Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
GMO's and Food
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.
You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
All the organic / eco friendly companies I know of started out wanting to make the world a better place while earning a living. Not sure how well that's trickled up during buyouts. I'm sure some companies have jumped on the organic bandwagon in order to increase profits, but I believe that Seventh Generation is truly interested in the health of the next seven generations and beyond.
I'm really grateful for companies like them that offered laundry detergent without artificial fragrance years ago, because now all the major detergent companies are doing the same.
https://www.seventhgeneration.com/mission
Our Mission
To inspire a consumer revolution that nurtures the health of the next seven generations.
We Believe- That you have a right to know that the products you buy are safe for you, your family, and our environment.
- That a company's values are as important as the products it makes.
- That plant-based products can provide exceptional efficacy.
- That products designed from renewable plant-based ingredients are better for the planet than products made from petroleum.
- That you have a right to know what's inside the bottle you buy. Always.
- That waste, is well... a waste. It's why we use recycled materials to design our packaging, and why we design our packaging to be recycled.
They're part of Unilever. This is not to question the integrity or passion of any employee there, but I don't know if I would trust them more than any other part of Unilever.8 -
Shawshankcan wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.
You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
Well if you mean to make more than it cost them to run the business, of course. What business can't and survive?
That being said, many companies have a fundamental philosophical stance as part of their Mission Statement organic or not. That doesn't mean that they are "in it for the money" alone. There is nothing wrong with helping people and employing people and making a profit to grow.
So, yes. In my, extensive, experience (worked in the organic foods industry for a number of years) organic companies do care about the consumers for the most part. Otherwise, why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model. Silly statement really.9 -
Shawshankcan wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.
You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
Well if you mean to make more than it cost them to run the business, of course. What business can't and survive?
That being said, many companies have a fundamental philosophical stance as part of their Mission Statement organic or not. That doesn't mean that they are "in it for the money" alone. There is nothing wrong with helping people and employing people and making a profit to grow.
So, yes. In my, extensive, experience (worked in the organic foods industry for a number of years) organic companies do care about the consumers for the most part. Otherwise, why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model. Silly statement really.
I don't understand why they would go organic when there are better options all round.2 -
GMO's, live with them, die without them, or spend a much higher share of your income to live without them. Choose.2
-
Shawshankcan wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.
You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
Well if you mean to make more than it cost them to run the business, of course. What business can't and survive?
That being said, many companies have a fundamental philosophical stance as part of their Mission Statement organic or not. That doesn't mean that they are "in it for the money" alone. There is nothing wrong with helping people and employing people and making a profit to grow.
So, yes. In my, extensive, experience (worked in the organic foods industry for a number of years) organic companies do care about the consumers for the most part. Otherwise, why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model. Silly statement really.
I don't understand why they would go organic when there are better options all round.
What better options are you referring to?0 -
Shawshankcan wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.
You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
Well if you mean to make more than it cost them to run the business, of course. What business can't and survive?
That being said, many companies have a fundamental philosophical stance as part of their Mission Statement organic or not. That doesn't mean that they are "in it for the money" alone. There is nothing wrong with helping people and employing people and making a profit to grow.
So, yes. In my, extensive, experience (worked in the organic foods industry for a number of years) organic companies do care about the consumers for the most part. Otherwise, why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model. Silly statement really.
I don't understand why they would go organic when there are better options all round.
What better options are you referring to?
I believe that may have been in part stated in response to you saying "why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model".
I'm not disagreeing that organic companies and farmers care with this next statement, but I'd like to add that the farmers who plant edible GE crops, they care about their end consumers just as much. They also care about the environment, and many choose GE over organic crops because they use less (and generally less harmful) pesticides and insecticides, they end up with no-till soil (tilling the soil is a large source of carbon emissions), and they have the ability to provide more crop per acre then organic farming ever will for a lower price. With available farmland in many countries dwindling, or being forced into less suitable areas for farming, this becomes more important than ever.
And I guarantee that on the development end, the researchers working at Monsanto, Syngenta and the rest developing the new GE varieties coming to market care too. They care just as much about bringing safe food to your family as you do; the corporate end skews the view with their ideologies of a profit driven business model. They aren't all mad scientists laughing maniacally at their centrifuges whilst they plan to slowly poison humanity with their leafy abominations.
Before I moved industries, after majoring in microbiology and minoring in molecular botany, straight after university I was in a lab actually that worked on creating GE plants and ways to control GE seed cross contamination in grain crops to stop the GE strains either a) getting out into the wild or b) cross-contaminating organic crops. We had times where we spoke with farmers and their issues with using GE crops, and one of the top 3 issues nearly every one of them raised was safety for the people who's plate their grain was going to. This was pre-crispr and the other more specific gene-knockout technologies so I'm not as familiar with the science now as I used to be, but I do know that GE technology and crop science are at the top of their game, and even though the food already available is safe, it's only going to get safer as time goes on.
I do believe that the organic food industries idealism behind organic foods being better/healthier/safer for humanity and the environment are misguided though. I actually actively buy GE and avoid the organic label whenever I am able because I think it will be better for humanity in the long run.
(Note: I use the term GE over GMO because I believe modern organic plant cultivars should be included under that title. Actively trying to acquire traits through mutagenesis and other methods still make them 'genetically modified organisms' in my book).19 -
Shawshankcan wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.
You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
Well if you mean to make more than it cost them to run the business, of course. What business can't and survive?
That being said, many companies have a fundamental philosophical stance as part of their Mission Statement organic or not. That doesn't mean that they are "in it for the money" alone. There is nothing wrong with helping people and employing people and making a profit to grow.
So, yes. In my, extensive, experience (worked in the organic foods industry for a number of years) organic companies do care about the consumers for the most part. Otherwise, why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model. Silly statement really.
Charging 5-10 times the price for a virtually identical product isn't a profitable business model. Colour me confused.3 -
mangrothian wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.
You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
Well if you mean to make more than it cost them to run the business, of course. What business can't and survive?
That being said, many companies have a fundamental philosophical stance as part of their Mission Statement organic or not. That doesn't mean that they are "in it for the money" alone. There is nothing wrong with helping people and employing people and making a profit to grow.
So, yes. In my, extensive, experience (worked in the organic foods industry for a number of years) organic companies do care about the consumers for the most part. Otherwise, why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model. Silly statement really.
I don't understand why they would go organic when there are better options all round.
What better options are you referring to?
I believe that may have been in part stated in response to you saying "why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model".
I'm not disagreeing that organic companies and farmers care with this next statement, but I'd like to add that the farmers who plant edible GE crops, they care about their end consumers just as much. They also care about the environment, and many choose GE over organic crops because they use less (and generally less harmful) pesticides and insecticides, they end up with no-till soil (tilling the soil is a large source of carbon emissions), and they have the ability to provide more crop per acre then organic farming ever will for a lower price. With available farmland in many countries dwindling, or being forced into less suitable areas for farming, this becomes more important than ever.
And I guarantee that on the development end, the researchers working at Monsanto, Syngenta and the rest developing the new GE varieties coming to market care too. They care just as much about bringing safe food to your family as you do; the corporate end skews the view with their ideologies of a profit driven business model. They aren't all mad scientists laughing maniacally at their centrifuges whilst they plan to slowly poison humanity with their leafy abominations.
Before I moved industries, after majoring in microbiology and minoring in molecular botany, straight after university I was in a lab actually that worked on creating GE plants and ways to control GE seed cross contamination in grain crops to stop the GE strains either a) getting out into the wild or b) cross-contaminating organic crops. We had times where we spoke with farmers and their issues with using GE crops, and one of the top 3 issues nearly every one of them raised was safety for the people who's plate their grain was going to. This was pre-crispr and the other more specific gene-knockout technologies so I'm not as familiar with the science now as I used to be, but I do know that GE technology and crop science are at the top of their game, and even though the food already available is safe, it's only going to get safer as time goes on.
I do believe that the organic food industries idealism behind organic foods being better/healthier/safer for humanity and the environment are misguided though. I actually actively buy GE and avoid the organic label whenever I am able because I think it will be better for humanity in the long run.
(Note: I use the term GE over GMO because I believe modern organic plant cultivars should be included under that title. Actively trying to acquire traits through mutagenesis and other methods still make them 'genetically modified organisms' in my book).
It nice when someone can articulate my thought better than myself. And saves me the work of typing it out.5 -
mangrothian wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.
You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
Well if you mean to make more than it cost them to run the business, of course. What business can't and survive?
That being said, many companies have a fundamental philosophical stance as part of their Mission Statement organic or not. That doesn't mean that they are "in it for the money" alone. There is nothing wrong with helping people and employing people and making a profit to grow.
So, yes. In my, extensive, experience (worked in the organic foods industry for a number of years) organic companies do care about the consumers for the most part. Otherwise, why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model. Silly statement really.
I don't understand why they would go organic when there are better options all round.
What better options are you referring to?
I believe that may have been in part stated in response to you saying "why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model".
I'm not disagreeing that organic companies and farmers care with this next statement, but I'd like to add that the farmers who plant edible GE crops, they care about their end consumers just as much. They also care about the environment, and many choose GE over organic crops because they use less (and generally less harmful) pesticides and insecticides, they end up with no-till soil (tilling the soil is a large source of carbon emissions), and they have the ability to provide more crop per acre then organic farming ever will for a lower price. With available farmland in many countries dwindling, or being forced into less suitable areas for farming, this becomes more important than ever.
And I guarantee that on the development end, the researchers working at Monsanto, Syngenta and the rest developing the new GE varieties coming to market care too. They care just as much about bringing safe food to your family as you do; the corporate end skews the view with their ideologies of a profit driven business model. They aren't all mad scientists laughing maniacally at their centrifuges whilst they plan to slowly poison humanity with their leafy abominations.
Before I moved industries, after majoring in microbiology and minoring in molecular botany, straight after university I was in a lab actually that worked on creating GE plants and ways to control GE seed cross contamination in grain crops to stop the GE strains either a) getting out into the wild or b) cross-contaminating organic crops. We had times where we spoke with farmers and their issues with using GE crops, and one of the top 3 issues nearly every one of them raised was safety for the people who's plate their grain was going to. This was pre-crispr and the other more specific gene-knockout technologies so I'm not as familiar with the science now as I used to be, but I do know that GE technology and crop science are at the top of their game, and even though the food already available is safe, it's only going to get safer as time goes on.
I do believe that the organic food industries idealism behind organic foods being better/healthier/safer for humanity and the environment are misguided though. I actually actively buy GE and avoid the organic label whenever I am able because I think it will be better for humanity in the long run.
(Note: I use the term GE over GMO because I believe modern organic plant cultivars should be included under that title. Actively trying to acquire traits through mutagenesis and other methods still make them 'genetically modified organisms' in my book).
THIS, times 10
2 -
mangrothian wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.
You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
Well if you mean to make more than it cost them to run the business, of course. What business can't and survive?
That being said, many companies have a fundamental philosophical stance as part of their Mission Statement organic or not. That doesn't mean that they are "in it for the money" alone. There is nothing wrong with helping people and employing people and making a profit to grow.
So, yes. In my, extensive, experience (worked in the organic foods industry for a number of years) organic companies do care about the consumers for the most part. Otherwise, why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model. Silly statement really.
I don't understand why they would go organic when there are better options all round.
What better options are you referring to?
I believe that may have been in part stated in response to you saying "why wouldn't they pick a more profitable and easier business model".
I'm not disagreeing that organic companies and farmers care with this next statement, but I'd like to add that the farmers who plant edible GE crops, they care about their end consumers just as much. They also care about the environment, and many choose GE over organic crops because they use less (and generally less harmful) pesticides and insecticides, they end up with no-till soil (tilling the soil is a large source of carbon emissions), and they have the ability to provide more crop per acre then organic farming ever will for a lower price. With available farmland in many countries dwindling, or being forced into less suitable areas for farming, this becomes more important than ever.
And I guarantee that on the development end, the researchers working at Monsanto, Syngenta and the rest developing the new GE varieties coming to market care too. They care just as much about bringing safe food to your family as you do; the corporate end skews the view with their ideologies of a profit driven business model. They aren't all mad scientists laughing maniacally at their centrifuges whilst they plan to slowly poison humanity with their leafy abominations.
Before I moved industries, after majoring in microbiology and minoring in molecular botany, straight after university I was in a lab actually that worked on creating GE plants and ways to control GE seed cross contamination in grain crops to stop the GE strains either a) getting out into the wild or b) cross-contaminating organic crops. We had times where we spoke with farmers and their issues with using GE crops, and one of the top 3 issues nearly every one of them raised was safety for the people who's plate their grain was going to. This was pre-crispr and the other more specific gene-knockout technologies so I'm not as familiar with the science now as I used to be, but I do know that GE technology and crop science are at the top of their game, and even though the food already available is safe, it's only going to get safer as time goes on.
I do believe that the organic food industries idealism behind organic foods being better/healthier/safer for humanity and the environment are misguided though. I actually actively buy GE and avoid the organic label whenever I am able because I think it will be better for humanity in the long run.
(Note: I use the term GE over GMO because I believe modern organic plant cultivars should be included under that title. Actively trying to acquire traits through mutagenesis and other methods still make them 'genetically modified organisms' in my book).
If I could, I would awesome this 1000x.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.
You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
All the organic / eco friendly companies I know of started out wanting to make the world a better place while earning a living. Not sure how well that's trickled up during buyouts. I'm sure some companies have jumped on the organic bandwagon in order to increase profits, but I believe that Seventh Generation is truly interested in the health of the next seven generations and beyond.
I'm really grateful for companies like them that offered laundry detergent without artificial fragrance years ago, because now all the major detergent companies are doing the same.
https://www.seventhgeneration.com/mission
Our Mission
To inspire a consumer revolution that nurtures the health of the next seven generations.
We Believe- That you have a right to know that the products you buy are safe for you, your family, and our environment.
- That a company's values are as important as the products it makes.
- That plant-based products can provide exceptional efficacy.
- That products designed from renewable plant-based ingredients are better for the planet than products made from petroleum.
- That you have a right to know what's inside the bottle you buy. Always.
- That waste, is well... a waste. It's why we use recycled materials to design our packaging, and why we design our packaging to be recycled.
They're part of Unilever. This is not to question the integrity or passion of any employee there, but I don't know if I would trust them more than any other part of Unilever.
I work closely with all of the firms you mention here. I do not trust Syngenta. I have a great opinion of Unilever, and know that at all levels they have strong commitments to social responsibility. I work with them in a business to business capacity and not as a customer, so my insights are captured with a different lens. Procter & Gamble is another CPG company with a strong commitment to social responsibility. I work with a lot of other enormous companies that I won't mention, and I cannot say the same for them. They may have goals for environmental protection, reduced footprint, better quality product, greater consumer transparency, etc... but they haven't been such an enormous priority like I know they are at both Unilever and P&G.
I think the biggest thing for me is transparency. Business will be business and will drive to a profit and ever increasing margins...but as long as I'm told about what is going on and what is in my food/water/detergent, then I can make informed decisions based on what I care about.
I think that's little enough to expect.3 -
At the end of the day, my concern with food products is not a hell of a lot different than how I approach most consumer products. Since I think we can agree from previous discussions here that there is no safety issue to speak of at all, it essentially comes down to price and quality (in this case, taste) for me.
Sure, there may be people out there that care if a company donates money to save the friggin manatees or some other SJW type causes. I am sure there and still others that care about how a company conducts itself on the corporate side of things, but I am pretty much a pragmatic type of guy who is not easily swayed by emotional or ideological typed arguments. If other people are? That's great, spend your money how you so choose.3 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Shawshankcan wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
Agreed... my issue is not with the "science" part or the food itself, but this aspect is worrisome. I do not trust Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta to have the interests of the consumers at heart for the long haul. They are for-profit companies after all, so not unexpected that they are positioning for market share. Monsanto has 90% of the US soybean crop and 80% corn and cotton are grown with Monsanto seed technology according to Forbes. That gives me pause.
You think organic companies care about the consumers? They are in it for the money, just like everyone else.
All the organic / eco friendly companies I know of started out wanting to make the world a better place while earning a living. Not sure how well that's trickled up during buyouts. I'm sure some companies have jumped on the organic bandwagon in order to increase profits, but I believe that Seventh Generation is truly interested in the health of the next seven generations and beyond.
I'm really grateful for companies like them that offered laundry detergent without artificial fragrance years ago, because now all the major detergent companies are doing the same.
https://www.seventhgeneration.com/mission
Our Mission
To inspire a consumer revolution that nurtures the health of the next seven generations.
We Believe- That you have a right to know that the products you buy are safe for you, your family, and our environment.
- That a company's values are as important as the products it makes.
- That plant-based products can provide exceptional efficacy.
- That products designed from renewable plant-based ingredients are better for the planet than products made from petroleum.
- That you have a right to know what's inside the bottle you buy. Always.
- That waste, is well... a waste. It's why we use recycled materials to design our packaging, and why we design our packaging to be recycled.
They're part of Unilever. This is not to question the integrity or passion of any employee there, but I don't know if I would trust them more than any other part of Unilever.
I work closely with all of the firms you mention here. I do not trust Syngenta. I have a great opinion of Unilever, and know that at all levels they have strong commitments to social responsibility. I work with them in a business to business capacity and not as a customer, so my insights are captured with a different lens. Procter & Gamble is another CPG company with a strong commitment to social responsibility. I work with a lot of other enormous companies that I won't mention, and I cannot say the same for them. They may have goals for environmental protection, reduced footprint, better quality product, greater consumer transparency, etc... but they haven't been such an enormous priority like I know they are at both Unilever and P&G.
I think the biggest thing for me is transparency. Business will be business and will drive to a profit and ever increasing margins...but as long as I'm told about what is going on and what is in my food/water/detergent, then I can make informed decisions based on what I care about.
I think that's little enough to expect.
I didn't mean by comments to make it sounds like I mistrust Unilever. I have no opinion of them one way or another. It's more like I don't especially trust Seventh Generation on the basis of their promotional materials.2 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
How does one hand over control of a supply to the one creating the supply?2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »GMO food is not bad. Handing over control of the majority of our food supply to a handful of multinationals -- including Monsanto -- is very, very bad.
How does one hand over control of a supply to the one creating the supply?
It starts with a mistrust and belief that only Monsato holds patents on seeds and that organic companies don't, despite how wrong that is.4 -
jseams1234 wrote: »Meh, people watch too many X-Men movies and have no idea what GMO really means. We've had GMO well before Gregor Mendel and way before modern "science" had anything to do with it.
Genetically Modified Organism just sounds evil and sciency and that is enough to cause most people to start jumping around frantically waving their arms predicting the next zombie apocalypse.
The first transgenic tobacco plant was engineered in 1983. Not 1783. Transgenic animal, 1974. Still not 1774. 2 -
I think people freak out over the thought of their food being genetically modified. They don't really understand what it means. Genetically modified food has been around for ages. Half the stuff we eat is modified. Not to mention, all the good that comes from it such as countries where their crops are short of certain vitamins like vitamin A. We can genetically modify their produce so thay it can contain those vitamins year round. Just my two cents. People hear something bad and want to believe it.2
-
mandaleigh22 wrote: »I think people freak out over the thought of their food being genetically modified. They don't really understand what it means. Genetically modified food has been around for ages. Half the stuff we eat is modified. Not to mention, all the good that comes from it such as countries where their crops are short of certain vitamins like vitamin A. We can genetically modify their produce so thay it can contain those vitamins year round. Just my two cents. People hear something bad and want to believe it.
As they say, it's easier to sell fear than truth (or in this case, good science, which is the same thing)3 -
mangrothian wrote: »mandaleigh22 wrote: »I think people freak out over the thought of their food being genetically modified. They don't really understand what it means. Genetically modified food has been around for ages. Half the stuff we eat is modified. Not to mention, all the good that comes from it such as countries where their crops are short of certain vitamins like vitamin A. We can genetically modify their produce so thay it can contain those vitamins year round. Just my two cents. People hear something bad and want to believe it.
As they say, it's easier to sell fear than truth (or in this case, good science, which is the same thing)
It's with a serious *sigh* that I have to agree with this, though I am on the fence as to if I think the people that perpetuate this type of nonsense are sociopathic to the point that believe their own lies or they are being intentionally dishonest. I guess the jury is still out.
Most quacks that launch into tirades over GMO's don't have a scientific leg to stand on and I suspect they know this in their heart of hearts, but (as you pointed out) they do have fear mongering rhetoric which seems to resonate with a populace too naive to know better. It's not as if food safety is not a legitimate concern, but instead of approaching it rationally and scientifically, they literally just make stuff up. To promote organic or Non-GMO foods, they lump all additives into one class and attack them as poison or toxic, and some of these idiots do not even do it passive aggressively.They never mention that many naturally occurring toxicants are prevented or destroyed by modern food technology. Nor do they let on that many additives are naturally occurring substances themselves.
2 -
Everything is genetically modified. Humans, animals, insects, food, etc. Once genes are crossed aka making babies, then the genes were modified. CRISPER is being hailed as a miracle. It's selective genetic modification technology. No one seems to be too concerned about that type of modification but if farmers are able to keep fruit and vegetables edible longer they're "mad evil scientists."1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 900 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions