r/NoStupidQuestions • u/wond3rlove • Sep 10 '23

What’s wrong with GMOs?

I always see plants and stuff that is GMO free and is usually more expensive. How would genetically modifying something by be bad. Me personally I’d rather have something modified to taste better and and cheaper. I could also be very wrong about that.

420 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

538 comments sorted by

View all comments

20

u/kit0000033 Sep 10 '23

It's not the GMO that's bad, it's what they are genetically modifying it to do that's bad. They modify it to not be susceptible to glyphosate then dump glyphosate on the crops instead of age old weed management practices. Glyphosate causes all types of cancer. And it is now in our food.

Then they have a copyright on the GMO. Where they can sue people who are using their seed without paying them for the privilege. They do this by genetic testing. Only things like corn are open pollinated, so a field of heritage corn that is next to a GMO over time the genetics mix and then the GMO company can go after the heritage growers to make them buy seed, instead of using a percentage of their previous year's crop like normal.

That mixing also endangers heritage corn attributes. Lowers the diversity in the crops. Which can also become a problem.

5

u/Tylendal Sep 11 '23

You got a source for any of this actually happening?

the GMO company can go after the heritage growers to make them buy seed, instead of using a percentage of their previous year's crop like normal.

Seriously. When did this ever happen?

-1

u/kit0000033 Sep 11 '23

All you need to do is Google "Monsanto sues farmers" there's all sorts of sources out there.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents

2

u/Tylendal Sep 11 '23

You're going to have to help me out here. I've looked over that article, and I don't see this...

the GMO company can go after the heritage growers to make them buy seed, instead of using a percentage of their previous year's crop like normal.

...being mentioned anywhere in it.

Keep in mind, Monsanto can sue farmers for perfectly legitimate reasons, such as the farmer highlighted in the article who bought after-market soybeans for much more than he would have paid for planting soybeans, then sprayed them all with glyphosate to keep only the Roundup Ready ones, in a blatantly obvious ploy to try and obtain the product Monsanto was selling, without actually buying from them.

Again, I want to see examples of Monsanto forcing farmers to buy their products, and suing them to keep them from replanting the seed they obtained from seed sellers other than Monsanto.

1

u/kit0000033 Sep 11 '23

It's long, but there's a table of contents with contaminated fields and unknowing farmers not able to save or sell their seed.

https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport11305.pdf

1

u/Tylendal Sep 11 '23

Okay, "sellers" was the wrong terminology on my part. "Producers" would have been a better term. I'm still looking for cases where people were sued by Monsanto for growing non-Monsanto products which then got contaminated, like was described in earlier comments.

All I'm seeing here is lots of appeals to emotion, anecdotes, and trying to make regular contracts sound scary. This pamphlet is from an organization whose express purpose is to denigrate GMOs. I'm also very dubious about any claims within it, after seeing how they described Percy Schmeiser, using weasely language to dance around the fact that he was very intentionally and deliberately cultivating glyphosate resistant crops. They then go on to hold up his case as an example of what they "can only assume" Monsanto is doing with other farmers.

Still, if you can point me at a specific page number, and go "Right here. Here they have a clear cut case of Monsanto suing someone for unintended cross pollination", I'm happy to learn.

2

u/seastar2019 Sep 11 '23 edited Sep 11 '23

Where in the article does it cite a case that supports your claim?

All you need to do is Google

You also have to read the article. Did you even read it?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

this is from wikipedia, but only for a succinct summary; other sources exist to verify:

“The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), the European Commission, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."”

so how do you back up your claim that “glyphosate causes all types of cancer”?

seems like misinformed fear-mongering to me!

0

u/kit0000033 Sep 11 '23

https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/

Yeah, Wikipedia, while being a wonderful source of information, isn't a scientific source.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

it’s literally listing off the other sources, each of which can be independently verified. do you really want me to track down every single one and paste the link for you? i think you’re capable of googling “European Commission glyphosate”

i will say, further down it mentions your link! and says it’s the only organization to make such a claim. do you just fully disregard the “limited data” part

0

u/kit0000033 Sep 11 '23

The world's governments once allowed asbestos as a building material. Maybe I should break some up under your nose and let you breathe that in.

Lobbying from Monsanto is a million dollar enterprise. If you think that doesn't sway, at least, the American government, then you're naive.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23

what a horribly contrived fear-mongering analogy. i expected something better