• Dan

    Dude-

    Appreciate your passion but you’re off the mark. Let’s just take GM sugarbeets for instance. They have a cp4 epsps gene which expresses this protein, thus making it tolerant to glyphosate. This protein is 1 amino acid different then the endogenous epsps, thus it’s binding affinity for glyphosate is reduced. This in turn means the plant can use this important precursor (i.e. cp4 epsps, which people don’t have or need) to make all the downstream proteins it needs. In an unmodified plant the endogenous epsps simply binds to glyphosate and is unavailable to the production of downstream proteins.

    Now, without getting into huge volumes of bioinformatics or digestive fate studies already done on cp4 epsps, which again is only 1 amino acid different than endogenous, and has been conclusively demonstrated to be safe, you do realize that none of this protein would be in the sugar right? it’s sugar. Sugar is sugar. there’s nothing else to it.

    Glyphosate breaks down readily in the soil and is nontoxic. It’s increased use has meant a dramatic reduction in the use of more harmful and less effective herbicides. it has also facilitated no-till farming which decreases erosion and thus non-point source pollution. Likewise Bts have decreased the use of sprayed pesticides. Places like the Chesapeake Bay have benefited from these kinds of modern practices.

  • http://www.JoeMohrToons.com Joe Mohr

    Dude,
    I do not work for Monsanto, nor do I have your bio background. BUT, it’s your last paragraph that bothers me–all of your points in that paragraph have been proved wrong, or are in the process (more studies to the contrary) of being proved wrong.

    It’s obvious that anyone who gets on a Monsanto post and defends Monsanto has either ties to Monsanto or biotech.

    No critical independent thinker would say “YES! I prefer biotechnology and all of its consequences and implications, over organic food.” The effects on soil and water alone destroy the myth of GMOs being good for us. Even if the crop is similar (it’s not) I (a critical, independent thinker) would prefer not to have depleted soil, toxic soil and water, and the emergence of SUPERWEEDS (which will require Monsanto to throw on another toxic “solution”).

    Save your bio talk for the Monsanto water cooler. You gain NO ground here!

    Another comment on this topic is worthless. If you’d like to start another dialogue, here’s an opener–”What’s to be done about Monsanto’s many Superfund sites?” (i’m sure they are just one amino acid away from being nothing at all…)

    Peace.

  • Dan

    if you can’t understand the science, then how do you know the studies disprove anything? I’m sure you’re a smart guy who clearly cares about the environment. learn the science, then read the petitions and the data submitted to governments for their review, not just stuff that reaffirms an already held opinion that is not grounded technically (which i guess is “biotalk”- sounds like a Palinism…)

  • http://www.joemohrtoons.com Joe Mohr

    I don’t know how caffeine works inside my body, but I know it makes me alert. I don’t know how atom bombs work but I’m aware of their effect. I don’t know what’s going on under the keyboard I’m typing on but I know I am replying to your insightful response (which is not about Superfund Sites, btw)…

    To imply that I cannot understand the results of a study because I’m not a biotech engineer is just one amino acid away from being silly.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Deborah-Crincoli/100002188568879 Deborah Crincoli

    So then why is Monsanto so afraid to LABLE THE SHIT?  Lable all GMO seeds, crops and produce . . . let the free market decide!