Neil deGrasse Tyson Hammers ‘Fear Factor’ of GMO’s: ‘I Don’t Have a Problem’ with them, ‘So Chill Out’

tyson-on-cosmosKnowing what I know about the debate over GMO’s and modified foods, I’m sure the comments made by famed astrophysicist and Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson will bring about an interesting discussion.

I’ve never really waded into the waters of the debate over GMO’s.  Mainly because it seems that it just causes people to shout at each other based on emotions on the issue rather than engage in reasonable debate over whether or not GMO’s are as dangerous as some claim.

Though my colleague Manny Schewitz has touched on the topic, on several different occasions.

Well, Mr. Tyson had some choice words for many anti-GMO advocates.

On a video that appears to have been shot on someone’s phone, Tyson said:

“I’m amazed how much rejection genetically modified foods are receiving from the public.  It smacks of the fear factor that exists at every new emergent science, where people don’t fully understand it or don’t fully know or embrace its consequences, and so therefore reject it.”

“There are no wild, seedless watermelons. There’s no wild cows.  There’s no long-stemmed roses growing in the wild – although we don’t eat roses.  You list all the fruit, and all the vegetables, and ask yourself, is there a wild counterpart to this? If there is, it’s not as large, it’s not as sweet, it’s not as juicy, and it has way more seeds in it.”

“We are creating and modifying the biology of the world to serve our needs.  I don’t have a problem with that, because we’ve been doing that for tens of thousands of years. So chill out.”

While I do agree with most of what he has to say, I do feel that there are some GMO’s that aren’t small modifications that simply make fruit bigger or sweeter.  Though I do feel many of these anti-GMO people go entirely overboard with their attacks on food modification.

The problem is there’s so much misinformation out there about GMO’s that it’s almost impossible at times to tell fact from fiction.

But I’ll say this, when a highly renowned astrophysicist, whom I respect, makes comments such as these – I tend to listen to what they have to say.  Though I’m sure these comments will undoubtedly stir up quite the debate.

Watch Tyson’s comments below:

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • susan

    I think there’s a big difference between genetically modifying to produce sweetness, etc. and incorporating pesticides into our food. I love Tyson and agree with what he’s saying…but he doesn’t address the dangerous aspect in his statement. I can’t watch the video, did he address this there and I missed it?

    • Cemetery Girl

      I am leery of GMO, but he has a point about a history of interference based on consumers. We need to look at our role as consumers in GMO. We want the most perfect food products possible. Fruits and vegetables have to look perfect to be sold to the public. Many of us have been guilty of this, but it causes waste. Food production is a business also. The need to try to produce enough food that will actually be sold with as little waste as possible is just part of business.

      • Bryn Stephens

        A French supermarket has fixed this problem. Look for the youtube under the search “inglorious fruit”. It’s less than 3 minutes long and brilliant.

  • FarmerGirl

    The problem is that he’s confusing two very distinct processes, selective breeding vs. genetic modification. I was an ag major and had the luck of working with both processes and they are different in every way.

    Put simply, with selective breeding you take pollen from, say, tomato plant A, insert it into the flower from tomato plant B, isolate said plant so no other pollen can get in there and see what kind of hybrid you get. No matter what you’re only working with tomato genetic material, you can’t, say, squirt fish semen in a tomato flower and get anything. Back then we were hybridizing wine grapes.

    With genetic modification it’s completely different. I’m not going to insert the long winded explanation here, go to Wikipedia and look up Genetic_engineering#Process. Back then we were inserting gened from coho salmon into grapes to try to increase cold tolerance. I never followed up, I have no clue if it ever worked.

    But the big deal is that the GMO producers are fighting tooth and nail against labeling laws. Really, just tell us what’s in our food and let the free market decide if your investment was a good one. If your product doesn’t sell then better luck next time.

    And don’t even get me started on what they’re doing to small farmers.

    • Soony Hwang

      yes, selective breeding vs. genetic modification are two very different processes but both come to the same result, breed a strain with desirable trait. however it is nothing like “squirt fish semen in a tomato flower and get anything” as you would most likely know with your experience.

      genetic modification removes the “see what kind of hybrid you get” aspect as well as time/energy/money and specifically introduce a desired trait such as your example, increased cold tolerance.

      • Bryn Stephens

        Both do not come to the same result. It’s likely that you could achieve any result through GMO technology that could be achieved through hybridization, but the reverse is not true. Nor is that what GMO technology is being used to accomplish.

      • Soony Hwang

        I wonder if you also deny natural selection and evolution as well.

  • FarmerGirl

    I should also point out that the great heroes of the Green Revolution,

    Luther Burbank and Norman Borlaug both used selective breeding techniques, not genetic modification.

    • Soony Hwang

      Luther Burbank passed away in 1926, before current biotechnology was available.
      As for Norman Borlaug, he was a staunch supporter of GMOs.
      Please search for “Norman Borlaug: genetic modification can feed the world” interview article, seems linking does not work.

  • jjonie

    They gmo crops to be resistant to pesticides then user even now chemicals on them

  • Brian Tatem

    I believe this is more about sustainable food sources but can we sustain them if we cause the bee population to die?

    • Brian Novotny

      I would not doubt for one minute they are killing off the bees on purpose so they can gain more control over the crops market so they will dominate it, as in no seeds without Monsanto, think what they can charge then. Considering they are now selling Roundup to homeowners, which is nothing more than Agent Orange. Would you want to spray Agent Orange on your lawn and then your kids/pets go play in it. Sick bastards

  • InformedCitizen

    The problem is not with GMO’s themselves, its when these companies do not want you to know that you are buying/consuming GMO’s .. Label it and let the public decide …to be informed is much more ideal then to be bamboozled

  • DatDude

    Ever since humans have messed with food things have gotten worse. Think back to when we started pumping cows with hormones and antibiotics. A few years after that cancer started taking off. How is it that the greatest country in the world has no other countries wanting to import US beef?!? Because its garbage beef. So the question people should be asking themselves is, who is going to regulate the GMO business? Who is going to make sure they are continuously using safe practices and supplying safe product. Does anyone even know how to regulate it? Stick to local farmers and organics. It’s much safer.

  • Derek

    I don’t think consuming GMOs is in itself dangerous, but I would definitely support continued research on the subject. However, there are concerns about GMOs besides eating them. The loss of genetic diversity is one of them. Once a desired DNA sequence is made, it is replicated/cloned. If the variety is susceptible to a new disease, entire crops could be wiped out. The use of Roundup is also dangerous as it can lead to super weeds that can’t be killed by Roundup. These super weeds would also be less genetically diverse since they all have something in their DNA that allowed their survival. There is also some concern that Roundup in water harms amphibians. Monsanto’s anti-competitive practices and the way they treat some small farmers also raise concerns. But there are some benefits to growing GMOs. Fewer people have starved because of drought resistant GMOs. Farmers also have higher yields because of GMOs.

    • Bryn Stephens

      Not dangerous? You might want to look up the following first. (You’ll have to google each one, comments with links are deleted on this silly site.)

      “This demonstrates that Roundup Ready GM-soybeans sprayed during the growing season take up and accumulate glyphosate and AMPA.”

      “Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans”

      “High levels of residues from spraying with glyphosate found in soybeans in Argentina”

      “Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers-U.S. study”

      “New Studies Reveal the Insidious Effects of Glyphosate”

      Cornucopia (10 studies cited)

  • Shelley Jones Beek

    I have a PhD in molecular biology and agreed with Tyson at one time. When a GMO labeling proposition was added to my state’s ballot I decided to do more research. Information about the bacterial gene placed in Round Up Ready corn didn’t concern me. So I looked further into how this transgene functions in the plant. It makes this transgenic corn able to survive in the presence of Round up. Up to this point if a plant was exposed to Round up , if Round up was taken up by the plant, the plant would die. So before these GMO plants the food we ate had no trace of Round up on it or in it. Now we have both. This information was more concerning so I began researching the affects of eating GMO foods. I found that 90 day rat studies showed GMO foods to be safe. Okay, sounds good. But then right around that time a peer reviewed article was published showing that rats fed a diet of GMO food for their lifetime (generally 2 years) showed significant organ abnormalities and increased tumors compared to rats fed a non-GMO diet. Since then this article has been viciously attacked and eventually retracted by the publishing journal but for no scientifically valid reasons that I could discern. Also, enough time has passed for Monsanto to do it’s own rat lifetime studies but they haven’t. My conclusion? I don’t want to participate in Monsanto’s experiment so I purchase organic corn and soy products. Even if these plants are the GMO breed, they are not sprayed with Round up. In my opinion Tyson’s answer is uninformed.

    • Soony Hwang

      with your PhD trained eye did you notice in the seralini study that they used the wrong strain of rats (Sprague-Dawley) which is prone to spontaneous tumor formation? or did you catch the paper purposely omitted the image of the control mice? or did you notice that rats fed the herbicide glyphosate actually lived longer than the controls?
      have you ever during your “research” come across scientific evidence based critical responses to the study or even come across the other +2000 studies saying GMOs are not found to be a health threat?

      • LL11

        Work for Monsanto Soony?

      • FactoryGuy

        LL11, do you have a problem with reasoned responses?

      • LL11

        No I don’t. However, I just have read so much about Monsanto, their lawsuits against organic farmers whose fields get POLLUTED by their GMO seeds, their lobbying against a very reasonable request to label GMO food, and don’t trust them. It makes me wonder if people who defend GMO have a paid reason to do so. We’re all allowed our opinions, and this is just a random anonymous forum. Is Soony a biologist, a botanist? Maybe, maybe not, but I can assume her opinion is just that… an opinion, like mine. I have read a lot about this, as she has.

      • Soony Hwang

        Yes I am a biologist and no I am not a she but a he and no it is just not my opinion. It is based on scientific evidence based deduction in contrast to your opinion.

        Google searching and reading pseudoscience postings about GMO is not research and something I would not mention as having “read a lot about this”

        If you are going to google search and read, please read a meta study of GMOs “An overview of the last 10 years of
        genetically engineered crop safety research” by Nicolia and Rosellini.

      • LL11

        Thank you I will. I am sure I will learn something but it won’t my mind about labeling. Consumers should be allowed to choose.

      • Soony Hwang

        Yes there are also many many articles on the dangers of vaccines and denial of climate change and even supporting creationism. They even claim many scientists agree with them.

        Guess who do the studies to pull flawed products off shelves? Scientists.

      • LL11

        Yeah not the same Soony. The ones talking about vaccines are not scientists, and the ones denying climate change aren’t either, they’re republican politicians.

      • Bryn Stephens

        Soony only seems to acknowledge the difference between papers, articles and studies when it suits him. Otherwise the terms become interchangeable. 😉

      • Soony Hwang

        Oh the irony.

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        I agree. The safety studies on GE plants to date are a hodge pogde of methodologies difficult to compare, except the 90 day trials. I have been asking SYH for even one citation of a lifetime rodent study where the experimental group was fed the GMO food humans are being sold in the market today. Not just the transgenic plant untreated with Round-up. Haven’t gotten the citation because that study hasn’t been done or published yet.

        90 days is way too short if these scientists are asking me and my kids to eat this food for a lifetime.

      • Soony Hwang

        Yes they claim to have scientists who back their claims like the anti-GMOers.

      • Bryn Stephens

        There’s a well written, heavily sourced critical article about that study. You can find it by searching the following quote:

        “Nicolia and colleagues include many studies that are largely irrelevant to assessing the safety for health and the environment of commercialised GMOs or GMOs in the commercialization pipeline.

        Studies that could address the vital question of long-term impacts of GM foods on human and animal health would typically consist of long-term rodent feeding studies, similar to those performed to support regulatory authorization of pesticide active ingredients. In such a study, one group of animals would be fed a GM diet and the control group an equivalent non-GM diet, in which the GM ingredients are replaced with isogenic (with the same genetic background) non-GM ingredients. The experiment would last for 1-2 years.”


        “Studies that could help address the question of the safety of GMOs for the environment include those in which beneficial and non-target insects are exposed to GM insecticidal crops, investigations of the environmental toxicity of the herbicides used with GM crops, and studies of the effects of GM crop cultivation on soil microbial life, non-target insects, and other wildlife.

        Only a relatively small proportion of the studies cited in the Nicolia review and supplementary list of 1700 papers attempt to address these questions.”

      • Soony Hwang

        When I said reputable, I meant peer reviewed studies and not earthopensource. Why not quote naturalnews as well?

      • Bryn Stephens

        So the 136 papers, studies and articles cited in this article are all bunk? That’s an interesting point of view. Some might call it prejudicial and intentionally uninformed. But I’m sure you at least scanned the list for sources and titles to make that judgement.

      • Soony Hwang

        So if they are so scientifically sound why has it not been peer reviewed and puvlished in a science journal?

        You sourcing that piece is like Ken Ham claiming the earth is 6000 years old and when asked for evidence he points to the bible saying ‘there is this book you see’ and referencing posts on his blog sourcing bad science, misinterpretations and cherry picking of other studies and then saying ‘why don’t you then refute noah’s ark wasn’t real.

        When I say reputable sources I mean peer reviewed science studies.

      • Bryn Stephens

        Those two quoted statements would seem easy to refute, if they are not true. If they are true they speak for themselves. Are you saying those two quotes are false in relation to the study you cited?

      • Brian Novotny

        your full of it soony

      • Soony Hwang

        wouldn’t be a bad career. do you? are you recruiting?

      • LL11

        I would never work for them. Literally for no amount of money as I think they are corrupt and their behavior to farmers is beyond reprehensible. I just always wonder why anyone would defend GMO.

      • Guest

        Because scientific based evidence says “chill out”

      • Soony Hwang

        Because scientific evidence says “chill out”

      • nigra truo

        You know, let them defend it, who cares. Just label the damn products already, so we can all chose what we prefer. A lot of producers that don’t even have GMO in their products currently get harmed by me and many others avoiding to buy their ware, just assuming that anything contains GMO. Anything that is not organic or is not “NON GMO CERTIFIED”.

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        It was a peer reviewed article that had all those things you mentioned when it was first published. The authors used the same rats as those used in the Monsanto studies; that is why they were chosen. Even if the rats tend to get tumors you still have the controls to compare them to. Compared data is what is important, not compared pictures. The retraction of this article was purely political. I have not been able to find another lifetime rat study – I have looked and if you have a link to one I would like to look at it. 90 days is too short a time period since we are being asked to eat these crops for our lifetimes, not just a fraction of them. I also don’t know if the rats in the 90 day studies were followed for their lifetimes to see if problems came up later. Finally, the amount of Round up used on these crops increases every year and I want to see long term studies using higher concentrations of Round up. I am opting out of Monsanto’s experiment for the time being.

      • Soony Hwang

        Peer reviewed and hence retracted because it was bad science. That’s how science works and you should know that as a scientist.

        Yes the same strains which Monsanto used but showed no adverse effect. What about the other numerous follow-up studies supporting Monsanto’s initial results with different model systems? That is also called peer review, independent recapitulation of results.

        There are plenty of other long term animal studies which should have been easily searched.
        “Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review” by Snell and Ricroch which concluded “GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed”

        Please read a meta study of GMOs “An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research” by Nicolia and Rosellini.

        ” I also don’t know if the rats in the 90 day studies were followed for their lifetimes to see if problems came up later.” Clearly you have never done a mouse animal study. Those mice were left tumor burdened beyond established protocols to the point of being inhumane.

        “Finally, the amount of Round up used on these crops increases every year and I want to see long term studies using higher concentrations of Round up.” And you have reputable sources for this claim?

      • Bryn Stephens

        There are plenty, if you care to look. They are not hard to find. Unfortunately any links I post here are immediately deleted. this site doesn’t seem to like people sharing information. Hmmm… would that better be described as fascist or communist? I get confused between the two sometimes.

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        I looked up your Snell link and found this interesting comment: “No long-term rodent studies are available for GM maize”. This was as of 2011. The 2 year study mentioned in this overview was in cows – animals that live much longer than rats – and the multi-generational studies were not published. Still looking for some other published lifetime rat studies. Still don’t know what the “bad science” is that you are referring to in the one lifetime rodent study out of France – other than the results were not good for Monsanto. I don’t think lack of control pictures count. And no, I did not work with mice or mice trials – couldn’t stomach it. I worked with Drosophila.

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        I have now researched this more and one really important point has become clear. Most of the food safety studies on GMO strains looked only at the effect the inserted transgene has on food safety. When these reviews come out saying genetically engineered food is safe they mean the inserted transgenes are safe. They are mostly not even studying the safety of the food we are actually eating – the food grown with Round-up sprayed on it. Sheesh. Just a few well planned and executed rodent studies where a sufficient number of normal rats are fed the corn we are being fed today compared to controls that eat organic, untreated corn during the course of their lifetime. Throw in some rat controls eating the transgenic strain but untreated with Round-up. That would be interesting. Is that too much to ask?

      • SYH

        Yes those studies have been done. If you search pubmed you would have found plenty already

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        No, they have not been done, not for the lifetime of any animal. The up to 2 years study mentioned was performed on cows. If statistically significant lifetime rodent studies had been performed and published they would be cited to refute the French study in the storm of criticism. No competing results have been cited.

        Here’s an idea. Put the pro and anti GMO scientists together to agree on the design of a lifetime study, do it and publish it. I would be interested in that result. As long as the rats were fed the food humans are being fed in the market today I would believe that study. And if the results showed no difference between the experimental and control groups I would truly be relieved. I have teenagers and they eat anything – not just the organic food I bring home.

      • SYH

        Please read again ‘”More specifically, it includes 12 studies concerning a feeding period of more than 90 days and up to two years, and 12 multigenerational studies over two to five generations of animals.
        The particularly interesting aspect of this broad range of studies is not only the fact that they originate from different countries, but also the variety of animals tested: chickens, mice, rats, goats and cows, added Dr Ricroch.’

        And also please cite exactly where the comment you claim to be from the linked paper.”I looked up your Snell link and found this interesting comment: “No long-term rodent studies are available for GM maize””

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        The multi-generational studies have not been published and the 2 year study is on cows. Again, if lifetime rodent studies being fed GMO crops that we eat are so numerous just give me one citation so I can check it out. I would be very curious to read it.

      • SYH

        seriously lady read the actual paper. they have citations in there which reference the studies you seek. The title “Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review.” has the word ‘multigenerational’, go figure. It also says “The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations).”

        I’m feeling a little generous so I’ll give you one from the paper. “Longterm Biosafety Assessment of A Genetically Modified (GM) Plant: The Genetically Modified (GM) Insect-Resistant Bt11 Corn Does Not Affect the Performance of Multi-Generations or Life Span of Mice” by Haryu et al did a multigeneration study for 1072 days of observation.

        I am still waiting for you to clarify where in the paper it said “No long-term rodent studies are available for GM maize” as you claim. Why am I even asking you this a third time? Is that how you answered questions during your science days? by ignoring them?

        also try searching why the 90 day period is the standard for most food safety studies (GMO or nonGMO) and why it is sufficient.

      • SYH

        The Snell paper cites many multi-generation animal studies.
        “More specifically, it includes 12 studies concerning a feeding period of more than 90 days and up to two years, and 12 multigenerational studies over two to five generations of animals.
        The particularly interesting aspect of this broad range of studies is not only the fact that they originate from different countries, but also the variety of animals tested: chickens, mice, rats, goats and cows, added Dr Ricroch.
        These animals were fed 33% of currently marketed transgenic plants (maize, soybean), and rice, triticale (a cross between wheat and rye) and potatoes in their diet at the rate set by the OECD in 1998.”

      • SYH

        You’ll have to excuse me but now I am seriously starting to either doubt your claim being a PhD scientist or an ex-scientist who now is far out of touch from the field.

      • SYH

        Why is it bad science? The control nonGMO fed rats had more tumors. Roundup fed male rats lived longer than unfed controls. Yet they fail to mention any of those results in their discussion.

        Also if you search reputable science forums and news editorials by scientists they will point out why it is an awful paper.

      • SYH

        You said “I looked up your Snell link and found this interesting comment: “No long-term rodent studies are available for GM maize””

        Care to specify where in the paper it says that?

      • Stephanie Zouzas Tymula

        Not to mention MONSANTO does its own studies. Hmm…interesting …

    • nigra truo

      90 days??? What about a LONG TERM study? American consumers have been eating this food for decades and it is them that it is tested on right now.
      And as the FDA decreed so ludicrously: GMO, when it got started, is equivalent to natural normal food.
      So it is an experiment. Just label the products already, if it so safe, what does the industry fear so much? The liability, that if it harms people they would be responsible? Well, how absurd is it then? This would be like the tabacco industry did not want to be liable for anything and just did not list tabacco as being contained in cigarettes 😉
      And if it is beneing, what do you have to worry about? It is just the truth and nothing but the truth we are talking about.

      • Shelley Jones Beek

        I agree. I have done more research on glyphosate (Round-up) in the last year. The reason Monsanto says glyphosate is not dangerous for animals is because it only disrupts a step in a plant process and is therefore harmless to animals. One thing that isn’t discussed in this rationale is the essential microorganisms that live in our digestive tract. Some are necessary to help us metabolize our food and provide precursors for essential vitamins and metabolic pathways. Glyphosate does damage and stress these microorganisms. A senior researcher at MIT is testing whether glyphosate may contribute to the autism explosion experienced today. Her argument is compelling.

  • Katrina Engel

    The fight against the labeling is due to the “fear factor” being discussed. The ignorance and the irrational fear stirred up by the mere mention of gmo foods is why companies don’t want to put it on the label. Because most of what we buy has gmo ingredients. Think about corn or soybeans. They are in everything, and most of it is modified. What the companies don’t seem to understand is that very few people, at least in America, are going to boycott their favorite bbq sauce or Mac and cheese for long.

  • LL11

    I’ve always enjoyed watching Tyson on Cosmos, thought he was great. But he is an ASTROPHYSICIST, not a biologist or a medical doctor. Has he done any studies on safety?

    And, like I have argued with my family, and in comments here and elsewhere there is a HUGE difference between cross-pollination and modifying apples to be firmer or seedless watermelons and GENETICALLY modifying tomatoes with pig genes or engineering crops to be resistant to the massive amounts of chemicals they add.

    Just label it, and let us “stupid, uninformed” people decide to pay more for our non-GMO food okay?

  • Bryn Stephens

    Well that’s interesting. I’m posting responses with links to articles and studies from reputable (and some semi-reputable) sources and they are immediately being deleted. Agenda and censorship much FP?

    • Sandy Greer

      You have to disguise your link, somehow:

      www DOT forwardprogressives DOT com/neil-degrasse-tyson-hammers-fear-factor-gmos-dont-have-problem-chill-out/

  • Brian Novotny

    Have to disagree, there is so much wrong with GMO’s and we don’t even get the whole story as it is being covered but by the Chemical Companies. Truth is Roundup is Agent Orange for the most part, and you are making crops resistant to that so you can use it on those crops which in turn absorb the chemicals and goes up the food chain. Now what kind of psychopath is doing this stuff? If you think you are eating healthy by eating these poisoned foods, think again my friend. This is pure insanity and evil is what it truly is.

  • Bryn Stephens

    I love this guy, but he should stick to his own field. Selective breeding and hybridization =/= GMO technologies and processes. For once, Neil, you’re promoting a junk “science” viewpoint.

  • Marc D

    Tyson’s absolutely right… the resistance to GMO is surprising. It has become the lefty equivalent of climate change denialism. But we have a technology that can help make food cheaper, use up less natural resources, increase its availability in places that desperately need more food, and make its production more environmentally friendly…all things lefty-progressive types usually support.

    Whatever your politics, science and reason should always come first in decision making…not knee-jerk reactions against Big Agro, Big Pharma, or Big Government.

  • Nancy

    I can’t believe his ignorance about the ways foods have been bred as opposed to current GMO practices.

  • Nancy

    One point is that with GMOs, a few companies will own rights to all of the seeds & farmers will have to buy new seed every year. The BigAg corporations have already bought many seed companies.

    • Jim

      I don’t know if anyone is reading but this is a post you see a lot in this debate. It really is a comment from someone that does not know really anything about farming to pay the mortgage.

      Corn farmers have not saved seed for the last 70 odd years because hybrids do not reproduce true. You need new seeds to get the desired crop and desired traits. The other commodity crops where moving this way before the introduction of GM versions. Even with this movement the uptake surpassed all expectations of the industry when Bt Cotton and Soy where introduced. Farmers liked that they could plant revenue crops on all of their property instead of having to set aside land for next years seed. They liked that they could get new traits faster. The seed companies are coming out with better products faster then ever.

      Monsanto tried to raise the price of seeds a few years back and farmers went to liberty link in huge numbers. That price increase did not last long. There are about a half dozen huge seed companies and hundreds of smaller ones that each will have a few dozen different varieties for your specific area and conditions.

  • ohkelley

    The science is less important than the fact that GMO foods are being forced upon an unwilling public. Perhaps if we had a choice…. After all, most European countries will not allow this stuff in, and yet the US refuses to label it?!?!?! I’m grown up enough and smart enough to make my own decisions, thank you very much!