GMOs

The Batlord · 12-07-2015, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Yes, I can. This isn't college, it's finals week, and I don't have the time or energy to go and find the dozens of links and discussion points I've had throughout my college career as an Environmental Science major. My sentence perfectly describes why I dislike the company and if Frown has done any sort of research about the company he will know exactly what I am talking about, which has 0 to do with the actual production of GMOs and everything to do with the companies business practices.

But... you're an Environmental Science major. If you can be expected to back up any kind of argument, then it should be this one. Unless you're just a lazy, mindless liberal from New Jersey/Godzilla.

DwnWthVwls · 12-07-2015, 09:07 PM

Here's an example for ya:

http://web2.uwindsor.ca/lemn/Researc..._community.pdf

Also, this is pretty old, but I think it is a relatively objective and fair assessment of some of the problems with the company:
https://www.uvu.edu/ethics/seac/Resp...20Property.pdf

I agree with you Frown that it probably has become too much of a bogeyman and there is a lot of conspiracy theoryish bull**** surrounding them, but the power and control they have over the market has allowed them to push their products which have negative environmental impacts. Impacts they don't seem to care about as long as they are making money, and that is a problem to me. That's not the kind of business I want to see have great success.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

But... you're an Environmental Science major. If you can be expected to back up any kind of argument, then it should be this one. Unless you're just a lazy, mindless liberal from New Jersey/Godzilla.

I'm not a sustainability/agricultural major, the majority of my classes deal with forestry which is mostly outside of the realm of Monsanto.

Xurtio · 12-09-2015, 09:02 AM

There's nothing wrong with GEO's ("engineered", since "modified" includes dog breeding and apple tree selection).

The biggest issue is that you introduce sneaky allergies by introducing proteins that normally wouldn't be in a food, but this is something genetic engineers are aware of and handle carefully.

Pet_Sounds · 05-04-2017, 01:01 PM

I have to write a paper on the issue of labelling GMOs. Anybody want to debate it with me so I can test out my arguments? (Looking at you, Frown.)

GMO labelling should be mandatory. There's no "scientific consensus" on their long-term environmental effects, and people have a right to know what they're buying.

EDIT: Should add that I personally don't really care, but I have to take a side.

duga · 05-04-2017, 01:10 PM

GMO labeling promotes the fear of GMOs. Until the public is more broadly educated on what it means to be a "GMO", the labeling should stay off. The labeling preys on ignorance. Labeling something as a GMO is also a misnomer - we've been genetically modifying things since we figured out how to domesticate animals and farm ****.

riseagainstrocks · 05-04-2017, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

GMO labeling promotes the fear of GMOs. Until the public is more broadly educated on what it means to be a "GMO", the labeling should stay off. The labeling preys on ignorance.

Exactly.

It's the equivalent of seeing a commercial for some new medication, having the commercial tell you to ask your doctor for the medication, having your doctor tell you you don't need the medication, but demanding it anyway because a slick advertisement told you you'd be better off with it.

I'd rather listen to actual experts over bloggers.

duga · 05-04-2017, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Except there's no financial benefit for "promoting the fear" of GMO's

Producers want to use them for higher profits

They're prob safe, nothing wrong with giving consumers more info though, let them make that choice for themselves

You may see a simple sticker and think "how difficult is that?", but it is actually quite costly to label and separate every GMO and non-GMO product. You have to think about the cost of labeling and the regulation therein, taxes, how it will affect trade...this isn't a simple "let's just keep everyone informed" issue. Oregon's state government did a study that estimated the cost would be nearly $1 billion a year in that state alone. New York did a study that estimated the cost to the consumer will end up being close to $800 a year.

Just assume everything is a GMO. Likely, it is on some level.

duga · 05-04-2017, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

You're gonna have to link the $800 per consumer number

I'm cynical but just the fact that they want to conceal info from consumers is a huge red flag

Here's an article that sums it up:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymi.../#6163529065b3

I know that's how it seems and most proponents of labeling look at it from that cynical sort of angle. It's really to keep costs down, though. GMO's in general make food cheaper by increasing size, allowing you to choose when it ripens, increasing pest resistance - there is no ulterior motive there (if we want to get into stuff like Monsanto, their shady **** happens on the corporate side, not the GMO's themselves). By stoking fears rooted in ignorance, most consumers will be driven to buying organic. Have you been to a Whole Foods? Have you seen those prices? To say there isn't some kind of monetary incentive to labeling GMOs is inaccurate.

duga · 05-04-2017, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Lol I'm not reading a Forbes article

Ok, so...I win?

**Frownland** · 05-04-2017, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

Except there's no financial benefit for "promoting the fear" of GMO's

Producers want to use them for higher profits

They're prob safe, nothing wrong with giving consumers more info though, let them make that choice for themselves

The organic food industry basically propels itself off of fear of GMOs. Get with the program.

12-09-2015, 09:02 AM	#73 (permalink)
Xurtio Brain Licker Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 1,083	There's nothing wrong with GEO's ("engineered", since "modified" includes dog breeding and apple tree selection). The biggest issue is that you introduce sneaky allergies by introducing proteins that normally wouldn't be in a food, but this is something genetic engineers are aware of and handle carefully. __________________ H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

05-04-2017, 01:01 PM	#74 (permalink)
Pet_Sounds Remember the underscore Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: The other side Posts: 2,489	I have to write a paper on the issue of labelling GMOs. Anybody want to debate it with me so I can test out my arguments? (Looking at you, Frown.) GMO labelling should be mandatory. There's no "scientific consensus" on their long-term environmental effects, and people have a right to know what they're buying. EDIT: Should add that I personally don't really care, but I have to take a side. __________________ Everybody's dying just to get the disease

05-04-2017, 01:10 PM	#75 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	GMO labeling promotes the fear of GMOs. Until the public is more broadly educated on what it means to be a "GMO", the labeling should stay off. The labeling preys on ignorance. Labeling something as a GMO is also a misnomer - we've been genetically modifying things since we figured out how to domesticate animals and farm ****. __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...