I Run a G.M.O. Company — and I Support G.M.O. Labeling

[Dezerte]

GMO is not a concern for me, there are more troubling things I've heard about the TTIP that should cause concern (if/can companies sue countries?).

[Deleted]

You shouldn't trust monsanto, you should trust the scientific community that overwhelmingly agrees that they are completely safe. Just like you trust them when they say that the computer you are typing on won't magically combust.

Please. Any first or second year biochem student can make a innocent bacteria produce poison. obviously they can be dangerous if used irresponsibly. Profit motivations historically are a big cause for irresponsible behavior.

So who should i trust with GMOs?

[Katie N]

Because GMO products aren't designed to directly affect human health. They are just altered food.

How do you know it won't affect human health in long term when it hasn't been used or studied for a long time?

[Gheld]

They shouldn't even have to put ingredients or allergens on the label either. Consumers should have to test their own food to figure out what's in it.

Knowledge is ignorance.
Weakness is strength
Shilling against consumer information laws just makes you cool and stuff and shows that you are totally thinking for yourself and not just bleating back something somebody in a nice suit said.

[Deleted]

So people can not refrain from eating it because you think their choice is bad? xD What else do you want to force people to do? Not believe in a god or believe in a god?

http://www.thanhniennews.com/society...isms-2368.html

Why trust monsanto and those other companies?

More than anything, is the monopoly those huge horrendous companies have on the market that make OGM not trustworthy for me. If things were handled in a professional, modern and scientific way, instead of forcing monopoly by use of private armies and dodgy schemes worthy of 007 movies, I'm sure the world would be a lot more open towards this specific topic.

[Deleted]

GMO is not a concern for me, there are more troubling things I've heard about the TTIP that should cause concern (if/can companies sue countries?).

Yes definitely. Regarding TTIP, OGM really arent the top in my priority list
Having said that I think the OP specifically pointed out it wasnt about TTIP.

[Dezerte]

How do you know it won't affect human health in long term when it hasn't been used or studied for a long time?

We don't. But GMO food isn't new, we've been eating essentially GMO food for thousands of years. There is no cause for immediate concern, especially not to the level of paranoia we see today.

[Deleted]

How do you know anything else that hasn't been studied long-term won't affect you?

Same answer.

Are you still talking about food?

[Katie N]

We don't. But GMO food isn't new, we've been eating essentially GMO food for thousands of years. There is no cause for immediate concern, especially not to the level of paranoia we see today.

No we haven't that for thousand years, we haven't been able to do genetical modifications until very recently.

[Deleted]

How do you know anything else that hasn't been studied long-term won't affect you?

Same answer.

- - - Updated - - -


That's true, but it's quite hard to corrupt almost all of the world's scientists simultaneously.

the purity of the scientific community isn't really the issue here. (though really it's not as pure as people online often claim, but that's a different discussion.)

The standard of proof is. The EFSA apparently has a higher or different standard then the FDA.

So obviously the scientific consensus isn't all that unanimous.

though again the science isn't really my concern, responsible and ethical use are.

[Gheld]

I don't think being an edgelord in the opposite direction is helpful either.

Sorry but sadly it's true. People just shill for the last official looking person that said something nice sounding.

Like "I'm going to eat GMO food because there appears to be an expert consensus that it's safe" <--- Smart.

"I'm going to deride people who area against GMO food, or in this case, not even against it. Just people who believe consumers should have the information to decide for themselves about it; because even though I have no basis of understanding the science behind it myself and see the world through the lens of political oversimplification MY OPINION makes me both intellectually and morally superior to everybody else who came to a different conclusion but the exact same way. " <-- Just... just no. The world needs less people like that. A broken clock is right twice a day, but should still be taken off the wall.

[Dezerte]

No we haven't that for thousand years, we haven't been able to do genetical modifications until very recently.

The only difference is the level of control. Now we can directly manipulate the genes, before that we used selective breeding. The food was still genetically modified, by the process of evolution, but we had the reins to pick and choose the food that we liked.

[Katie N]

The only difference is the level of control. Now we can directly manipulate the genes, before that we used selective breeding. The food was still genetically modified, by the process of evolution, but we had the reins to pick and choose the food that we liked.

Directly manipulate genes in a way that doesn't happen with breeding yes. Evolution is not the same as genetical modifications by humans. That is in new territory and people want to rush in before knowing if it's safe? Why? Do you have no concern for your own health? Do you want to be a test product for those companies like monsanto?

[Gheld]

I don't know if you can hear yourself, or read what you type, but you are the one here who is acting like a morally superior edgelord because i don't agree that anti-GMO hysteria is a good thing.

I smell burning straw.

I consider myself morally superior to people who deride others for falling on a different side of an issue than people they themselves have no greater understanding than.

You see there's three kinds of people on this planet.

A. There's people who sit there, slobbering on themselves as they laugh, watching "Here Comes Honey Booboo".

B. Then there's the people who sit around spending countless time stroking their own egos by deriding the people who watch "Here Comes Honey Booboo", desperate to feel distinguished as above those people.

C. Then there's the people who can't decide whether A or B is the bigger moron.

[Katie N]

You aren't making a great case for yourself. It just seems like you are irrationally afraid of everything monsanto ever does, even if it's proven to be safe.

We don't know if it's safe or not, you admitted that yourself. It's not bad to be cautious when you are in new territory instead of rushing forward and getting injuries because of that or even dying.

[Deleted]

You aren't making a great case for yourself. It just seems like you are irrationally afraid of everything monsanto ever does, even if it's proven to be safe.

Proven to FDA standards, not by EFSA standards.

[Dezerte]

Directly manipulate genes in a way that doesn't happen with breeding yes. Evolution is not the same as genetical modifications by humans. That is in new territory and people want to rush before knowing if it's safe? Why?

Some healthy level of skepticism is warranted, but not at the paranoia level that we see today. Labeling GMO food is a good idea, let people decide for themselves whether they want to buy the product (I'm generally in favor of providing as much information as possible to the consumer, so this isn't necessarily a unique problem for GMO).

[Deleted]

Some healthy level of skepticism is warranted, but not at the paranoia level that we see today. Labeling GMO food is a good idea, let people decide for themselves whether they want to buy the product (I'm generally in favor of providing as much information as possible to the consumer, so this isn't necessarily a unique problem for GMO).

The paranoia really isn't that bad.

If a GMO got EFSA approval, chances are they could be phased into the market without to much problems. Sure you would have some media problems at first but after a few years people would probably just accept it. Most people assume their food gets tested better then it does in reality, in reality the testing agencies in many countries have funding issues.

Being concerned about companies wanting to lower the bar though isn't paranoia.

[Sazabius]

A lot of wheat and rice is genetically modified, most people eat it.

Not much choice if it's being shoved down your throat unknowingly.

And in 20 years when the science actually catches up and we are allergic to everything because of all the anti-bacterial (or bacteria repellent food? I don't even know wtf it is anymore... most of the scientists making it don't know either from the sound of it) crap going in our guts, they will finally decide that maybe fucking with food wasn't such a good idea.

[unbound]

Counter-point - http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...m-g-m-o-labels

G.M.O. labels may be a political necessity, but they make no scientific sense. Most of the legislation that has been proposed would require a label that says something like “produced with genetic engineering.” Almost none of the labels would identify any specific G.M.O. ingredient in any particular food. In fact, the laws now proposed are so vague that many of the foods in a grocery store would have to carry a label. They would tell you how your food is put together, but not what it contains. How could that help anyone make a sound decision about his health?

All breeding—whether mixing varieties of apples or crossing types of orchids—modifies genomes. There is no other reason to do it. And all the food we eat has been modified in some way—either by nature or by humans. Conventional techniques, often simply a random mixing of genomes, are not necessarily safer than engineering. Nor is mutagenesis, a process in which mutations and variations are induced by radiation or chemicals.

Activists speak loudly about consumer choice, but many of them want, ultimately, to ban the products of agricultural biotechnology. In the United States, that would be foolhardy and pointless—but not much more than that. What happens in this country, though, will affect the work of scientists everywhere. This kind of crop will be necessary to help feed the ten billion people that will inhabit this planet by the end of the century.

Basically, there is no real basis to label G.M.O. food as the vast majority of your food has been modified genetically one way or another (seriously, look up what a natural banana looks like as well as what corn looked like hundreds of years ago); there is no actual safety concerns besides political panic caused by idiots like Food Babe; and we absolutely need to educate people out of their stupidity, or we will have serious problems continuing to feed the people of this planet.