Support GMO foods

[laughing dog]

You are not so compelled. You have an entire supermarket, by your own admission, at which you can buy non-GMO foods.

Which supermarket explicitly marks "non-GMO' foods?

But if your question is 'why can't I guarantee there is no biological creep between GMO and non GMO genes', the answer is 'fuck you, you don't get to demand that the world be shittier because you have an irrational bug up your ass' just like you can't demand to not have to touch anything a homosexual has touched, and just like you can't demand to be free from having to see women, or any other such irrational and unreasonable thing.

That is certainly one possible response. Since it is based on a very questionable premise - that delineating between GMO and non-GMO foods makes the world shittier- and filled with irrational belligerence, it resembles a rather nasty fart of a thought rather than actual answer.

 

[Jarhyn]

Which supermarket explicitly marks "non-GMO' foods?

But if your question is 'why can't I guarantee there is no biological creep between GMO and non GMO genes', the answer is 'fuck you, you don't get to demand that the world be shittier because you have an irrational bug up your ass' just like you can't demand to not have to touch anything a homosexual has touched, and just like you can't demand to be free from having to see women, or any other such irrational and unreasonable thing.

That is certainly one possible response. Since it is based on a very questionable premise - that delineating between GMO and non-GMO foods makes the world shittier- and filled with irrational belligerence, it resembles a rather nasty fart of a thought rather than actual answer.

F for reading comprehension. The demand I am answering is the demand people have it not have to consume GMO. It is not possible to have this demand be met without the eradication of all GMOs everywhere because GM traits can, will, and already have begun to show up in crops everywhere. The demand is to make the world shittier, because of some half-cocked Luddititism. I doubt it is even possible to eradicate and eliminate BT genetics from the potato at this point.

All food, 'organic', 'non-GMO' or whatever other thing you might want with a GM variant will have some measure of GM traits in it, particularly if it is adaptive for farmed organisms, such as the BT trait. Demanding to not have to eat that is the functional equivalent of demanding that any bus seat you sit in has never been touched by teh gays.

Suck it up buttercup. It's a brave new world. So enjoy your corn and potatoes. I'd honestly and wholeheartedly support the dusting of Asian countries with golden rice pollen just to force the trait irreversibly into global circulation and end that debate.

 

[Togo]

It is interesting. We seem to be split between the anti-corporation people who don't trust anyone who is trying to make a profit and the anti-government ones who believe that government is evil and they don't trust anyone who is not trying to make a profit.

I don't agree. The opinions people are expressing are generally more nuanced than that, although, as always, there are some outliers.

 

[Axulus]

You are not so compelled. You have an entire supermarket, by your own admission, at which you can buy non-GMO foods.

But if your question is 'why can't I guarantee there is no biological creep between GMO and non GMO genes', the answer is 'fuck you, you don't get to demand that the world be shittier because you have an irrational bug up your ass' just like you can't demand to not have to touch anything a homosexual has touched, and just like you can't demand to be free from having to see women, or any other such irrational and unreasonable thing.

Thank you for your kind sentiments but you are vastly confused.

It is quite reasonable to assume that GMO genes are in fact being spread into other crops and into mom-target species. It is not a far reach at all to believe that there will be unintended consequences. And it is rational to be concerned that there is potential for those consequences to be delirious for at least some humans and for the environment.

Please let us not be confused about Monsantos motives, which are corporate profit.

Please let us not forget that big business has a long history of promoting the beneficial and sometimes 'beneficial' aspects of their products while sweeping valid concerns under the rug.

Look at Nestlé's promotion of formula for babies, first in the 'modern' west and then in developing nations.

If we are truly concerned about saving lives and promoting better health in developing countries, we would be working a lot harder at promoting access to reliable sources of clean water. We certainly would be doing more to prevent armed conflicts and political instability. I suspect Monsanto hasn't found a way to make a profit on those initiatives.

Why are you not similarly concerned that the genes from new varieties created using breeding techniques will not similarly spread in the environment with unintended consequences?

Also, Monsanto is a biotech company and a vendor for the agriculture industry. Why would we expect them to spend time working on clean water? Leave that to the water companies and non-profit organizations.

 

[SimpleDon]

I'm just going to point out, as others certainly have, that the "GMOs will eliminate world hunger" angle is nothing more than PR bullshit. GMOs are used to increase productivity in mature markets where an intact legal system can maintain controls on their cultivation and prevent those GMO strains from being misappropriated by local farmers; they are not and will never be used to feed the third world, because doing so creates the risk of those modified foods falling into the hands of poor farmers who will not pay royalties to Monsanto and do not have a government that will bother making them.

It is PR. It is PR and it is probable. Millions of lives would be saved if they were to eat golden rice instead of white rice. This is not mere speculation. This is fact. And nobody would be charged royalties, because golden rice is not Monsanto or Dupont. It is the Rockefeller Foundation. Golden rice would be provided freely. But Golden Rice is opposed by the same people who oppose Monsanto because they don't know the difference. Vaccines were developed by the first world. If the 19th-century anti-vaxxers had won, they would have deprived vaccines, not just from the first world, but from the whole world. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you are human, and you won't be.

If you ever get to the Philippines please go to the Rice Institute. When I first went there thirty years ago it was housed in a building not much bigger than a large American suburban house, with a handful of scientists and financed with money from the Rockefeller Foundation that was so little that the foundation didn't think to question it because the amount was in the petty cash range for them. And yet this institute probably had the largest positive impact of any single effort in the twentieth century.

I was told by Chinese government officials that the single biggest reason that they opened up to the rest of the world is because the rice from the Institute in a matter of a few short years turned the PRC from an importer of rice to feed the starving people of China into a net exporter. (The same is true for the hybrids of wheat that the Chinese also depend on, think about noodles.)

Is it true? Considering the overwhelming volume of lies verses truth that I heard from Chinese government officials, probably not. But it is a wonderful story. And there is probably more truth in it than the teller even intended, as he tried to butter me up, in search of a bribe most likely.

 

[Axulus]

Is there a specific reason I shouldn't?

A mature market typically means one that is stable without much growth. Agriculture in Brazil and China is growing rapidly. There is still a large productivity gap in their farms vs. the US. The productivity gap is closing though helped in part by an embrace of GMOs.

Therefore, I must ask what your criteria is for "mature" market. Furthermore, by the time the non-mature markets without intellectual property protection get their shit together, many more GMO varieties will be off patent, allowing them to use those seeds free of IP issues.

RR GMO Soybeans are not being used -- or even touted -- as a solution to world hunger, hence they are primarily being cultivated as export crops in South American countries simply because they are easier to grow in large quantities with smaller overhead. They are, if anything, a boon to the farming economies of poorer countries and a profit booster to farmers. But since selling those products to consumers remains far more profitable than donating them to starving children in Africa, those same farmers will continue to do the former.

Finally, you ignore the fact that the "mature" markets tend to be large exporters of food because they grow far more than needed for just themselves. Therefore, these non-mature markets can be fed through imports, of which there will be even more of when useful GMO varieties are used in the mature markets.

Good example, too.

RR soybeans are not the only patent that has or will expire. It was just an example because it was pretty much the first major GMO seed introduced to the market.

 

[SimpleDon]

It is interesting. We seem to be split between the anti-corporation people who don't trust anyone who is trying to make a profit and the anti-government ones who believe that government is evil and they don't trust anyone who is not trying to make a profit.

I don't agree. The opinions people are expressing are generally more nuanced than that, although, as always, there are some outliers.

Yes, of course they are. But I think that for a first order approximation that what I have said is true. Can you point to any other constantly pro-corporation, pro-government posters shouting moderation, except for me and bilby, if he would forgive my gross simplification of his position.

 

[SimpleDon]

A mature market typically means one that is stable without much growth. Agriculture in Brazil and China is growing rapidly. There is still a large productivity gap in their farms vs. the US. The productivity gap is closing though helped in part by an embrace of GMOs.

Therefore, I must ask what your criteria is for "mature" market. Furthermore, by the time the non-mature markets without intellectual property protection get their shit together, many more GMO varieties will be off patent, allowing them to use those seeds free of IP issues.

RR GMO Soybeans are not being used -- or even touted -- as a solution to world hunger, hence they are primarily being cultivated as export crops in South American countries simply because they are easier to grow in large quantities with smaller overhead. They are, if anything, a boon to the farming economies of poorer countries and a profit booster to farmers. But since selling those products to consumers remains far more profitable than donating them to starving children in Africa, those same farmers will continue to do the former.

Finally, you ignore the fact that the "mature" markets tend to be large exporters of food because they grow far more than needed for just themselves. Therefore, these non-mature markets can be fed through imports, of which there will be even more of when useful GMO varieties are used in the mature markets.

Good example, too.

RR soybeans are not the only patent that has or will expire. It was just an example because it was pretty much the first major GMO seed introduced to the market.

There is also the underlying, mistaken idea that the purpose of patents is to restrict the use of the technology. The opposite is true, the purpose of patents is to make the technology more widely available by assuring the patent holder a small fee to use it and the eventual release of the technology so that anyone can use it. The alternative to patents is for the technology to be restricted and hidden.

 

[laughing dog]

Which supermarket explicitly marks "non-GMO' foods?
That is certainly one possible response. Since it is based on a very questionable premise - that delineating between GMO and non-GMO foods makes the world shittier- and filled with irrational belligerence, it resembles a rather nasty fart of a thought rather than actual answer.

F for reading comprehension. The demand I am answering is the demand people have it not have to consume GMO. It is not possible to have this demand be met without the eradication of all GMOs everywhere because GM traits can, will, and already have begun to show up in crops everywhere.

F- for logic comprehension. You wrote what you wrote. Since GMOs are not everywhere yet, it is possible to have only non-GMO foods. Hence the demand is neither impossible nor irrational and cannot make the world a shittier place at this time.

All food, 'organic', 'non-GMO' or whatever other thing you might want with a GM variant will have some measure of GM traits in it, particularly if it is adaptive for farmed organisms, such as the BT trait. Demanding to not have to eat that is the functional equivalent of demanding that any bus seat you sit in has never been touched by teh gays.

If and when that time is reached, your current argument is illogical.

Suck it up buttercup. It's a brave new world. So enjoy your corn and potatoes. I'd honestly and wholeheartedly support the dusting of Asian countries with golden rice pollen just to force the trait irreversibly into global circulation and end that debate.

Good for you. When that occurs, there will be no demand for GMO labelling. So until that occurs, what is the real harm in labelling food? Not that silly imaginary harm of exformation, but an actual harm.

 

[SimpleDon]

I present this with no comment, I believe that it is self-explanatory.[/misplaced optimism]

View attachment 2217​

Are you going to leave out scientists that work for Monsanto in your poll? If so then where do you stop?
Most of the world does not believe that scientists who work for profit seeking corporations conduct neutral scientific investigation. Even the American public understands this , though American scientists are understandably reticent to oppose those who feed them

In other words there is nothing "self evident" (a peculiarly American term) about your chart

.

Yes, self-evident is an echo to our Declaration of Independence in which a slave owner wrote that "we hold these truths to self-evident, that all men are created equal." I apologize, this would be obvious only to Americans in the US. I thought that the addition of the "[/misplaced optimism]" tag would have alerted others that I wasn't being entirely serious.

As for your assertion that scientists who work for a for profit making company can't produce neutral research, I disagree. They are conducting research that the company will invest in heavily. It is in the best interest of the company that the research represents a real, reproducible and safe discovery. The costs of the research are small usually compared to the costs of bringing the product to the market. Depending on the business nearly all of the research conducted fails to produce a marketable product. It is the nature of the beast.

I was a professional engineer, licensed by the state of New York and others to practice my profession. The idea behind licensing and professionalism in general is that the licensed professional has a duty beyond making a profit to society and to the public, to build safe and productive installations. This is backed up with the force of law, personal liability and the threat of prison, although it is seldom used. This idea of professionalism includes doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, barbers, and I think that it extends to scientists, although they aren't licensed by the state they are charged by their training with maintaining the integrity of the scientific method as well as to society in general.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Regardless of the merits or lack of merits of GMOs, can anyone explain why I should be compelled to consume them if I don't wish to? Or if I wish to minimize the extent to which I consume GMOs?

So, buy non-GMO products. We aren't saying such things shouldn't be on the market. It's just they don't get the cost savings that are the point of GMOs and they have increased logistics cost--they'll be expensive.

 

[Jarhyn]

Regardless of the merits or lack of merits of GMOs, can anyone explain why I should be compelled to consume them if I don't wish to? Or if I wish to minimize the extent to which I consume GMOs?

So, buy non-GMO products. We aren't saying such things shouldn't be on the market. It's just they don't get the cost savings that are the point of GMOs and they have increased logistics cost--they'll be expensive.

I don't know if this is true. I suspect it isn't; in any real world environment, genetic modifications will be invasive into other compatible strains. If we have GMOs, everyone will be compelled to eat them, because they can't not.

It's not that non-GMO should or should not be on the market, if there are GMOs, untainted guaranteed non-GMOs can't be brought to the market because there simply won't be anything 100% untainted. And if you say that's a reason to not genetically modify at all, the answer is 'fuck you'.

 

[Jarhyn]

F for reading comprehension. The demand I am answering is the demand people have it not have to consume GMO. It is not possible to have this demand be met without the eradication of all GMOs everywhere because GM traits can, will, and already have begun to show up in crops everywhere.

F- for logic comprehension. You wrote what you wrote. Since GMOs are not everywhere yet, it is possible to have only non-GMO foods. Hence the demand is neither impossible nor irrational and cannot make the world a shittier place at this time.

All food, 'organic', 'non-GMO' or whatever other thing you might want with a GM variant will have some measure of GM traits in it, particularly if it is adaptive for farmed organisms, such as the BT trait. Demanding to not have to eat that is the functional equivalent of demanding that any bus seat you sit in has never been touched by teh gays.

If and when that time is reached, your current argument is illogical.

Suck it up buttercup. It's a brave new world. So enjoy your corn and potatoes. I'd honestly and wholeheartedly support the dusting of Asian countries with golden rice pollen just to force the trait irreversibly into global circulation and end that debate.

Good for you. When that occurs, there will be no demand for GMO labelling. So until that occurs, what is the real harm in labelling food? Not that silly imaginary harm of exformation, but an actual harm.

Spoken like a truly unthinking zombie luddite. You wish to stick your head in the sand and force everyone else to do it with you. It's no better than climate change denial or anti-vax or anti-fission. There is a good world we can have, but only at the expense of the people who fear the 'GM cooties'. suck it up and quit being such a child. Eat your corn and potatoes. They're good for you.

 

[Toni]

Regardless of the merits or lack of merits of GMOs, can anyone explain why I should be compelled to consume them if I don't wish to? Or if I wish to minimize the extent to which I consume GMOs?

So, buy non-GMO products. We aren't saying such things shouldn't be on the market. It's just they don't get the cost savings that are the point of GMOs and they have increased logistics cost--they'll be expensive.

It isn't possible to know whether products I purchase at the grocery store have any GMO components because there is no labeling.

So, has the price of foodstuffs increased or decreased since 1994?

 

[Toni]

So, buy non-GMO products. We aren't saying such things shouldn't be on the market. It's just they don't get the cost savings that are the point of GMOs and they have increased logistics cost--they'll be expensive.

I don't know if this is true. I suspect it isn't; in any real world environment, genetic modifications will be invasive into other compatible strains. If we have GMOs, everyone will be compelled to eat them, because they can't not.

It's not that non-GMO should or should not be on the market, if there are GMOs, untainted guaranteed non-GMOs can't be brought to the market because there simply won't be anything 100% untainted. And if you say that's a reason to not genetically modify at all, the answer is 'fuck you'.

Fuck you seems to be your go to response for any one who disagrees with you. So much for reasoned ideas and rational discourse.

 

[Toni]

F- for logic comprehension. You wrote what you wrote. Since GMOs are not everywhere yet, it is possible to have only non-GMO foods. Hence the demand is neither impossible nor irrational and cannot make the world a shittier place at this time.

All food, 'organic', 'non-GMO' or whatever other thing you might want with a GM variant will have some measure of GM traits in it, particularly if it is adaptive for farmed organisms, such as the BT trait. Demanding to not have to eat that is the functional equivalent of demanding that any bus seat you sit in has never been touched by teh gays.

If and when that time is reached, your current argument is illogical.

Suck it up buttercup. It's a brave new world. So enjoy your corn and potatoes. I'd honestly and wholeheartedly support the dusting of Asian countries with golden rice pollen just to force the trait irreversibly into global circulation and end that debate.

Good for you. When that occurs, there will be no demand for GMO labelling. So until that occurs, what is the real harm in labelling food? Not that silly imaginary harm of exformation, but an actual harm.

Spoken like a truly unthinking zombie luddite. You wish to stick your head in the sand and force everyone else to do it with you. It's no better than climate change denial or anti-vax or anti-fission. There is a good world we can have, but only at the expense of the people who fear the 'GM cooties'. suck it up and quit being such a child. Eat your corn and potatoes. They're good for you.

Talk about unthinking and add knee jerk irrational response.

I thought this forum was for rational thinking. This should include room for skepticism. Instead you see to prefer that we all be sheep who carry water for agribusiness .

 

[tupac chopra]

It is in the best interest of the company that the research represents a real, reproducible and safe discovery.

Does this theory apply to all corporations?
Do you think financial institutions in America this century were trying to produce something safe?

Or if a CEO or a scientist is getting paid then are they really concerned with what might be found to be unsafe some time down the track?

If say Monsanto is really concerned about safety then why don't they do long term tests?

 

[arkirk]

There is a very basic issue here in terms of human rights. WHY ARGUE FOR IGNORANCE? There can be no rational expression of what constitutes human rights if we remain ignorant of the presence of unknown factors which might affect human beings. When those who introduce these factors to the human environment seek to mask and minimize the public consciousness of these factors, they should be held suspect. Hitler hid his ovens. Monsanto hides the details behind trade secrets and a troop of lawyers. They are now trying to hide their presence in common products in the marketplace. Only a blooming idiot would trust this company or others like them with what they are seeking....absolute control of the agricultural MARKET. GMO is only a part of their own very special kind of FINAL SOLUTION. Enforcement of labeling requirements will only slow them down, but it should be done anyway.

Don't be a Monsanto osterich. Don't agree to being one of their human guinea pigs. You may think what Monsanto is doing is a minor factor in your life...when it is really quite major...and invisible in the urban environment. It is not so invisible in the countryside where small farms have virtually been evaporated and wiped out. The term agribusiness is what we have "gained" from this rural "improvement." You should be aware of changes in your food.

It is easy to argue that not everybody needs an education and perhaps that might be in some sense true, but to argue against education is to argue for ignorance. So too is it to argue against labeling and informing the public of what they are eating and how it gets to their plate. The same market forces that struggle against labeling of food contents also argue against public investment in education. Ask yourself...can I trust Monsanto? For me at least, I do not trust them or any other giant corporation with their troops of lawyers defending them from taxation, public knowledge of their actions, and competition.

 

[bilby]

1) It depends on what genes were inserted. This certainly helps people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

2) Having more food for less cost is a benefit to people.

That benefit to humans costs other species dearly. My beef with GMOs isn't along the lines of woo but rather that species are selective in their native environments as to what they can eat. Remove or alter that food and they starve in the midst of apparent abundance. If they don't starve outright they aren't able to reproduce because the insects on which they ultimately raise their young - birds - are absent.

So your objection is not so much against GMOs, as it is against modern agriculture?

 

[ApostateAbe]

It is PR. It is PR and it is probable. Millions of lives would be saved if they were to eat golden rice instead of white rice. This is not mere speculation. This is fact. And nobody would be charged royalties, because golden rice is not Monsanto or Dupont. It is the Rockefeller Foundation. Golden rice would be provided freely. But Golden Rice is opposed by the same people who oppose Monsanto because they don't know the difference. Vaccines were developed by the first world. If the 19th-century anti-vaxxers had won, they would have deprived vaccines, not just from the first world, but from the whole world. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you are human, and you won't be.

If you ever get to the Philippines please go to the Rice Institute. When I first went there thirty years ago it was housed in a building not much bigger than a large American suburban house, with a handful of scientists and financed with money from the Rockefeller Foundation that was so little that the foundation didn't think to question it because the amount was in the petty cash range for them. And yet this institute probably had the largest positive impact of any single effort in the twentieth century.

I was told by Chinese government officials that the single biggest reason that they opened up to the rest of the world is because the rice from the Institute in a matter of a few short years turned the PRC from an importer of rice to feed the starving people of China into a net exporter. (The same is true for the hybrids of wheat that the Chinese also depend on, think about noodles.)

Is it true? Considering the overwhelming volume of lies verses truth that I heard from Chinese government officials, probably not. But it is a wonderful story. And there is probably more truth in it than the teller even intended, as he tried to butter me up, in search of a bribe most likely.

Thanks. In fact, I will be in Manila in a week and a half, but I don't know the next time I will make a trip to Los Baños.