Why are GMO's bad?

by cappytan 42 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Village Idiot

  I'm a moderate on this issue but there are some deficiencies in the arguments made by the video.

  For example, at the 10 minute mark the video states that after having been consumed for decades there is no evidence that GMOs have harmed anyone. How would he know? It would take a massive epidemiological survey to find if one out of a hundred people were to have a reaction to a specific GMO product. The person who consumes it might not even know what would be the cause of his allergy.

  At the 8:55 mark he states that one of the reasons that GMOs foods are attacked so viciously is because of the fear of monopolies. Then he says that the "larger debates" about economics is "out of our league". That's the same as saying nothing at all about one of the most critical points of the issue.
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  Cappy:

  I have no issue with GMO's. But I agree with VI and your POV concerning intellectual property. However what is being overlooked is often farmers who have never been part of Monsanto or ever purchased their seed often find Monsanto strains mixed in with theirs due to cross contamination by various means and when Monsanto discovers the farmer has their strain amongst the yield they have the power to completely destroy the farmer, which they have on more than a few occasions. That is my only issue.
• 

  ihunt

  "If they were, for example, to use peanut genes in corn and a consumer has a major allergy to peanuts then that could be a problem."

  This isn't necessarily the case. Peanuts have thousands of genes and only a handful of them code the protein that causes allergic reactions.

  Beyond that, I see a common misconception cropping up here (no pun intended). Monsanto and other agrochem companies use genetic modification to boost plants metabolism/resistamce to pesticides (currently glycophosphate aka roundup, next rna interference), whereas other companies and projects (such as golden rice, ebola cure) have engineered plants to produce novel or exogenic proteins. The risk of the first is, "what is the effect of heavy pesticide use, both on the plant and the environment?" The risk of the second is, "what are the effects of the consumption of this protein/metabolite?"

  Pro GMO, down with monsanto!
  
  
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Monsanto would not go bankrupt because it already had a steady stream of income from other products such as selling non-GMO hybrid seeds to farmers.

  That's not a valid argument. That's like saying Honda should have to give away motorcycles for free and then arguing that this is fair because they still make plenty of money off their car sales.
• 

  ihunt

  A good read for anyone interested in the field

  http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/

  Sorry if the link is off, im on my cellular
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  Ihunt:

  Thanks for that link. Very enlightening!
• 

  cantleave

  IMO there is nothing sinister about GMO's, this kind of genetic manipulation is just the next step from the phenotypic breeding methods that have been employed for millennia. GM plants can benefit us by providing greater yields per hectare, more robust plants and plants that can produce higher levels of beneficial molecules, such as soluble fibres, than can be found in nature.

  Where I have an issue is when commercial organisations such as Monsanto use bullying tactics in order to protect their patents and sell their brand of poison along with the seeds or even worse, impregnate their GM seeds with their toxic cocktails.

  I think the world should just grow Avena sativa - there are no GMO oats.
• 

  Village Idiot

  OneEyedJoe:

  "That's not a valid argument. That's like saying Honda should have to give away motorcycles for free and then arguing that this is fair because they still make plenty of money off their car sales."

  Giving away GMO seeds was not my point it is an issue of making farmers dependent on monopolized seeds.
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  Giving away GMO seeds was not my point it is an issue of making farmers dependent on monopolized seeds.

  This is a very different argument - now it seems that you're suggesting that Monsanto should fall under some sort of anti-trust action. From what little I know, this seems reasonable. Your original statement, however, was an argument essentially stating that GMO R&D was an endeavor that did not deserve to be profitable in and of itself.
• 

  Village Idiot

  OneEyedJoe:

  "This is a very different argument - now it seems that you're suggesting that Monsanto should fall under some sort of anti-trust action. From what little I know, this seems reasonable."

  I haven't figured out exactly what the official position from government should be but I would consider anti-trust action to be an option.

  "Your original statement, however, was an argument essentially stating that GMO R&D was an endeavor that did not deserve to be profitable in and of itself."

  That's not what I meant. Less profit yes, but that's because I'm against profiteering not profit itself.