Monsanto...

Nemesiah

New Member
First a few videos








Ok, so, RT has been doing an expose on monsaton and specilly protests against, and a few thoughts came to mind.

First: Are we sure GMO crops are dangerous? I really don't know, however as the interwebs go, eating their stuff is like taking two scoops of ratpoison and sprinkle it with cyanide.

Second: Are Monsanto's practices that monopolic? I watched a couple films called "the world according to monsanto" and "Food Inc" and it seems that they are actualy Satan's little helpers.

Warning: videos contain graphic material



Third: There is this meme that without Monsanto´s help, we would all starve to death, I myself don't really know, I understand their stuff is much hardier than normal plants and thus more productive but then aggain having to buy seed every year might just make food that much more expensive.

So, what do you think about these issues? Do you like monsanto? Hate monsanto? Do you buy their stuff? What do you believe should be done about it?

Also

Do you believe in the power of protest? I don't, I believe that peacefully singing outside a company's headqurters is just a way of releasing tension but I would like to hear what you have to say.
 

Inferno

New Member
First: Are we sure GMO crops are dangerous? I really don't know, however as the interwebs go, eating their stuff is like taking two scoops of ratpoison and sprinkle it with cyanide.
No, we're not.
I did a post on that a few years ago (different forum? No idea) and looked at two meta-studies for that. Except for a single strain which has been pulled off the market, the short-term effects (we know nothing about long-term effects, though) were all the same as for non-GMO crops.

In fact, the regulations for GMO crops, at least in the EU and the US, are much harsher than for any other food source.

Until we know about the long-term effects, we can't say for certain, but it doesn't seem like they're harmful.

Indeed, why would they? I've never had a sensible suggestion why they should be harmful at all...
 

Aught3

New Member
Nemesiah said:
First: Are we sure GMO crops are dangerous?
No, in fact they seem very safe. There's not even a plausible biological mechanism for harm in most cases. It's just a case of science-denialism by the general public, falling for the naturalistic fallacy and so forth.
Nemesiah said:
Second: Are Monsanto's practices that monopolic?
Big multi-national corporation with intellectual property rights. They're behaviour is pretty much bogey for course. Slightly worse than a record company I suppose since we are talking about something important like food production rather than mp3's but the same basic MO applies.

Nemesiah said:
Third: There is this meme that without Monsanto´s help, we would all starve to death, I myself don't really know, I understand their stuff is much hardier than normal plants and thus more productive but then aggain having to buy seed every year might just make food that much more expensive.
I'm not really familiar with that meme. As far as I know Monsanto only has the first-generation of GM crops - the insect resistant and herbiside tolerant breeds. While these are pretty cool, they are also simple to create compared to GM crops which have consistently higher yields and are more hardy in a variety of conditions.
So, what do you think about these issues? Do you like monsanto? Hate monsanto? Do you buy their stuff? What do you believe should be done about it?
I like Monsanto for the sole reason that they are the only group that has managed to commercialise GM crops on a large scale despite the protests of the anti-science brigade. I don't like them for their business practices but that is a separate issue from their science. NZ is GE free so I don't buy their stuff.
Do you believe in the power of protest? I don't, I believe that peacefully singing outside a company's headqurters is just a way of releasing tension but I would like to hear what you have to say.
Somewhat, the power of protest has to match the power of the company before any change is made.
 

Laurens

New Member
GMO is not harmful to consume, but maybe there are some legitimate issues.

Say all our crops gradually become clones of each other, or at least genetically very similar. In evolutionary terms this can be dangerous, loss of diversity means loss of adaptability. If some unforeseen change occurs such as a new disease or a change in environmental factors, would crops all containing exactly the same genome be able to cope with such a thing?

I don't fully know the risks of this, or if it is a risk at all. But can we truly say that there is no harm in genetic modification?
 

Aught3

New Member
Laurens said:
GMO is not harmful to consume, but maybe there are some legitimate issues.

Say all our crops gradually become clones of each other, or at least genetically very similar. In evolutionary terms this can be dangerous, loss of diversity means loss of adaptability. If some unforeseen change occurs such as a new disease or a change in environmental factors, would crops all containing exactly the same genome be able to cope with such a thing?

I don't fully know the risks of this, or if it is a risk at all. But can we truly say that there is no harm in genetic modification?
This is more an issue of mono-cropping and conventional farming in general. Farmers tend to use the varieties that are currently the best yielding and just plant acres and acres of the same thing. The heirloom farmers are quite important in ensuring this loss of diversity is not complete.
 

Inferno

New Member
Here's a good post by PZ Myers on GMO's.

I think the following quotes sum it up quite well:
Much of the dissent with GMOs is based either on ignorance, or is misdirected.
I was interested to see in the link above that this fear is traced back to the magic word “natural”, and specifically that awful website full of woo, Natural News. “Natural” is nonsense: everything is natural. “Natural” is a non-specific modifier attached to anything a crackpot things is good, in opposition to new-fangled technology that is different from what their grandparents did.
You want to complain about something, aim a little more accurately and target real problems in modern agribusiness.
And a list follows. I think that's a much better starting point for a debate.

Oh and:
Sometimes I wonder if the GMO controversy isn’t just a giant red herring thrown into the debate about the future of agriculture just to distract us from what should be real concerns.
 

PAB

New Member
Inferno said:
Here's a good post by PZ Myers on GMO's.

You want to complain about something, aim a little more accurately and target real problems in modern agribusiness.
And a list follows. I think that's a much better starting point for a debate.
the list ...
You want to complain about something, aim a little more accurately and target real problems in modern agribusiness.
  • The ongoing concentration of control of agricultural products into the hands of just a few corporations. These corporations lock up their products and are intent on retaining control…and this isn’t just GMOs. Hybrid seed produced by standard genetic techniques has also been a tool.
  • The corporatization of farms. The family farm is fading, it’s all giant conglomerates — and the economies of scale depend on ignoring the environmental costs of the megafarm.
  • The blandness of monocultures. Try driving through my part of the world — the old, biologically diverse prairie has been almost totally replaced by endless fields of corn and soybeans, nothing but corn and soybeans.
  • The industrialization of food. What’s being done with most of that corn? It’s being processed into high fructose corn syrup and ethanol. We take food which is rich and complex and process the heck out of it to reduce it to something more convenient for industry.
Someone who commented on that blog post puts it best when he states "This has nothing to do with the GM part of it. It’s about the politics of it."

Most vivid of the political issues are the development of "termination seeds" forcing dependency upon Monsanto and the harassment of farmers who have by one means or another ended up with protected Monsanto crops.
 

Inferno

New Member
PAB said:
Someone who commented on that blog post puts it best when he states "This has nothing to do with the GM part of it. It’s about the politics of it."

Most vivid of the political issues are the development of "termination seeds" forcing dependency upon Monsanto and the harassment of farmers who have by one means or another ended up with protected Monsanto crops.
Exactly. It's about the politics because there are no genuine issues concerning the science.
 

derkvanl

Member
There's some more than just politics to GMO products

- biodiversity degrades where Monsanto products are used.
- roundup-resistant crops are sprayed with not-so-bio-degradable roundup, it causes long term pollution the longer a field is used

Then there's farmers who don't want any Monsanto products, but are contaminated thru other farms.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14903%3Aorganic-growers-lose-against-monsanto-over-seeds
"In its ruling Monday, the court noted that records indicate a large majority of conventional seed samples have become contaminated by Monsanto's Roundup resistance trait."
It's not so much of a political problem. Politics are part of the problem, but the real problems are Monsanto's unnatural created gmo's.

http://www.undergroundhealth.com/gmo-versus-non-gmo-the-shocking-corn-comparison/
 

Inferno

New Member
derkvanl said:
There's some more than just politics to GMO products

- biodiversity degrades where Monsanto products are used.
- roundup-resistant crops are sprayed with not-so-bio-degradable roundup, it causes long term pollution the longer a field is used

Then there's farmers who don't want any Monsanto products, but are contaminated thru other farms.
Both are political in nature. A science-related problem would be "it makes you grow a second head" or something. But the way it's used... that's politics.
 

mick1le2pick

New Member
derkvanl said:
There's some more than just politics to GMO products

- biodiversity degrades where Monsanto products are used.
- roundup-resistant crops are sprayed with not-so-bio-degradable roundup, it causes long term pollution the longer a field is used

Then there's farmers who don't want any Monsanto products, but are contaminated thru other farms.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14903%3Aorganic-growers-lose-against-monsanto-over-seeds
"In its ruling Monday, the court noted that records indicate a large majority of conventional seed samples have become contaminated by Monsanto's Roundup resistance trait."
It's not so much of a political problem. Politics are part of the problem, but the real problems are Monsanto's unnatural created gmo's.

http://www.undergroundhealth.com/gmo-versus-non-gmo-the-shocking-corn-comparison/
Those are some unbiased sources
 

derkvanl

Member
mick1le2pick said:
Those are some unbiased sources
so your linked video is a good source? No links to anything at all in the description, just a guy crying "there's no scientific study about it"

please, post some good sources if you know m, I fucking hate people discussing that just say "you are wrong" without anything else.
 

Inferno

New Member
Thank you derkvanl for NOT doing your homework. The paper in question is the following:
A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet

The paper was published only a few days ago and already the paper is called into question. Non-GM pigs had higher incidents of heart abnormalities (15% to 6%), the statistics were used incorrectly and there are multiple other points of concern.

For example, Table 3 shows the following:


I stitched that together, btw. I took the top part of the table and the middle part, to make it easier to view. Please check the original paper to check that I've not distorted the evidence.

What's interesting is that there are twice as many GMO-pigs with zero inflammation than non-GMO-pigs. There's also the question of what the vets would judge to be "mild", "moderate" and "severe".

There's evidence that the enlarged uteri found were clinically insignificant.

There's more evidence (also here) noting that there might have been some difference in the food uptake. GMO-food was twice as likely to be mouldy.

And finally:
[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/gm-pig-study-is-deeply-flawed-2013-6 said:
Business Insider[/url]"]Though the authors claim no conflicts of interest, the funding for the study itself was provided by Verity Farms, owned by one of the study's authors, which sells non-GMO grains. They also got funding from the Australian non-profit, Institute of Health and Environmental Research, which seems dedicated to anti-GMO activism.
 
Top