4 ms·

anti-GMO is anti-science just like anti-vax. They both rely on similar FUD and blame the bogeyman of big Pharma/Ag. They also ignore massive scientific evidence

anti-GMO is anti-science just like anti-vax. They both rely on similar FUD and blame the bogeyman of big Pharma/Ag. They also ignore massive scientific evidence backing the safety.

muro 4y ago
Cough Monsanto Roundup cough
- Nicksil 4y ago
  >Cough Monsanto Roundup cough What is this? Please contribute a more substantive comment to the discussion.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Google it. Sheeshh...
    - Nicksil 4y ago
      >Google it. Sheeshh... Google what? The comment is what is being referenced, not Monsanto Roundup.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
Not when GMO crops are being modified to survive fatal amounts of pesticide.
- Nicksil 4y ago
  >Not when GMO crops are being modified to survive fatal amounts of pesticide. Which GMO crops? Fatal for what/whom?
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Fatal for the plants. Many GMO crops are designed by pesticide companies. They enable the farmers to use more pesticide. Which does increase yields. But now there's even more poison being thrown around.
    - Nicksil 4y ago
      >Fatal for the plants. Many GMO crops are designed by pesticide companies. They enable the farmers to use more pesticide. Which does increase yields. But now there's even more poison being thrown around. Farmers want to use less pesticide. What poison?
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        > Farmers want to use less pesticide. They want to increase profit yield. If more pesticide produces more revenue than the cost of the stuff then they'll want to use more. You're free to do research on this on your own. I'm not interested in sourcing links for you. I will amend that it's moreso herbicides than pesticides.
        Nicksil 4y ago
        >They want to increase profit yield. If more pesticide produces more revenue than the cost of the stuff then they'll want to use more. >You're free to do research on this on your own. I'm not interested in sourcing links for you. I will amend that it's moreso herbicides than pesticides. I have done and continue to do research in this field which is why I am perplexed by what you're saying; it doesn't make sense. Applying more pesticide doesn't increase profit; it lessens due to the added cost and diminished returns. You'll be hard-pressed to find an agriculture operation applying more pesticide than absolutely necessary. The advances in agriculture technology has lessened the amount of product application necessary, not increased it.
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
unity1001 4y ago
Genetics is science. GMOS are products. Being Anti-GMO does not make anyone 'anti-science'. You Americans need to lose that 'either-or' mentality in which you polarize to extreme end of EVERY single thing. > They also ignore massive scientific evidence backing the safety There was massive evidence that backed the safety of a large host of technologies and products until they were proven lethal. Majority of the evidence backing those came from privately-funded US think thanks and research institutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
  The anti-vax people can say something similar: "Immunology is science. Vaccines are products. Being Anti-Vaccine does not make anyone 'anti-science'."
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Precisely. That would be also correct. In the US, the concept 'vaccines' have been made into another extreme polarization topic. Its either/or. The fact that vaccines are also products and there can be heavily deregulated corporations running roughshod in that industry escapes one side of that spectrum. If a corporation like Glaxo Smith Klein can knowingly kill 150,000 Americans with their drug Avandia, and even starts to suppress evidence before releasing the drug and GETS AWAY with it, one can easily conclude that any other US corporation in health sector would be doing similar things. At the time of the Avandia drug scandal, there were THREE other massive corporations like GSK who did precisely the same.

anti-GMO is anti-science just like anti-vax. They both rely on similar FUD and blame the bogeyman of big Pharma/Ag. They also ignore massive scientific evidence backing the safety.

muro 4y ago

Cough Monsanto Roundup cough

Nicksil 4y ago
>Cough Monsanto Roundup cough What is this? Please contribute a more substantive comment to the discussion.
- unity1001 4y ago
  Google it. Sheeshh...
  - Nicksil 4y ago
    >Google it. Sheeshh... Google what? The comment is what is being referenced, not Monsanto Roundup.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

Not when GMO crops are being modified to survive fatal amounts of pesticide.

Nicksil 4y ago
>Not when GMO crops are being modified to survive fatal amounts of pesticide. Which GMO crops? Fatal for what/whom?
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  Fatal for the plants. Many GMO crops are designed by pesticide companies. They enable the farmers to use more pesticide. Which does increase yields. But now there's even more poison being thrown around.
  - Nicksil 4y ago
    >Fatal for the plants. Many GMO crops are designed by pesticide companies. They enable the farmers to use more pesticide. Which does increase yields. But now there's even more poison being thrown around. Farmers want to use less pesticide. What poison?
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      > Farmers want to use less pesticide. They want to increase profit yield. If more pesticide produces more revenue than the cost of the stuff then they'll want to use more. You're free to do research on this on your own. I'm not interested in sourcing links for you. I will amend that it's moreso herbicides than pesticides.
      - Nicksil 4y ago
        >They want to increase profit yield. If more pesticide produces more revenue than the cost of the stuff then they'll want to use more. >You're free to do research on this on your own. I'm not interested in sourcing links for you. I will amend that it's moreso herbicides than pesticides. I have done and continue to do research in this field which is why I am perplexed by what you're saying; it doesn't make sense. Applying more pesticide doesn't increase profit; it lessens due to the added cost and diminished returns. You'll be hard-pressed to find an agriculture operation applying more pesticide than absolutely necessary. The advances in agriculture technology has lessened the amount of product application necessary, not increased it.
        spywaregorilla 4y ago

unity1001 4y ago

Genetics is science. GMOS are products. Being Anti-GMO does not make anyone 'anti-science'. You Americans need to lose that 'either-or' mentality in which you polarize to extreme end of EVERY single thing. > They also ignore massive scientific evidence backing the safety There was massive evidence that backed the safety of a large host of technologies and products until they were proven lethal. Majority of the evidence backing those came from privately-funded US think thanks and research institutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
The anti-vax people can say something similar: "Immunology is science. Vaccines are products. Being Anti-Vaccine does not make anyone 'anti-science'."
- unity1001 4y ago
  Precisely. That would be also correct. In the US, the concept 'vaccines' have been made into another extreme polarization topic. Its either/or. The fact that vaccines are also products and there can be heavily deregulated corporations running roughshod in that industry escapes one side of that spectrum. If a corporation like Glaxo Smith Klein can knowingly kill 150,000 Americans with their drug Avandia, and even starts to suppress evidence before releasing the drug and GETS AWAY with it, one can easily conclude that any other US corporation in health sector would be doing similar things. At the time of the Avandia drug scandal, there were THREE other massive corporations like GSK who did precisely the same.