Support NeoGAF

[Kad5]

Personally I can't understand being against GMOs. Being anti-Monsanto I can understand....but personally I see people who are anti-GMO in the same way I see people who don't believe in climate change or evolution. People who use emotion instead of logic to back up their beliefs.


You have to be scientifically dishonest to claim that GMOs are harmful to people. Also, GMOs are broad...to just act like they can do no good for society is also dishonest. Could individual GMOs be bad? Sure but that isn't any reason to throw out the idea of having GMOs at all.

The reason i'm venting is because I just got into this discussion with a family member and it's a little frustrating. It's a little awkward deciding on what to do in that situation...I guess it's like trying to figure out what to do when a family member doesn't believe in evolution or something.

What say you GAF?

 

[ComputerMKII]

Luddites.

 

[cheststrongwell]

They are idiots.

 

[Kad5]

They are idiots.

So if you are having a discussion/debate with a family member...do you just bite your tongue or what...?

 

[cheststrongwell]

So if you are having a discussion/debate with a family member...do you just bite your tongue or what...?

Yes. Arguing with these fools does nothing. No fact will change their minds.

 

[ComputerMKII]

So if you are having a discussion/debate with a family member...do you just bite your tongue or what...?

Don't talk about politics with friends or family.

 

[blame space]

don't talk about anything with anyone.

 

[akira28]

I'm glad they're there. I want them to be a better roadblock. I don't trust Monsanto, or Monsanto-likes. And while I do believe the science is good, the people putting in the practical application aren't exactly trustworthy. So I don't mind at all that they have a tough time. I want the tech and the people putting it in place to mature more.

I wouldn't put them all into a "community", because they're certainly not that, unless you want to wrangle us all together and call us idiots. I will knee you in the chest.

 

[Kad5]

I'm glad they're there. I want them to be a better roadblock. I don't trust Monsanto, or Monsanto-likes. And while I do believe the science is good, the people putting in the practical application aren't exactly trustworthy. So I don't mind at all that they have a tough time. I want the tech and the people putting it in place to mature more.

I wouldn't put them all into a "community", because they're certainly not that, unless you want to wrangle us all together and call us idiots. I will knee you in the chest.

We've been using GMOs for thousands of years. Ever heard of selective breeding?

Again being anti-monsanto is fine but i'm not going to be anti-water because I don't like Nestle.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

It's silly and often baffling but I think health stuff tends to bring out ridiculous hypochondriac tendencies in a lot of people, myself included to some extent, so on the other hand I understand why this is something some people may eschew reason on even though it's annoying.

 

[MrGerbils]

I'm with you 100%, on every point. Rather than compare them to climate deniers though, I usually compare them to those who still think vaccinations cause autism.

I deal with them by telling them they sound exactly like Jenny McCarthy.

 

[triplestation]

You wouldn't download a CAR

 

[Wiktor]

I'm against GMO in Europe, because that's the only logical choice. We already are producing more than we can consume..so what's the point introdocing something that might have negative effect on health and ecosystem? Even if it's just possibility there's simply no reason to risk it.

Now, I'm all for GMOs in poorer countries. Because it's ridiculous that a country where people are genuinelly starving is declining to accept shipments of free GMO food.

 

[SpoonyBard]

Not as bad as the anti nuclear energy folks, but annoying nevertheless.

 

[Feep]

I'm against GMO in Europe, because that's the only logical choice. We already are producing more than we can consume..so what's the point introdocing something that might have negative effect on health and ecosystem? Even if it's just possibility there's simply no reason to risk it.

1) GMO's have other benefits besides sheer output.

2) Food, believe it or not, can be sent to other places.

3) You are bad at logic.

 

[Kad5]

Not as bad as the anti nuclear energy folks, but annoying nevertheless.

Don't get me fucking started on this. The worst part is the fact that SO MANY FUCKING PEOPLE are anti-nuclear.

 

[way more]

They seem to believe that you absorb the DNA of the foods you eat.

 

[fakefaker]

To a point GMO's can be useful...but then again they can be really stupid. Where I live is a company who has developed an apple that doesn't bruise or go brown after it's been cut. So then how do you tell that's it's old?

Botox Apples

You know, nature intended certain things to happen to foods so that humans and animals could tell when they go bad or aren't healthy for us. Taking out this step in the long term could really affect us negatively.

But then again what's the point in having a honest discussion when people will call you an idiot for having a different point of view?

 

[LaserBuddha]

Having an inherent problem with any genetically modified organism is not and will never be a rational position. Most of them can't even articulate what their problem is.

You know, nature intended certain things to happen to foods so that humans and animals could tell when they go bad or aren't healthy for us. Taking out this step in the long term could really affect us negatively.

But then again what's the point in having a honest discussion when people will call you an idiot for having a different point of view?

Please explain this "intent" of nature. I don't think there is any intention or correct "path" when it comes to nature. If you have theistic beliefs then that's fine but not relevant to the merits of genetic modification.

 

[NotMyRealName]

One of the most awful movements on the planet. Probably responsible for more suffering (through unintended starvation) than any other group on the planet.

 

[lednerg]

They have no idea what most GMO's are and act like the name "Monsanto" in and of itself is an argument.

 

[akira28]

We've been using GMOs for thousands of years. Ever heard of selective breeding?

Again being anti-monsanto is fine but i'm not going to be anti-water because I don't like Nestle.

Dude, selective breeding, heirloom seeds, and all that are a lot different from genetically grafting cockroach DNA or natural pesticides into a plant's genome. I wouldn't rush to call it all GMO unless I had an agenda or a classification fetish. Particularly since companies like Monsanto see replacing one method and totally banning the other as their business model and don't care that their seeds affect other crops when they actually initially said such a thing wouldn't happen.

To me that says slow the shit down until they have better control, instead of rushing to shake gold corn out of their billion dollar goose. I have no problems with the science, as an experimental field, but I don't trust their business practices and they've not given anyone any reason to.

 

[siddx]

They have been fooled by a very thorough and intense anti gmo campaign. I was right there with them for a long time until I realized I was just parroting talking points and had never really looked into gmo's on a thorough level. After some actual research I completely switched sides and not only support GMO's but see them as one of the most important things in our modern era. They have the potential to save millions of lives, feed an ever growing population, and save the environment by increasing yields rather than increasing farming space. There is ZERO incidents of a GMO being harmful to human beings and in fact they are far healthier because they don't need to be doused in pesticides. There are two legitimate concerns (messing with insect populations and potentially fast tracking resistances in diseases) but neither are nearly as serious as the made up scares that are thrown about and both require more evidence to be proven.
It doesn't help that people can't separate them from Monsato, which is a shitty evil company yes, but that doesn't mean their GMO's are as well.

I'm glad for this thread, sometimes I feel like I am taking crazy pills since I know only one person irl who agrees with me and everyone else gets all bugged eyed and hysterical whenever I tell them I support GMOs.

 

[Feep]

To a point GMO's can be useful...but then again they can be really stupid. Where I live is a company who has developed an apple that doesn't bruise or go brown after it's been cut. So then how do you tell that's it's old?

Botox Apples

You know, nature intended certain things to happen to foods so that humans and animals could tell when they go bad or aren't healthy for us. Taking out this step in the long term could really affect us negatively.

But then again what's the point in having a honest discussion when people will call you an idiot for having a different point of view?

Well, I'm not going to call you an idiot, but I don't know, a sell-by date could do that. Or, like, smelling it.

 

[WorldStar]

They seem to believe that you absorb the DNA of the foods you eat.

I hope not, or else smellin like all this durian I eat is gonna make me no friends

 

[DrSlek]

As long as everything is sufficiently tested, I see no problems with GM foods.

Most GM crops are sterile anyway, so it's not like that potato crop modified to poison potato bugs will mutate over time and suddenly start killing humans.

 

[Wiktor]

1) GMO's have other benefits besides sheer output.

2) Food, believe it or not, can be sent to other places.

3) You are bad at logic.

Nobody sane is protesting against crops modified to be resistant to diseases and parasites.
Whatt Europe is going against is useless output modifications, especially since it can screw with local farmer's business.
Also...Europe consumes most of it's own produce. If you want to to grow GMO without limits you're free to do it on other continents. I'm glad here somebody is controling what gets grown on case by case basis.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Dude, selective breeding, heirloom seeds, and all that are a lot different from genetically grafting cockroach DNA or natural pesticides into a plant's genome. I wouldn't rush to call it all GMO unless I had an agenda or a classification fetish. Particularly since companies like Monsanto see replacing one method and totally banning the other as their business model and don't care that their seeds affect other crops when they actually initially said such a thing wouldn't happen.

To me that says slow the shit down until they have better control, instead of rushing to shake gold corn out of their billion dollar goose. I have no problems with the science, as an experimental field, but I don't trust their business practices and they've not given anyone any reason to.

There are two different conversations about willful abuse and exploitation of GMOs as opposed to the merits of genetic modification itself. I think the rational one is the gateway to the irrational one. I wonder what it is that makes GMO skepticism and vaccine skepticism so attractive to the layman. Is it a latent distrust of authority figures and intellectuals? Is it just that choosing to distrust something you don't grasp is less discomforting than trying to make sense of it to have an informed opinion?

 

[NotMyRealName]

Dude, selective breeding, heirloom seeds, and all that are a lot different from genetically grafting cockroach DNA or natural pesticides into a plant's genome. I wouldn't rush to call it all GMO unless I had an agenda or a classification fetish. Particularly since companies like Monsanto see replacing one method and totally banning the other as their business model and don't care that their seeds affect other crops when they actually initially said such a thing wouldn't happen.

To me that says slow the shit down until they have better control, instead of rushing to shake gold corn out of their billion dollar goose. I have no problems with the science, as an experimental field, but I don't trust their business practices and they've not given anyone any reason to.

And here comes the disinformation. First it starts with claiming Monsanto engages in shady business practices (they don't), and then it gradually snowballs into claiming GMOs are inherently bad for you regardless of whoever's inventing them.

 

[SpoonyBard]

Nobody sane is protesting against crops modified to be resistant to diseases and parasites.
Whatt Europe is going against is useless output modifications, especially since it can screw with local farmer's business.
Also...Europe consumes most of it's own produce. If you want to to grow GMO without limits you're free to do it on other continents. I'm glad here somebody is controling what gets grown.

+ if you star shipping tons of food from Europe to poor African countries, their local farmers quickly lose their jobs. It's better to introduce GMO crops and modern faming methods to them instead.

 

[Feep]

Nobody sane is protesting against crops modified to be resistant to diseases and parasites.
Whatt Europe is going against is useless output modifications, especially since it can screw with local farmer's business.
Also...Europe consumes most of it's own produce. If you want to to grow GMO without limits you're free to do it on other continents. I'm glad here somebody is controling what gets grown on case by case basis.

You haven't really given a specific reason why they shouldn't be grown. Growing more food is "useless"? Hundreds of millions of people disagree.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

We've been genetically modifying shit since the days of Gregor Mendel, shit, even before that, just not in an "understood science" kind of way. Nothing we eat is what it originally resembled anymore.

 

[Orbis]

There's calling for strict testing and isolation of crops during that testing, and there's just plain obstructionism with no intent of ever debating the topic.

There's a well known facility near us, Rothamsted Research, which is regularly the target of protests and attempted sabotage, usually by people armed with views which are to say the least, scientifically inaccurate. It's a very well respected scientific institute dating back to the 1800's and it's a real shame to see that the place basically needs to be a fortress at times.

 

[akira28]

Can you quantify how it's different? Is there a material difference that is inherent or is that's imply a projection based on knowing that sexual reproduction wouldn't have produced that result?

I'm trying to figure out what this innate fear of unnatural genetic modification is. It has to be more than superstition.

No point. I can't help you figure out why people have an innate fear of science they don't understand. Any knowledge of human nature should tell you more than enough to understand both sides. The people pushing it and the people who don't want it. Maybe it's not as innate as you assume but simply a vote of no confidence. These people have tried and true methods that they rely on and trust, and they don't want to give them up. They don't see every new science innovation as the next logical life saving step, because they aren't sitting on the apex having benefited from all the positives and shielded from all the negatives. If they make the wrong call in trusting the wrong things, that's their lives they're gambling with. I would expect them to be the most stern judges beyond "well, the science is sound."

edit: hehe now I'm a disinfo agent. wheeee! I forgot there were some legit pro-Monsantos in the audience.
LaserBuddha: If they're skeptical, I won't hold it against them. I also won't conflate GMO skepticism with vaccination skepticism, I don't see a good reason to do it.

 

[Wiktor]

You haven't really given a specific reason why they shouldn't be grown. Growing more food is "useless"? Hundreds of millions of people disagree.

People in Europe are throwing away about 30% of food they buy. So we have zero problem with low food quantities. What should we do? Ship them to poor countries? Which would destroy local farming? If you want to feed the poor it makes most sense to grow the plants in those countries or near them, not ship them through half the world.

Also..EU is protecting the very delicate farming business based not only on output, but also on how much we subsidize it. We even have a limits on how much milk countries can produce just to not destabilize the whole system. Making more food isn't useless, it would actually be dangerous to the whole balance. And what for? Nothing would be gained by it.

Thus it makes zero sense to go for wild west aproach. EU just doesn't work like this. Every GMO needs to be carefully analized and only accepted if it's actually safe and beneficial to EU and it's citizens.

 

[LaserBuddha]

No point. I can't help you figure out why people have an innate fear of science they don't understand. Any knowledge of human nature should tell you more than enough to understand both sides. The people pushing it and the people who don't want it. Maybe it's not as innate as you assume but simply a vote of no confidence. These people have tried and true methods that they rely on and trust, and they don't want to give them up. They don't see every new science innovation as the next logical life saving step, because they aren't sitting on the apex having benefited from all the positives and shielded from all the negatives. If they make the wrong call in trusting the wrong things, that's their lives they're gambling with. I would expect them to be the most stern judges beyond "well, the science is sound."

This is a false dilemma and not a valid basis for indistinct, unsubstantiated fear.

Farmer Bob out in Iowa who wants to spend the rest of his life farming the way his daddy did? He's welcome to, but that perspective doesn't have a place at the science table, just like the evangelical lobbyist doesn't have a place debating science curriculum. Farmer Bob should instead fuck off back to his farm where he can keep doing what no one tried to stop him from doing.

 

[PezDispenser]

I have a friend like this, he always defaults to the mantra of "it's not natural!" with basically nothing else to back up his argument. He's also convinced that fluorine in the water supply is part of the government's secret plan to sterilize people.. a plan that's clearly working just perfectly. Totally dismissive of any and all counter arguments when either of these things are brought up. It's frustrating as fuck, but he's usually cool to talk about other things with.

 

[Orbis]

People in Europe are throwing away about 30% of food they buy. So we have zero problem with low food quantities. What should we do? Ship them to poor countries? Which would destroy local farming? If you want to feed the poor it makes most sense to grow the plants in those countries or near them, not ship them through half the world.

Also..EU is protecting the very delicate farming business based not only on output, but also on how much we subsidize it. We even have a limits on how much milk countries can produce just to not destabilize the whole system. Making more food isn't useless, it would actually be dangerous to the whole balance. And what for? Nothing would be gained by it.

Thus it makes zero sense to go for wild west aproach. EU just doesn't work like this. Every GMO needs to be carefully analized and only accepted if it's actually safe and beneficial to EU and it's citizens.

Again, this isn't just about food quantity, it's about quality and resilience to pests and environmental conditions. Pesticides are far more dangerous than most GM crops could ever be, and if we can move away from them safely, I can't see a reason to oppose that. In addition to this, research conducted in Europe is valuable to the whole world, not just European nations.

 

[akira28]

This is a false dilemma and not a valid basis for indistinct, unsubstantiated fear.

Farmer Bob out in Iowa who wants to spend the rest of his life farming the way his daddy did? He's welcome to, but that perspective doesn't have a place at the science table, just like the evangelical lobbyist doesn't have a place debating science curriculum. Farmer Bob should instead fuck off back to his farm where he can keep doing what no one tried to stop him from doing.

Well then. Science.

No one is stopping the science. People just don't want this out in the field. Countries who ask for assistance don't want to be field tests. I can't fault them for that. "No you idiot, this is supposed to solve all your problems." Expect resistance.

 

[Coffee Dog]

They tend to ignore facts to support their narrative. Good intentions, and at least they dont blindly accept corporate bullshit, but they tend to be almost as uneducated as the people they look down on. They tend to be against nuclear power as well.

 

[hipbabboom]

I don't trust anyone implicitly. Sure the science that conceives something can be pure but you expect me to believe that when money is involved that all is clean. There's been case studies done on consumption of modified wheat that point to the body not handling it as well as unmodified wheat. It's not madness; its a matter of trust and once you loose the trust of a consumer, its difficult to get it back. I want there to be ways to make our food supplies more resilient and get it out there to more people but you look at the giants of food today and what they've been doing to food and you begin to paint a portrait of players who could care less about health and prosperity of the human race. They'd sooner try to find ways to get you addicted to their product and produce it while cutting as many corners as possible. They hide behind the fact that whatever health issues a person develops decades down the line can't be directly linked to them while the additive affects of these products are becoming more apparent by the year.

 

[Tesseract]

ignoramuses, man.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Well then. Science.

No one is stopping the science. People just don't want this out in the field. Countries who ask for assistance don't want to be field tests. I can't fault them for that. "No you idiot, this is supposed to solve all your problems." Expect resistance.

Uninformed, irrational resistance. Telling me that resistance exists and will persists doesn't tell me anything. You're just reiterating that the controversy exists, not that it's rational or at the skeptics are correct.

I told you that the farmer who doesn't want to farm something new doesn't have a position from which to oppose GMO development, because using GMOs is not compulsory. Now you mention "they don't want it in the field" and we are back to square one again.

 

[Wiktor]

Again, this isn't just about food quantity, it's about quality and resilience to pests and environmental conditions. Pesticides are far more dangerous than most GM crops could ever be, and if we can move away from them safely, I can't see a reason to oppose that. In addition to this, research conducted in Europe is valuable to the whole world, not just European nations.

You can conduct that research elsewhere or in small controlled labs. Not throw in into general farming just because you're not patient enough to wait for results. EU's primary obligation is to it's citizens, so nobody is going to be rushing anything.

 

[akira28]

Uninformed, irrational resistance. Telling me that resistance exists and will persists doesn't tell me anything. You're just reiterating that the controversy exists, not that it's rational or at the skeptics are correct.

Well I'm not here to praise Ceasar or bury him. I'm just glad there is resistance.

edit: if you're looking for an argument, you won't get one out of me. I'm not anti-GMO. But I want the path from the lab to the fields to be a tried and tested uphill one. So I won't call the farmers in India and Africa idiots or backward in their ways. I have respect for them, and if they need more convincing, I say do it.

 

[dragonelite]

Its food so lots of money to be made...
Where there's patent and lot of money to be made results are doctored with.

Inb4 accident mutation in wild life and fauna

 

[Devolution]

Not really sure why it's bad to be anti GMO when they haven't done too many studies on the effects and what they have done is only on rats.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Not really sure why it's bad to be anti GMO when they haven't done too many studies on the effects and what they have done is only on rats.

Not understanding something or wanting more research, vs. being against it with no precedent for justification, are two very different things.

 

[Devolution]

Not understanding something or wanting more research, vs. being against it with no precedent for justification, are two very different things.

Well I want more research before I ingest things.

 

[Kad5]

This link should be useful for people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

The starting point for assessing the safety of all GM food is to evaluate its substantial equivalence to the non-modified version. Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis. Despite concerns over potential toxicity, allergenicity or gene transfer to humans from GM food, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.[1][2][3] There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health.[4][5][6]