The Big Picture: Feeding Edge

[Agro9]

Love your work Bob you really know how to piss off the village idiots, maybe you could combine religion and GM foods in your next post to really stir them up

Keep up the great work.

 

[spacecowboy86]

indeed, I was as familiar with genetic engineering as you are dr. Bob, but I do salute you for explaining it without overcomplicating, nice episode.

 

[Nouw]

I've never heard of FrankenFood or even anyone using Franken to spice a word up! Anyway, thanks for that reassurance, time to spread the word!

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

SO what is the steroids,ect in hickens and cows called? I suppose its not genetic engineering, as it has more to do with the health and bulk of the animal. Then again we get teenagers that look like 20 year olds so I guess there is no real down side.


Also we do not quit understand the correlation between what we eat and the cross trait engineering(mixing tomatoes with pigs or apples, tho I suppose if we eat both there is no harm) that goes on, tho human body can surprisingly eat alot of things and gain from it, right now we have alot of sedentary life styles that is making us more cancer prone, also it could just be good genes vrs bad genes and your lifestyle that makes you more healthy than the rest.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

"WHY IS OUR SPACE PROGRAM BEING SHUT DOWN?!"

Probably because it's burning up millions of taxpayer dollars to just send highly trained people on a vacation in the void. Until we find something out there that's actually worth the cost of getting to it (i.e., natural resources or an inhabitable planet) then it's really not worth the cost.

yeah... i knew about that, but i was being facetious when i mentioned that. what its meant to say is that the public being distraught over "genetic engineering food" because it's really not even a problem at all.

even our space program being shut down is more important

 

[ionveau]

Yes if you breed something into another thing then thats fine, but if you change how a cell works or how it reproduces then i see a problem with that why you ask? well its not natural

There was a study done on chickens or people eating chickens, It was done on man, the man eating chickens that where feed hormones(just like the ones from KFC) caused the man to grow breast while the NATURAL chiken had no effect on the man,

It was on a Russian news network if you want to check it out.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

Bob is absolutely full of shit.

He is speaking with the air of authority on something he knows less than nothing about. That is, he has so much misinformation that he would actually be better off being completely ignorant.

Let's review the errors.

Selective breeding is NOT the same thing as genetic engineering. Genetic engineering involves using viruses (or other small carriers, such as needles) to modify a species using genetic material from a completely different species. In other words, two species that could NEVER breed in the wild can have materials combined. Viruses can move genetic material around in the wild "naturally," but, in multicellular organisms, this is an incredibly rare event that has only been theorized to have occured. In other words, this is NOT a natural event. In fact, you take genetic traits from plants and fungi and add them to animals. The organisms don't even have to be in the same kingdom.

Bob implied that this was only turning on and off existing traits.

In this, Bob is a liar.*

In comparison to crossbreeding, Bob calls using genetic engineering, "simplifying." By his bullshit logic, invasive surgery is the same thing as taking an herbal supplement.

And oh, let's not hear the "it all exists in nature" canard from some of the posters. Cyanide is naturally occuring -- I invite you to try some. The fact of the matter is, a protein that is excellent in corn won't necessarily be healthy in a trout. Biological systems are exceptionally complex -- they are likely the most complex thing known to man -- and extensive testing would be needed to be certain the chimeric animal is healthy and safe to eat -- testing that Monsanto and the like are dedicated to avoiding.

By the way, the relevant term here is chimera, NOT a hybrid Bob -- and if you don't know what a chimera is, you shouldn't even be in this discussion. Seriously, this is like discussing the Middle East without knowing what Jew, Arab, oil, and the U.S. mean.

But back to that earlier point, it is not the mere existence of a biological agent that makes it "natural," but its relationship with the organism. I can assure you that an octopus contains plenty of chemicals that, if placed in the human bloodstream, would sicken it, and vice-versa. Saying that something is "natural" because it's found in nature is like claiming it's okay to stab you in the head with an icicle. Water is natural, after all, and you're full of it already, right?

It gets worse. The problem with genetic engineering -- which Bob doesn't even understand -- is that it is being used without proper controls and with complete disregard to environmental laws and human saftey. Monsanto, the biggest and most well-known perpetrator, made its fortune by doing the following:

a) Invent a highly toxic weed killer.
b) Genetically modify seeds with material outside the seeds' species to resist the weed killing toxin.
c) Modify the seeds further for other uses.
d) Fail to test the food on animals -- or test the food badly, obscuring animal harm such as increased rate of cancer. (Yep, they'll lie about their own results.)
e) Sell the seed to farmers where the plants will interbreed with wild species, contaminating them.

And the real doozy:

f) If some of Monsanto's seeds get onto your property and you've refused to buy their seed, they will claim your ENTIRE FARM as their own and take the plants you developed via decades of actual cross-breeding, patent the plants, and steal your livelhood.

I'm not kidding. They did this to farmers in Canada and are pulling the same crap in India.

Oh, by the way: if you're in the third world, they'll refuse to let you save your seeds -- you know, what farmers have done for over 20 thousand years. That way you have to buy from them ever year. And they jack the price up. Not that you needed to buy their seed before they started polluting your crops with their seeds.

Needless to say, contamination of some of the oldest crops of mankind could lead to some pretty serious devastation. Monsanto and similar companies are using the entire planet as a laboratory and have no experimental controls. (And again, if you don't know what a scientific control is, you have no business saying anything about genetic engineering. Just to be sure, I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about this: you should. You should look up your terms first, however -- and not spew a bunch of poisonous lies on a popular media site while ridiculing hundreds of millions of people fighting to preserve their lives and jobs.)

It is not genetic engineering to improve crops. It's genetic engineering to exploit the trademark system, a legal system that the framers of the Constitution never expected to be employed as we do today. It is supposed to be illegal to patent living things; Monsanto's bribes changed that.

And, oh, Bob -- that carrot? The one you thought you were so clever about? Yeah, we know it was genetically engineered due to activists telling us. It wasn't mentioned in the supermarket. In fact, Monsanto and its allies work hard to obscure all genetic engineering information and hope to make its disclosure illegal. This is despite the fact that some of their additions can trigger allergic reactions in humans.

So, if you're allergic to peanuts, imagine it being illegal to label something as containing peanut products. That's you're future.

Seriously, Bob, that carrot gag did nothing to ridicule your target and simply made you look like an ass.

Hell, even his non-science discussion is a doughy pantload. Frankenstein's lack of scientific credentials in the novel was basically irrelevant since accredidation didn't mean much in the 19th century -- but, zounds, it was a big deal in the 20th, hence the change to the movie.

You'd think he'd know that, being a movie critic.



*The vehemence of this reply is due to the fact that Bob was contemptuous of people who have a valid, important concern with the state of the FDA. In short, Bob was belittling people who are working their asses off to save lives and livelihoods in the face of ridiculously irresponsible and, frankly, antiscientific mismanagement. And he did so using out-and-out lies, some of which parallel the lies used by the industries breaking the laws and bribing congress as we speak. I call him a liar because of his confidence; he made blanket, untrue declarations with the intent to persuade.

I know this has already been echoe by many, but I have a lot of problems with this statement. Not to say that I don't agree that there should have been considerable testing and law-making before any of this became available, but that's not to say GM crops are the devil, either.

For one, the blatant insult of legitimate arguments gets on my nerves, especially when the fear-mongers are not affecting the activists, they're misinforming the masses, and masses are notoriously stupid.

So, "let's review some errors", in order of appearance:

Selective breeding is not identical to genetic engineering by any means, but it is a very similar principal. The extraction of some genes in favor of others. It was a comparison used to reinforce the argument. Not, by any means, an absolute truth (and a comparison should NEVER be taken as such).

Two completely different species resemble eachother in that they are both species (this is where the testing comes in). Did you know humans share 5% of our DNA with bananas? I agree that traits that work in some species might not work in others, but that's what tests are about. You try, find out what went wrong, where, and try again (sometimes you just change things and skip the second step altogether). Two identical traits can be found in two differnt individuals that never shared these traits in their respective genetic pasts.

No, it's not a natural event, but neither is the computer on which you type your unreferenced arguments.

Kingdoms are irrelevent. It all uses DNA, it's all life. Kingdoms are an archaic form of representation that only exist today for the purposes of categorization. That bit was just science-hate.

And what do you expect? You want a guy who's career is based around movies, speaking to people who may not have a full grasp of university-level biology to give you the scientifically correct explanation?

No, that connection is irrelevant. The genetic engineering is a simplification of effort and process, not method. GM means that you didn't spend 500 years of trial and error to get impossible results.

But it DOES all exist in nature. No, trout and corn may not benefit equally from the same protein, but again, testing. I do agree that there should have been A LOT more testing, but other than finding out how, where and why it fails, there's nothing wrong with it.

Biological systems are quite simple. Their interaction is not.

MOST people don't know what a chimera is (including the fearful). Again, the audience has to be kept in perspective here. It's like explaining the middle east with "immigrants to the middle east by force of the second world war", "people that live in the middle east", "balck liquid that makes your car go" and "militarily potent super-power". Sure it's not all-inclusive or particularly accurate, but it lays down the foundation for more complex explanation, and likely those statements will be corrected and elaborated upon as the explanation goes. That's how explaining things works.

I like the icicle-stabbing analogy, but again, TESTING.

Now that bit about Monsanto is a good one. But that is the point about abuse of a new technology, not the mere existence of said technology (which is the one Bob was concerned about).

The rest of the science vs. corporation stuff we're pretty much in agreement about.

But the carrot gag wasn't a gag. It was an important point. The media has created fear of something for its existence, not its abuse, and the general populace is taking it the wrong way. Don't deny that. If you do, you're the liar here.

The lack of scientific credentials was less the point than was a lack of scientific experience. The guy had nothing to do with science and to compare the resurrection of dead things with electricity to editing the nature of something still living with ACTUAL SCIENCE is completely stupid. It doesn't matter where he had or didn't have a title, even though being a doctor did mean domething in the 19th century. If it didn't, why would Darwin have feared the scorn of his colleagues. Even then, being an official member of the scientific community meant something. It meant authority.

No, Bob was speaking contemptuously of the mainstream media, which has created a fear of technology, rather than legitimate concern.

A lot of good points, a lot of misread ones. One might think you're a member of a debate club.

 

[Solon5694]

Love this video, especially the part about the history of carrots. Learn something new every day I suppose.

 

[DenSomKastade]

Couldn't agree more. "Science is scary" Ughhh...

 

[Zagzag]

I wish more people actually knew this. I'm looking forward to more of these videos, if they're all this good!

 

[Mattteus]

oh man, I had to pause the video when you put up the picture of Inigo Montoya

 

[SensibleCrout]

Selective breeding is not identical to genetic engineering by any means, but it is a very similar principal.

Correct. If by "very" you mean "not at all".

The extraction of some genes in favor of others. It was a comparison used to reinforce the argument. Not, by any means, an absolute truth (and a comparison should NEVER be taken as such).

If you compare two things so fundamentally different the comparison does not serve to make anything clear but it is misleading at best, manipulation at worst. Breeding almost always produces viable offspring with similar properties than the parents, GE rarely produces viable organisms and they can have properties radically different that the original species, including being toxic, causing allergies or simply being worse than the traditional species but superseding it.

I agree that traits that work in some species might not work in others, but that's what tests are about.

I don't think you have a good understanding of how complex the consequences of genetic changes can be and how long it would take to thoroughly test a genetically engineered organism. Fact is genentically engeneered organisms are sold and noone knows exactly what they do to us. All we have are superficial tests, basically educated guesses.

No, it's not a natural event, but neither is the computer on which you type your unreferenced arguments.

Ouch, what a horrible comparison! Computers don't spread, multiply and mutate and most of us don't digest computers.

And what do you expect? You want a guy who's career is based around movies, speaking to people who may not have a full grasp of university-level biology to give you the scientifically correct explanation?

I expect Bob not to unleash a flood of uninformed spam that could well be directly from a Monsanto marketing office. Bob should either stick to movies or get a f* clue of what he's talking about.

GM means that you didn't spend 500 years of trial and error to get impossible results.

Which means the organisms are 500 years less tested.

I do agree that there should have been A LOT more testing, but other than finding out how, where and why it fails, there's nothing wrong with it.

You cannot test if a human-made species will eliminate a natural species, leading to destabilized ecosystems. Just look at what the rabbit, the cane toad and the camel do to the Australian ecosystem - and they are not even engineered organsims, just imported ones.

The media has created fear of something for its existence, not its abuse, and the general populace is taking it the wrong way. Don't deny that. If you do, you're the liar here.

I do deny that. The media very justifiedly creates fear of something, not for its existence but for its implications we do not even begin to understand. Some people may have fear for the wrong reasons but scepticism is due.

No, Bob was speaking contemptuously of the mainstream media, which has created a fear of technology, rather than legitimate concern.

Who are you to judge whether the concern is legitimate or not? Are you a genetic scientist? Talking of genetic scientists.. everyone who posted in this thread and has some expert knowledge in the field pointed out that bob got very fundamental things wrong and that things are by far not as simple and positive as Bob wants to make us believe.

 

[tyriless]

I am not concerned of the food so much as the impact on the environment and farmers. A few years ago Monsanto Foods, which is the go to developer of modified foods, started licensing modified soybeans. They sold the seeds and it grew very well, but the plants began to cross-pollenate with unmodified soybeans resulting in both crops taking in similar genetic traits. As a result, Monsanto sued to growers who just happened to have the free upgraded produce. This is a problem.

 

[tyriless]

That

As for peoples concerns and reactions to this, as well as your own: Just because you don't like people crying wolf does not mean you should adamantly proclaim that there are no wolves, there never have been, there never will be, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. You're an intelligent man, so do what intelligent men do, Bob. Go educate yourself about this, and speak about the subject in an intelligent manor.



Edit: Typos

This was by far the most reasoned, logical, and level-headed counter argument I have seen in the forums. It would take me a couple hours to write, revise, and proof-read such a response (one that was desperately needed) to Bob's Frankenfood manifesto and the outcry that followed. However, I bet it would not be nearly as good. Today, you win the internets.

 

[Notorious_BMC]

I skimmed the first page of this thread but I'm not going to read all 13 pages so pardon me if I reiterate a previous vantage. Also, I don't know if Bob reads these threads so I suppose I'm typing this for my own satisfaction.

Bob, I'm disappointed. I'm not a follower of your movie reviews but I have become a follower of your Big Picture. Your nerd dissertation, comic book exposé, and cap'n spandex shindig were all engaging. This... sure, you may have exposed the uninformed to concepts which they were unfamiliar. But, actually addressing anything significant about the real controversy you brought up? I fail to find substance.

Stating the modern progression of Darwin and Mendel's work hardly touches upon the issues at the core controversy of genetic engineering. Terminator seed, bleached vs whole grain flour, cloning, pharmaceutical efficacy vs side effect. These are the types of measurable, debatable, moral and ethical considerations that come into play when genetic modification is brought to the table. I'm not here to argue in favor of the scientific enhancement of our species or against the bastardization of all things natural. I'd simply like for you to touch upon real points of controversy the next time you want to spend four minutes and fifty-six seconds tackling issues of more substance than nerds, comic books, and martians.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Entertaining as it was informative, that was a pretty cool little short. Thank you, Bob.

And massive kudos for use of anything from "Gremlins2".

 

[Giddi]

I agree with pretty much all of this video, but I have to take issue with one thing you said. Defibrillation doesn't work on "dead" things. It only works on certain types of electrical rhythms. This tissue is alive. It's just not functioning properly.

I always get irritated when I see people applying the paddles to someone who's flat-lining in television programs. You don't shock asystole. You shock ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia.

Just thought I'd put my two cents in.

damn you, i was coming here to say:

Defibrillation doesn't restart hearts, it stabilises cardiac rhythms.

but you were more accurate ;o)

 

[scarab7]

I've noticed that there have been several posts about people not knowing about genetically modified food and controversy surrounding it. Well if you want a good idea what people are arguing about, just read the long posts.

 

[LuisEz]

nice data with the purple carrot, i feel wiser. everybody is gonna freak out with science, because few people actually understand it. my grandfather used to breed superior kinds of llamas (im from peru) and alpacas. now, we impregnate the females with superior sperms to breed alpacas with more wool.

so, why dont do it to make better food? nice topic bob. cheers from Peru.

edit: and by the way, in peru, everything is modified, grapes with out seeds, watermellons without seed, mandarins with out seed, bigger blueberries and over 5000 kinds of potatos.