Support GMO foods

[bilby]

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.

There is no potential for harm that exists because of GMOs that did not already exist prior to GMOs. Indeed, because genetic modification is targeted, the potential for unintended consequences is far lower than with any other husbandry technique ever used. Your objection is analogous to objecting to snipers being used on the Western Front in WWI on the grounds that snipers might miss their intended target and kill a civillian; so we should ban snipers, and stick with the tried and tested 'machine gun' and 'massive artillery bombardment' techniques for killing enemy officers.

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

No matter how nefarious, nor how benevolent, their motives, the science remains unchanged. If what they are doing is risky, it is risky regardless of benevolent intent; and as what they are doing is not risky, it is harmless regardless of nefarious intent.

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.

Big business also has a long history of promoting the beneficial and sometimes 'beneficial' aspects of their products while defending themselves from spurious claims of harm. Which they are doing in any given case can be decided by science, but cannot be determined from history.

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

OK, I am looking at it. It appears not to have involved genetic modification, so it really is not at all relevant to the question of GMO safety.

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.

Well, if you were truly concerned about saving lives and promoting better health, you would have become a doctor. I suspect that you haven't found a way to make a living as a doctor.

Of course, that is a ridiculous argument; You have chosen a career path for any number of reasons, and you don't treat sick patients, not because you don't care about them, but because it isn't your job - you are not qualified to do it, and you can do more for society, and for yourself, by doing your own job as well as you can.

It isn't Monsanto's job to dig wells for African villages, or to solve world conflict, any more than it is your job. Monsanto sells seed to farmers. They try to sell the best seed they can produce, at a competitive price. That's what they do. Whether or not any of their products are harmful is a matter for science to determine. It cannot be determined by looking at their failure to dig wells for poor villages in the Sudan.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

What else IS THERE to say, when someone says 'nobody can do X because I think it's cooties'? You've not offered any real evidence that it's cooties, and the lack of evidence is evidence of the lack of such cooties. Continuing to stand as a Luddite is childish and irrational, as much or moreso than conservative Christians claiming gay marriage will bring the end of days and nazis riding dinosaurs. You have to establish a reason, a mechanism by which the Apocolypse will come about if your precious food nostalgia is shattered with GM cooties. You haven't. Just accept that the world changes, usually for the better, and get off it. If you don't, you're really no better than Boehner whining about the world turning brownish and gays having rights.

Maybe if you did something truly progressive and asked yourself 'well, what kind of GM would I support?' And force yourself to believe that answer is not 'none' and honestly try to find something, then you could come up with a more general principle than 'GM BAD'. You have to assume you are at least a little wrong if you are going to ever be right. There are plenty of applications of GM I wouldn't support, and I do support continued testing. I think some level of caution and continued wariness is warranted. But your views are just asinine.

 

[Axulus]

Responding to consumer demand, companies provide useful tools such as this:

NON-GMO PROJECT VERIFIED PRODUCTS LIST
This product list highlights products in each store that have been verified under the Non-GMO Project Product Verification Program.

The Product Verification Program uses a process that combines on-site facility audits, document-based review and product testing to verify compliance with the standard at every level of the supply chain, from manufacturing facilities to ingredient suppliers. For a product to be verified and bear the seal, it must undergo a process through which any ingredient at high risk for GMO contamination — soy or corn, for example — has been proven to meet the standard through avoidance practices and testing.

Please choose your local store to view their Non-GMO Project Verified Products List

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/service/non-gmo-project-verified-products-list

What the labeling requirement is really about is to get those of us who don't care whether the product has GMOs in it or not to pay these verification costs by making them mandatory for all products. Anti-GMOers already have a whole industry that caters to them, but apparently that's not enough to satisfy these zealots.

Yes, laughing dog: on-site facility audits, document-based review and product testing to verify compliance with the standard at every level of the supply chain, from manufacturing facilities to ingredient suppliers; not to mention the processes and procedures each member of the supply chain must implement to pass such a process. It sounds like it won't cost a penny, eh? No, thank you, pay for these costs yourself.

 

[bilby]

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.

Of course there is. You can look for these labels, for example:

Or you can look online for whole catalogues of non-GMO foods: http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/

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

Well to take maize as an example, the world price was fairly flat, until about 2006, then it went up dramatically to a peak in 2012, and has since fallen back to below the 1996 peak. In the same time period, world population has gone from 5.6 billion to about 7.2 billion, so being able to buy maize at 1996 prices today represents quite an achievement. (source).

 

[Axulus]

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

Of course there is. You can look for these labels, for example:

Or you can look online for whole catalogues of non-GMO foods: http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-non-gmo/search-participating-products/

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

Well to take maize as an example, the world price was fairly flat, until about 2006, then it went up dramatically to a peak in 2012, and has since fallen back to below the 1996 peak. In the same time period, world population has gone from 5.6 billion to about 7.2 billion, so being able to buy maize at 1996 prices today represents quite an achievement. (source).

And imagine how much further the price would drop if we got rid of the biofuel mandate boondoggle.

 

[arkirk]

You think we should just assume that this infant industry (speaking historically) the (behind closed doors Monsanto industry) GMO should be considered the default product on the market and we should be forced to look for labels on non-GMO foods? Should this change in our diet and also the accompanying changes in our rural landscape be allowed to proceed out of sight? You are supporting the renaming of this corporate giant to...Monopolysanto. It is already 2/3 of the way there.

Their motto used to be "Living better chemically." Now they are a seed company and a major litigation company. There are epidemiological, social and environmental reasons for labeling GMO's.

 

[bilby]

You think we should just assume that this infant industry (speaking historically) the (behind closed doors Monsanto industry) GMO should be considered the default product on the market and we should be forced to look for labels on non-GMO foods? Should this change in our diet and also the accompanying changes in our rural landscape be allowed to proceed out of sight? You are supporting the renaming of this corporate giant to...Monopolysanto. It is already 2/3 of the way there.

Their motto used to be "Living better chemically." Now they are a seed company and a major litigation company. There are epidemiological, social and environmental reasons for labeling GMO's.

No. There are no epidemiological or environmental reasons for labelling GMOs. If there were such reasons for GMOs to be considered harmful, then they would be reasons for a ban, not for labelling. But there are not.

As for social reasons, do you think that it is unfair to Jews who keep kosher, that food that fails to meet their requirements is not labelled as such? Should all non-halal food carry a 'Warning - Haram' label to protect Muslims? Both of these groups of ideologically picky eaters can buy food specifically made to their requirements, and labelled as such; and the same is true for those who believe that GMOs will cause them harm - they can buy stuff labelled as non-GMO or Organic.

I don't care if the food I eat meets or does not meet other people's irrational dietary requirements; I will happily eat fish and chips from the shop with a sign saying 'All our food is Halal, no pork fat is used in this shop' (and have done so on a number of occasions), and I will equally happily eat fish and chips from the shop down the road that makes no such commitment (it's a tiny bit cheaper, but it's a longer walk). It is fine for the Muslims to eat only certified halal fish and chips, and to pay any costs associated with ensuring that the food meets their requirements and is labelled as such; It would NOT be fine for them to insist that we label anything that isn't halal*.

I will happily eat GM or non-GM foods. If your irrational belief that GM food is harmful (which has exactly the same evidence as Muslims' belief that food fried in pork fat is harmful, while food fried in beef fat isn't) prevent you from wanting to eat the stuff, then you are the one who has to take steps to have the stuff you can bring yourself to eat is labelled accordingly.





*I specifically use the example of fish and chips because I don't want to get into a derail about halal slaughtering methods, which is a whole other discussion. Also, it makes me smile because I think of New Zealanders saying 'fush and chups'.

 

[Jarhyn]

You think we should just assume that this infant industry (speaking historically) the (behind closed doors Monsanto industry) GMO should be considered the default product on the market and we should be forced to look for labels on non-GMO foods? Should this change in our diet and also the accompanying changes in our rural landscape be allowed to proceed out of sight? You are supporting the renaming of this corporate giant to...Monopolysanto. It is already 2/3 of the way there.

Their motto used to be "Living better chemically." Now they are a seed company and a major litigation company. There are epidemiological, social and environmental reasons for labeling GMO's.

No. That's a classic nonsequitur. There are epidemiological, social, and environmentally rationally supported reasons to continue studying them. There are not such reasons to label. Labeling will not, and cannot satisfy any epidemiological or enviornmental questions. Labeling is a means to an end that has not been justified.

 

[arkirk]

You think we should just assume that this infant industry (speaking historically) the (behind closed doors Monsanto industry) GMO should be considered the default product on the market and we should be forced to look for labels on non-GMO foods? Should this change in our diet and also the accompanying changes in our rural landscape be allowed to proceed out of sight? You are supporting the renaming of this corporate giant to...Monopolysanto. It is already 2/3 of the way there.

Their motto used to be "Living better chemically." Now they are a seed company and a major litigation company. There are epidemiological, social and environmental reasons for labeling GMO's.

No. That's a classic nonsequitur. There are epidemiological, social, and environmentally rationally supported reasons to continue studying them. There are not such reasons to label. Labeling will not, and cannot satisfy any epidemiological or enviornmental questions. Labeling is a means to an end that has not been justified.

When you seek information as to the effects of anything on people you have to know if or if not they have consumed the material. The only way to do this is to LABEL THE SHIT. Researching the actual effects of this on an at large population is virtually impossible if the stuff is NOT LABELED. Nobody knows what they have eaten...unless it is Monopolysanto time and all can be assumed to have eaten it. If you have never dealt with environmental cancer clusters and the like, you really cannot speak with authority on this. It has to do with access to accurate statistical information among other factors. Without labels...you and I get to just guess.

For the guy who likes fish and chips... I operated and monitored wastewater plants for 25 years and a lot of my work was monitoring receiving waters. I also read countless studies on bioassay and offshore fish studies. Enjoy your fish and chips GMO dipped. You are only bragging about how careless you are.

 

[Jarhyn]

No. That's a classic nonsequitur. There are epidemiological, social, and environmentally rationally supported reasons to continue studying them. There are not such reasons to label. Labeling will not, and cannot satisfy any epidemiological or enviornmental questions. Labeling is a means to an end that has not been justified.

When you seek information as to the effects of anything on people you have to know if or if not they have consumed the material. The only way to do this is to LABEL THE SHIT. Researching the actual effects of this on an at large population is virtually impossible if the stuff is NOT LABELED. Nobody knows what they have eaten...unless it is Monopolysanto time and all can be assumed to have eaten it. If you have never dealt with environmental cancer clusters and the like, you really cannot speak with authority on this. It has to do with access to accurate statistical information among other factors. Without labels...you and I get to just guess.

For the guy who likes fish and chips... I operated and monitored wastewater plants for 25 years and a lot of my work was monitoring receiving waters. I also read countless studies on bioassay and offshore fish studies. Enjoy your fish and chips GMO dipped. You are only bragging about how careless you are.

You seem not to understand any of the science of genetic modification, heredity, or bioinformatics. You seem not to understand the mechanisms of sexual reproduction, or their impact on trait distribution or selection. You appear to not understand pretty much any of the science or the arguments here. Your religion appears to be serlini and woo. I pity you. You refuse to assume you are wrong. i can't help that. That's religion. That's axioms. It's an unnecessary axiom, but only you can shed that.

 

[bilby]

No. That's a classic nonsequitur. There are epidemiological, social, and environmentally rationally supported reasons to continue studying them. There are not such reasons to label. Labeling will not, and cannot satisfy any epidemiological or enviornmental questions. Labeling is a means to an end that has not been justified.

When you seek information as to the effects of anything on people you have to know if or if not they have consumed the material. The only way to do this is to LABEL THE SHIT. Researching the actual effects of this on an at large population is virtually impossible if the stuff is NOT LABELED. Nobody knows what they have eaten...unless it is Monopolysanto time and all can be assumed to have eaten it. If you have never dealt with environmental cancer clusters and the like, you really cannot speak with authority on this. It has to do with access to accurate statistical information among other factors. Without labels...you and I get to just guess.

For the guy who likes fish and chips... I operated and monitored wastewater plants for 25 years and a lot of my work was monitoring receiving waters. I also read countless studies on bioassay and offshore fish studies. Enjoy your fish and chips GMO dipped. You are only bragging about how careless you are.

Actually, if you want to look at the long-term effects of consumption of GMOs against a control group, you could look at the incidence of GMO related medical problems in the US, compared with the EU (Where they are banned). A quick look at the rates of various cancers, and in particular endocrine cancers (an example that should, if we believe the debunked Seralini study, provide stark evidence of harm), shows no indication whatsoever that there is any health risk at all. But then, we only have twenty years of data. Perhaps eating GMOs for more than 500 years is fatal

With regards to fish and chips - your apparent glee at the idea that I am consuming some kind of disgusting sewage products all unaware speaks volumes about what kind of person you are; But the fact is that I am not unaware; and when consumed in moderate quantities, fish is not harmful - although due to such things as heavy metal contamination, consuming them in very large quantities could potentially cause harm - something that is not true of GMOs. Mercury is vastly more toxic than glyphosate; but the does makes the poison, and tiny traces of mercury (or dioxin, or any of the other stuff that ends up in fish) are not going to kill me.

Given my cholesterol level, and the fact that heart disease is a major killer in the developed world, eating fish is probably doing me a lot more good than harm. When you only look at the harm side of the equation, everything is going to kill you. Given your propensity to discount any possible benefits, and to concentrate only on the risks, I am amazed that you are able to overcome your fear to the point of getting out of bed in the morning.

 

[fromderinside]

When you seek information as to the effects of anything on people you have to know if or if not they have consumed the material. The only way to do this is to LABEL THE SHIT. Researching the actual effects of this on an at large population is virtually impossible if the stuff is NOT LABELED. Nobody knows what they have eaten...unless it is Monopolysanto time and all can be assumed to have eaten it. If you have never dealt with environmental cancer clusters and the like, you really cannot speak with authority on this. It has to do with access to accurate statistical information among other factors. Without labels...you and I get to just guess.

For the guy who likes fish and chips... I operated and monitored wastewater plants for 25 years and a lot of my work was monitoring receiving waters. I also read countless studies on bioassay and offshore fish studies. Enjoy your fish and chips GMO dipped. You are only bragging about how careless you are.

Actually, if you want to look at the long-term effects of consumption of GMOs against a control group, you could look at the incidence of GMO related medical problems in the US, compared with the EU (Where they are banned). A quick look at the rates of various cancers, and in particular endocrine cancers (an example that should, if we believe the debunked Seralini study, provide stark evidence of harm), shows no indication whatsoever that there is any health risk at all. But then, we only have twenty years of data. Perhaps eating GMOs for more than 500 years is fatal

With regards to fish and chips - your apparent glee at the idea that I am consuming some kind of disgusting sewage products all unaware speaks volumes about what kind of person you are; But the fact is that I am not unaware; and when consumed in moderate quantities, fish is not harmful - although due to such things as heavy metal contamination, consuming them in very large quantities could potentially cause harm - something that is not true of GMOs. Mercury is vastly more toxic than glyphosate; but the does makes the poison, and tiny traces of mercury (or dioxin, or any of the other stuff that ends up in fish) are not going to kill me.

Given my cholesterol level, and the fact that heart disease is a major killer in the developed world, eating fish is probably doing me a lot more good than harm. When you only look at the harm side of the equation, everything is going to kill you. Given your propensity to discount any possible benefits, and to concentrate only on the risks, I am amazed that you are able to overcome your fear to the point of getting out of bed in the morning.

I'm ARE-gon-ian where a GMO labeling ballot measure lost by about 10,000 votes last November, where a farming county in southern Oregon actually banned GMO seeds in the same election. Oh yes, we also have legal medical suicide, medical and recreational marijuana . Yassir its fun here. Big business won this election, but, we''re coming back. Unfortunately big business is trying to fight the banning of GMOS in Jackson County in the courts. Long and hard road. I see victory ahead.

 

[SimpleDon]

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

View attachment 2217​

The late Norman Cousins pointed out that professional science has always been co-opted by military and economic forces, often dictating the purpose of the research or development. Some of the people working in the GMO labs who call themselves scientists and pay $155 for professional membership are involved in these polls no doubt. Many of these so called scientists are actually engineers (especially in the chemical industry) and they are given the parameters of the results they are told to seek. There are large techno/legal organizations that call themselves Environmental Science that actually prepare reports that are favorable to their clients (usually chemical companies). I am including a snip from the AAAS bylaws that tells who may be a member...and presumably participate in this type of poll. Additionally, anybody who verbally agrees to their stated purpose may become a member. The organization also sports a long list of "patron" members who do the heavy financial lifting (and probably policy setting) for the organization. I would take this poll with a grain of salt.
View attachment 2218

Okay, were to begin? I am just an engineer, apparently by your reasoning unable to consider myself a scientist and therefore not bound to maintain the integrity of the scientific method. Funny, because in all of the years that I worked including many years that I was responsible for the Research and Development of a more than one billion dollar a year company, one in the mining and refining business whose long term prospects depended on, oh, my God, depended on the company's research and development. But who am I to comment on engineering, science or research?

Especially when compared to your expert on science and engineering, Norman Cousins. A journalist and liberal pundit, the Rachel Maddow of the 1960's and 1970's. The founder of laugh therapy, laugh yourself to good health. How can I compete with him as an expert on science and engineering?

Scientists deal with the natural, real world. They are limited therefore in their research to those things that can happen in the real world. No matter how anyone else wants any research to turn out, no matter how much they want to coop the scientists and engineers, the main constraints in research and development are dictated not by how someone wants the research to turn out but by the limits of physics, chemistry and material science and our understanding of them. As we always said, you can't beat Newton, which meant that you can't beat physics.

And there is no hiding research. In the current world you have to assume that someday you will have to defend your research or other work in court, either defending a patent, a contract case or in a libility case. If you screwed up it will be out there for the whole world to see.

So you are going to have to give me a more concrete example of the profit motive dictating research. And no, Norman Cousins, the laugh king isn't it for me. Do you have someone who is alive? Or someone who has something more than just a remote connection to science and engineering?

As I said in another post above here somewhere I was a licensed professional engineer which means specifically that I had a duty to the public, to my clients and to my employer beyond making a profit, a duty to build a safe and a productive installation, for example. This involved personal liability for my work, up to prison.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you didn't know most of this. That you didn't know that engineers were professionals that were personally liable for their work. I would also guess that Norman didn't know this either.

And the membership requirements don't show me why I should take the poll with a grain of salt.Their members range from students to post doc to academics and industrial scientists. I don't see where an simple engineer could sneak in to hopelessly skew the GMO food part of the poll from what a real scientist would have said. Please enlighten me.

 

[SimpleDon]

And there is this,



Then who do you trust? Apparently some anonymous blogger on the internet who shares the same opinion that you do.

It depends how you frame the question. Why not go and get the original poll.
If a respondee to the poll has to choose between understand and not understand , yet, feels that scientists are compromised then maybe they just choose to answer "don't understand"

So you believe that the scientists didn't understand the questions? Or the public didn't? Why would the scientists be compromised? I am having trouble making any sense of your post.

 

[Axulus]

Why would the scientists be compromised?

Money, sex, drugs, power and Joe Biden.

 

[bilby]

Why would the scientists be compromised?

Money, sex, drugs, power and Joe Biden.

Shill Bucks!!

The Credible Hulk wrote a pretty good post on this subject: https://www.facebook.com/therealcrediblehulk/photos/a.892787380752581.1073741828.892778157420170/892816944082958

The overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that GMO foods are no more dangerous or less nutritious than their corresponding non-GMO counterparts. In regards to the disturbingly popular (albeit unsupportable) notion that biotech companies like Monsanto have somehow bought off nearly every major scientific organization in the world to accept the consensus that the current varieties of GMO foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts, consider the following:

ExxonMobil makes more than 26 times more money than Monsanto, and has a higher net profit margin, too. Combined, the country's top 5 oil companies have a gross revenue exceeding $1.3 trillion, more than 87 times Monsanto's revenue, and yet they still can't get the world's scientists to say that global warming isn't real.

If the oil companies can't buy a conspiracy of scientists, how can a comparatively minuscule company like Monsanto manage it? Spoiler alert: They can't, and they don't.

 

[Toni]

I prefer my food to be tasty and free of known poisons.

The dose makes the poison. There is nothing that is toxic in a sufficiently small quantity. There is nothing that isn't toxic in a sufficiently large quantity.

Of course, for some poisons, the effect is cumulative. And sometimes, the effect takes a long time to become evident. Easy example: Arsenic.

 

[Toni]

I am not pushing for anything nor do I understand that GMOs are perfectly safe. Nor do I care if GMOs are safe (nothing is really perfectly safe). I am simply expressing disbelief that labeling is costly. And I am applying the dictum that labelling in general is a good idea since it provides more relevant information to consumers.

The motivations of the anti-GMOers is not really relevant in my view. They believe GMOs are unsafe or immoral or whatever. Consumers should have easy access to information relevant to them in order that they can make legal purchasing decisions that they feel are in their best interests.

And how is the lack of mandatory label preventing anti-GMOers from making legal purchasing decisions to buy "GMO-free" or "Organic" products that they feel are in their best interests?

Aside from withholding information that such consumers find relevant?

 

[tupac chopra]

It depends how you frame the question. Why not go and get the original poll.
If a respondee to the poll has to choose between understand and not understand , yet, feels that scientists are compromised then maybe they just choose to answer "don't understand"

So you believe that the scientists didn't understand the questions? Or the public didn't? Why would the scientists be compromised? I am having trouble making any sense of your post.

No i'm saying that the public might have understood but that the choices of answers possibly weren't good. So they may have gone with the best of two bad answers. Wewould need to see the actual poll.
Some scientists would certainly be compromised.

 

[Toni]

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.

Do you know how new genes are introduced to a target organism? By new genes, I mean genes which are not naturally found in any variety or closely related species of that target organism? They are transferred by vector, often viral, which is then incorporated into the genome of the target organism. This contrasts with the transmission of genetic traits through breeding schemes.

Why should a biotech company not be interested in helping develop cheap, reliable ways to provide clean water to populations?

Besides, I was asking why we, as a society do not put as much emphasis on ensuring an adequate supply of clean, potable water. And why we, as a society, do not put more efforts into eliminating armed conflicts which are responsible for so much death and destruction and starvation?