It's a shame that your argument falls apart when people realize that glyphosate is no longer under patent and people are free to buy it from any manufacturer and are not locked into buying Monsanto's RoundUp.
Also might be due to the fact that simply being transgenic imparts no magical "toxic" qualities in and of itself, and there's not even a plausible mechanism by which any current GMO crops might somehow be unsafe. Also ignores all pre-market safety testing. If it were unsafe, some non-industry researcher would have shown this by now and picked up their Nobel prize for discovering some new groundbreaking genetics.
They already do: there are labels for non-GMO and USDA organic, both of which indicate no "GMO content", whatever that means. The entire GMO labeling effort is obviously a Scarlet Letter attempt at demonizing GMO products with the "it's just a label, wink, wink, you know what we mean", while at the same time spreading as much FUD and misinformation about how dangerous GMO food is. The current rallying cry is "Right to know! If it's so safe, why not just label it?" that will turn into "If it's so safe, why does it need a special label?" Bait and switch.
...because their particular version is not per se to increase yields, but to have plants that resist Roundup get big doses of Roundup to kill other plants.
When your field is full of non-crop plants/weeds, all competing for the same resources and nutrients in your soils as your crops, your crop yield will necessarily be lower. By preventing weeds, you are increasing your yield by definition.
If I had to guess, I would say it's because the entire anti-GMO movement is at the behest of the organic industry in an attempt to spread as much FUD and misinformation about GMO crops as their main competition in an attempt to justify the higher prices and antiquated farming methods of organic crops. Whether people realize it or not, this is where the anti-GMO movement comes from.
Obviously, your argument totally ignores the fact that conventional and even organic crops can be patented and protected as well. So your entire argument is invalid as it regards to being a GMO problem.
only you who feel entitled because you spent money
I'd say that someone who's spent money on a service is justifiably a hell of a lot more entitled than someone who hasn't spent and won't spend any money on said service.
It's a lot easier to empower people to earn more money when a large portion of their kids aren't going blind and dying. Just because Golden Rice isn't a magic bullet that solves all of this population's problems doesn't mean that it doesn't help.
Really full disclosure: no one really gives a shit. Honestly, people just want to play games. So EA knows my name and computer spec. Big fucking whoop. If you don't want to use it, fucking don't. I'm enjoying Simcity 2000 again.
Of course I've heard of them. Anyone who has the slightest interest in the topic of GMOS will hear about them within 3 minutes of reading the topic because the anti-GMOS nutters love to toss the factoid out like its some big gotcha.
There has never been a commercially available plant with GURT technology. So throwing that little "fact" out is outright disingenuous and willfully misleading.
I wish the biotech companies would introduce it so we could stop all the bitching from the organic shills about "accidental contamination" and the thousands of lawsuits that have never happened because of it.
Monsanto doesn't sell products to the general consumer population; they sell seeds to farmers. Their products are very clearly labeled as GMOs. If you want to slap labels on grocery store products, you need to come up with a valid reason to do so such as a difference in nutritional content or something else that actually matters. "I really, really want it!" is not a valid reason.
To my knowledge, organic certification is overseen by the USDA, and the certification process is handled by the local state agency but still under the USDA rules. Federal USDA organic certification requires products to not be genetically modified. Please correct me if I'm wrong, thanks.
Maybe people shouldn't be illegally using patented seeds then? You can buy seeds from literally hundreds of vendors. If you don't like seed contracts, don't sign them. Farmers do buy them and sign the contracts because they make them more money.
If you're talking about "accidental contamination" like Percy Schmeiser, stop watching propaganda documentaries and try reading about the actual cases. There was nothing "accidental" about them.
Yet another biology-ignorant tard injecting his strawman arguments into this discussion. Why do you people feel the need to show the world you have no idea what you're talking about over and over again?
No one makes or has ever sold sterile seeds. A gene is not "for" an organism. A gene is a sequence of DNA code that does something. There's nothing inherently "spider" about a gene. And here's the most hilarious part.
How do I know an increase in Vitamin A production is the only thing you added to your seed? I don't. And that is where this distrust comes from.
The simple economic argument is that it would probably be against a company's best interest to produce and release a foodstuff that was toxic or poisonous (which is why these things are tested for, sequenced out for verification, and chemically analyzed to check for this kind of thing). Not many companies make a good living on killing their customers. But even more basic than that, how do you know that your conventional or organic plant doesn't have a random mutation that makes the plant create cyanide? You don't. Why don't you distrust any of that? Because you don't know anything about biology or genetics beyond what you read at Natural News or Mercola. And these are the very sites that were screaming about this being genetically modified grass as their shining example when that was exactly not the case at all. Such credible. Wow.
I wish they would just go ahead and utilize GURT technology to shut up all the organic activists crying about potentially getting sued by Monsanto for accidental cross-pollination (which doesn't happen). Regular farmers don't save seeds anyway unless using crappy heirloom, non-hybrid seeds. You'd think that the anti-GMO crowd would be all for this Terminator technology because it solves the problem that they cry so loudly about yet couldn't even produce one instance of it occurring in their OSGATA vs. Monsanto suit. The cognitive dissonance of the anti-GMO movement is astounding.
Slashdot Mirror
Best comment here, hands down.
It's a shame that your argument falls apart when people realize that glyphosate is no longer under patent and people are free to buy it from any manufacturer and are not locked into buying Monsanto's RoundUp.
Also might be due to the fact that simply being transgenic imparts no magical "toxic" qualities in and of itself, and there's not even a plausible mechanism by which any current GMO crops might somehow be unsafe. Also ignores all pre-market safety testing. If it were unsafe, some non-industry researcher would have shown this by now and picked up their Nobel prize for discovering some new groundbreaking genetics.
Says the person talking about GMO wheat that has never been sold commercially anywhere ever.
They already do: there are labels for non-GMO and USDA organic, both of which indicate no "GMO content", whatever that means. The entire GMO labeling effort is obviously a Scarlet Letter attempt at demonizing GMO products with the "it's just a label, wink, wink, you know what we mean", while at the same time spreading as much FUD and misinformation about how dangerous GMO food is. The current rallying cry is "Right to know! If it's so safe, why not just label it?" that will turn into "If it's so safe, why does it need a special label?" Bait and switch.
...because their particular version is not per se to increase yields, but to have plants that resist Roundup get big doses of Roundup to kill other plants.
When your field is full of non-crop plants/weeds, all competing for the same resources and nutrients in your soils as your crops, your crop yield will necessarily be lower. By preventing weeds, you are increasing your yield by definition.
This is the "all farmers are dumb and can't math" argument. It's just wrong.
This is a more accurate assessment. Direct genetic engineering is simply the latest and most effective method of breeding.
If I had to guess, I would say it's because the entire anti-GMO movement is at the behest of the organic industry in an attempt to spread as much FUD and misinformation about GMO crops as their main competition in an attempt to justify the higher prices and antiquated farming methods of organic crops. Whether people realize it or not, this is where the anti-GMO movement comes from.
So much lol here. I can't believe you people actually believe shit like this.
Thus showing the level of education and knowledge that the anti-GMO movement possesses about the entire topic they argue against.
[x] rekt [ ] not rekt
Obviously, your argument totally ignores the fact that conventional and even organic crops can be patented and protected as well. So your entire argument is invalid as it regards to being a GMO problem.
I'd say that someone who's spent money on a service is justifiably a hell of a lot more entitled than someone who hasn't spent and won't spend any money on said service.
It's a lot easier to empower people to earn more money when a large portion of their kids aren't going blind and dying. Just because Golden Rice isn't a magic bullet that solves all of this population's problems doesn't mean that it doesn't help.
How exactly are they "increasing the price of the only food they can afford" by literally giving Golden Rice away for free?
Really full disclosure: no one really gives a shit. Honestly, people just want to play games. So EA knows my name and computer spec. Big fucking whoop. If you don't want to use it, fucking don't. I'm enjoying Simcity 2000 again.
Of course I've heard of them. Anyone who has the slightest interest in the topic of GMOS will hear about them within 3 minutes of reading the topic because the anti-GMOS nutters love to toss the factoid out like its some big gotcha. There has never been a commercially available plant with GURT technology. So throwing that little "fact" out is outright disingenuous and willfully misleading. I wish the biotech companies would introduce it so we could stop all the bitching from the organic shills about "accidental contamination" and the thousands of lawsuits that have never happened because of it.
Monsanto doesn't sell products to the general consumer population; they sell seeds to farmers. Their products are very clearly labeled as GMOs. If you want to slap labels on grocery store products, you need to come up with a valid reason to do so such as a difference in nutritional content or something else that actually matters. "I really, really want it!" is not a valid reason.
To my knowledge, organic certification is overseen by the USDA, and the certification process is handled by the local state agency but still under the USDA rules. Federal USDA organic certification requires products to not be genetically modified. Please correct me if I'm wrong, thanks.
If you're talking about "accidental contamination" like Percy Schmeiser, stop watching propaganda documentaries and try reading about the actual cases. There was nothing "accidental" about them.
Nice try Mike Adams, we know it's you.
No one makes or has ever sold sterile seeds. A gene is not "for" an organism. A gene is a sequence of DNA code that does something. There's nothing inherently "spider" about a gene. And here's the most hilarious part.
The simple economic argument is that it would probably be against a company's best interest to produce and release a foodstuff that was toxic or poisonous (which is why these things are tested for, sequenced out for verification, and chemically analyzed to check for this kind of thing). Not many companies make a good living on killing their customers. But even more basic than that, how do you know that your conventional or organic plant doesn't have a random mutation that makes the plant create cyanide? You don't. Why don't you distrust any of that? Because you don't know anything about biology or genetics beyond what you read at Natural News or Mercola. And these are the very sites that were screaming about this being genetically modified grass as their shining example when that was exactly not the case at all. Such credible. Wow.
"OMG, the seeds that can't reproduce might reproduce and keep other plants from reproducing!!"
This is what you sound like.
I wish they would just go ahead and utilize GURT technology to shut up all the organic activists crying about potentially getting sued by Monsanto for accidental cross-pollination (which doesn't happen). Regular farmers don't save seeds anyway unless using crappy heirloom, non-hybrid seeds. You'd think that the anti-GMO crowd would be all for this Terminator technology because it solves the problem that they cry so loudly about yet couldn't even produce one instance of it occurring in their OSGATA vs. Monsanto suit. The cognitive dissonance of the anti-GMO movement is astounding.