Support GMO foods

[ApostateAbe]

There are many conspiracy-minded zealots in white society whose delusions about genetically-engineered foods have an unintended genocidal effect. They are trying to force labels on GMO foods through state ballot initiatives in the USA. They have already won in Europe. Coupled with their fear campaigns disconnected from reality, they are trying to push GMO foods out of the marketplace, with the effect of continuing the death trend of millions more people. Whenever you see their false, anti-scientific and anti-humanistic claims, I suggest you share this video. They need to be held accountable, and the misinformation needs to be corrected. Rational clear-thinking people have a moral responsibility.

 

[Nexus]

They are trying to force labels on GMO foods through state ballot initiatives in the USA. They have already won in Europe.

Informed consumers is never a bad thing unless they have something to hide. Spare us the guilt trip about millions of starving people. If the GMO producers are the great benefactors of humanity as you allege they will continue to supply starving people with GMO food and wealthy first-worlders can choose to consume it or not.

 

[sinkorswim]

I personally don't know if GMO are good or bad. But I do know that I don't trust any so called "science" that comes from the marketing of companies like Monsanto, Du Pint,... or thier paid stooges in Washington.

 

[RavenSky]

They are trying to force labels on GMO foods through state ballot initiatives in the USA. They have already won in Europe.

Informed consumers is never a bad thing unless they have something to hide. Spare us the guilt trip about millions of starving people. If the GMO producers are the great benefactors of humanity as you allege they will continue to supply starving people with GMO food and wealthy first-worlders can choose to consume it or not.

Bingo!

Of course, one type of GMO (one that I think is particularly bad) is the type altered to produce sterile seed. This means that the farmer would have to buy new seed every season instead of being able to harvest and store seed for next season. In other words, keeping starving people perpetually dependent on the multi-national corporations.

Of course, Monsanto also accomplishes that via lawsuits for "patent infringement"

 

[arkirk]

Can somebody tell me if they like eating Roundup? Why else would it be a benefit to genetically engineer "Roundup ready" (resistant to Roundup) GMO crops if we were also getting a little roundup in our diets. Back to the drawing boards...genetically engineer humans that are resistant to corporate bullshit! When roundup and other toxic petrochemicals become so prevalent in fields where food is grown, it is a certainty those who eat that food are being exposed to these chemicals. It should be a right to know what chemicals you are eating.

FYI non-stick surfaces on cookware yield chemicals that are detectable in the blood of people who eat food prepared on them. These chemicals are not naturally occurring in the human body...just saying....do these people really care what is in your body...HELL NO!

 

[tupac chopra]

Study: Monsanto GMO food claims probably false

Oops. The World Food Prize committee’s got a bit of egg on its face—genetically engineered egg. They just awarded the World Food Prize to three scientists, including one from Syngenta and one from Monsanto, who invented genetic engineering because, they say, the technology increases crop yields and decreases pesticide use. (Perhaps not coincidentally, Monsanto and Syngenta are major sponsors of the World Food Prize, along with a third biotech giant, Dupont Pioneer.)

Monsanto makes the same case on its website, saying, “Since the advent of biotechnology, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically modified (GM) crops don’t increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops… GM crops generally have higher yields due to both breeding and biotechnology.”

But that’s not actually the case. A new peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability examined those claims and found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops. Additionally, GM crops, also known as genetically engineered (GE) crops, can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use. The study’s lead author, Jack Heinemann, is not an anti-biotechnology activist, as Monsanto might want you to believe. “I’m a genetic engineer. But there is a different between being a genetic engineer and selling a product that is genetically engineered,” he states.

 

[SimpleDon]

Study: Monsanto GMO food claims probably false

Oops. The World Food Prize committee’s got a bit of egg on its face—genetically engineered egg. They just awarded the World Food Prize to three scientists, including one from Syngenta and one from Monsanto, who invented genetic engineering because, they say, the technology increases crop yields and decreases pesticide use. (Perhaps not coincidentally, Monsanto and Syngenta are major sponsors of the World Food Prize, along with a third biotech giant, Dupont Pioneer.)

Monsanto makes the same case on its website, saying, “Since the advent of biotechnology, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically modified (GM) crops don’t increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops… GM crops generally have higher yields due to both breeding and biotechnology.”

But that’s not actually the case. A new peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability examined those claims and found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops. Additionally, GM crops, also known as genetically engineered (GE) crops, can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use. The study’s lead author, Jack Heinemann, is not an anti-biotechnology activist, as Monsanto might want you to believe. “I’m a genetic engineer. But there is a different between being a genetic engineer and selling a product that is genetically engineered,” he states.

I can't fault people who want GMO food labeled as such. But it can't be denied that there is a lot of uninformed hysteria about GMO foods that hasn't been supported. A lot that can only be attributed to anti-science, anti-corporate general feelings and not to any specific problems.

Maybe GMO isn't the breakthrough that Monsanto quite frankly needs it to be because of the huge amount of money that they have invested in it. Finally the market will decide. But it would be terrible if a genuine advancement was derailed on the pitchforks of misinformation. (I know, a terrible mixed metaphor.)

(Yes, I own stock in Monsanto. My father worked for them for more than thirty years and he gave me the stock in a trust so that I can't sell for another ten years or so. It is his way of being funny because we had these same arguments years ago, especially with my very liberal brother. My father gave him the same kind of trust.)

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I got some non-GMO peanut butter recently, and I feel slightly guilty. It's good though.

 

[bilby]

There is no obvious mechanism by which GMOs would be expected to be more harmful (or more likely to be harmful) than non-GMO crops; indeed quite the reverse.

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/08/25/decimating-the-flawed-beliefs-of-anti-gmo-activists/

The increased in acres planted with plants resistant to the herbicide glyphosate has of course increased the use of glyphosate. However, this has decreased the use of other herbicides that are much more toxic. According to the National Research Council (2010, pp. 24-25):

When adopting GE herbicide-resistant (HR) crops, farmers mainly substituted the herbicide glyphosate for more toxic herbicides. However, the predominant reliance on glyphosate is now reducing the effectiveness of this weed-management tool. Glyphosate kills most plants without substantial adverse effects on animals or on soil and water quality, unlike other classes of herbicides. It is also the herbicide to which most HR crops are resistant. After the commercialization of HR crops, farmers replaced many other herbicides with glyphosate applications after crops emerged from the soil.

In other words, while more glyphosate is being used, this practice has reduced the usage of much more toxic herbicides.

Some countries have banned GMOs. However, this has not been done because the evidence somehow shows that GM foods are dangerous, but because of political lobbyists. As was pointed out in the comment section on Facebook, the fact that countries have banned something is not a viable argument. Many countries have a ban same-sex marriage, yet even the most ardent anti-GMO activist would probably understand that such a claim cannot constitute an argument against same-sex marriage.

A massive amount of scientific evidence shows that the GM foods currently available on the international market are just as safe as conventional foods. Farmers can still buy, trade or save conventional seeds. GM crops require less insecticide and uses less harmful herbicides. GMO bans are driven by lobbyists who spread fear and misinformation. As early as the late 1990s, GM crops had a 5-10% increase in yield. Indian farmers growing Bt cotton use ~40% less pesticides, get ~37% yield increase and almost 90% higher cotton profits. GM crops reduce topsoil erosion because they promote reduced tillage. Many GM crops, like Golden Rice and PRSV-resistant papaya were not developed for profit. Only 1 out of 28 people in the Leadership of FDA has any prior connection to Monsanto and the Farmer Assurance Provision protects farmers (and is even about to expire). Hazmat suit are not used by researchers on GM fields. It was just a publicity stunt by anti-GMO activists to spread fear.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

...numerous published systematic reviews show clear evidence that glyphosate has very low toxicity. More careful study when it comes to any agent being used as heavily as glyphosate is always welcome. Science is complicated, and it is always a good idea to consider factors that may have been previously missed. However, failure to show any adverse effect from glyphosate in epidemiological studies is very reassuring. Given its widespread use, any adverse effect must be tiny or non-existent to be missed by the evidence we have so far.

All of the anti-GMO PRATTs have been dealt with over and over again; but scared irrational people don't take any notice; They just ignore the disproof of their arguments, and reiterate them as if they were never discussed, much less destroyed.

GMOs are safe; and anti-GMO activists are NEVER going to accept that, regardless of how much evidence is gathered; that which is asserted without evidence, cannot be prevented from being reasserted by the presence of evidence.

The world is full of morons who want to feel as though they are fighting the good fight; and frankly they don't give a shit about evidence - if something can be characterised as 'unnatural', then it is going to be opposed no matter how beneficial it might be. Evidence is not relevant to such people, so they will never go away.

Even detailed analyses of the evidence are futile; here is one by The Credible Hulk on Facebook. Read it if you like; but if you oppose GMOs, it won't change your mind - because if your mind was capable of changing in response to evidence, you wouldn't oppose GMOs.

 

[ApostateAbe]

They are trying to force labels on GMO foods through state ballot initiatives in the USA. They have already won in Europe.

Informed consumers is never a bad thing unless they have something to hide. Spare us the guilt trip about millions of starving people. If the GMO producers are the great benefactors of humanity as you allege they will continue to supply starving people with GMO food and wealthy first-worlders can choose to consume it or not.

Pharmaceutical companies are not trying to save millions of people from deadly diseases by manufacturing vaccine drugs. They are just trying to provide a product that they can sell for money. Yet, if they were to be shut down by the scientifically-illiterate well-meaning anti-vaxxers, millions of people would die. The forced labels on GMO foods are not designed to inform consumers. They are designed to push the foods out of the market so they are not sold or grown. That is what happened in Europe. We can forcibly advertise any pseudo-scientific cause, and it works the same way. "This food was produced from the energy of carcinogenic radiation" (the sun). It wouldn't inform consumers. It would mislead consumers in favor of pseudo-science. Consumers already have labels that allow them to be picky eaters, and they are not forced. "Certified organic" and "GMO-free" are already on very many food products to market to those people.

Informed consumers is never a bad thing unless they have something to hide. Spare us the guilt trip about millions of starving people. If the GMO producers are the great benefactors of humanity as you allege they will continue to supply starving people with GMO food and wealthy first-worlders can choose to consume it or not.

Bingo!

Of course, one type of GMO (one that I think is particularly bad) is the type altered to produce sterile seed. This means that the farmer would have to buy new seed every season instead of being able to harvest and store seed for next season. In other words, keeping starving people perpetually dependent on the multi-national corporations.

Of course, Monsanto also accomplishes that via lawsuits for "patent infringement"

The seeds you are talking about ("terminator seeds") are not on the market and never were. It is a myth you heard on the Internet.

 

[RavenSky]

Informed consumers is never a bad thing unless they have something to hide. Spare us the guilt trip about millions of starving people. If the GMO producers are the great benefactors of humanity as you allege they will continue to supply starving people with GMO food and wealthy first-worlders can choose to consume it or not.

Bingo!

Of course, one type of GMO (one that I think is particularly bad) is the type altered to produce sterile seed. This means that the farmer would have to buy new seed every season instead of being able to harvest and store seed for next season. In other words, keeping starving people perpetually dependent on the multi-national corporations.

Of course, Monsanto also accomplishes that via lawsuits for "patent infringement"

The seeds you are talking about ("terminator seeds") are not on the market and never were. It is a myth you heard on the Internet.

sweety, please read what I actually wrote. I've bolded the important words for you. The only reason they haven't released the terminator seeds to market is because the public pushback against it was immediate and fierce. But the company continues to threaten release every time they sue another farmer for "patent infringement."

We can't put the genie back in the bottle - they've invented that damned things and can't un-invent them. But we sure as hell can pass laws forbidding their use, and that is what I would like to see happen as to those particular GMOs

 

[Axulus]

Slightly off topic but related: here is a link to an excellent economics podcast interview with the former CEO of Cargill, the largest privately-held company in America. In the podcast they discuss the role of prices in global food markets in signaling information and prompting changes in response to those signals. Other topics include government's role in agriculture, the locavore movement and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Really insightful to get an insider's perspective on the agricultural industry.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/01/greg_page_on_fo.html

 

[ApostateAbe]

I personally don't know if GMO are good or bad. But I do know that I don't trust any so called "science" that comes from the marketing of companies like Monsanto, Du Pint,... or thier paid stooges in Washington.

It is not just the results of studies of big business and big government. It is the results of absolutely every study with replicable results. There are more than two thousand of them. And you don't even need to trust them. There is not even a plausible speculation for how genetically-engineered food could be harmful. Absolutely all food has been genetically modified through random mutation and agricultural selection for thousands of years. No species in the supermarket closely resembles a species that ever existed in the wild. It is literally no more than a science fiction fear. "Frankenfoods," they call it.

Here are those studies:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ge-crops-safety-pub-list-1.xls

 

[ApostateAbe]

Informed consumers is never a bad thing unless they have something to hide. Spare us the guilt trip about millions of starving people. If the GMO producers are the great benefactors of humanity as you allege they will continue to supply starving people with GMO food and wealthy first-worlders can choose to consume it or not.

Bingo!

Of course, one type of GMO (one that I think is particularly bad) is the type altered to produce sterile seed. This means that the farmer would have to buy new seed every season instead of being able to harvest and store seed for next season. In other words, keeping starving people perpetually dependent on the multi-national corporations.

Of course, Monsanto also accomplishes that via lawsuits for "patent infringement"

The seeds you are talking about ("terminator seeds") are not on the market and never were. It is a myth you heard on the Internet.

sweety, please read what I actually wrote. I've bolded the important words for you. The only reason they haven't released the terminator seeds to market is because the public pushback against it was immediate and fierce. But the company continues to threaten release every time they sue another farmer for "patent infringement."

I know what you said. "But the company continues to threaten release every time they sue another farmer for 'patent infringement.'" What, really?? Threatens who and how?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Can somebody tell me if they like eating Roundup? Why else would it be a benefit to genetically engineer "Roundup ready" (resistant to Roundup) GMO crops if we were also getting a little roundup in our diets. Back to the drawing boards...genetically engineer humans that are resistant to corporate bullshit! When roundup and other toxic petrochemicals become so prevalent in fields where food is grown, it is a certainty those who eat that food are being exposed to these chemicals. It should be a right to know what chemicals you are eating.

FYI non-stick surfaces on cookware yield chemicals that are detectable in the blood of people who eat food prepared on them. These chemicals are not naturally occurring in the human body...just saying....do these people really care what is in your body...HELL NO!

Almost every crop, GMO or not, organic or not, uses a chemical pesticide to prevent their crops from being devoured by insects. You wouldn't want to drink any of those pesticides straight from a cup, Round-up or not, organic or not. With a forced GMO label, it won't serve the ends that you may expect from a little extra knowledge. It will be misleading. You will be led to think that the non-GMO products are safer than the GMO products, and it is absolutely not true.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I got some non-GMO peanut butter recently, and I feel slightly guilty. It's good though.

I feel guilty whenever I accidentally buy something organic. It is an industry that lies about the relative safety and environmental value of their products, and they are trying to push GMOs out of the market through forced label laws. GMOs have the potential to save millions of lives. Organic agriculture does not and is actively fighting against it for the sake of profit.

 

[tupac chopra]

There is no obvious mechanism by which GMOs would be expected to be more harmful (or more likely to be harmful) than non-GMO crops;.

Nice "bait and switch".
GMO foods only introduce risks. They don't give any benefit.

The world is full of morons who want to feel as though they are fighting the good fight;

Like the morons promote GMO's when GMO's don't give any benefits

 

[bilby]

Nice "bait and switch".
GMO foods only introduce risks. They don't give any benefit.

The world is full of morons who want to feel as though they are fighting the good fight;

Like the morons promote GMO's when GMO's don't give any benefits

Don't be so silly. If GMOs didn't give any benefits, there would be no profit in them. Farmers are not idiots; they buy the seed that allows them to get the best yields while using the least quantity of expensive fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides.

Of course, if you believe that Monsanto et. al. are evil for evil's sake, and are prepared to actively spend money for no other purpose other than to harm people, then you are bound to come to some extremely silly conclusions.

Nonetheless, the detailed peer-reviewed study you linked to to support your claim might be quite convincing, if you hadn't forgotten to include it.

I assume that you are not so moronic as to imagine that anyone would take your unsupported word for such a crazy claim, so that oversight on your part may well be quite harmful to your credibility.

 

[ApostateAbe]

There are no extra risks introduced. The essential difference between conventional breeding and genetic engineering is that conventional breeding depends on the selection of random mutations, and genetic engineering does not. Making food cheaper is a benefit, more robust, more resistant to pests, more nutritious--those are benefits that you would like to sweep away--why??

 

[Axulus]

They are trying to force labels on GMO foods through state ballot initiatives in the USA. They have already won in Europe.

Informed consumers is never a bad thing unless they have something to hide. Spare us the guilt trip about millions of starving people. If the GMO producers are the great benefactors of humanity as you allege they will continue to supply starving people with GMO food and wealthy first-worlders can choose to consume it or not.

I demand to be informed about which genes were altered in conventionally bred varieties, and I demand that these products have labels on them telling me this info. If any of the organic farmers are against it, what do they have to hide? I also demand that these products go through extensive testing to determine what effect this new combination of genes has on human health and the environment before they are allowed to be released on the market.

Furthermore, it's a joke to think that a product labeled "GMO" provides any useful information. Which gene was modified or inserted? What is the data in regards to the effect of this gene? I demand that all the scientific papers researching the gene be attached to every GMO product I buy. After all, what do they have to hide?