Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 1) 361

I know this is probably a waste of time, but in case there are people who are interested in something more than bald assertions:

It's pretty easy to make an herbicide. Just make something that's ridiculously toxic and kills stuff. Making a *good* herbicide that just kills plants is a lot harder. Roundup works by preventing a chemical process that happens only in plants and bacteria, which is pretty damned specific. Its toxicity to mammals is incredibly low, especially relative to the quantities it's used in as an herbicide. It's *possible* that it may have a chronic affect by damaging your gut flora, but in terms of what it actually does to you, it's pretty damned inert. Find me an example of a reasonably useful herbicide that's less toxic to humans.

Of course, it's made by MONSANTO, so it must be a super-duper-double-secret conspiracy to give us autism or something. Anybody who points to the actual toxicity data is just a shill, and anonymous trolls who toss off one-liners have the real truth.

Comment Re:Bold ingenuity? (Score 1) 234

Letting the water price float out here wouldn't be primarily about residential users. Even at the lowest tier price, residential users pay far more for water than the average price across all uses. Letting the price float in California would mainly bite the agricultural users, who currently consume most of the water and pay a tiny fraction of the residential rate for it. Letting that rate to go a market price would solve our water problem, very likely without any more real changes to residential usage one way or another. There just aren't that many rich people with lawns to make a difference one way or another when you compare it to the cost of running big farms in the desert.

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 1) 361

Do you have anything of substance to offer or do you simply parrot Monsanto's talking points?

I'm sorry, who are you? Did I miss you making an actual argument addressing anything I said somewhere? If so, I'm sorry.

1/3 of the posts in this story are you posting corporate drivel.

I don't know, your posting "Nuh uh!" after all of my posts could skew the numbers a little bit. If we keep it up we'll asymptotically approach 50% each.

Hopefully you also get sprayed with round up along with all the other Monsanto employees.

I'm not even in the biotech or agriculture industry. I just find pseudoscience fascinating, so I end up in threads about young earth creationism, anti vaccine nonsense, hilarious audiophile products, etc. The GMO debate has proved to be a rich source of all sorts of interesting half-truths, passionate ignorance, and general nutbaggery.

Unfortunately, while the creationists on /. come up with fascinating and engaging rationalizations in the face of overwhelming evidence, the anti-GMO people here seem to mostly just shout "Shill!" while arguments bounce right off them. It's like doing a card trick for an audience of housecats.

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 1) 361

The only reason to use Monsanto's GM seeds is so you can spray poison on it.

Errr... you do know that there are other GM crops beyond herbicide tolerant ones, right? Like Bt corn, golden rice, and ringspot virus tolerant papaya? And a whole litany of other products coming down the pipeline that have nothing to do with herbicide one way or another? "You have to use chemicals" isn't true in any meaningful sense. It's peripherally related to some part of the subject, but for God's sake, it's not even technically correct enough to be called "true but misleading."

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 1) 361

Joy.

Well, if people watching the debate see factual points made on one side and "Keep shillin', dipshit" on the other, I suppose that's pretty good. I guess "shill" is the grown up hackey sack circle equivalent of "poopyhead" and they just don't realize it's not seen as a devastating comeback outside their own clique.

Comment Re:Back to stone age food? (Score 2) 361

Stop perpetuating Big Corp lies. Selective breeding is not the same thing as genetically modifying. The latter involves transferring genes directly, typically from other species. You know that. Stop the lies. I would give you 100 trollop points if I had them.

That's right. And simple selective breeding and hybridization just means mashing together entire genomes (often across species) to get the one trait you want. Surely there's no chance of any unexpected traits that way. Totally under control, right?

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 1) 361

I keep hearing this "insect-resistant crops mean less insecticide" argument.

And yet pesticide use in North America has risen exponentially over the past two decades, as GM crops have taken off. (Source: EPA.) So I put that argument firmly in the "pro-IP propaganda" bucket.

Well, your data source doesn't seem to cover two decades. Two years is what I see.

But your problem here is that you started with "insecticide" (which is what insect resistant crops would reduce) and jumped to "pesticides" which is a superset that includes herbicides and fungicides (which insect resistant crops would not affect at all). If you look just at the insecticide field in your own data set, you'll notice that it dropped from 2006 to 2007. If you want to grab 20 years' worth of data, we can look over it, but I'm guessing that the majority of the general pesticide use growth is in herbicides, just like it is for the two year window in that document.

Now to be fair, the increased herbicide use is almost certainly glyphosate used in concert with Roundup Ready crops. Those crops definitely increase herbicide use. But it's a pretty benign herbicide

Comment Re:Has anyone posted a link to this article yet? (Score 1) 361

You and a whole bunch of others are missing the point entirely. We don't NEED to or even HAVE to produce MORE food. WASTE is the problem. If we produce a GMO rice that yields 40% more product, it won't fucking matter because that is going in the trash!

1) Not every place has so much food that they can afford to let it go to waste the way we can.
2) Food waste is not the only problem GM crops can solve. Disease resistance (e.g. the papayas in Hawaii) helps make more efficient use of resources and prevent catastrophic collapse of farms or even full industries. Vitamin foritifcation (e.g. golden rice) can help prevent disease in areas where food variety is limited. Pest resistance can reduce the use of insecticide. Lowering water usage is another possible benefit. There are a bunch of others that are potentially out there as well (e.g. a peanut that doesn't trigger peanut allergies).
3) Even if you don't need more food, a 40% increase in yield would potentially mean a substantial decrease in land, labor, or other resources required to produce the same amount of food.

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 2) 361

The GM foods that Monsanto are producing involve gene splicing with Glyphosphates, which is a main ingredient in their Round-Up weed killer.

This is one of those sentences that doesn't inspire confidence in the technical accuracy of what's to follow. Kind of like talking about sending your kid "an internet."

The World Health Organization has just announced that glyphosphates are known carcinogens.

You mean they've classified it in a class of carcinogens that includes "emissions from high temperature frying" and not quite in the class that includes "sawdust." Lots of things are probably carcinogenic. The question is how seriously carcinogenic they are and whether they're toxic in other ways. And all of that is assuming that you want to take this one agency's conclusions over the conclusions of a bunch of other agencies that reached a different one.

The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.

Working...