Pro-GMO science deniers don't believe in natural selection

[eridani]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/gmo-science-deniers-monsanto-and-the-usda_b_6904606.html

If half of our nation's cropland is doused year after year with a particular herbicide, that is a significant change in the environment. The accompanying problem of adaptation and selection has probably already occurred to you. Wouldn't that massive increase in Roundup use over that huge a portion of our cropland cause some weed populations to develop resistance? Wouldn't weeds with natural resistance thrive in this new environment? Wouldn't these new "superweeds" eventually become a major problem for U.S. farmers, overrunning their crops?

As government regulators were considering whether to approve these plants in the mid-1990s, they asked Monsanto just that question. No doubt considering the billions they were going to make selling more Roundup, this is a moment when Monsanto's scientists seemed to find it convenient to their bottom line to deny basic evolutionary science. They stated, "Evolution of weed resistance to glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) appears to be an unlikely event." They also suggested that massive use of Roundup would lead to "no resistant weeds." Independent scientists were aghast. They mocked Monsanto's view that Roundup was somehow "invincible" from the laws of natural selection, and pointed out that the company's scientists purposely ignored numerous studies that showed there would be weed resistance. But incredibly, despite the strong contrary evidence, the USDA regulators just nodded in science denying agreement with Monsanto.

Of course, adaptation and natural selection did take place. As a result, in less than 20 years, more than half of all U.S. farms have some Roundup resistant "superweeds," weeds that now infest 70 million acres of U.S farmland, an area the size of Wyoming. Each year we see major expansion of this "superweed" acreage. Texas has gone so far as to declare a state of emergency for cotton farmers. Superweeds are already causing major economic problems for farmers with a current estimate of $1 billion lost in damages to crops so far.

Last year in a panel discussion with Robert Fraley, Chief Technology Officer for Monsanto and a founder of these herbicide tolerant crops, I confronted him. How could he and the other Monsanto scientists have claimed that natural selection would not take place? How could they ignore basic evolutionary science and clear contrary evidence? He just shook his head and said "You're right, weeds have evolved resistance." But apparently, Monsanto and their government regulators still haven't learned this third grade science lesson. They're denying science once again, and the stakes are even higher.

[djean111]

1. To be fair, they DO conflate evolution with "scientific" gene insertion, when it seems convenient

and/or they think they will not be questioned.

[bananas]

2. They knew about it, they lied. .nt

[Enthusiast]

3. This was entirely predictable.

Contrary to Monsanto's assertions the same thing could occur with insects, fungus and the various blights. We could completely fuck up the food supply.

[Cha]

4. They don't care one whit about the big picture of our Planet ... just greed greed greed..

and more greed.

Damn them to hell.. they're complicit in making our Earth into one.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

6. The whole system for producing food must be changed.

We are short sighted and will deplete the soil if we do not change the system.

Big ag will destroy us.

[The2ndWheel]

5. I'm pretty sure we want that to be the case though

We don't actually like evolution, or adaptation. We like our own, to a certain extent. As long as it's going in one direction, and everybody is on that same road. But beyond that, if we could stop the process that we call evolution, we would.

[hunter]

7. Oh, some of them know.

And dealing with the "super" weeds, insects, and blights is just another business opportunity for them.

It's a great business model. First you profit making a mess, then you profit dealing with the mess, and in dealing with the first mess, you make another possibly worse mess.

It's the same process the banks use in the international economy, and the military industrial complex uses in international relations, and the pharmaceutical corporations use in medicine.