Why People Oppose GMOs Even Though Science Says they're Safe

In before Bigtexxx and "low information eaters"

 

Its worrisome that the science that says its safe is mostly sponsored by Monsanto. Hurting bio diversity is a problem, drowning the soil and plants with pesticides are a problem, patterning seeds and plants, making it against the law to demand labels, having multiple Monsanto workers running the FDA, this list goes on for me on why I personally am against GMO's.

 

You do know that it's the non-GMO produce that requires more pesticides, right? GMO has been responsible for lots of biodiversity through cross-breeding. It's just done in a lab instead of in nature now.

The only legislation with GMOs that I care about is the economics: patenting plants and how it affects agriculture.

 

I don't think this is accurate. I believe there are GMO that is more resilient to whatevercides and so more of those can be used. Not sure what's the consequences of using more of those.

 

Amongst corporate welfare queens _ probably the most handouts goes towards agricultural subsidies which is straight cash directly from us tax payers to the pockets of these big companies that practically have a monopoly on the food market...

So you should suggest stop giving those guys free money 1st before making that statement.

 

The weeds develop resistance to pesticides regardless of GMO or non-GMO. With the GMO type, farmers can use synthetic pesticides which have shown no harmful effects to humans. With the non-GMO type, farmers use natural pesticides which are generally more harmful than synthetics.

Which would you rather eat?

 

Neither, organic.

If the soil and plants healthy enough, it will protect its self from disease.

 

I prefer to eat food, particularly yummy one that won't cause me harm.

I don't know what they use, but I believe all pesticides are non-food. Synthetics pesticides sound like man-made chemical mixtures. I'm quite sure I don't want those stuff in my body. The natural pesticides, I thought is the exact opposite - it's less harmful.

You can't weight it just against direct effects on humans, and there are direct effects on humans. There are also consequences to the environment, bio diversity, etcs. The costs of using these things aren't cheap to the public either. Probably run into the Billions each year. As you use more of it, the cost should increase.

 

Then you can pay the premium for that. But you can't feed a world on "organically grown" crops.

It's like the people who oppose fluoride in water because they're afraid of chemicals with no understanding of its biochemistry. Let's get some #t-dazzle or H2Flow in here.

Natural pesticides are found in much higher concentrations on organically grown produce than synthetic pesticides on GMOs. Being natural does not make it more benign to human consumption.

 

Disagree, IMO feeding the world organically would be the most beneficial, ethical, sustainable and healthful thing to do for both humans and the environment . We've done it since the start of the mankind outside of the last 80 years or so.

 

How? How is that possible? You're telling me that there were successful and bountiful plants before the industrial revolution?

 

Ah, no. Fluoride kill you after a certain amount. It's highly regulated to an allowable limit. Below that, the benefits outweigh the risks.

I don't there is any benefit to consuming pesticides. It's solely an economic benefit with increased yield. Most food have at least some traces of it and consumers aren't that great at removing them. If you eat at restaurant, chances you are gulping them down.

There are GMO that require less pesticides. Of the GMO, that's the one that should be pushed fwd,not the one that take more pesticides.

 

What the hell are you even talking about? What does any of that have to do with anything?

 

Well, yeah, but water kills you after a certain amount, too. Pesticides are highly regulated to an allowable limit for consumption before they reach the shelves, so what's the problem? Everything in life is a chemical, yet that word has such a negative connotation to the ignorant masses.

Pesticides, in the amount that are currently consumed, have shown no harmful effects. Natural pesticides are consumed at rates much higher than synthetic pesticides but only synthetic pesticides have a bad rep because people believe natural is better for you, but it's not always.

And it'd be great if all agriculture didn't require pesticides to grow, but they do. So what we can do is make sure that it's safe in the amounts that are consumed, and those amounts are safe.

 

I have no problem with GMO. I have a problem with GMOs who's purpose is to enable farmers to spray round-up all over my food so they can save a few bucks.

 

I don't think they are pro-global warming but rather people who are painting a sunny side of the inevitable.

 

This is what people used to say about global warming. Some still say it.

We've simply learned that a fundamental alteration of nature has a tendency to produce bad results, so it's no wonder that we are uncomfortable with it and we should be. We have learned this though our life experiences, through other sciences and been warned about it through Jesus and Muhammad and Moses. It's not impossible that GMO's may be fine, but there should be a HEAVY burden of solid proof on those producing it. It's not enough to say "seems fine at the moment". We're not lab rats.

 

There's quite a benefits to health with water. Until there is an alternative, there is a benefit to health with fluoride. There is no health benefit, just health risks, cost to the public and other consequences with pesticides. See the differences?

You want to reduce, not increase the use of pesticides.

 

GMOs can reduce pesticide usage to zero. That alone is reason why people should be informed. It's easy for us, in this country, to spout off about food production but in poorer areas of the world GMOs could also be the difference between starvation and eating.

 

Health benefits are that lower-middle income people don't pay higher prices and have a larger variety of fruits and vegetables to choose from.

In that article I never knew what bt was. It's a toxin that bacteria "naturally" produced which researchers later discovered and spliced into plants. So the "organic" variety of natural pesticides are pretty much a variant in distribution (bacteria vs. GM).

It's pretty interesting insight on how we can't make blanket or binary judgement on one broad category.

I would totally agree that some pesticides used in the past are wildly carcinogenic/teratogenic/straight up poison but the labeling debate hasn't reached that far...