11/7/2014 New Yorker editor responds to Vandana Shiva criticism of ’s profile | Genetic Literacy Project

Subscribe to Our Daily or Weekly Newsletter Follow 515 Like 6.9k Follow 2,778 followers Enter Your Email Address →

Search

About Human Biotech Gallery Gene-ius Resources Browse Select Language ​ ▼

New Yorker editor David Remnick responds to Browse By Related Articles Authors Vandana Shiva Vandana Shiva criticism of Michael Specter’s Tags scandal deepens, as Sources Beloit College profile or try our Advanced Search botches response to David Remnick | September 2, 2014 | New Yorker criticism More from this Source 1.9K 598 86 47 Who's who? 'David New Yorker and Goliath' roles mixed up in West In the August 18, 2014 The How Vietnam War vets aid in brain Australian Marsh v research Baxter case New Yorker magazine, in Immunotherapy represents an “Seeds of Doubt,” Michael entirely new strategy for cancer treatments European Network Specter profiled the work of the Michael Specter discusses his of Scientists for environmental activist Vandana profile of Vandana Shiva Social and Don't need much sleep? Thank your Environmental Shiva, who for many years has genes. Responsibility led a campaign against Most GMO label supporters don't (ENSSER) really support 'right to know' genetically modified crops. Vandana Shiva by Michael Specter: Vandana Shiva by Demagogue or visionary? Michael Specter: Feminist group struggles with Demagogue or On August 26, Vandana Shiva defining 'woman,' accusations of visionary? responded with a scathing transphobia Is susceptibility to procrastination rebuttal, posting “SEEDS OF genetic? Should Science and One family, one kid with a one-of-a- TRUTH–A RESPONSE TO Nature run kind disease advertorial by wacky ” on her website, commenting: What neuroscience can tell us about Dr. Bronner's that PTSD and how to rewrite our memories misleads on GMOs? Orchard of knowledge: Artist will I wonder why a journalist who has been Bureau Chief in Moscow insert Wikipedia's catalog into DNA Who is Vandana for The New York Times and Bureau Chief in New York for of apple trees Shiva and why is Debating GMOs: Anti Michael Pollan she saying such the Washington Post, and clearly is an experienced reporter, would and plant scientist Pam Ronald awful things about break new ground with dialogue GMOs? submit such a misleading piece. Or why The New Yorker would allow it What de-extinction can't bring back FDA v. personal genetic testing to be published as honest reporting, with so many fraudulent assertions Should human What's wrong with Jeremy Seifert's genes be patented? and deliberate attempts to skew reality. "GMO OMG"

Today The New Yorker released its response to Dr. Shiva sent on August 27. Vandana Shiva The New Yorker originally intended this to be private communication to address concerns she had expressed to its editors in private emails but decided to release it after Dr. Shiva published her criticism. We reproduce it unedited in its entirety as sent to the GLP by The New Yorker: Reporter David Dobbs revises Dear Dr. Shiva: 'selfish gene' coverage under fire

This is in reply to the letter you sent and subsequently posted on the Internet earlier this week. It is not for publication in any way or on your Understanding the war on GMOs website, but I thought you were asking for a serious reply. So here it is: I should say that since you have said that the entire scientific establishment has been bought and paid for by , I fear it will be difficult to converse meaningfully about your accusation that the story contained “fraudulent assertions and deliberate attempts to skew reality.” But maybe I am wrong; I’ll try.

As to some of your more specific problems: Mr. Specter met you in the lobby of your New York hotel; you then talked in a café in that hotel. He didn’t interview you in the lobby. I regret that we suggested you were in Greece when you were not. You did, however, invite Mr. Specter to join the caravan there, and then sent him to an informational site titled: International Solidarity Caravan with Vandana Shiva. The dates on the site were April 26th to May 4th and it gave as locations: Greece, Italy, France.

Part of the problem is that after encouraging Mr. Specter to travel with you both in Italy and India, you apparently changed your mind, and http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/02/new-yorker-editor-david-remnick-responds-to-vandana-shiva-criticism-of-michael-specters-profile/ 1/11 11/7/2014 New Yorker editor David Remnick responds to Vandana Shiva criticism of Michael Specter’s profile | Genetic Literacy Project stopped replying to his interview requests (or emails.) Our fact checker also tried for more than a week to contact you directly, as well as through your headquarters in New . You never replied. Without any participation from you it was impossible to know you changed your plans. Mr. Specter never suggested that the journey was an “unscientific joyride.”

You also charge that Mr. Specter misrepresented your education. We were interested in the field you entered as a doctoral student; but nobody disputes that you received a master’s degree in physics and I am sorry we didn’t note that in the piece. Nonetheless, Mr. Specter “twisted” neither your words nor your intentions when writing about your work history. When he realized you were not going to grant him another interview he sent you a quite detailed list of questions, two of which asked about your work history as a physicist. Instead of answering his questions, you replied – to me – asking why we were “interested in academic qualifications of four decades ago.

One hardly needs to hold a Ph.D. in physics to become an effective environmental activist, as you have demonstrated. Yet, when a prominent figure, such as yourself, is described for decades—in interviews, on web sites, in award citations, and on many of your own book jackets, as having been “one of India’s leading physicists” it seems fair to ask whether or not you ever worked as one.

It is not true, as you claim, that Mr. Specter neglected to include Africa in his piece. He discussed research in Africa on , cassava, and maize – which he described as the most commonly grown staple crop in Africa. He mentioned Tanzania’s efforts to produce a version of cassava that is resistant to endemic brown-streak virus, as well as research into insect-resistant cowpea and nutritionally enriched sorghum. Specter also quoted Sir Gordon Conway, who is a member of the board of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, and perhaps the world’s most renowned agricultural ecologist. “In Africa, the pests and diseases of agriculture are as devastating as human diseases.” Conway also told Specter that the impact of diseases like the fungus black sigatoka, the parasitic weed striga, and the newly identified syndrome maize lethal necrosis—all of which attack Africa’s most important crops—are “in many instances every bit as deadly as H.I.V. and TB.”

Your math and conclusions on the issues of farmer suicides and seed prices and values differ from the math in studies carried out by many independent, international and government organizations. Mr. Specter is far from alone in rejecting, based on data, your charge that Monsanto is responsible for “genocide” in India. In your letter you state that “Specter promotes a system of agriculture that fails to deliver on its promises of higher yield and lower costs and propagates exploitation.” This has always been your position, but as Mr. Specter pointed out in his article, there have been many studies on the effects of planting in India, and on the whole, scientists – none of whom were connected to Monsanto –have found the opposite to be true.

You say that the prices of seeds are extremely high, but also that as a result of your action the government regulates their price. Several recent studies have shown that Bt cotton has been highly beneficial to cotton farmers in India. One of the best recent studies on the economic impact of Bt cotton on farmers found that “Bt has caused a 24% increase in cotton yield per acre through reduced pest damage and a 50% gain in cotton profit among smallholders. These benefits are stable; there are even indications that they have increased over time.’’ The researchers also show that Bt cotton adoption has raised expenditures, a common measure of household living standard, by 18% during the 2006–2008 period and conclude that Bt cotton has created large and sustainable benefits, which contribute to positive economic and social development in India.

You describe in your letter the stories of farmers who you believe were driven to suicide by Monsanto. Specter saw different farmers with http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/02/new-yorker-editor-david-remnick-responds-to-vandana-shiva-criticism-of-michael-specters-profile/ 2/11 11/7/2014 New Yorker editor David Remnick responds to Vandana Shiva criticism of Michael Specter’s profile | Genetic Literacy Project different stories. Anecdotes involving a few people out of millions prove nothing. That was why he included the following sentence in his piece: “It would be presumptuous to generalize about the complex financial realities of India’s two hundred and sixty million farmers after having met a dozen of them.” The anecdotes happened, however, to support the vast preponderance of data that demonstrate that farmer suicides are driven largely by debt.

In the piece, Mr. Specter wrote that you had confused “a correlation with a causation.” That was specifically in reference to your charges that glyphosate caused increases in Alzheimer’s, diabetes, kidney disease and autism rates in America. But you have applied the phrase to another issue entirely.

On a few of the other points you raise:

1.) The Orissa Cyclone occurred in the last week of October 1999. Specter referred to letters from you and , both of which are freely available on the internet. It might also be noted that your letter to Oxfam was dated November 4th, the day after the worst of the cyclone had passed.

2.) Corn is considered both a grain, and a vegetable (and by some, a fruit.)

3.) Specter used the anecdote about the farmer and the elephant to illustrate the remarkable complexity and clear signs of progress evident in even the most rural parts of India. Having been to India many times, several of them for this magazine, he is well aware how ubiquitous cell phones are there.

4.) We take particular exception to your charge that Mr. Specter’s physical description of a farmer, with “skin the color of burnt molasses and the texture of a worn saddle” was racist. It wasn’t. In a 2005 profile he described the Italian designer Valentino this way: “Valentino spends a lot of time in the sun. His skin, the color of melted caramel, has the texture of a lovingly preserved Etruscan ruin.” Last year, Specter described a sixty-eight year old American farmer as having “ a tan, weather beaten face.”

Dr. Shiva, I was distressed to read in your letter that you have been harassed and have received death threats. Nobody has a right to threaten you for expressing your views. It was all the more dismaying then, to learn that just a few weeks ago you posted on your web site a suggestion, made by Mike Adams, who runs the NaturalNews web site, that publishers, journalists, and scientists who support agricultural have “signed on to the Nazi genocide machine of our day”, and that they should be “tried for crimes against humanity.” I am glad to see that you have now removed that awful screed from your web site.

Sincerely,

David Remnick

********

NOTE: For additional context, read the Genetic Literacy Project’s backgrounder on Vandana Shiva–a complete history of her campaigns and views. Also check out the GLP’s in-depth profile of Shiva: Who is Vandana Shiva and why is she saying such awful things about GMOs?

Posted in: Biotechnology | Crops & Food | Featured Articles | Featured: Agriculture | GeneTrends | GeneTrends: Agriculture | Green Genes & | Regulation &

Your Disqus account has been created! Learn d more about using Disqus on your favorite Get Started communities. http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/02/new-yorker-editor-david-remnick-responds-to-vandana-shiva-criticism-of-michael-specters-profile/ 3/11 11/7/2014 New Yorker editor David Remnick responds to Vandana Shiva criticism of Michael Specter’s profile | Genetic Literacy Project communities.

Dismiss × 252 Comments Genetic Literacy Project 2 klausammann

Sort by Best Share ⤤ Favorite ★

Join the discussion…

V.K.V.RAVICHANDRAN • 2 months ago Thanks for replying to the misleading criticism of Michael Specter's profile by Vandana Siva . I am one of the millions of cotton farmers benefited by growing Bt Cotton in India. We the farmers would roll out the red carpet to welcome any good technology if it is really beneficial to us. If it isn't we have the courage and wisdom to show the exit gate.The fact that more than 95% of cotton grown in India are Bt Cotton ,stands as a testimony to the robustness of the technology.( Both Bt Cotton and non Bt Cotton are available for cultivation ). Dr Vandana Siva poses as if this science is the exclusive right of Monsanto. Our Indian Scientists have successfully researched upon and developed indigenous technology by incorporating various desirable traits in various Crops, which are awaiting clearance for field trials. 158 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

This comment was deleted.

V.K.V.RAVICHANDRAN > Gaurav Singh • 2 months ago Gauravji, from your reply it is clear that you have grossly mistaken our farmers to be rustic and uneducated lot.I suggest you to visit some villages and interact with farmers first. I am sure you will change your preconceived notion about our farmers.If you wish ,you are most welcome to our place and I will introduce you to lot of farmers who are well informed and knowledgeable. Please don't trivialize our farmers.We support the technologies that benefit us in the farm front, no matter where it comes from. We the farmers sincerely wish indigenous GMO Technologies are developed by our Indian scientists.But the anti development activists side track the issue and veto the efforts of our own scientists through flimsy arguments and rumor mongering tactics.Sir please let me know whether you would refrain from using a technology including computer,cell phones etc simply because they originated in a foreign land? Why do you marginalize farmers alone? 70 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

amartya Saha > V.K.V.RAVICHANDRAN • 2 months ago Sure, some farmers with large landholdings, or a few urban folk-turned farmers have computers and internet access. The majority do not. And I include dalits and tribals and poor folks as farmers. I am not against biotech, but against a few entities have control over seeds. 14 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Gaurav Singh > V.K.V.RAVICHANDRAN • 2 months ago Mr Ravichandran,

Not being able to read and speak in english, or not reading uncle sam's new yorker magazine is NOT equivalent to being rustic, ill-informed, or illiterate.

This is exactly the kind of prejuidice, class distinction, and language apartheid a typical urban bred brahmin middle class person would be born and raised up with.

I don't need your invitation to do a 'village tour'.I know and work with too many farmers whose land http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/02/new-yorker-editor-david-remnick-responds-to-vandana-shiva-criticism-of-michael-specters-profile/ 4/11 11/7/2014 New Yorker editor David Remnick responds to Vandana Shiva criticism of Michael Specter’s profile | Genetic Literacy Project know and work with too many farmers whose land holding is the size of an 'american home backyard', as Specter put it condescendingly in his article, (and indirectly trying to indicate that Monsanto's GMO stuff will help rescue them). 24 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

AtariBaby > Gaurav Singh • 2 months ago It seems you also have a great misunderstanding of American society, if you presume that "The New Yorker" is under the control of "Uncle Sam". 38 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

chitral > AtariBaby • 2 months ago Oh that is a very common impression that most people living in India have. Having been fed the socialist mantra starting with the first PM and still continuing today, most Indians believe that the Govt. runs everything. This is because in India the Govt. does run many businesses (almost all running losses for decades) and has its hand in everything leading to widespread corruption. 9 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Josh Mo > AtariBaby • 18 days ago Drop the hype. It may not be under the control of Uncle Sam but it definitely genuflects deeply to its corporate masters. In other words it is controlled by corporate media. Same thing different bosses. 4 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

maodeedee > Josh Mo • 9 days ago Who is Uncle Sam? The Obama administration? They are most definitely in bed with wall street, the banks, and those corporations who they favor. 3 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Josh Mo > AtariBaby • 6 hours ago If you think its not (despite occasional flurries of hand-wringing), then you have a deep misunderstanding of embedded media and its progeny. △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

chitral > Gaurav Singh • 2 months ago What a piece of crock. The last vestige of a person who cannot make a sensible argument - label the person 'a brahmin' if that is not apartheid (reverse may be) then what is. What relevance does his language have ? Bring up valid arguments before disputing science and progress. It is a well known fact that more farmers in India commit suicide because of crippling debt. That is a fact if you needed an example. The problem of GM seeds upsetting the current economic model (hardly discernible in the current mostly Govt. supported form) may be real but needs to be state such. But don't blame the lamb sipping water downstream. 6 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Josh Mo > Gaurav Singh • 18 days ago Gaurav i fully agree with your characterization. 1 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

TsuDhoNimh > Gaurav Singh • 2 months ago And just as clearly, a person who reads and responds in English to a comment on the internet is also very far from the millions of farmers who are cultivating BT cotton. This response is a troll response, most probably paid for by Vandana Shiva and her organization. . 67 △ ▽ • Reply • Share › http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/02/new-yorker-editor-david-remnick-responds-to-vandana-shiva-criticism-of-michael-specters-profile/ 5/11 11/7/2014 New Yorker editor David Remnick responds to Vandana Shiva criticism of Michael Specter’s profile | Genetic Literacy Project

Gaurav Singh > TsuDhoNimh • 2 months ago ha ha. Well tried at aping my response (Shows lack of any originality in your rebuttal though, and betryas a hint of frustration as well).

So well tried, but only that a. I did not claim to be a farmer and b. unlike Maonsanto, Vandana Shiva does not have money to pay to trolls.. 12 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Camiel Ledderhof > Gaurav Singh • 2 months ago So in your mind no Bt Cotton farmer in India A. speaks or writes English and B. has an internet connection and C. has had any succes in farming Bt Cotton? And if he/she had succes in farming and wanted to share that with the rest of the English speaking world they are automatically a Monsanto troll?

And it seems that Vandana Shiva's herd is more than willing to troll for free. 40 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

V.K.V.RAVICHANDRAN > Camiel Ledderhof • 2 months ago Camiel is right. According to Vandana Siva's supporters, the farmer should not share his views in English and should not use computers. They expect us to remain mute and believe their myths and false hood. I use this platform to share my views to the people who can not understand Tamil. What is wrong in it? In Tamil Nadu, all the 12 th standard students studying in Govt Schools are given Lap Tops Free of Cost by our State Govt. More than 75% of these students are from villages and they use computers. They are the next generation farmers. Will the followers of Vandana Siva, disqualify the next generation farmers simply because they use computers and internet. Don't think the science and technology are the exclusive rights of urbanites. 36 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

jbecket > V.K.V.RAVICHANDRAN • 14 days ago Such misinformation. Vandana Shiva never has said farmers should not use computers. She uses computers on her farm. Nor can imagine her supporters stating that, 1 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Josh Mo > V.K.V.RAVICHANDRAN • 18 days ago --"According to Vandana Siva's supporters, the farmer should not share his views in English and should not use computers."

This is a gross misrepresentation of her supporters and essentially a strawman argument. 1 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Gaurav Singh > Camiel Ledderhof • 2 months ago Oh the white man's burden. 'Making the natives understand what is good for them.

Go eat the GMO shit yourself and feed it to your family Don't push it down our throats and don't treat us as a human laboratory.

And read my response belowabout english and things. I am sure the pathetically fake 'farmer on a http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/02/new-yorker-editor-david-remnick-responds-to-vandana-shiva-criticism-of-michael-specters-profile/ 6/11 11/7/2014 New Yorker editor David Remnick responds to Vandana Shiva criticism of Michael Specter’s profile | Genetic Literacy Project

elephant with a mobile story' REALLY impressed the likes of you. Too bad you and your likes sitting infront of your internet connection buy your of life by browsing through internet articles of the likes of Specter. The likes of me atleast habe first hand experience of living here and breathing what you read about in the new yorkers. 13 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Camiel Ledderhof > Gaurav Singh • 2 months ago That's exactly what we're saying. We think the 'natives' know exactly what's good for them. We do not need to tell them and neither do you.

25 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Josh Mo > Camiel Ledderhof • 18 days ago --"That's exactly what we're saying. We think the natives know exactly what's good for them. "

This reeks of racism. Imperialist scum havent changed much for the last 500 years !! 1 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Camiel Ledderhof > Josh Mo • 17 days ago That was in response to Singh's use of 'natives'. △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Matthew Lashmit > Gaurav Singh • 2 months ago It's cotton you fool. YOU eat it. 19 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

pitriver > Matthew Lashmit • 2 months ago Let's be clear, you WEAR cotton, you do not eat cotton. 14 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Matthew Lashmit > pitriver • 2 months ago Yes, that was the implication, that I would not eat it because it's cotton. 5 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

FarmerJane > Matthew Lashmit • 2 months ago Here in America we feed cotton seed hulls as an additive in our cattle feed. GMO hasn't hurt anyone or anything. GMO seed being dangerous is a myth spread by highly educated idiots that want to think they are smarter than anyone else so everyone else has to do what they say. Nothing more. I'm not even associated with Monsanto in any way, BTW. Just a kid that grew up in a farming community. 6 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Harry McNicholas > FarmerJane • 2 months ago So you must buy seed each year from Monsanto. Correct? You cannot take the seed from the previous years crops? Is that correct? Please let me know. 4 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

daws > Harry McNicholas • a month ago Until the patent wears off correct, you can't save the seeds, that's just part of the contract for buying them. That's what makes spending millions on development and trials somewhat cost effective. The patents are quickly wearing out though, bt cotton's should run out in the next couple years if it hasn't already (development was in the mid 90s). http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/02/new-yorker-editor-david-remnick-responds-to-vandana-shiva-criticism-of-michael-specters-profile/ 7/11 11/7/2014 New Yorker editor David Remnick responds to Vandana Shiva criticism of Michael Specter’s profile | Genetic Literacy Project hasn't already (development was in the mid 90s).

However you -don't- have to buy seed each year from anyone, if you don't like monsanto's contract stipulations you're welcome to go anywhere else. Oddly farmers seeing greater profits with them choose to keep buying them. Strange I know.

But anti-gmo activists know what's better for farmers than the farmers do so... 1 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Harry McNicholas > daws • a month ago A very important part of the contract which you seem to overlook. If I raise corn or any crop where I cannot use the seed produced by the crop, it becomes quite expensive to go back and buy new seeds. Also, studies have shown that the GM plants, which were to reduce the use of pesticides, after a few times the amount of pesticides needed jumped higher than the standard plants. Sorry I will stick to using non GM seeds and put the money back into my pocket. 2 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Josh Mo > Harry McNicholas • 18 days ago Harry ... facts dont matter ... its pretty obvious by now ... its all about who screams loudest △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Jon Entine > Harry McNicholas • a month ago Harry, almost no farmers buy anything but patented seeds, whether you are an organic farmer, conventional or conventional using GE seeds. Corn does not hold true from generation to generation, so almost all corn seeds are bought new each year. You are completely off base on your other points. GM Bt crops have cut pesticide use by 90% because farmers do not have to spray insecticides...check out the latest USDA report. Herbicide use using herbicide resistant crops has resulted in a slight increase in herbicide by weight but a significant decrease in herbicide use by toxicity, which is what we care about. △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Mlema > Jon Entine • a month ago Glyphosate reduces the nitrogen-fixing capabilities of the corn root system. △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Harry McNicholas > Jon Entine • a month ago Sorry but I know many farmers who do not buy patented seeds. They then pick the seeds from their own crop to grow next year without having to purchase new seeds. Also, your comment about pesticides is way off. I suggest you investigate a bit more. Yes, they were designed to use less or no pesticides. However, after a few years the insects adapted and now farmers must use more pesticides. △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Jon Entine > Harry McNicholas • a month ago Harry, with all due respect, you don't appear to know much about about modern farming. Farmers who reuse their seeds get inferior returns. Some may do it, but their yields are less. As for pesticide use and GMOS, you are 100% wrong. http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-... △ ▽ • Reply • Share › http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/02/new-yorker-editor-david-remnick-responds-to-vandana-shiva-criticism-of-michael-specters-profile/ 8/11 11/7/2014 New Yorker editor David Remnick responds to Vandana Shiva criticism of Michael Specter’s profile | Genetic Literacy Project

nickfrisco > daws • 22 days ago Wrong! Monsanto is callously rendering their seeds as one-and-done, a shameless profiteering from the most basic life force in nature. It's utterly criminal and immoral neo-liberalism run amok. 1 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Pryz Fytr > nickfrisco • 9 days ago So ... it's OK if YOU, Nick, aren't paid for YOUR work? Profit is not a dirty word. Greed - the want of UNEARNED wealth, is. △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

nickfrisco > Pryz Fytr • 9 days ago Being paid for one's work is all good and well, but to manipulate the basic mechanics of nature for a profiteering scheme is thoroughly disgusting and immoral. that is, the helpful modifications Monsanto may have engineered do not in any way require the additional one-and-done feature. that's just to attain total control over the earth's farming. Monsanto is Evil incarnate. 2 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Matthew Lashmit > FarmerJane • 2 months ago It's actually NOT true that all GMO seeds aren't dangerous, as corn has been allowed to be modified to produce some potent toxins. As this is an obviously dangerous idea, it is all done in negative pressure labs deep inside disused mines (and I think that I should actually not be using the plural form, I think there is really only one single instance of this). I would agree that there aren't any dangerous GMO FOOD seeds. ... but doesn't the spider goat put just a little bit of fear into you ;) 3 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Matthew Lashmit > FarmerJane • 2 months ago I'm not against GMO products, it's just a more precise way of guiding the evolution of plants and animals that we have been doing since the advent of agriculture. I'd read somewhere that they were modifying cotton so that the seeds weren't toxic and could be used as foodstuffs for animals and potentially people as well, instead of just using the hulls. But I still wouldn't eat it. 3 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Josh Mo > Matthew Lashmit • 18 days ago --" it's just a more precise way of guiding the evolution "

Your ancestors should have attempted that .. but △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Josh Mo > FarmerJane • 18 days ago --" highly educated idiots that want to think they are smarter than anyone else"

highly educated idiots can smell corporate-fuelled take over of agriculture a mile away ... unlike right- wing lemmings 2 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

nickfrisco > FarmerJane • 22 days ago Sure, Farmer Jane, but even thought your simple assertion concerning the health risks of GMO does not withstand actual scrutiny, what about the other major issue--that of Monsanto effectively http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/02/new-yorker-editor-david-remnick-responds-to-vandana-shiva-criticism-of-michael-specters-profile/ 9/11 11/7/2014 New Yorker editor David Remnick responds to Vandana Shiva criticism of Michael Specter’s profile | Genetic Literacy Project other major issue--that of Monsanto effectively owning all seeds, patenting them and suing anyone who doesn't toe the line? 1 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Mark Talmont > FarmerJane • 2 months ago There is a problem though with the "superweeds" that have developed under the pressure of the heavy use of RoundUp. The "Ag Alert" newsletter you will find in every ag tech program in California has acknowledged some farmers are down to one alternative herbicide that works against them. I understand in the midwest some have been driven to use propane rigs to just burn them when no herbicide works anymore. All predictable in light of our experience with bug sprays, I guess we never learn. And we really do have a problem with bee die-off now too, right? △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

daws > Mark Talmont • a month ago "Superweeds" develop with the consistent use of any herbicides, even organic herbicides. (For organic there are naturally a lot of super weeds already, comfrey for instance is part of why roundup was developed). This is why responsible farmers use a variety of control methods. The solution there is not to then ban any one method but to educate on and perhaps mandate a variety of practices.

For instance even if one uses only a single pesticide, combining this with the planting of a buffer crop free from that pesticide can help minimize the development of immunity to it, via encouraging reproduction with those not subjected to the selective pressures of the pesticide. △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Josh Mo > Matthew Lashmit • 18 days ago --"It's cotton you fool. YOU eat it."

matt lapshit ... it was purely rhetorical wasnt it ?? △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

vesey > Gaurav Singh • 2 months ago you finally did as i suspected all along by bringing race into this subject. Your real problems have nothing to do with cotton or farming, but your own personal bias's and unwillingness to accept that maybe, just maybe some have the audacity to disagree with your views. Your hostility and insulting demeanor bespeaks a person with no tangible argument that can only respond with insults and rude, crude and behavior...... 8 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

chitral > vesey • 2 months ago Right on. △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

chitral > Gaurav Singh • 2 months ago Sixty-Eight years to stand on your own feet and you still blame the colonists. Most Indians do not even care about the farmers. Land is being usurped by the politicians and the corrupt bureaucrats and turned into development. With fewer acres to farm there is no other way but for the productivity to go up because India's does not let up until 2050. Bleak times ahead if we do not break out from the current model. All means need to be explored. http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/02/new-yorker-editor-david-remnick-responds-to-vandana-shiva-criticism-of-michael-specters-profile/ 10/11 11/7/2014 New Yorker editor David Remnick responds to Vandana Shiva criticism of Michael Specter’s profile | Genetic Literacy Project model. All means need to be explored. 6 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

gcooke777 > Gaurav Singh • 2 months ago When you are immunized against polio your immune system has been genetically altered. Are you against that? As all humans came from Africa and now are slightly modified to have lighter skin and eyes would you ban all humans that are not African as GMO's?

You live in the past. Time to enter the 21st century. Or at the very least the 20th century! 3 △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

nickfrisco > gcooke777 • 22 days ago A shamelessly simplistic analogy. What you're really suggesting is that it's okay to genetically engineer the human anatomy to require patented upgrades each year to stay alive. △ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Load more comments

✉ Subscribe d Add Disqus to your site  Privacy

Please consider making a tax deductible donation to the GLP to support our independent reporting on biotechnology

About Human Agriculture Policy Special Sections Resources Browse By Mission Ancestry & Animal Biotechnology Biotech Gallery External Links Authors Our Team Evolution Biotechnology Regulation & Gene-ius GLP Newsletter Tags Advisory Board Epigenetics Crops & Foods Bioethics Archive Sources Contributors Personalized Green Genes & Advanced Search Medicine Sustainability Donate Stem Cells Contact Synthetic Biology Transhumanism

GLP on Facebook GLP on Twitter GLP RSS Feeds

©2012 The Genetic Literacy Project. The GLP is affiliated with:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/02/new-yorker-editor-david-remnick-responds-to-vandana-shiva-criticism-of-michael-specters-profile/ 11/11