7 ms·

Step 1: Stop pushing GMO foods on people who can't afford to choose otherwise.

tdfx 13y ago
I have not seen any well-constructed study showing that GMO foods are harmful, but I see the argument you are advancing fairly frequently. Could you share why you think GMOs in general are bad? I'm not informed enough to make a determination either way at this point so I'd be very curious to see what is compelling other people to have such strong opinions about it.
- sleepyhead 13y ago
  I don't trust science at the current state to understand the long term impact of GMO. Besides, I prefer to eating natural ingredients regardless if science finds no problems with GMO in the future as well.
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    >Besides, I prefer to eating natural ingredients regardless if science finds no problems with GMO in the future as we This statement is absurdly irrational. I'm surprised to see this sentiment on here.
    - nollidge 13y ago
      Wanted to comment that I downvoted not because of your first sentence, but because of the second. Hackers have not proven themselves more rational than society at large and I wish we would stop arrogantly thinking of ourselves that way.
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        Yeah, I was a little hesitant about that second part also. It was more for effect; I fully realize we're definitely not an insular bunch who can be expected to be rational in all parts of our lives in comparison to the irrational unwashed masses.
  - sanswork 13y ago
    What do you deem natural though because if you mean naturally occurring in the wild then thats probably just about nothing that you eat.
  - randomdata 13y ago
    Where does the line of natural get drawn? Genetic modifications have been part of agriculture from the very beginning. The food we grow today didn't even exist before humans adopted agricultural practices.
    - sleepyhead 13y ago
      Errr, what?
- sasn424 13y ago
  Being from Africa I can tell you that the Patents linked with GMOs are really bad. The subsistence farmers depend on part of their harvest for the next crop. GMOs owned by corporations have patents that if introduced or even an adjacent field cross-pollinates with your crop you are in violation of several patents. So every year you are forced to buy new seeds from the Corporation. I hope this gives you a bit of insight as to how subsistence farming is hurt by these types of seeds. Maybe opensource type GMO is in order? Who knows.
  - jl6 13y ago
    What happens to farmers who don't buy new seeds and just reuse seeds from their current crop, licensed or otherwise? Are there examples of them being pursued by patent lawyers?
- ambler0 13y ago
  The issue is not necessarily with genetic modification itself, but the reasons for modification. For example, if a plant is modified to be highly resistant to pesticides, then the concern would be that such plants are saturated with potentially harmful (to the person eating them and the environment) pesticides. Another example would be plants that are modified to be incapable of reproduction (so that the manufacturer can sell them to farmers each season). In this case, the issue is social/economic rather than health/environmental. I can't speak for the parent, but I can say that, for me personally, the position is not "GMOs are bad". But there are potential issues that should be taken seriously, and I'm skeptical of people who are so insistent about pushing ahead; they usually stand to make money. To repeat, the issue is not modification itself. After all, we've been modifying genetics for thousands of years through traditional agricultural techniques. For me, the main issue is who is doing the modifying and why.

tdfx 13y ago

I have not seen any well-constructed study showing that GMO foods are harmful, but I see the argument you are advancing fairly frequently. Could you share why you think GMOs in general are bad? I'm not informed enough to make a determination either way at this point so I'd be very curious to see what is compelling other people to have such strong opinions about it.

sleepyhead 13y ago
I don't trust science at the current state to understand the long term impact of GMO. Besides, I prefer to eating natural ingredients regardless if science finds no problems with GMO in the future as well.
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  >Besides, I prefer to eating natural ingredients regardless if science finds no problems with GMO in the future as we This statement is absurdly irrational. I'm surprised to see this sentiment on here.
  - nollidge 13y ago
    Wanted to comment that I downvoted not because of your first sentence, but because of the second. Hackers have not proven themselves more rational than society at large and I wish we would stop arrogantly thinking of ourselves that way.
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      Yeah, I was a little hesitant about that second part also. It was more for effect; I fully realize we're definitely not an insular bunch who can be expected to be rational in all parts of our lives in comparison to the irrational unwashed masses.
- sanswork 13y ago
  What do you deem natural though because if you mean naturally occurring in the wild then thats probably just about nothing that you eat.
- randomdata 13y ago
  Where does the line of natural get drawn? Genetic modifications have been part of agriculture from the very beginning. The food we grow today didn't even exist before humans adopted agricultural practices.
  - sleepyhead 13y ago
    Errr, what?
sasn424 13y ago
Being from Africa I can tell you that the Patents linked with GMOs are really bad. The subsistence farmers depend on part of their harvest for the next crop. GMOs owned by corporations have patents that if introduced or even an adjacent field cross-pollinates with your crop you are in violation of several patents. So every year you are forced to buy new seeds from the Corporation. I hope this gives you a bit of insight as to how subsistence farming is hurt by these types of seeds. Maybe opensource type GMO is in order? Who knows.
- jl6 13y ago
  What happens to farmers who don't buy new seeds and just reuse seeds from their current crop, licensed or otherwise? Are there examples of them being pursued by patent lawyers?
ambler0 13y ago
The issue is not necessarily with genetic modification itself, but the reasons for modification. For example, if a plant is modified to be highly resistant to pesticides, then the concern would be that such plants are saturated with potentially harmful (to the person eating them and the environment) pesticides. Another example would be plants that are modified to be incapable of reproduction (so that the manufacturer can sell them to farmers each season). In this case, the issue is social/economic rather than health/environmental. I can't speak for the parent, but I can say that, for me personally, the position is not "GMOs are bad". But there are potential issues that should be taken seriously, and I'm skeptical of people who are so insistent about pushing ahead; they usually stand to make money. To repeat, the issue is not modification itself. After all, we've been modifying genetics for thousands of years through traditional agricultural techniques. For me, the main issue is who is doing the modifying and why.