‘There are no wild cows’: Neil deGrasse Tyson slams ‘fear factor’ over GMOs
By Arturo Garcia
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Astrophysicist and Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson blasted critics of genetically modified foods — often referred to as GMOs — in a video recently posted online, saying they are part of a longstanding process of humans altering the planet’s biology to serve our needs, Mother Jones reported.
“I’m amazed how much rejection genetically modified foods are receiving from the public,” deGrasse Tyson tells a French interviewer. “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.”
What most people do not know, Tyson argued, was that almost any food bought in stores today has been modified before making it to the shelves.
“There are no wild, seedless watermelons. There’s no wild cows,” he said. “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.”
Instead, he said, humans have employed artificial selection to modify their foods ever since they began cultivating them.
“We are creating and modifying the biology of the world to serve our needs,” deGrasse Tyson said. “I don’t have a problem with that, because we’ve been doing that for tens of thousands of years. So chill out.”
As Mother Jones notes, however, critics of GMOs often cite their opposition to techniques like genetic manipulation being used in foods.
This past May, legislators in California rejected a bill that would have required labels for foods made using GMOs, for the second year in a row. Only Vermont has approved such requirements.
Watch deGrasse Tyson’s remarks, as posted online, here:
NDT today on Facebook:
Ten days ago, this brief clip of me was posted by somebody.
http://bit.ly/Xg0y7R
It contains my brief [2min 20sec] response to a question posed by a French journalist, after a talk I gave on the Universe. He found me at the post-talk book signing table. (Notice the half-dozen ready & willing pens.) The clip went mildly viral (rising through a half million right now) with people weighing in on whether they agree with me or not.
Some comments...
1) The journalist posted the question in French. I don't speak French, so I have no memory of how I figured out that was asking me about GMOs. Actually I do know some French words like Bordeaux, and Bourgogne, and Champagne, etc.
2) Everything I said is factual. So there's nothing to disagree with other than whether you should actually "chill out" as I requested of the viewer in my last two words of the clip.
3) Had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I've noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.
4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept.
b- Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
c- Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement on these matters.
d- Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market. To the extent that the production of GMOs are a monopoly, the government should do all it can to spread the baseline of this industry. (My favorite monopoly joke ever, told by Stephen Wright: "I think it's wrong that the game Monopoly is sold by only one company")
e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
f- Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.
5) If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct.
In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with.
Respectfully Submitted
-NDTyson
By Arturo Garcia
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Astrophysicist and Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson blasted critics of genetically modified foods — often referred to as GMOs — in a video recently posted online, saying they are part of a longstanding process of humans altering the planet’s biology to serve our needs, Mother Jones reported.
“I’m amazed how much rejection genetically modified foods are receiving from the public,” deGrasse Tyson tells a French interviewer. “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.”
What most people do not know, Tyson argued, was that almost any food bought in stores today has been modified before making it to the shelves.
“There are no wild, seedless watermelons. There’s no wild cows,” he said. “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.”
Instead, he said, humans have employed artificial selection to modify their foods ever since they began cultivating them.
“We are creating and modifying the biology of the world to serve our needs,” deGrasse Tyson said. “I don’t have a problem with that, because we’ve been doing that for tens of thousands of years. So chill out.”
As Mother Jones notes, however, critics of GMOs often cite their opposition to techniques like genetic manipulation being used in foods.
This past May, legislators in California rejected a bill that would have required labels for foods made using GMOs, for the second year in a row. Only Vermont has approved such requirements.
Watch deGrasse Tyson’s remarks, as posted online, here:
NDT today on Facebook:
*** August 3, 2014 -- Anatomy of a GMO Commentary ****
Ten days ago, this brief clip of me was posted by somebody.
http://bit.ly/Xg0y7R
It contains my brief [2min 20sec] response to a question posed by a French journalist, after a talk I gave on the Universe. He found me at the post-talk book signing table. (Notice the half-dozen ready & willing pens.) The clip went mildly viral (rising through a half million right now) with people weighing in on whether they agree with me or not.
Some comments...
1) The journalist posted the question in French. I don't speak French, so I have no memory of how I figured out that was asking me about GMOs. Actually I do know some French words like Bordeaux, and Bourgogne, and Champagne, etc.
2) Everything I said is factual. So there's nothing to disagree with other than whether you should actually "chill out" as I requested of the viewer in my last two words of the clip.
3) Had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I've noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.
4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept.
b- Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
c- Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement on these matters.
d- Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market. To the extent that the production of GMOs are a monopoly, the government should do all it can to spread the baseline of this industry. (My favorite monopoly joke ever, told by Stephen Wright: "I think it's wrong that the game Monopoly is sold by only one company")
e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
f- Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.
5) If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct.
In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with.
Respectfully Submitted
-NDTyson
