3 ms·

The anti-gmo folks have done themselves no favors by often pushing scare stories about food safety that aren't backed up by actual facts. More complicated issue

The anti-gmo folks have done themselves no favors by often pushing scare stories about food safety that aren't backed up by actual facts. More complicated issues--like control of the food supply by large-scale ag and chemical companies--take effort to understand. Even seemingly straightforward issues like seed-saving aren't so much in the real world of today's farmers. Even the projections of how much food we really need to produce when we're throwing away so much now are debatable.

polka_haunts_us 6y ago
It reminds me a lot of talking about meat reduction. Intellectually I understand there are a lot of fairly non-controversial reasons to have a less meat heavy diet related to health or the environment or w/e, just as I intellectually understand there are plenty of reasons to not like Monsanto. But whenever these conversations come up, there is a very loud contingent who is sometimes the loudest in the room screaming about "GMO Warning Labels" or "Cows deserve the same rights as humans" which I don't agree with at all and, in my mind, poisons the whole conversation.
gardenthoughts 6y ago
I'd reverse the argument here quite entirely. I think it is very obvious that few people benefit from the food supply being controlled by large-scale ag and chemical companies -- yet many of the same people who would bemoan that reality seem to be champions/at least passive defenders of the very technology that these companies abuse most: which, to me, is GMO. Issues like over-usage of Roundup and the contamination of world water supply with glyphosate are inextricable from the fact that companies like Monsanto use GMO technology to ensure crops only grow/express certain traits after being exposed to these chemicals. So why the inherent trust of this technology?

3 ms·

The anti-gmo folks have done themselves no favors by often pushing scare stories about food safety that aren't backed up by actual facts. More complicated issue

by Finnucane 6y ago

polka_haunts_us 6y ago
It reminds me a lot of talking about meat reduction. Intellectually I understand there are a lot of fairly non-controversial reasons to have a less meat heavy diet related to health or the environment or w/e, just as I intellectually understand there are plenty of reasons to not like Monsanto. But whenever these conversations come up, there is a very loud contingent who is sometimes the loudest in the room screaming about "GMO Warning Labels" or "Cows deserve the same rights as humans" which I don't agree with at all and, in my mind, poisons the whole conversation.
gardenthoughts 6y ago
I'd reverse the argument here quite entirely. I think it is very obvious that few people benefit from the food supply being controlled by large-scale ag and chemical companies -- yet many of the same people who would bemoan that reality seem to be champions/at least passive defenders of the very technology that these companies abuse most: which, to me, is GMO. Issues like over-usage of Roundup and the contamination of world water supply with glyphosate are inextricable from the fact that companies like Monsanto use GMO technology to ensure crops only grow/express certain traits after being exposed to these chemicals. So why the inherent trust of this technology?