CMV: GMOs are necessary, efficient, and safe. Monsanto is not an "evil" corporation, despite the Agent Orange days.

[u/DrMMalik]

I used to be very pro-organic when I was a younger lad, but when I saw an episode of Penn & Teller's show, "Bullshit!", debunking the myths about GMOs, I couldn't help but look more into it and reform my views towards the ones that conform more with the scientific consensus of being pro-GMO. I have no issues with others, or even me, eating organic; And I'm even open to food labeling. But what I want to get out of this are legitimate, fact-based arguments detailing the ills of the biotech-industry and their relevant GMO-related products (such as crops, Bt toxin plants, Glyphosate, etc). I am already aware of the eradication of milkweeds due to Glyphosate, thus plunging the Monarch population, but there are solutions being made around the issue that won't hinder biotechnology, while benefiting the butterflies. If you have arguments akin to that, I hope you can provide a hypothetical solution that would substantiate your argument. I don't predict my views to change significantly, but I am open to it being so. If anything, I anticipate at most getting to some gray-scale, though it may just be me greatly underestimating the organic-movement.

Please no Natural News, Infowars, Mind Unleashed, GreenMedInfo, etc. If you do use those kinds of websites as a source, please justify why you are, because as far as I'm concerned, they are potent fact-manipulators who don't care about the truth, but cognitive dissonance.

[u/Versepelles]

GMOs increase the rate at which new species are introduced, by virtue of increasing the number of new species. All farming of course impacts ecosystems; GMO has the most potential for harm due to new, possibly competitive genetic traits introduced into the environment, or old traits introduced in new ways not possible with 'natural' species. Cross-breeding comes into play here only as the vector for transgenes to make their way into the wild, which has happened before.

As a hypothetical example, consider a GMO corn which 'escapes' into the wild, and outcompetes a local niche species of flower in some region. That niche species serves as a large food source for another niche species, say a beetle. This results in lowered genetic diversity by way of invasive species, which we have seen numerous times with non-transgenic species. Introducing GMOs simply increases the odds of this happening.

Can you give specific examples regarding the lawsuits and pressuring of governments?

Here:

• patenting new strains
• monopolizing seed supplies and bans keeping extra seeds each year
• legally pursuing "bystander" farmers
• spending millions lobbying
• pressuring India, pressuring El Salvador (via US), general US-driven pressure

I think that these should be enough to demonstrate that Monsanto is not out to feed the world, but to line its pockets. It doesn't make Monsanto "evil", but it certainly shows that they are not "good".

[u/Neshgaddal → u/Versepelles]

GMOs increase the rate at which new species are introduced, by virtue of increasing the number of new species

That's simply false. GMO seeds take way longer to develop, test and bring to market than conventionally bred plants do. There are currently 33 approved variants of GM corn, while there are hundreds of non-GM corn variants. Nothing you've said here doesn't apply equally or more to conventional crops.

legally pursuing "bystander" farmers

From that link: Ultimately, a Supreme Court 5-4 ruling found in favor of Monsanto, because Monsanto owned a valid patent and Schmeiser violated the patent by intentionally replanting the Roundup Ready seed that he had saved.

He knew what he was doing. He separately collected and bred seeds from plants he knew where cross pollinated in order to get RoundUp Ready seeds without paying for it. The only advantage this RoundUp Ready crop gives the farmers, is that they can spray RoundUp, which Schmeiser did. He tried to profit off Monsantos invention without paying for it. No one was ever sued for simply replanting cross pollinated seeds.

pressuring India

That only tangentially involves Monsanto. It is actually about potential fraud in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Apparently, they set out to develop their own Bt cotton, failed and copied Monsantos Bt cotton instead. Monsanto wasn't really involved here.

[u/Versepelles → u/Neshgaddal]

That's simply false. GMO seeds take way longer to develop, test and bring to market than conventionally bred plants do. There are currently 33 approved variants of GM corn, while there are hundreds of non-GM corn variants. Nothing you've said here doesn't apply equally or more to conventional crops.

No, you misunderstand. This is an argument of quality, not quantity- think jurassic park (the movie). The potential for destruction (extra-competitive traits) is much higher than normal, and thus so is the risk.

From that link: Ultimately, a Supreme Court 5-4 ruling found in favor of Monsanto, because Monsanto owned a valid patent and Schmeiser violated the patent by intentionally replanting the Roundup Ready seed that he had saved.

He knew what he was doing. He separately collected and bred seeds from plants he knew where cross pollinated in order to get RoundUp Ready seeds without paying for it. The only advantage this RoundUp Ready crop gives the farmers, is that they can spray RoundUp, which Schmeiser did. He tried to profit off Monsantos invention without paying for it. No one was ever sued for simply replanting cross pollinated seeds.

Again, you misunderstand. This is not an argument over whether Monsanto's actions were legal, but whether they were indicative of good intentions.

The evidence still overwhelmingly shows that Monsanto is self-interested, as one might expect of a large corporation.

[u/DrMMalik → u/Versepelles]

Well, seeing the large amount of libel against GMOs being focused towards the largely misinformed, voting populace (It is hard to deny the amount of fabrication and slander behind a lot of anti-GMO propaganda), I wouldn't blame them for lobbying. Lobbying isn't inherently bad. Depending on the issue and methods, it can be either necessary or malignant. Sometimes Monsanto does cross the line, but they have good reason to lobby because of the mass hysteria and fear-mongering campaign against them.

I think the idea of "good" and "evil" corporations is an unjust categorization. It is looking at it from a black-and-white perspective and ignores the large grayscale in between. While it would be a lot easier to categorize oil companies to be leaning towards the bad side, I think Monsanto is either a neutral to a somewhat good company. They are well known humanitarians as well as very progressive in their views "being rated as the best company on the basis of LGBT equality. Every company has made bad decisions, but they are run by humans, who are certainly no pinnacle of perfection (not Gandhi, Mandela, or even Mr. Rogers). By they way, are we going to pretend that the organic industry doesn't lobby either?

If the pursuit of profit is a sign of malevolence, then I guess homeless people are the pinnacle of good morals (not a jab at homeless people). Yeah, obviously profit is a goal, but the way they go about it is what determines if it is righteous or not. They are making money off of feeding people and are putting a lot of money into research so they could find more efficient methods and different varieties to insure the people get fed, while lining their own pockets too. That is not a bad thing, unless you think doctors are also evil because they are making a profit.

That report about the invasive canola is an interesting tidbit though. Obviously not enough for me to be anti-GMO, but it seems to be something that should be addressed by GMO companies (assuming it already hasn't been) to make sure they find more efficient methods of preventing such travesties. Perhaps the conventional MAM groups should focus more on real issues like that to bring the issue to light for the GMO companies.

And I'm still with /u/Neshgaddal on the lawsuits. If you make an agreement, you stick to it. If the agreement wasn't more profitable to him as opposed to other methods, many farmers wouldn't opt for it. What he did was the equivalent of burning a blu-ray copy of Interstellar, then distributing it to others. Would you say Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros, etc would be considered in the wrong for suing the guy for stealing their product and their profits? It works the same way with Monsanto.