Why do people hate genetically modified food?

[onix]

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!

 

[Huntsman]

Because we **** **** up.

 

[Canvas08]

people are scared of science

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

 

[foodguy]



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]



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.

 

[Bonus-Eventus]

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]



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]

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]



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]

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]

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]



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

 

[onix]



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?

 

[Cary Grant]



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]

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.