# Myths of Monsanto and GMO



## ApostateAbe

The Proof said:


> forget studies, what do farmers who have been using GMOs for over 10 years say ?
> 
> just type "GMO crop failure" in google and see how many results you get
> 
> when the herbicide used for GMO agriculture starts failing (because weeds are building up resistance) farmers are reduced to manually removing weeds and suddenly the costs of running their farm skyrockets and the benefit of the herbicide disappears
> 
> pests also gain resistance to the Bt toxin over time, so insecticide sales are also going up
> 
> I am not going to link any articles here because I think the OP is ignorant and narrow-minded, taking only study results into account, rather than the firsthand experience of the farmers


The adaptation of pests is a good point, and I will let that stand. The encouragement of anecdotes at the expense of studies of statistical trends is a very bad point, and I cannot let that stand. Any ridiculous bullshit conclusion can be reached by thinking that way. Don't think that way. The science really is more important.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34

I support genetic engineering.

What I do not support is big companies flooding Mexican farmer markets and leaving over a million small farmers unemployed, forcing them to immigrate to the U.S. where they are paid below minimum wage to work in dangerous conditions in meat factories.

Again, this is a case of corporate corruption. A big farming entity could do this with or without GMOs. The laws limiting this are bad as well.


----------



## The Proof

ApostateAbe said:


> The adaptation of pests is a good point, and I will let that stand. The encouragement of anecdotes at the expense of studies of statistical trends is a very bad point, and I cannot let that stand. Any ridiculous bullshit conclusion can be reached by thinking that way. Don't think that way. The science really is more important.


so you won't acknowledge that GMO agriculture fails after 10-20 years and all it does is get profits for chemical companies?

if you are refusing to consider that GMO agriculture and the processes involved in undertaking it are fatally flawed, then why are you even creating threads about it? 

threads are about discussions and you have your mind already made up

are you only posting to confirm to yourself that your point of view is the right one, the good one and the only one ?

you talk a lot about the science, but you never ask if something actually works, that is, if it works beyond getting short-term profits for unscrupulous businessmen

you can bang on all you want about the science, but isn't the science supposed to actually improve quality of life when it's put into application?


----------



## RobynC

@_The Proof_

You can't realize it? Apostate Abe's a troll... it would explain all his atheism and anti-religion threads.


----------



## ApostateAbe

RobynC said:


> @_The Proof_
> 
> You can't realize it? Apostate Abe's a troll... it would explain all his atheism and anti-religion threads.


I am not a troll, and I take offense at that accusation. Please don't repeat it.


----------



## ApostateAbe

The Proof said:


> so you won't acknowledge that GMO agriculture fails after 10-20 years and all it does is get profits for chemical companies?
> 
> if you are refusing to consider that GMO agriculture and the processes involved in undertaking it are fatally flawed, then why are you even creating threads about it?
> 
> threads are about discussions and you have your mind already made up
> 
> are you only posting to confirm to yourself that your point of view is the right one, the good one and the only one ?
> 
> you talk a lot about the science, but you never ask if something actually works, that is, if it works beyond getting short-term profits for unscrupulous businessmen
> 
> you can bang on all you want about the science, but isn't the science supposed to actually improve quality of life when it's put into application?


In my estimate, science is meant to help us model objective reality accurately. It may or may not improve quality of life.

The reason I created this thread is because I saw a popular ideological myth I knew was wrong repeated on a comedy show I love, in line with the popular and ignorant suppression of a field of science and technology that is our best hope for solving world hunger in the long term. Nobody has challenged that main point. 

GMO-activists so often talk as though they know what is better for farmers than farmers. Farmers buy GMO for a reason, and it is not because they are damned idiots, nor does Monsanto hold guns to their heads. GMO crops help them significantly increase their yields. Greater yields mean farmers become richer and food becomes cheaper. If GMO fails in ten years, then it means ten years of cheaper food and farmers who make a better living. Vaccines likewise fail given time. The germs evolve. Better vaccines are used. Maybe there really does need to be rules in place to prevent the evolution of pests? Seems like a perfectly good point. I am not arguing because I agree, as I already said, and I take offense that you talk like I have my mind closed about it.

Cheaper food means poorer people can eat it. If we let the science and industry thrive instead of dressing it in a straight jacket, then it means a path to growing crops in environments where before it was impossible, and absolutely anyone would have access to food. With the inhibition of science, there is a lot more at stake than what is immediately at hand. If it is about something anti-corporate, then the effect of inhibiting the science may be to create a system where only the largest corporations can compete.


----------



## Promethea

ApostateAbe said:


> I am not a troll, and I take offense at that accusation. Please don't repeat it.


Some may call it playing devil's advocate instead, but you admitted yourself that your intention with this thread was to "start a fight" which I posted early in the thread after I realized that you are hellbent on ignoring _any *fact*_ against your claims. 

Any form of disingenuous reply to people intended to fluster them could certainly be seen as trolling on the internet. 

A few people have gone on to have very fair and accurate points, only to be doused with more hogwash, in your efforts to - as you put it "start a fight". 

I can see why its robync's opinion that you are trolling, in light of the evidence here in this thread:

- the admission to staff of wanting to start a fight with this thread
- and the blatant disregard of actual good facts that oppose your claim that monsanto has done nothing ethically questionable, has not produced products of questionable nutritional value, or safety 

You have obviously just taken on a popular issue, taken on the unpopular side of it, so that you can argue about it. I won't call it debating, because I believe that in order for it to even be a debate, it must be done with integrity. Take away the integrity, and the earnestness, and you are left with nothing more than a garden variety internet troll. 

Of course I don't expect you to own up to this. That would be losing the game.


----------



## ApostateAbe

Promethea said:


> Some may call it playing devil's advocate instead, but you admitted yourself that your intention with this thread was to "start a fight" which I posted early in the thread after I realized that you are hellbent on ignoring _any *fact*_ against your claims.
> 
> Any form of disingenuous reply to people intended to fluster them could certainly be seen as trolling on the internet.
> 
> A few people have gone on to have very fair and accurate points, only to be doused with more hogwash, in your efforts to - as you put it "start a fight".
> 
> I can see why its robync's opinion that you are trolling, in light of the evidence here in this thread:
> 
> - the admission to staff of wanting to start a fight with this thread
> - and the blatant disregard of actual good facts that oppose your claim that monsanto has done nothing ethically questionable, has not produced products of questionable nutritional value, or safety
> 
> You have obviously just taken on a popular issue, taken on the unpopular side of it, so that you can argue about it. I won't call it debating, because I believe that in order for it to even be a debate, it must be done with integrity. Take away the integrity, and the earnestness, and you are left with nothing more than a garden variety internet troll.
> 
> Of course I don't expect you to own up to this. That would be losing the game.


OK, I will let those points stand. Those are topics I don't care to discuss.


----------



## Killionaire

Yeah Apostateabe is a troll. He also wrote some outrageous garbage claiming NT's can't be artists. I put him on my ignore list. Get a life.


----------



## ApostateAbe

Killionaire said:


> Yeah Apostateabe is a troll. He also wrote some outrageous garbage claiming NT's can't be artists.


Not according to my actual words.


----------



## ApostateAbe

I found an article on Slate I agree with, mostly, not completely.

A hippie's defense of GMOs: Why genetically modified food isn't necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## yet another intj

ApostateAbe said:


> They may not realize that almost nothing we eat has any resemblance to anything that ever existed in the wild nature, as all of our foods are products of thousands of years of genetic modification through successive selections by farmers, making them all bigger, sweeter, more productive, more resistant to pests, more sustainable, and so on.



You are absolutely right. That is pretty much the same argument that I'm always using against the green consumerism. Anything and everything they idealized as natural, healthy, heavenly, whatever are the results of traditional modification techniques. That's how we survived and built our awkward civilization.




ApostateAbe said:


> Maybe they think there is some relevant difference between selecting random mutations and influencing genetics directly, but most of them don't put that level of critical thought into it. They don't think of themselves as idiot anti-science regressives, but they are, more so than young-Earth creationists. Creationists don't try to repress technology.



Okay... First of all, those people are not against "doing the same thing better, under the microscope, with the help of modern science". They are against something ridiculously simple, leaving "everything" to conscience of profit-minded moguls. They want to see scientific papers, not infomercials and they will never be truly informed because so many crucial details are already considered as industrial secrets. I'm one of those disturbed people.


As an INTJ, I love science... But... Not enough to serve as a clueless guinea pig when it's hijacked by corrupted commission agents.


----------



## ApostateAbe

If they wanted to see scientific papers, there would be no debate and no-anti-GMO activism. The data in the studies and well-accepted theory, both, are very plainly on the side of the safety of GMO. The science has hardly anything to do with their thinking. Science fiction has much more to do with it.


----------



## yet another intj

ApostateAbe said:


> If they wanted to see scientific papers, there would be no debate and no-anti-GMO activism. The data in the studies and well-accepted theory, both, are very plainly on the side of the safety of GMO.


Again... There are infomercials instead of transparency with scientific documentation. Those infomercials contain "some of those" scientific data. It's an industry and there are industrial secrets... Period. I don't care if "they never wanted to see scientific papers", because I already want to see the complete documentation of whole process and it's not available for the public. The basic idea behind nuclear power plants are also well-accepted theory. They supposed to be safe "if they (somehow) carefully operated every single day, for centuries" and built with that flawed logic and optimism. I can live without using a mobile phone or eating a chocolate bar. It's a choice and I can't blame anybody while taking the risk of using/consuming an industrial product if it's not crucial for my survival. The thing is, they have to share "everything" about a potato and a glass of tap water. Because those things are the basic requirements for my survival, not some kind of luxury. 




ApostateAbe said:


> The science has hardly anything to do with their thinking. Science fiction has much more to do with it.


People will always use fiction for questioning their collective lack of knowledge. Especially when the scientific data about their food, the things they will digest for survival is patented like the next iPhone. You are trying to blame ignorant people because they didn't ask for something that patent owners never going to release for them.


----------



## ApostateAbe

yet another intj, I think the key difference is that there is no scientific theory that would predict significant health risks with GM crops. There is only science fiction theory. There is a _Frankenstein_ and an _Attack of the Killer Tomatoes_ theory. There are trade secrets associated with the production of non-GM crops and all kinds of products essential to our survival, and we don't demand those trade secrets because neither the science nor the science fiction persuades us to make such demands.


----------



## geekofalltrades

As a biotechnician with a lot of knowledge on this stuff, I'm sure that I have a lot to say to a lot of people in this thread. For now, here are responses to a few of the earlier posts that I saw.



Red Panda said:


> well, selective breeding and genetic engineering are two different things, mainly because in the 2nd case there are genes from completely different organisms introduced in the plant





ApostateAbe said:


> I didn't forget about this point....


In addition to ApostateAbe's point, it's also important to note here that process Red Panda is describing is called _transgenics_, and it isn't true that all GMOs are transgenic. The arctic apple, for example, was engineered by knocking out the gene for a digestive enzyme; it's considered genetically modified, but it isn't transgenic.



Snow Leopard said:


> I come from a scientific background and I personally have (skim)read the _published_ reports on certain GMO foods and I don't consider them to be well tested. Some of the testing is behind doors/unpublished and we are told to believe that this testing has proved that such foods are safe? I don't think so.


My question would be, then, by _what possible mechanism_ could GMOs prove dangerous? This is one of my top issues with GMO naysayers: they (not necessarily implying you, Snow Leopard) don't have any knowledge of how the genetic modification process actually works. When you understand how it works, you see that's there's no possible way it can be dangerous. Perhaps you've seen this image floating around:










To me, this is an apt metaphor for the GMO debate. At which point in the touching-wall-with-apple process is there EVER a risk of getting your dick caught in a ceiling fan?! Claims that GMOs might cause cancer or what have you are equally ridiculous.


----------



## yet another intj

ApostateAbe said:


> yet another intj, I think the key difference is that there is no scientific theory that would predict significant health risks with GM crops.


There's a fundamental difference between "scientific method" and "arguments from ignorance". Current confidentiality is even worse than military/national security projects. Because it's commercial. I already explained why there can't be transparency of complete scientific documentation. It... Is... An... Industry... Not a scientific project with research ethics and public responsibility. Do you know "the difference" between Solar Dynamics Observatory and Apple headquarters? I don't think so.



ApostateAbe said:


> There is only science fiction theory. There is a Frankenstein and an Attack of the Killer Tomatoes theory.


You already know I'm not a big fan of their ignorance, just like I'm not buying your logical fallacies. They are scared of cancer more than starvation and you are scared of starvation more than cancer. Both of you don't know everything, thanks to patents.



ApostateAbe said:


> There are trade secrets associated with the production of non-GM crops and all kinds of products essential to our survival, and we don't demand those trade secrets because neither the science nor the science fiction persuades us to make such demands.


So... Are you trying to justify "something obviously wrong" because pretty much everything have similar problems? What's next? Breathing engineered air without knowing it's artificial content because there's already air pollution? Then, blaming the confused people and ridiculing their fear from the unknown as someone who are a little more concerned yet practically clueless?



geekofalltrades said:


> To me, this is an apt metaphor for the GMO debate. At which point in the touching-wall-with-apple process is there EVER a risk of getting your dick caught in a ceiling fan?! Claims that GMOs might cause cancer or what have you are equally ridiculous.


----------



## ApostateAbe

I love that metaphor that geekofalltrades brought up. Will poor instructions about touching apples to walls cause us to get our dicks caught in ceiling fans? It is a fear without either any evidence to reinforce it or even a scientific theory to make the fear plausible.


----------



## daddyjordan22

I'm not a scientist and won't try to prove whether GMO food is safe for consumption or not here, but if I want to eat non GMO foods that is my right. Allowing companies to not properly label their food as a GMO product is wrong. Consumers have the right to know what they are buying and potentially eating and determine whether they want to or not. If companies that produce GMO products feel their products are safe for consumption then they should have nothing to fear by properly labeling their products and letting the consumers decide if they want to buy them.


----------



## ApostateAbe

daddyjordan22 said:


> I'm not a scientist and won't try to prove whether GMO food is safe for consumption or not here, but if I want to eat non GMO foods that is my right. Allowing companies to not properly label their food as a GMO product is wrong. Consumers have the right to know what they are buying and potentially eating and determine whether they want to or not. If companies that produce GMO products feel their products are safe for consumption then they should have nothing to fear by properly labeling their products and letting the consumers decide if they want to buy them.


Food labels should not be forced advertisements for stupid political agendas. That's why we have paper money and passports. Since there is neither evidence nor theory to expect that GMO foods would be any kind of health or safety issue, it is kinda ridiculous to force such labels by law. It is about on the same level as forcing labels that inform the consumer whether or not the harvest happened on a full moon, because harvesting on a full moon is bad luck. Given popular demand, maybe we really would have such a law.


----------

