6 ms·

This author has a history of being on the wrong side of science, and fear mongers on the harms of GMO. For example: http://www.foodrenegade.com/peru-bans-monsa

by lemevi 11y ago

This author has a history of being on the wrong side of science, and fear mongers on the harms of GMO. For example: http://www.foodrenegade.com/peru-bans-monsanto-gmos/ http://www.foodrenegade.com/peru-bans-monsanto-gmos/ Just google GMO and this blog: https://www.google.com/search?q=GMO+site%3Afoodrenegade.com https://www.google.com/search?q=GMO+site%3Afoodrenegade.com

MrGando 11y ago
I concede that it's very unlikely to taste the difference between a GMO/non-GMO tomato. But are you okay with Montsanto's practices? There's good science that basically explains that their business model is not doing the best for the planet or the people living in it. It is, indeed reducing bio-diversity as far as I know. Also, their practices are super shady, having lived in latam all my life, I saw the way they got into several countries there and it's disgusting.
- lemevi 11y ago
  Genetically modified foods are not any more harmful than regular foods. If you have a problem with Montsanto then talk about Montsanto, and not spread fear and doubt about a technology that is wholly beneficial and may lead to many lives saved.
  - MrGando 11y ago
    I'm not talking about GMO being more harmful than regular foods. I am, indeed, making a point about Montsanto. There's much, much more than meets the eye about GMOs, how Montsanto is using the seeds and the actual repercussions of it. The debate, is not around 'GMOs being more harmful', at all.
eadz 11y ago
Being Anti-GMO doesn't make someone on the wrong side of science. The dangers of GMO from a economic perspective are worthy of worry on their own. If you haven't seen Food Inc, then I would recommend that as a starting point to learn how dangerous the monopolisation of the food industry can be to society. The farmers in Peru want to protect their existing biodiversity, something North America has lost thanks to Monsanto, where you cannot legally grow a heirloom corn crop without paying patent fees to monsanto because of the inevitable wind-born cross pollination, thereby violating monsanto patent rights.
- lemevi 11y ago
  Like the other commentator, the stated problems in your comment have nothing to do with GMO, they are a problem with a specific company and patent politics. I don't like software patents but I don't go around telling people software is dangerous and that they shouldn't use software.
  - eadz 11y ago
    If the software was a virus that infected other software you might. Unfortunately the biggest GMO companies in the world have given GMO foods a bad name. While GM technology does have hope for the future, like AI, it also poses risks. We need to take those risks seriously, and dismissing people anti-GM as being anti-science is FUD on your part. There are dangers of eating GM food, but that doesn't mean the dangers come from the genes themselves. GM food such as roundup ready crops can have increased herbicide residue compared to non-GM crops. We live in a world of corporate funded "science", so being skeptical of claims of 100% safety for GM organisms released into the wild isn't anti-science, it's just using the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action. I think that is the correct approach to GM. The potential risks if things go wrong are huge and irreversible, wheres the need for GM food (if any) doesn't justify that risk until we have better scientific consensus.
    - lemevi 11y ago
      What you're saying sounds like that in the absence of evidence that GMO causes harm you're just going believe whatever you want. There's no scientific basis to suspect GMO of causing harm to anything. Your suspicions are based on a big company being involved and oh my god it's made by people. Nature good, people bad. I don't share this sentiment. Aflotoxin is made by nature, it is bad for you. Very very bad. It occurs in everyday food. GMO has been shown by research to mitigate the presence of aflotoxin. GMO is a product of people. If they put GMO labels on stuff, I will be happy, because I will eat the GMO stuff. You can have your organic local peanut butter with its aflotoxins. Also nobody forced farmers to by the GMO crops, they're buying it for a reason. They're buying it because it's good.
CodeWriter23 11y ago
These other, more mainstream outlets share a similar story: HuffPo (complete with a letter from a OJ Industry Group PR Rep that does not refute anything in the article, just tries to reframe) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/100-percent-orange-juice-artificial_n_913395.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/100-percent-orange-... The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/ask-an-academic-orange-juice http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/ask-an-academic-o... The Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2011/07/29/oj-flavor-packs/ http://consumerist.com/2011/07/29/oj-flavor-packs/ Gizmodo http://gizmodo.com/5825909/orange-juice-is-artificially-flavored-to-taste-like-oranges http://gizmodo.com/5825909/orange-juice-is-artificially-flav...
JabavuAdams 11y ago
One reason that people are against GMO is that they don't trust the system that makes GMO. The kind of labelling games pointed out in the article are one reason why. From a purely scientific standpoint, I'm for GMO, but I have to admit that I don't really know what's in the industrial food I buy. Worse, it's in the food industry's best interest to obfuscate, and it would be foolish to think that the GMO industry is any different.

by lemevi 11y ago

MrGando 11y ago

I concede that it's very unlikely to taste the difference between a GMO/non-GMO tomato. But are you okay with Montsanto's practices? There's good science that basically explains that their business model is not doing the best for the planet or the people living in it. It is, indeed reducing bio-diversity as far as I know. Also, their practices are super shady, having lived in latam all my life, I saw the way they got into several countries there and it's disgusting.

lemevi 11y ago
Genetically modified foods are not any more harmful than regular foods. If you have a problem with Montsanto then talk about Montsanto, and not spread fear and doubt about a technology that is wholly beneficial and may lead to many lives saved.
- MrGando 11y ago
  I'm not talking about GMO being more harmful than regular foods. I am, indeed, making a point about Montsanto. There's much, much more than meets the eye about GMOs, how Montsanto is using the seeds and the actual repercussions of it. The debate, is not around 'GMOs being more harmful', at all.

eadz 11y ago

Being Anti-GMO doesn't make someone on the wrong side of science. The dangers of GMO from a economic perspective are worthy of worry on their own. If you haven't seen Food Inc, then I would recommend that as a starting point to learn how dangerous the monopolisation of the food industry can be to society. The farmers in Peru want to protect their existing biodiversity, something North America has lost thanks to Monsanto, where you cannot legally grow a heirloom corn crop without paying patent fees to monsanto because of the inevitable wind-born cross pollination, thereby violating monsanto patent rights.

lemevi 11y ago
Like the other commentator, the stated problems in your comment have nothing to do with GMO, they are a problem with a specific company and patent politics. I don't like software patents but I don't go around telling people software is dangerous and that they shouldn't use software.
- eadz 11y ago
  If the software was a virus that infected other software you might. Unfortunately the biggest GMO companies in the world have given GMO foods a bad name. While GM technology does have hope for the future, like AI, it also poses risks. We need to take those risks seriously, and dismissing people anti-GM as being anti-science is FUD on your part. There are dangers of eating GM food, but that doesn't mean the dangers come from the genes themselves. GM food such as roundup ready crops can have increased herbicide residue compared to non-GM crops. We live in a world of corporate funded "science", so being skeptical of claims of 100% safety for GM organisms released into the wild isn't anti-science, it's just using the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action. I think that is the correct approach to GM. The potential risks if things go wrong are huge and irreversible, wheres the need for GM food (if any) doesn't justify that risk until we have better scientific consensus.
  - lemevi 11y ago
    What you're saying sounds like that in the absence of evidence that GMO causes harm you're just going believe whatever you want. There's no scientific basis to suspect GMO of causing harm to anything. Your suspicions are based on a big company being involved and oh my god it's made by people. Nature good, people bad. I don't share this sentiment. Aflotoxin is made by nature, it is bad for you. Very very bad. It occurs in everyday food. GMO has been shown by research to mitigate the presence of aflotoxin. GMO is a product of people. If they put GMO labels on stuff, I will be happy, because I will eat the GMO stuff. You can have your organic local peanut butter with its aflotoxins. Also nobody forced farmers to by the GMO crops, they're buying it for a reason. They're buying it because it's good.

CodeWriter23 11y ago

These other, more mainstream outlets share a similar story: HuffPo (complete with a letter from a OJ Industry Group PR Rep that does not refute anything in the article, just tries to reframe) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/100-percent-orange-juice-artificial_n_913395.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/100-percent-orange-... The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/ask-an-academic-orange-juice http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/ask-an-academic-o... The Consumerist http://consumerist.com/2011/07/29/oj-flavor-packs/ http://consumerist.com/2011/07/29/oj-flavor-packs/ Gizmodo http://gizmodo.com/5825909/orange-juice-is-artificially-flavored-to-taste-like-oranges http://gizmodo.com/5825909/orange-juice-is-artificially-flav...

JabavuAdams 11y ago

One reason that people are against GMO is that they don't trust the system that makes GMO. The kind of labelling games pointed out in the article are one reason why. From a purely scientific standpoint, I'm for GMO, but I have to admit that I don't really know what's in the industrial food I buy. Worse, it's in the food industry's best interest to obfuscate, and it would be foolish to think that the GMO industry is any different.