To GMO or Non-GMO
Options
Replies
-
Genetic engineering has been happening for as long as humans have been around. Why is it only suddenly an issue? Should we be frightened of all the "unnatural" breeds of dogs that humans have created? What about cats? Should we be scared of every crop we eat today that only exists because of selective breeding over thousands of years?
If they go back to doing it the old fashioned way, I'll quit worrying. But new methods have the potential to create new problems.
And even if they strictly follow the old fashioned way, breeding plants that tolerate higher levels of pesticides still has the potential to cause the humans that eat those plants more problems, since it might mean our food contains previously lethal to plants levels of pesticides that might then be lethal to us.
Also, any company that uses its influence to buy its way out of our legal system is not to be trusted in any case. For that reason alone, I will do everything I can to avoid Monsanto products.
So you're afraid of new things and you would prefer to go back to the less effective, less efficient way?
I am of the opposite opinion.0 -
It must suck being so scared of food.
I'm not scared of food I'm scared of billion dollar industries and their associated lobbyists
This.
Vague overgeneralized demonization of a tool that is foundational to medicine and research serves no one.
Okay so I'll be specific, Do you think monsanto SPECIFICALLY has any merit to society at all? Because I see it as a billion dollar company, whose lobbyists affect government regulations, allowing them to basically answer to no one?
Monsanto specifically is certainly not "foundational to medicine and research"
Being born and raised in a developing (third world) country, we don't worry about whether there's bug particles in food,a strawberry that has frog DNA, or a vaccine that contains insect dna.
When you have food and medicine in abundance that you're arguing details like this, perhaps some perspective is needed, just sayin'.
#firstworldproblems0 -
Not to mention GMOs are under patent laws, so now these plant varieties are under patents and have thus been "privatized", thus making monsanto a billion dollar herbicide company one of the first to own a species of plant and can defend that by law.
Which species do they own?
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/monsanto-squeezes-out-see_n_390354.html
http://www.seedsavers.org/
Name a species that Monsanto owns that you can't find in this catalog.
Who controls it owns it in every meaningful sense of the word. If Mr. Harl is correct, that is one behemoth of a monopoly and in a sane world would not be allowed to exist.0 -
It must suck being so scared of food.
I'm not scared of food I'm scared of billion dollar industries and their associated lobbyists
This.
Vague overgeneralized demonization of a tool that is foundational to medicine and research serves no one.
Okay so I'll be specific, Do you think monsanto SPECIFICALLY has any merit to society at all? Because I see it as a billion dollar company, whose lobbyists affect government regulations, allowing them to basically answer to no one?
Monsanto specifically is certainly not "foundational to medicine and research"
I think that the fact that farmers choose to buy and even attempt to pirate their seeds shows that there is a benefit to using the seeds.
Yep there is no doubt a benefit, it is a heIl of a lot easier to own hundreds of acres of corn or soy because you can spray herbicides all over the place without your plants dying, instead of specifically attacking the weeds.0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
As Aaron pointed out, genetically modified organisms are used in medical research and treatments.
Ah, okay. Willing to compromise then. Don't label medicine. Do label food. Problem solved.
I would be more concerned with transparency involving medicine than I am with food that has been shown not to have a difference at the level of consumption.
It is true I'm going to have an interesting time scrutinizing vitamin labels when I finish using up this cheap crap I bought.0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
That's fine. As I said in another post, I don't see how it will affect important medicine. The vast majority of people will take the medicine they need. So many do, even when side effects are potentially horrific.
Stem cell research opposition had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pandering to the religious.0 -
GMO means genetically modified organism. It has nothing to do with processing. You can buy 600 calorie Non-GMO Muffins just as easily as a GMO one. It's possible that a change in the genetic make up of the food could cause a metabolism to slow or trigger a hormonal response but thus far no such thing has been found.0
-
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
That's fine. As I said in another post, I don't see how it will affect important medicine. The vast majority of people will take the medicine they need. So many do, even when side effects are potentially horrific.
Stem cell research opposition had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pandering to the religious.
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
I wouldn't disagree with you on this. I would consider myself "pro-stem cell research", "pro-vaccincation" and even "pro-golden rice" etc. Because these are relevant and useful tools to all of society. If GMOs were used to create food for developing nations - awesome I'm all for it. Instead it is being used in the north american food industry, hamburgers, increased shelf life etc - all which could exist without GM foods.
My problem is that these crops were created and grown for profit - humans see absolutely no benefit from GMO's in their food production. Studies have shown that GMOs do not directly improve yield, despite what you may think. Monsanto specifically is in this for money. Genetic modification is a useful tool - no doubt about it. But I think there should be strict regulation, and should not be taken lightly.
ETA- You seem to think I'm anti-science or something. I have gone to college and university for biotechnology and nutrition, I am a science nerd. Quit thinking that just because I prefer not to have a multinational company dictate my health, means that I'm some anti-medicine anti research nut job.0 -
Not to mention GMOs are under patent laws, so now these plant varieties are under patents and have thus been "privatized", thus making monsanto a billion dollar herbicide company one of the first to own a species of plant and can defend that by law.
Which species do they own?
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/monsanto-squeezes-out-see_n_390354.html
http://www.seedsavers.org/
Name a species that Monsanto owns that you can't find in this catalog.
Who controls it owns it in every meaningful sense of the word. If Mr. Harl is correct, that is one behemoth of a monopoly and in a sane world would not be allowed to exist.
Which species does Monsanto control?0 -
It must suck being so scared of food.
I'm not scared of food I'm scared of billion dollar industries and their associated lobbyists
This.
Vague overgeneralized demonization of a tool that is foundational to medicine and research serves no one.
Well, this is the exact reason I have for hating hammers. They really hurt when I smash my thumb with them and they could potentially kill someone. I'll demonize the crap out of that tool.
Also, table saws... those things are crazy scary.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
I wouldn't disagree with you on this. I would consider myself "pro-stem cell research", "pro-vaccincation" and even "pro-golden rice" etc. Because these are relevant and useful tools to all of society. If GMOs were used to create food for developing nations - awesome I'm all for it. Instead it is being used in the north american food industry, hamburgers, increased shelf life etc - all which could exist without GM foods.
My problem is that these crops were created and grown for profit - humans see absolutely no benefit from GMO's in their food production. Studies have shown that GMOs do not directly improve yield, despite what you may think. Monsanto specifically is in this for money. Genetic modification is a useful tool - no doubt about it. But I think there should be strict regulation, and should not be taken lightly.
If there is no benefit, farmers will stop buying their seeds and the problem goes away on it's own.0 -
People buy billions of dollars worth of their products, so I'm going to go with "yes."
Okay so I'll be specific, Do you think monsanto SPECIFICALLY has any merit to society at all? Because I see it as a billion dollar company, whose lobbyists affect government regulations, allowing them to basically answer to no one?
It's funny that you can see the "billion dollar company" but apparently not see that that billion dollars comes from people who see their products as valuable.0 -
Not to mention GMOs are under patent laws, so now these plant varieties are under patents and have thus been "privatized", thus making monsanto a billion dollar herbicide company one of the first to own a species of plant and can defend that by law.
Which species do they own?
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/monsanto-squeezes-out-see_n_390354.html
http://www.seedsavers.org/
Name a species that Monsanto owns that you can't find in this catalog.
Who controls it owns it in every meaningful sense of the word. If Mr. Harl is correct, that is one behemoth of a monopoly and in a sane world would not be allowed to exist.
Which species does Monsanto control?
You're talking species, I'm talking strains. I know what you're trying to say, but you also know the point I'm making.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.
Let's all learn the words of the "Internationale" too!
Yay, Stalin!0 -
GMO vs NON GMO does not affect weight loss as far as I know.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people say that GMOs are fine because there is no evidence to prove its bad for your health. When in reality there is no epidemiological, long term studies at all. Therefore lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. So no one can say they are "good" or "bad"
The issue I have is that it is unnecessary. A significant portion of GMOs grown today are corn or soy. The genetic modification inserts a gene into the plant that prevents the plant from being killed by herbicides (most often Round-up, made by Monsanto). Herbicides are only necessary because of the extensive mono-cropping and using HUGE acres of land for one species. This makes it susceptible to weed over growth. So before GMOs farmers were still using round up they were simply being careful to only spray it on actual weeds. SO now they can spray the *kitten* out of everything in sight - now not only do we have GMOs but also larger amounts of herbicides on our food.
GMOs are not necessary if your a small-mid sized farm and use a variety of crops and a variety of pest and weed control management - "integrated pest management" which is using pesticides and herbicides only if necessary.
Should we take the chance(small or large) of negative health affects simply for convenience? To me it is a no...
Having said all that the entire food system is broken and it's too much time, effort and money to stay away from these things indefinitely. So I don't necessarily avoid GMOs like the plague. I just try to generally eat well.
Yet life expectancy is longer than it's ever been. Yeah, ok.
haha. Are you suggesting that GMOs have increased life span? Because I would say its probably our medical, technological and sanitation advancements....
YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. GMOs have increased our average lifespans tremendously and if you are ignorant of that clear fact then I question whether or not you know what we rely heavily on GMOs to produce.
Only because your definition encompasses natural breeding techniques. Sneaky!
No not at all. Vaccine production became affordable enough for tch transfers to developing nations because of fully GMO based production. Same with insulin as well as the vast majority of point of care diagnostics. We lost stem cell research due to a knee jerk public reaction and you better believe im not going to let that happen to GMOs without a fight.
And yet I am not a lobbyist, go figure.
That's fine. As I said in another post, I don't see how it will affect important medicine. The vast majority of people will take the medicine they need. So many do, even when side effects are potentially horrific.
Stem cell research opposition had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with pandering to the religious.
Your inability to see how it affects "important medicine" is just your ignorance of the subject. I am sorry to be blunt and I don't mean to be rude, I think you are a smart and rational person...I can get your issue with Monsanto, I can get your desire from labeling but frankly on this topic you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Just because you don't "see it" doesn't mean its there and I would not classify all vaccines and the majority of point of care diagnostics as somehow not important medicine. Its the backbone of all medicine. It is the single most important life saving venture we have ever embarked on. I know it sounds like I am exaggerating but I really am not.
I'm sorry you are so myopically focused on Monsanto that you have missed this.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.
Let's all learn the words of the "Internationale" too!
Yay, Stalin!
Nothing wrong with dealing the death blow to a corporate person that deserves it. Also, Stalin wasn't a Marxist worthy of the name. And Einstein was a socialist, while we're name dropping.0 -
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
Monsanto produces 2000 seed varieties sold in 160 countries.
98% of R&D goes into BREEDING seeds in 18 crop families.
They sell two "biotech" crops: corn and soybeans.
There are 0 new biotech crops in development.
Nationalize. Sell it all at cost. More lives saved because no profit to worry about. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company.
Yeah don't go thinking they are a seed company, they are first and foremost a chemical company working in agriculture0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions