Is opposition to genetically modified food irrational?

[royalscot]

Is opposition to genetically modified food irrational? - BBC News

On Saturday 23 May 2015, thousands of activists gathered across the world to demonstrate against genetically-modified (GM) seeds and foods. There were protests in cities including Los Angeles, Paris, Santiago and Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso.
Yet the majority of scientists argue that GM food is safe. A recent poll from the Pew Foundation found that almost 90% of scientists from America's largest science body think GM food is generally safe, while only 37% of the public agree.
Should we embrace technology that could help feed the world, or are concerns about the impact of global agribusiness and industrial food production justified?

"There's a bullying force emotionally blackmailing the world into believing that we need to adopt this technology if we're going to feed the world, but actually what it's creating is an ever bigger divide between the haves and have-nots.

For example, one bacterial disease wipes out much of the Ugandan banana crop every year. The Gates Foundation funds local scientists' attempts to develop a new resistant variety:


"This is work done by Ugandan scientists themselves on a crop that has no connection with large corporations.
"They did not invent genetic modification but they have taken the techniques and applied them to solve a local problem - and yet there are organisations that are fighting it because it's genetically modified.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Is opposition to genetically modified food irrational?

Yes.xxxxxx

 

[Angela53510]

Whether the food is bad for you is irrelevant. The toxic chemicals they use to grow these foods are not. I lived in a farming area, where GM canola was grown. A friend near me put in trees and a garden near a field where they were spraying the canola with RoundUp and other chemicals. The trees and the garden died. Mine was fine, because I was a few miles from the fields.

There are tens of thousands of farmers in India committing suicide over failed GMO crops. They paid a big price, and when the crop failed, because of lack of water (although the traditional crops survived) they chose to die, because they had no options.

I prefer not to eat poison. I prefer to eat food that is food, not a bug gene in the corn, or other things I would not eat spliced into the genetic DNA. But mostly, I think that it is best to stay away from poison which GMO crops were specifically designed to be used with.

As for feeding the world, not so much. The other down side, is the increase of resistant weeds, bugs and everything else.

GMOs Will Not Feed the World, New Report Concludes

I think GMO's are one of the biggest health crisis the world is facing. And not just in North America, but all over the world.

 

[Shannon50]

It depends how it is Genetically Modified. GMO has too broad a meaning, and possibly on purpose (in order to sell to an uninformed public) but the only reason I am somewhat informed is because a friend of mine was actually involved in the process.
I think that it should be advertised as what it is (in Canada, there are different barcodes for organic, reg. and GMO foods, I don't know about elsewhere) and let the consumer make choices on what to consume. However, in saying that, it is up to responsible governments to consider the safety and sustainability of these food products, as many citizens may not be in the position (financially or education wise) for decision-making regarding GMO products.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Whether the food is bad for you is irrelevant. The toxic chemicals they use to grow these foods are not. I lived in a farming area, where GM canola was grown. A friend near me put in trees and a garden near a field where they were spraying the canola with RoundUp and other chemicals. The trees and the garden died. Mine was fine, because I was a few miles from the fields.

I can't speak directly to this since I'm not privvy to the information you have, but herbicides and insecticides are perfectly safe to use on crops when applied properly. Again, not knowing the conditions under which they were applied, I can't say one way or another about this incident.

However, claiming the "toxic chemicals" used to control weeds and insects that steal nutrients from the crops or attack the crops directly is not sound science. It is hype and hyperbole. I grew up on a farm. I'm well aware of the dangers of such chemicals, but properly handled and applied, they are not dangerous to the health of plants, animals, or humans.

There are tens of thousands of farmers in India committing suicide over failed GMO crops. They paid a big price, and when the crop failed, because of lack of water (although the traditional crops survived) they chose to die, because they had no options.

Makes a nice story. No less than Prince Charles and The Daily Mail have repeated these stories. Problem: They aren't true.

I prefer not to eat poison.

Nor do I. That's no reason not to eat GMOs or crops treated with herbicides and insecticides. In fact, if you neglected to eat any of the above, you'd starve. You can't find any that aren't. Even "organically grown" crops have been treated with something you would probably think to be "toxic" in order to make certain they reach full maturity, size, and nutritional value. Before you openly and completely condemn GMOs, you might want to read 2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe To Eat And Environmentally Sustainable from the Wall Street Journal.

 

[mar09]

I prefer not to eat poison. I prefer to eat food that is food, not a bug gene in the corn, or other things I would not eat spliced into the genetic DNA. But mostly, I think that it is best to stay away from poison which GMO crops were specifically designed to be used with.

As for feeding the world, not so much. The other down side, is the increase of resistant weeds, bugs and everything else.

GMOs Will Not Feed the World, New Report Concludes

I think GMO's are one of the biggest health crisis the world is facing. And not just in North America, but all over the world.

Once i attended a f orum on golden rice, and understood simply that while so much research has been put on this, what is not emphasized is that vit.A deficiency (VAD) could be dealt with with naturally occuring green and yellow foods as sweet potato, yellow cassava, squash, etc, but researchers insist on producing golden rice where the vit A cannot actually be utilized as well after the rice is cooked. There;s a greenpeace publication in Oct '13, for those who have time to look, it may explain some things.
Golden Rice | Greenpeace Philippines

 

[NewWine]

For example, one bacterial disease wipes out much of the Ugandan banana crop every year. The Gates Foundation funds local scientists' attempts to develop a new resistant variety:


"This is work done by Ugandan scientists themselves on a crop that has no connection with large corporations.
"They did not invent genetic modification but they have taken the techniques and applied them to solve a local problem - and yet there are organisations that are fighting it because it's genetically modified.

Instead of creating a new form of Banana, why don't they focus on controlling the disease? Why change the food?

 

[maxwel]

I think some of the commenters on CC are genetically modified.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Instead of creating a new form of Banana, why don't they focus on controlling the disease? Why change the food?

They didn't "change the food." They made it more disease-resistant. It's still a banana.

 

[Omni]

Is opposition to genetically modified food irrational? - BBC News

Not really. The safety of their consumption is a secondary issue to the others. Cross-pollination is a bigger issue, and we have no idea how some GM crops, if they fertilize non-GM's, might affect an ecosystem. It's an issue because genetically modified seeds and plants can be patented and protected by what is essentially an application of copyright laws to foods. This gives the companies who produce these seeds and crops a distinct advantage in countries where GM's are legal; particularly when the GM's start to pollinate other crops.

These companies can sue farmers who are victims of accidental cross pollination, as-well as being able to sue against farmers who seed-save, and these practices ultimately end with these companies having a monopoly over food-production, like we see in the American corn industry and in farms all over South America.

If for-profit companies having huge monopolies over food production via subversion of the natural human right to utilize plant resources isn't bad enough, the pesticides needed to kill many GM crops are seriously harmful for human beings. Combine economic depression with companies who seek to completely monopolize the world food industry and you have a recipe for a world controlled by greedy corporations. Food is a natural human right, not a commodity, and seeds certainly should not be a thing a company can patent in the first place.

GM crops might not be hazardous to health, per se, but they are something far worse: a huge detriment to fundamental human freedoms. In my opinion, to farm food freely is not just a privilege of law, it is a birthright, and one that these companies are trying to undermine completely.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Not really. The safety of their consumption is a secondary issue to the others. Cross-pollination is a bigger issue, and we have no idea how some GM crops, if they fertilize non-GM's, might affect an ecosystem. It's an issue because genetically modified seeds and plants can be patented and protected by what is essentially an application of copyright laws to foods. This gives the companies who produce these seeds and crops a distinct advantage in countries where GM's are legal; particularly when the GM's start to pollinate other crops.

Your concerns are founded in nothing resembling facts. Farmers plant a crop for the first time, the tend it, water it, harvest it, and save about 5% of the seed to plant next year's crop. There is no ongoing profit for the seed companies of either GMO or non-GMO seed, because they only sell the seed once.

Secondly, pollen movement varies by crop. Corn and soybeans are the most widely planted GM crops in the United States, so we’ll focus there. Soybeans are nearly 100 percent self-pollinating, meaning there is little risk of cross-pollination or pollen flow from a field of GM soybeans to non-GM soybeans.

Corn pollination occurs during a short, approximately one-week period, and that period would have to overlap between two fields for there to be any potential for cross-pollination. In addition, corn pollen is relatively large and heavy compared with the pollen of other crops. That extra weight limits its movement even in gusty summer winds.

Local environmental factors, such as natural wind blocks, also may impact pollen movement. After corn pollen is shed from the tassel, the viability of that pollen declines rapidly.

Your "concerns" are just so much hooey.

 

[Omni]

Your concerns are founded in nothing resembling facts. Farmers plant a crop for the first time, the tend it, water it, harvest it, and save about 5% of the seed to plant next year's crop. There is no ongoing profit for the seed companies of either GMO or non-GMO seed, because they only sell the seed once.

Secondly, pollen movement varies by crop. Corn and soybeans are the most widely planted GM crops in the United States, so we’ll focus there. Soybeans are nearly 100 percent self-pollinating, meaning there is little risk of cross-pollination or pollen flow from a field of GM soybeans to non-GM soybeans.

Corn pollination occurs during a short, approximately one-week period, and that period would have to overlap between two fields for there to be any potential for cross-pollination. In addition, corn pollen is relatively large and heavy compared with the pollen of other crops. That extra weight limits its movement even in gusty summer winds.

Local environmental factors, such as natural wind blocks, also may impact pollen movement. After corn pollen is shed from the tassel, the viability of that pollen declines rapidly.

Your "concerns" are just so much hooey.

Monsanto, to name one company, create a genetically modified corn seed that they then patent. They sell these seeds to farmers who plant the crops, and who must then buy more seed from Monsanto for their next harvest, because the seed agreements come with strict anti-seed-saving clauses. If the farmer's buy organic seeds, or use organic seeds, the crops are much less resistant to the very pests that companies like Monsanto have, whether deliberately or inadvertently, caused to become highly resistant to the plethora of pesticides and such that they've been selling for years. Thus the need for stronger pesticides, and for GM crops that unlike organics, can withstand them.

It's not much different than how bad medical practices have led to serious antibiotic resistant bacteria, and ever more dangerous treatments. The animal-farming industry isn't exempt from blame either; look at how much antibiotics are pumped into meat products.

Farmers also suffer from globalized markets, which drive down the prices they receive for their crops. Many farmers, in order to stay in business, don't have much choice but to buy from companies like Monsanto, and this allows such companies to profit year-on-year from selling seeds to these buying farmers.

As for cross-pollination of GM to organic crop -- it can and does occur, and although Monsanto state on their website that they will not sue farmers who are victims of that cross-pollination so long as the contamination makes up less than 1% of total crop, it is actually quite probable that if an organic corn field sits near a GM field, that more than 1% of the organic crop will become contaminated.

Aside from that, the more fundamental issue with practices like this is that everyone must eat. It's not the same as a company patenting a luxury nonessential item that they've invented, like a TV or a games console -- it is a patent on foodstuffs, and it allows companies guaranteed incomes on guaranteed purchases, which is fundamentally unfair if we, as citizens of the Earth, wish to have a truly free market where our most essential purchases are concerned. If it were up to me, food would have long ago become a human right rather than a commodity for trade, for that very reason.

Plants, seeds, living organisms, hybrids, whatever -- these ought not to be patented items. It is an essential part of evolutionary progression (and an essential part of sustaining ever growing world populations) that plants and organisms are interbred, or that plants and organisms' physical characteristics change to adapt to different environments. Gene mutation occurs naturally, and if we can help it along, and in the process provide resistant crops to help feed an ever-growing human population, we should do so to the fullest extent possible, at the minimum cost to those in need of it.

Currently, that is not happening.