I feel like the controversy is in a similar category as many medications. For the most part, it is life saving and overall helpful technology. But some legitimately bad moments have poisoned the public opinion against it. Monsanto business practices, just like some pharm company business practices such as what happened with oxycontin, have caused distrust in anything related.
I think for public opinion to shift there needs to be very publicized changes, apologies, regulations, etc. that give people a confidence that there are good people involved with GMOs. The yellow rice movement and articles about it need to be the norm for GMOs, and publicizing similar types of applications of GMOs.
hell, even the demonization of monsanto is often based on pure mis(dis)information:
-Monsanto Chemical (not actually closely related to Monsanto, the now Bayer-absorbed genetics company) warned the US government that manufacturing Agent Orange would result in dangerous dioxin contamination. The government said "we don't care, do it anyway or you'll never get government work again."
-Monsanto bought the "terminator gene" (that renders seeds sterile) from Calgene in 1995, then *pledged to never use it*. The terminator gene has never been commercially available, and its patent is expired.
-Patents on plant genetics are in no way exclusive to genetically modified crops. Tons of non-GMO conventional and Organic genetics are under patent to this day. The financial incentive that a patent offers enables competition and innovation, and is an important building block of modern, regulated capitalism.
-Monsanto has won multiple civil lawsuits by proving farmers intentionally tried to steal its IP by cross-breeding contractually protected genetics (see above point). To this day, Monsanto has *never* ultimately collected on *any* of those damages, instead donating any realized proceeds to charity.
-No commercially viable agricultural operation saves seeds, or has done so for ~100 years. There is not and never was a corporate push by Monsanto or any company to "stop farmers from saving seeds."
-Glyphosate, the active ingredient of roundup, revolutionized certain parts of agriculture. It's one of the least toxic herbicides available by a wide margin, and replaced chemicals massively more hazardous to farmers and the ecosystem, *including some synthetic chemicals still approved for "Organic" farming today.* It poses no apparent threat to human when administered properly, and it's been studied out the wazoo.
-The catalog of available seed crops, including those from former Monsanto, Syngenta, and other demonized companies, is vastly more diverse than ever in history. Farmers have more choice and freedom than ever before, and it's not even close.
-Genetically engineered crops are often, by their very nature, considerably more predictable than many conventionally crossbred cultivars due to the precise level of control. Ruby Red Grapefruits are non-GMO, and came about via blasting seeds with high radiation and hoping for beneficial mutations.
-The Monsanto-invented Bt corn improves yields and reduces farmer labor, but guess what? Farmers who don't by Bt-altered seed crops will often *apply Bt toxin to the crops manually*, a far more labor-intensive and potentially exposure-involved process.
There are others I'm pretty sure, but that's all just off the top of my head.
I observed gmo hysteria in Europe and in East Asia. 0.001% of people there heard about Monsanto or anything like that. Yet, the hysteria was the same. So I would say that you are completely wrong. The reason the majority of people have concerns regarding "gmo" is because "gene modification" and "organism" sound funny to their little brains.
The thought of “genetically modified” definitely triggers some hysteria, but so did vaccines “injecting chemicals,” but now the vast majority are pro vaccine. Now I’m definitely not an expert in public opinion, so I may be totally wrong, but I think the difference in public opinion is the better reputation of those in charge of vaccines.
"injecting chemicals" came way after vaccines got popularized. This is an anachronism.
You can google research from the Center for Public Issues Education, and see that in Florida, 64% of respondents said that "gmos tamper with nature". This was the most popular item in a multi-choice poll.
Well, bad moments from Monsanto and some other GMO corporations have been all over the news for over thirty years. Not really something that needs to be listed all out.
But likely my personal worst is being able to patent food. Technically, even if a company had patent rights on say all grains, and they decided to jack up the price tenfold, farmers could just go back to growing non-GMO grain, for as long as it still exists. So it may not be too much of a threat. But a patent system that allows for anything life saving to potentially be monopolized is a bad system.
> Not really something that needs to be listed all out.
i am asking you to, and this response tells me you aren't actually able to answer. that's pretty telling.
> being able to patent food
gene patents aren't just a gmo thing. lots of non-gmo seeds are patented. in fact i bet you that most non-gmo seeds in the average farmer's seed repertoire are also patented. without a patent there's no financial incentive to develop a product
respectfully - if that's your personal worst example, then you're saying there aren't any good examples of legitimately bad moments. which is what i asked for examples of
edit - spelling and stuff
I don’t mean any disrespect, but acting like you are unfamiliar with the large number of controversies is not a starting place for a discussion. And it’s not really the point I was making. Monsanto and others have an extremely negative public opinion, and whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant to future of GMOs as there is no way they’re recovering that public opinion. But if very different, good reputation organization led GMOs it might go different.
...huh? I've heard of the "controversies" and I'm obviously not asking you about all of them
i'm asking you what "legitimately bad moments" you referred to in your first comment. if you can't answer that, you need to delete the claim. writing something you refuse to and maybe even cannot support is the actually bad starting point
so far you haven't given one good example, only shut down my question and changed the subject to a nebulous "public opinion" as though that has any bearing on the effects of adopting novel modern agriculture techniques
next-day edit: **yup, thought so.**
>But likely my personal worst is being able to patent food.
That’s not specific to GMOs though - crop strains developed through non-GMO methods are also considered intellectual property and can be patented, copyrighted etc just like GMO crops. There have been plenty of cases of food manufacturers suing farmers for growing certain non-GMO crop strains without permission.
>Technically, even if a company had patent rights on say all grains, and they decided to jack up the price tenfold, farmers could just go back to growing non-GMO grain, for as long as it still exists
Yes and no - Open-source crop strains also exist. But open-source GMOs exist too.
>But a patent system that allows for anything life saving to potentially be monopolized is a bad system.
The whole point of a patent system is to allow for (temporary) monopolies, as a “reward” for spending the money on the R&D to develop the intellectual property (in this case, crop strains). And IP protection laws ensure that the makers of the IP don’t end up spending loads of money just to have their IP copied and used by someone else.
Patents and IP laws ensure that companies feel safe to perform R&D without the risk of having their IP stolen and losing all their R&D investments. Without patents and IP laws, companies wouldn’t spend anywhere near as much money on R&D, and the “life saving” things simply wouldn’t exist.
> some legitimately bad moments
since you refused (and are actually unable) to provide examples of these "legitimately bad moments," will you delete this claim, or leave it up and continue spreading misinformation?
Since you haven’t realized: I’m not interested in entering into a debate with someone arguing in bad faith. You’re messages have been intentionality up inflammatory, confrontational, and very “you have to provide proof before I do.” I’d be happy to discuss with someone actually wanting to explore the issue.
Ya the problem with regaining trust is now we know how they have a financial conflict of interest with news media, and they even have ways of influencing academia in various ways, and even government bodies have suffered from capture… it’s not easy for anyone who knows the full story to trust any Evilcorp
tell me more, i didn't know that about gmos owning the media and academia
i mean, somebody has to pay for studies, right? and i don't see gmos on the news ever, so you'll have to point me in the right direction there if you could please
wait what is "evilcorp"
is it the "corporation bad" meme or something
Evilcorp just shorthand for the Glencores, the Exxon-Mobile, Purdue Pharmas, Boeings, DuPonts, Nestles, Standard Oil, Bayers’ and Pfizer’s’ and yes, the Monsantos of the world.
Not like “corporation bad”
But like “bad corporation bad.”
Like these ones.
https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-100-parents
I am talking in broad strokes about why people don’t trust Evilcorps. Like you mentioned medications for example. Why people don’t trust big pharma because, well look at the link I provided.
Well Monsanto, we should all know what they did. Then they sold out to Bayer, the 12th most penalized company in the world.
Penalized $12,458,161,554 for safety related offenses,
$2,227,090,251 for environmental offenses
$10,350,000,000 for product safety violations
$405,800,000 for false claims
And more.
This is why people don’t trust GMOs. We can’t trust their owners.
$524,990,574 for price fixing or anti-competitive practices
whoa whoa whoa.
**courts don't determine scientific reality.**
juries are selected based on how well lawyers think they can convince them of their argument's viability. i'd bet you any amount of money that almost zero of the jury members (or judges) responsible for those judgements are trained researchers who understand the scientific method and how to properly evaluate evidence — such jurors would be *immediately dismissed* by any counsel with a vested interest in discrediting the science (in this case the ones pushing anti-gmo rhetoric, at least based on overwhelming industry and third-party scientific consensus)
a civil judgement means **literally nothing** in determining the safety and efficacy of agricultural techniques. if you want to argue that court losses and settlements cause *bad optics* because people don't understand the point I just made, well yeah, I'll buy THAT — but in absolutely no way are punitive or compensatory civil damages a barometer of whether or not a company is an "evilcorp", as you said
They do not determine scientific reality. You are right.
A lot of these aren’t even scientific questions either. Just ethics questions.
And when you are dealing with companies with poor ethics, it can be foolish to trust them.
And sure you could just totally ignore the trustworthiness of the parent company and trust the academics.
But a local academic in my area spoke out against roundup at his institution.
The next day he had calls from the administration admonishing him and saying he was putting the school’s funding at risk.
He was promptly fired for officially “unrelated” reasons. Interesting timing if the reasons really were unrelated.
Anyways you can see how soft power like that works. There is officially nothing stopping academics from blowing the whistle on this stuff, but it can be a poor career choice. That makes the academia on issues where a lot of money is at stake hard to trust as well.
Thanks for the 100% entirely meaningless, nebulous anecdote! I'm sure your friendly "local academic" is every bit as sane as the other varied "academics" who tout absurd, anti-reality conspiracy theories :)
Anyway, back to the subject at hand: How exactly do you think the (relatively small) genetic biotechnology sector "owns" the media and academia?
You do realize, of course, that such a bold, wildly controversial, borderline batshit claim needs some kind of extremely powerful evidence supporting it, right?
Oh also, **you're wrong. They're science questions. And legal IP protection questions. Ethics is involved, too: for example, the farmers who intentionally violate contracts by purposely trying to crossbreed contractually protected genetics are, ethically, very much in the wrong.** So thanks for pointing that out! :)
You put “owns” in quotes as if I said that. What I said was conflict of interest. And that was with regard to evilcorp in general. Bayer is more about sponsoring academia than media. As far as we know. They don’t really have to declare every sponsorship they make.
Not sure what you are getting at with the last paragraph. What are you saying I am wrong about?
real talk - neither poses any massive, inherent flaws. the only people who constantly whine and moan either does are gullible people who eat up conspiracy propaganda like it's eggs and bacon, and people who think "science" means "it's snowing outside, so global warming is a lie"
a handful of everyday people are just relatively uninformed about it, but those aren't typically the people who run around making nonsensical, anti-science claims parroting blatantly absurd rhetoric
GMO's are easily in the top 10 inventions of all time and as a technology is actively resulting in over 3 billion people (iirc, might be 2) being fed that otherwise would not be.
So, for instance, yes, if we banned GMO's outright overnight the death toll would literally be in the billions.
Some of the criticisms of them are true (e.g., the issue of monocultures), but I agree on the whole.
GMOs could be extremely important for the future. They shouldn't be anywhere near as controversial as they are.
There is literally no such thing as "the issue of monocultures." It patently does not exist. Can you explain what, specifically you think that means?
--Do you think there's only one cultivar of every commercially grown seed crop? This *couldn't be farther* from the truth; **Seed variety is greater now than literally any other time in history.**
Try asking a real, successful, professional farmer; they'll tell you. (but then again, most people who complain about the "problems" with GMOs know literally almost nothing about successful agriculture).
--Does the "monoculture issue" mean you think GMOs force farmers to grow entire fields of plants with perfectly identical genes? Because that's *just how farming works*; **Crops need to be consistent, or yield and sales suffer.**
I can't, for the life of me, imagine what else you could possibly mean by "monoculture issue," but whatever fantasy you're entertaining in your head, I can only imagine it's fearmongering.
***
For that matter, I have yet to learn of any real, legitimate, objective problem stemming directly from genetically engineered crops. After all, **other than a minuscule difference in the genome (which imparts an incredibly specific, novel trait), GMOs are functionally and botanically identical to conventionally bred crops.**
That difference, by the way, is incredibly precisely controlled, because the process consists entirely of *isolating one specific, tiny gene* and inserting it directly into the plant's genetic material for reproduction. No other part of the genome is affected, unlike the wild randomness that results from traditional crossbreeding.
***
There are is at least one issue *surrounding* GMOs; if a modification allows a plant to withstand a pesticide it otherwise wouldn't (or more specifically, an herbicide like glyphosate or dicamba), there's always potential for humans to misuse the product, which could affect the surrounding environment.
But 1) that's not caused by the crop's GMO nature, but rather human error/ignorance/apathy, and 2) unless the relevant government and agricultural industry are completely incompetent and useless, the effects would be easy to notice, fight, and repair. And as long as farmers and regulators are reasonably educated and disciplined, in the case of errant overuse, we'd be talking about repairing *the ecosystem most local to the mistreated farm*, and absolutely not "the long-term health of people who have used or consumed a product of that crop."
For example, Argentina's experienced some *chemical additive use* issues in the past due to woefully poor education, regulation, and real practice (I'm not sure what the situation's like there recently, hopefully it's a little better).
Arkansas also banned dicamba-based herbicides at some point (again, not sure where they stand on it the last few years), because people were overusing them and they were killing off native flora near agricultural land. But that problem isn't caused by GMOs, and moreover, both conventional and Organic crops can even use *more chemical additives such as pesticides than GMOs do*, depending on the type of crop.
If you have any trustworthy, objective, evidence-based sources explaining those "true criticisms" of genetically modified crops, though, I'd be stoked to check them out :)
you came into a thread with a baseless, nonsensical pseudo-claim and have exactly nothing more than a shitty, overused one-liner ini response to a dose of actual reality
you should be proud of yourself; you're a shining example of the abject failure of education, logic, and general self-awareness
i'm sorry did i say proud? i meant ashamed. you're *proud to be ignorant*, and that's nothing to be proud of
Have you ever read about the USSR? You remind me of Trofim Lysenko, but without his influence and millions of deaths caused by his braindead, pseudoscientific ideas.
Growing one crop in a field at one time. i.e how almost all agriculture around the globe is conducted. It existed millennia before GMOs did. It's not exclusive to GMOs.
It's also a scary sounding buzzword that people with a limited understanding of agriculture like to repeat.
There are some good and legitimate reasons why they mix crops together. The Polyculture Wiki page lists some of these.
Growing things in polycultures is not always achievable though, and is often far more expensive and inefficient. There are downsides to monoculture farming too.
Point being, neither polycultures nor monocultures are inherently bad practices.
Not at all. It's pretty much the boogeyman factor. A word that people have heard grifters and terrible Netflix documentaries repeat and so they now associate it specifically with GMOs and in a wholely negative way.
anti-science rhetoric is so frustrating
even some of the self-described "gmo supporters" in these comments are packing comments with stuff that doesn't amke logical sense
people are so scared they're ready to believe the most emotional thing they read. really sucks. and it sucks how tough science journalism is, and how difficult studies usually are to figure out for laypeople
The issue isn't the farms GMO crops are being grown on. The issue is the risk of hybridization with non-GMO crops since the GMO varieties often have so much more advantageous traits (e.g., disease and pest resistance). This means that GMO crops could outcompete all others and reduce genetic diversity.
A little bit of light reading on the issue from this Harvard post grad blog: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/challenging-evolution-how-gmos-can-influence-genetic-diversity/
Although I'm an advocate for GMOs. I think that risk is legitimate, but worth taking for the benefits GMOs have.
I do give you credit for sharing any document not from some blatantly biased pro-Organic-sector propaganda outlet. Not being snarky with you here.
But that blog (and it is a blog, from a post-grad with apparently no or minimal professional or in-depth experience) is almost entirely speculation, and includes a number of jumps that just aren't relevant
Unfortunately that blog piece really, honestly doesn't present anything applicable to real-world use. And its supposedly responsible arguments aren't actually new or novel (in addition to not being relevant)
Really not trying to clap back at you or anything. I respect you trying to be cautious. But you're honestly being a little *too* "both-sidesy" here if that makes sense
which gmo traits would theoretically hurt native genetics and how would that reduce genetic diversity?
if a plant's resistant to roundup, wouldn't that trait fade after a couple generations anyway?
what does the piece of leftover roundup-resistant gene (ok that sounds silly i dont know the term but you know what i mean) do to a plant grown from the grandson seeds of a roundup-resistant plant? i mean the whole gene can't still be there if it's not reproducing with a nother roundup-resistant plant (disclaimer: reading about mendel and his pea plants in school was a while ago so i might have some logic or points mixed up)
- no commercially available ones that i'm aware of in plants, at least
- yes, novel GMO traits tend to wane significantly after two generations
- don't know. but there's tons of research and testing on GMOs, if you can parse scientific papers you might be able to find your answer somewhere. good luck
A good article, thanks. I feel pretty similar to you. I think that the risk is very low, especially when considering that GMO seeds are subjected to a much higher level of scrutiny before approval than their non-GMO counterparts. And as the article says:
>Many of the concerns with genetic diversity in agriculture are not restricted to GMOs, as standard crop cultivation faces very similar issues.
I disagree that it's a good article -- it's a blog post made largely of speculation, and as you point out, its thesis claims one thing then it turns around and points out that most of what it says is *not* actually specifically tied to genetically engineered crops.
Just because something's hosted by, for example, Harvard, Newsweek, or Forbes, doesn't necessarily make it academically rigorous. In this case, that blog post really doesn't say much that's useful.
Fair points. I think it's good in that it does a decent job of explaining genetic diversity. It could have been a lot more upfront and detailed about the actual risk though, instead of burying the low risk GMOs present to genetic diversity at the bottom of the article.
Also, the example of the Irish potato famine is a terrible one that ignores a lot of context. That particular pathogen was present across most of Europe at the same time. But most of Europe didn't have a famine. The Irish famine was directly caused by the English exporting the precious amount of Irish crops that survived the pathogen. It was a famine caused, or at least made significantly worse by the English.
So yeah, "good" may have been a bit strong :)
I refrained from mentioning that, here's why:
It's often fallacious to dismiss a source out of hand based on one or two small but blatantly wrong assertions. But the fact that the author refers to the "potato famine" as an "agricultural problem" honestly kinda disqualifies pretty much everything on that blog, for me.
As you correctly point out, the potato *famine* was largely an orchestrated attack on the entire Irish population. By today's standards, it would literally be a clear violation of international human rights law, possibly even creeping into genocidal territory as it targeted an entire ethnicity.
The Potato **Blight** was a real agricultural crisis, and the fact the author failed to differentiate between the two tells me that they might not, in fact, know a whole lot about agriculture, after all.
GMO's are bad. These plants are bred by changing them at the molecular level. They do this by inserting genes from unrelated species into the cell nucleus of a plant. Since the genetic material inserted into the nucleus of a cell is not through the natural process, the plant has no defenses against it. They also don't know what to do with it. For this reason, scientists must also insert an activator to the genetic material to turn on the cell to replicate this material. They normally do this by using a virus. They remove its protective coating which leaves the virus in the continuously "ON" position. There is no "OFF" switch. It's essentially an infective process. It will remain in every cell of every plant.
One example of a GMO food is BT Corn. This corn has been engineered to create its own insecticide from within every cell of the plant. I don't think that's something that I would want me or my children to eat. I avoid GMO, or bioengineered food whenever possible.
accurate title for sure
unless you can share with us your groundbreaking new clinical research that the overwhelming majority of the global scientific and agricultural communities have mysteriously overlooked until right now
Mainly pointing out that blanket statements either way are not super helpful, like “GMOs are good” or even “GMOs are bad”, it lacks nuance that would potentially add to the discussion.
OK, I'll bite: What, exactly, is so bad about GMOs that it shows genetically engineered crops *aren't a blanket good thing?*
Serious question, not being shitty with you. If it's such a nuanced issue, please share with me some of the nuance that makes GMOs "bad" in a way so meaningful as to invalidate the headline.
While in essence saying the crops themselves aren’t necessarily bad or poisonous like some might claim, consuming pesticide resistant crops may present an issue of humans consuming these harmful pesticides. There’s also a matter of the ethics behind their distribution to farmers that some might find questionable and even predatory, for example some GMO crop seeds are patented, essentially forcing farmers into buying new seeds every season. I may concede my second point is somewhat a different issue it is certainly a topic of discussion for the food industry as a whole.
- **non-gmo crops use as many and sometimes more chemical additives than gmo crops.** in some cases, genetic engineering reduces the chemical inputs needed to grow a crop. **when applied properly, residual pesticides (and other chemical additives) are a non-issue.** the main issue with additives is poor education and farming practices, which can result in misuse and/or overexposure.
- no one is **forcing** farmers to buy new seed every season. **that's just how farming has worked for the last century or so**. Farmers buy entire stocks of seed crop in order to have consistent, high-value yield. **no competent or successful modern farm ever "saves seeds" for reuse; the genetics drift after just one generation, and the seeds don't grow as well as the originals.** don't take this the wrong way, but you should not be spreading misinformation when you don't know the simplest things about modern agriculture.
- seed companies (literally every single one) sell patented seeds to farmers. **seed patents have exactly nothing to do with GMOs. countless non-GMO seeds are also patented.** patents exist to create financial incentive to develop products. Every. Single. Industry. works like that. crop genetics is no different.
that is literally not a "topic of discussion for the food industry as a whole" more so than it is for any other industry where patents exist — which is all of them.
it seems like you're ignoring super basic facets of capitalism because you have some mythology built up in your head about food is so special and sacred that no one should make money from it. and of course, "chemicals" are dangerous because they were made outside the human body and touched this plant while it was growing.
Do you even know the point of GMOs ? As in not selective breeding but what they’re talking about here is the glyphosate (cancer causing poison) ready crops.
It’s our generations DDT
It’s designed to kill everything but the genetically modified plant itself.
Incidentally, it’s killing us.
Things like this promote this white savior myth that other countries need white nations to save them when in reality what they need is to be decolonized
Are you some kind of genius? How did you not know that
Literally none of what you just wrote is true. Seriously, not a single word — I'm actually impressed you managed to do that
There are various different genetically engineered crops. Each modification serves a different purpose. Some withstand specific herbicides like 2-4,d or dicamba or, yes, glyphosate. Others produce their own pesticides, like Bt toxin, that kills otherwise crop-annihilating bugs. Tons and tons of famers apply Bt toxin manually when growing crops that don't offer that GMO trait.
Glyphosate most likely causes cancer at about the same rate as stuff like eating red meat once in a while. There is essentially zero credible evidence to suggest it actually does. Groups like the IARC classify alongside such benign activities as **eating potato chips** and **lighting your fireplace every now and then**. There's exactly zero clinical or physiological backing of the "glyphosate causes cancer" disinformation.
#Actually, glyphosate is designed to disrupt the shikimic acid pathway through inhibition of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase. The resulting deficiency in EPSP production leads to reductions in aromatic amino acids that are vital for protein synthesis and plant growth. The human body does not have the shikimic acid pathway.
It's not killing us. It's killing weeds in wheat fields, and plants on people's lawns when they use too much roundup.
Are you literally on drugs or having a mental break? What are you talking about "white savior" archetypes for? Jesus lol I just now saw this line and realized I'm trying to help an absolute weirdo understand reality. Talk about an uphill battle LMAO
Question, are you, like, a foreigner unduly influenced by the sphere of Western culture? or are you one of those self-hating Americans who doesn't have two spare brain cells to rub together and insists that "white people are actually satan" is a brave, revolutionary take?
Anyway this has been fun, bye
Not only did IARC declare it a carcinogen in the same vain as tobacco smoking but it’s also known to cause non Hodgkin’s lymphoma
How you’re able to gaslight us with your conspiracy theories is baffling.
Did you even finish grade school?
I know you’re not a paid shill bc if you were you would have come up with a better response than that
1 minute on Google:
IARC:
- Tobacco smoking: Class 1 (Carcinogenic to humans)
- Glyphosate: Class 2A (Probably Carcinogenic to humans)
Separately, the IARC only assesses hazard, not risk (google the difference). Pesticide and health regulatory authorities assess risk. Not a single risk assessment from any pesticide or health regulatory authority on earth has found that glyphosate is likely to be carcinogenic.
yeah lmao that's the line when i was like "plz god don't let this guy reply to any of my comments" lmao
i like it as much as the one i saw on here the other day: "Monsanto only sold out to Bayer because Monsanto got caught poisoning its vaccines and trying to kill children and couldn't afford the lawsuit settlement"
people are abs batshit about some subjects istg
A few reasons:
- you put a sick guy on the stand against a giant corporation and laypeople juries are going to side with the sick guy 9/10 times.
- laypeople juries are not scientists and do not have a detailed understanding of relevant science.
- the bar for evidence in courtrooms is much lower than what is applied by scientists.
As an example of the above, the US has a dedicated judge only court that rules on vaccine injuries. This was set up because hundreds of lawsuits for fake vaccine injuries resulted in payouts for people who did not deserve them. This actually threatened the ability for any companies to produce vaccines. i.e they raised the bar of evidence required to prove vaccine injury.
What you are alleging is more akin to a conspiracy theory. You are alleging that some US courts are correct and every health and pesticide regulatory authority on earth are all wrong...
So tell me you have no idea how class action lawsuits and the doubert rule work with out telling me.
Truth is experts, judges and lay people from all over the country at many times found the evidence to be obvious on the side that Monsanto was poisoning its customers then lying about it
Your brain will probably explode when you find out about all the impropriety and shadiness of huge mega corps
You’ll be on the floor crying wondering if you ever knew anything at all about life
But continue to believe your conspiracy theories if they make you feel good I guess, even if it hurts society
Lawsuits are decided mostly by juries, who are SPECIFICALLY selected by lawyers because they DON'T understand science, so they'll be easier to convince.
~~deleted because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
Do you know what we call it when the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on something? We call that scientific consensus.
You are dismissing the worldwide scientific consensus that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in favour of the opinions of the US court system.
As a scientist myself I think that's a pretty silly approach to take, but good luck to you.
none of what you wrote is accurate
First, IARC groupings are literally useless in most real-world context like this. They're not actually based on any kind of rigorous evidence review, and using IARC classification as some kind of proof just indicates a lack of reliable evidence or understanding of the issue
anyway, here are the (largely meaningless) IARC groupings: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/understanding-cancer-risk/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html
#Tobacco smoking: Group 1, along with radon, benzene, and formaldehyde
#Glyphosate: Group 2A, along with things like acrylamide, which is the reason your potato chips might have a "may cause cancer in california" label on the bag
Not joking, every single thing you wrote there was wrong
Oh, and more insults aren't helping. but whatever, no bigge
**And I know you can do better than the Shill Gambit. **
~~edited because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
Using big font doesn’t make you right
Your attempts to gaslight are utterly pathetic
Funny enough, facts don’t care about how you feel
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/product-liability/roundup-lawsuit-update/
Boo ya
Lawsuits don't determine science, research does. Lawsuits are decided by untrained juries and judges, after lawyers convince them of propaganda
"Boo ya" makes your argument look silly
~~deleted because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
There is no real problem with glyphosate, either.
In fact it's incredibly safe compared to other pesticides, herbicides more specifically. the "roundup causes cancer" trope has exactly zero basis in evidence or general reality
There are many other gm crops we benefit from that aren't related to golden rice or glyphosphate. Insect resistance, drought resistance, disease resistance, nutritional improvements etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetically_modified_crops
Some modifications help us reduce pesticide use.
Like I said some GMOs do more good than harm but many like this one that just isn’t the case
Try reading next time
If you need help learning I’ll be happy to tutor you for free
I’m sure mega corps and governments pushing this stuff like they did glyphosate are all above board and not putting f profits over people
They would never do that
Ask them if they should just decolonize instead and you’ll find your answer about who is telling the truth to
man don't bother. that commenter is absolutely **terrified** of things they don't understand. they're even so mad about it they're over here acting snidely overconfident despite knowing literally less than nothing about agriculture or genetic engineering
once again, you are clearly misinformed
the golden rice mentioned in the article was engineered to increase nutrient levels in nutrient-poor areas, preventing health issues like child blindness
the information is right there in the article
~~edited because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
All the evidence shows it didn’t and yes it’s also designed to be pesticide resistant like i dunno… rr corn?
You’re a special kind of special. I’m guessing you attended public schools your whole life
Mate you're not even good at insulting people, let alone do you have a clue what "evidence" means
~~deleted because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
You haven’t provided any actual evidence. Ironically the evidence you did provide actually proved my point
But again it’s all a huge world wide conspiracy I guess
That tin foil hat you’re wearing is flattering
~~OK, what do you want evidence of first?~~
~~deleted because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
Actually man, I'm sorry. It's not helpful for me to mock you. Have a good day!
i imagine bill gates eats a varied diet of whatever he wants; because Organic crops don't inherently have a better or worse nutritional profile than conventionally grown crops
"Organic" food is mostly marketing BS, anyway; yields are lower than conventional, it use more resources and creates more greenhouse gas emissions, it uses tons of chemical additives including many synthetic ones (and sometimes even more than GMO crops), and almost exclusively exists to siphon money from people who don't understand science or know any better
you will find some organic products (produce like fruit, vegetables, meat) that are of high quality simply because they're farmed in smaller amounts, from more niche cultivars and breeds that don't translate well to large-scale farming. tomatoes are a GREAT example of that. but in that case there difference is just *because they're different plants or got different levels of attention*, not because one's Organic certified and the other's not.
anyway, i'm pretty sure you can't even buy GMO produce from the store, for whatever that's worth. maybe they released those genetically modified non-browning apples somewhere, i dont remember
Nah, organic is real food which is a shame that it need ma the organic label as if real food is not the default.
Yield of GMOs isn’t something to tote about if it’s not healthy.
And the whole business of GMOs crooked at best.
I feel like the controversy is in a similar category as many medications. For the most part, it is life saving and overall helpful technology. But some legitimately bad moments have poisoned the public opinion against it. Monsanto business practices, just like some pharm company business practices such as what happened with oxycontin, have caused distrust in anything related. I think for public opinion to shift there needs to be very publicized changes, apologies, regulations, etc. that give people a confidence that there are good people involved with GMOs. The yellow rice movement and articles about it need to be the norm for GMOs, and publicizing similar types of applications of GMOs.
hell, even the demonization of monsanto is often based on pure mis(dis)information: -Monsanto Chemical (not actually closely related to Monsanto, the now Bayer-absorbed genetics company) warned the US government that manufacturing Agent Orange would result in dangerous dioxin contamination. The government said "we don't care, do it anyway or you'll never get government work again." -Monsanto bought the "terminator gene" (that renders seeds sterile) from Calgene in 1995, then *pledged to never use it*. The terminator gene has never been commercially available, and its patent is expired. -Patents on plant genetics are in no way exclusive to genetically modified crops. Tons of non-GMO conventional and Organic genetics are under patent to this day. The financial incentive that a patent offers enables competition and innovation, and is an important building block of modern, regulated capitalism. -Monsanto has won multiple civil lawsuits by proving farmers intentionally tried to steal its IP by cross-breeding contractually protected genetics (see above point). To this day, Monsanto has *never* ultimately collected on *any* of those damages, instead donating any realized proceeds to charity. -No commercially viable agricultural operation saves seeds, or has done so for ~100 years. There is not and never was a corporate push by Monsanto or any company to "stop farmers from saving seeds." -Glyphosate, the active ingredient of roundup, revolutionized certain parts of agriculture. It's one of the least toxic herbicides available by a wide margin, and replaced chemicals massively more hazardous to farmers and the ecosystem, *including some synthetic chemicals still approved for "Organic" farming today.* It poses no apparent threat to human when administered properly, and it's been studied out the wazoo. -The catalog of available seed crops, including those from former Monsanto, Syngenta, and other demonized companies, is vastly more diverse than ever in history. Farmers have more choice and freedom than ever before, and it's not even close. -Genetically engineered crops are often, by their very nature, considerably more predictable than many conventionally crossbred cultivars due to the precise level of control. Ruby Red Grapefruits are non-GMO, and came about via blasting seeds with high radiation and hoping for beneficial mutations. -The Monsanto-invented Bt corn improves yields and reduces farmer labor, but guess what? Farmers who don't by Bt-altered seed crops will often *apply Bt toxin to the crops manually*, a far more labor-intensive and potentially exposure-involved process. There are others I'm pretty sure, but that's all just off the top of my head.
I observed gmo hysteria in Europe and in East Asia. 0.001% of people there heard about Monsanto or anything like that. Yet, the hysteria was the same. So I would say that you are completely wrong. The reason the majority of people have concerns regarding "gmo" is because "gene modification" and "organism" sound funny to their little brains.
The thought of “genetically modified” definitely triggers some hysteria, but so did vaccines “injecting chemicals,” but now the vast majority are pro vaccine. Now I’m definitely not an expert in public opinion, so I may be totally wrong, but I think the difference in public opinion is the better reputation of those in charge of vaccines.
"injecting chemicals" came way after vaccines got popularized. This is an anachronism. You can google research from the Center for Public Issues Education, and see that in Florida, 64% of respondents said that "gmos tamper with nature". This was the most popular item in a multi-choice poll.
well, you did say you may be totally wrong, i'll give ya that
whats' some legitimately bad moments that you're talking about
Well, bad moments from Monsanto and some other GMO corporations have been all over the news for over thirty years. Not really something that needs to be listed all out. But likely my personal worst is being able to patent food. Technically, even if a company had patent rights on say all grains, and they decided to jack up the price tenfold, farmers could just go back to growing non-GMO grain, for as long as it still exists. So it may not be too much of a threat. But a patent system that allows for anything life saving to potentially be monopolized is a bad system.
> Not really something that needs to be listed all out. i am asking you to, and this response tells me you aren't actually able to answer. that's pretty telling. > being able to patent food gene patents aren't just a gmo thing. lots of non-gmo seeds are patented. in fact i bet you that most non-gmo seeds in the average farmer's seed repertoire are also patented. without a patent there's no financial incentive to develop a product respectfully - if that's your personal worst example, then you're saying there aren't any good examples of legitimately bad moments. which is what i asked for examples of edit - spelling and stuff
I don’t mean any disrespect, but acting like you are unfamiliar with the large number of controversies is not a starting place for a discussion. And it’s not really the point I was making. Monsanto and others have an extremely negative public opinion, and whether they deserve it or not is irrelevant to future of GMOs as there is no way they’re recovering that public opinion. But if very different, good reputation organization led GMOs it might go different.
...huh? I've heard of the "controversies" and I'm obviously not asking you about all of them i'm asking you what "legitimately bad moments" you referred to in your first comment. if you can't answer that, you need to delete the claim. writing something you refuse to and maybe even cannot support is the actually bad starting point so far you haven't given one good example, only shut down my question and changed the subject to a nebulous "public opinion" as though that has any bearing on the effects of adopting novel modern agriculture techniques next-day edit: **yup, thought so.**
>But likely my personal worst is being able to patent food. That’s not specific to GMOs though - crop strains developed through non-GMO methods are also considered intellectual property and can be patented, copyrighted etc just like GMO crops. There have been plenty of cases of food manufacturers suing farmers for growing certain non-GMO crop strains without permission. >Technically, even if a company had patent rights on say all grains, and they decided to jack up the price tenfold, farmers could just go back to growing non-GMO grain, for as long as it still exists Yes and no - Open-source crop strains also exist. But open-source GMOs exist too. >But a patent system that allows for anything life saving to potentially be monopolized is a bad system. The whole point of a patent system is to allow for (temporary) monopolies, as a “reward” for spending the money on the R&D to develop the intellectual property (in this case, crop strains). And IP protection laws ensure that the makers of the IP don’t end up spending loads of money just to have their IP copied and used by someone else. Patents and IP laws ensure that companies feel safe to perform R&D without the risk of having their IP stolen and losing all their R&D investments. Without patents and IP laws, companies wouldn’t spend anywhere near as much money on R&D, and the “life saving” things simply wouldn’t exist.
Well, Monsanto was brought out. It's poor performance was largely due to public outcry.
Don't tell them what we did with corns ;)
> some legitimately bad moments since you refused (and are actually unable) to provide examples of these "legitimately bad moments," will you delete this claim, or leave it up and continue spreading misinformation?
Since you haven’t realized: I’m not interested in entering into a debate with someone arguing in bad faith. You’re messages have been intentionality up inflammatory, confrontational, and very “you have to provide proof before I do.” I’d be happy to discuss with someone actually wanting to explore the issue.
Ya the problem with regaining trust is now we know how they have a financial conflict of interest with news media, and they even have ways of influencing academia in various ways, and even government bodies have suffered from capture… it’s not easy for anyone who knows the full story to trust any Evilcorp
tell me more, i didn't know that about gmos owning the media and academia i mean, somebody has to pay for studies, right? and i don't see gmos on the news ever, so you'll have to point me in the right direction there if you could please wait what is "evilcorp" is it the "corporation bad" meme or something
Evilcorp just shorthand for the Glencores, the Exxon-Mobile, Purdue Pharmas, Boeings, DuPonts, Nestles, Standard Oil, Bayers’ and Pfizer’s’ and yes, the Monsantos of the world. Not like “corporation bad” But like “bad corporation bad.” Like these ones. https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-100-parents
so how do gmos own the media and academia i don't think it's even really that big of a market
I am talking in broad strokes about why people don’t trust Evilcorps. Like you mentioned medications for example. Why people don’t trust big pharma because, well look at the link I provided. Well Monsanto, we should all know what they did. Then they sold out to Bayer, the 12th most penalized company in the world. Penalized $12,458,161,554 for safety related offenses, $2,227,090,251 for environmental offenses $10,350,000,000 for product safety violations $405,800,000 for false claims And more. This is why people don’t trust GMOs. We can’t trust their owners. $524,990,574 for price fixing or anti-competitive practices
whoa whoa whoa. **courts don't determine scientific reality.** juries are selected based on how well lawyers think they can convince them of their argument's viability. i'd bet you any amount of money that almost zero of the jury members (or judges) responsible for those judgements are trained researchers who understand the scientific method and how to properly evaluate evidence — such jurors would be *immediately dismissed* by any counsel with a vested interest in discrediting the science (in this case the ones pushing anti-gmo rhetoric, at least based on overwhelming industry and third-party scientific consensus) a civil judgement means **literally nothing** in determining the safety and efficacy of agricultural techniques. if you want to argue that court losses and settlements cause *bad optics* because people don't understand the point I just made, well yeah, I'll buy THAT — but in absolutely no way are punitive or compensatory civil damages a barometer of whether or not a company is an "evilcorp", as you said
They do not determine scientific reality. You are right. A lot of these aren’t even scientific questions either. Just ethics questions. And when you are dealing with companies with poor ethics, it can be foolish to trust them. And sure you could just totally ignore the trustworthiness of the parent company and trust the academics. But a local academic in my area spoke out against roundup at his institution. The next day he had calls from the administration admonishing him and saying he was putting the school’s funding at risk. He was promptly fired for officially “unrelated” reasons. Interesting timing if the reasons really were unrelated. Anyways you can see how soft power like that works. There is officially nothing stopping academics from blowing the whistle on this stuff, but it can be a poor career choice. That makes the academia on issues where a lot of money is at stake hard to trust as well.
Thanks for the 100% entirely meaningless, nebulous anecdote! I'm sure your friendly "local academic" is every bit as sane as the other varied "academics" who tout absurd, anti-reality conspiracy theories :) Anyway, back to the subject at hand: How exactly do you think the (relatively small) genetic biotechnology sector "owns" the media and academia? You do realize, of course, that such a bold, wildly controversial, borderline batshit claim needs some kind of extremely powerful evidence supporting it, right? Oh also, **you're wrong. They're science questions. And legal IP protection questions. Ethics is involved, too: for example, the farmers who intentionally violate contracts by purposely trying to crossbreed contractually protected genetics are, ethically, very much in the wrong.** So thanks for pointing that out! :)
You put “owns” in quotes as if I said that. What I said was conflict of interest. And that was with regard to evilcorp in general. Bayer is more about sponsoring academia than media. As far as we know. They don’t really have to declare every sponsorship they make. Not sure what you are getting at with the last paragraph. What are you saying I am wrong about?
People insist on equating gmo with round up pesticide. Not the same thing.
real talk - neither poses any massive, inherent flaws. the only people who constantly whine and moan either does are gullible people who eat up conspiracy propaganda like it's eggs and bacon, and people who think "science" means "it's snowing outside, so global warming is a lie" a handful of everyday people are just relatively uninformed about it, but those aren't typically the people who run around making nonsensical, anti-science claims parroting blatantly absurd rhetoric
GMO's are easily in the top 10 inventions of all time and as a technology is actively resulting in over 3 billion people (iirc, might be 2) being fed that otherwise would not be. So, for instance, yes, if we banned GMO's outright overnight the death toll would literally be in the billions.
Some of the criticisms of them are true (e.g., the issue of monocultures), but I agree on the whole. GMOs could be extremely important for the future. They shouldn't be anywhere near as controversial as they are.
There is literally no such thing as "the issue of monocultures." It patently does not exist. Can you explain what, specifically you think that means? --Do you think there's only one cultivar of every commercially grown seed crop? This *couldn't be farther* from the truth; **Seed variety is greater now than literally any other time in history.** Try asking a real, successful, professional farmer; they'll tell you. (but then again, most people who complain about the "problems" with GMOs know literally almost nothing about successful agriculture). --Does the "monoculture issue" mean you think GMOs force farmers to grow entire fields of plants with perfectly identical genes? Because that's *just how farming works*; **Crops need to be consistent, or yield and sales suffer.** I can't, for the life of me, imagine what else you could possibly mean by "monoculture issue," but whatever fantasy you're entertaining in your head, I can only imagine it's fearmongering. *** For that matter, I have yet to learn of any real, legitimate, objective problem stemming directly from genetically engineered crops. After all, **other than a minuscule difference in the genome (which imparts an incredibly specific, novel trait), GMOs are functionally and botanically identical to conventionally bred crops.** That difference, by the way, is incredibly precisely controlled, because the process consists entirely of *isolating one specific, tiny gene* and inserting it directly into the plant's genetic material for reproduction. No other part of the genome is affected, unlike the wild randomness that results from traditional crossbreeding. *** There are is at least one issue *surrounding* GMOs; if a modification allows a plant to withstand a pesticide it otherwise wouldn't (or more specifically, an herbicide like glyphosate or dicamba), there's always potential for humans to misuse the product, which could affect the surrounding environment. But 1) that's not caused by the crop's GMO nature, but rather human error/ignorance/apathy, and 2) unless the relevant government and agricultural industry are completely incompetent and useless, the effects would be easy to notice, fight, and repair. And as long as farmers and regulators are reasonably educated and disciplined, in the case of errant overuse, we'd be talking about repairing *the ecosystem most local to the mistreated farm*, and absolutely not "the long-term health of people who have used or consumed a product of that crop." For example, Argentina's experienced some *chemical additive use* issues in the past due to woefully poor education, regulation, and real practice (I'm not sure what the situation's like there recently, hopefully it's a little better). Arkansas also banned dicamba-based herbicides at some point (again, not sure where they stand on it the last few years), because people were overusing them and they were killing off native flora near agricultural land. But that problem isn't caused by GMOs, and moreover, both conventional and Organic crops can even use *more chemical additives such as pesticides than GMOs do*, depending on the type of crop. If you have any trustworthy, objective, evidence-based sources explaining those "true criticisms" of genetically modified crops, though, I'd be stoked to check them out :)
Sir, this is a Wendy's
Nicely executed
you came into a thread with a baseless, nonsensical pseudo-claim and have exactly nothing more than a shitty, overused one-liner ini response to a dose of actual reality you should be proud of yourself; you're a shining example of the abject failure of education, logic, and general self-awareness i'm sorry did i say proud? i meant ashamed. you're *proud to be ignorant*, and that's nothing to be proud of
Have you ever read a Confederacy of Dunces? You remind me of Ignatius, but without his wit and eloquence.
Sir, this is a Wendy's
Have you ever read about the USSR? You remind me of Trofim Lysenko, but without his influence and millions of deaths caused by his braindead, pseudoscientific ideas.
What?
what are monocultures
Growing one crop in a field at one time. i.e how almost all agriculture around the globe is conducted. It existed millennia before GMOs did. It's not exclusive to GMOs. It's also a scary sounding buzzword that people with a limited understanding of agriculture like to repeat.
uh why would farmers mix crops together that sounds like a terrible way to grow plants for sale
There are some good and legitimate reasons why they mix crops together. The Polyculture Wiki page lists some of these. Growing things in polycultures is not always achievable though, and is often far more expensive and inefficient. There are downsides to monoculture farming too. Point being, neither polycultures nor monocultures are inherently bad practices.
ah, so it's not really a gmo-specific thing at all, then? then why do the anti-science people always fall back on that one? just the boogeyman factor?
Not at all. It's pretty much the boogeyman factor. A word that people have heard grifters and terrible Netflix documentaries repeat and so they now associate it specifically with GMOs and in a wholely negative way.
anti-science rhetoric is so frustrating even some of the self-described "gmo supporters" in these comments are packing comments with stuff that doesn't amke logical sense people are so scared they're ready to believe the most emotional thing they read. really sucks. and it sucks how tough science journalism is, and how difficult studies usually are to figure out for laypeople
The issue isn't the farms GMO crops are being grown on. The issue is the risk of hybridization with non-GMO crops since the GMO varieties often have so much more advantageous traits (e.g., disease and pest resistance). This means that GMO crops could outcompete all others and reduce genetic diversity. A little bit of light reading on the issue from this Harvard post grad blog: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/challenging-evolution-how-gmos-can-influence-genetic-diversity/ Although I'm an advocate for GMOs. I think that risk is legitimate, but worth taking for the benefits GMOs have.
I do give you credit for sharing any document not from some blatantly biased pro-Organic-sector propaganda outlet. Not being snarky with you here. But that blog (and it is a blog, from a post-grad with apparently no or minimal professional or in-depth experience) is almost entirely speculation, and includes a number of jumps that just aren't relevant Unfortunately that blog piece really, honestly doesn't present anything applicable to real-world use. And its supposedly responsible arguments aren't actually new or novel (in addition to not being relevant) Really not trying to clap back at you or anything. I respect you trying to be cautious. But you're honestly being a little *too* "both-sidesy" here if that makes sense
which gmo traits would theoretically hurt native genetics and how would that reduce genetic diversity? if a plant's resistant to roundup, wouldn't that trait fade after a couple generations anyway? what does the piece of leftover roundup-resistant gene (ok that sounds silly i dont know the term but you know what i mean) do to a plant grown from the grandson seeds of a roundup-resistant plant? i mean the whole gene can't still be there if it's not reproducing with a nother roundup-resistant plant (disclaimer: reading about mendel and his pea plants in school was a while ago so i might have some logic or points mixed up)
- no commercially available ones that i'm aware of in plants, at least - yes, novel GMO traits tend to wane significantly after two generations - don't know. but there's tons of research and testing on GMOs, if you can parse scientific papers you might be able to find your answer somewhere. good luck
A good article, thanks. I feel pretty similar to you. I think that the risk is very low, especially when considering that GMO seeds are subjected to a much higher level of scrutiny before approval than their non-GMO counterparts. And as the article says: >Many of the concerns with genetic diversity in agriculture are not restricted to GMOs, as standard crop cultivation faces very similar issues.
I disagree that it's a good article -- it's a blog post made largely of speculation, and as you point out, its thesis claims one thing then it turns around and points out that most of what it says is *not* actually specifically tied to genetically engineered crops. Just because something's hosted by, for example, Harvard, Newsweek, or Forbes, doesn't necessarily make it academically rigorous. In this case, that blog post really doesn't say much that's useful.
Fair points. I think it's good in that it does a decent job of explaining genetic diversity. It could have been a lot more upfront and detailed about the actual risk though, instead of burying the low risk GMOs present to genetic diversity at the bottom of the article. Also, the example of the Irish potato famine is a terrible one that ignores a lot of context. That particular pathogen was present across most of Europe at the same time. But most of Europe didn't have a famine. The Irish famine was directly caused by the English exporting the precious amount of Irish crops that survived the pathogen. It was a famine caused, or at least made significantly worse by the English. So yeah, "good" may have been a bit strong :)
I refrained from mentioning that, here's why: It's often fallacious to dismiss a source out of hand based on one or two small but blatantly wrong assertions. But the fact that the author refers to the "potato famine" as an "agricultural problem" honestly kinda disqualifies pretty much everything on that blog, for me. As you correctly point out, the potato *famine* was largely an orchestrated attack on the entire Irish population. By today's standards, it would literally be a clear violation of international human rights law, possibly even creeping into genocidal territory as it targeted an entire ethnicity. The Potato **Blight** was a real agricultural crisis, and the fact the author failed to differentiate between the two tells me that they might not, in fact, know a whole lot about agriculture, after all.
GMO's are bad. These plants are bred by changing them at the molecular level. They do this by inserting genes from unrelated species into the cell nucleus of a plant. Since the genetic material inserted into the nucleus of a cell is not through the natural process, the plant has no defenses against it. They also don't know what to do with it. For this reason, scientists must also insert an activator to the genetic material to turn on the cell to replicate this material. They normally do this by using a virus. They remove its protective coating which leaves the virus in the continuously "ON" position. There is no "OFF" switch. It's essentially an infective process. It will remain in every cell of every plant. One example of a GMO food is BT Corn. This corn has been engineered to create its own insecticide from within every cell of the plant. I don't think that's something that I would want me or my children to eat. I avoid GMO, or bioengineered food whenever possible.
That sub can be so ridiculously reductive sometimes.
Reductive title for sure
accurate title for sure unless you can share with us your groundbreaking new clinical research that the overwhelming majority of the global scientific and agricultural communities have mysteriously overlooked until right now
Mainly pointing out that blanket statements either way are not super helpful, like “GMOs are good” or even “GMOs are bad”, it lacks nuance that would potentially add to the discussion.
OK, I'll bite: What, exactly, is so bad about GMOs that it shows genetically engineered crops *aren't a blanket good thing?* Serious question, not being shitty with you. If it's such a nuanced issue, please share with me some of the nuance that makes GMOs "bad" in a way so meaningful as to invalidate the headline.
While in essence saying the crops themselves aren’t necessarily bad or poisonous like some might claim, consuming pesticide resistant crops may present an issue of humans consuming these harmful pesticides. There’s also a matter of the ethics behind their distribution to farmers that some might find questionable and even predatory, for example some GMO crop seeds are patented, essentially forcing farmers into buying new seeds every season. I may concede my second point is somewhat a different issue it is certainly a topic of discussion for the food industry as a whole.
- **non-gmo crops use as many and sometimes more chemical additives than gmo crops.** in some cases, genetic engineering reduces the chemical inputs needed to grow a crop. **when applied properly, residual pesticides (and other chemical additives) are a non-issue.** the main issue with additives is poor education and farming practices, which can result in misuse and/or overexposure. - no one is **forcing** farmers to buy new seed every season. **that's just how farming has worked for the last century or so**. Farmers buy entire stocks of seed crop in order to have consistent, high-value yield. **no competent or successful modern farm ever "saves seeds" for reuse; the genetics drift after just one generation, and the seeds don't grow as well as the originals.** don't take this the wrong way, but you should not be spreading misinformation when you don't know the simplest things about modern agriculture. - seed companies (literally every single one) sell patented seeds to farmers. **seed patents have exactly nothing to do with GMOs. countless non-GMO seeds are also patented.** patents exist to create financial incentive to develop products. Every. Single. Industry. works like that. crop genetics is no different. that is literally not a "topic of discussion for the food industry as a whole" more so than it is for any other industry where patents exist — which is all of them. it seems like you're ignoring super basic facets of capitalism because you have some mythology built up in your head about food is so special and sacred that no one should make money from it. and of course, "chemicals" are dangerous because they were made outside the human body and touched this plant while it was growing.
They’re not
what a well-crafted, evidence-based argument! GUYS, THIS GUY SAID GMO CROPS AREN'T GOOD, WRAP IT UP. THE JIG'S UP, HE FIGURED IT OUT, WE GOTTA GO
Do you even know the point of GMOs ? As in not selective breeding but what they’re talking about here is the glyphosate (cancer causing poison) ready crops. It’s our generations DDT It’s designed to kill everything but the genetically modified plant itself. Incidentally, it’s killing us. Things like this promote this white savior myth that other countries need white nations to save them when in reality what they need is to be decolonized Are you some kind of genius? How did you not know that
Literally none of what you just wrote is true. Seriously, not a single word — I'm actually impressed you managed to do that There are various different genetically engineered crops. Each modification serves a different purpose. Some withstand specific herbicides like 2-4,d or dicamba or, yes, glyphosate. Others produce their own pesticides, like Bt toxin, that kills otherwise crop-annihilating bugs. Tons and tons of famers apply Bt toxin manually when growing crops that don't offer that GMO trait. Glyphosate most likely causes cancer at about the same rate as stuff like eating red meat once in a while. There is essentially zero credible evidence to suggest it actually does. Groups like the IARC classify alongside such benign activities as **eating potato chips** and **lighting your fireplace every now and then**. There's exactly zero clinical or physiological backing of the "glyphosate causes cancer" disinformation. #Actually, glyphosate is designed to disrupt the shikimic acid pathway through inhibition of the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase. The resulting deficiency in EPSP production leads to reductions in aromatic amino acids that are vital for protein synthesis and plant growth. The human body does not have the shikimic acid pathway. It's not killing us. It's killing weeds in wheat fields, and plants on people's lawns when they use too much roundup. Are you literally on drugs or having a mental break? What are you talking about "white savior" archetypes for? Jesus lol I just now saw this line and realized I'm trying to help an absolute weirdo understand reality. Talk about an uphill battle LMAO Question, are you, like, a foreigner unduly influenced by the sphere of Western culture? or are you one of those self-hating Americans who doesn't have two spare brain cells to rub together and insists that "white people are actually satan" is a brave, revolutionary take? Anyway this has been fun, bye
Not only did IARC declare it a carcinogen in the same vain as tobacco smoking but it’s also known to cause non Hodgkin’s lymphoma How you’re able to gaslight us with your conspiracy theories is baffling. Did you even finish grade school? I know you’re not a paid shill bc if you were you would have come up with a better response than that
1 minute on Google: IARC: - Tobacco smoking: Class 1 (Carcinogenic to humans) - Glyphosate: Class 2A (Probably Carcinogenic to humans) Separately, the IARC only assesses hazard, not risk (google the difference). Pesticide and health regulatory authorities assess risk. Not a single risk assessment from any pesticide or health regulatory authority on earth has found that glyphosate is likely to be carcinogenic.
holy crap that other guy is waaayyyy out there
Don’t you know that high crop yields promote a white savior myth?!?!
yeah lmao that's the line when i was like "plz god don't let this guy reply to any of my comments" lmao i like it as much as the one i saw on here the other day: "Monsanto only sold out to Bayer because Monsanto got caught poisoning its vaccines and trying to kill children and couldn't afford the lawsuit settlement" people are abs batshit about some subjects istg
My favorite one is that: Monsanto sold itself to Bayer on purpose because Bayer is secretly run by nazis.
If it doesn’t cause cancer than why did Monsanto owe more than $11bbn in payouts due to round up causing cancer I guess it’s a world wide conspiracy
A few reasons: - you put a sick guy on the stand against a giant corporation and laypeople juries are going to side with the sick guy 9/10 times. - laypeople juries are not scientists and do not have a detailed understanding of relevant science. - the bar for evidence in courtrooms is much lower than what is applied by scientists. As an example of the above, the US has a dedicated judge only court that rules on vaccine injuries. This was set up because hundreds of lawsuits for fake vaccine injuries resulted in payouts for people who did not deserve them. This actually threatened the ability for any companies to produce vaccines. i.e they raised the bar of evidence required to prove vaccine injury. What you are alleging is more akin to a conspiracy theory. You are alleging that some US courts are correct and every health and pesticide regulatory authority on earth are all wrong...
So tell me you have no idea how class action lawsuits and the doubert rule work with out telling me. Truth is experts, judges and lay people from all over the country at many times found the evidence to be obvious on the side that Monsanto was poisoning its customers then lying about it Your brain will probably explode when you find out about all the impropriety and shadiness of huge mega corps You’ll be on the floor crying wondering if you ever knew anything at all about life But continue to believe your conspiracy theories if they make you feel good I guess, even if it hurts society
Lawsuits are decided mostly by juries, who are SPECIFICALLY selected by lawyers because they DON'T understand science, so they'll be easier to convince. ~~deleted because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
Do you know what we call it when the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on something? We call that scientific consensus. You are dismissing the worldwide scientific consensus that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in favour of the opinions of the US court system. As a scientist myself I think that's a pretty silly approach to take, but good luck to you.
none of what you wrote is accurate First, IARC groupings are literally useless in most real-world context like this. They're not actually based on any kind of rigorous evidence review, and using IARC classification as some kind of proof just indicates a lack of reliable evidence or understanding of the issue anyway, here are the (largely meaningless) IARC groupings: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/understanding-cancer-risk/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html #Tobacco smoking: Group 1, along with radon, benzene, and formaldehyde #Glyphosate: Group 2A, along with things like acrylamide, which is the reason your potato chips might have a "may cause cancer in california" label on the bag Not joking, every single thing you wrote there was wrong Oh, and more insults aren't helping. but whatever, no bigge **And I know you can do better than the Shill Gambit. ** ~~edited because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
Using big font doesn’t make you right Your attempts to gaslight are utterly pathetic Funny enough, facts don’t care about how you feel https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/product-liability/roundup-lawsuit-update/ Boo ya
Lawsuits don't determine science, research does. Lawsuits are decided by untrained juries and judges, after lawyers convince them of propaganda "Boo ya" makes your argument look silly ~~deleted because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
Sorry just bc you write in big font while denying reality doesn’t make you right lmao
~~deleted because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
That's one use of GMO. There are many more. Your problem is with glyphosphate not GMO.
There is no real problem with glyphosate, either. In fact it's incredibly safe compared to other pesticides, herbicides more specifically. the "roundup causes cancer" trope has exactly zero basis in evidence or general reality
The GMOs mentioned in the article are those kinds and not simply the selective breeding kind like watermelon No offense, but do you know how to read?
The article op linked? That's about golden rice. It wasn't made with selective breeding and it doesn't have to do with glyphosphate.
This whole golden rice thing is a scam https://grain.org/en/article/6067-don-t-get-fooled-again-unmasking-two-decades-of-lies-about-golden-rice
There are many other gm crops we benefit from that aren't related to golden rice or glyphosphate. Insect resistance, drought resistance, disease resistance, nutritional improvements etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetically_modified_crops Some modifications help us reduce pesticide use.
Like I said some GMOs do more good than harm but many like this one that just isn’t the case Try reading next time If you need help learning I’ll be happy to tutor you for free
Sounds like you're admitting your problem is with round up not GMO or golden rice.
this is not a reliable or objective source ~~deleted because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
I’m sure mega corps and governments pushing this stuff like they did glyphosate are all above board and not putting f profits over people They would never do that Ask them if they should just decolonize instead and you’ll find your answer about who is telling the truth to
man don't bother. that commenter is absolutely **terrified** of things they don't understand. they're even so mad about it they're over here acting snidely overconfident despite knowing literally less than nothing about agriculture or genetic engineering
once again, you are clearly misinformed the golden rice mentioned in the article was engineered to increase nutrient levels in nutrient-poor areas, preventing health issues like child blindness the information is right there in the article ~~edited because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
All the evidence shows it didn’t and yes it’s also designed to be pesticide resistant like i dunno… rr corn? You’re a special kind of special. I’m guessing you attended public schools your whole life
Mate you're not even good at insulting people, let alone do you have a clue what "evidence" means ~~deleted because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~
You haven’t provided any actual evidence. Ironically the evidence you did provide actually proved my point But again it’s all a huge world wide conspiracy I guess That tin foil hat you’re wearing is flattering
~~OK, what do you want evidence of first?~~ ~~deleted because it wasn't really cool of me to mock this guy~~ Actually man, I'm sorry. It's not helpful for me to mock you. Have a good day!
Guarantee people like Bill Gates who invest in GMOs only eat organic
i imagine bill gates eats a varied diet of whatever he wants; because Organic crops don't inherently have a better or worse nutritional profile than conventionally grown crops "Organic" food is mostly marketing BS, anyway; yields are lower than conventional, it use more resources and creates more greenhouse gas emissions, it uses tons of chemical additives including many synthetic ones (and sometimes even more than GMO crops), and almost exclusively exists to siphon money from people who don't understand science or know any better you will find some organic products (produce like fruit, vegetables, meat) that are of high quality simply because they're farmed in smaller amounts, from more niche cultivars and breeds that don't translate well to large-scale farming. tomatoes are a GREAT example of that. but in that case there difference is just *because they're different plants or got different levels of attention*, not because one's Organic certified and the other's not. anyway, i'm pretty sure you can't even buy GMO produce from the store, for whatever that's worth. maybe they released those genetically modified non-browning apples somewhere, i dont remember
Nah, organic is real food which is a shame that it need ma the organic label as if real food is not the default. Yield of GMOs isn’t something to tote about if it’s not healthy. And the whole business of GMOs crooked at best.
I don’t think he’s eating bug burgers either. I haven’t even seen him do it for show