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
JustRobby1
Posts: 674 Member
I think just about all of us know at least a few people that are borderline psychotic over GMO, Gluten, etc. related matters, but I just encountered a few people over on a another forum that have most assuredly skipped a dose or two of their meds and have instead entered the world of flat out conspiracy theory.
So I will give you a breakdown of the basic premise (I use the term loosely). These folks essentially believe that there is some kind of worldwide conspiracy on the part of agribusiness and food producers to suppress information that GMO's cause lots of harm, even intentional harm. This in spite of hundreds of independent labs telling them they are retarded. Taking things a step further, some also try to make the assertion that GMO's are intentionally put forth to cause worldwide food shortages and that large companies are either bribing or working in collusion with the US FDA, National Academy of Sciences, or other similar organizations to suppress the truth. Proponents also attempt to put forth that certain health crisis events in the world can be tied to GMO's; such as the Zika and Ebola outbreaks, Chipolte's food safety concerns and others.
So I will give you a breakdown of the basic premise (I use the term loosely). These folks essentially believe that there is some kind of worldwide conspiracy on the part of agribusiness and food producers to suppress information that GMO's cause lots of harm, even intentional harm. This in spite of hundreds of independent labs telling them they are retarded. Taking things a step further, some also try to make the assertion that GMO's are intentionally put forth to cause worldwide food shortages and that large companies are either bribing or working in collusion with the US FDA, National Academy of Sciences, or other similar organizations to suppress the truth. Proponents also attempt to put forth that certain health crisis events in the world can be tied to GMO's; such as the Zika and Ebola outbreaks, Chipolte's food safety concerns and others.
6
Replies
-
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.
8 -
agribusiness interests donated more than $26.3 million to political campaigns, including those of several congressmen who sit on the House agriculture appropriations subcommittee.
* some people have trouble fully trusting with so much money involved. Personally, I don't give a hoot.2 -
Conspiracy will always be the tool of the weak minded. It's lazy. Very easy to assemble various dates, people, places, but the real effort is connecting the dots - a key element all conspiracies lack. It's a quick endpoint for a mentality that rejects personal responsibility and enables a victim mentality.
There is no functional difference between the action of a transposon "jumping genes" from one DNA strand to another and the intentional insertion of the same gene. This occurs in nature all the time and one of the key to adaptation and evolution.
As for outbreaks - these diseases have existed for millennia. Previously these deaths were tracked under different diseases/maladies. Increased international travel simply increases the chance of transmission.
This just highlights the lack of science education and teaching critical thought. Where these sad souls were once left to their own thoughts, the internet gives them a voice and a group of like-minded to live in a bubble where these ideas are unchallenged.9 -
Conspiracy will always be the tool of the weak minded. It's lazy. Very easy to assemble various dates, people, places, but the real effort is connecting the dots - a key element all conspiracies lack. It's a quick endpoint for a mentality that rejects personal responsibility and enables a victim mentality.
There is no functional difference between the action of a transposon "jumping genes" from one DNA strand to another and the intentional insertion of the same gene. This occurs in nature all the time and one of the key to adaptation and evolution.
As for outbreaks - these diseases have existed for millennia. Previously these deaths were tracked under different diseases/maladies. Increased international travel simply increases the chance of transmission.
This just highlights the lack of science education and teaching critical thought. Where these sad souls were once left to their own thoughts, the internet gives them a voice and a group of like-minded to live in a bubble where these ideas are unchallenged.
I could not agree more with your above statement. That being said, there is still an entire section of most grocery store devoted to Non-GMO products. So apparently while not everyone in this camp is a raving lunatic like I described above, there does exist an apparently wide swath of people that do actually believe in some facet that GMO is going to hurt them despite clear evidence to the contrary.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Not really:
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/england-wales.php
Genetically modified (GM) crops are currently not grown commercially in the UK, but they are imported. These crops are primarily used in animal feed and a few food products.[2] There is no general prohibition on the planting of GM crops, but planting them is only permitted “if a robust risk assessment indicates that it is safe for people and the environment.”[3] The government has stated that if GM crops are commercially grown in the UK, it will implement “pragmatic and proportionate measures to segregate these from conventional and organic crops, so that choice can be exercised and economic interests appropriately protected.”[4] In the past, there have been protests when GM crops have been planted, and anti-GM groups frequently destroy such areas. There are strict labeling rules in place that require the disclosure of GM products if they have been used.
This was interesting (it's obviously an opinion piece): http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/02/02/don-t-fear-genetic-modified-american-food-it-s-perfectly-saf -- title is "Brexit will flood the UK with genetic-modified American food - and it's about time too"3 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »Conspiracy will always be the tool of the weak minded. It's lazy. Very easy to assemble various dates, people, places, but the real effort is connecting the dots - a key element all conspiracies lack. It's a quick endpoint for a mentality that rejects personal responsibility and enables a victim mentality.
There is no functional difference between the action of a transposon "jumping genes" from one DNA strand to another and the intentional insertion of the same gene. This occurs in nature all the time and one of the key to adaptation and evolution.
As for outbreaks - these diseases have existed for millennia. Previously these deaths were tracked under different diseases/maladies. Increased international travel simply increases the chance of transmission.
This just highlights the lack of science education and teaching critical thought. Where these sad souls were once left to their own thoughts, the internet gives them a voice and a group of like-minded to live in a bubble where these ideas are unchallenged.
I could not agree more with your above statement. That being said, there is still an entire section of most grocery store devoted to Non-GMO products. So apparently while not everyone in this camp is a raving lunatic like I described above, there does exist an apparently wide swath of people that do actually believe in some facet that GMO is going to hurt them despite clear evidence to the contrary.
This is just the long line in media hyperbole. Real scientists issue results of a study showing a modest change and journalists cry wolf as if it is going to decimate the population if we don't take action. People have been conditioned to find something or someone to blame. This makes for a easily manipulated society.
Fear is a powerful motivator. Stops people from thinking about what you may be trying to achieve and gets people reacting to a perceived threat, regardless if that threat is real or imagined.2 -
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.17
-
As someone who reacts to salicylate a substance most plants and vegetables use as a protection for themselves from moulds and mildew attack I'd be fearful foods labelled gmo will have salicylate introduced into it a that particular item would cause my reactions, more than something similar on the official list created by the RPA Hospital somewhere in Australia which gives levels from non, through negligible the amount I can take to moderate, high and extremely high. (Calculated on the amount in 100g or 4 oz, not that we'd have 4 oz of some hot spice)
I have also wondered what the likelihood would be of gmo plants having the propensity to increase the plants ability to induce higher histamine levels. I have problems eliminating both substances, which makes life very complicated without my phenol eliminating enzyme capsules. I still like to know my food item is standard not a composite designed to reduce the need for weed supressing substances. (I go organic where possible and grow my own from organic seeds corms because the use of weed and pest supressing chemicals are fewer. UK,btw) I am contemplating heritage seeds too.
If you have not reason not to avoid produce, go for it. Each to their own
(salicylate sensitivity is recognised by Immunology in our teaching hospitals. For the uninitiated its not woo, thank you, it probably has not affected you or your immediate family for now. I hope it never does)3 -
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.
Consolidation of power in any hands is bad.9 -
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.5 -
Here is a link to the GMO tomato debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_tomato0
-
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.12 -
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.
7 -
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.
Not sure how you could arrive at that from anything I said? I didn't mention organic one time! What I did say is that putting our food supply in the hands of a few for-profit companies is concerning, and to me it is.
Do you think it is a good idea?3 -
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.
Not sure how you could arrive at that from anything I said? I didn't mention organic one time! What I did say is that putting our food supply in the hands of a few for-profit companies is concerning, and to me it is.
Do you think it is a good idea?
Your comment saying "they are for profit" led me to my comment.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.
Not sure how you could arrive at that from anything I said? I didn't mention organic one time! What I did say is that putting our food supply in the hands of a few for-profit companies is concerning, and to me it is.
Do you think it is a good idea?
Your comment saying "they are for profit" led me to my comment.
What I said that of course they are jockeying for market share, which all for-profit companies do. Organic companies also want market share, but their strategies are obviously different. But no one can convince me that consolidating the food supply to for-profit companies will benefit consumers. Corner the market and eventually the prices will rise, but once we go down that road it is hard to turn back.
I have zero concerns about the actual safety of the foods. Frankly I prefer local vs organic.... I like to support local farmers and businesses.1 -
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.
Not sure how you could arrive at that from anything I said? I didn't mention organic one time! What I did say is that putting our food supply in the hands of a few for-profit companies is concerning, and to me it is.
Do you think it is a good idea?
Your comment saying "they are for profit" led me to my comment.
What I said that of course they are jockeying for market share, which all for-profit companies do. Organic companies also want market share, but their strategies are obviously different. But no one can convince me that consolidating the food supply to for-profit companies will benefit consumers. Corner the market and eventually the prices will rise, but once we go down that road it is hard to turn back.
I have zero concerns about the actual safety of the foods. Frankly I prefer local vs organic.... I like to support local farmers and businesses.
I'm actually appalled at organic marketing strategies. The majority of their advertising campaigns are scare tactics covered in a facade of pretending that their food is better for you, and by doing so insinuating that anything that isn't organic is worse, when in reality they're equal. 99.9% of food companies are for profit, right down to the farmer. It's just the way it is.
That being said, I'd rather the profits go directly into the farmers hands then all the middle men.10 -
mangrothian wrote: »
I'm actually appalled at organic marketing strategies. The majority of their advertising campaigns are scare tactics covered in a facade of pretending that their food is better for you, and by doing so insinuating that anything that isn't organic is worse, when in reality they're equal. 99.9% of food companies are for profit, right down to the farmer. It's just the way it is.
I was going to say this, more or less.
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.
Not sure how you could arrive at that from anything I said? I didn't mention organic one time! What I did say is that putting our food supply in the hands of a few for-profit companies is concerning, and to me it is.
Do you think it is a good idea?
Your comment saying "they are for profit" led me to my comment.
What I said that of course they are jockeying for market share, which all for-profit companies do. Organic companies also want market share, but their strategies are obviously different. But no one can convince me that consolidating the food supply to for-profit companies will benefit consumers. Corner the market and eventually the prices will rise, but once we go down that road it is hard to turn back.
I have zero concerns about the actual safety of the foods. Frankly I prefer local vs organic.... I like to support local farmers and businesses.
I'm actually appalled at organic marketing strategies. The majority of their advertising campaigns are scare tactics covered in a facade of pretending that their food is better for you, and by doing so insinuating that anything that isn't organic is worse, when in reality they're equal. 99.9% of food companies are for profit, right down to the farmer. It's just the way it is.
That being said, I'd rather the profits go directly into the farmers hands then all the middle men.
Agree with this! Organic food companies have their own set of issues for sure.... local as much as possible is the best for me at least.1 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions