What is your opinion on GMO foods and Monsanto?
Are GMO foods good or bad; any benefits or detriments to them?
Also how do you feel about the company Monsanto, a corporation that creates GMO foods? Is it a business just trying to make a profit at the expense of human safety/lives or a business using advance science and technology to make the world better/save lives?
7
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
25 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Hate to tell you this but almost everything you eat has been genetically modified at one time or another. It used to be called selective breeding. Do you want tender, juicy meat they bred wagyu and charolait for that. Insect resistant veggies, they breed or crossbreed for that. In a lab setting or barn, I'm fine with it. I like to eat. Just think, if we can modify a defective gene in an unborn baby, and it has been done, why take generations to change something when it can be done in a lab?
m3129
Level 2
May 16, 2018
4
There is a difference between selective breeding and actually tinkering directly with DNA. The first is natural, the second is trespass which makes us all guinea pigs.
Most atheists I know are pro-science, so pro-GMO ... and even pro-Monsanto. I am not. Particularly disingenuous is the argument that we have been genetically modifying plants for all of agricultural history through selective breeding ... and somehow this is 100% the same thing as laboratory gene modification. I think the very best we can say about it is that it's too soon to know what the long-term effects will be. I know this much, given my particular health issues, I'm not remotely interested in being part of the test group. Everyone else is free to do as they please with no lectures from me.
vita
Level 7
May 16, 2018
6
I'm not interested in eating foods specifically designed to be sprayed with glyphosate (Roundup, a proven carcinogen) and its toxic derivatives. Creating laws so those GMO foods can be hidden among the non-GMO foods is despicable and you can thank Monsanto for it all. Bad stuff. Bad company.
mtnhome
Level 7
May 16, 2018
5
It has not been proven to cause cancer.
GMO may cause inflamed lining in the gut over the long term (years, decades?) because existing natural pesticides the plant uses have been ramped up, ie lectins etc.
Monsanto is one of the most immoral corporations I can think of.
Ellatynemouth
Level 8
May 16, 2018
5
Do you have evidence for this?
I've read tons of stuff about this subject over the years, because I'm interested in it.
There is no hard evidence, just as there is no hard evidence that smoking causes cancer.
GMOs are perfectly fine. There is no difference between regular food and organic but the price.
As to Monsanto? I grew up in a farming community. They were doing the same thing for ages before Monsanto bought a bunch of smaller seed companies. It's just the same practices with a different name.
memorylikeasieve
Level 7
May 16, 2018
2
I'm pro GMO, it's the only way we're going to feed the world (without mass genocide). As far as Monsanto goes, its a large corporation. It does good things, and bad things. They need to be watched, just like any other corporation.
ScubaWags
Level 7
May 16, 2018
2
Unfortunately they are big enough to buy the watchers whose opinions carry influence.
It's sad that there is no respect for lives over profits. Monsanto is ruining the Earth with roundup and Gmos. It causes cancer.
confidentrealm
Level 7
May 16, 2018
4
Humans have been genetically modifying food since we became City dwellers. As soon as we planted our first plant and bread it with specific other plants to make it more of what we want we began the GMO process. Our bodies break things down into their chemical components and process them anyway.
Cheri
Level 5
May 16, 2018
4
technically you are speaking of hybridization , not gmo technology which in itself is something else entirely. gmo technology is breeding two different genetic make ups that were never meant to be introduced together in nature. like fish genes into corn genes... that is not hybridization. yes, bodies do break down things in our bodies but on that note it would then be okay to smoke cigarettes as the lungs should technically break down all the carcinogens in them... doesn't work that way
@CrazyQuilter have read quite a bit about it and yes, it has been done... and stickin yer head in the sand about it doesn't count... geez
@blueskies our lungs weren't designed to break down molecules are digestive system is. So your comparison doesn't make any sense.
All life on this Earth has a common ancestor. We are more similar than dissimilar. All of our DNA is made of the same base AGCT. What makes us different is how those are organized in the DNA. Therefore no matter what Gene manipulations take place it is all made of the same basic material.
My bachelor's degree focused on biology. I am for well researched (pre and post) GMOs which screen multiple generations of the GMO for possible effects. In effect, a GMO is a mutant. Mutations occur constantly.
wordywalt
Level 9
May 16, 2018
2
the mutations you speak of are mostly non supportive, you can see that with how some livestock are born with extra limbs or parts missing or so many other things wrong from a healthy birth. same as with crops. nature never intended a fish gene to be spliced into a tomato gene and there's the big difference. there is no reason for these types of things to be forced together for what benefit and what end? hybridization is one thing, gmo's are way something else and nature shouldn't be messed with this way.
@bugpowderdust hey asshole, hate much? gmo are considered taking the gene of one and splicing into another that was never designed to have that gene, like the gene of a fish into a tomato... the other which you are speaking does happen in nature. so one is much kinder than the other as you won't find fish genes where they are arene't supposed to be...do your own fucking research and learn something
LeighShelton
Level 8
May 16, 2018
4
monsanto has starved far too many farmers with their suicide seeds . It is time they were taken to task
markdevenish
Level 7
May 16, 2018
3
I understand what you meant, but I don't know that others do. Perhaps explain further?
@CrazyQuilter go to india and talk to the farmers and learn how distinguished american corporations are at starving and displacing the poor
@Commonsense read on there .......
@CrazyQuilter it is simple economics . have plant ,collect seed , use next year . or have plant collect seed , seed fails , buy seed from supplier . lose profit . farm fails , farmer commits suicide
In my opinion almost all fruits and vegitables are gmo, here are some examples [businessinsider.com]
RKarchesky
Level 3
May 16, 2018
3
A year or so ago a Monsanto scientist, an engineer schooled in, and from China, spoke to our group. She was clear, committed, sincere, and very versed in the work she was doing. Her English was better than many American's vocabulary skills.
She was convincing in a couple of ways. First, the need for food all through the undeveloped world, and the history of eons that says that nature,, by itself, has done little to help much of the world grow food. Secondly, new science/technology has a long history of mistakes and idiocies. Food will be no exception. However we must remember that, yes, electricity killed a lot of people as it was being adapted to common use, but do any of us really want to go back to candles and wood-burning computers?
Dick_Martin
Level 7
May 18, 2018
2
I don't think that analogy is quite right, Dick. Electricity is dangerous, but basically only to the individuals tinkering with it. And they chose to do so in most cases, whereas we are, for the most part, unwitting and unwilling lab rats. (Not as funny as Pinky and the brain, sadly.)
My concerns, expressed ad infinitum, ad nausaum here, (ask anyone, lol) have to do with other things.
Immediate danger to people isn't the biggest issue, to my mind.
-For just one instance, adding internal toxins to corn, , with GMO corn being an ingredient in so much of our foods, worries me. There is no way for even a few years of research to fathom the result this may have on generations of humans.
Then there is the question of how these crops will impact the environment, long term...
Here in the Delta region, Monsanto is a big part of farm life. Monsanto has patents on most of their seeds. Recently Monsanto sued a farmer who is neighbor to a Monsanto customer. Seems the wind had blown some Monsanto seed onto his property and Monsanto was suing the farmer for stealing patented corn.
The judge laughed Monsanto out of the court with "This sounds to me like your customer painted his house purple in a windstorm and now you are suing the neighbor for stealing paint."
Dick_Martin
Level 7
May 18, 2018
2
This kinda kills your whole argument
Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. ___ (2013) was a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not permit a farmer to plant and grow saved, patented seeds without the patent owner's permission. The case arose after Vernon Hugh Bowman, an Indiana farmer, bought transgenic soybean crop seeds
Next time actually do not throw out urban legend as fact.
THere is nothing wrong at all with GMO modified foods,
And the poison Round Up is not in the plant nor in its fruits, the GMO modification makes the plant resistant to the chemicals nothing more.
Lol, love that!
Ty Dick.
@njoylife www.sciencealert.com Chelsea Gohd Fuiurism 21 Feb 2018
Here are 2 experiments 1st one you can do at home.
Take small organic, and nonorganic potatoes, (better yet, sweet potatoes, cause their vines are prettier) use wooden toothpicks in the sides to hold them at the right height in a sturdy glass of water and watch what happens.
If there are chemicals which retard the growth of the veg, in one or the other, are you willing to feed them to your family, betting your kid's futures on some agency's "guarantee"?
2nd, this would be a wonderful experiment to carry out, (although how could it be done?)
Canvas all the powerful families in the world, don't ask them anything, just examine their diets.
Find out how many mostly intelligent people in that class eat the same stuff (gmos included) we have easy access to, and how many insist on organic, source and prep disclosed, foods?
I'm not telling you what to do or think, not calling anyone names if they don't agree with me...
I'm just asking legitimate questions.
njoy_life_2
Level 7
May 18, 2018
2
I don't have anything against GMOs, and I agree they are necessary to feed the worlds population, however I am not in agreement with creating GMO's that are simply resilient to certain types of herbicides which is exactly what Monsanto has done and continues to do. It 's product Glyphosate is metastasizing its way through our entire bio-system.
I don't trust this corporation at all, none, zero, zilch. Monsanto has paid off scientists, manufactured studies to influence EPA. Monsanto is an evil company, which will soon be part of Bayer (same bloody deal with them). Fuck them.
I am also in favor of having foods labeled GMO or non GMO so that people can have a choice of what they put in their bodies to the extent that this is still possible .
cava
Level 7
May 17, 2018
2
I am just a lay person, not a scientist, but I’ve done a lot of research in order to form my own opinions on the subject. I am FOR responsible research into ways to more efficiently utilize our resources for safe, sustainable agriculture.
There are many forms of gmo research being conducted in universities as well as the various for profit companies. It’s a complex subject and can’t be dismissed as either ALL BAD or ALL GOOD. I’m a believer in responsible research and I support the companies who do not buy into the fear mongering of the anti-gmo movement. I do not support the organic conglomerates who are profiting from the fear based marketing against gmos.
I live on an island where a lot of gmo research takes place. (None by Monsanto - so I won't comment on that company.) There is a lot of friction between the employees of the various companies researching ways to improve crop yields for distressed countries, and some ill informed activists who wish to stop the research into these crop improvements for reasons that simply don’t make sense.
A product that has been genetically modified as an alternative to its conventional or organic counterpart has been tested exhaustively to ascertain its safety. These crops can reduce the amount of harmful pesticides, while working with less harmful pesticides, to produce more yield, which is safer for the farmer. These may be crops that will grow in less than ideal environments.
There are examples of gmo research that has been beneficial to communities. Here in Hawaii, gmo research by a university scientist saved a crop from the devastating ring spot virus There’s also genetically engineered insulin for diabetics. Bt Cotton, resisting bollworms, etc. Having gmo plants near conventional or organic plants actually helps them with pest control too.
Because I wanted to become more knowledgeable on the subject, I took a FREE online course through Cornell University called “The Science and Politics of the GMO” that discusses the pros and cons of GMO technology and the challenges and triumphs on both sides of the issue. I highly recommend it for anyone who would like to increase their understanding of gmo research and reasons people have for being for it and against it. It also covers the role activism, politics and the media have in this issue.
Julie808
Level 8
May 17, 2018
1
While I agree there is worthwhile work being done,
The ways I disagree, are, in part...
-I don't feel the oversight is always unbiased, due to the examiner's prejudgment, or self interest.
-I feel making huge profits is the foremost goal, concern for the consumers is a poor second, if (in some cases) present at all.
-I know that studies and polls can be set up to juggle the outcome, and true, I cannot know in any particular instance that it was done, without seeing ALL the data, (perhaps not even then) Because of these doubts, I am certain that totally separate agencies, without connections or loyalties to ANY group, company, other agency, etc. should oversee the entire process, and the complete procedure should include unbiased members of the public at large, and reported openly to the rest of the population,
Like many intelligent people I've spoken with, there doesn't seem to be a clear understanding of what the term GMO really stands for. ... I apologize in advance, if you already understand totally, but hear me out, just in case, ok?
-1st, you seem to think that the end results of the GMO process could be accomplished by selective breeding.
This is - to my knowledge - NEVER the case. The entire purpose of genetic engineering is to introduce certain genes into a species, which could NOT occur naturally.
PLEASE, do not take my word, look this up. I am writing from memory.
The alterations I speak of are things like...
-Adding a poison (derived from an inedible insect) to corn. This is to prevent corn borers (also insects) from destroying crops.
Incidentally, this substance is now often found in humans. And another...
-A tomato was crossed with an Artic fish. The idea was to protect the tomato from freezing. (Plz see end paragraph)
-2nd, speaking of "now found in humans", Monsanto developed Round-Up, which will kill most plants, UNLESS, they are the patented Round-Up resistant seeds from said company. The point here is, if you use their herbicide, you may not EVER be able to use any seeds but theirs. ( The scary part is that it is increasingly common to find Round-Up's toxins even in human breast milk.
-3rd According to my readings, (I've not heard this contradicted anywhere, I've searched), Monsanto has a practice of planting fields with the same crops as non Monsanto neighbors, waiting a couple years for the other, private farmer to begin reseeding their fields, then filing suits against that neighboring farmer for " using Monsanto's patented seeds". (If farmer X's seeds do happen to be related to Monsanto's, that could have happened by the pollen being carried by the wind, cross pollinated by insects, or, who knows, deliberately done via plane spraying by M, itself.
The ending of many of the suits is that M ends up with the adjoining farms.
.
To finish, some of these trials might be totally wonderful, (ex. freeze resistant tomatoes) BUT, ...
Possible corrupt business practices aside, whatever changes that have occurred NATURALLY in our food supply have happened over HUGE spans of time. Monsanto is doing these changes over relatively minuscule time frames, and we are unwittingly, and unwillingly part of a gigantic experiment!
And this worries me immensely.
And if it doesn't worry you,.... well just enjoy those rosy glasses.
njoy_life_2
Level 7
May 17, 2018
2
[citation needed]
@memorylikeasieve
This is all from many sources, and as available to you as it is to me. I said, "don't take my word", didn't I?
This isn't a research paper, and there's lots of info there, verify or don't it is up to you.
Couple things that are totally easy for you to check tho, is to Google " what does it mean to genetically engineer food. "
And "what was done to genetically modify corn, to make it impervious to corn borers"
@Fanburger
Snide remarks like this, that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject only go to show the inability of the writer to converse on an intellectual level.
It is important to go ahead with GMOs, but it must be made sure that it is safe for the future of mankind. Monsanto is not an impressive company because they seem to role around their own profit. Pesticide resistant crop helps greedy businesses but not the flora and fauna.
Humans need to realize that weeds are less prone to pest and many weeds can be consumed and are often better than super-food from the health-food stores. Most pest-insects can be consumed as well. If pest-insects become too many, preying insects and birds will thrive. They are mankind's safest pest-control.
Guido
Level 4
May 16, 2018
2
I just posted a comment a few days ago. There have been 6000 reports by non related scientists stating they have found no adverse effects from GMO's and they pointed out that we have been revising plants to get better production since we started farming 6000 years ago.I will go with 6000 reports .
Marine
Level 8
May 20, 2018
1
Serious question, no smart mouth, no sarcasm... Just asking, cause your statement above indicates you don't see the very distinct difference.
Do you and some others here not understand the difference between, as you put it -"revising plants" and the GMO process?
. For recorded history and longer, humans have;
-Taking the better of some seeds, planted them, grown the better of the plants/foods... (selective breeding)
-Bred two similar plant strains together to see what one got, and kept the good results ...
(hybridization)
And ...
-Taking a gene out of one organism (like a gene for producing toxins, from a bug) and adding it to a plant intended to be consumed by humans (Corn, in this case)
Further, displacing/eliminating - almost totally - the original plant.
(genetically modifying/engineering the plant OR animal aka GMOs)
And this process has ONLY been in existence for less than 100 years!
I'd rather err on the side of caution, there is NOT enough time and data to ensure the safety of humanity,
And the processes are NOT equivalent!
@njoy_life_2 Your reply isn't any different than those people who claim there isn't any climate change. These were 6000 studies by scientists that did not work for these companies conducted over 10 years.Because there was selective gene changes did not make them toxic to humans.How many reports would you need to accept GMO's P.S. you almost can not avoid them today so you might as well get used to them.
@Marine
So many points to talk about...
And no, don't label me a climate change denier, in an attempt to discredit me.
We all know that danger, and that has NOTHING to do with GMOs.
I'd like to address the last serious point of yours first. That they are everywhere and unlabeled does make it difficult to avoid, yes.
However, that is part of my point. If the GMOs are as benign as they're reported, why shouldn't they be labeled, and let everyone choose for themselves.
As to your last sentence, that sounds so close to the "advice" given rape victims, I have a hard time not responding emotionally. ("...it's unavoidable, so relax" )
Sorry, this, to me, is a matter - once again - of industry placing profit and power above everything else. And my kids, my grandkids deserve more complete oversight into what is done to their food supply, whether you think so or not.
. pause for breath...
(I'm not certain where the 6,000 number comes from, I'd like to know more, if you could find a link.) Another GMO proponent, below, offered links ( I do thank her for those, and her efforts)
In your comment, you said stated that "just because there are selective gene changes, that doesn't make them (GMOs) toxic to humans."
Then, did you skim my comment, or not read it? Did you not see that adding toxins to corn has already been done? Do you not know that these toxins are already being found in human breast milk?
How can the limited research done today ascertain the effects on these children, 20 or 30 years from now?
Next, and IMPORTANT, If there are 1,001 GMO 'products' ( for lack of a better word) each of them is totally unique to themselves, distinct from, probably, every other GMO product, as much as potatoes are different and completely apart from pork chops.
Any agency issuing a blanket "pass to all GMOs, is very irresponsible, (as was written in one of the lady's links from the FDA. from memory, repeated here.)
It stated that 26 years ago,the FDA said - in relation to ALL GMO products, that " there was NO major difference between the GMO products, and the natural."* THAT is alarming, to me, since we can tell from that one example that, at the very least, we don't have enough data on it. - And how many other instances of genetic tampering do we know nothing about?
How can you blandish such unexamined statements?
@Marine
Another point I didn't think of before, ...
I'm very curious about these 6,000 scientists who are 'unaffiliated with...who? GMO producers?'
I have to wonder about any of these guys , 'scientists' who don't understand that the farming practices over thousands of years, are "absolutely NOTHING like GMO gene swapping.
Wow, I may not have a bunch of letters after my name, but I know, damn everyone knows better than that.
Genetically modifying plants is no different than hybridization and selective breeding that has been employed as long as we've had agriculture. It's just more efficient and effective.
Monsanto is like any other corporation; they're in business to make a profit for the shareholders and they're going to do that any way they legally can. Every corporation will die whoever they need to in order to protect their patents.
JimG
Level 8
May 17, 2018
1
It is NOT the same, selective breeding and hybridization CANNOT put an insect gene into a corn seed.
Duh!
@CrazyQuilter
First, a lot of that was unintelligible to me, as you knew it would be.
I don't pretend to be anything but an inquiring person who reads and doesn't believe everything from ANYONE, as I try to reason the truth out from all the opinions, half truths, and misinformation.
Next, from what I gathered, your link told of diseases and their different methods of mutations, infections, etc.
Of course diseases are horrid from the human's view! (from their own, they are just surviving. We here on Agnos. know that we aren't different from other life on this planet, 'cept in our own eyes, right?)
The point is, natural does not necessarily = good. So what? Cyanide is all natural too.
This link gives NOTHING to this discussion.
Monsanto Sux. Their practice of suing farmers is poor behavior. There is no evidence that GMOs are harmful. We have been engaging in artificial selection since we became non nomadic.
Mikeb56
Level 7
May 16, 2018
1
Evidence takes time to gather and assess. That's the problem! Before we get enough evidence to make an informed judgment untold damage may already have been done. Yes to GMO research, but for all our sakes, do it slowly and be prudent.
One thing that has come up is that some of the gmos have lost their ability to work like they first did sort of like antibiotics.
trois2005
Level 6
May 27, 2018
0
Perhaps you might elaborate, I don't understand...
@njoy_life_2 I believe I may have spoken wrong it's not the gmo seed but the herbicide or pesticide that isn't working as well not the seed that has to be used after the spraying because it has been altered to work with the spray.
@trois2005
Ty, I'll think a bit more about that
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Progressives, Socialists, and Black/Palestinian Lives Matter
2458 members
World Music
1359 members
Scientists
304 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.