Could someone explain the GMO food thing to me??

[HollyDay]

I have a couple IRL gfs who are really upset over something about GMOs and something that went into law last week.(?)

 

I DO NOT WANT A POILITICAL DISCUSSION.

 

I just want to understand what this is all about. When I ask my IRL friends, they talk quite passionately about future health, empty foods, evils of wheat, etc., etc., etc.......It seems it is a very touchy subject for them. But, I don't know what it is about. Could someone clue me in?

[PachiSusan]

I will leave it to the experts on this one, but I can tell you that it really SHOULDN'T be political. We all eat, and we're all affected when people/corporations/government messes with our food stores.

[Shahrazad]

My little one hit the enter key before I finished this post :)

[HollyDay]

anyone???

[TXMary2]

I don't have much opinion on whether the food is harmful - we all die someday anyway. That said, I do take issue with the cronyism between Monsanto and the government (all administrations), the monopololizing and I am not cool with the fact that Monsanto regularly sues farmers.

[TravelingChris]

I believe that the legislation says that gmo foods can be planted before a fed court finishes ruling whether the crop is safe. I am not a person who would be against all genetically modified food simply because all crops really are- it just depends to what extent. I mean if Gregor Mendel bread for tall peas, that is causing changes in the seeds. But my problem with these is the non labeling of what is included. WHat a lot of people who aren't simply people who want organic, etc. want is to know that the pea plant now has corn genes in it or the apple has orange genes added. Those kind of issues can be super important to food allergy sufferers. There is also the problem of cross polination. IF farmer a plants GMO corn seeds and farmer b doesn't, farmer b who is next door to farmer a will get some plants with the GMO genes. Its because the method of pollination (with corn it is wind borne, but with some plants it is insect or birds), anyway, none of those things honor legal boundaries.

[WishboneDawn]

GMO foods have been bred for desired traits. A plus is more yield per acre, which means more people can be fed per acre. The negative is that the food might not be compatible with a particular body; for ex. in the book Wheat Belly the author contends that wheat is harmful to many, but it's precursor, einkorn, is not. A person is left to figure out their personal genetics vs what they are eating. For ex, many know they are celiac, lactose-intolerant, etc by how they feel after ingesting certain foods.

 

 

That's old fashioned husbandry and selective breeding. From Wikipedia, " GMOs have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques."

 

[Parrothead]

Wheat is not evil. GMO wheat is, IMO, problematic.

[Parrothead]

GMO foods have been bred for desired traits

 

 

This is not exactly true. GMO foods have been genetically altered. Take soy beans for example. Monsanto has genetically altered to be resistant to Round Up.

 

Some micro-organisms have a version of EPSPS that is resistant to glyphosate inhibition. One of these was isolated from an Agrobacterium strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS) that was resistant to glyphosate. This CP4 EPSPS gene was cloned and transfected into soybeans.

 

....

 

Transgenic plants have genes inserted into them that are derived from another species.

 

 

[Melissa in Australia]

one of the problems i Have with it is mostly they have been altered so they can be sprayed with more chemicals

 

I don't have a problem with selective breeding OVER TIME. but I feel that the rapid acceleration in the process is not giving time for adaption in the rest of the food chain. Basically I don't think that the company is looking at the big picture

 

the second thing I have problems with is how the company bullies farmers and forces them into buying their product

 

the third thing I have problems with is how the company then bullies other countries and forces them to plant their products

 

the fourth thing I have problems with is how they are "contaminating " the whole world with their products. soon there won't be any grain seed that isn't owned by them, controlled by them and modified by them anywhere in the world.

 

the fifth issues I have is the environmental impact of other species ~ look at bees as an example

 

I have a list of other issues as well that I cannot recall off the top of my head

 

then there is all the speculation and wanderings ~ is GMO food the big factor in the increased waist lines of people around the world? ~ Plus some political speculation on who is actually running America ~ plus some big conspiracy theories on the whole control thing

[Tammyla]

Please don't quote me, but I think the legislation was something to the effect of not holding the gmo companies liable for a period of time; they are already using gmo seeds all over the US.

 

Someone linked something here on the board a week or so ago. I'll see if I can find it. I can't link it, but you can do a search for...

 

Speaking of Monsanto posted by Elinor Everywhere

[Word Nerd]

Here's another perspective. There's been a lot of disinformation spread about this legislation. Opposition to it should at least be based on facts, not hyper-emotional exaggeration.

[bobbeym]

I have no problem with companies that take time to slowly hybridize multiple strains of a pea plant to come up with something new. If there weren't people to do things like that, we wouldn't have the variety of seeds we have.

 

What I do have issues with is companies (Monsanto being the largest) that purposely inject hazardous chemicals into particular crops so they can then spray the crop with more hazardous chemicals without worrying about said crop dying, and telling everyone it's safe to eat it without having done any short or long-term safety testing on it. Add in the fact that they appear to control certain government sectors in order to continue pushing these potentially unsafe crops on the market and then get away with bullying the small farmers that don't want to grow chemical-laden crops.

[Melissa in Australia]

I have no problem with companies that take time to slowly hybridize multiple strains of a pea plant to come up with something new. If there weren't people to do things like that, we wouldn't have the variety of seeds we have.

 

What I do have issues with is companies (Monsanto being the largest) that purposely inject hazardous chemicals into particular crops so they can then spray the crop with more hazardous chemicals without worrying about said crop dying, and telling everyone it's safe to eat it without having done any short or long-term safety testing on it. Add in the fact that they appear to control certain government sectors in order to continue pushing these potentially unsafe crops on the market and then get away with bullying the small farmers that don't want to grow chemical-laden crops.

:iagree:

[TravelingChris]

If you all read the article Word Nerd posted, you would find out that a) there have been no studies that have found any harms to the GMOs out there and B) in the case of alfalfa, the added genetic material (and I don't see how you can call that a dangerous chemical) makes the plant resistant to a mild herbicide, namely round-up.. SO instead of having to use more hazardous herbicides, the farmer planting the GMO alfalfa uses the same thing people use in their own gardens and yards.

[briansmama]

If you all read the article Word Nerd posted, you would find out that a) there have been no studies that have found any harms to the GMOs out there and B) in the case of alfalfa, the added genetic material (and I don't see how you can call that a dangerous chemical) makes the plant resistant to a mild herbicide, namely round-up.. SO instead of having to use more hazardous herbicides, the farmer planting the GMO alfalfa uses the same thing people use in their own gardens and yards.

 

Some GMOs are engineered to produce it's own insecticide, so yes, GMO seeds are often injected with poison. While it is currently unknown how toxic this is for humans, if it's toxic enough to kill insects, including bees, I'm not sure how anyone can claim GMOs are safe for human consumption.

[TravelingChris]

NO, it is not an insecticide. briansmama. It is bred to not be killed by a specific low harm herbicide. Herbicides kill plants. This plant doesn't kill anything, what it does is survive while Round-up is used around it to kill dandelions, etc.

 

But for that matter, you probably do eat plants that have insecticidal properties in them, naturally. Some herbs do and we eat them. We aren't insects and not everything that poisons or repels an insect does so to us. However, the GMO plants listed in the article were not bred to have any higher insect repellant properties.

 

Oh, and we can tell whether a plant is safe for humans or not by doing studies. That is what is called the scientific process. However, most of these changes don't even have any potential reason to be harmful. For example, one thing that people are trying to develop is wheat that is drought tolerant. There are other grasses that are much more drought tolerant than wheat. What they are trying to do, whether by GMO means or normal plant breeding means, is to cobine the elements of those other grasses that need less water with the wheat and still have wheat but one that needs less water.

[Laurie4b]

I thought GMO was different from hybrid crops, which has been used for years. I thought GMO was inserting genes into a crop, not cross-breeding. Is that incorrect?

[justamouse]

I disagree vehemently that they are not harmful (else why would Europe have banned them? And I have zip, zero, nada trust int he FDA and its incenstous relationship with Monsanto). I buy only grains that are labeled non GMO.

 

I've read too many studies that DH has sent my way, we're not taking the chance.

 

What pisses me off most is that I have that luxury. Many can't afford to keep the poison away.

[LisaKinVA]

GMO's are not "bred" they are created...in a lab...changing the DNA sequence (subbing part of the genetic code with a different piece from an unrelated species...think Jurassic Park, where they filled in part of the missing DNA with frog DNA...). Hybridization is a similar concept, but happens more naturally when two species that are similar enough to breed actually do (Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears...they used to believe these two distinct species could not breed, but they CAN.).

 

WRT the "Wheat Belly" example, all I have to say is that the problems with wheat pre-date the rapid hybridization hypotheses. Major problems actually began with the modern milling process (separating the parts), and the other major correlation is the *huge* increase in processed foods from the 70's-80's. I believe there is another hypothesis that also indicates that some of the changes we are seeing increase generationally (IOW, the first generation doesn't experience as many problems, but you get a couple of generations down and the problems are greatly magnified)

[Word Nerd]

I disagree vehemently that they are not harmful (else why would Europe have banned them?)

 

Because people like Mark Lynas demonized GMOs and drummed up emotional hysteria in Europe. He has since changed his tune.

[justamouse]

Because people like Mark Lynas demonized GMOs and drummed up emotional hysteria in Europe. He has since changed his tune.

 

 

 

You are welcome to eat all of them.

 

Don't want them. Don't like them. They are poison. I want my food labeled. I do not think that One Man is responsible for having all of the GMOs banned in Europe. We have chemists at work, we have a lab, a spectrometer, we deal with foods and vitamins all the time. Dh passes me studies to read all the time.

 

Really, I'm no dolt.

 

And that's not even bringing up the GMO drift, the bees (50% of all hives in the US died last year) and lack of pollination being a food problem.

 

A conclusive explanation so far has escaped scientists studying the ailment, colony collapse disorder, since it first surfaced around 2005. But beekeepers and some researchers say there is growing evidence that a powerful new class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids, incorporated into the plants themselves, could be an important factor.

 

 

 

 

 

Neonicotinoids are hardly the beekeepers’ only concern. Herbicide use has grown as farmers have adopted crop varieties, from corn to sunflowers, that are genetically modified to survive spraying with weedkillers. Experts say some fungicides have been laced with regulators that keep insects from maturing, a problem some beekeepers have reported.

 

 

 

 

Eric Mussen, an apiculturist at the University of California, Davis, said analysts had documented about 150 chemical residues in pollen and wax gathered from beehives.

 

 

“Where do you start?†Dr. Mussen said. “When you have all these chemicals at a sublethal level, how do they react with each other? What are the consequences?â€

 

Experts say nobody knows. But Mr. Adee, who said he had long scorned environmentalists’ hand-wringing about such issues, said he was starting to wonder whether they had a point.

 

Of the “environmentalist†label, Mr. Adee said: “I would have been insulted if you had called me that a few years ago. But what you would have called extreme — a light comes on, and you think, ‘These guys really have something. Maybe they were just ahead of the bell curve.’â€

 

 

 

 

 

[WishboneDawn]

I disagree vehemently that they are not harmful (else why would Europe have banned them? And I have zip, zero, nada trust int he FDA and its incenstous relationship with Monsanto). I buy only grains that are labeled non GMO.

 

I've read too many studies that DH has sent my way, we're not taking the chance.

 

What pisses me off most is that I have that luxury. Many can't afford to keep the poison away.

 

 

Pressure from an ill-informed populace? Ethical concerns around farming practices?

 

I haven't seen any studies supporting the idea that they're harmful or different nutritionally from non-GMO foods. That's not to say I have no issue with them but the issues aren't related to their value as a food.

[nmoira]

Golden rice

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate0/2013/02/gm_food_golden_rice_will_save_millions_of_people_from_vitamin_a_deficiency.html

 

 

"Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of genetically modified foods, so-called “golden rice†with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines. Over those 12 years, about 8 million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency. Are anti-GM advocates not partly responsible?"

 

Why yes, they are.

[justamouse]

Golden rice

 

http://www.slate.com...deficiency.html

 

 

"Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of genetically modified foods, so-called “golden rice†with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines. Over those 12 years, about 8 million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency. Are anti-GM advocates not partly responsible?"

 

Why yes, they are.

 

Why yes, all of us GMO opponents wanted 8 million children to die.

 

Excellent conclusion.

[nmoira]

 

 

Why yes, all of us GMO opponents wanted 8 million children to die.

 

Excellent conclusion.

 

The operative word is "partly." And yes, I wholeheartedly believe they are. Some of the stunts Greenpeace have pulled in the Philippines (and elsewhere) are shameful. It's not all black and white.

[justamouse]

The operative word is "partly." And yes, I wholeheartedly believe they are. Some of the stunts Greenpeace have pulled in the Philippines (and elsewhere) are shameful. It's not all black and white.

 

All, some, really, with an accusation like that does it matter?

 

So, if we have A added rice, and no bees....how many starve then?

[Ravin]

As I understand it, the concerns with GMO are as follows:

 

1. Splicing genes from one plant into another (a common genetic modification) could increase food allergies by turning formerly safe plants into ones that produce the same allergens that the gene-contributing plant did.

 

2. GMO plants are programmed to be sterile (cannot produce a 2nd generation from saved seeds and cannot pass their altered genes by pollinating non-GMO plants), but this doesn't work 100%.

 

3. GMO encourages monoculture, resulting in a lack of genetically diverse food crops that, while they may not have the individual qualities sought through modification, are through their diversity and adaptation to local conditions through being grown there year after year from saved seeds more resilient as a base for food security.

 

4. GMO creates a corporate stranglehold on the food supply by holders of the patents on the GMO plants.

 

5. The most common GMO varieties sold by Monsanto and used in the US are "Round up ready" corn and soybeans. These are plants engineered to be resistant to herbicides, resulting in higher yields but also encouraging greater dumping of herbicides on fields and thus into the water supply and food supply. There are concerns about the long-term impacts of this wide use of herbicides, both on human health directly and on ecological systems

 

That's it in a nutshell. GMO does have advantages for farmers, it gives higher yields. It also has the potential to increase nutrient value of plants and provide varieties tailored to local conditions--but always at the price of paying for the corporate intervention and R&D that went into the creation of the seeds. But mostly so far, it gives higher yields and that's why farmers pay Monsanto year after year.

[nmoira]

So, if we have A added rice, and no bees....how many starve then?

 

By what mechanism could golden rice kill bees? Rice is a self pollinated crop.

[nmoira]

All, some, really, with an accusation like that does it matter?

 

I, by virtue of being a consumer the west, typing away on my smartphone, am complicit to some degree with labor practices I vehemently disagree with, perhaps even child labour. I acknowledge this, and try my best to make ethical choices, but I'm not perfect.

 

What kind of people are we if we don't at least acknowledge the costs of the choices we make, of the positions we support?

[justamouse]

By what mechanism could golden rice kill bees? Rice is a self pollinated crop.

 

Golden rice might not, but here you are on a GMO thread, saying Yes! GMOS are good, we have A added rice!

 

When, that's not quite true, GMO rice, at this time, seems to be a safe GMO crop but it does not mean that ALL GMO crops are safe.

 

I, by virtue of being a consumer the west, typing away on my smartphone, am complicit to some degree with labor practices I vehemently disagree with, perhaps even child labour. I acknowledge this, and try my best to make ethical choices, but I'm not perfect.

 

What kind of people are we if we don't at least acknowledge the costs of the choices we make, of the positions we support?

 

 

I don't disagree with you when I am a consumer forced to choose between evils on an item I need. That is a far cry from saying people who are against GMOs are partly to blame for 8 million children dying.

 

One is a non complicit evil, the other is complicit.

[WishboneDawn]

 

Why yes, all of us GMO opponents wanted 8 million children to die.

 

Excellent conclusion.

 

That is wholly your conclusion and cannot be inferred from the quote.

 

We are often responsible for things we did not want to happen. It doesn't matter if the opponents to GMOs had good reasons and excellent intentions, children still died because of the delays their opposition caused and they are still partly responsible for that. That's the price of taking a particular stand and it's disingenuous to pretend it's not so. Choices have consequences, that's always been so.

[nmoira]

Golden rice might not, but here you are on a GMO thread, saying Yes! GMOS are good, we have A added rice!

 

When, that's not quite true, GMO rice, at this time, seems to be a safe GMO crop but it does not mean that ALL GMO crops are safe.

 

Where did I declare support for all GMOs under all circumstances?

[QueenCat]

Here's another perspective. There's been a lot of disinformation spread about this legislation. Opposition to it should at least be based on facts, not hyper-emotional exaggeration.

 

Yep.... like many issues, there is more than one side. Looking at all sides can help one develop fuller understanding of any issue.

[justamouse]

Where did I declare support for all GMOs under all circumstances?

 

Where did you declare that you didn't support them? You're on a GMO thread, you post an inflammatory quote accusing GMO opponents of causing the starvation of 8 million children.

 

Oh, *partly* responsible. So...say 5 million deaths?

[nmoira]

I don't disagree with you when I am a consumer forced to choose between evils on an item I need. That is a far cry from saying people who are against GMOs are partly to blame for 8 million children dying.

 

One is a non complicit evil, the other is complicit.

 

I would argue that the deaths of 8 million children certainly should to be added to the known "costs" column.

[Shannon in TN]

Hang on... Not trying to stir the pot, but if we back up this argument about rice with Vitamin A added was delayed being used and so 8 million children died - it sounds like there's enough Vitamin A added to the rice for a full day's supplement. Has there ever been enough of any one thing added to a single "natural" food (ie, milk, cheese, wheat, rice, apples, beans) to be considered the exact amount needed to sustain life? According to the article, there isn't even an agreed amount of rice needed. One study in the article said it would take 15 pounds of rice a day, another said 2 ounces would give 60% of the Vit A needed.

 

My point is, isn't it possible that someone, somewhere is twisting their statements and statistics to make the people opposed to GMOs look bad by blaming the deaths on them?

 

BTW, I did read the Slate article and while I'm sure they tried to balance the journalism, there is a definite slant against those opposed to GMOs.

[Lady Florida.]

else why would Europe have banned them?

 

Because people like Mark Lynas demonized GMOs and drummed up emotional hysteria in Europe. He has since changed his tune.

Pressure from an ill-informed populace? Ethical concerns around farming practices?

 

"Europe banned it so it must be bad" is an argument I hear often, but I haven't found any scientific reason why I should accept that argument.

 

Given that the European Commission, after spending 25 years studying GMOs concluded in 2010 that

 

“there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms>"

 

I would venture a guess that Word Nerd and Dawn are onto something.

[nmoira]

Hang on... Not trying to stir the pot, but if we back up this argument about rice with Vitamin A added was delayed being used and so 8 million children died - it sounds like there's enough Vitamin A added to the rice for a full day's supplement. Has there ever been enough of any one thing added to a single "natural" food (ie, milk, cheese, wheat, rice, apples, beans) to be considered the exact amount needed to sustain life? According to the article, there isn't even an agreed amount of rice needed. One study in the article said it would take 15 pounds of rice a day, another said 2 ounces would give 60% of the Vit A needed.

 

My point is, isn't it possible that someone, somewhere is twisting their statements and statistics to make the people opposed to GMOs look bad by blaming the deaths on them?

 

BTW, I did read the Slate article and while I'm sure they tried to balance the journalism, there is a definite slant against those opposed to GMOs.

 

 

Here's a brief summary of the history of golden rice.

 

http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2013/feb/02/genetic-modification-breakthrough-golden-rice

 

The vitamin A isn't added, the rice produces beta-carotene. One of the arguments the anti-GMO folks mounted was that it is does not produce as much beta-carotene as claimed, which is not a terribly good argument when it can be shown to be false. What do you then have to fall back on? :)

 

The 15 kg figure was a Greenpeace claim.

[briansmama]

NO, it is not an insecticide. briansmama. It is bred to not be killed by a specific low harm herbicide. Herbicides kill plants. This plant doesn't kill anything, what it does is survive while Round-up is used around it to kill dandelions, etc.

 

But for that matter, you probably do eat plants that have insecticidal properties in them, naturally. Some herbs do and we eat them. We aren't insects and not everything that poisons or repels an insect does so to us. However, the GMO plants listed in the article were not bred to have any higher insect repellant properties.

 

Oh, and we can tell whether a plant is safe for humans or not by doing studies. That is what is called the scientific process. However, most of these changes don't even have any potential reason to be harmful. For example, one thing that people are trying to develop is wheat that is drought tolerant. There are other grasses that are much more drought tolerant than wheat. What they are trying to do, whether by GMO means or normal plant breeding means, is to cobine the elements of those other grasses that need less water with the wheat and still have wheat but one that needs less water.

 

 

“Most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter haematological [blood], biochemical, and immunologic parameters, the significance of which remains to be solved with chronic toxicity studies.â€

– Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009; 49: 164–1751

There are three possible sources of adverse health effects from GM foods:

◠The GM gene product – for example, the Bt

toxin in GM insecticidal crops – may be toxic or

allergenic

â— The GM transformation process may produce

mutagenic effects, gene regulatory effects, or effects at other levels of biological structure and function that result in new toxins or allergens and/or disturbed nutritional value

◠Changes in farming practices linked to the use of a GMO may result in toxic residues – for example, higher levels of crop contamination with the herbicide Roundup are an inevitable result of using GM Roundup Ready® crops (see Sections 4, 5)."

 

This is a great link that you may want to take a look at before deciding GMOs are safe and at those of us who oppose them are unfamiliar with the scientific method (that was offensive and unnecessary):

 

http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.31.pdf

 

 

[justamouse]

This is a great link that you may want to take a look at before deciding GMOs are safe and at those of us who oppose them are unfamiliar with the scientific method (that was offensive and unnecessary):

 

http://www.nongmopro...Truths_1.31.pdf

 

 

 

Ohh pishaw, they're just PhDs! what do they know about science? I bet they don't even understand the scientific method because they think that GMOs are unsafe. :001_rolleyes:

[4kidlets4me]

I don't like that Monsanto is in bed with the FDA

I don't want to eat insecticide in my food. I don't care if it won't kill me. I wouldn't drink a bottle of Roundup so why would I be ok eating it in my corn

I don't like that they have patented food. That scares the crap out of me and I honestly don't know how it is legal

I don't like that they sue small farmers for infringing on their patent when the wind blows their crap into the small farmers field. If anything they should have to pay the small farmer not the other way around

I want GMOs labeled.

[nmoira]

I don't like that Monsanto is in bed with the FDA

I don't want to eat insecticide in my food. I don't care if it won't kill me. I wouldn't drink a bottle of Roundup so why would I be ok eating it in my corn

I don't like that they have patented food. That scares the crap out of me and I honestly don't know how it is legal

I don't like that they sue small farmers for infringing on their patent when the wind blows their crap into the small farmers field. If anything they should have to pay the small farmer not the other way around

I want GMOs labeled.

 

I agree with you, except for the labeling. However, I will grant that reform is unlikely to happen from the other side and labeling might be the only alternative.

 

FWIW, I also have a huge issue with the patenting of human genes, and am on tenterhooks over the upcoming Supreme Court case over the BRCA genes.

[Melissa in Australia]

I don't like that Monsanto is in bed with the FDA

I don't want to eat insecticide in my food. I don't care if it won't kill me. I wouldn't drink a bottle of Roundup so why would I be ok eating it in my corn

I don't like that they have patented food. That scares the crap out of me and I honestly don't know how it is legal

I don't like that they sue small farmers for infringing on their patent when the wind blows their crap into the small farmers field. If anything they should have to pay the small farmer not the other way around

I want GMOs labeled.

 

 

:iagree:

 

GMO is labeled in Australia. I refuse to buy any of it.

[WishboneDawn]

Where did you declare that you didn't support them? You're on a GMO thread, you post an inflammatory quote accusing GMO opponents of causing the starvation of 8 million children.

 

Oh, *partly* responsible. So...say 5 million deaths?

 

Her quote was pretty straightforward and quite reasonable. It demonstrated that taking a stand on an issue can have consequences, unwanted and unintended perhaps, but consequences for which we should be aware and accept responsibilty for. Even the best and most principled stands (not supporting child labour) can have awful consequences (depriving a family in poverty of much needed income). The only defense for not being aware of the possible consequence is ignorance but then if people didn't know enough about GMOs to know this rice would save lives then why on earth did they consider themselves informed enough to oppose GMOs?

 

Tthe discussion on GMOs is bigger then the frame you've put it in and so there's lots of room for positions that might occupy space other then, "They're poison!" or "they're miraculous!" It's not a binary choice where you have the right to assume you know a person's ultimate position simply because they challenge yours.

[WishboneDawn]

I don't like that Monsanto is in bed with the FDA

I don't want to eat insecticide in my food. I don't care if it won't kill me. I wouldn't drink a bottle of Roundup so why would I be ok eating it in my corn

I don't like that they have patented food. That scares the crap out of me and I honestly don't know how it is legal

I don't like that they sue small farmers for infringing on their patent when the wind blows their crap into the small farmers field. If anything they should have to pay the small farmer not the other way around

I want GMOs labeled.

 

Agreed.

 

I don't have to think GMOs are poison to be deeply troubled by them.