5
53

[–] WiggleYourBigToe 5 points 53 points (+58|-5) ago 

Monoculture agriculture on the other hand, which is essentially the purpose of GMOs, has its downsides.

[–] [deleted] 1 point 19 points (+20|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] SpaceInvader 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I guess the death of a specific type of banana, one that was a bigger version of the current banana that is popular worldwide.

10
18

[–] jiik 10 points 18 points (+28|-10) ago 

Have you seen farms? they already are monocultures. GMOs would just be immune to the major illnesses that come with the monoculture farming.

2
26

[–] WiggleYourBigToe 2 points 26 points (+28|-2) ago 

Right. GMOs were designed to solve problems caused by monoculture farming. Monoculture farming is the purpose of GMOs. And it has its ecological downsides (1, 2).

0
12

[–] Fragnostus 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Small local farms aren't (that's where I buy my stuff)

1
2

[–] PM-me-about-Autism 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

You know what would be good. Genetically heterogeneous, strictly sexually reproducing GMO crops.

1
3

[–] AgriGrunt 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

That is like saying mortgages encourage risky spending. Some banks encourage risky spending, but the mortgage does not.

0
3

[–] deathcomesilent 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's a lot more like saying banks exist for the sole purpose of loaning money.

Not 100% true, but far from a sweeping generalization worthy of correction with an analogy. The concept of "risk" doesn't apply here, a chemical either harms or it does not. An investment is a subjective "time will tell" endeavor.

2
0

[–] WiggleYourBigToe 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

No, it's more like saying banks exist solely because of mortgages (or something like that... i'm no economist and may have gotten lost in the analogy)

2
2

[–] casper 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

which is essentially the purpose of GMOs

*some GMOs. Its also the purpose of conventional crops and 99% of all food.

4
40

[–] Madblood 4 points 40 points (+44|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Let me start by saying that I believe the food is probably safe, and I see a tremendous potential for GMO to do great things for humanity. I have three major gripes about GMO crops though, and until they are addressed I will do my best to avoid GMO foods.

  1. GMO crops are harmful to the wrong insects.

  2. I want less pesticide used on my food, not more. And yes, I'm aware of what is allowed to be used on USDA Certified Organic crops, and I have issues with that as well.

  3. GMO corporations (Monsanto, mainly) suing farmers because the corporation's own GMO crop contaminated cross-pollinated the farmer's crop. That's like suing my neighbor because my dog shat on his lawn.

3
12

[–] Ghost-Robot 3 points 12 points (+15|-3) ago 

GMO corporations (Monsanto, mainly) suing farmers because the corporation's own GMO crop contaminated cross-pollinated the farmer's crop. That's like suing my neighbor because my dog shat on his lawn.

In all seriousness, shouldn't you be able to sue a corporation for their male plants for contaminating your own female crops?

0
14

[–] fudgepacker 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

Monsanto can afford better lawyers and drag cases out for years.

1
12

[–] taxation_is_slavery 1 point 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Raping their female crops, you mean.

0
9

[–] 0x7a69 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Technically, they are polluting, or perhaps even damaging your crops. If you were an organic farmer, you have a good case there for a lawsuit.

4
0

[–] casper 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

If it ever actually happened like that maybe, but it hasn't. Schmieser was a scammer.

6
6

[–] snizlefoot 6 points 6 points (+12|-6) ago  (edited ago)

  1. gmo crops are all not created equal, how in the fuck do you think golden rice(rice that they inserted vitamin A into and that is it, to make sure kids in 3rd wold countries don't go blind) hurts bugs

  2. there are pesticides on gmo, normal and organic crops, but some gmo's you have to use less pesticides on

  3. The framer your probably thinking of thinking of Percy Schmeiser when his farm was cross bred with round up ready crops, he kept breading his crops till they were all roundup ready. how Monsanto even knew this was happening was that he was buying a ton of roundup but none of the GMO crops that would survive it. they don't sue for random pollination, but if some fucker intentionally trys to get all the benefits of there product without paying Monsanto there going to sue that guy. I mean wouldn't you?

also most farmers don't keep there seeds till the next season especially if there using a hybridized crop (e.g. if someone tried to breed Labradoodle from Labradoodles you weould get some that look like labs and some like poodles. if you want Labradoodles you buy them from someone who breeds poodles with labs)

2
3

[–] Madblood 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

gmo crops are all not created equal, how in the fuck do you think golden rice(rice that they inserted vitamin A into and that is it, to make sure kids in 3rd wold countries don't go blind) hurts bugs

Sorry, I was generalizing. I was referring to Bt corn, and I should have been more specific. As I said in my original comment, GMO has a tremendous potential to do great things. I think it will be a necessity to feed the growing world population.

there are pesticides on gmo, normal and organic crops, but some gmo's you have to use less pesticides on

I'll quote my reply to casper: BT sprayed on crops degrades rapidly and has very low toxicity to humans and wildlife. I've used it myself on my apple tree. In GMO crops, though, it is built into the plant, and ends up in every bite that we eat, and in the pollen that drifts onto nearby wild vegetation that insects use as food.

The framer your probably thinking of thinking of Percy Schmeiser

I remember reading about Schmeiser, and thinking then that he was a douche, but there are others like the Nelson and Stratemeyer farms. Monsanto has averaged 1 lawsuit every 3 weeks for the past 16 years. Not really all that many, I guess, in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure they are right to sue in many of those cases, but even when they know they are wrong they don't let up.

4
4

[–] casper 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago  (edited ago)

GMO crops are harmful to the wrong insects.

That same toxin is used more extensively for organic crops than for GM.

I want less pesticide used on my food, not more.

The alternative to BT are chemical pesticides. The toxicity profile to BT is the safest known to man (which is why they use it so profusely on organics).

GMO corporations (Monsanto

Monsanto only has about 30% marketshare of GM seeds. The rest of the market is controlled by about six companies. Monsanto makes and sells more conventional seeds than anything else and more of them than anybody else. You would hurt them more by boycotting all conventional food and only buying GMOs. Lastly, GM is just a technology. Boycotting all GMO because Monsanto is like boycotting all cell phones because you hate Samsung.

0
1

[–] Madblood 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That same toxin is used more extensively for organic crops than for GM.

BT sprayed on crops degrades rapidly and has very low toxicity to humans and wildlife. I've used it myself on my apple tree. In GMO crops, though, it is built into the plant, and ends up in every bite that we eat, and in the pollen that drifts onto nearby wild vegetation that insects use as food.

The alternative to BT are chemical pesticides. The toxicity profile to BT is the safest known to man (which is why they use it so profusely on organics).

I was thinking more of RoundUp, so I should have said "herbicide," not pesticide. It's not that I worry about either one poisoning my food all that much, but more what they're doing to the environment in general, what's running off into our waterways, and what's making it's way up the food chain. Not to mention the Bt and RoundUp resistant organisms that we're creating. Corn rootworms are already becoming resistant to Bt, and there are nearly 20 RoundUp-resisitant "super weeds."

Monsanto only has about 30% marketshare of GM seeds. The rest of the market is controlled by about six companies.

I used Monsanto as an example, because I know more about them. 30% market share for 1/7 of the companies is pretty big, too. GMO is a technology, but not all technology is ready for prime time. Again, I think there's tremendous potential for good, but we need to be aware of the law of unintended consequences. Also, it's nearly impossible to boycott GMO, as about 70% of foods on the shelf include GMO ingredients. I'm under no delusion that I can eliminate them from my diet, or that my actions are having any effect on any corporations. I have, though, always preferred buying local organic veggies and fruits over the grocery store variety since before GMO was a thing, and this is more incentive for me to continue that.

1
0

[–] dahlia 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The case that's usually being referred to when it comes to this is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser. Unfortunately, that wasn't what that case was about, it was about Schmeiser actively storing the roundup ready seeds for commerical interests. If there's any other case, please link it here. You should be more specific when quoting such allegations.

0
0

[–] Madblood ago 

The original RoundUp resistant canola that was growing on Schmeiser's farm was wind-seeded. He treated a roadside next to his land for weeds, and the canola growing on the roadside survived. He then sprayed 3-4 acres of his fields near the roadside, and 60% of the canola survived. He harvested seed from that canola and replanted it. The appeals went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and while the court did rule that patent infringement occurred, they also ruled that Schmeiser did not profit from it, and that he didn't owe Monsanto any money for damages or legal bills.

Schmeiser isn't the only person or farm that Monsanto has sued, either. By their own admission, since 1997 Monsanto has filed 147 lawsuits against farmers in the US. Many of those lawsuits had merit, but some didn't, and Monstanto doesn't seem to care if they are right or wrong. Nelson and Stratemeyer are two that come to mind.

2
25

[–] FreeSpeachRocks 2 points 25 points (+27|-2) ago 

Well it also happens when "science" is for sale to the highest bidder... and when public policy is not a function of what is "best" for society but, rather, what yields the most campaign contributions -- aka what is in the interests of vocal contributors.

Distrust of science, particularly in this arena, is a natural consequence of being assured many toxic agents were "safe". DDT anyone?

2
4

[–] Sorahzahd 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Distrust of pseudoscience.

That's an important distinction. Monsanto and Syngenta would have you believe that studies they paid for, and explicitly required favorable conclusions before said paper would be published, are "science".

But anyone who actually knows the first thing about science knows that paying for favorable conclusions is incompatible with science, and is actually pseudoscience, which is what these companies do.

Then, they count on the fact that most won't read or notice that they paid for the study.

0
0

[–] FreeSpeachRocks ago 

The challenge is discerning the pseudoscience from the real -- even for scientists outside of their discipline. That is why it is incumbent upon all scientists to expose pseudoscience whenever and wherever encountered..

4
-2

[–] casper 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Distrust of science, particularly in this arena, is a natural consequence of being assured many toxic agents were "safe". DDT anyone?

Ya, but thalidomide was bad too. We didn't indict all of medicine over it.

0
7

[–] FreeSpeachRocks 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

The word I used was distrust not indict.

Incidentally, science is by its very nature skeptical. The reality is it's healthy to question conclusions, otherwise known as hypothesis.

0
3

[–] Caboose_Calloway 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You my friend, have an apology for everything.

3
-3

[–] neanderhummus 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

That or bad education leads to stupid people.

1
0

[–] Sorahzahd 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

It's true: Bad education has indeed led people to believe they can blindly trust corporate funded science with predetermined conclusions.

4
19

[–] MonitoredCitizen 4 points 19 points (+23|-4) ago 

Anti-labeling article authors seem to focus on safety or fear and avoid the fact that consumers generally want to know what they are buying, just like they want to know where it was made.

If the only way a product can survive in a free market is if information about it is hidden from consumers, then it shouldn't survive.

6
5

[–] Caerlocc 6 points 5 points (+11|-6) ago 

The article repeats over and over that a GMO label doesn't tell you what is in the food outside of what makes that food a GMO, and it enables non GMO crops to not reveal anything. If you really listed what was in all food, people would freak out because they see "treated with pesticides" and would think that the food contains poison based on things like DDT and the fear mongering about GMO's and "unnatural" practices.

I say label it all, but people are paranoid and it would do more harm than good. The solution is for the consumer to be properly educated, not given a single piece of information without bigger context.

2
1

[–] jpw42 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

I will cut and paste what I have said previously in a different thread on GMO labeling.

"My family grows and hand picks market fresh sweet corn supplying the largest portion of sweetcorn for the towns close to our farm. We use some varieties that are GMO. This is a family farm and we would not be able to "label" our corn. This would end our business. There are already far to many regulations and forced labeling would only push the business of supplying our food more soundly into the hands of large agribusinesses. We do not package our corn. It is sold more or less in bulk and customers at the stores in which it is sold pick the ears that they like the most out of the bulk supply. Packaging and labeling is expensive and time consuming. There is not a lot of money in sweet corn, and in order to insure that only quality ears are being picked the corn must be picked by hand. This is all that we have time for. We cold not package our corn. A large operation that cares not for the quality of their product in the same way that our family does would use automated pickers, packagers, and could there for label easily. "

Edit: It is too bad that I get downvoated for giving my perspective as someone who who deals in fresh produce.

1
1

[–] MonitoredCitizen 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Oh hogwash. You're not the retailer and you are not selling the corn (or collecting government subsidies to grow it) without providing any information whatsoever about it for those further down the supply chain. Is not the origin of the corn a piece of information that is already passed along? That some of it is C4 EPSPS is merely additional information that does not put you out of business.

[–] [deleted] 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
-1

[–] CatNamedJava 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Companies are free to self label GMO and gmo free . Requiring it would be the same as to require all food to be label kosher or not.

1
15

[–] BigTimStrange 1 point 15 points (+16|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I don't have an issue with eating GMO food, what I have a problem with is giving various corporations complete control over the food we eat.

We discovered one of the reasons for the bee die-off is that they're being killed by parasites. They're dying from these parasites because Monsanto pesticides are weakening their immune system.

So Monsanto comes in and says "good news everyone, we have a solution to this problem: genetically-modified bees, courtesy of our company Beelogics"

Monsanto can patent life and after normal bees die out, Monsanto will own the bees. They can easily modify their pesticides to kill off any bees that aren't theirs. No bees in your area? Just purchase a few hives from Monsanto with a yearly license to maintain them. Beekeepers could get sued for owning Monsanto-patented bees, and the keepers might not even know it because they can't test the DNA/RNA.

That's the future GMOs are creating and it terrifies me. Corporations aren't evil, anymore than the T-800 in Terminator is evil, it's just doing as programmed. Corporations are machines programmed to acquire revenue using any and all methods. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. Corporations don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until they've gained 100% market share.

1
5

[–] bleatingnonsense 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Corporations don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until they've gained 100% market share.

Well if that doesnt make corporations evil, it at least make them the equivalent of psychopaths.

1
4

[–] goat_boat 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

And then Citizens United verdict gave corporations the keys to the political system. That's like when we turned on Skynet.

0
1

[–] BigTimStrange 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

3
0

[–] casper 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Monsanto only controls about 30% of the seed market and they sell way more conventional seeds than they do GM. Boycotting GM because you hate Monsanto makes less sense than boycotting non-GMO. Also, neonicotinoids are not made by Monsanto at all, but rather mainly by Bayer Cropscience, and they have nothing at al to do with GMOs.

Corporations are machines programmed to acquire revenue using any and all methods. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. Corporations don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until they've gained 100% market share.

This is also true of the organic food industry. It might surprise you to learn that Whole Foods and Monsanto have about the same revenue. You think only some corporate behomoths will lie to your face for profit? Don't buy into fear-based anti-GMO marketing either.

2
0

[–] Farseli 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

I've been thinking of boycotting non-GMOs for a while now. I already place it as less preferable when I have a choice unless the non-GMO status is pointless to indicate since there isn't a GMO version of the ingredient. I don't buy into the big O marketing.

8
7

[–] r0lex 8 points 7 points (+15|-8) ago 

I like how these morons can just magically proclaim ALL GMO food is safe, without any kind of study to back it up.

2
4

[–] ineedanap 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

When $$$ are involved people do whatever they are told.

5
3

[–] l-emmerdeur 5 points 3 points (+8|-5) ago 

Literally every farmed food you've ever eaten has, at the least, been genetically modified by your ancestors through the process of artificial selection. None of it resembles the 'natural form'. I don't understand what people are afraid of.

2
5

[–] rwbj 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Genetic engineering, as in GMOs, and artificial selection are not the same thing. Artificial selection has been practiced for thousands of years and shown amazing results. In a nutshell it's little more than combining naturally compatible organisms for desirable offspring. For instance a mule is a product of artificial selection. Breed a horse and a donkey and you get a mule which is a useful little critter.

GMOs are specifically about combining organisms which are in no way naturally compatible. For instance a recent GMO that was canned only due to bad publicity was going to combine oranges with genes of pigs. Mass consumption of these sort of GMOs is an incredibly new thing. The first GMO went on sale in the US in 1994. It was the "Flavr Savr" tomato. And it took quite some time to reach the stage we're at now as we went from 0% to nearly 100% of all crops in the US being genetically engineered.

0
2

[–] boltsand 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I think it's the 'created in a lab' thing. People probably wouldn't freak if they were buying a genetically modified dog, but then again most people don't eat those.

3
1

[–] Sorahzahd 3 points 1 point (+4|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Oh look, a Monsanto apologist equating selective breeding with transgenic gene splicing. Never would have guessed we'd see that in this thread. /s

[–] [deleted] 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

7
0

[–] AgriGrunt 7 points 0 points (+7|-7) ago  (edited ago)

GMO labels are irrelevant information that can directly harm a business. The label contains just basic facts about the product: Active ingredients, serving size and nutritional content. A GMO is not an active distinction because it does not alter the consumer experience. A company can say banana because what bread of banana is unimportant and doesn't alter the consumer experience.

2
9

[–] Ghost-Robot 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

GMO labels are irrelevant information that can directly harm a business.

Since when is a customer 'NOT buying a product' fall into the 'harm a business' category? I suppose, by that logic, I should take a trip to McDonalds, then Burger King, and then Wendy's to make sure I don't harm their businesses by building a #1 combo amongst the three. And even then, I'm hurting poor Hardees/Carl's Jr., Subway, Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, Papa Johns, Arby's, Fat Burger, In n Out, Pinks, Philly Connection, Moe's, Evos...

If the market demands it, the market demands it. Whole Foods has understands this demand very well.

Most of the ingredients listed many foods aren't bad for you either.

All technology (like a non-food additive or a pharmaceutical) has unintended and unknown consequences. If you want to be the guinea pig, go for it. But blurring choice for consumers is shady, and rationalizing it as 'protecting business' (of which you are not even an owner) is absurd.

A company can say banana because what bread of banana is unimportant and doesn't alter the consumer experience.

Tell that to a chef.

2
7

[–] zn_zb 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

Then the chemical used on each should also be included, regardless of the amount that is said to be left at time of harvest.

1
3

[–] Gracchi 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

I definitely see the logic. But when it comes down to essentially saying people are too dumb for their own good, I have a hard time supporting it.

1
2

[–] Sorahzahd 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

If your product only survives by virtue of being secret, it shouldn't survive.

1
-1

[–] Adrinus 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

You do realize GM = Genetically Modified. They don't pump chemicals into them you fool, they make a new species of plant.

[–] [deleted] ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] kendamagendale 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

You know what would be cool?

Open source GMOs.

Where everyone could read the genome, and everyone with the capability could breed their own.

load more comments ▼ (34 remaining)