Slashdot Mirror
Avoiding GM Foods? Monsanto Says You're Overly Fussy
blackbeak writes "The BBC today characterized those who avoid GM foods as overly fussy, the very same day that the Wall Street Journal announced that picky eating may be recognized in the 2013 DSM as a psychiatric disorder. The DSM item refers to something completely different, though I'm sure many will confuse the two. Of course, this was not done without subterfuge; the BBC's author, Professor Jonathan Jones, in no way indicates his close ties to Monsanto. Point by point Jones regurgitates the same pro-GM arguments debunked numerous times all over the net for years, while serving up some stale half facts too."
Eh, the world *is* starving (third at least).
USA is the main users of GM foods, other parts of the world use much less. We would get by just fine without GM foods.
Why is a citation needed? Its quite plain to see the lack of protesting against new drugs coming to market, compared to the protesting against GM food.
Does anyone else feel 'citation needed' is becoming overused? Most usage of it these days comes across as 'I don't agree with what you are saying, but I cannot answer your points so I will just try and create doubt on them by pushing the requirement for further validation back on the original poster'.
And let's not forget; famine is mostly an economical problem these days, bringing in the likes of monsanto to 'solve' this will not bring relief to the starving and ill nourished people of the world.
Why not? I mean look at BP and how they've helped with "solving" the world's energy shortage. Oh, wait...
No, it's not sterile. Farmers aren't idiots and they refused to buy sterile crops.
There are reasons some farmers buy certain crops new every year, such as super-sweet corn, but in those rare cases it's not sterile plants.
You know what else is a great idea? Putting a label on people to identify them as Jews. This isn't about persecution though, because people who are pro-Jew can use the label to direct their love towards them.
The fact that some of the concerns are irrational does not, as you correctly say, mean that all the concerns are irrational.
But, the fact that all the concerns are irrational does, by definition, mean that all the concerns are irrational.
And that does make them similar to the 9/11 woo-woo nutters: none of the arguments make any sense; they are all hollow and meaningless. When you get to the end of the list of grievances, there was no reality in there anywhere.
Sure, GM food COULD be bad, and 9/11 COULD have been perpetrated by the US government. But, having looked at all the claims, they are all wrong in both cases. And thus, the valid comparison between them.
Did you even read what I had said? This practice has been going on for thousands of years. What you said about disease in mono culture is true, but many of the sexually reproducing plants don't have more than a few dozen viable strains. Farmers know how to deal with fungal, viral, bacterial, and insect pests.
Furthermore, Monsanto only has a corner on the strains it produces. If that strain is the only viable strain of that plant, then we should applaud Monsanto for making a new breed that is so productive and/or hearty as to make all previous versions obsolete. But patents run out, and if their fees are truly abhorrent, farmers can just wait that 20 years while growing a different crop or strain.