63 Comments

  1. Thanks so much Anthony this is truly terrible news

  2. Slimane Bensassi Nour says:

    very annoying !!

  3. How stupid can some people be? They are already killing the planet, or are their pockets all they are worrying about? These insane effing people like Monsanto & Dupont have to be stopped before the retards kill everything on this planet. If they are not stopped, no child will inherit this planet, all that will be left is a desolate wasteland that was once a beautiful planet gone to $hit… WAKE UP, before it is too late!!!

  4. WordAndReason says:

    Sowing the seeds that insure the future “necessity” of their creators, should this experiment go awry. “Hey! Don’t worry. We conveniently engineered the chemical weapon to neutralize any unforeseen problems. Oops! Sorry for the crop or bug or critter extinction as a result of our heartfelt attempt. Good thing we ignored all the screaming about playing around with nature’s unconsidered complexity. Otherwise we wouldn’t have these genetically modified things to replace the natural things we lost.”

  5. AtlantaGIRL says:

    RELEASE at 1600 and let’s see how long this is allowed…or better yet, on the floor of the SENATE!!! or Dept. of Agriculture or at HQ of the FDA…..or Monsanto HQ???

  6. Shawn May says:

    Josh I hope u eat one of tghese in your GMO CORN and see you die a slow death from men trying to be GOD

  7. Mitchell Brown says:

    Humans do not have the knowledge of God and yet they insist on tampering with His creation. How pathetic…………..

  8. Brian Merlin says:

    I think that theory of gene manipulation not being harmful is dependent who you ask… Round up super weeds, dead bees, all kinds of problems are possibly linked to GMOs and to assume playing God with genetic code is safe is kind of sketchy. We could easily invent the wrong kinds of adaptions that negatively impact us indirectly…how many of our problems and diseases are from all these chemicals we consume?

    1. Not to mention that gene-splicing (which is GMO) is tinkering with DNA, and if in particular it is tinkering with coding DNA, and I can’t see any reason it ever wouldn’t be, coding DNA makes proteins. Proteins don’t just build lean tissue in organisms (including us). They are also the locks and keys for God knows how many processes in the body. And we don’t understand enough about this crap that we should be feeling safe tinkering with it. We are just NOW understanding that eating the wrong proteins can make you sick even if you don’t have a classical allergy. GMOs create proteins that haven’t happened before in evolution. Nothing has had the chance to adapt to them. We are looking at extinction in the long run if we don’t quit playing around with this. Just go ahead and assume that, because NO ONE who develops things like this EVER takes the long view. EVER.

    2. And yes, I know we’d go extinct eventually anyway, but why make it happen sooner if we don’t have to?

  9. I hope you are not talking about cross-breeding, because I keep hearing that argument and it’s completely dishonest and one hell of a thing for a person to say who accuses others of being unscientific. If that *is* what you mean, go learn the difference between cross-breeding and GMO and then come back and talk with the grownups.
    Gene-splicing tech has only been around since, what, the 80s? And most of it til the late 90s was in labs and used to make medicines–human insulin, for example. This bit of putting it out into the environment is relatively new and we haven’t been doing it for long enough to really be able to say what the long-term effects will be. And frankly, agriculture already damages the global climate. We’re already in trouble because of agriculture. And not even from the chemicals–though, if you want to get right down to it, thanks to things like Roundup-Ready crops, we’re using MORE chemicals than before. So much for *that* claim. But let’s crank up agriculture to 11 and do even worse damage now, with the planet already heating up. What a brilliant idea.

    1. Jordan Breon says:

      I get the gist of your post, but to be honest, there is hope.
      I am a farmer. A small farmer, to be exact. I have anywhere from 25-45 head depending on time of year and breeding results. Prior to 2007 or thereabouts, it was impossible to make money the way I farm. You had to have a factory operation, with 30 month butchering deadlines, to make money. Getting an Angus steer from birth to 1300-1500 pounds in 30 months was only possible with BGH injections, feeding proteins such as ground chicken, or grain that was a GMO. My way, which is no grain whatsoever (I feed pasture during the half of year I can, and green bale non-modified alfalfa/canary grass as well as feeding green-cut non-modified sorghum) is more labor and cost intensive. I do not spray my crops and use natural methods of pst control i.e. using ‘bait’ for predator insects that like to eat insects that eat my crops.
      This process means it takes me 36 months, minimum, to raise a beef steer to 1300 pounds. Selling my beef at sale barns to large corporations meant I would have to take 20-30 cents less a pound because they didn’t like the aged beef, I had to work second jobs and farm for a hobby – I love my farm too much to quit.
      However, now people are waking up to what factory farms are like, the problems GMOs give, and the sickening effects of pumping our food up with chemicals. I’ve since bypassed the whole intermediary sale barns and sell my animals straight to consumers. Many city folks interested in my beef will come to my farm and see the conditions for themselves. It costs much more than store beef, but you know what you’re getting. I’ve since been able to focus primarily on my farm because of this transformation.
      I do worry about the loss of the honeybee, and these other attempts at playing God (I always remember Ian Malcolm’s line in Jurassic Park: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.) but I think the people are waking up to this and will continue to refuse to eat GMO garbage and chemically/genetically modified food.

      1. april showers says:

        Michael Crichton R.I.P.

        1. Jordan Breon says:

          I’m not sure I follow the reference.

          1. april showers says:

            Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park which is a story about a scientist who uses his acquired knowledge of thousands of years of study of nature to make money just because he can without fully thinking through the potential consequences. It is the modern day “Frankenstein”, He was a great writer and now he has passed on.

  10. profbarkingmad says:

    Speaking as a mad scientist, I quite like the idea of swarms of giant killer franken-hornets programmed to exterminate only the descendants of Norman King William – Muwahahaha!

  11. Beatriz Moisset says:

    I agree with Josh. This article is not based on scientific information. It provides no evidence of anything. Doesn’t even show any understanding of the issue. The fly used in the illustration has nothing to do with the olive fly. Too much ignorance!

  12. do your own research don’t rely on others to spoon feed you http ://www. oxitec.com/ http: //www.farmingmonthly.co.uk/farming-environment/7649-calls-for-gm-fruit-fly-release-to-be-postponed/

  13. Noah Slagle says:

    Even my high school AP-Environmental Science Class thinks this is a horrible idea. They can’t possibly think that they’re creating a closed system with a negative feedback? No, everything is so interconnected in the environment, that it will create a devastating ripple effect, embodied in an open system with a nonlinear response, spurred by positive feedback. There’s no way we will know the consequences of what we have wrought on ourselves until they are staring us in the face.

    1. april showers says:

      “There’s no way we will know the consequences of what we have wrought on ourselves until they are staring us in the face.”
      Exactly. The real consequences will be so far removed from this action that the plausible deniability factor makes this a win for the patent holder.

  14. David Heiens says:

    Could we promote the bird that eats the bug

  15. Oh great, just what we need, some freaking do gooder scientist playing God. Then messing up the ecosystem with a mutant.
    Maybe we should reverse engineer the scientists?

    1. M Schultz says:

      You mean GREED GETTER scientist not do gooder

  16. Philip Owen says:

    once again a complete lack of any sources, this is just an opinion piece. If you want rational thinkers to take you seriously, guide us to the evidence and then let that evidence do the talking. I don’t know you, for all I know you have a side business selling aluminium foil hats! You do not appear to have any scientific credentials of your own so please help us find the truth for ourselves rather than expecting us to take you on faith

    1. You don’t need scientific evidence for these sort of things. Common sense and a knowledge of history of similar “god mode” efforts by humans is enough.
      Also you seem to fail to realize that the “scientific evidence” you so seek is a one off event: the evidence is when this is done for real and it either fails miserably or not.
      You cannot prove or disprove these things in a lab. The ecosystem of the earth is infinitely more complex than anyone can model anywhere in any lab or any computer anywhere.
      Are you willing to flip the coin on the ecosystem of the earth for your “scientific evidence”?

  17. Are you for REAL??? You obviously don’t know one whit of science. Messing with ANY species goes right down (and up) the line in the ecosystem. Perhaps you never took science in school? Or perhaps, if you did, you took the dumbed down version that makes Dr Frankensteins who invent stuff like this look like heroes! It doesn’t MATTER who released them! Look what MONSANTO has released. But then, you probably love their stuff too, from how your post sounds!
    There are PLENTY of species I would love to get rid of. But they all feed the chains in the ecosystems.
    Additionally, journalists play an important role in our society, when they are allowed to report truth and not the status quo. THEY are the only ones who can attempt to let people know they are being experimented on by Frankenscientists.
    And probably you REALLY think that the august scientists that came up with this invention have experimented extensively on all the organisms that will eat these creatures up the ecosystem? WRONG! They vaccinate newborns with vaccines that are untested on newborns (oh, because it would be unethical to TEST stuff on newborns, now wouldn’t it)! You need to seriously learn some science. Unless you’re a shill, in which case you don’t care.

  18. Patti Jo Roth-Edwards says:

    Thank you Anthony for working dillegently to keep us informed. I will pass this on to my email list and cyber communities. For those of you who desire more “science”. You have a computer and the Internet. Get busy and do your own research and share any thing you can verify.

  19. celiayounger says:

    the damage they are doing will take centuries to fix… and comback to normal … if really it is possible to comeback to normal.

  20. celiayounger says:

    WE ARE CHANGING and destroying WHAT GOD CREATED … DURING MANY CENTURIES

  21. Anth Biologist says:

    I am a qualified biologist, producer of biological insecticides, and once part of the Ag Chem industry (and by the way – the type of tech talked about in this article is a potential competitor of ours). I find it inspirational how we are cleverly manipulating the genetic code to find ways of improving the environment and human lives at the same time. Anyone that thinks the broad-scale use of chemical insecticides is better than a highly targeted genetic approach does not understand what genes are, or the unknown risks of chemicals in the environment. These modified fruit flys will have nil environmental impact, make our food safer, reduce environmental impacts in and around orchards, and in time do it at a lower cost. The only impact will be on the fruit flys, which are only present in damaging numbers because we are commercially producing large quantities of fruit. If you want to rail against corporate farming and industrialised agriculture, go right ahead, but please don’t degrade wonderful scientific advances due to your own bias and lack of biological understanding.

    1. april showers says:

      Your hubris is astounding. You are standing on the shoulders of giants and have lost all sense of perspective.

      1. This is a scary scary glimpse into the world of “scientists” out there.
        These are the people who are supposed to be smart, responsible, objective, and analytical?
        And what’s even more scary is that there are thousands, tens of thousands more perhaps, like this person out there. Many of them even more delusional.
        Yeah, “science”. Blech. People like these should not be allowed within a thousand miles of any lab.

        1. april showers says:

          Anth Biologist for dummies:
          “I find it inspirational how we are cleverly manipulating the genetic code to find ways of improving the environment and human lives at the same time.”
          Translation: We have studied very hard and now we know JUST enough about the genetic code to be really dangerous.
          “Anyone that thinks the broad-scale use of chemical insecticides is better than a highly targeted genetic approach does not understand what genes are, or the unknown risks of chemicals in the environment.”
          Translation: All those old poisonous pesticide patents are now expired and worthless! We can now just patent some insects to enhance our fortunes into the 21st century. Thanks to some expensive lobbying, we have never been held accountable for the consequences of our actions so we are pretty sure of the same result with this little experiment and any “unforeseeable” risks.
          “These modified fruit flys will have nil environmental impact, make our food safer, reduce environmental impacts in and around orchards, and in time do it at a lower cost.”
          Translation: Some of our paid staff have studied our methodologies and have assured us that everything will be OK, so, naturally, we have kept them on staff for future studies.
          “The only impact will be on the fruit flys, which are only present in damaging numbers because we are commercially producing large quantities of fruit.”
          Translation: Don’t even THINK about permaculture methodologies! We need to “update” the genetic environment anyway so we can salvage the failed commercial fruit production model from the 18th century! The rest of the environment will just have to catch up quickly to our “enhancements”
          “If you want to rail against corporate farming and industrialised agriculture, go right ahead, but please don’t degrade wonderful scientific advances due to your own bias and lack of biological understanding.”
          Translation: You may think of modern science as the enabler of the current failed agribusiness model, but we are NOT! We are simply misunderstood by all you who are too stupid to know about science and how we have made your life so much better that you should actually be worshipping the ground we walk on!

    2. Oh my gawd! Are you for real? You need to come back down to earth PDQ. The rarefied air is making you light headed and dizzy with your own stupidity. Yes you may be all things scientific but you have zero understanding of the stupidity of your ideas when it comes to their long term impacts on ecosystems. Oh and I do ecosystem science so please don’t patronise me with your fancy lingo al la ‘high brow and mighty’. It doesn’t wash with me. I can see the wood despite the forest of GM trees.

  22. sounds like what they’re already doing to our population

  23. Bevin Chu says:

    The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again, at two levels.
    One. The Frankenstein experiments are likely to yield unintended ecological consequences.
    Two. So-called IPR (“Intellectual Property Rights”) are phony “rights” that allegedly “encourage innovation.” In fact they violate genuine property rights, and provided the artificial, man-made incentive for these Frankenstein experiments.
    A real double-whammy.

  24. “Perhaps their suggestion is to not eat any animal that may have consumed
    the fly, any plant that may have came in contact with the fly, and to
    stay indoors to avoid any physical contact with anything the fly
    touched?”
    “…may have came in contact with…”?
    The grammar makes me wonder how under-educated this author is. But, perhaps it’s just the new normal

  25. This is just one mnore example of the absudity to which different countries will go for the sake of killing something off or changing the dna of some species. There must be some sort of a stopgap to keep these things from happening until the long term ramifications of them and truly studied!!!

  26. Michael Gusella says:

    This sounds a lot like the premise of the movie Mimic

  27. We are the ruin of this planet if not a meteor.

    1. Les we realize and stop altering whats natural and just.

  28. rongraves says:

    “It is not up to the author of this ‘lightweight’ piece to provide the
    readers with every nuance of the scientific research or the entire
    journal of scientific analysis regarding environmental impact
    assessments.”
    First rule for any science journalist (or a hack working in any other field for that matter), should always be cite your source(s). If you can’t, won’t, or think it’s not your job to do so, you are utterly wrong. Not to mention dangerously smug.

    1. Right. Because everything has to be proven first, complete with citations and sources, before you are allowed to think?
      “I think we should go to the moon”. “SOURCES!? Nobody has ever gone to the moon before, it’s never been done, we need sources! It’s an utterly ridiculous idea. How can you say such a thing or even think about it when you do not quote any sources!?”.
      Or “I think the world is round. Everyone says it’s flat, but I think it’s round”. “SOURCES!? Oh god we need sources. How can you say such a thing without quoting a source. I think you are mad. The scientists say the world is flat. Therefore it must be so!”.
      People demanding sources and scientific proof for everything are living in a bubble. The first step in any sort of progress is THOUGHT. Thinking. You do know what critical thinking is don’t you? You know, where you use your brain? Or do I need to quote you a scientific source for what thinking is too?
      And finally, where does it say this is a scientific journal? Where did you get that idea? Please provide sources.

    2. april showers says:

      Uh, did you click through to the Daily Mail article?

  29. NOT FOOLED FOR A MINUTE!! says:

    I just can’t wait to see what the unintended consequences of this are.

  30. I’m sorry, you all are getting your panties in a twist over an article from The Daily Mail, aka The Daily Fail, a British TABLOID. Seriously? When you can link to a story about this in a reputable publication or scientific journal, I might listen. Until then, this is just more “Elvis is alive” and “alien invasion orchestrated by the government” fantastical drivel.

  31. leslie green says:

    We have no right (or ability) to play God. How arrogant and delusional to think that we can outsmart nature…our own lack of humility will bring about the destruction of our civilization… and we’re off to a good start and all in the name of greed, power, control and evil. More and more people are becoming aware of this and desperately trying to halt this beast (Monsanto et al)… much akin to the Little Dutch Boy” who tried to stop the dam from giving way by plugging the hole in the dyke with his finger.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *