3 ms·

You've hit upon my concerns. For me the consistent messaging from Monsanto and other GMO backing corporations about "There's no evidence it's unsafe to eat." is

by ebbv 10y ago

You've hit upon my concerns. For me the consistent messaging from Monsanto and other GMO backing corporations about "There's no evidence it's unsafe to eat." is a red herring. I know some people are concerned about eating GMOs, but personally I'm a lot more concerned with the long term environmental impacts. Even setting aside the possibility of GMO strains of life (whether plant or animal) reproducing and escaping containment; what about side effects on other species? We know insecticides have had many unforeseen side effects, it's not unreasonable to expect that GMO plants might also have impacts on insects, birds and other animals. Then there's the business aspects where these mega corporations will use their GMO crops to force onerous contracts/purchasing agreements on farmers. The way they always try to turn the issue on "There's no evidence its unsafe to eat." is telling to me; they have picked one issue to focus on to try to keep the public from noticing all the other issues with GMOs. I don't think GMOs need to be made illegal, but I do think the public has a right to know if the food they are consuming comes from GMOs not because I'm worried necessarily about safety of eating, but so that we can choose to support or not support them with our purchasing power.

Tiksi 10y ago
>they have picked one issue to focus on to try to keep the public from noticing all the other issues with GMOs They're not the ones that picked that focus, people that rally against GMOs did, they're just refuting the most common "mainstream" complaint about GMO. >it's not unreasonable to expect that GMO plants might also have impacts on insects, birds and other animals. Well it's just as reasonable as expecting plants modified through selective breeding to have those same effects.
- ebbv 10y ago
  > They're not the ones that picked that focus, people that rally against GMOs did, they're just refuting the most common "mainstream" complaint about GMO. I disagree. I think the pro-GMO people like to pretend it's the main objection, but it isn't. Most people I know with concerns about GMOs are concerned not about eating them as much as what kind of impacts they could have on the environment. > Well it's just as reasonable as expecting plants modified through selective breeding to have those same effects. Oh god not this ridiculous canard again. Pretending that bananas which have been bred to be softer are the same as bananas that have been engineered to secrete Miracle Gro is just ridiculous.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Tiksi 10y ago
    Bananas are the worst example to use, as we've modified them so much that they can't even reproduce, and that's using only selective breeding. There are no Bananas that secrete miracle gro. GMO plants are generally just resistant to a specific pesticide. You could probably achieve the same effect selectively breeding the most hardy plants sprayed with low amounts of the pesticide, but that would take MUCH longer. As far as eating GMO not being the main objection, it's literally the only one I've heard in person, and hear it semi frequently. I have only heard environmental concerns brought up if the discussion was about environmental impacts themselves, not specifically anti/pro gmo.

by ebbv 10y ago

Tiksi 10y ago

>they have picked one issue to focus on to try to keep the public from noticing all the other issues with GMOs They're not the ones that picked that focus, people that rally against GMOs did, they're just refuting the most common "mainstream" complaint about GMO. >it's not unreasonable to expect that GMO plants might also have impacts on insects, birds and other animals. Well it's just as reasonable as expecting plants modified through selective breeding to have those same effects.

ebbv 10y ago
> They're not the ones that picked that focus, people that rally against GMOs did, they're just refuting the most common "mainstream" complaint about GMO. I disagree. I think the pro-GMO people like to pretend it's the main objection, but it isn't. Most people I know with concerns about GMOs are concerned not about eating them as much as what kind of impacts they could have on the environment. > Well it's just as reasonable as expecting plants modified through selective breeding to have those same effects. Oh god not this ridiculous canard again. Pretending that bananas which have been bred to be softer are the same as bananas that have been engineered to secrete Miracle Gro is just ridiculous.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Tiksi 10y ago
  Bananas are the worst example to use, as we've modified them so much that they can't even reproduce, and that's using only selective breeding. There are no Bananas that secrete miracle gro. GMO plants are generally just resistant to a specific pesticide. You could probably achieve the same effect selectively breeding the most hardy plants sprayed with low amounts of the pesticide, but that would take MUCH longer. As far as eating GMO not being the main objection, it's literally the only one I've heard in person, and hear it semi frequently. I have only heard environmental concerns brought up if the discussion was about environmental impacts themselves, not specifically anti/pro gmo.