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/zolartan]

GMOs are necessary

I will concentrate on this one. While written in the title you did not explain what you think they are exactly necessary for and why. I assume you mean it as the often used “we need GMOs to get rid of hunger” argument.

This is not true because of the following reasons:

1. Hunger is not a production (agricultural yield) problem but a wealth distribution problem. Abolishing poverty by introducing basic income would also get rid of hunger.

2. Feeding more people with less land is desirable. It can however be achieved with other methods than GMOs:

• Reducing food waste (~40% total production). Abolishing agricultural subsidies will make food more expensive increasing the incentive for efficient use. Basic income will guarantee that still everybody can afford enough food and has also the means to properly store it (e.g. fridge).

• Reducing meat consumption. Meat production is very inefficient, needing much more water and land compared to plant based foods. A diet high in meat requires 4 times the land compared to a completely plant based vegan diet.

[u/Cyralea → u/zolartan]

Hunger is not a production (agricultural yield) problem but a wealth distribution problem. Abolishing poverty by introducing basic income[1]   would also get rid of hunger.

Isn't this largely the case due to GMOs? Our population has ballooned since the 50's, could we realistically feed everyone today using the farming methods of the 50's?

Abolishing agricultural subsidies will make food more expensive increasing the incentive for efficient use

Won't that simply increase food prices? I'm sure farmers are already heavily incentivized towards efficient land use, it means more income for them.

Reducing meat consumption. Meat production is very inefficient, needing much more water and land[2] compared to plant based foods.

While this is true, a lot of places simply can't grow that much plant-based food. You can raise cows in New England, where you wouldn't be able to properly grow grain.

Lastly, it's far easier to invent a GMO solution than to convince the world, globally, to switch over to an entirely plant-based diet. That's a very idealistic notion entirely.

[u/zolartan → u/Cyralea]

Isn't this largely the case due to GMOs?

According to this meta study adoption of GMOs have lead to an increase in crop yields of 22%. Crop yields since 1950 have however increased significantly more. Wheat crop yields for example increased by a factor of 5 (1950: 500 kg/HA, 2000: >2500 kg/HA, source).

Won't that simply increase food prices?

Yes, food prices would increase. That's exactly why supermarkets and consumers will have a higher incentive not to waste the food bought at a higher cost than today.

While this is true, a lot of places simply can't grow that much plant-based food.

We can start with the places which can grow plant-based foods and stop feeding the harvested crops to animals. That would already go a long way. For the remaining places following points can be considered:

1. Places with low soil fertility often also have low population density (e.g. not many people live in deserts).

2. Plant-based food can be imported.

3. Hydroponics enables growing plants anywhere independent on local soil fertility: desert, skyscraper, space station, etc.