• Hi, I'm the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earn a commission for the forum and allow us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear and fashion.
  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

Why do people hate genetically modified food?

onix

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
3,847
Reaction score
29
The media has been buzzed with a section of a new bill that is taunted as a Monsanto Protection Act; and that brings up a question that has been bugging me for a while: why do people hate GMO so much?

I read through a website that lists 10 reasons against GMO, but in fact none of them is bad.

So, educate me!
 
Last edited:

Huntsman

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
7,925
Reaction score
854
Because we fuck shit up.
 

Canvas08

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
people are scared of science

same people who think fluoride is mind control or vaccines cause autism
 

foodguy

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
8,831
Reaction score
1,071

people are scared of science

same people who think fluoride is mind control or vaccines cause autism
i don't think that's entirely the case, though some of it probably is in most cases and most of it probably is in some cases.
I think the real problem people are having with GMO is that the argument hasn't been made for how it will benefit them. growing crops that don't have to be sprayed as often is a benefit, but at a remove from most consumers. That, and the leading player has been notoriously *ssholish whenever it has had the opportunity. so any discussion becomes a referendum on monsanto rather than the merits of the technology.

when my friends start blasting about it -- and most of them do -- i ask them about the papayas in Hawaii, which would be extinct if not for a GMO variation that can survive an introduced pest. And I ask them what would happen if the same happened with California citrus (a real threat).
 

marblehouse

Distinguished Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,717
Reaction score
543

i don't think that's entirely the case, though some of it probably is in most cases and most of it probably is in some cases.
I think the real problem people are having with GMO is that the argument hasn't been made for how it will benefit them. growing crops that don't have to be sprayed as often is a benefit, but at a remove from most consumers. That, and the leading player has been notoriously *ssholish whenever it has had the opportunity. so any discussion becomes a referendum on monsanto rather than the merits of the technology.

when my friends start blasting about it -- and most of them do -- i ask them about the papayas in Hawaii, which would be extinct if not for a GMO variation that can survive an introduced pest. And I ask them what would happen if the same happened with California citrus (a real threat).

+1

It's not inherently bad, but often done so - so many worry about the negatives of business, science, and agriculture. It can be done well, but it also can be done detrimentally - like GMO soy.

Unfortunately, debate is often allegorical propaganda to frighten or dismiss.
 
Last edited:

Bonus-Eventus

New Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
1
Reaction score
2
Some people hate GMOs because organic and natural product marketers profit from creating this hate and fear to sell their overpriced products. They have spread fears about conventionally produced foods to drive up demand for their higher priced organic and "GMO-free" foods. They are fear profiteers for whom the same standards of food safety, nutrition and environmental impact they use to judge GMOs would reveal their products to be riskier, lower in health/nutrition quality and less sustainable.
 

Cary Grant

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
9,674
Reaction score
412

Some people hate GMOs because organic and natural product marketers profit from creating this hate and fear to sell their overpriced products.  They have spread fears about conventionally produced foods to drive up demand for their higher priced organic and "GMO-free" foods. They are fear profiteers for whom the same standards of food safety, nutrition and environmental impact they use to judge GMOs would reveal their products to be riskier, lower in health/nutrition quality and less sustainable.

Nice first post which is AN UTTER AND COMPLETE LOAD OF BOLLOCKS. You work for Monsanto?


Having governed a food co-operative for years, I know first hand this could not be further from the truth.

There ARE plenty of fear mongers among the radical fringe of food nuts certainly, but the industry behind torying to provide SUSTAINABLE and healthy and locally sourced foods are not waging a wacko campaign to drive up their prices.
 

Huntsman

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
7,925
Reaction score
854
Of the many problems I have with GMO food, the one most on my mind at present is that one group of individuals is going to be choosing and isolating certain characteristics of my food, while deprioritizing others. Since most factory farmed fruit and vegetables in the U.S. already tastes lifeless and pale (compared to the fruit and veg I had on my first trip abroad), I don't see why I should have any trust that GMO will improve the situation.
 

onix

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
3,847
Reaction score
29

Of the many problems I have with GMO food, the one most on my mind at present is that one group of individuals is going to be choosing and isolating certain characteristics of my food, while deprioritizing others. Since most factory farmed fruit and vegetables in the U.S. already tastes lifeless and pale (compared to the fruit and veg I had on my first trip abroad), I don't see why I should have any trust that GMO will improve the situation.

Given that the taste is the same, do you prefer seedless fruits or ones with seeds?
 

Cary Grant

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
9,674
Reaction score
412
And frankly, for the record, I'm not a raging anti-GMO campaigner... We've been modifying genetics for centuries through manual cross-polination and breeding... doing it now at the nuclear level however... none of us know the impact.
There are companies who see GMO as an effective way to better feed the masses but there are many who see it as better for their corporate bottom line and that's the wrong approach.

Additionally, farmers should have the right to raise foods as they see fit... with it already proven that the pollen from GMO corn readily drifts and mutates non-gmo crops, and with evidence mounting that GMO pollen is effing up bees in some circumstances, there's enough smoke already to make me wary.
 

Huntsman

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
7,925
Reaction score
854
Given that the taste is the same, do you prefer seedless fruits or ones with seeds?
When you say "given that the taste is the same" I assume that you mean "if the taste is the same", right?

1) I don't think that presumption is possible. I've never tasted seedless and seed-containing identical varieties of the same fruit, by definition, they would be different varieties, no?

2) If your presumption is possible, my answer to your question is that I don't care at all. The presence or absence of seeds is, by itself, immaterial to me.

~ H
 

Cary Grant

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
9,674
Reaction score
412

When you say "given that the taste is the same" I assume that you mean "if the taste is the same", right?

1) I don't think that presumption is possible. I've never tasted seedless and seed-containing identical varieties of the same fruit, by definition, they would be different varieties, no?

2) If your presumption is possible, my answer to your question is that I don't care at all. The presence or absence of seeds is, by itself, immaterial to me.

~ H

Also :nodding:
 

onix

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
3,847
Reaction score
29

And frankly, for the record, I'm not a raging anti-GMO campaigner... We've been modifying genetics for centuries through manual cross-polination and breeding... doing it now at the nuclear level however... none of us know the impact.

Should that be the opposite? With cross-pollination, you just have to hope that the good traits express, the bad one suppressed, and no weird mutation. At the DNA level, scientists would isolate the genes that they care about, then make it express, or suppress it. Of course, each genes can be the cause for many characteristics, but they know precisely what happens. So if anything, it is cross-pollination that has high unpredictability.

There are companies who see GMO as an effective way to better feed the masses but there are many who see it as better for their corporate bottom line and that's the wrong approach.

Additionally, farmers should have the right to raise foods as they see fit... with it already proven that the pollen from GMO corn readily drifts and mutates non-gmo crops, and with evidence mounting that GMO pollen is effing up bees in some circumstances, there's enough smoke already to make me wary.
All of these seem to be the problems from the companies, not GM products themselves: 1) they over advertise on things that don't work (feeding the mass here for example), 2) they don't tell all the side effects that their products may have, and 3) they are over protective on their patents and aggressive towards farmers. So it comes back to foodguy's point, the companies are assholes so we claim GMO evil by association?
 
Last edited:

Cary Grant

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
9,674
Reaction score
412

Should that be the opposite? With cross-pollination, you just have to hope that the good traits express, the bad one suppressed, and no weird mutation. At the DNA level, scientists would isolate the genes that they care about, then make it express, or suppress it. Of course, each genes can be the cause for many characteristics, but they know precisely what happens. So if anything, it is cross-pollination that has high unpredictability.
Additionally, farmers should have the right to raise foods as they see fit... with it already proven that the pollen from GMO corn readily drifts and mutates non-gmo crops, and with evidence mounting that GMO pollen is effing up bees in some circumstances, there's enough smoke already to make me wary.

All of these seem to be the problems from the companies, not GM products themselves: 1) they over advertise on things that don't work (feeding the mass here for example), 2) they don't tell all the side effects that their products may have, and 3) they are over protective on their patents and aggressive towards farmers. So it comes back to foodguy's point, the companies are assholes so we claim GMO evil by association?[/quote]

Yes- agreed on the science of cross-polination. That why the "old" way of creating hybrids manually takes a long time... and via GMO it is vastly accelerated. No arguing the efficiencies. I'm just leary of what gene-level tinkering might do. Whether there is any science to it or not, my heart tells me to prefer natural selection over forcing the issue and possibly throwing something out of wack.

Nature takes care of itself... usually.

And I appreciate the pressure we are all under to feed ourselves given where the planet is going. But I don;t think the rush to GMO is the only or best answer.... not that I am 100% percent qualified to argue it.
Example: I choose to drink diet sodas... my radical anti-GMO colleagues thrash me for that. I say "show me the proof"... so it that sense I am a hypocrite.
 

Huntsman

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
7,925
Reaction score
854
Quote:
At the DNA level, scientists....know precisely what happens.
No offense, but you are clearly not a scientist. "More precisely" might have been accurate.
 

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

What Is The Best Value Shoe Brand For Money?

  • Meermin

    Votes: 36 14.9%
  • TLB Mallorca

    Votes: 40 16.5%
  • Cheaney

    Votes: 8 3.3%
  • Carmina

    Votes: 37 15.3%
  • Crockett & Jones

    Votes: 43 17.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 78 32.2%

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
457,205
Messages
9,910,141
Members
206,582
Latest member
ketogo
Top