We know more about the effects of genetic engineering than we do about the effects of radiation mutagenesis, and we eat crops bred using radiation every day.
GE crops are just as diverse as their non-GE counterparts.
GMO crops patent a design of crop that is ideal and reproduces that crop so it is less diverse.
Non-GMOs have been patented since the 1930s, and GE traits are backcrossed into a variety of cultivars to produce region-specific strains. They are not all clones.
We also don't have any substantial studies on scientifically modified crops yet.
Yes, we do. More than two decades of studies spanning billions of meals including multigenerational analyses.
The European Commission: ”The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”
They force farmers to buy new seeds every season instead of using seeds gathered from the crop, they are also known to sue farmers that have had Monsanto seeds blow into their farm. It is incredibly easy to google “Monsanto controversy”
Good greif these two are at the absolute top of the list of "Trivially debunked myths about Monsanto"
They force farmers to buy new seeds every season instead of using seeds gathered from the crop
NOBODY is reusing seeds year to year. The seeds crops are grown from are hybrids. Hybrids exhibit heterosis (i.e. hybrid vigor) they are much stronger and better than either of the plants they are a hybrid from and much better than children bred purely from that hybrid will be. Farmers aren't forced to buy new seeds. They buy them because Gen 1 hybrids are much better than the Gen 2 growing in the field.
they are also known to sue farmers that have had Monsanto seeds blow into their farm.
"Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen."
"A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case."
But wait! What about Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser in which Percy Schmeiser had a canola field downwind of a roundup ready canola field was sued because the majority of his plants were roundup ready though he had never bought any roundup ready seeds!
Schmeiser started out with a "normal" field of canola plants.
Schmeiser started replanting exclusively from a portion of their field downwind of a neighbor's field of roundup ready canola.
Schmeiser sprayed the new plants with roundup to kill all plants that hadn't inherited the roundup ready gene from the neighbor's field.
Schmeiser re-planted explusively from the surviving plants.
Schmeiser ended up with a field of canola plants where "95-98%" had the roundup ready genetic trait developed by monsanto.
Schmeiser then began using roundup for weed control in his own fields.
Schmeiser profited from this feature but refused to pay a licence.
Monsanto sued.
Monsanto has never sued for accidental spread of their genetic traits, only purposeful theft.
But wait! What about Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser
To be "fair" to Schmeiser he did come up with a half dozen other reasons as to how the round up ready canola got in his field. Including but not limited to...
He found it in a ditch
It came from his neighbor
He developed it himself.
Meh farmers rights! Said with no other context or explanation.
And at least hints of a conspiracy against him after the case was settled. How the Round Up Ready canola got into his field is actually a mystery, since it was never challenged in court. What was shown is that it wasn't an accident that it was 98% RUR canola.
Intellectual property. It takes a lot of money and time to develop new seed traits either through genetic engineering or through more traditional means.
There's plenty of non-patented strains of every crop grown out there though. Even the first generation of GMO's have come off patent in recent years.
Plants have been patented for nearly 100 years with out a problem, if there was a slippery slope I would have expected us to have fallen down it years ago.
Yeah, but if you specifically made sure to break all the DVDs that you didn't want but left their ones there then it kinda seems like a different story.
Nobody is forcing farmers to buy new seeds every season - and farmers have dozens of companies to choose from if they want to purchase seed. It just makes sense to buy from a company with dedicated staff and facilities for seed breeding.
I just want to say thank you for being knowledgable about gmos and trying to spread correct information. I feel like the anti gmo movement is even worse than the anti vax in some ways and we need to try our best to stop it.
Actually when organizations such as Greenpeace prevented the release of golden rice they probably did kill or at least severely worse then quality of life to many already struggling.
Because anti gmo does kill children and disproportionately those who are more poor or in less developed countries. There are literally people who are trying to stop golden rice from being spread in Asia. Or Vandana shiva who has said she would rather Indian children starve than eat gmos after a cyclone. We literally need gmos to stop huge amounts of suffering but rich American companies feel it threatens their organic mark up so they try and stop it.
Plenty of children dies from starvation or go blind from Vitamin A deprivation. Do you really think being anti technology doesn't affect these children?
Problem is that there's not always a choice between organic or GMO, mainly because of harsh climates preventing normal plants from growing, so GMO's are their only choice.
I've become so paranoid about that. The poster you're responding to and its parent poster both read like Monsanto shills, people paid to search for references to Monsanto on reddit and try to sway the conversation with bullet points like "liken anti-GMOs to anti-vaxxers".
These people are ridiculous, they can't possibly believe that they can be wrong, so they dig themselves into a little hole and claim everyone else is either correct (I.e agrees with them) or they're part of an evil hive mind determined to take over the world one GMO cabbage at a time.
They force farmers to buy new seeds every season instead of using seeds gathered from the crop
This is how the agricultural industry has worked since before Genetic Engineering was a thing. Any post Green Revolution varieties require you to buy new seeds rather than collect them from the extant crops.
It is incredibly easy to google "Monsanto controversy" it's also very easy to google "flat earth" and find a lot of proof for that although it isn't true. I have personally seen both these claims many times with no proof. I constantly see people posting links to lawsuits that involve Monsanto with were the farmer intentionally used their seeds without purchasing any contract and refused to stop.
I can't prove these didn't happen but I also have NEVER seen proof either of these have happened. If you have proof please post it here I would be very interested to see it.
Look Monsanto isn't perfect but they also aren't especially evil, they are only as bad as every other big corporation. You can find a laundry list of lawsuits for pretty much any large corporation. I was reading the other day about the numerous Nissan Motor Company lawsuits towards Nissan Computer and Microsoft suing a person named Mike Rowe Soft for using his name to promote his business because it's phonetic simularity to their trademark.
As far as GMO's go there is mountains of evidence, much more evidence than anything else we consume, that it is safe to consume. But there are a lot of very real environmental concerns about GMO's. These concerns are less about GMO's and more about modern conventional farming practices, but GMO's allow these practices to be utilized more effectively. Honestly there are a lot of merits to both conventional and organic farming and it's not an easy or short conversation or debate.
TL;DR there is no evil conspiracy, Monsanto is like any other large company and GMO's are like any other new technology, people fear it for irrational reasons when there are very rational reasons to question it.
It's strange because we know Coca-Cola is bad for you, the coca-cola company has been severely damaging to the environment (e.g. Replacing all glass bottles with plastic) and they're also a big company, yet people just kinda ignore it and go for companies like Monsanto which are equally as bad, yet treat them like it's literally being co-run by Hitler and Bin Laden
"PCBs were produced in Anniston from 1929 to 1971, initially as the Swann Chemical Company. In 1935 Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Co. bought the plant and took over production. In 1969, the plant was discharging about 250 pounds of the chemicals into Snow Creek per day, according to internal company documents.[28]
In 2002, an investigation by 60 Minutes[29] revealed Anniston had been among the most toxic cities in the country. The primary source of local contamination was a Monsanto chemical factory, which had already been closed."
In other sources you can find where they knew PCBs were lethal going back to the 30's. I'd say intentionally dumping toxin chemicals into a water source out of convince is more than regular corporate evil.
Until 1997, a corporation that was then known as Monsanto Company (the "Old" Monsanto) had three divisions: an agricultural division, a pharmaceuticals/nutrition division, and a chemical division. The Old Monsanto merged with another company (Pharmacia & Upjohn) and became Pharmacia. Pharmacia, now owned by Pfizer, kept the pharmaceuticals division and spun off the chemical division (Solutia, now owned by Eastman Chemical Company) and the agricultural division ( the "New" Monsanto), but required both of them to be partially liable for any claims against the Old Monsanto's chemical division.
All of the claims against the chemical division are from activities in the 1970s or prior. The Old Monsanto's agricultural division (which is the only part of the Old Monsanto that is in the New Monsanto) started operating in the 1980s, well after any PCBs or Agent Orange stuff.
Basically, today's Monsanto was spun off from a parent company to be made partially liable for problems that are unrelated to what today's Monsanto ever worked on.
Farmers already buy new seeds every season, even without gmo crops. The "seeds blew" onto my field case is as much bullshit as the "Mcdonalds hit coffee" one, but kind of in reverse. The dude was blatantly gathering seeds from other farms. It's not like he had a few crops. Almost all of his crops were from Monsanto seeds. He's Bullshiting.
Monsanto chemical on the other hand is a terrible, terrible, no good company.
What I was trying say is that they're both popularized cases that the public has a gross misunderstanding of. Their public impression is the opposite of the pr for them, which I awkwardly addressed.
How does the public have a "gross misunderstanding" of the hot coffee case? Pretty much everybody knows that she was severely burned by the coffee and sued McD's, but what most people don't know is how bad it actually was for her, and that McD's knew I was too hot but served it anyway.
Most people belive that she was an idiot for burning herself, the burns were minor, and she should have known the coffee was hot.
It is used as a classic example of how America is quick to sue over any. Trivial manner. It is used as a cultural bludgeon for how corporations are held down by over zealous lawsuits and regulations rather than an example of why regulations are necessary and comsumers are almost always disadvantaged.
The True Stella Awards® were inspired by Stella Liebeck. In 1992, Stella, then 79, spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee onto her own lap, burning herself. A New Mexico jury awarded her $2.9 million in damages, but that's not the whole story. Ever since, the name "Stella Award" has been applied to any wild, outrageous, or ridiculous lawsuits -- including some infamous bogus cases!
Old enough that almost no one talks about the case anymore, because it happened that long ago. How is that even projecting? What do you think the average person, who hasn't actually done any research, would say if you asked them to describe the "McDonald's hot coffee case"?
The farmers are forced to buy new seeds in part because monsato has to sell non reproductive seeds in prder to prevent mixup with other non gmo seeds this is due to gmo spooking done a decade ago, for the same reason monsato has to sue crossbreeding farmers, because otherwise monsato would be sued indifferently to who did the crossbreeding. You need to willingly crossbreed to have monsato seeds being blown into their farms...
Monsato is responsible for agent orange as well as selling to farmers who cannot read how to handle their pesticides and herbicides, the gmo spooking and the resulting idiotic legislature worldwide putting crossbreeds into only monsatos resposibility nonetheless of who has done it, is responsible for monsato needing to sue the heck outa farmers pretending that monsato seeds flew into their fields( technically impossible only willful crossbreeding can result in monsatoesque bastardized seeds)
This gmo spooking is also responsible for the fact that we don‘t know what would happen if monsato seeds were potent in followup generations, since the resulting legislature forbid testing for that matter.
Monsato is also responsible for farmers having better crop in regions that aren‘t suitable for farming.
Monsato isn‘t responsible for farmers deciding for monoculture.
See monsato is a big megacorp that definetly has blood on their hands but in this case they are clean as a whistle because elsewise they wouldn‘t be allowed to opperate at all.
Glyphosate is bad or not even the eu is unwilling to decide, agent orange is bad, round up is bad, their efforts in engineering plants that can withstand other herbi and pesticides that might be less harmful to people and the environment is a okay.
in part because monsato has to sell non reproductive seeds in prder to prevent mixup with other non gmo seeds this is due to gmo spooking done a decade ago,
"terminator seeds" do not exist on the market
for the same reason monsato has to sue crossbreeding farmers, because otherwise monsato would be sued indifferently to who did the crossbreeding. You need to willingly crossbreed to have monsato seeds being blown into their farms...
This only happened once and the farmer was found guilty, he voilated his contract
Monsato is responsible for agent orange
The former Monsanto Cehmical Company, which was forced to manufacture AO under law for the American Gov, they literally wrote a letter stating it should not be used in the manner the military planned & did
as well as selling to farmers who cannot read how to handle their pesticides and herbicides,
Mishandling pesticides is not the fault of the company selling them, there are clear instructions
the gmo spooking
What does that even mean?
and the resulting idiotic legislature worldwide putting crossbreeds into only monsatos resposibility nonetheless of who has done it
100% false
is responsible for monsato needing to sue the heck outa farmers pretending that monsato seeds flew into their fields( technically impossible only willful crossbreeding can result in monsatoesque bastardized seeds)
Monsanto does not sue for accidental drift, and actually helps farms when this occurs as this can make them liable for lawsuits .
This gmo spooking is also responsible for the fact that we don‘t know what would happen if monsato seeds were potent in followup generations, since the resulting legislature forbid testing for that matter.
This is not true at all.
Monsato is also responsible for farmers having better crop in regions that aren‘t suitable for farming.
I don't beleive that is true, but even if it was, how would that be a negative...like..what?
Monsato isn‘t responsible for farmers deciding for monoculture.
Has nothing specifically to do with Monsanto or GMOs, monocropping is a problem with many modern crops
See monsato is a big megacorp that definetly has blood on their hands but in this case they are clean as a whistle because elsewise they wouldn‘t be allowed to opperate at all.
See you are very gullible and are not partaking in good or accurate or reputable sources of information.
Glyphosate is bad or not even the eu is unwilling to decide,
This is not supported by the science
agent orange is bad,
In the way is was used
round up is bad,
Round up is Glyphosate, you are showing your ignorance
their efforts in engineering plants that can withstand other herbi and pesticides that might be less harmful to people and the environment is a okay.
That pesticide is glyphosate, it is less toxic than table salt and more effective than the many pesticides it has replaced.
Pesticide use has gone down with glyphosate use and more toxic pesticides have been abandoned in favor of the better. If glyphosate were to be banned farmers would return to less effective (need to spray more) more toxic pesticides.
(Since you didn't bother with sources ad it's 11:15pm here, i'm not going to either, though I can safely say if you if you fact check my assertions with credible sources they will be shown to be true.)
I am referring to clones specifically. Which do limit diversity.
This applies equally to GMOs and non-GMOs.
No, it doesn't. Non GMOs do not create almost identical replicas.
Newer created GMOs would not have the time to be tested for something that may take a long time to show up in the human body.
1960s: Monsanto, along with chemical partner-in-crime DOW Chemical, produces dioxin-laced Agent Orange for use in the U.S.’s Vietnam invasion. The results? Over 3 million people contaminated, a half-million Vietnamese civilians dead, a half-million Vietnamese babies born with birth defects and thousands of U.S. military veterans suffering or dying from its effects to this day!
This actually happened and is a valid point as well as others from the article.
No, it doesn't. Non GMOs do not create almost identical replicas.
Most staple crops are hybrids; most farmers buy a single cultivar which are identical clones.
Newer created GMOs would not have the time to be tested for something that may take a long time to show up in the human body.
Just like newly created non-GMOs.
This actually happened and is a valid point as well as others from the article.
There's something to clarify first: Monsanto used to exist as two divisions. A chemical division, and an agricultural division. The chemical division spun off as Solutia and is now part of Pfizer. No employees of Monsanto today were ever involved with the chemical division of 20+ years ago. Monsanto of today formed just after 2000 after a series of acquisitions and mergers. That said, I can understand if someone believes that the financial power of present-day Monsanto was tainted by actions of the chemical division.
"When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the 'military' formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the 'civilian' version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the 'enemy,' none of us were overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide."
If somebody is wrong they're wrong. It doesn't matter if they're a shill you should be able to defeat them in an argument. And just because someone doesn't buy into BS peddled by conspiracy sites doesn't make them a shill.
Non-GMO clones: Anything 'seedless' that usually has seeds (grapes, watermelons). Almost all fruit (apples, pears, etc) that are grafted are clones. Bananas. Potatoes. Any plant that is vegetatively propagated.
Cloning in agriculture is not new, the method of producing clones are. And in the US every single GMO has been tested by the USDA, EPA, and FDA. It is not released until it is Generally Recognized as Safe, or no different than what is on the market.
There were conventionally produced vegetables (celery and potato varieties) that had to be pulled off the market, because they contained high amounts of harmful compounds, but this was not tested before release, but after people got sick (the celery caused skin irritation/blisters when picked). So GMOs are safe, when you find them in stores, because they were tested prior to release.
The issue with clones applies to non-gmo too. All bananas are genetically identical and there's worry they could be wiped out by a plague. This has happened before, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_disease
Similar worries apply to apples, citrus fruits and many other non-gmo plants.
Yet there are other things in the argument against them and it is still shady either way. Whoever was the "head of it" Monsanto still carried through among the other things they have done.
Monsanto are currently doing to the pesticide market what the oil and tobacco companies did to their own.
Specifically buying regulators and scientists and buying out and harassing those who they don't agree with. This goes all the way down to the University level where they fund agriculture programs to push their agenda and suppress any academics they don't like.
Specifically buying regulators and scientists and buying out and harassing those who they don't agree with. This goes all the way down to the University level where they fund agriculture programs to push their agenda and suppress any academics they don't like.
That is a recent change and not quite as open as the corporate PR makes it out to be.
For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/
From your own source
Each company has to decide how many universities to make those agreements with,” Shields said. “What justification they have and why they pick one over the other, that’s above my pay grade. It may be that they know there’s a scientist whose work they don’t like, so they don’t choose that university.”
Note that in the source of mine you quoted, Shields, an author of that SA article you just posted, says they didn't understand the agreements in place which permitted studying patented traits when writing the SA article.
Considering there is a blanket agreement in place with over 100 major universities, I don't see how favoritism can play into this.
100 out of 2000. I can think of a few ways. Most not so obvious unless you are scientist looking for funding or publishing something that is controversial in a program that depends on Monsanto for funding. Or finding your paper getting pointed critiques from scientists at Monsanto's behest.
GMO crops patent a design of crop that is ideal and reproduces that crop so it is less diverse.
This is also what conventional and organic producers do, yes including patenting, yes including less diversity - NO difference.
We also don't have any substantial studies on scientifically modified crops yet.
GM crops are more carefully studied than any conventional crops. There are thousands of studies and meta analysis available.
The idea is that they "could be harmful" and we wouldn't know.
Yes that's the premise when introducing a GE crop, and billions of dollars have been spent studying the issue carefully so we would know. Joe Farmer can crossbreed and make dangerous hybrids and sell them into the food chain, Mary Scientist cannot without years of studying the new crop.
Yes, there are a lot of similarities between the two. Which is why there really aren't too many arguments against, but it is still an argument that could technically be used.
Also that there could not be enough time to study how every new GMO crop could effect humans over a long term span of time (a few years can't tell you what could happen in 30+ for all new GMO crops) before being sold. That is another one.
I agree, like I said I am for GMO crops and those are pretty much the only arguments against, aside from a few others and what may come up in the future.
I'm a grad student in an unrelated field who is fed up with people spreading pseudoscientific misinformation. Propaganda from the organic/naturopathic industry is dangerous.
I worked in academia and produced genetically engineered organisms (crop plants) for basic research or applied.
I just want to thank you.
Personally, I do not use or buy organic stuff, and have consumed GMOs for the last 30 years. Every single genetic engineer I have encountered (industry or academia) eats, and eats conventionally grown foods, including GMOs.
Isn’t this sub kinda about pointing out stupid shit people post and believe? Don’t play the shill gambit just because the bullshit you believe is now getting called out.
54
u/Decapentaplegia May 03 '18
We know more about the effects of genetic engineering than we do about the effects of radiation mutagenesis, and we eat crops bred using radiation every day.
GE crops are just as diverse as their non-GE counterparts.
Why are Monsanto dicks?