13 Comment

  • It’s a soybean.

    The first one is not a radish, it’s a sugar beet.

    They’re all listed at areweeatingfishyfood dot com

  • I really wish people would take some time to understand the science behind GMO before advocating against something. The best analogy I’ve heard recently is that “Being against GMO is like being against a tractor.” GMO is just a tool. It’s what you do with that tool that matters.

    This is all very reminiscent to me of the vaccination hysteria from a few years back.

    Talk to real scientists (not enviro advocates) about GMO. Then you can make an informed decision.

    • Many enviro “activists” are also scientists. I think the big divide comes down to whether you care about potential health implications of eating GMOs (weighed against alternatives, like pesticides) or the environmental consequences of these genes getting into wild populations (weighed against alternatives, like impact of pesticides on the environment), or both. It’s a complex issue and the best answer is almost certainly not “yes” or “no. ”
      (unlike for vaccines, where the anti-vaccine lobby is largely ignoring a body of scientific evidence and has goofy risk assessment conclusions.)

      • I guess it depends on if you believe as I do that the Union of Concerned Scientists are dirty hippies, while the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) are intelligent forward thinking scientists on the forefront of research excellence.

        Given, I actually read the underlying papers, so I can make an informed decision. Most people are too lazy to do this and get their scientific information from Facebook.

        • You just read the underlying papers? If you weren’t so lazy you would do your own scientific research like I do.

          • I publish extensively on other environmental issues, serve as a reviewer for multiple journals and can spot crappy experimental design and flawed statistics from a mile away.

            I would love to read some of you papers resulting from you scientific research if you’d like to provide links.

            I have not seen any legit studies that have linked GMO to any human health or environmental problems. Could their be problems? Of course. You cannot PROVE something is safe, only detect when it is not safe.

        • It’s not always laziness that keeps people from reading the underlying science. Not all people are themselves scientists, and/or this may not be the topic they want to devote their free time to researching. It sounds like this is close to your own professional interests so makes an easy extension, but assuming that is true for everyone is unfair and not productive. It’s important for scientists to be better at summarizing the research for non-scientists so people don’t have to get a PhD in environmental science to buy groceries. As a scientist myself, I think we are profoundly bad at this part.

          • I completely agree that scientists need to be better at communicating science to the general public. I also feel that the media needs to be better at facilitating scientists’ ability to share facts with the general public.

            The media can fail in multiple ways:

            1) Looking for a sensational headline (e.g. “GMOs Target Killing Force on Only the Cutest of Kittens”) where it isn’t warranted.
            2) Not knowing which scientists are likely to give the least biased answer (AAAS vs UCS) or not caring if the answer they get is biased if it advances their story (see #1)
            3) Asking the wrong questions (e.g. “Can we prove that GMOs are safe?” Of course not, but we can’t prove that yoga is safe either).

          • I agree. The media does not help by insisting on covering “the controversy” of every issue. For some issues there may be multiple angles that are worth covering, for other issues it’s misleading to give the opposing position equal time. Fair and balanced coverage should at times exclude coverage of the position that is not backed by any scientific evidence.

            Note: The redesign has not gotten rid of the “you are posting too quickly” issue.

        • Prove it.

    • It is simple Luddite behavior. The tractor analogy is appropriate. We really have no evidence that all tractors, or all GMOs, are harmful. Of course, one could intentionally or erroneously create a tractor, or a GMO, that is unsafe, but to assert that we ought to refrain from developing new types of tractors, or GMOs, simply because in theory there can be instances of unsafe tractors, or GMOs, would be silly. Subject the tractor, and the specific GMOs, to a reasonable amount of safety testing an allow those products on the market that regulators deem safe. Don’t ban all innovation simply because it is new, if we did we would be halting ways to increase crop yields, and thereby bringing down the cost of food globally.

  • I think this one is supposed to be a peapod.

Comments are closed.