Sadder still are people who get duped by them.

    • Dan

      Except all these “I hate Monsanto as a corporation” tropes are just as invalid as the attacks against GMO science itself.

      Even if it were possible, they don’t want to control anyone’s food supply. They haven’t sued any farmers who haven’t stolen. They haven’t intentionally poisoned people any more than drug companies have. Executives crossing from public to private sectors are nothing new and not exclusive to Monsanto. Labels would impose considerable burden- not on Monsanto but on everyone else- with no real benefit.

      These so-called ‘thug tactics’ aren’t really happening, and what actions they DO take are no different from any other corporation.

      • Matthew Reece

        If you understand that intellectual property is a protection racket and that corporations are unjust shields from liability, then hating Monsanto as a corporation is appropriate.

      • Jonathan Zwart

        Intellectual property is a protection racket? Why would a company (or anybody) put the considerable funding and effort to develop new technology if it would just be used against them by their competitors.

      • Matthew Reece

        Because they want to help people. Because they believe in voluntary means of contract. Because they understand that intellectual property violates physical property rights. Because we know that people actually did put forward the considerable funding and effort to develop new technology for millennia before there was such a thing as intellectual property.

      • Brian

        “Because they understand that intellectual property violates physical property rights.” –this statement is nonsensical

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad lapidem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.

      • Brian

        Resorting to Latin in an attempt to look smart is also weak. I’m an IP expert and your comment was nonsensical. Period.

      • Matthew Reece

        Most logical fallacies have formal names in Latin, and ad nauseum is also an admission of defeat and ignorance. You have provided no evidence that you are an IP expert or that IP can co-exist with physical property rights.

      • Brian

        are you on medication? Throwing out a bunch of word salad and then saying anyone who doesn’t understand your gibberish is the sign of serious instability. You are the one making the claim, you have to explain it and support it. It isn’t for the rest of us to tackle your windmills.

      • Brian

        Well you’d better get back to the Latin dictionary and look up ad nauseum since it doesn’t apply to this thread.

      • Kenneth Williams

        You might as well give it up Brian….You’re arguing with Mr. Spock here.

      • Stephen W.

        That’s not how fallacies work. You are committing a fallacy fallacy.

      • Kenneth Williams

        So, if you write a book, paint a picture, choreograph a great ballet, write an amazing symphony, or create anything you should not have the rights to it?….I’m sorry, I may be a liberal but I’m not swallowing that cool-ade.

      • Matthew Reece

        If what you create is not a scarce commodity (in that copying it without destroying the original is impossible), then creating artificial scarcity in that commodity requires initiatory force in the violation of physical property rights of other people.

      • Cassandra

        I should have read further before commenting. You already asked what I just asked.

      • Cassandra

        A book is intellectual property. Are you against copyrights on books? Are you against all patents and copyrights? If I write a song, are you saying you should be able to xerox the music and sell my song? I don’t really know what you’re saying.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am against copyrights and patents on anything. To quote Kinsella, “Imagine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy–let’s call him Galt-Magnon–decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops. To be sure, this is a good idea, and others notice it. They naturally imitate Galt-Magnon, and they start building their own cabins. But the first man to invent a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a fee if they do build houses. It is plain that the innovator in these examples becomes a partial owner of the tangible property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation and use of that property (for it is already owned), but due to his coming up with an idea. Clearly, this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule, arbitrarily and groundlessly overriding the very homesteading rule that is at the foundation of all property rights.”

      • Cassandra

        Well, now I see where you’re coming from, at least. I don’t agree with you on patents and copyrights, but have no need to argue over it.

      • hyperzombie

        would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs

        No they would just have to build a different kind of house, like out of bricks or stones. You can patent a type of house, not all homes. Just like you can copyright a song but not music.

      • Matthew Reece

        Which still violates the right of a person to use their justly acquired physical property as they see fit.

      • hyperzombie

        so, you are against all patent protected products,

      • Matthew Reece

        I am against the very ideas of intellectual property, trademarks, and patents.

      • Cassandra

        I have a nursery and I do want to help people. I do free workshops and give out milkweed for free sometimes, but I sure couldn’t afford to give everything away. What you’re saying makes no sense.

      • Matthew Reece

        I never said anything about giving everything away. My point is that ideas cannot be owned unless they are kept inside a person’s mind and never shared with anyone. Any effort to own ideas once they are shared with other people requires some violation of their physical property rights.

      • Cassandra

        Can you give an example? If someone copies a novel I write, you’re saying it violates their property rights to stop them from copying it and selling it? I really, really don’t know what you’re saying. Plus, I don’t know how you can state this unequivocally, as if you’re the one who knows what society’s rules are, but the rest of us are just waiting to learn this from you. Don’t mean to be snarky, it just seems so presumptous that you state things so adamantly when it’s clearly a minority opinion.

      • Randall H.

        Ownership is defined by the law of society, not by you.

        The law has determined that certain ides can be owned.

        If you want to reasonably function in our society, you’ll follow the rules.

        On a personal level, I’m glad that thinking such as yours is in the minority, and that i enjoy the innovations of others for a minuscule fraction of the cost that it took them to develop it.

      • Matthew Reece

        Ownership is logically defined by the mixing of one’s labor with unowned natural resources, not by what a bunch of criminal sociopaths who win popularity contests decide. Their laws are illegitimate because they are based on initiatory violence rather than logic. Also, society does not exist; each individual person exists.

        Those who defend intellectual property as necessary are defending an ahistorical and anti-empirical position, as inventions were made for millennia with no such system in place.

      • Stephen Barlow

        FOr the betterment of mankind?

      • Cassandra

        Where did you see this? I think you might be wrong about this, but I don’t know for sure.

      • Dan

        So why single out Monsanto? Why not call out one of the innumerable other companies using much worse practices than them?

      • Matthew Reece

        One should also call out the other companies using much worse practices than them.

      • mscognizance

        Food labels are frequently changed. New information is often added. What’s the big deal?

      • Brian

        I think the argument is that a GMO label provides little to no actual information.

      • Kenneth Williams

        So what….Even if that is true (which is clearly up for debate), it is still no hardship to let people know. What are they afraid of?…If they are correct, fighting labeling of their products merely keeps them on the defensive. It’s hard to defend not allowing people to make informed choices in something as basic as what they eat.

      • Dan

        Here’s a question for you then:

        WHY is it important to have an informed choice of GMO or not? WHY would people have to make that choice?

      • Randall H.

        I’m a farmer who raises 70% non-GMO, some of it specifically for a non-GMO customer.

        It is a big deal at the farm level to separate products. It will cost money.

        I’m sure willing to do it, will the American Public be willing to pay for it once they realize what the real cost is?

      • Kenneth Williams

        I don’t think that forcing them to put labels on GMO foods is much of a burden. The tobacco companies used the same arguments about warnings on cigarette packs and advertisement. Arguing against allowing people to make informed choices does not strengthen your argument.

      • Dan

        That’s where you’re wrong though. Cigarettes have a warning label on them because they have a known danger related to the act of using them.

        GMOs, and foods in general, are different. First of all, there is no functional difference between GMO and non-GMO foods– that’s a requirement before they are passed by the FDA. Secondly, there is no known risk associated with the use (eating) of GMO foods.

        Also, there is a regulatory burden on manufacturers if the finished product must be labelled if it has GMO ingredients. Not everything is made in-house and ingredients are purchased from other suppliers who purchase from other suppliers, so on and so forth. When you place an order for corn flour, you get corn flour whether it’s GMO or not. Again, there is no functional difference. However, to label GMO ingredients would mean more paperwork for each company and to transfer that information each step of the way. It may sound arbitrary to us, but this is not negligible. It adds more costs that eventually are passed on to the consumer.

        And even if we did accept the costs, what exactly are the benefits of doing so?

        We already have a free market solution in place: If you want to avoid GMO foods, buy things that are labelled GMO-free. Assume everything else is or can be GMO. What’s wrong with this solution?

      • Kenneth Williams

        sounds to me like the same rationalizing all over again. It would be just as easy to label it “contains GMO” as it would “contains no GMO”….you are arguing against people making informed choices. Big business loves people like you..

      • Dan

        What rationalizing? There’s already a solution in place, so it wouldn’t be ‘just as easy’ to reverse it. And again with false dichotomies and strawman arguments. And of course throw in the Big Business claim so you sound like a REAL conspiracy theorist.

      • Kenneth Williams

        Yeah, just keep mouthing the line of the plutocrats….they love rubes like you.

      • Dan

        I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound when you make statements like that.

        What’s next, your proof that Monsanto is run by the Illuminati so they can also seed the skies with chemtrails?

      • Kenneth Williams

        I hope you realize how much of a tool you’re making yourself look like by defending oligarchs and plutocrats who would poison us all if they thought they could make a profit from it….Oh yeah, they already do that.

      • Randall H.

        Kenneth,

        I’m a farmer who raises 70% non-GMO, some of it specifically for a non-GMO customer.

        It is more expensive to separate at harvest and store separately.

        Separation of products is practically as expensive as operating that part as another farm. I lose much of my economy of scale. Separate harvests, separate storages, separate managements, etc.

        There is a lot of expense involved, and my customer pays a premium for the separation of the product.

        No, it won’t be “just as easy,” and the “Just Label It” campaign makes it sound far more simple and cheap than it really is.

        However, the American Public is the customer. If they want a label, they’ll have a label—and the added cost.

        The real questions are: “Is is necessary?” and “Will the American Public really be willing to pay for it?”

      • FrenchKissed

        And yet you can purchase only organic food without having all other food labeled “non-organic.”

      • Stephen Barlow

        BULLSHIT!

    • Charles Vincent

      I thought this video is key in understanding the GMO topic and the inherent dangers of it.
      https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=2mBF1OOPdTo&feature=share

    • Temperance Raziel

      I hope you were wearing your tinfoil hat while writing this, or the NWO will put out a hit on you.

    • Stephen Barlow

      AMEN!!!

  • C Davis

    You made the point yourself…he is an astrophysicist. Does that make him an authority on this? Hearing him say “chill out” and then toss out a brief, incomplete and therefore inaccurate account of what GMO’s actually are was very disconcerting. If this was his field of expertise and he provided a thoughtful, accurate in-depth study, I would give it more weight. But what you are also suggesting here is that the left blindly accept his observations because he is a “scientist” of any kind because we may believe other ‘stuff’ he’s said? That is exactly what the right does…accept and mindlessly regurgitate all the information and sound bites that are trickled down by their ‘powers that be’ (i.e., Heritage Foundation, Fox News) and accept it as fact without question. Some of us won’t just “fall in line” and not question what does not make sense to us irregardless of who says it, or only look at one side of things. Just because Neil says it does not engrave it in stone as truth. Sorry, not sorry. This is just a twist on saying “fall in line, lefties!” I will continue to be an independent thinker, thank you very much.

    • hyperzombie

      I will continue to be an independent thinker, thank you very much.

      That is just code for “I will ignore the science and believe what I want”, dont let ideology cloud your judgment or you are just as bad as the Creationists.

  • Brian Novotny

    Why have numerous nations banned them or required labeling then if they are so hunky dory? I would not trust Monsanto or Bayer or any of these companies with 1 penny of mine, much less my health and well being and quality of life along with my loved ones.

    And all these harmless claims coming from the company that is advertising Roundup, which is just another name for Agent Orange to homeowners so they can spray their yards that their kids and pets and themselves play on day to day, no problem there either, right?

    • hyperzombie

      Round up is fairly harmless and it has nothing to do with Agent Orange, you are thinking of 2-4-d (also mostly benign).

      • Brad Farnsworth

        Are you nuts or work for Monsanto?

        And now, scientific evidence is mounting that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide RoundUp also causes birth defects. A new generation of babies born near fields of “RoundUp Ready” (genetically modified) soy in Argentina are suffering birth defects as terrible as those found in the Agent Orange contaminated areas of Vietnam. A new report published this month alleges that regulators and the pesticide industry have long known about the RoundUp-birth-defect link – some for more than two decades – but kept the details hidden from the general public.

        According to the report, co-authored by a number of scientists and published by Earth Open Source, Monsanto’s Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, causes birth defects as well as “endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer” at amounts equivalent to pesticide residue found on produce.

        In honor of the victims of Monsanto’s Agent Orange on the 50th anniversary of its first use, Len Aldis of the Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society is calling for “an international ban on all products of Monsanto and that would and must include GMO.”

      • hyperzombie

        LOL, there is no study linking Round up to birth defects, there is no mode of action for it to effect anything in humans. The study is just a hypothesis.

      • Brad Farnsworth

        Your a fucking moron hyperzombie

      • hyperzombie

        Ii see that you have no evidence to back up your claims, yet you call me a moron.

      • Brad Farnsworth

        Go drink some Roundup then since it is so safe fool, we will let you b e the test subject, put your money where your mouth is lying sack of shit

      • Brad Farnsworth

        and spray it allover your house and food and kids and yard and come back in 5 to ten years if yall are still alive fool

      • hyperzombie

        hyperbole much ? I have no weeds growing allover my house or my kids. Stop being a retard and have an Adult discussion.

      • hyperzombie

        Ummmm, there are no weeds growing on my house or kids.

      • Dan

        Yup. RoundUp is actually much less toxic than many of the “organic” herbicides used by organic farmers.

    • Mackinz

      “Why have numerous nations banned them”?

      Why have.numerous nations banned homosexuals?

      Simple answer is because politics does not need evidence. Also, argument from popularity.

      And Roundup is not Agent Orange. At all. Roundup is glyphosate. Agent Orange is a combination of 2,4 D and 2,4,5 T, with 2,4,5 T being the reason it is so toxic.

      If you want to participate in a discussion, do actual research and try not to use logical fallacies.

      • Brad Farnsworth

        BS MAckinz You must work for Monsanto

      • Mackinz

        Shill gambit.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Those of us with asthma think Roundup is some nasty stuff.

        http://www DOT scientificamerican DOT com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

      • Mackinz

        People with asthma are a legitimate issue.

        The article you cite, however, cites a paper by known pseudoscientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, so I wouldn’t trust it so much as burn it. He has a vendetta against Monsanto and is always trying to paint them as evil or causing health issues…not surprising considering who has funded him (various environmental and anti-GMO groups).

      • Randall H.

        Mackinz, the article is legitimate, the irony is that POEA is the “problem” in RoundUP.

        What is POEA? POEA is an organic compound certified to be used by Organic Farmers.

        The irony is obvious.

      • Randall H.

        Read the article you referenced a little closer.

        It turns out that the “inert ingredient” in RoundUp is actually an additive that makes the chemical work better. It does this by removing some of the water tension, so the water/chemical mix will be absorbed into the plant better.

        Now for the irony.

        That additive is POEA. POEA is an organic compound, and is used by organic farmers.

        The “problem” with RoundUp that people love to cite using this article is “Certified Organic.”

  • chouli

    just because Tyson thinks GMOs and the over use of
    pesticides & herbicides aren’t anything to be concerned over, doesn’t mean
    I agree. and it doesn’t mean that my concerns are any less important. the
    author seems rather smug that anyone who disagrees is just an uneducated rube who doesn’t know better. well, I’m not, and I resent his implication.

    I think the data showing the safety of GMOs is subject to bias. Who funded the studies? The FDA allows the industry to do their own studies. So how can I trust that? And many times universities are funded by the very corporations and how impartial can that be? Unfavorable results and no more funding…universities don’t like to lose funding sources.

    So, if they are so safe…how about funding impartial studies with total transparency?
    How about mandatory labeling so we as consumers can decide what we want to buy for our families?
    Who is being protected by denying consumers the right to accurate labeling?? It sure isn’t protecting the consumers. Why??
    Why is government protecting the industry?? Their profits trump our right to know. Bullshit.

    So, Mr. Tyson needs to think about the consumers and their rights without being smug and condescending. He’s not winning anyone over like that.
    We want transparency and accurate data on all the GMO and associated
    chemicals used.

    • hyperzombie

      So, if they are so safe…how about funding impartial studies with total transparency?

      there are 100s of impartial studies and massive government reports. The EU just spent over 200 million euros studying GMOs, and could find no problems with them.

      We want transparency and accurate data on all the GMO and associated

      chemicals used.

      Just go to the USDA, you can find all the info there. All you have to do is look, nothing is hidden.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      No matter how many independent studies there are, YOU will never believe them because you have your mind made up. GMOs are your Benghazi.

    • Stephen W.

      Which one study are you referring too? There’s thousands of studies. Form all over the world. So which ones are subject to bias? One way to find this out is to read meta analysis – which one did you read?

  • Mackinz

    I am fighting them off!

    It’s hard, and my head hurts, but I’m trying my damnedest!

  • Brad Farnsworth

    And now, scientific evidence is mounting that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide RoundUp also causes birth defects. A new generation of babies born near fields of “RoundUp Ready” (genetically modified) soy in Argentina are suffering birth defects as terrible as those found in the Agent Orange contaminated areas of Vietnam. A new report published this month alleges that regulators and the pesticide industry have long known about the RoundUp-birth-defect link – some for more than two decades – but kept the details hidden from the general public.

    According to the report, co-authored by a number of scientists and published by Earth Open Source, Monsanto’s Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, causes birth defects as well as “endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer” at amounts equivalent to pesticide residue found on produce.

    In honor of the victims of Monsanto’s Agent Orange on the 50th anniversary of its first use, Len Aldis of the Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society is calling for “an international ban on all products of Monsanto and that would and must include GMO.”

    • Jim

      Stop with the copy-pasta already

  • Stephen Barlow

    OK
    IF
    GMO is NOTHING to hide… WHy spend BBBBBILIONS hiding it?

    And MORE Billions selling the idea that Monsanto has NOTHING to hide.

    IF……
    they were
    onto a global good……………..
    would they REALLY be spending LEGAL dollars CRUSHING
    small FARMERS with frivolous suits?

    ANd MORE BILLIONS of shareholder cash

    to SILENCE THEM?

    • Dan

      Except that nothing is being hidden?

      There has not been a single instance of Monsanto suing farmers that were not stealing proprietary seed– a crime whether it is Monsanto owned, GMO, or traditionally bred.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Monsanto has been accused of suing farmers whose crops were contaminated with Monsanto’s seeds from another farm.

      • Brian

        not exactly right, from what I understand they threatened to sue farmers who collected monsanto seeds from another farm and used them without paying. Not exactly the same thing.

      • Dan

        Except that this has never happened. Monsanto did sue some farmers (I believe in Canada) that intentionally violated their agreement and saved seed, but there has NEVER been a case of Monsanto suing a farmer that did not intentionally steal.

      • Jim

        Its true that they have been accused of that just like its true that Obama has been accused of being born in Kenya and that Buzz Aldrian has been accused of not walking on the Moon.

        But, none of these things are true.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But THERE ARE instances of Monsanto SEEDING fields to literally PLANT evidence. Then there was the lobbying and legal investments made to make wind blown seed on you property a CRIMINAL ACT.

      • Dan

        Except none of that has ever happened. Please show me proof of ONE instance of what you say ever happening, from an actual news or legal site and not from some crackpot anti-GMO conspiracy page.

  • Tarra Scott

    I read his statements and then looked up more information to see what supported his opinion. As a truly science-minded person would do when faced with information that contradicts what they’ve heard. Just because they are liberal doesn’t mean they are invulnerable to the same logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance that is suffered by the right. It just means it’s not as prevalent (or rabid… notice no one making violent or death threats as the right are wont to do when faced with information that doesn’t match their own thinking).

    • Dan

      Reminds me of the studies which indicate that intelligent people tend to be *more* prone to conspiracy theories because they overestimate their own knowledge of subjects.

  • mem_somerville

    It’s been funny/sad to watch Dems lose their minds on this. Remember when Neil talked about evolution, and wasn’t an evolutionary biologist? But only creationists complained?

    Yeah, that’s what this looks like.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Sums it up quite well.

    • Stephen Barlow

      THat is pretty sad. GMO’s probably aren’t harmful. The HARM in in Monsantro’s legal damage to American Farmers. Well, all farmer’s worldwide.

      • Cassandra

        If what you say is true, then why are more and more farmers continuing to buy this technology? If you go out into your own community and ask the farmers, you will find out.

      • Stephen Barlow

        BUCKS

      • Cassandra

        You said that GM was somehow hurting farmers worldwide. I asked how that could be true, since farmers are the ones continuously choosing to grow GM crops. So, I don’t understand why you wrote “bucks.” By the way, it has been proven that Monsanto never sues anyone for pollen drift or accidental pollination from its crops. This was found in a large court case which I’ll find for you if you don’t believe me.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I meant MONSANTO. Giant Monster Corp.

        OH! it’s ALL about money. “BUCKS”

      • Stephen Barlow

        I DO believe ya. Monsanto has made DEALS with Governments… That BIND every citizen … whether they can vote OR NOT… to use ONLY GMOsatnto seed in pertuity.

      • Cassandra

        Which government? If this were true, Monsanto would have to be much bigger to provide all that seed. That sounds mighty fishy to me. Why would any government do this? This is an old line, but if scientists and governments can be bought off so easily, why hasn’t the oil industry been able to do it?

      • Stephen Barlow

        115.65 a share X 530 MILLION.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Still love your name.

      • Cassandra

        Until the GMO controversy became so front burner, my Cassandra-like mission was to get people to love and respect natural ecosystems, believe it or not. Actually, people did listen and I converted a few people into caterpillar-loving, native-plant-growing gardeners. Now, suddenly, I can’t even discuss what’s on my mind with all my nature-loving friends… so I take it online. The prejudice against genetic engineering is pretty deep.

      • Stephen Barlow

        HEY sweetie pie! I GROW my OWN romatoes. Yeah, Romantictomatoes.

        So delicious women JUMP like Michael Jordan to shed their panties.

        Do you even BELIEVE what you are trying to sell about Monsanto?

      • Stephen Barlow

        I grow Cayenne peppers to use the next year as pesticide. Right on the ground or slurried in a blender and sprayed, works on 90% of all bugs. Sadly, Bees are not fond of it either.

      • Randall H.

        Results

      • Stephen Barlow

        YOu gotta admit….
        While brains don’t grow on trees, I FLATLINE standing next to this guy.

        And the other MENSA members who are 98% below Me…..

        …. couldn’t even manage to unleash a little bit of man meat.

        And MENSA is the 2% ABOVE the 98 % of all star athletes.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Funny how 3/4 TRILLION $$$$$$$$$$$ ‘s are spent annually on PARANOIA and less than $100 Billion are invested on Science and under $200 Billion are invested in EDUCATION.

      • Cassandra

        I don’t know the exact figures, but I share your disgust on that.

      • Stephen Barlow

        YOu make disgusting sound SO HOT!

      • Stephen Barlow

        I live and breathe in Olathe, CO. We grow a unique sweet corn. The kind that makes your teeth tingle.

        All grown in sad alkaline dirt. 1000 miles west is SAND. DRY, less than an inch of RAIN a month SAND!

        DRY as the skin of a golf ball DRY.

        AND I IRRIGATE 10 tomatoes well enough to to feed 12 friends.

        We even have tomato fights.

      • Cassandra

        You have a slightly cryptic style… I hope you’re fighting OVER the tomatoes, rather than throwing them. In other words, when you say “tomato fights” I hope you don’t mean the same thing as “pillow fights.” I’d much rather EAT such pampered tomatoes.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Thanks!

        kindasorta

        TOmatoes are HARDER.

        ZUKE (zucchini) beatings are a tinybit more vicious.

        I LOVE your name.

        I cull 60% 0f the flowers and 25% of the fruits.

        Pillows are almost soggy.

        Did you grow up with 8 -10 year older New Jersey Mob Boss Brothers?

        Uhm????
        I REALLY love your name!

        Imagine how many more ways I could pervert it that Patricia………….. ……. …….

        Think about it: They BOTH had to drag Me up on top of the roof AND toss me 4 floors down…

        AND

        explain THAT to My MOM!

      • Stephen Barlow

        JOHN HAS A 70+ FAST beefsteak. Mike used to have an 80mater. But I can BEND MINE! So when M or J dodges…. I can mess up their shirts in a VERY Heinz kinda way.

      • Stephen Barlow

        sliced, 1/4 inch thick, with salt on one side?

      • Stephen Barlow

        it’s a guy thing. More specifically a BROTHER thing.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I LIVE in a community of corn dogs. I am so far out in the West that they ALL wear side arms to the feed stare!

      • Randall H.

        I’m a farmer. I use many patented products including machinery, potato storage sheds, and seeds.

        I don’t copy other peoples’ work; they deserve value for their input.

        If other farmers illegally copy something that is patented, that is just not right.

        Although I don’t use Monsanto as a supplier very often, I occasionally benefit from Monsanto’s work, I don’t feel damaged at all. They are simply another supplier that I sometimes use. Nothing more. Nothing Less.

        I know hundreds of other farmers, I don’t know of anyone “damaged” by Monsanto.

      • FrenchKissed

        Oh, but you must be one of those “industrial” farmers with more than 100 acres, running an incorporated business that turns a profit and all that bad stuff.

        j/k

        I for one am grateful to farmers like you, who allow me to enjoy life in the city, and dedicate the .05 acres of land that my house isn’t directly on top of to growing ornamentals.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Rethinking…
        As this IS
        LABOR DAY
        and even TEACHERS are less than 12% of the workforce…
        FOOTBALL players
        The NBA
        MLB………………………………

        UNION

        dUH

      • FrenchKissed

        I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

      • Stephen Barlow

        WHY hate those that improve your vaginal secretions?

      • soul68

        I don’t think that person understands either.

      • Stephen Barlow

        THANKS
        nation.

    • Secular Parent

      Not that I’m taking sides here – I’m just observing that it’s easy to label creationists because their comments, they outright state their position. However, I’m not sure every person against GMOs is automatically a Democrat. I’d like to see data behind this – maybe there is an extremely high amount of Democrats against GMOs and a high number of Republican for… or maybe there are people in both parties who are just afraid of them in general. Personally, I’m a Democrat who doesn’t have a problem with them – and I’d like to think Tyson is one too. Couldn’t everyone just agree that there are extremists in both parties and some issues are a little more complex?

      • FrenchKissed

        There are probably creationist Democrats too. Maybe not these, who feel betrayed by deGrasse Tyson, but there probably are quite a few who at least think that man was made in the image of his Creator, completely separate from all other living creatures.

        I’m not sure about ag-biotech, but pharmaceutical biotech seems to be left-leaning more often than not. In academic institutions, plant geneticists are more likely to be democrats than republicans, too.

        As for the anti-GMO crusaders, there seems to be almost as many complaints about going against God as going against Mother Nature, so there could be some from each side of the political spectrum. I know I’ve even heard very conservative right wingers complain about big business and corporations buying the government so it’s probably not uncommon,

  • denxerw2000

    Well, try to “save” as best as you can.
    But Tyson’s credibility just received a huge blow.

    Nobody ever expected him to fight the lobbies or big money, he’s nothing of an revolutionary or an anticonformist. Him help science fight obscurantism is great, but that doesn’t give him extra powers.
    And I’d like to believe that he spoke these words in good faith (after all the disinformation on GMOs is so huge, and so much study is paid by the GMO industry, that it could perfectly be something he really believes in), but his comment in itself wasn’t scientific or rational at all. He basically said, if what we eat is already the result of selective breeding and its ok, then any genetic modifications we make will be also perfectly healthy.

    Can you grasp the the extent of the logical gap in this position?

    • Dan

      See, you’re ignoring the point here.

      Tyson is just pointing out that as much as creationists and climate change deniers are taken to task for ignoring the science, anti-GMO and anti-vax should be called out just as much.

      You can’t complain that someone is ignoring the science on one subject and then go and do the same thing on another.

  • Giuseppina Bonanni

    You should update this with a link to Dr. Tyson’s clarification of his comments in the video. I don’t have it handy at the moment, but if I find it I will post it here.

  • Greg Ranzoni

    Could someone actually show me a peer-review paper on the so called harmful effects on GMOs

    • Dan

      ^ This. Science. That is all Tyson is saying. Chill out about the global conspiracy theories and look at what the scientists and experts say.

  • Ashley Coe

    That is only one Paradigm of thought, its from a Chemists point of view, not an “All Science” point of view, a Biologist is a scientist, a person who looks at Medical studies and seed the effects of GMO’s consumed by people and also effects of Pesticides used heavily on GMO farmed foods, is also a fact of science. Science is many things, not just from one Paradigm. Facts are GMOs take much higher and heavier doses of Polluting Pesticides, so the poisoning our environment Paradigm is strong, they are leading it! In the Medical paradigm, they are seeing High rising costs of GMO’s and Pesticides, Rising levels of diseases on many fronts since their introduction. Also, there is the compounding Paradigm, not seen in the Chemists labs when they pass the chemicals for use! How many products, and cross contamination of this chemical will occur, once it is out in the market? They can’t possibly know, and they most definitely do not do any tests what so ever for this, let alone long term tests. Monsanto was just sued and lost 93 million to pay to a municipality of people for their poisoning. Thats Fact, and reality of GMO’s Now, on to GMO’s themselves, Corn is liscenced as a pesticide, and carries the poison inside it. Glyphosate is killing the good bacterial flora needed in your body of maintain health and Alkaline environment, (Without leads to human diseases in a multitude) this is also leading to many studies, reports, from the Medical “Paradigm” not the “Chemist’s Scientist pro chemical” paradigm. People see what is within their specific paradigm of thought and scope. Saying a chemically processed Sugar, is the same or acts the same as any Natural sugar, just because it shares the same or similar chemical imprint is actually very paradigm oriented. Facts are, that in the Biological side, not chemical side, and in the medical and the Nutrition Paradigms of reality, we see a dramatic difference in how the body accepts and uses Chemically made/vs/natural sugars. A vitamin A or B, or D, made in a lab, has been shown to only have 70% value to the body compared to its natural counterpart, and also the body may even not recognize it. So, Failure on a mass scale to provide nutrition to a consumer buying this crap!! and they make millions of profit on this engineered non food, and they say its “The same as a natural occurring Vitamin” they claim this, as it is “Technically” the same chemical compound! But!! It doesn’t have the same result! and the result is the whole point!!!! Also, there are NO long term studies on the effects of Genetically Modifying DNA and Swapping in Fish and germ DNA into our foods. There are many studies that are showing that it can change Human DNA, and effect our body ecosystem, as well as the greater earth ecosystem dramatically. Fact is, GMO companies are self regulated, and the government passes these poisons based on the companies recommendations! And these government officials in many cases have left their jobs at these same chemical GMO companies, for jobs in the government that regulate those companies!!! Huge conflict of interest here!!!! HUGE!!! Laws need to be passed, that no person can gain a government position that regulates a company they have worked for! Every court of law works this way!! So should government! Same as how DDT got passed, and now Glyphosate Roundup, that is causing mass issues for human health, and the natural environment.

    Problem is, you science people should be supporting the natural environment, First, this is the body of our world, and the lungs of the earth, the fibres of our being, They should no only support the pocket book of large chemical companies. The world has survived and prospered for millions of years without Chemicals sprayed on foods. Why you think we need it now, is ludicrous. Read about Costa Rica, a country where food literally grows everywhere, and you can eat for about $25 a week. They are listed as one of the healthiest counties in the world, and live the longest. Food grows naturally everywhere, and no, they don’t spray pesticides everywhere, and they don’t need to Genetically modify it for it to grow, be better, taste better, or feed the world. lol Please travel the world people, and eat the food in countries that don’t grow chemical foods. The flavours are incredible. GMO companies don’t talk about flavour of their foods, they don’t promote the Higher Nutrition of their foods either, because they are neither of those. Much lower nutrition, because they are engineering the foods to boost against pesticides, not for better nutrition or flavour. Fact is, food in our groceries is much less tasty than I’ve ever experienced it before. This is profit driven people, not taste, necessity, nutrition or to feed the world. That is what is wrong with GMO’s. LOTS!!!! So don’t support this crap!!!!

  • Tom AL

    The problem with this article is he tries to deride the left as refusing to accept science. What Neil is doing is, he’s not using science to explain his views he’s just using his basic grasp of economics, which is lacking in it’s understanding of all of it’s complex manipulations by the giant mega corps who desire wealth over health and human rights.
    This article has been measured and it’s opinion has been found seriously flawed.

  • StarrGazerr615

    This doesn’t seem to be a “left” problem, but rather a problem of scientific literacy that has little to do with politics. Obviously, since most of the profit from GMOs is going to Right Wingers, it’s not a great leap to assume that anyone who is against GMOs must be Liberals. But that’s not what reality reflects.

  • MonaLS

    Neil got it wrong on GMOs. They are not the same not the same as hybrids or plants created through selective breeding.

    • Jim

      I know they are much safer since they are dealing with a very small number of changes to the genes.

  • Arthur C. Hurwitz

    Genetic manipulation which has been going on for eons, should not be equivocated with actual genetic engineering which is a new venture.

  • John

    “If we’re going to use science and ridicule right-wingers when they conveniently ignore it when science goes against their biases, then we can’t do the same thing ourselves. Otherwise, that just makes us hypocrites.”

    I never thought I would see the day that a liberal admits that most liberals are hypocrites. Its about damn time one of you realized that.

  • jonstad

    Fine. Tyson is smarter than the vast majority of us ignorant peasants. That doesn’t mean the possibility of him being mistaken or coming to an erroneous position is 0%. OTOH, those who condemn GMOs simply because they are associated with Monsanto or other ‘evil corporations’ IS one of the most ignorant arguments I have ever heard. Neil is right we should all ‘chill out’ a little. But I hope he isn’t implying we should stop asking questions and investigating what we are curious or have doubts about. Isn’t that the essence of the scientific method?

  • Reginal

    Genetic engineering on the molecular level and the mono-cropping that’s involved in gmo’s is not the same thing as selective breeding in plants. It’s just not and I’m not surprised that someone, especially a scientist, takes such a mechanistic view of life.

  • OakenTruncheon

    So, a false equivalency walked into a bar, and ordered a double over simplification, half an hour later he was the victim of an ad hominem attack. To get even, his friends beat up a crowd of straw men. Film of our live reporter standing in front of the scene hours later, at eleven.

  • Paul Shipley

    This is amazing. Yet again on this blog we have people that believe they know better than scientists that have spent years getting qualified and doing extensive research and yet we have reactionaries that believe they know better.
    No better than the anti vaccine people or climate change deniers.
    Thanks to social media no politicians dare not make any decisions that go against the social will of people rather than getting good sound advice from scientists not people that get their info from blogs, Facebook and Fox News
    So people I suggest you sit in you chairs make your own uninformed views, don’t listen to the scientists, what would they know anyway. They have not benefitted anybody on this Earth. What would they scientists know anyway.
    Reminds me of the Ludites. The Earth is flat or you would think so.

  • SIRWILLIAM2013

    Good for Dr. Tyson. Far too many libtards think the are experts at everything, when they don’t know enough to know they don’t know everything!

  • lastrohm

    My problem with Mr. deGrasse-Tyson is that he is not a scientist in the true sense of the word. His degrees are a Bachelor of ARTS in Physics, a Masters of Arts in Astronomy and a Masters of Philosophy in Astrophysics. There is a significant difference in the amount of hard science classes that are take by someone who obtains a Bachelors/Masters in Science then in Arts. There is nothing wrong or shameful about the massive accomplishments he has made, but his focus has been on the communications side of the coin for his entire career, not on the science side. This means, in particular, his opinions about sciences other than physics or astronomy are without an actual knowledge from in depth study and understanding. He is much like Bill Nye, who has an BS in Mechanical Engineering. He has no knowledge base for talking about man-made global warming, or many of the other things he likes to pretend to be an expert on in the news. It is misleading to the general public, who see them as bastions of science and knowledge – but they just are not. What they are is great entertainers who had the benefit of educations at expensive universities and the ability to transfer their natural and learned skills into effective public personae. This does not make them folks who should be our last stops and final words of scientific knowledge.

    • Brian

      1. This is a pretty lame critique. He has a PhD in Astrophysics, which you conveniently left out.
      2. An A.B. at Harvard actually gives you a broader based education. As for his later concentration, see point 1. At most, the difference is four courses.
      3. The argument that his career focus has been on communications and not science is also lacking foundation. His current job has a lot of this, yes, but you are wholly ignoring his academic research and publications.
      4. your whole post is basically an ad hominem since you don’t actually challenge any of his points.
      5. You are correct that we should not assume everything any one says as gospel, but it is foolish to discount them automatically as well.

  • Kenneth Henderson

    I have to side with the non GMO club. I have a wife and son who are disabled. (My wife has CP, SCI, and Epilepsy, my youngest son has autism, not caused by vaccines but by his birth and possibly by the environment.) My wife and son are on diets to help them cope with their disabilities. (My wife is on the ketogenic diet and my son is on an all organic, nothing artificial, low sugars diet.) BOTH diets work, and have kept my wife off of seizure meds and my son off of meds for autism. (Mostly behavioral medications to calm anxiety, hyperactivity, ect.) I believe in science, and I do know that GMO’s exist in nature, I don’t have a problem with that. My problem is corporations and groups like Monsanto who are poisoning our food whether you want to believe it or not. If you want to eat conventional foods go for it! I’m not going to stop you, but don’t knock those who want a more simplistic and organic lifestyle, truthfully it makes you look like asses, especially if those who follow a healthier lifestyle outlive you.

  • paladintmplr

    I understand people are upset, but to say they “disregard all his work” is ridiculous. Go get an education and argue with facts, instead of getting emotional and attacking.

  • Serena Sakai

    “First of all, most GMOs are made by Monsanto…a chemical company who brought us Agent Orange and PCBs”
    I don’t see how that’s even relevant to the debate, that’s like saying you won’t fly in the planes that Boeing made because they also make bombers and fighter jets.
    Yes, Monsanto is a vile organization, but do your research before you condemn someone else’s point.