GMOs: Yes or No?

[Aragorn]

@Beyond_Beyond

The companies like Monsanto own the intellectual property of the GM food> You pay for seed and can grow it, but you don’t own the seed?

A large portion of my relatives are farmers, and the situation is a good bit more complex than you posted. That said, Monsanto is deservedly in hot water over their enforcement practices and the legal enforcement side of things is where I have the strongest criticisms of the industry by far. They have not behaved well.

@Beyond_Beyond

Like a lot of stuff these days the push for this kind of invention comes from the companies rather than from the consumers,

This has pretty much always been true, for centuries. This is nothing new to GMO.

@Beyond_Beyond

I don’t like having a product forced on me by stealth.

I can agree with this sentiment. This is pretty much the only reason I would consider support GMO labels on foods.

@Beyond_Beyond

currently aren’t enough to convince me that there is a advantage for the average person.

The results are increased availability and lower cost. For many, that’s all very advantageous.

[Beyond_Beyond]

Hey Drew, Re variety: Variety has been a problem not specific to GMO, but more to the industrialization of farming. You get more availability, but you don’t necessarily get more quality.I can’t see GMO doing anything to help the situation and I believe it will become even more standardised and limited. Why? Because it the big companies who decide what is going to be on offer. It makes it easier for them to have as few practical options as they think is viable. eg Many domesticated herd animals like cattle, are artificially inseminated, rather than breeding directly in the field.AS takes less time and the grower has more control over the process. You get more variety if you have several good, but different bulls breeding with a herd of cows rather, than just relying on #1 jazzed bull semen. Variety = risk, sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn’t. Its not as safe as a standardised limited option.

Then we have cloning animals, yes not necessarily GMO but related and can and will become more prevalent, in the GMO process. By virtue of cloning say a GMO cow, you will essentially be eating the same cow. Its great for consistent results when it works, easier for the farmer. but = less variety for the consumer. The majority of farmers move to the new more efficient methods, because to stay with the old they can’t compete. Certain breeds whether animal or vegetable will be forgotten, the only place you might be able to get them is in fore minded persons garden, or hobby farm.

Have you noticed that every flower sold at a florist, looks the same? Its because they are breed from the same stock, rather than random pollination. Go to a keen gardeners place and you can see the variety in the same species of flowers eg like a rose. They actually bloom rather than stay like a perpetual just past the bud stage. Every red rose from a shop will look exactly the same as every other rose all across the country. Pretty boring to me, maybe not for sheeples that don’t know any better.

Re invention comment: Yes you could say that about any invention, but you can judge on a case by case basis, on if its a worthwhile change, if you are already happy with a product.
Its not GMO or farming but think Microsoft Windows and how they seem to change elements for the sake change with the latest editions. The changes can be less efficient, less user friendly despite that being the opposite of their intentions. Its usually some bright spark in a position of power, that wants to make a name for themselves, putting their own individual stamp on things without having properly thought things through. The end result is the consumer complains about the product and next edition they go back to the tried and tested methods.

Re: results. What would convince me… independent scientific results, that can demonstrate at the very least no harm being done, or an honest assessment of risk vs reward, so I can make an informed judgement. I’m afraid just trust me I’m doing it for your own good won’t cut it.

Not saying GMO is all bad, its more about wanting to know the truth. Not just the results are important, but the lack of care that seems to be done, just trust me attitude,then the neighbouring farms start to have their crops contaminated with GMO, by default.
Its the same attitude as a mining company that mines near a water catchment. They will always tell you there is no risk of runoff, or no mess is created. Then when an accident occurs and water reserves are polluted, they can’t unring the bell, and sometimes no matter how much money you throw at a problem it can’t be satisfactorily resolved.

[Beyond_Beyond]

Hi Aragorn, Would you elaborate on the complexities you mentioned that your farmer relatives have experienced? Sounds interesting.

[Drew1411]

@Beyond_Beyond

I can’t see GMO doing anything to help the situation and I believe it will become even more standardised and limited

If GMOs make crops that were previously only able to grow in a specific region able to grow elsewhere, it would increase variety. Big companies aren’t the only ones who would be able to utilize GMO developments. It can help local organic farmers as well with industrialized farmers.

@Beyond_Beyond

Yes you could say that about any invention, but you can judge on a case by case basis, on if its a worthwhile change, if you are already happy with a product.

Agreed, if people don’t like the product (food in this case) they will not purchase it. You mentioned Windows, they made a change people didn’t like and had to pivot or lose customers.

@Beyond_Beyond

independent scientific results, that can demonstrate at the very least no harm being done, or an honest assessment of risk vs reward, so I can make an informed judgement

have you tried to search? This took roughly 5 seconds on google:

The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study

After two decades of GMOs, scientists find they live up to their promise

“This analysis confirms that not only do GMOs pose no risk to human health, but also that they actually could have a substantive positive impact on it.”

[Beyond_Beyond]

I read your suggested articles, they point towards positive, encouraging results for GMO’s. Most of what was said was reasonable, but they were articles about scientific studies. That’s very important because most people don’t want to read an extensive study, so its a good way to dip your toes into the water, and maybe follow up with the original study if it raises some questions either pro or con.

These types of articles assume that the writer has an unquestionable comprehension of the study, and that the original study was conducted rigorously, and was peer reviewed. Not saying that these articles are wrong in any way,but I don’t know who paid for the research, or whether the person funding the research has a bias either for or against.
Unless you read the original study you won’t know how accurately they assessed the study, and whether they left out pertinent information. You also don’t necessarily know if the articles authors have a bias , like who pays them, and owns the publication.

In this day and age there is so much money spent on PR, advertising, and the psychology of how to make people buy a product. Politicians get lobbied heavily and decisions can be made that are not necessarily in the best interest of the general public.
Its in the average persons interest to be sceptical. There is a long history of pseudo science being used to market products, whether it be food, drugs, supplements, cosmetics, exercise equipment… Not saying that GMO’s are all necessarily bad. Just that there is a broader picture, where its not all good, or all bad. Its up to an individual to make the choice for themselves, and not have a decision forced upon .