6 ms·

Quick version: Monsanto is one of the companies creating GMO products and there methods are highly questionable to me. I would think that lack of thorough test

Quick version: Monsanto is one of the companies creating GMO products and there methods are highly questionable to me. I would think that lack of thorough testing before releasing is a good start, in addition to cooking some of the test results to see what was desired and ignore what was detrimental to the test subjects. Isn't it currently illegal in the US to label a food as containing GMO's? Some of the same politicians that were instrumental in getting HMOs introduced into food markets (and the aforementioned ban on wording) were previous or became employees of Monsanto. Not the most disinterested of parties... Then there is the speculative links to species decline. Gene-modded soy is grown with the intention of being dowsed in pesticides, which are having negative impacts on surrounding plant and animal cultures. Fields in South America are now allegedly only capable of producing GMO corn, as cross pollination occurs, more bizarre plant reproduction ensues, until the line dies relatively prematurely (as it is designed to do) so that more seed _must_ be bought from Monsanto. And then there are the legal issues of Monsanto suing any farmer who complains that their fields have become contaminated for using Monsanto seed without paying for it. All I have read and heard so far is despicable behaviour on Monsanto's part, so I distrust their products, since I can not trust the corporation.

rjurney 17y ago
Thats all fine, Monstanto is not nice. Again: whats wrong with GMO food?
- raintrees 17y ago
  I am sorry I rambled without answering that... I guess I have yet to learn of a GMO product that I want to consume. Breeding for traits, as I understand has been done for many, many years would seem to offer natural selection a way of killing of the inappropriate strains, in addition to giving humans time to consume, then observe any possible negative reactions (Don't eat the mushrooms with the red tops - bad!) Having a food factory produce vast quantities of recent experiments that overwhelm other sources of non-experiment strains gives me pause for concern. I understand from general consensus that we were told DDT was perfectly safe, and I vaguely remember seeing a promotional video showing children being sprayed with it, to show how "safe it was." I now understand that it is not safe at all. I guess it again circles around to whom do I trust? And is the information I am receiving accurate? I guess I am being a bit of a food Luddite...
  - rjurney 17y ago
    This year I lost every single one of my potatoes to scab. Imagine I planted those just after a civil war in central Africa. I need as much food - now, as I can get, right? Potato scab could seriously fuck me up. Therefore GMO potatoes sure seem like a great idea to me - if they're immune to scab. Before 'monocrops' were engineered, nations went to war over food because it was scarce. Disease killed entire crops. Since Borlaug bred disease resistant rice and wheat - war is down. Way down. We make enough food. Except - to keep up with growing populations, we have to use GMO technology to increase our agricultural output. Organic food is a first world nice to have. GMO food is a whole world MUST have. Here's two facts that may change your attitude - or at least make you question what you think you know. 1) The father of the monocrop, Norman Borlaug won the Nobel prize for saving a billion lives by increasing agricultural output enormously... and yet most people have never heard of him. Bizarre, isn't it? 2) During the famine and widespread starvation in Africa in the 80s, Greenpeace successfully opposed the export of 'chemical' fertilizers from Europe to Africa. They were banned. Bizarre, isn't it? The GMO fears are luddite. There is widespread misinformation. The FDA is incredibly strict here.
    - calambrac 17y ago
      Gosh, you really want to grow some crops, I see. Well, I've got these seeds that are completely resistant to disease, only they cost 10x more than regular seeds and they're engineered so that you don't get any more seeds from the results. But you'll get a huge yield, we promise, more than enough to keep coming back to us and buying. ...One year later... Oh, you say your crop failed? We didn't mention they needed twice as much water? That maybe they weren't as resistant to disease as we said? That there's another disease we hadn't engineered against? That the pesticides they were engineered to work in conjunction with will ruin your soil for everything else? Now you have no money left? Hmm, well... that sucks for you. Thank your government for our lucrative subsidies, though. When you commit suicide, I'm sure we'll be able to find a large corporate farming operation to come in and take over. GMO isn't the problem (that we know of). Abuse of GMO, for the purpose of locking farmers in, that's the problem.
      - 17y ago
- biohacker42 17y ago
  There's nothing wrong with GMO. The current applications of it are however completely uninteresting to me. They center around higher yields. That's achieved through pesticide resistance and pest resistance. There's also some for other properties like shipability. None of those features interest me. And despite the fact that the risk from them is arbitrarily close to zero, I chose not consume them, simply because again I don't see anything I care about. Lower prices don't tempt me because I can easily afford food. Additionally I am quite upset about agricultural subsidies and protectionism and would like to see those go away. Thus price reductions not related to the elimination of farm subsidies only serve to remind me of my anger at this policy.

rjurney 17y ago

Thats all fine, Monstanto is not nice. Again: whats wrong with GMO food?

raintrees 17y ago
I am sorry I rambled without answering that... I guess I have yet to learn of a GMO product that I want to consume. Breeding for traits, as I understand has been done for many, many years would seem to offer natural selection a way of killing of the inappropriate strains, in addition to giving humans time to consume, then observe any possible negative reactions (Don't eat the mushrooms with the red tops - bad!) Having a food factory produce vast quantities of recent experiments that overwhelm other sources of non-experiment strains gives me pause for concern. I understand from general consensus that we were told DDT was perfectly safe, and I vaguely remember seeing a promotional video showing children being sprayed with it, to show how "safe it was." I now understand that it is not safe at all. I guess it again circles around to whom do I trust? And is the information I am receiving accurate? I guess I am being a bit of a food Luddite...
- rjurney 17y ago
  This year I lost every single one of my potatoes to scab. Imagine I planted those just after a civil war in central Africa. I need as much food - now, as I can get, right? Potato scab could seriously fuck me up. Therefore GMO potatoes sure seem like a great idea to me - if they're immune to scab. Before 'monocrops' were engineered, nations went to war over food because it was scarce. Disease killed entire crops. Since Borlaug bred disease resistant rice and wheat - war is down. Way down. We make enough food. Except - to keep up with growing populations, we have to use GMO technology to increase our agricultural output. Organic food is a first world nice to have. GMO food is a whole world MUST have. Here's two facts that may change your attitude - or at least make you question what you think you know. 1) The father of the monocrop, Norman Borlaug won the Nobel prize for saving a billion lives by increasing agricultural output enormously... and yet most people have never heard of him. Bizarre, isn't it? 2) During the famine and widespread starvation in Africa in the 80s, Greenpeace successfully opposed the export of 'chemical' fertilizers from Europe to Africa. They were banned. Bizarre, isn't it? The GMO fears are luddite. There is widespread misinformation. The FDA is incredibly strict here.
  - calambrac 17y ago
    Gosh, you really want to grow some crops, I see. Well, I've got these seeds that are completely resistant to disease, only they cost 10x more than regular seeds and they're engineered so that you don't get any more seeds from the results. But you'll get a huge yield, we promise, more than enough to keep coming back to us and buying. ...One year later... Oh, you say your crop failed? We didn't mention they needed twice as much water? That maybe they weren't as resistant to disease as we said? That there's another disease we hadn't engineered against? That the pesticides they were engineered to work in conjunction with will ruin your soil for everything else? Now you have no money left? Hmm, well... that sucks for you. Thank your government for our lucrative subsidies, though. When you commit suicide, I'm sure we'll be able to find a large corporate farming operation to come in and take over. GMO isn't the problem (that we know of). Abuse of GMO, for the purpose of locking farmers in, that's the problem.
    - 17y ago
biohacker42 17y ago
There's nothing wrong with GMO. The current applications of it are however completely uninteresting to me. They center around higher yields. That's achieved through pesticide resistance and pest resistance. There's also some for other properties like shipability. None of those features interest me. And despite the fact that the risk from them is arbitrarily close to zero, I chose not consume them, simply because again I don't see anything I care about. Lower prices don't tempt me because I can easily afford food. Additionally I am quite upset about agricultural subsidies and protectionism and would like to see those go away. Thus price reductions not related to the elimination of farm subsidies only serve to remind me of my anger at this policy.