What do you think of GMO's?

[Minimalist]

GMOs most assuredly have some potential benefit. The problem comes in when you put that power into the hands of corporate scumbags like Monsanto and the judges they own.

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

Supreme Court hands Monsanto victory over farmers on GMO seed patents, ability to sue

[c172]

I never had an opinion of them, until I saw FB-friend Rebecca Vitsmun (of CNN post-tornado Wolf Blitzer interview fame) was a member of the FB page "GMOLOL", which is decidedly pro-GMO. So, I decided why the heck not. Frankly I'd have pegged her as anti-GMO, not sure why.

Stuff I've learned on that page has me convinced that GMO's are a very good thing if you let them be. But it's up to us.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unfortunately the dicks in that one were the "farmers" preemptively filing suit for legal assurances. Not that Monsanto doesn't go douchemode on a regular basis. That just wasn't one of those times. They've only sued a farmer on the grounds claimed in the lawsuit once. It was a such a big deal they have a smear page dedicated to him on their website....here, for kicks. http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/...eiser.aspx

(just for flavor, for those who don't feel like abusing their eyelids with monsanto ad copy - they're dicks, but yeah..the guy was a thief...lol. He availed himself of $15K worth of product. He appealed twice, all the way to the canadian supreme court. All three rulings were in favor of Monsanto. He's now an Anti-GMO posterboy, does lectures, receives awards left and right, had a documentary made about him........it's all pretty amusing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser)

Frankly, focusing on Monsanto as an "agribusiness" that "sues farmers" goes a long way toward deflecting criticism and opinion on why Monsanto is shit in reality. Several of their factories are superfund sites, they have an abysmal saftey track record, and have - without a doubt, profiteered from pollution that they intentionally created in order to manufacture a market. They have a history of deceptive labeling and marketing, and devote a fair few pennies to buying legislators so they can write in bills that directly benefit them within their own industries. They're an exceedingly shitty -chemical- company...that uses biotech to increase their chemical sales market and as a PR tool. Their legal dept assassinates competition so that they can buy out, rather than compete - and it's clear that they miss the monopolous days of yesteryear.

[Clueless Morgan]

Oregon has a law up for vote here in November on GMO labeling and some of the commercials against the bill cite all the exceptions that wouldn't have to be labeled but that do count as GMO. That raises the question form me of: if a food product has been modified by humans tinkering with its genome or breeding for certain properties, does that all count as GMO?

Does the centuries or millennia of humans cultivating corn to become the product we know and think of as modern corn count? If not, why not? Selective breeding modifies the genome, it just happens over a longer period of time than the tinkering done in a lab.

One of the modifications often made in GMO produce is so that the plant is more "naturally" pest resistant (I.e. we wouldn't have to rely so heavily on chemical pesticides). Thus there can potentially be a huge overlap between organic produce and GMO which could send the nature nuts into a tizzy- they want to buy organic because it's "healthier" but that would push them into buying more GMO foods which they are against because GMO foods aren't natural.

Can anti-GMO people produce scientifically rigorous studies that conclude that GMO foods are more harmful than beneficial? All I've ever heard from them is, as already mentioned, naturalistic fallacies. If they can make their case with the fallacy I'm all ears but from what I know right now GMOs aren't anything to worry about in terms of health effects on those eating the food.

I could be wrong but that's what I know right now.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can anti-GMO people produce scientifically rigorous studies that conclude that GMO foods are more harmful than beneficial?

Sure, depending on what fulcrum you want to lay harmful and beneficial upon. GMO isn't very good for biodiversity (based on projected economic effects if nothing else) - even though it requires biodiversity as a toolkit. But thats -on farm- biodiversity (albeit of a global sort), not exactly teeming with multitudinous expressions of the wonder of life as-is....eh?

[Chas]

Can anti-GMO people produce scientifically rigorous studies that conclude that GMO foods are more harmful than beneficial?

Sure, depending on what fulcrum you want to lay harmful and beneficial upon. GMO isn't very good for biodiversity (based on projected economic effects if nothing else) - even though it requires biodiversity as a toolkit. But thats -on farm- biodiversity (albeit of a global sort), not exactly teeming with multitudinous expressions of the wonder of life as-is....eh?

You (and others) are conflating creating/using GMOs with misusing GMOs.

Your concern above is with monoculture - that's a dangerous thing GMO or not.

What are we talking about here? Biology, public policy, farming practices, patent policy, fear-mongering, what?

[The Grand Nudger]

We're talking about the nebulous bugbears of anti-GMO nuttery Chas.

-Patent policy is probably the most salient and reasonable fear regarding GMO. Ultimately, patents on things like cereal grains are -in the current environment- ultimately unenforceable. Monsanto sees this as the iceberg that could sink their titanic. They lobby governments to enact patent policies which would allow them to press their rights long after any reasonable control had been lost over their product due to it's very nature. It's easier to contain GMO corn or soy legally than it is with biotech "kill genes". Some groups take the position that the sorts of things that would allow for control of GMO crops have potentially serious ramifications for patent policy.

[Minimalist]

Not if you're a Christian.

Luckily for me, I'm not!

[Jenny A]

The question is way too broad. Anyone who thinks all GMOs are bad is not thinking or at least not thinking past the initial knee jerk. I'm sure at some point one or more GMO's will do some damage somewhere to something.

[Anomalocaris]

Can anti-GMO people produce scientifically rigorous studies that conclude that GMO foods are more harmful than beneficial?

Sure, depending on what fulcrum you want to lay harmful and beneficial upon. GMO isn't very good for biodiversity (based on projected economic effects if nothing else) - even though it requires biodiversity as a toolkit. But thats -on farm- biodiversity (albeit of a global sort), not exactly teeming with multitudinous expressions of the wonder of life as-is....eh?

Actually, modern agriculture is terrible for genetic and biodiversity. Most economically significant crops are genetically virtually identical across the globe. The ancestral wild plant often show more genetic diversity within several acres of their natural environment than their descendant crop plant show across all the farms in the whole world. See potatoes.

The question is would GMO make it significantly worse.