• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Founder of the anti-genetically modified crops movement repudiates all past claims

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
Monsanto probably has the guys family tied up in a dank basement somewhere.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,638
2,436
126
If GMO is so good youd think they would want to label every product with it.

Oatmeal - "NOW MADE FROM 100% GMO FOOD STUFFS"
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
"but, but, derp, they sued some farmers. Therefore, using some form of illogic, the conclusion is that GMO foods are evil."
/counterargument from facts.
You're a moderator?

Moderators are allowed to post as members. Their mod status is irrelevant in those cases and comments such as yours are considered mod callouts/mod baiting.

Administrator allisolm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
If GMO is so good youd think they would want to label every product with it.

Oatmeal - "NOW MADE FROM 100% GMO FOOD STUFFS"
You mean except for the fact that the whole point is there is no difference to the end consumer between GMO and non-GMO food.

GMO is all about increasing yields etc.

The slogan would be "GMO, just as good as "regular" food", which is not exactly a very good advertising slogan.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,638
2,436
126
You mean except for the fact that the whole point is there is no difference to the end consumer between GMO and non-GMO food.

GMO is all about increasing yields etc.

The slogan would be "GMO, just as good as "regular" food", which is not exactly a very good advertising slogan.
Either way we as a consumer have a right to know and choose. Choice is good.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Either way we as a consumer have a right to know and choose. Choice is good.
That is a slogan not an argument.

Choice merely for the sake of choice is stupid.

People already have plenty of real choices to make when picking food. Why do you want to overwhelm them with entirely irrelevant choices?

The whole reason for add GMO labels is so the anti-GMO activists can go on a crusade against GMO food.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
As a Libertarian and living the Paleo lifestyle this is a rather absurd arguement. For starters if you do not want to eat GMO modified foods have fun finding them if your also trying to avoid organic because I bet almost everything is these days.

If you do not want to worry about GMO foods go strict organic, local farm, grass feed pasture raised meat. Speak with the local farmers and ask where they get their seed from.

If you really want to label GMO products every single thing on the isles are going to have that label other than the specialty isles already set aside for things like organic and gluten free.

Personally I hate Monsanto because of their business pratices and I wouldn't eat their food because of the Paleo lifestyle but I certainly see their benefits. Without huge GMO's I would imagine Americans would start starving because some already have enough trouble buying Hamburger Helper and a pound of 80/20 ground meat.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
So basically you just hate Monsanto, and it has nothing to do with food safety.

I recommend you purchasing 100% Organic foods that will be free of Monsanto. But every food corporation should not be required to track the monsanto content of their food to appease irrational people like you.
Nope it's about giving consumers the right to choose what they consume.

Why do you want to remove choice from the consumer in knowing what they eat?

Like I said genetics is not a well understood science, long term trends and effects are not available, yet you don't want to allow people the freedom to know what they are eating.

And you don't want to do that because you feel protecting corporate profit supersedes an individuals right to make a choice.
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,865
2,305
126
Like I said genetics is not a well understood science, long term trends and effects are not available, yet you don't want to allow people the freedom to know what they are eating.
That's a blanket hogwash statement. Well-understood in what way? Genetics is a huge area of research, some parts better understood than others. Regardless, that statement says nothing to give any reason that consumers need to fear for their health and safety with GMO food.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,638
2,436
126
That's a blanket hogwash statement. Well-understood in what way? Genetics is a huge area of research, some parts better understood than others. Regardless, that statement says nothing to give any reason that consumers need to fear for their health and safety with GMO food.
It is not hogwash. The long term effects of GMO are not known yet. We are guinee pigs basically. Im not saying GMOs are bad, just dont know the effects if any currrently.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
That's a blanket hogwash statement. Well-understood in what way? Genetics is a huge area of research, some parts better understood than others. Regardless, that statement says nothing to give any reason that consumers need to fear for their health and safety with GMO food.
I didn't say consumers need to fear GMO foods. However absent of long term trends on GMO consumption I think they have a right to make a choice.

And while some areas of genetics may be well understood, long term consumption of various gmo foods is not one of them.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Nope it's about giving consumers the right to choose what they consume.

Why do you want to remove choice from the consumer in knowing what they eat?
<trap>
I want to choose to only eat food that was picked by a female, not food that was picked by males. I think my food should be labeled so I can be given that choice. If I want to avoid crops that were picked by males, do you think I should not be given the choice?
</trap>

You have no answer. Because if you say, "yes", you look like a moron. If you say "no, that's stupid, because it doesn't matter whether a male or female picked the food" - that EXACTLY the point everyone else has been making about GMO food - IT DOESN'T MATTER.
I believe DrPizza addressed your point.

Which is why I want to see one shred of evidence about why GMO is inherently more dangerous than older methods of created desired plants.

Like I said genetics is not a well understood science, long term trends and effects are not available, yet you don't want to allow people the freedom to know what they are eating.

And you don't want to do that because you feel protecting corporate profit supersedes an individuals right to make a choice.
And as I pointed out humans play around with plant genetics without GMO. Should we start slapping warning labels on plants that were created with hybridization as well?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
And while some areas of genetics may be well understood, long term consumption of various gmo foods is not one of them.
Why would you even think that consumption of various GMO foods would have more long term consequences than new hybrid foods?

And why aren't people fight for special labels for new hybrid foods?
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,892
63
91
Since I'm seeing tons of circular arguments I'm going to bring up a point only slightly mentioned. People say GMO foods are bred for increased yield. To which I say only sometimes. Many of the crops have similar yields to old crops but it adds something like herbicide or pesticide resistance. In one case roundup ready soybean Monsanto sells you the seed and the herbicide roundup. Saying that crop has increased yields due to less weed competition seems on its face disingenuous. What I see is a company using GMO to maximize profit.

I know I'll get attacked for posting that but it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots. Its all about profit. They are a corporation and that's what matters to then at the end of the day. Money.

And trust me when I say roundup is far more environmentally destruction than pretty much any organic way of farming. I've had personal experience as a nurse with the health effects of roundup on a human being and let's just say its not pretty. It is why I don't use the stuff.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,619
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Since I'm seeing tons of circular arguments I'm going to bring up a point only slightly mentioned. People say GMO foods are bred for increased yield. To which I say only sometimes. Many of the crops have similar yields to old crops but it adds something like herbicide or pesticide resistance. In one case roundup ready soybean Monsanto sells you the seed and the herbicide roundup. Saying that crop has increased yields due to less weed competition seems on its face disingenuous. What I see is a company using GMO to maximize profit.

I know I'll get attacked for posting that but it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots. Its all about profit. They are a corporation and that's what matters to then at the end of the day. Money.

And trust me when I say roundup is far more environmentally destruction than pretty much any organic way of farming. I've had personal experience as a nurse with the health effects of roundup on a human being and let's just say its not pretty. It is why I don't use the stuff.
Profit.

Gee, I thought the motivation of farming was to breath in all the dust. Or, the motivation of farming was long hours of toil. Or the motivation of farming was because you like seeing fields that are a uniform color. Profit. Hmmm, I never thought that farmers would want that.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Why would you even think that consumption of various GMO foods would have more long term consequences than new hybrid foods?

And why aren't people fight for special labels for new hybrid foods?
Because its possible to introduce genetic material that would not occur from cross breeding species.

Show me your round up ready hybrid.
It's also does not account at all for long term consequences of introducing genetically modified species into the wild.

Which again is poorly understood.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Profit.

Gee, I thought the motivation of farming was to breath in all the dust. Or, the motivation of farming was long hours of toil. Or the motivation of farming was because you like seeing fields that are a uniform color. Profit. Hmmm, I never thought that farmers would want that.
Yeah because multinational profit motives have always been so great for the consumer.

We're not talking just about joe the farmer, we're talking about a companies that has no problem fucking heirloom crops.

You have to forgive me for being mildly concerned when a chemical company wants to get into the food business.
And then fight tooth and nail to ensure consumers can't distinguish their products from other products.

How dare me!
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
And then fight tooth and nail to ensure consumers can't distinguish their products from other products.
We are all still waiting for you to show their is a real distinction between their products and other products from the perspective of the food consumer.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
We are all still waiting for you to show their is a real distinction between their products and other products from the perspective of the food consumer.
Consumers do not have to prove anything.

It is a basic human right to know what we are putting in our bodies.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
And this is inherently more dangerous why?

I don't know if it's more dangerous, I do know the long term effects are not well understood.



And this has what to do with the consequences of humans consuming GMO plants?
None but this topic isn't solely about that. As many have stated there are other issues with companies like Monsanto outside of the end product.

Let's call this what it is.

You think labeling unfairly portrays a GMO food, affecting adoption and profits.

I think people knowing what they are eating is more important, especially in light of other business practices Monsanto and other GMO producers have engaged in.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
None but this topic isn't solely about that. As many have stated there are other issues with companies like Monsanto outside of the end product.
So labeling it GMO is all about hating Monsanto.

Yeah that sounds completely rational :rolleyes:


Let's call this what it is.

You think labeling unfairly portrays a GMO food, affecting adoption and profits.

I think GMO food is beneficial to society and will be more beneficial in the future.

Adding labels to food in an attempt to irrationally retard adoption of GMO is detrimental to society.

As I am not a shareholder in Monsanto I am not concerned for their profits.
I think people knowing what they are eating is more important, especially in light of other business practices Monsanto and other GMO producers have engaged in.
And you have not shown a single shred of evidence to suggest people should care if food is GMO or not.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
We are all still waiting for you to show their is a real distinction between their products and other products from the perspective of the food consumer.
Their products introduce generic material into plants that cannot be introduced by hybrid breeding. We don't know other than that fact the impact or long term effect, hybrid foods have been around since cultivation and farming.

I feel more confident in a tomato that has been cross bread with another tomato or another plant to produce an effect as this technology has been in use for a very long time.

I feel less confident in say corn that has had genetic material introduced to give it an ability to resist a specific pesticide.

Now there is nothing that says that corn is less safe than the tomato. But then again long term studies have not been conducted long term consequences may be unknown.

Given that I think consumers should be allowed to know what they ate consuming.

I don't know how to be more clear than that, you can disagree all you want.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
So labeling it GMO is all about hating Monsanto.

Yeah that sounds completely rational :rolleyes:





I think GMO food is beneficial to society and will be more beneficial in the future.

Adding labels to food in an attempt to irrationally retard adoption of GMO is detrimental to society.

As I am not a shareholder in Monsanto I am not concerned for their profits.


And you have not shown a single shred of evidence to suggest people should care if food is GMO or not.
I don't mind engaging you in your circular discussions on occasion.

Until you put words in my mouth despite me stating to the contrary I do not hate Monsanto. So now your being a twit and we can't have any real discussion about it.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I don't mind engaging you in your circular discussions on occasion.

Until you put words in my mouth despite me stating to the contrary I do not hate Monsanto. So now your being a twit and we can't have any real discussion about it.
I think you could label food by which corps create it, that would let me know who I wanted to support with my money.

So don't label it GMO, just label it Monsanto.
No hatred but I don't like their business practices and would prefer not to support them by buying their products.
None but this topic isn't solely about that. As many have stated there are other issues with companies like Monsanto outside of the end product.
:hmm: So maybe you just strongly dislike them? You are quibbling over a word.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY