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
-
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
-
JustRobby1 wrote: »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.
I think it's probably a small part sociopath, a small part uninformed but with good intentions, and the majority being influenced by the almighty dollarydoo. I mean, why do most of the woo-peddlers have their own store or have your company listed on the stock exchange?
Granted, that can be said for the motivations of people any industry, but the voices seem to be louder and a whole lot more crazy when it comes to health, food & nutrition.2 -
mangrothian wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »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.
I think it's probably a small part sociopath, a small part uninformed but with good intentions, and the majority being influenced by the almighty dollarydoo. I mean, why do most of the woo-peddlers have their own store or have your company listed on the stock exchange?
Granted, that can be said for the motivations of people any industry, but the voices seem to be louder and a whole lot more crazy when it comes to health, food & nutrition.
People also follow blindly without research or at least critically looking at the source of the information. As well, some anti-gmo activists use credentials that don't have a place in this field. For example, Dr Shiva is very anti gmo and blames monstano for the rise of suicides in India. The reality is the rise came years before Monsanto set up shop, and while she may have the Dr initials on her name, it is for a Doctorate of Philosophy.3 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »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.
I'm not wanting to come across as combative at all. In the future would you consider a different word choice? I find the word "retarded" in this context to be offensive (I have a special needs aunt). Thanks for the consideration.2 -
I try to avoid gmo because I don't like the business practices of those companies especially in developing countries and that a farmer has to buy the crops every year instead. I do realize that the non gmo seeds might be from the'same companies however I need to eat too n at least the farmers are not forced to buy the seeds every year n can use a part of last years crop 1
-
Which basically means they can just charge you more money.suzannesimmons3 wrote: »I live in the uk gmo not allowed.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
I try to avoid gmo because I don't like the business practices of those companies especially in developing countries and that a farmer has to buy the crops every year instead. I do realize that the non gmo seeds might be from the'same companies however I need to eat too n at least the farmers are not forced to buy the seeds every year n can use a part of last years crop
Do you know that in many countries, the farmers do actually have the option to seed save their GE crops, but it's actually more cost effective for a number to just buy the seeds each year? Not to mention, many organic crops are also patented and and the organic farmers don't seed save either; and for exactly the same reasons as the conventional farmers. F2 generation seeds (the harvested seeds that are the offspring of the seeds purchased from a company) generally also have a lower germination rate, which in turn affects the size of a crop (which is not the same as terminator seeds. Terminator technology is well researched, but has never been put into a commercial crop).
Linky: Genetic Literacy Project - View from the farm: Why conventional and organic farmers don’t want to save seeds
In the case of developing nations, many farmers aren't forced to buy the seeds, but the limited availability for soil optimisation and poor farming land being used means that a GE crop is the only profitable option for the farmers. To use organic/non GE seed crops usually means a poorer crop and less money to the farmer and his family.
This attitude to GE foods (and in this case, I mean the foods and not the companies who design the seed stock), is causing issues for open source (non-patented) GE crops being accessed by developing nations, with golden rice being the biggest headline recently. Not all GE crops are patented with high price tags.
Linky: Agdaily - Farm Babe: Top 8 myths about GMOs debunked
I've popped this link in here because I feel it's necessary. A couple of myths I see popping up in threads like these are mentioned in this article.
Edit: I just realised that both the articles I linked are by the same author, Michelle Miller aka farm babe. If you would like a different source, here's a link to a YouTube video that was created by UCDavis: https://youtu.be/zI_lwy8KfHI4 -
A food haven been genetically modified doesn't necessarily mean it posses a risk. A hybridized fruit or vegetable has technically been genetically modified.
The problem lies within genetic modification to make a crop resistant (as in it won't die) to RoundUp. Ergo, RoundUp ready GMO is what is considered to be dangerous to those who have actually done a smidgen of research, as opposed to choosing-a-side-and-bandwagoning-- like we do with politics.
The "big agro" business isn't really agricultural at all; it's a chemical industry. Poor farmers across the globe have been subsidy-bullied into accepting Monsanto (I think DuPont dabbles too) crops and, in turn, legally signing away their ability to sow their own seeds.
But that's sort of off topic. Organic (a mute term before the 80's) farmers aren't multi-billion dollar companies paying for the research to study agro pesticides, the pesticide companies are. With Monsanto, specifically, we're talking about the company that produced and sold saccharine as an artificial sweetener (virtually all ASners cause cancer and tumors in lab rats) to Coca Cola in 1901. It was federally banned like 20 years later. Fast forward to PCBs (banned) in the 20's, an expansion into the pharmaceutical industry and chemical/plastics industry, Uranium development for the Atom bomb, Agent Orange, etc. etc....
The point is: nobody is telling you not to eat "GMO." --With America having the highest obesity and cancer rankings on the planet, some people just choose to question the official story and do some of their own digging.
I will say that it was a totally oligarch move for Obama to have appointed the former CEO of Monsanto, Michael Taylo, as the head of the FDA (not that I cared for the guy anyways)
Apologies for the long response and if this has already been covered within the thread!8 -
A food haven been genetically modified doesn't necessarily mean it posses a risk. A hybridized fruit or vegetable has technically been genetically modified.
The problem lies within genetic modification to make a crop resistant (as in it won't die) to RoundUp. Ergo, RoundUp ready GMO is what is considered to be dangerous to those who have actually done a smidgen of research, as opposed to choosing-a-side-and-bandwagoning-- like we do with politics.
The "big agro" business isn't really agricultural at all; it's a chemical industry. Poor farmers across the globe have been subsidy-bullied into accepting Monsanto (I think DuPont dabbles too) crops and, in turn, legally signing away their ability to sow their own seeds.
But that's sort of off topic. Organic (a mute term before the 80's) farmers aren't multi-billion dollar companies paying for the research to study agro pesticides, the pesticide companies are. With Monsanto, specifically, we're talking about the company that produced and sold saccharine as an artificial sweetener (virtually all ASners cause cancer and tumors in lab rats) to Coca Cola in 1901. It was federally banned like 20 years later. Fast forward to PCBs (banned) in the 20's, an expansion into the pharmaceutical industry and chemical/plastics industry, Uranium development for the Atom bomb, Agent Orange, etc. etc....
The point is: nobody is telling you not to eat "GMO." --With America having the highest obesity and cancer rankings on the planet, some people just choose to question the official story and do some of their own digging.
I will say that it was a totally oligarch move for Obama to have appointed the former CEO of Monsanto, Michael Taylo, as the head of the FDA (not that I cared for the guy anyways)
Apologies for the long response and if this has already been covered within the thread!
A smidgen is of research exactly right. Because these people have only done a smidgen of research, rather than extensive thorough research, they believe that glyphosate is going to kill everyone and do all the bad things. The dose makes the poison, same as everything we consume. The amount of roundup you get on the food that reaches your supermarket is negligible, and if you wash your fruit and vegetables before you cook with them, then even better.
In regards to the resistant crops; just because they're resistant to one pesticide, it doesn't mean another wont kill them. They most certainly can die. There are only 6 crops worldwide that are roundup ready, and none of them are the most highly consumed grains on the planet: rice & wheat. One of the crops cant even be eaten (unless you're in the habit of eating your cotton underpants), and one isn't fed to humans (the alfafa crops are for livestock, not human consumption).
I would really like you to read the link to farm babe in my previous post. It actually clarifies a couple of the myths you've listed here.
And you'll find that many of us who support GE aren't bandwagoning; we're supporting evidence based science. There is absolutely NO evidence that GE crops are the cause of the massive rates of obesity in developed nations, with the exception of the fact that it has made certain foods made cheaper and in abundance (which is just one of many factors in that complex issue).10 -
The problem lies within genetic modification to make a crop resistant (as in it won't die) to RoundUp. Ergo, RoundUp ready GMO is what is considered to be dangerous to those who have actually done a smidgen of research, as opposed to choosing-a-side-and-bandwagoning-- like we do with politics.
Googling, reading blogs, and watching "documentaries" does not count as research. I'll take my information from the body of research and conclusions from the experts who live this stuff, and have done actual research including developing a hypothesis, testing it, and putting it forward for peer review with all of their data and methods up for critique, and the farmers who actually use the products and are a familiar with the advantages and drawbacks.8 -
But that's sort of off topic. Organic (a mute term before the 80's) farmers aren't multi-billion dollar companies paying for the research to study agro pesticides, the pesticide companies are. With Monsanto, specifically, we're talking about the company that produced and sold saccharine as an artificial sweetener (virtually all ASners cause cancer and tumors in lab rats) to Coca Cola in 1901. It was federally banned like 20 years later. Fast forward to PCBs (banned) in the 20's, an expansion into the pharmaceutical industry and chemical/plastics industry, Uranium development for the Atom bomb, Agent Orange, etc. etc....
Here again, dosage is important... virtually everything on this planet is toxic/causes damage if the dosage is high enough (including - gasp - water and oxygen). Specifically to the topic of artificial sweeteners, to achieve the dosages that most of those rats were fed would require a human being to almost exclusively consume the particular AS to the exclusion of all other food, so just exactly how valid do you think the research really was?4 -
mangrothian wrote: »A food haven been genetically modified doesn't necessarily mean it posses a risk. A hybridized fruit or vegetable has technically been genetically modified.
The problem lies within genetic modification to make a crop resistant (as in it won't die) to RoundUp. Ergo, RoundUp ready GMO is what is considered to be dangerous to those who have actually done a smidgen of research, as opposed to choosing-a-side-and-bandwagoning-- like we do with politics.
The "big agro" business isn't really agricultural at all; it's a chemical industry. Poor farmers across the globe have been subsidy-bullied into accepting Monsanto (I think DuPont dabbles too) crops and, in turn, legally signing away their ability to sow their own seeds.
But that's sort of off topic. Organic (a mute term before the 80's) farmers aren't multi-billion dollar companies paying for the research to study agro pesticides, the pesticide companies are. With Monsanto, specifically, we're talking about the company that produced and sold saccharine as an artificial sweetener (virtually all ASners cause cancer and tumors in lab rats) to Coca Cola in 1901. It was federally banned like 20 years later. Fast forward to PCBs (banned) in the 20's, an expansion into the pharmaceutical industry and chemical/plastics industry, Uranium development for the Atom bomb, Agent Orange, etc. etc....
The point is: nobody is telling you not to eat "GMO." --With America having the highest obesity and cancer rankings on the planet, some people just choose to question the official story and do some of their own digging.
I will say that it was a totally oligarch move for Obama to have appointed the former CEO of Monsanto, Michael Taylo, as the head of the FDA (not that I cared for the guy anyways)
Apologies for the long response and if this has already been covered within the thread!
A smidgen is of research exactly right. Because these people have only done a smidgen of research, rather than extensive thorough research, they believe that glyphosate is going to kill everyone and do all the bad things. The dose makes the poison, same as everything we consume. The amount of roundup you get on the food that reaches your supermarket is negligible, and if you wash your fruit and vegetables before you cook with them, then even better.
In regards to the resistant crops; just because they're resistant to one pesticide, it doesn't mean another wont kill them. They most certainly can die. There are only 6 crops worldwide that are roundup ready, and none of them are the most highly consumed grains on the planet: rice & wheat. One of the crops cant even be eaten (unless you're in the habit of eating your cotton underpants), and one isn't fed to humans (the alfafa crops are for livestock, not human consumption).
I would really like you to read the link to farm babe in my previous post. It actually clarifies a couple of the myths you've listed here.
And you'll find that many of us who support GE aren't bandwagoning; we're supporting evidence based science. There is absolutely NO evidence that GE crops are the cause of the massive rates of obesity in developed nations, with the exception of the fact that it has made certain foods made cheaper and in abundance (which is just one of many factors in that complex issue).
Saved me a lot of work typing this, thank you.3 -
Can you site or provide links to a few of the hundreds of independent labs telling them they are retarded?2
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Can you site or provide links to a few of the hundreds of independent labs telling them they are retarded?
In, for some idiotic Netlix documentary, youtube video, and/or blog as "proof."3 -
I find it staggering that people are willing to pop pills, imbibe, use nasal delivery sprays, patches, be injected intramuscular, intravenously or be transfused to deliver a vast array of medications to treat many diseases and illnesses ALL of which are GMOs derived from plant, animal, bacterial, viral,synthetic genes/peptides yet people are strangely resistant to GMO food products. That doesn't make any sense sense at all. Added to that, trials are very stringent, researchers goals are not as food or pharma companies, focus is the science it self and genuine interest in human well being, not profit driven (no wealth in research I assure you, just passion).
I don't like private company monopolies either, but patents do have a life span, and human/other genes sequences and protein structures are public thanks to researches on the public side winning the human genome race. I don't think private companies can take over the world!0 -
laurenmjenkin wrote: »I find it staggering that people are willing to pop pills, imbibe, use nasal delivery sprays, patches, be injected intramuscular, intravenously or be transfused to deliver a vast array of medications to treat many diseases and illnesses ALL of which are GMOs derived from plant, animal, bacterial, viral,synthetic genes/peptides yet people are strangely resistant to GMO food products. That doesn't make any sense sense at all. Added to that, trials are very stringent, researchers goals are not as food or pharma companies, focus is the science it self and genuine interest in human well being, not profit driven (no wealth in research I assure you, just passion).
I don't like private company monopolies either, but patents do have a life span, and human/other genes sequences and protein structures are public thanks to researches on the public side winning the human genome race. I don't think private companies can take over the world!
If you are referring to Monsanto, they do not have a monopoly. They don't even have the largest share.2 -
laurenmjenkin wrote: »I find it staggering that people are willing to pop pills, imbibe, use nasal delivery sprays, patches, be injected intramuscular, intravenously or be transfused to deliver a vast array of medications to treat many diseases and illnesses ALL of which are GMOs derived from plant, animal, bacterial, viral,synthetic genes/peptides yet people are strangely resistant to GMO food products. That doesn't make any sense sense at all. Added to that, trials are very stringent, researchers goals are not as food or pharma companies, focus is the science it self and genuine interest in human well being, not profit driven (no wealth in research I assure you, just passion).
I don't like private company monopolies either, but patents do have a life span, and human/other genes sequences and protein structures are public thanks to researches on the public side winning the human genome race. I don't think private companies can take over the world!
I'm not sure what you mean about the private companies taking over the world thing, but I agree with you about the no wealth in research. There are loads of microbiology, molecular botany and agricultural researchers still wondering where all their 'Big Agriculture' shill dollars are meant to be, because they aren't seeing it.2 -
People above were talking about companies such as Monsanto and genetic ownership, that's all Iwas responding to about that Mangrothian1
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