This is going nowhere - you're being deliberately obtuse, clearly don't know what you're talking about, and I think the comments so far stand for themselves. Last post, because there are some points I have to answer.
> That is, you're using "facts" to mislead in very much the same way that Monsanto does. What's your affiliation with them or related companies?
I have no affiliation with Monsanto or any related company. I've never, to my knowledge, met or corresponded with anyone who works for them. I've very deliberately avoided doing so because I want to remain impartial in my role as a plant scientist. My research is funded by the Millennium Seed Bank, a conservation organisation.
>...you are flailing about between arguments...you are arguing both sides...
I'm just presenting the facts, there are no sides, there is just the simple fact that the total rate of herbicide resistance has decreased. If you're incapable of seeing that it is possible for all the things I've said to be true then I don't know what to suggest.
>what happens when we have herbicide-resistant GMOs for every herbicide in significant use?
Then we need to use less herbicide to achieve the same effect, because we can apply it directly to the crop after planting, killing the emerged weeds. With other herbicides, they have to be applied pre-emergence, sterilising the soil, which requires larger doses. Secondarily, there's no way we will have GMOs resistant to every herbicide that are currently in significant use because many of the older, more harmful ones will soon be illegal.
>You keep calling it safe but, as is often the case with chemicals meant to kill, the independent research is calling these safety claims into serious question.
I'm calling it safe relative to other herbicides. To feed everyone, herbicides have to be used. These chemicals are meant to kill plants, although some of the older ones has non-specific modes of action that might also harm animals. Glyphosate in particular targets a protein, ESPS synthase, that only exists in plants and microorganisms. It's been extensively tested and, you are wrong, there is not research calling the safety claims into question - the safety rating of glyphosate accurately reflects the state of knowledge. If you're seriously interested, just read the literature. Everything you're saying just demonstrates that you're not taking your information from the literature. A good start is the GENERA database of independently-funded studies on GMOs[0].
>The result is that we just don't know when we've reached a tipping point until it's too late.
This is true for absolutely anything. Wearing clothes, watching TV, fluorescent lighting, using a toilet, eating organic food, eating GMOs, and so on. We have to use short-term studies to infer safety.
>It boggles my mind when scientists, of all people, show little regard for the complexity of the human organism and make such cavalier statements about the safety of consuming chemicals that are intended to kill.
Nothing is more important to me than human wellbeing. It's what I've dedicated my life to, for very low pay, and I work incredibly hard to a) develop the technology to allow us to alleviate hunger and b) maintain a thorough understanding of the working of the agricultural system and its implications. The reason your mind seems to be boggled is because you're leaping to conclusions without understanding the system you're talking about.
And I suppose that, like you, I have trouble letting your last bit stand. So, I will just summarize and be done with it.
You started by making a blanket statement that was categorically false and misleading. Then, rather than acknowlege that you misspoke, you dug in and defended it to the end. You never even acknowledged that you were now qualifying your initial statement. But, it's me who is being deliberately obtuse? OK.
And, here, you are making still more claims that are simply untrue or misleading, as well as making trite arguments. Comparing wearing clothes, using a toilet, etc. to consuming herbicides? Come on, man.
You are also deliberately taking examples meant to illustrate points to extremes to set up strawmen. Attempting an earnest discussion is frustrating. Perhaps consider that you may be so passionate that you are dismissive of any ideas (and possibly some facts) that contradict your beliefs.
And, if you are truly interested in educating people, then perhaps, at a minimum, you might also consider how you present facts and draw conclusions. For instance, as just one example, you might reconsider how making unqualified statements, such as your initial one here declaring that GMOs are completely independent of the resistance problem might be misleading, especially to laymen. Then, you might consider how making such glaring and apparently apologetic misstatements in a charged environment might lead to questions about your motives (of which you seem to get many) or, at the least, diminish the effectiveness of your efforts to educate.
In short, maybe it's not everyone else. Maybe it's you.
> That is, you're using "facts" to mislead in very much the same way that Monsanto does. What's your affiliation with them or related companies?
I have no affiliation with Monsanto or any related company. I've never, to my knowledge, met or corresponded with anyone who works for them. I've very deliberately avoided doing so because I want to remain impartial in my role as a plant scientist. My research is funded by the Millennium Seed Bank, a conservation organisation.
>...you are flailing about between arguments...you are arguing both sides...
I'm just presenting the facts, there are no sides, there is just the simple fact that the total rate of herbicide resistance has decreased. If you're incapable of seeing that it is possible for all the things I've said to be true then I don't know what to suggest.
>what happens when we have herbicide-resistant GMOs for every herbicide in significant use?
Then we need to use less herbicide to achieve the same effect, because we can apply it directly to the crop after planting, killing the emerged weeds. With other herbicides, they have to be applied pre-emergence, sterilising the soil, which requires larger doses. Secondarily, there's no way we will have GMOs resistant to every herbicide that are currently in significant use because many of the older, more harmful ones will soon be illegal.
>You keep calling it safe but, as is often the case with chemicals meant to kill, the independent research is calling these safety claims into serious question.
I'm calling it safe relative to other herbicides. To feed everyone, herbicides have to be used. These chemicals are meant to kill plants, although some of the older ones has non-specific modes of action that might also harm animals. Glyphosate in particular targets a protein, ESPS synthase, that only exists in plants and microorganisms. It's been extensively tested and, you are wrong, there is not research calling the safety claims into question - the safety rating of glyphosate accurately reflects the state of knowledge. If you're seriously interested, just read the literature. Everything you're saying just demonstrates that you're not taking your information from the literature. A good start is the GENERA database of independently-funded studies on GMOs[0].
>The result is that we just don't know when we've reached a tipping point until it's too late.
This is true for absolutely anything. Wearing clothes, watching TV, fluorescent lighting, using a toilet, eating organic food, eating GMOs, and so on. We have to use short-term studies to infer safety.
>It boggles my mind when scientists, of all people, show little regard for the complexity of the human organism and make such cavalier statements about the safety of consuming chemicals that are intended to kill.
Nothing is more important to me than human wellbeing. It's what I've dedicated my life to, for very low pay, and I work incredibly hard to a) develop the technology to allow us to alleviate hunger and b) maintain a thorough understanding of the working of the agricultural system and its implications. The reason your mind seems to be boggled is because you're leaping to conclusions without understanding the system you're talking about.
I'm out.
0. http://www.biofortified.org/genera/guide/