4 ms·

I've been accused of being a Monsanto shill so many times online, its not even funny. I researched a lot of the claims against Monsanto or GM crops and I found

by 7sigma 9y ago

I've been accused of being a Monsanto shill so many times online, its not even funny. I researched a lot of the claims against Monsanto or GM crops and I found many of them untrue, largely exaggerated, although I do agree most of the Dicamba debacle is mostly Monsanto's fault. Ironically, there is a lot of propaganda pushed by the likes of USRTK and the OCA, calling anyone including university scientists that contradict them as Monsanto shills. These groups are also anti vaccine, against water fluoridation [1] etc... I've largely stopped arguing online, because conversations become really super polarised and sometimes nasty. Its hard to have an intelligent discussion. A good place to find info on these issues is the Food and Farm Discussion Lab https://facebook.com/groups/FAFDL/ https://facebook.com/groups/FAFDL/ [0] https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/how-mainstream-media-insults-public%E2%80%99s-intelligence-vaccines https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/how-mainstream-media... [1] https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/water-fluoridation-chemicals-now-officially-linked-brain-harm-cognitive-deficits https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/water-fluoridation-che...

specialist 9y ago
What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors, creationists, and defenders of Freedom Markets™.
- 7sigma 9y ago
  I see your point, but if you have someone that attacks vaccines or denies climate change, its really a sign that they put ideology before evidence
  - specialist 9y ago
    True. Carrying the flame long after the war has been lost is kinda pathetic. Then its more about identity (virtue signal, tribal affiliation) than anything else. I wish they'd just argue about sports teams.
- sampo 9y ago
  > What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors The scientific consensus on GMOs being safe is stronger than consensus on climate change. If you go against the scientific consensus, you are rightly labeled as being anti-science. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_657213... https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-safety-debate-over https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-s... http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-panel-says-genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-eat http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-...
  - specialist 9y ago
    Who said I have a problem with the science? I'm meh about the genetics of GMO, its just accelerated selection. Transgenetic could be worrisome, so we should be hippocratic there. But crops that allow us to expand into more arid, saline, or whatever areas are probably good to have. And developing perennial grains (eg kernza) sounds great. But that's not why I oppose GMO. -- I'm utterly opposed to "ReadyUp Ready" genetic engineering. Any effort to increase, permit the use of more pesticides (herbicides, insecticides) must be opposed. We need to reduce the use of pesticides, maybe even eventually ban all pesticides. I'm utterly opposed to Monsanto's (and Big Ag's) business practices, especially patenting life, and secondarily turning all farmers (people who work the land) into serfs. Their GMO efforts, independent of the actual plants and biology, or just the wedge for those strategies. I reject the pro-GMO arguments about increasing yield. We already toss 1/3 to 1/2 of the food produced. Trying to increase yields is passing over dollars to pick up pennies. Lastly if Monsanto (and Big Ag) is for it, I'm against it. They've done so much harm, for so long, with zero contrition, I presume they're guilty. If there was some kind of truth and reconciliation tribunal, maybe, just maybe, I'd give them a second chance. And massive reparations followed by acts of goodwill. But the burden of proof is on them, not me.
    - searine 9y ago
      >We need to reduce the use of pesticides, maybe even eventually ban all pesticides. You are fighting your own best interests. Roundup ready has reduced harmful pesticide application by millions of tons. Yes, zero pesticide is best, but you can't reach the moon in one step. It takes incremental change. Glyphosate replaces much more harmful pesticides like atrazine, and we are all the better for it. >especially patenting life, You can't patent natural genetic sequences. >and secondarily turning all farmers (people who work the land) into serfs Contracts are willingly signed, and those that don't sign are successful in other areas of agriculture (see organic farming). >I reject the pro-GMO arguments about increasing yield. No GMO plant has ever directly tried to increase yield. Rather they mitigate risk from weather or pests. >Lastly if Monsanto (and Big Ag) is for it, I'm against it. I'm glad you're willing to approach this topic reasonably, and with an open mind.
ionised 9y ago
> I've been accused of being a Monsanto shill so many times online, its not even funny. Not that I am saying your definitely are, but looking at your post history it is easy to see how people might believe that. You barely talk about anything other than Monsanto being a positive force.

by 7sigma 9y ago

specialist 9y ago

What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors, creationists, and defenders of Freedom Markets™.

7sigma 9y ago
I see your point, but if you have someone that attacks vaccines or denies climate change, its really a sign that they put ideology before evidence
- specialist 9y ago
  True. Carrying the flame long after the war has been lost is kinda pathetic. Then its more about identity (virtue signal, tribal affiliation) than anything else. I wish they'd just argue about sports teams.
sampo 9y ago
> What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors The scientific consensus on GMOs being safe is stronger than consensus on climate change. If you go against the scientific consensus, you are rightly labeled as being anti-science. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_657213... https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-safety-debate-over https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-s... http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-panel-says-genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-eat http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-...
- specialist 9y ago
  Who said I have a problem with the science? I'm meh about the genetics of GMO, its just accelerated selection. Transgenetic could be worrisome, so we should be hippocratic there. But crops that allow us to expand into more arid, saline, or whatever areas are probably good to have. And developing perennial grains (eg kernza) sounds great. But that's not why I oppose GMO. -- I'm utterly opposed to "ReadyUp Ready" genetic engineering. Any effort to increase, permit the use of more pesticides (herbicides, insecticides) must be opposed. We need to reduce the use of pesticides, maybe even eventually ban all pesticides. I'm utterly opposed to Monsanto's (and Big Ag's) business practices, especially patenting life, and secondarily turning all farmers (people who work the land) into serfs. Their GMO efforts, independent of the actual plants and biology, or just the wedge for those strategies. I reject the pro-GMO arguments about increasing yield. We already toss 1/3 to 1/2 of the food produced. Trying to increase yields is passing over dollars to pick up pennies. Lastly if Monsanto (and Big Ag) is for it, I'm against it. They've done so much harm, for so long, with zero contrition, I presume they're guilty. If there was some kind of truth and reconciliation tribunal, maybe, just maybe, I'd give them a second chance. And massive reparations followed by acts of goodwill. But the burden of proof is on them, not me.
  - searine 9y ago
    >We need to reduce the use of pesticides, maybe even eventually ban all pesticides. You are fighting your own best interests. Roundup ready has reduced harmful pesticide application by millions of tons. Yes, zero pesticide is best, but you can't reach the moon in one step. It takes incremental change. Glyphosate replaces much more harmful pesticides like atrazine, and we are all the better for it. >especially patenting life, You can't patent natural genetic sequences. >and secondarily turning all farmers (people who work the land) into serfs Contracts are willingly signed, and those that don't sign are successful in other areas of agriculture (see organic farming). >I reject the pro-GMO arguments about increasing yield. No GMO plant has ever directly tried to increase yield. Rather they mitigate risk from weather or pests. >Lastly if Monsanto (and Big Ag) is for it, I'm against it. I'm glad you're willing to approach this topic reasonably, and with an open mind.

ionised 9y ago

> I've been accused of being a Monsanto shill so many times online, its not even funny. Not that I am saying your definitely are, but looking at your post history it is easy to see how people might believe that. You barely talk about anything other than Monsanto being a positive force.