No, GE crop labeling has failed, and rightfully so. Labels on patented crops were never an issue. Many non-GE crops are also patented. If you don't like them, don't grow them. If you want no interaction of any sort with anything patented, well, good luck with that. Even the non-GMO organic grown with patented stuff from John Deere.

The first sentence says exactly what I already said, which is how inserts overcoming the crop's resistance can lead to an erosion of already provided benefits, which is quite a well documented and easily explained phenomenon. That is very different than the claim that GE crops lead to more insecticide use.

Well, kind of. All genes do that in an outcrossing species (a crop that pollinates others readily, like corn or squash). In a natural population, selection pressure will influence the spread of the gene throughout the population, however, crops are not a natural population. For example, I have seed of blue, red, white, and yellow corn, and seed of all sorts of heirloom squash (orange and lumpy, bright red and smooth, pale and long). How is it possible that each of those still manages to exist, if genes inevitably spread throughout the population? Simple, controlled crossing. Genes inserted though biotechnology are no different. If you are preserving a population of, say, heirloom crops, you don't want any crossing anyway, and if you are simply buying hybrid seed every year, which many farmers do, it doesn't matter what they get crossed with.

That is a misconception. They do not have to withstand 'big doses' of the herbicide; do you honestly think that farmers are spending extra money on seed so they can spend extra money on herbicide? The gene inserted is an alternate form of an enzyme found in all plants; the amount you need to spray is not a 'big dose' but rather enough to kill the weed.

Fair enough, I suppose you have a better method of weed control then? Your options, realistically, are tillage (very damaging to soil health), hand weeding (completely unfeasible), or harsher herbicides. Not good options, but that's what we've got, and if you're going to criticize crops resistant to glyphosate, which is one of the better herbicides out there, you are going to need a viable alternative; this is not a case of herbicide resistant crops versus nothing, it is a case of them or something else.

Well, yes, just like weeds developed resistance to other types of herbicides. This does not mean you don't use them, it means we need to use them better to mitigate resistance by using multiple modes of action instead of over-relying on one mode of action (EPSPS inhibitors in the case of Round-Up). Additionally, conventional breeding is also used to make herbicide resistant crops; are you going to criticize conventional breeding as well?

No one says when hessian fly resistance genes in wheat are overcome by the pest, or when late blight genes in tomato fail (both being non-GE), that it means conventional breeding is of questionable benefit. But when the GE crops have the same problems non-GE crops do, then suddenly they're of questionable benefit? The problem is people don't know how much they don't know, and rather than assuming maybe there's a reason plant scientists aren't in revolt against genetic engineering, they assume they've got the whole story. Fact is, this is basic population genetics, you apply selection pressure to a large fast reproducing population like pests, weeds, or pathogens, you risk genetic shifts which might not be what we as humans want, and nature really doesn't care if that pressure is coming from breeding, genetic engineering, chemical controls, or what. You are using a universal problem as an argument against a specific thing.

Yep. People oppose the various big company made ones, claiming they don't like big companies. But then they'll also oppose things like the Arctic Apple (developed by a small company), the Rainbow papaya (developed by the University of Hawai'i), Golden Rice (developed by non-profit International Rice Research Institute), and Honeysweet plum (developed by the USDA), among plenty of other examples. Many will oppose university, NGO, and government developed GE crops, then say it's just about Monsanto...not buying that. Even this wheat in question was publicly funded and developed by Rothamsted Research,and what happened? This group called Take the Flour Back wanted to destroy it, which is better than what happened to CSIRO's publicly funded GE wheat research in Australia, where some book burners from Greenpeace successfully did destroy the research. All that aside, there are plenty of patented non-GE plants which vary rarely encounter controversy. The only consistent thing that gets controversy it genetic engineering, not public or private, patented or not. This controversy is not about patents, or quite bluntly any of the other common excuses for opposition to genetic engineering for that matter.

If you don't like patented plants, no one is forcing you to use them. Problem solved. You use the things that were not built on patent royalties, let others pay extra for the things that were, and in 20 years, they're both the same anyway when the patent expires. Isn't that how the patent system is supposed to work, you develop something, recoup your costs (and heaven forbid make a profit), hopefully reinvest into new innovation, then eventually the thing falls to the public? What's wrong with that system? This isn't copyright's 'life of the universe plus 10 years' schtick.

Oh, did they download a car? What was stolen, from whom, by who, and how?

And furthermore, I like how no one ever brings this up when conventional breeding is mentioned...no one ever opposes Honeycrisp, for example, which was once patented (since expired). No one ever says 'Ah, those damned greedy apple breeders, trying to keep their apple breeding program well funded so they can go on to develop new awesome varieties like SnowSweet that otherwise might not even exist!' That alone tells me this has more to do with justifying opposition to genetic engineering than any legitimate gripe with plant patents.

After cursory glance at that, it seems neither of the graphs in the EWG thing you linked to even mention GE. More widely accepted publications tend to say otherwise, depending on the situation.

I also like the part where no one ever explains how insect resistance is supposed to increase insecticide use, but only when that resistance is transgenic. No one would ever argue against conventionally bred resistances, and somehow, once genetic engineering is involved, then the genetic component of integrated pest management (which is to say, select varieties and/or species resistant to your local insect populations as a first line of defense against them, as opposed to chemical controls later) is suddenly a bad thing.

I do love that they mentioned the insects that have overcome the transgenic defenses. Typical anti-GE nonsense: deny the crops help pest problems, meanwhile say the crop resistances are creating selection pressure for resistance overcoming insects (which shows they slept through population genetics), then deny there are benefits, meanwhile say that the resistant pests are a huge problem. I mean, yeah they genuinely are a problem, but because they threaten the benefits we've already gotten.

You're not the only one to notice that; I've seen that too. I've seen some protests here on O'ahu but never been to any, and I certainty don't care to, but I've noticed that there is a large overlap between the two groups. For example, one of the well known activists who wants all the telescopes gone is the same one who played a big role in the banning of genetically engineered taro research and presently supports the anti-GMO groups. IMO, there's a lot of projecting and two minutes of hate tactics to advance the agendas and careers of certain professional activists (and the sovereignty movement) at any cost, at least at the top level anyway, no doubt there must be those who are honest but uninformed, and maybe a small number of people who would still care for their own reasons even if there wasn't a popular bandwagon to jump on. It's kind of ironic considering that UH developed the genetically engineered papaya...the proof that genetic engineering works and evidence that it is not a corporate conspiracy is literally in the local market.

There's plenty in Hawaiian culture worthy of recognition. To say there is no Hawaiian art is just ignorant and wrong, and it is certainty very much alive. Do not mistake the protestors for all of Hawaiian culture, in which there is nothing which that would suggest there is anything wrong with telescopes on Maunakea.

Which is why people took issue with the other telescopes not paying rent yeah? Don't pay rent and you're freeloading; pay rent and you're offering 'bribe' money. Funny how spin can set things up for a no win situation.

Yes, this is true, people should realize that race based Hawaiian nationalism has been a factor in this whole thing. Not like that makes things any better though. If you want to put forward the idea of seceding into an independent nation, then you must derive sovereignty from the will of the people, not genetic happenstance. Holding science which benefits the whole of humanity hostage to promote a power grab makes things no better than 'saving Wakea' or whatever religious justification you care to use, in fact, I'd have much more respect for the appeal to religion. There's a long list of regressive assholes out there who think race should be an important factor in nationalism; do I really need to explain why they're wrong?

Who's being held at gunpoint? Haven't seen that on the news. Unless you're implying something absurd like society should be tied to century old wrongs, in which case, once I'll gotten my 23 and Me ancestry results I'll have a nice long list of people I've never met to demand compensation from. Everyone from a century ago is dead, villains and victims alike. Helping those in need is one thing; demanding special treatment and unique consideration as birthright is something totally different. So, who is being forced to do things against their will now, today?

Astronomers were doing that? Fascinating, do tell. That's a inane thing to say and you know it. Yeah, bad stuff happened in the past, no one is denying that, but two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to promote a thing, do it, be honest, say exactly what you mean, and let it succeed or fail based on its own merit. Attacking something else, making them out to be a villain they're not, in an effort to rally people around you with some us vs them nonsense...well, that's some bullshit politics and everyone knows it.

And the thing that really gets me about all this, is the protestors picked a just target. They decided to attack something they can't legally beat, so when they lose, they can cry oppression or some such nonsense.

Wilma!

Solution: institute class based affirmative action. Affirmative action was instituted in an age after terrible racial discrimination. I disagree with it happening now, but it was a good idea then. How do you help the unfairly disadvantaged without race based policies? Base it on something that makes clear and profound differences in one's opportunities.

Though considering that universities like Harvard actually have legacy policies (aka affirmative action for the rich) I don't expect this anytime soon. Personally, I think there should be an academic boycott of any institute with such regressive policies.

This isn't about the US owning anything; it is about private ownership of something. If a company does make it into space, say to some asteroid or something, and you're telling them what they can and can't do while they're there (like claim mineral rights and mine it), who is trying to own the universe then? The way I see it, if someone can make space exploration profitable, that's great! If you're going to piss & moan about someone making property claims & making money while advancing humanity then I think you're the one with the problem. I don't care how we get to space, as long as it happens. Squabbling over money and ownership does not advance humanity; getting out there does. If this whole thing ever becomes an actual issue, then it means something wonderful is happening.

Bollocks. Religious freedom exists within the bounds of the law, not outside it. It means no one can tell you that you can't do something otherwise legal for religious reasons, not that you get a free pass on illegal activities. You want to pray before meals, preach a certain thing, dress a particular way, wear a religious symbol around your neck, pass out books on the street, cool, that's freedom of religion, and that is part of living in a free society. You want to willingly put your children at risk of potentially fatal diseases (otherwise known as child neglect) then call it freedom of religion, nope, that's not ever remotely similar and that's not what freedom of religion means. Freedom of religion is not a pass to do whatever you want and then call it oppression when someone tries to hold you accountable.

If you want to do stupid things to yourself, that's fine. I'll be the first to complain about liberty and government overstep when laws are passed to protect people from themselves. You want to do something stupid that might result in your own demise, as long as you're not taking anyone else down with you, then have at it. It's none of my concern. However, this is not about what you do to yourself, it is about what you do to others. Child neglect is not a right, and you don't get to put your kids and other kids at risk and then shout 'But religion!' when you are expected to act like a mature reasonable decent human being and demand that the rest of the world respect your excuses as to why you put your kid at risk of easily preventable and potentially serious disease.

I'll let measles be the judge of that.