Bill Nye's New Show & GMO's

[Davnasty]

I've watched a few episodes so far and I was curious if anyone else has seen them and has any thoughts.

1) I liked the first episode about climate change but I doubt they're going to reach any deniers in their demographic.
2) I liked the GMO episode a lot because I think they will reach the right people with that message. More detail would've been nice but this is a 30 minute entertainment show and not a hardcore documentary.
3) I did not like the episode on nutrition. Bland, boring, attacked fad diets but really didn't use science to do so. Way too vague.

Mostly I'm hoping to get people's reactions to the GMO episode because I'm guessing many in the MMM community are in the anti-GMO camp.

[matchewed]

I haven't watched it but I hold a generally positive view towards GMO's since I try to follow the science of them rather than the outrage machine generated in their name.

[Lis]

I just added this to my queue to watch (was going to start last night, but I was dead tired and I actually want to pay attention). Without having watched the episode, I agree with you on the climate change (I know Bill Nye's stance) and the target demographic, but still, good to have out there. I'm really interested in the GMO episode because I know he switched his stance after some research, and how GMOs affect your health is something I'm interested in learning more.

[AlanStache]

What age range are the shows intended for, teens or adults?  Is on Netflix I hope?

There is a joke about GMO's that people want DNA free food.

[ketchup]

What age range are the shows intended for, teens or adults?  Is on Netflix I hope?

There is a joke about GMO's that people want DNA free food.

It's a Netflix original, actually.

I haven't watched it yet, but I sure intend to.  I grew up watching his PBS show.

[HPstache]

Hopefully he'll do an episode on the science of vaccinations

[Bracken_Joy]

I've only watched 2 so far, but looking forward to the others. The pacing definitely isn't perfect IMO, but given the current political climate I'm glad it's on netflix =)

[farmecologist]

I like the show for what it is...a 'dumbed down' science show for entertainment purposes. And I think Bill Nye is great!

However, have any of you looked at the netflix reviews of the show?  Definitely seems like a vocal minority in the 'hater' category.  Pretty sad...but that's the way things are these days.

[Davnasty]

What age range are the shows intended for, teens or adults?  Is on Netflix I hope?

There is a joke about GMO's that people want DNA free food.

Age range I think is pretty much anyone who understands what they're talking about. 15+? or smart middle schoolers even?

But I'd say the target audience is millennials who watched Bill Nye the Science Guy in the 90s.

[Davnasty]

I've only watched 2 so far, but looking forward to the others. The pacing definitely isn't perfect IMO, but given the current political climate I'm glad it's on netflix =)

Agreed. Can be kinda awkward. And the panel discussions definitely leave something to be desired.

His attitude is rather condescending to those who disagree and will probably alienate the people who actually need to be convinced. I think it's done for comedic effect but the end result will probably be Bill Nye gets skewered as a shill by the conspiracy theorists.

[Davnasty]

Hopefully he'll do an episode on the science of vaccinations

He did! Episode 6 - Do Some Shots, Save the World

[AlanStache]

I like the show for what it is...a 'dumbed down' science show for entertainment purposes.

That was the problem I had with Myth-busters for a long time; many of the experiments they did could have been replaced with one page of undergrad engineering/math/physics calculations no need to cut metal 50% of the time.  But then I reminded myself it's just a show, I should really just relax.

[zoltani]

Sure, I watched his show when I was young, but I don't understand all the love for Bill Nye. Why?

[sol]

What is the supposed problem with GMOs that you think this forum audience will find them objectionable?

I haven't seen this show, but I imagine the GMO episode is just Nye shrugging and saying "seriously?" for thirty minutes.

[Bucksandreds]

I'm skeptical of GMOs because I know the history of pesticide resistance with them. I will always be skeptical of conventional farming practices for a thousand or more reasons however. If you are interested to read about the shortsightedness of GMO then read this.


http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/

[JumpInTheFIRE]

I read the article and don't see anything that would make me leery of round-up resistant crops.  It seems like the overall thesis was that these crops overall have benefited the environment but farmers may need to adopt different methods to prevent the proliferation of round-up resistant weeds.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Monsanto's business practices -- but that has nothing to do with GMOs, it's just because they are evil bastards.

[rantk81]

Half way through the first episode now... While I agree with the message, the format of the show is very off-putting for me.

[undercover]

Mostly I'm hoping to get people's reactions to the GMO episode because I'm guessing many in the MMM community are in the anti-GMO camp.

Quite the contrary. There's nothing harmful about GMO's. It's science. This is a scientific crowd.

[Bucksandreds]

I read the article and don't see anything that would make me leery of round-up resistant crops.  It seems like the overall thesis was that these crops overall have benefited the environment but farmers may need to adopt different methods to prevent the proliferation of round-up resistant weeds.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Monsanto's business practices -- but that has nothing to do with GMOs, it's just because they are evil bastards.

It's not that I think a GMO is inherently dangerous, it's just that I think GMOs have been/will be strong victims of the law of unintended consequences.  I've read countless statistics on the higher and higher rates of (real world numbers and not statistics that show how much the plant was designed for) herbicide/pesticide use on GMO corn and beans due to resistance that's developing.  Nature spent thousands/millions of years mutating a plant to what it is today so that the negative mutations could die off. Were not to the point scientifically, where we can be sure of all of the effects of the changes that we make.

I do appreciate the potential for famine reduction and if done correctly better environmental outcomes. 

[Geneseo1911]

On  the topic of herbicide resistance.....

I am a farmer in Illinois who grows primarily corn and soybeans. GMO crops did not create herbicide resistance. They were created in response to it. Nature developed resistant weeds through natural selection, reducing the number of effective chemicals to control said weeds.  Since no new herbicides have been developed in 20 years,  genes are inserted into crop plants to allow herbicides to be used on them which would have previously killed them.

We could have bred for this resistance naturally, but the resulting crop would probably not have the yield, quality, and vigor that is needed, and it would take many, many years.

The first commercial GMO was corn which was resistant to the corn borer worm. This eliminated the use of a LOT of pesticides which were legitimately dangerous to the people who applied them.

The reason GMOs were developed was so the people selling them could make lots of money, make no mistake. The reason they were heavily adopted is because they greatly increase the safety and ease of crop production while reducing pesticide use.

The great irony is that I grow a lot of non-GMO corn and soybeans because the idiots who don't understand science demand them and will pay premium to get them. I'm a small farmer by modern standards, so I'm able to invest the increased time and risk in order to earn the premium.

[radram]

What age range are the shows intended for, teens or adults?  Is on Netflix I hope?

There is a joke about GMO's that people want DNA free food.

The season says it is rated TV-14, but I don't see a rating per episode. Other than first previewing the episode on sex, I expect my 10 year old to handle what he is saying.

[rantk81]

The reason GMOs were developed was so the people selling them could make lots of money, make no mistake. The reason they were heavily adopted is because they greatly increase the safety and ease of crop production while reducing pesticide use.

Are GMO crops also subjected to less herbicides than non-GMO crops?

I've read some arguments by the "anti-GMO" crowd basically implying that the GMO crops are bread to be more resistant to the herbicides, so farmers can dump a lot more herbicides around -- and that was raised as a health concern.

Myself personally, I don't really base my shopping on whether any produce I buy is GMO vs. non-GMO, or Organic vs Non-Organic and such... The "herbicide" issue is the one thing that seems somewhat plausible to me from the "anti GMO" crowd.  Researching REAL FACTS on these kind of things on the internet is very difficult due to all the opinionated articles by those who have no scientific credentials...

[Rewdoalb]

I would be pretty frustrated watching this show, based on what I know about Bill and based on his topics of discussion.

He's taking topics that cause legitimate disagreement and uncertainty, but with a shit-ton of hyperbole and straw-man arguments abounding on all sides of each topic.

[We DONT truly know the amount of global warming caused/preventable by unnecessary human action. We DONT know if some of the "creepy factors" about GMOs could potentially prove true (not to mention the simple unintended consequences of farming outside of nature's rhythm). We DONT have a great understanding of whether meat, veganism, carbs, coffee, periodic fasting, Paleo, whatever, is good/bad in the long run. And yet all these topics get lots of hard and fast rules from people with 1. a political or religious agenda, 2. Books to sell, 3. An industry/cashflow to protect, 4. Desire to sound like a know-it-all, etc...

If Bill is going to give his typical snarky conclusion "because science", I predict that he'll just keep being a shill for his preconceived beliefs/agendas.

And I would just love for the show to prove me wrong!

[Bucksandreds]

The reason GMOs were developed was so the people selling them could make lots of money, make no mistake. The reason they were heavily adopted is because they greatly increase the safety and ease of crop production while reducing pesticide use.

Are GMO crops also subjected to less herbicides than non-GMO crops?

I've read some arguments by the "anti-GMO" crowd basically implying that the GMO crops are bread to be more resistant to the herbicides, so farmers can dump a lot more herbicides around -- and that was raised as a health concern.

Myself personally, I don't really base my shopping on whether any produce I buy is GMO vs. non-GMO, or Organic vs Non-Organic and such... The "herbicide" issue is the one thing that seems somewhat plausible to me from the "anti GMO" crowd.  Researching REAL FACTS on these kind of things on the internet is very difficult due to all the opinionated articles by those who have no scientific credentials...

http://i2.wp.com/sitn.hms.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fig31.png?resize=720%2C574

This graph from Harvard sure seems to demonstrate that GMO crops are being associated with higher and higher use of synthetic herbicides every year. I prefer organic but conventional non GMO vs GMO isn't a big deal to me and I eat all three types. Blanket statements by any side of any argument are normally biased/foolish/agenda driven. Mustachians may prefer GMO on average due to lower cost.

[zoltani]

Oh god, I just saw the "music video" with Rachael Bloom about sex junk. Ultimate cringe. Is that a parody of extreme SJW types or is it serious?

Even the name of this show is off putting to me, the guy seems full of himself.

[Inaya]

I have no problem eating GMOs myself. I do believe that people have the right to decide whether they eat GMOs, so labelling should be required. I do have problems with Monsanto's business practices. And I'm a little concerned about the potential for hidden allergens--it's my understanding that it's possible to have an allergic reaction to something you're not normally allergic to simply because it's been spliced with something you are. Admittedly, I'm not sure how accurate that is. And I don't have food allergies, so it's pretty theoretical to me.

[Inaya]

The great irony is that I grow a lot of non-GMO corn and soybeans because the idiots who don't understand science demand them and will pay premium to get them. I'm a small farmer by modern standards, so I'm able to invest the increased time and risk in order to earn the premium.

How do you ensure that you never get GMO genes in your crops by simple pollination?

[Gondolin]

But I'd say the target audience is millennials who watched Bill Nye the Science Guy in the 90

Anything popular in the 80s has already been remade so it's time to start strip mining the 90s for anything with brand recognition.

[Davids]

Definitely not a "Netflix and Chill" show.

[Davnasty]

What is the supposed problem with GMOs that you think this forum audience will find them objectionable?

I haven't seen this show, but I imagine the GMO episode is just Nye shrugging and saying "seriously?" for thirty minutes.

Good question. I guess I'm really just thinking of a few comments I've seen over time but that's not really a good representation of general opinion on the forum because those opposed are more likely to speak up about it.

Although, I do think that the majority of people in developed countries have negative opinions about them. After all, non-GMO is a requirement to be certified organic and it seems most people assume organic > conventional.

[Davnasty]

I have no problem eating GMOs myself. I do believe that people have the right to decide whether they eat GMOs, so labelling should be required. I do have problems with Monsanto's business practices. And I'm a little concerned about the potential for hidden allergens--it's my understanding that it's possible to have an allergic reaction to something you're not normally allergic to simply because it's been spliced with something you are. Admittedly, I'm not sure how accurate that is. And I don't have food allergies, so it's pretty theoretical to me.

At first glance, the idea of GMO labeling sounds reasonable. However, the reality is that having the label will make at least a portion of consumers less favorable toward a product. This will in turn reduce the value of GMO products and increase the value of non-GMO. producers will have additional incentive to avoid GMOs. Basically there would be significant market forces acting on something with no basis. I don't think public education around the topic is good enough to use this type of label. And the label itself will further opinionate the uneducated because if I knew nothing about GMOs and I was being informed (warned) that a food product contained them I would assume it is because they are unhealthy.

The worry of allergies is unfounded. People are allergic to the compounds a plant produces, not the genes. I don't know enough to say this is entirely impossible but the idea that taking a gene from a salmon to use in a tomato and assuming the tomato will have a fishy flavor is nonsense.

[Spork]

The great irony is that I grow a lot of non-GMO corn and soybeans because the idiots who don't understand science demand them and will pay premium to get them. I'm a small farmer by modern standards, so I'm able to invest the increased time and risk in order to earn the premium.

How do you ensure that you never get GMO genes in your crops by simple pollination?

The snarky answer is: you try really hard not to because if you do, Monsanto will sue you.

But... some of the GMO plants actually have an "activator".  In other words, the seed won't grow without an activating chemical.


The downside I have heard for Roundup ready crops is actually that the glycophosphates in the food kill some beneficial gut bacteria.  Now, nutritional science is not always the most scientific field out there... so whether this is provable is left as an exercise to the reader.

We have anecdotally run across similar issues -- where engineered crops had unintended consequences.   We used to buy hay from one of the local farm stores and use it as mulch around all the plants.  There was a trend several years back (maybe still around) where farmers sprayed their fields with an herbicide (not Roundup... I forget which one) that killed surrounding plants but allowed the hay to thrive.  The resulting hay killed everything it was around.  DW spent about a week putting the hay-mulch out over a huge area and plants began to wither and die.  With a little research, we suspected the hay and pulled it all up.  Plants that were still alive mostly recovered.  We dumped the hay out in the back of our land... and about 4 years later that area is still a dead zone.  From what we read, manure from horses/cows fed with this hay also was a good unintentional herbicide and killed lots of plants as well.

[Davnasty]

I read the article and don't see anything that would make me leery of round-up resistant crops.  It seems like the overall thesis was that these crops overall have benefited the environment but farmers may need to adopt different methods to prevent the proliferation of round-up resistant weeds.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Monsanto's business practices -- but that has nothing to do with GMOs, it's just because they are evil bastards.

It's not that I think a GMO is inherently dangerous, it's just that I think GMOs have been/will be strong victims of the law of unintended consequences.  I've read countless statistics on the higher and higher rates of (real world numbers and not statistics that show how much the plant was designed for) herbicide/pesticide use on GMO corn and beans due to resistance that's developing.  Nature spent thousands/millions of years mutating a plant to what it is today so that the negative mutations could die off. Were not to the point scientifically, where we can be sure of all of the effects of the changes that we make.

I do appreciate the potential for famine reduction and if done correctly better environmental outcomes.

Conventionally bred crops can cause similar problems, I don't think this really relates to GMO. The real issues are monocultures and yes, pesticide resistance.

Also, the plants we eat have not mutated for millions of years. They have been manipulated by humans to the point where their ancestors would be unrecognizable today.

[Davnasty]

The great irony is that I grow a lot of non-GMO corn and soybeans because the idiots who don't understand science demand them and will pay premium to get them. I'm a small farmer by modern standards, so I'm able to invest the increased time and risk in order to earn the premium.

How do you ensure that you never get GMO genes in your crops by simple pollination?

The snarky answer is: you try really hard not to because if you do, Monsanto will sue you.

But... some of the GMO plants actually have an "activator".  In other words, the seed won't grow without an activating chemical.


The downside I have heard for Roundup ready crops is actually that the glycophosphates in the food kill some beneficial gut bacteria.  Now, nutritional science is not always the most scientific field out there... so whether this is provable is left as an exercise to the reader.

We have anecdotally run across similar issues -- where engineered crops had unintended consequences.   We used to buy hay from one of the local farm stores and use it as mulch around all the plants.  There was a trend several years back (maybe still around) where farmers sprayed their fields with an herbicide (not Roundup... I forget which one) that killed surrounding plants but allowed the hay to thrive.  The resulting hay killed everything it was around.  DW spent about a week putting the hay-mulch out over a huge area and plants began to wither and die.  With a little research, we suspected the hay and pulled it all up.  Plants that were still alive mostly recovered.  We dumped the hay out in the back of our land... and about 4 years later that area is still a dead zone.  From what we read, manure from horses/cows fed with this hay also was a good unintentional herbicide and killed lots of plants as well.

This particular case likely had nothing to do with engineered crops but rather a broad leaf herbicide that does not kill grasses. The fact that there is some effect after 4 years is very strange indeed. I can't think of anything that would do that short of thoroughly salting the earth.

[Inaya]

I have no problem eating GMOs myself. I do believe that people have the right to decide whether they eat GMOs, so labelling should be required. I do have problems with Monsanto's business practices. And I'm a little concerned about the potential for hidden allergens--it's my understanding that it's possible to have an allergic reaction to something you're not normally allergic to simply because it's been spliced with something you are. Admittedly, I'm not sure how accurate that is. And I don't have food allergies, so it's pretty theoretical to me.

At first glance, the idea of GMO labeling sounds reasonable. However, the reality is that having the label will make at least a portion of consumers less favorable toward a product. This will in turn reduce the value of GMO products and increase the value of non-GMO. producers will have additional incentive to avoid GMOs. Basically there would be significant market forces acting on something with no basis. I don't think public education around the topic is good enough to use this type of label. And the label itself will further opinionate the uneducated because if I knew nothing about GMOs and I was being informed (warned) that a food product contained them I would assume it is because they are unhealthy.

The worry of allergies is unfounded. People are allergic to the compounds a plant produces, not the genes. I don't know enough to say this is entirely impossible but the idea that taking a gene from a salmon to use in a tomato and assuming the tomato will have a fishy flavor is nonsense.

I feel like I saw a documentary where a person with a peanut allergy ate something completely unrelated and had a reaction, and they determined it was because it was GMO? The memory is vague, and it could have been a not-too-balanced documentary--although I think watched it in a college class, so I hope it had legitimate information.

As to your first point, I understand what you're saying. But how is it any different from slapping "gluten free" or "Y2K compliant" on a label to make it sell better among less-informed populations?

The snarky answer is: you try really hard not to because if you do, Monsanto will sue you.

But... some of the GMO plants actually have an "activator".  In other words, the seed won't grow without an activating chemical.

That is simultaneously interesting and creepy. Thanks!

[Davnasty]

I feel like I saw a documentary where a person with a peanut allergy ate something completely unrelated and had a reaction, and they determined it was because it was GMO? The memory is vague, and it could have been a not-too-balanced documentary--although I think watched it in a college class, so I hope it had legitimate information.

As to your first point, I understand what you're saying. But how is it any different from slapping "gluten free" or "Y2K compliant" on a label to make it sell better among less-informed populations?

I think they determined wrong but if there was any evidence to suggest otherwise I would be interested. interestingly there is actually potential for a GMO peanut that would not cause allergic reactions. With new CRISPR technology that may be even easier and it wouldn't be considered a GMO.

I would agree that the current use of non-GMO labels is just like your examples. I see it on all kinds of products that have never been genetically engineered (at least not commercially available versions). The only items you might find in the grocery store that are GMO: corn (field and sweet), soybeans, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets, papaya and squash.

A required label however would be a different beast. Essentially every processed food with the smallest amount of soy or corn derived product would be labeled. I would concede that this might encourage people to eat less processed foods which would be good but more likely some manufacturers would just switch to non-GMO and some people would pay the premium.

[MilesTeg]

Most people simply don't understand that many plants and animals, especially food crops, are not naturally occurring organisms. They are nearly all in one way or another genetically tinkered with by humans. Now, while it's certainly significantly different to use high tech methods like gene splicing to do genetic manipulation (e.g. what most people refer to as GMO), there is a risk of inadvertent side effects with all methods. From simple dietary concerns (corn is just a really bad grain for humans to eat) to food supply problems (modern bananas are so overbred/highly selected for particular traits that they are highly susceptible to diseases, most farm/food animals would never survive in the wild) to allergens (i.e. from traditional cross breeding techniques) and most of the others problems people associate with GMOs.

[Spork]

The great irony is that I grow a lot of non-GMO corn and soybeans because the idiots who don't understand science demand them and will pay premium to get them. I'm a small farmer by modern standards, so I'm able to invest the increased time and risk in order to earn the premium.

How do you ensure that you never get GMO genes in your crops by simple pollination?

The snarky answer is: you try really hard not to because if you do, Monsanto will sue you.

But... some of the GMO plants actually have an "activator".  In other words, the seed won't grow without an activating chemical.


The downside I have heard for Roundup ready crops is actually that the glycophosphates in the food kill some beneficial gut bacteria.  Now, nutritional science is not always the most scientific field out there... so whether this is provable is left as an exercise to the reader.

We have anecdotally run across similar issues -- where engineered crops had unintended consequences.   We used to buy hay from one of the local farm stores and use it as mulch around all the plants.  There was a trend several years back (maybe still around) where farmers sprayed their fields with an herbicide (not Roundup... I forget which one) that killed surrounding plants but allowed the hay to thrive.  The resulting hay killed everything it was around.  DW spent about a week putting the hay-mulch out over a huge area and plants began to wither and die.  With a little research, we suspected the hay and pulled it all up.  Plants that were still alive mostly recovered.  We dumped the hay out in the back of our land... and about 4 years later that area is still a dead zone.  From what we read, manure from horses/cows fed with this hay also was a good unintentional herbicide and killed lots of plants as well.

This particular case likely had nothing to do with engineered crops but rather a broad leaf herbicide that does not kill grasses. The fact that there is some effect after 4 years is very strange indeed. I can't think of anything that would do that short of thoroughly salting the earth.

You are correct... I should have said "We have anecdotally run across similar issues -- where herbicides had unintended consequences".  I was trying to relate it to Roundup Ready crops and my hands got ahead of my brain.

I believe part of the reason it has lasted so long is that part of what helps the breakdown is sunlight and physical activity like being walked on or crushed.  This is back in a wooded area that gets direct sunlight only a few hours a day and where there is no activity.  But... I used to mow that area 2-3 times a year.  I haven't mowed at all since the hay was dumped back there.

In general, I think it's silly for folks to generalize GMOs as good or bad...  Agriscience is a pretty gigantic field and I fully expect there to be mistakes made... and home runs hit.  I am highly skeptical of the Roundup ready crops and do try to avoid them... but not because they're genetically modified.  I'm just skeptical that we should be eating large amounts of glycophosphates.  If I'm wrong... meh.  I probably didn't harm myself by avoiding them.  (It's likely impossible to avoid them altogether.)

[sol]

I think genetic manipulation is a world-altering technology on par with fire, electricity, and germ theory.  We're still in the early stages, but the implications are pretty easy to see.

Like all three of those, it is neither good nor bad by itself.  We have the power to use technology to dramatically improve the world, or destroy it.  I can't imagine anyone protesting Ben Franklin's key on a kite experiment because it strikes them as "unnatural".  All technologies are unnatural, that's what makes them so awesome.

As a species, we have generally not succeeded with trying to squelch awesome new technologies.  We sometimes roll them out badly, but we always roll them out.  Get on board, peeps!

[RangerOne]

I found the first couple episodes to feel a little awkward and dull. Don't get me wrong I love Bill Nye and other popular science educators, but I am not sold on this format.

In general the message and its delivery is guaranteed to fail to reach the people it needs to because it lashes out with a weak sense of frustration and exasperation with science deniers.

 As much as i would like to cleanse the world of bad ideas by shaking people and shouting the stupid out of them, this is not an approach that will ever have the desired effect.

 News media has to stop sensationalizing one off scientific papers before a new consensus has been established. Bloggers and assholes with agendas need to be filtered out in internet searches to try to provide people with more facts and less fiction.

Or maybe without giving up freedom to spout nonsense we need to work our way back to a place where the majority of people trust scientific consensus coming from NASA and other major research institutions over their favorite blog. 

[Davnasty]

I feel like I saw a documentary where a person with a peanut allergy ate something completely unrelated and had a reaction, and they determined it was because it was GMO? The memory is vague, and it could have been a not-too-balanced documentary--although I think watched it in a college class, so I hope it had legitimate information.

Actually something like this may have happened in the early days of genetic engineering. Having difficulty finding a solid source on it but I asked an agricultural researcher and she said it sounds familiar. Only a few people were ever affected.

[MustachianAccountant]

...Nature spent thousands/millions of years mutating a plant to what it is today so that the negative mutations could die off. Were not to the point scientifically, where we can be sure of all of the effects of the changes that we make. ...

That wasn't nature. That was humans selectively breeding plants for the traits they wanted. For example, broccoli, cauliflower, Brussel sprouts, cabbage, kale, kohlrabi, and other vegetables are actually the same plant (Wild Mustard). They've just been coaxed by humans over the centuries to express different traits. Corn used to be a wild grass that grew in Mexico until it was selectively bred ("domesticated").

The idea that "nature" exclusively evolved plants all on its own into what you buy in the grocery store today is incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea
http://www.naturemuseum.org/the-museum/blog/is-corn-a-grass

(This process used to take years, as farmers slowly coaxed positive traits over generations of the plant. Monsanto has used its knowledge of vegetable genetics to get the same results in just a couple of generations. And no gene splicing required. Just good, old-fashioned selective breeding. https://www.wired.com/2014/01/new-monsanto-vegetables/)

[Bucksandreds]

...Nature spent thousands/millions of years mutating a plant to what it is today so that the negative mutations could die off. Were not to the point scientifically, where we can be sure of all of the effects of the changes that we make. ...

That wasn't nature. That was humans selectively breeding plants for the traits they wanted. For example, broccoli, cauliflower, Brussel sprouts, cabbage, kale, kohlrabi, and other vegetables are actually the same plant (Wild Mustard). They've just been coaxed by humans over the centuries to express different traits. Corn used to be a wild grass that grew in Mexico until it was selectively bred ("domesticated").

The idea that "nature" exclusively evolved plants all on its own into what you buy in the grocery store today is incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea
http://www.naturemuseum.org/the-museum/blog/is-corn-a-grass

(This process used to take years, as farmers slowly coaxed positive traits over generations of the plant. Monsanto has used its knowledge of vegetable genetics to get the same results in just a couple of generations. And no gene splicing required. Just good, old-fashioned selective breeding. https://www.wired.com/2014/01/new-monsanto-vegetables/)

One could easily argue that humans hand crossing/ selective planting (and that did take thousands of years) is just an assist on natural selection. GMO is a completely different game. I could genetically modify a sheep to have three heads. No way could I as a sheep breeder just decide that I'm going to breed that trait. This does not mean that I think all GMO is bad. It's just that to blanktly say it's good is foolish.

[Gin1984]

I found the first couple episodes to feel a little awkward and dull. Don't get me wrong I love Bill Nye and other popular science educators, but I am not sold on this format.

In general the message and its delivery is guaranteed to fail to reach the people it needs to because it lashes out with a weak sense of frustration and exasperation with science deniers.

As much as i would like to cleanse the world of bad ideas by shaking people and shouting the stupid out of them, this is not an approach that will ever have the desired effect.

 News media has to stop sensationalizing one off scientific papers before a new consensus has been established. Bloggers and assholes with agendas need to be filtered out in internet searches to try to provide people with more facts and less fiction.

Or maybe without giving up freedom to spout nonsense we need to work our way back to a place where the majority of people trust scientific consensus coming from NASA and other major research institutions over their favorite blog.

Except that has been shown to be the most effective.  Treating people who think idiotic ideas as if their ideas have merit and are not just idiotic actually convinces people the ideas are not idiotic.  They have started doing this with vaccines via MDs and have found MDs dismissing the parents actually increases vaccine use.  I know it is counter intuitive. 

[maizefolk]

One could easily argue that humans hand crossing/ selective planting (and that did take thousands of years) is just an assist on natural selection. GMO is a completely different game. I could genetically modify a sheep to have three heads. No way could I as a sheep breeder just decide that I'm going to breed that trait. This does not mean that I think all GMO is bad. It's just that to blanktly say it's good is foolish.

I'm pretty sure that is something we (as a civilization) have no idea how to go about modifying the genome of a sheep to grow three heads. Just because we can drop in an additional gene or two* doesn't mean it is straightforward to use genetic engineering produce any possible body plan imaginable.

Human selection and breeding doesn't have to take thousands of years. Breeding for new crop or animal varieties can happen in 5-10 plant or animal generations, and can produce dangerously high levels of toxic chemicals, particularly if the breeder is selecting for pest resistance.**

You may be over estimating the potential of genetic engineering to rewire an organism's developmental program, and under estimating how fast and how unexpectedly "conventional" breeding can produce equivalently large changes.

*Broadly speaking. Personally, I have no idea how you go about actually getting the new gene into the genome of a sheep cell, or how you convince that cell to grow into a new sheep. But I know it's a thing that can be done.

**Here's a useful read on how conventional plant breeding can produce new dangerous new cultivars if people don't do careful testing and thing about what they're actually breeding for: https://www.nap.edu/read/10977/chapter/5

[LadyStache in Baja]

I'm in the GMOs are ok camp, but glysophate and other really toxic herbicides and pesticides are not. So just a label that says GMO or not is not helpful.

And it's too bad the organic label can't use gmos. Shooting ourselves in the foot there.

[Gondolin]

Human selection and breeding doesn't have to take thousands of years. Breeding for new crop or animal varieties can happen in 5-10 plant or animal generations.

+1000 The NYS Agricultural Experiment Station has been releasing new grape and apple varieties every year for the past century.

Sol (as usual) is right - the technology is here and it is not going away. Saying we shouldn't use it because of potential unintended consequences is the equivalent of saying that cavemen should have eschewed using fire because look at all the buildings that have burnt down since then!

[Davnasty]

In general the message and its delivery is guaranteed to fail to reach the people it needs to because it lashes out with a weak sense of frustration and exasperation with science deniers.

As much as i would like to cleanse the world of bad ideas by shaking people and shouting the stupid out of them, this is not an approach that will ever have the desired effect.

Except that has been shown to be the most effective.  Treating people who think idiotic ideas as if their ideas have merit and are not just idiotic actually convinces people the ideas are not idiotic.  They have started doing this with vaccines via MDs and have found MDs dismissing the parents actually increases vaccine use.  I know it is counter intuitive.

Can you point to any studies that back this up? My current opinion would have sided with RangerOne based on things I've read and my own experience but if there is evidence to the contrary that would be awesome. Yelling and shaking are more fun that pretending to debate.

Although even if there is I have to imagine it depends on the situation; relationship between parties, medium of communication, implications of being wrong, etc.

I've analogized this scenario to removing earwax, the nonbelievers being the earwax. Say you have a large group of people you want to convince of something. You can jam your finger in your ear and wiggle it around (Yell and shake people) and you'll get some of the earwax out but at the same time you will force the rest of it deeper into your ear canal (people who cling to their beliefs with increased fervor). The only effective way to remove the earwax is to gently coax it out with warm water and understanding.

Or a high pressure water jet. That works too.

[scantee]

In general the message and its delivery is guaranteed to fail to reach the people it needs to because it lashes out with a weak sense of frustration and exasperation with science deniers.

As much as i would like to cleanse the world of bad ideas by shaking people and shouting the stupid out of them, this is not an approach that will ever have the desired effect.

Except that has been shown to be the most effective.  Treating people who think idiotic ideas as if their ideas have merit and are not just idiotic actually convinces people the ideas are not idiotic.  They have started doing this with vaccines via MDs and have found MDs dismissing the parents actually increases vaccine use.  I know it is counter intuitive.

Can you point to any studies that back this up? My current opinion would have sided with RangerOne based on things I've read and my own experience but if there is evidence to the contrary that would be awesome. Yelling and shaking are more fun that pretending to debate.

Although even if there is I have to imagine it depends on the situation; relationship between parties, medium of communication, implications of being wrong, etc.

I've analogized this scenario to removing earwax, the nonbelievers being the earwax. Say you have a large group of people you want to convince of something. You can jam your finger in your ear and wiggle it around (Yell and shake people) and you'll get some of the earwax out but at the same time you will force the rest of it deeper into your ear canal (people who cling to their beliefs with increased fervor). The only effective way to remove the earwax is to gently coax it out with warm water and understanding.

Or a high pressure water jet. That works too.

There's a huge body of research on public health messaging* that has shown that hardline, black/white, scare-tactic messages are most effective in getting people to change their health behaviors. People want to think that gentle, coaxing methods are better when it comes to this kind of thing, but the research just does not support that approach, at all. Why? Because health behaviors are really hard to change, they are some of the most ingrained behaviors people have, which makes gentle messages simply not up to the task.

*I won't link to individual studies, because there are too many of them, but if google "public health messaging research" you'll find loads of research on this topic.

[Cpa Cat]

We have anecdotally run across similar issues -- where engineered crops had unintended consequences.   We used to buy hay from one of the local farm stores and use it as mulch around all the plants.  There was a trend several years back (maybe still around) where farmers sprayed their fields with an herbicide (not Roundup... I forget which one) that killed surrounding plants but allowed the hay to thrive.  The resulting hay killed everything it was around.  DW spent about a week putting the hay-mulch out over a huge area and plants began to wither and die.  With a little research, we suspected the hay and pulled it all up.  Plants that were still alive mostly recovered.  We dumped the hay out in the back of our land... and about 4 years later that area is still a dead zone.  From what we read, manure from horses/cows fed with this hay also was a good unintentional herbicide and killed lots of plants as well.

This particular case likely had nothing to do with engineered crops but rather a broad leaf herbicide that does not kill grasses. The fact that there is some effect after 4 years is very strange indeed. I can't think of anything that would do that short of thoroughly salting the earth.

Imprelis was killing trees for a couple of years after it was banned.

Clopyralid can have a 2 year life in compost, which should really be the ideal conditions to accelerate the half-life of most chemicals. It also seems to make it through the digestive systems of animals, even though it's not really supposed to.

Neither really explains a dead zone though, since they are both safe for grass.

Kind of off topic though. I'm not afraid of GMOs, but I am afraid of eating herbicides with a half-life of more than a few days.