Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(102,943 posts)
12. It looks badly written, to me
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 03:13 PM
Sep 2014

For instance, it says

More than 2000 foods have been created by mutagenesis, including the durum wheat used to make fine Italian pasta. This article from the New York Times lists wheat, barley and even ruby red grapefruits as crops generated through mutagenesis. Imagine that!! The delicious, organic grapefruit from my farmers’ market was developed using radiation to randomly create mutations, and somehow that’s less scary than a GMO.

What the NYT actually says is:
A similar story unfolded in Texas. In 1929, farmers stumbled on the Ruby Red grapefruit, a natural mutant. Its flesh eventually faded to pink, however, and scientists fired radiation to produce mutants of deeper color — Star Ruby, released in 1971, and Rio Red, released in 1985. The mutant offspring now account for about 75 percent of all grapefruit grown in Texas.

So, no, that doesn't mean "organic grapefruit from my farmers’ market was developed using radiation". Even if she lives in Texas. And "the durum wheat" is misleading too; durum wheat originated thousands of years ago. A durum wheat was created by mutagenesis, perhaps more; but not the durum wheat.

Bad writing, or bad understanding? I'm not sure.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

GMOS: AN INTRODUCTION (another worthy resource on the issue) HuckleB Sep 2014 #1
I don't have the scientific background to evaluate these claims, enough Sep 2014 #2
The site is very balanced, but it uses the actual scientific evidence. HuckleB Sep 2014 #3
A lot of the mistrust was caused by industry, itself Warpy Sep 2014 #4
The problem is the lack of justification for labeling. HuckleB Sep 2014 #5
The industry just created the paranoia by fighting so hard against something Warpy Sep 2014 #7
The paranoia was created by the organic industry. HuckleB Sep 2014 #9
Allowing labeling would have discouraged all but a few Warpy Sep 2014 #10
No, I don't. HuckleB Sep 2014 #11
And then we have the MSM, completely ignoring the science side of the equation, at times. HuckleB Sep 2014 #6
Well, that sort of arrogance of ivory tower "experts" exists at all levels. Warpy Sep 2014 #8
It looks badly written, to me muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #12
LOL! HuckleB Sep 2014 #13
Given your signature, that's a disappointing response muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #14
The writer knows her stuff. HuckleB Sep 2014 #15
And yet, I showed some simple logical mistakes muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #16
You made a claim that doesn't address the main content of the piece in any way. HuckleB Sep 2014 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author Tumbulu Sep 2014 #20
19-year study of trillions of meals shows GE crops do not harm food-producing animals, humans HuckleB Sep 2014 #18
You keep forgetting... Archae Sep 2014 #19
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience»Do you really understand ...»Reply #12