7
51

[–] deerhoof_fan 7 points 51 points (+58|-7) ago  (edited ago)

This article completely ignores one very simple, yet powerful point. Many GMO crops have been modified such that they are immune to pesticides and herbicides, and they are sprayed with them to increase yields. Very simply, the consumer has a higher chance of ingesting pesticides and herbicides if he's eating crops that were sprayed with them, than if he eats crops that were not.

This is why GMOs should be labeled. If you believe the science, you can still eat them. All I'm saying is that people should be allowed to know what they are putting into their bodies, regardless of the scientific consensus.

5
22

[–] Tarhun 5 points 22 points (+27|-5) ago 

Organic crops are also sprayed with herbicides and pesticides.

Very simply, the consumer has a higher chance of ingesting pesticides and herbicides if he's eating crops that were sprayed with them, than if he eats crops that were not

I guess they should also be labeled as containing pesticides.

0
18

[–] perfectpencil 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

I guess they should also be labeled as containing pesticides.

I'm OK with this.

2
3

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

Agreed.

0
0

[–] crankypants15 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Organic crops are also sprayed with herbicides and pesticides.

That depends on the definition of "organic". If a crop is sprayed with BT, which is really safe for humans, then it might still be considered organic. If it's sprayed with glyphosphate, I wouldn't call it organic.

0
0

[–] WhoFramedReaderRabit 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The pesticides used for organic farming (non-synthetic) are different than the ones approved for conventional farming. The few synthetic pesticides allowed for organic crop production have been determined to pose minimal harm to people or the environment (and even then, they are only used as a last resort after other cultural practices and natural materials have failed).

The overall level of pesticide residue for organic is lower than conventional

4
6

[–] pjhile 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago 

people should be allowed to know what they are putting into their bodies, regardless of the scientific consensus.

That sounds like anti-vaxxer talk! Get yer pitchforks boys!

2
5

[–] 50State 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Anti-Vaxxers are crazy but Non GMO types have some reason for concern when reports like this come out as often as reports claiming GMO is safe. http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2015/08/roundup-damages-earthworms-and-soil-biota-contributes-to-nutrient-pollution/ and http://theantimedia.org/independent-gmo-researcher-forced-to-release-emails-showing-25k-grant-from-monsanto/ (https://www.voat.co/v/news/comments/425982). I'm guessing most have never seen a field up close maybe fly over it or drive pass but never stopped and put a shovel in it. I have, and to my knowledge and experience I've never discovered a worm while digging in the soil of a field with GMO's (and I've dug many holes) add that to the toxic soup that kills the pollinators it seems like the true evidence is mounting that GMO's and roundup ready crops are bad for the environment and dare I say it.... People. But are great for patents ,profits, bribery, and collusion.

0
4

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

Well its not physically endangering anyone

0
1

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

It's good sense, as that kind of information would allow us to track down long-term issues related to particular genetic alterations. Maybe it's okay until you've eaten the stuff for 25 years, then you start developing problems that become full blown after 40 years. I don't have anything against GMO products but I do want to ensure we have all necessary data to determine long-term risk/benefit analysis and research. We should learn from past mistakes with substances like asbestos, we're still cleaning that crap up because we have no idea where all of it happens to be.

0
3

[–] 50State 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ever heard of a few small groups of people called mennonites and amish ? They don't use GMO or Roundup anything like that not even tractors and the seem to have fine yields. I don't see their populous on the decline as a result of the horrible yields they get from Non-GMO seed crops. When India used the monsanto cotton seeds farmers noticed reduced yields and higher input costs, articles I've read about conventional framers returning to old methods or organic if you will report increased yields and lower input costs. The only "benefit" GMO's and the sprays provide is the illusion to farmers that they don't have need for cycling his crops, which in the long run is awful idea for that it promotes resistance in bugs and plants requiring extra spraying and raise input costs that much high. And Pesticide/Fungicide/Herbicide sprayed foods should be labeled with what was used. It's not going to happen because it would be too complex but it should be a requirement.

1
3

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

And this ignores the very well-documented fact that non-GMO crops are sprayed with just as many, if not more, pesticides and herbicides. GMO crops allow for immunity to specific chemicals, allowing for targeted spraying that isn't possible with non-GMO crops. That very typically, though not always, leads to fewer chemicals being used.

1
0

[–] 50State 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Links Please! love to see this. To say "sprayed with just as many if not more" is a joke and fabrication. Non-GMO's have more product choices when it comes to sprays and chems than GMO's because with GMO's you're locked into using the makers chems which kill everything and are less targeted to anyone thing just scorched earth. And how much spray and how often spray and just for what your spraying for is dependent on the region and the crop. Must farmers that have roadside produce stands or food crops around here spray for weeds before they plant and would spray again if a pest or mold was reported in the area but they don't pour it on like you suggest.

3
22

[–] hirolash 3 points 22 points (+25|-3) ago 

I think GMOs are a good thing in general. But the stuff Monsanto has been doing with them are way out of line.

8
5

[–] Tarhun 8 points 5 points (+13|-8) ago 

But the stuff Monsanto has been doing with them are way out of line.

This is usually nothing more then a red herring that anti-gmo people use to push for more regulation on gm crops. Especially given that almost everything they do now is also done by other companies that are never mentioned by anti-gmo activists.

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

[Deleted]

2
1

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

I'm mostly talking about there business practices of making farmers use their GMO seeds and charging them exorbitant prices for it. In one case Monsanto drives carrying seeds accidentally introduced Monsanto GMO seeds into a farmer's crops and the farmer got sue for it. Reports from farmers about them being forced to use Monsanto seeds. Have you seen the documentary Food, Inc.

0
2

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

Such as? I'm out of the loop.

1
2

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

Watch the documentary called Food, Inc.

1
1

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

Nothing recently, but they did make some agent orange for the government during Vietnam. They also bought companies that did terrible things and monsanto is the only corporation able to inherit original sin.

2
19

[–] incoming- 2 points 19 points (+21|-2) ago  (edited ago)

I can explain this, because I piled on the debate quite early.

If you watch The World According to Monsanto, [you dont have to agree to all of it] you'll find that they have systematically rotated their employees through government organizations. People don't like that.

Another problem is this. The massive funding gap in itself is suspicious. This has nothing to do with science, because there is no trust. It's not everyone [ I'm sure I've seen a minority believe this] saying "scienc is fr eggheds", it's "I don't know who to trust, so I'm going by my own standard." because as in the past, a lot of people have been burned by fake science.

Monsanto is associated with 3 things [4 if you look at Agent Orange] GMO's, pesticides, and money. When any one of the 3 come under fire [in this case it's probably all 3] the others are guilty by association - think of a vegetable farmer who sells rotting food, would you want his eggs, too? Unfortunately both good and bad science have been purposefully mixed between all sides of this debate. This tactic backfired to some degree and now people are demanding a blanket label. Then the House passed a bill that overrides Vermont, and Maine's labeling laws. This adds fuel to a fire, and further establishes mistrust between any form of traditional power and 'the little guy'

Where it goes from here, in my opinion, will heavily dictate the outcome of this. Both extremes of the party have said identical language to different means. one is "ALL GMO's are perfectly safe, thus we don't need labels." and the other is "ALL GMO's are unsafe, so we need labels!"

I find myself in the middle, I want labels because I believe in consumer choice. But pesticides worry me much more than GMO's will, and unfortunately they go hand in hand nowadays, and the label "Pesticide free" is not at popular as "GMO free."

So I usually buy organic, or pastured meat when I can.

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

[Deleted]

3
3

[–] Tarhun 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

Problem with GMO crops is because of the technology and testing requirements nothing but massive companies can afford to get into the market.

Golden Rice is a GM crop that was developed outside of corporate control with public funds and it is under attack just the same. Activist have even destroyed safety test fields to prevent the deployment of the crop.

If the debate is just about corporate control, why are they attacking public sector projects as well?

0
1

[–] 50State 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You forgot to mention paying off the "independent science community" :)

1
5

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

But organic is no more pesticide-free than any other crop, so what good does that do?

The problem with labeling them is that 95% of those reading the label will have no idea what it means (this is a country where people have signed petitions to ban DNA from food, after all)...and thus will assume the label means "it must be something bad."

Never mind that said crop might use less pesticides or herbicides, or need less tilling, or provide vitamin A to children who are going blind, there's a "warning" label on it, therefore there must be something wrong with it...so let's ban it.

That's why organic is pushing this labeling...basically to scare more customers their way.

Basically, of the few percent who would actually know what the label means, most of them think it's just fine...and the rest know how to look it up even if there isn't a label. So the whole thing is a pointless display, meant to increase organic's profits.

2
3

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

I disagree. When an issue gains traction, and enough traction to make national headlines consistently, for months, cause multiple bills all for one specific issue only to be opposed by billions of dollars worth of opposition, then it deserves a label.

We label ingredients lists, half of the stuff is benign like "Rennet" in cheese, but cheese sales continue.

People have become worried of GMO's for a very valid reason. If labels were adopted quietly and under consideration for the purchaser over what they consume to live their life in such a discreet form as being at the very bottom of an ingredients list, then guess what? No issue.

It became an issue under their watch, and for what reason? I will never understand.

Edit:

I was just reminded, Roundup is a nuclear bomb for living organisms. It erodes nutrients and contributes to the death of wild bee populations. It has been linked to cancer, and non-roundup resistant plants die when sprayed with it.

That is why I buy organic. Organic foods die easier to chemical interference because the plants were never modified to resist ultra strong chemicals. I don't want to support superweeds, so I will avoid such products.

6
10

[–] festivus2k15 6 points 10 points (+16|-6) ago 

Science once declared cigarettes to actually be healthy as well.

2
5

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

That's not a logical argument though. Just because science was tainted by money in the past doesn't mean that all science is tainted with money. It's good to be cognizant of the fact that research papers can be flawed, but that's why we have a peer-review process.

0
3

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

Placing less confidence in people and institutions who have shown to be wrong/fraudulent in the past is not illogical. In fact, to not decrease your level of confidence and increase your level of skepticism would be the illogical action. Keep up that shilling though.

0
1

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

"but that's why we have a peer-review process."

So entity 1 is corrupted by money. In order to verify entity 1's results, were going to send them to entity 2.

Give me one reason why entity 2 is less likely to be corrupted than entity 1. Here's a hint, they aren't. Peer-review is meaningless. INDEPENDENT peer-review is the only kind of evaluation that matters, and it's a completely different thing than what you're talking about.

1
-1

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

It means they've lost credibility, which explains why people are more skeptical now.

0
4

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

Actually, no. Science didn't declare them to be healthy, a handful of doctors who were paid to promote them declared them healthy. Science didn't have anything to do with it because no one had actually run any scientific tests.

0
1

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

Apparently, all the way back when tobacco was introduced to Europe, doctors actually thought it was healthy to smoke. But that was because they weren't doctors in the modern sense and still believed in bodily humors. Didn't take long though before people caught on to the damage smoking does.

0
1

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

And nobody expects you to believe them blindly. Although, you have to admit, that opinion didn't last very long, now did it.

4
7

[–] onesidedsquare 4 points 7 points (+11|-4) ago 

I don't fully understand it either but the science behind moving genes around to produce more and better food is pretty cool. I mean we've been doing it with selective breeding over thousands of generations, we're just using the new tools that are available to us.

2
13

[–] merton 2 points 13 points (+15|-2) ago 

We've been doing it and it has caused a lot of species to be now deformed. So it is not all "success".

Also being cool has nothing to do in an argument.

The truth is, like any new things, people will be distrustful. The reason is that there is an incentive to declare something safe. Both the company, and the regularors. The regulators can be bought or influenced. Not only that, but their regulations are based on what they've seen in the past. A bit like a PC antivirus:it looks for known problem, and never for 0 day attacks. By trying new things, we are bound to create those 0 day attack (unintentionaly) and we might only find out later on when people get sick and we find a correlation.

How can we trust anything then? Well, we know what we've been using, and its health result. Is it optimal? Probably not, but most people consider it "normal" and are okay with it.

Would someone take the new FDA approved surgery that's promising, or the old one that's been proven? It depends on individuals.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

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

Well, that has nothing to do with the topic here.

0
3

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

Alright children, let's stop and watch for a moment. Here we have a perfect example of strawman propaganda. This is where the proponent of an idea supposes to take the position of their critics and then attack their own contrived arguments. It's as easy as beating a scarecrow with a stick!

0
3

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

I'm fine with GMOs from a nutritional standpoint, I'm not fine with patenting seeds to the point where you're not allowed to use them without a license. I'm also not fine with genetically modifying a plant so that it is incapable of producing seeds just so you get stuck in an endless cycle of having to pay a company outrageous prices for seeds every year.

1
0

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

Look up hybrid vigor. Saving seeds became useless after the 1950 (ish) when hybrids were invented because they don't breed true, and hybrids have much better yields.

I'm also not fine with genetically modifying a plant so that it is incapable of producing seeds

What you are referring to is the Terminator gene. I would worry about it if was ever used, which it hasn't, ever.

0
0

[–] toats 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Living organisms shouldn't be patentable, regardless of how much money you spent altering DNA.

load more comments ▼ (20 remaining)