Sorry, I guess there are two problems, 1) the problem of finding out all of the problems with GMOs and deciding if they are a force for good or evil and, 2) the actual problems with GMOs. I try not to be too dense, but I'm not always successful.It's all good brother. You're not as dense as me, I can assure you that. My post was just to address the simple topic the OP started. The GMOs are evil stickers on the back of Volvos etc... Like most of you here have stated regarding GMO's, food in this instance; I'm sure millions of starving or underfed Earthlings are not worried if their Oxfam Biscuits are made with GM Wheat etc... Nor should they be, as most of the folks have already pointed out.
So are there any good resources addressing these concerns? It may just be a tradeoff- like in the case of some countries in Africa, maybe the benefit will outweigh some of the other issues.A few years I collaborated on a college paper about the merits of labeling GMO foods. My area was researching the science and deciding whether there was enough evidence one way or the other to lobby for making labeling mandatory by law. I found conflicting peer-reviewed studies, and one peer reviewed paper I was basing my decision on was retracted six months after we wrote the paper. That one studied the effects of feeding pigs GMO corn, and concluded it caused several health problems. I also found reports of farmers in India committing suicide because they could not afford Monsanto seeds. This did not pass my sniff test, largely because all the reports of this I found linked to one article written by an Indian reporter. One thing I learned in journalism school (and was mandatory in this class) was never run with a single-source story. My instincts were right, as the original report has been exposed as fraudulent. After reading about three dozen papers I concluded GMO food should be labeled when sold, but not for the reasons commonly cited by GMO opponents. I am not anti-GMO. As others have pointed out on this thread, we could need feed the world's population without CMO crops, and with the climate changing quickly we will need more GMO crops in the future to cope as best we can. My reason for labeling GMOs was largely because of the environmental impacts. Pesticides and herbicides don't kill all insects and weeds, so the survivors grow resistant to the poisons. Researchers found weeds in Germany that current treatments could not eliminate, among other parts of the world. Monsanto's answer to Roundup resistant weeds was to develop new strains of crops and new herbicides, which would further poison our environment. The tipping point for me was the flawed pig paper. If I had known of the flaws in the report I might have decided differently. Another thing that bothered me was that all the positive studies I found were GMO-company sponsored. This was a red flag that weighed in my decision. The negative studies I found were from European universities and focused mainly on environmental concerns, except the pig paper. Even so, it was a pretty easy decision because we were writing a position paper for a business ethics class. Were it not for the ridiculous public outcry against GMO foods I would still say they should be labeled as such at point-of-sale, but we know people don't think rationally, so if I were writing the paper again I would oppose labeling GMO foods. My paper and the research I found is on my other computer. If you want more information send me a PM.
Yes, exactly. The technology is potentially one of the greatest lifesavers ever, yet the potential for abuse for money is also extreme. I shake my head at how many people suffer and die because others want to be more and more wealthy.What are you talking about? Starbucks is a larger corporation than Monsanto. Is Starbucks "abusing" coffee for money? Monsanto competes in a marketplace of seeds. Farmers aren't stupid, they'll pay more for seeds if they get a higher yield, otherwise they won't. Their patents are running out anyway and GMO technology is going to get easier. I think they are just a few successes away from this becoming a non-problem. Golden Rice is going to bring vitamin A to India and many other GE technologies are being worked on right now. Something is going to make people comfortable with it and forget all about Monsanto.
Farmers have been paying for seeds for decades. You know what is going to turn the public pro-GMO? Apples. Climate change is killing apple trees and without GMO apples we will have none in a few years. When people find their choice is between GMO apples or no apples they will buy GMO. When they don’t die or suffer tooth decay they’ll begin to realize GMOs are necessary in a rapidly changing climate.
DarronS,
Wow I am pretty surprised by what I found out about the pig and rat studies. When I heard that in the past, I would say “well humans are different than pigs so I wouldn’t conclude something based on one study.” But in this case its more than that. The studies are simply flawed!
This reminds me of the anti-vaccine movement and several alternative medicine claims. I respect the fact that they are questioning things, but its another thing to misrepresent the facts. Then again if they don’t find what they want…well that’s their strategy unfortunately.
Yes, exactly. The technology is potentially one of the greatest lifesavers ever, yet the potential for abuse for money is also extreme. I shake my head at how many people suffer and die because others want to be more and more wealthy.What are you talking about? Starbucks is a larger corporation than Monsanto. Is Starbucks "abusing" coffee for money? Monsanto competes in a marketplace of seeds. Farmers aren't stupid, they'll pay more for seeds if they get a higher yield, otherwise they won't. Their patents are running out anyway and GMO technology is going to get easier. I think they are just a few successes away from this becoming a non-problem. Golden Rice is going to bring vitamin A to India and many other GE technologies are being worked on right now. Something is going to make people comfortable with it and forget all about Monsanto.Yes, Starbucks makes a killing on coffee. But they sell a luxury to wealthy people who choose to buy it. These seeds we're talking about aren't luxury items. My concern is similar to the concern many have over the unreasonable price gouging of prescription drugs. I have no problem whatsoever if a company invests mountains of cash to develop something and expects to make it back and more. But if their goal is to eventually monopolize the market, I'm not comfortable at all. There have been incidents where the seed company has sued farmers for allowing some Roundup Ready plants to grow amongst their crop, when those seeds were carried there by wind from the field next door. (I'll need to check the details of this as it was a while ago and I don't know the outcome. But the very idea is bad.) Too much private control over one of the most basic of necessities is scary to me. As you can tell from my posts I am pro GMO, but with reasonable controls.
The GMOs are evil stickers on the back of Volvos etc...I see few GMO bumper stickers around here but lots of "Jesus is my copilot" and "Around here Gun control means a steady hand" Alberta has plenty of rednecks.
The GMOs are evil stickers on the back of Volvos etc...I see few GMO bumper stickers around here but lots of "Jesus is my copilot" and "Around here Gun control means a steady hand" Alberta has plenty of rednecks. Redneck Canadians, eh? Are they oxymorons?
The GMOs are evil stickers on the back of Volvos etc...I see few GMO bumper stickers around here but lots of "Jesus is my copilot" and "Around here Gun control means a steady hand" Alberta has plenty of rednecks. Yeah 3 Point, we live in a Bumper Sticker world now. Bill Maher touched on this a little while ago on his show. He's dead right. He was talking about this here interweb. It's true. IMHO(extra emphasis on humble) the internet has royally f**ked the general psyche of society. I know all the good the internet does. But it has unleashed a Pandora's Box of garbage upon people who, before the internet would never have bothered reading or paying attention to topical issues. And that was a good thing. But now everybody has a "Bumper Sticker".(literally and figuratively) Just think where this GMO conspiracy/danger shit would have gone before the internet....it would have went nowhere!! NOWHERE!
The GMOs are evil stickers on the back of Volvos etc...I see few GMO bumper stickers around here but lots of "Jesus is my copilot" and "Around here Gun control means a steady hand" Alberta has plenty of rednecks. Redneck Canadians, eh? Are they oxymorons?Yes they are... but without the 'oxy' part.
Farmers have been paying for seeds for decades. You know what is going to turn the public pro-GMO? Apples. Climate change is killing apple trees and without GMO apples we will have none in a few years. When people find their choice is between GMO apples or no apples they will buy GMO. When they don't die or suffer tooth decay they'll begin to realize GMOs are necessary in a rapidly changing climate.That's great, create a problem with technology so technology is necessary to solve the problem. Oh yeah, and deny the first problem is man-made. psik
The GMOs are evil stickers on the back of Volvos etc...I see few GMO bumper stickers around here but lots of "Jesus is my copilot" and "Around here Gun control means a steady hand" Alberta has plenty of rednecks. Yeah 3 Point, we live in a Bumper Sticker world now. Bill Maher touched on this a little while ago on his show. He's dead right. He was talking about this here interweb. It's true. IMHO(extra emphasis on humble) the internet has royally f**ked the general psyche of society. I know all the good the internet does. But it has unleashed a Pandora's Box of garbage upon people who, before the internet would never have bothered reading or paying attention to topical issues. And that was a good thing. But now everybody has a "Bumper Sticker".(literally and figuratively) Just think where this GMO conspiracy/danger shit would have gone before the internet....it would have went nowhere!! NOWHERE!The GMO controversy is like every other conspiracy theory out there... it's fueled by internet hype and misinformation that lives beside facts and rational ideas. Sometimes it's impossible to distinguish one from the other and you have to go with your gut but as long as you're open to other ideas and changing your mind, the problem is minimized. Luckily I'm never wrong and never have to change my mind.?
Yes, Starbucks makes a killing on coffee. But they sell a luxury to wealthy people who choose to buy it. These seeds we're talking about aren't luxury items. My concern is similar to the concern many have over the unreasonable price gouging of prescription drugs. I have no problem whatsoever if a company invests mountains of cash to develop something and expects to make it back and more. But if their goal is to eventually monopolize the market, I'm not comfortable at all. There have been incidents where the seed company has sued farmers for allowing some Roundup Ready plants to grow amongst their crop, when those seeds were carried there by wind from the field next door. (I'll need to check the details of this as it was a while ago and I don't know the outcome. But the very idea is bad.) Too much private control over one of the most basic of necessities is scary to me. As you can tell from my posts I am pro GMO, but with reasonable controls.Thanks so much for making that claim, because now I get to ask you to prove it. No one I've asked to ever has. If you look at my link, early in this thread under "movies", you'll see the people who make that claim. They are big fat liars, making money off people who believe them, instead of common sense. Monsanto could not possibly sue for drift. Nor could they dominate a market like seeds. There are too many variations in need around the world for anyone to ever do that. The control problem is different. Cargill would be a good example of that, not Monsanto. There is also a problem that you can actually do something about. We should stop subsidizing farmers by buying up surplus and shipping it to Africa and Haiti when they are in crisis. It feeds a few people, but it also destroys their farmers, and they don't have the kind of programs we do, so they never recover and the situation worsens.
Yes, Starbucks makes a killing on coffee. But they sell a luxury to wealthy people who choose to buy it. These seeds we're talking about aren't luxury items. My concern is similar to the concern many have over the unreasonable price gouging of prescription drugs. I have no problem whatsoever if a company invests mountains of cash to develop something and expects to make it back and more. But if their goal is to eventually monopolize the market, I'm not comfortable at all. There have been incidents where the seed company has sued farmers for allowing some Roundup Ready plants to grow amongst their crop, when those seeds were carried there by wind from the field next door. (I'll need to check the details of this as it was a while ago and I don't know the outcome. But the very idea is bad.) Too much private control over one of the most basic of necessities is scary to me. As you can tell from my posts I am pro GMO, but with reasonable controls.Thanks so much for making that claim, because now I get to ask you to prove it. No one I've asked to ever has. If you look at my link, early in this thread under "movies", you'll see the people who make that claim. They are big fat liars, making money off people who believe them, instead of common sense. Monsanto could not possibly sue for drift. Nor could they dominate a market like seeds. There are too many variations in need around the world for anyone to ever do that. The control problem is different. Cargill would be a good example of that, not Monsanto. There is also a problem that you can actually do something about. We should stop subsidizing farmers by buying up surplus and shipping it to Africa and Haiti when they are in crisis. It feeds a few people, but it also destroys their farmers, and they don't have the kind of programs we do, so they never recover and the situation worsens.Is it my claim that some companies want to monopolize the seed market that pleases you so much? Wouldn't the fact that they produce seeds that either don't have a viable second generation, or only work with more of their own chemical products, be indicators? Or the fact they are a for-profit companies that would basically have a licence to print money if they had a large portion of the market? I'm not saying I'm not naive or ignorant of some facts, but I don't think Monsanto or Cargill have your or my best interest in mind in anything they do. The problems with sending of food to third world situations is news to me. I didn't know it harmed their local farmers so I can't comment on that at all.
Is it my claim that some companies want to monopolize the seed market that pleases you so much? Wouldn't the fact that they produce seeds that either don't have a viable second generation, or only work with more of their own chemical products, be indicators? Or the fact they are a for-profit companies that would basically have a licence to print money if they had a large portion of the market? I'm not saying I'm not naive or ignorant of some facts, but I don't think Monsanto or Cargill have your or my best interest in mind in anything they do. The problems with sending of food to third world situations is news to me. I didn't know it harmed their local farmers so I can't comment on that at all.No, what pleased me was the one about Monsanto suing people for drift (" sued farmers for allowing some Roundup Ready plants to grow amongst their crop"). Never happened. I get to add you to my list of people who said that but couldn't back it up. Or, you can be the first to admit they were wrong. As for the second generation, that's been true for decades before GMOs with hybrids, their traits don't carry well to the second generation. Farmers have made the choice to get higher yields for a higher prices for a long time. If they want to save seeds, there are options for them to do that. But you have to think that farmers are stupid if you believe they are paying for GMOs and not getting value from them. And why wouldn't Monsanto be a for profit company?
Is it my claim that some companies want to monopolize the seed market that pleases you so much? Wouldn't the fact that they produce seeds that either don't have a viable second generation, or only work with more of their own chemical products, be indicators? Or the fact they are a for-profit companies that would basically have a licence to print money if they had a large portion of the market? I'm not saying I'm not naive or ignorant of some facts, but I don't think Monsanto or Cargill have your or my best interest in mind in anything they do. The problems with sending of food to third world situations is news to me. I didn't know it harmed their local farmers so I can't comment on that at all.No, what pleased me was the one about Monsanto suing people for drift (" sued farmers for allowing some Roundup Ready plants to grow amongst their crop"). Never happened. I get to add you to my list of people who said that but couldn't back it up. Or, you can be the first to admit they were wrong. As for the second generation, that's been true for decades before GMOs with hybrids, their traits don't carry well to the second generation. Farmers have made the choice to get higher yields for a higher prices for a long time. If they want to save seeds, there are options for them to do that. But you have to think that farmers are stupid if you believe they are paying for GMOs and not getting value from them. And why wouldn't Monsanto be a for profit company?If I'm wrong I'll admit I'm wrong. Feel free to add another notch to your belt. From Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases "Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was pollinated with pollen blown into his field from neighboring fields, he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998. The initial Canadian Federal Court rejected Schmeiser's defense and held for Monsanto, finding that in 1998 Schmeiser had intentionally planted the seeds he had harvested from the wind-seeded crops in 1997, and so patent infringement had indeed occurred.[23] Schmeiser appealed and lost again."
I guarantee, this will never end!
From Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases "Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was pollinated with pollen blown into his field from neighboring fields, he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998. The initial Canadian Federal Court rejected Schmeiser's defense and held for Monsanto, finding that in 1998 Schmeiser had intentionally planted the seeds he had harvested from the wind-seeded crops in 1997, and so patent infringement had indeed occurred.[23] Schmeiser appealed and lost again."I didn't know it had made it to Wikipedia. Thanks. Do you see that his intention is why he was sued? The law that protects Monsanto has been around for almost 100 years.
From Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases "Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was pollinated with pollen blown into his field from neighboring fields, he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998. The initial Canadian Federal Court rejected Schmeiser's defense and held for Monsanto, finding that in 1998 Schmeiser had intentionally planted the seeds he had harvested from the wind-seeded crops in 1997, and so patent infringement had indeed occurred.[23] Schmeiser appealed and lost again."I didn't know it had made it to Wikipedia. Thanks. Do you see that his intention is why he was sued? The law that protects Monsanto has been around for almost 100 years. His intention to plant seeds grown in his own field was his sin. What's he supposed to do, buy from Monsanto every year? Monsanto would like that, but it isn't what he wants to do. Should he sell his farm and buy another far away from any Monsanto fields? What if his new neighbours decide to grow Monsanto crops... should he keep moving? I am not a conspiracy nut, but these companies have no public good in mind when doing anything. No, I suppose they can't monopolize the entire global seed market, but they can get enough to do harm. They aren't evil people, they are business people - very successful business people who are great at their job. Unfortunately their job is to make as much money as possible, that's it. My utopian hopes for the future are admittedly impossible, but that doesn't make the crap that goes on right now acceptable. We need to control things, if 100-year-old laws need to change then we should change them, not use them as excuses. GMOs can be an incredible force for good, but they can also be used to do bad things. They're a technology, that's it. How we use it determines whether we all benefit or only a tiny select group do.
I guarantee, this will never end!I'm happy as a newbie to have started a good conversation!