Poll of the Day > Why do people hate GMOs?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean, some are pretty good, health-wise. And have good potential for being super healthy and stuff. Why all the hate?
---

Some of it is fear that the crops are somehow bad since theyve been modified, but people have been modifying produce for as long as people have been farming. Were just better at it now.

Another reason is that some corporations like Monsanto are very controversial for their habit of putting patents on specific modified versions of crops, and then they do things like sue farmers or landowners if that crop is discovered to be growing on their land, even if they didnt plant it.

GMOs have resulted in a gigantic reduction in worldwide famine though. Hard to argue against that.

---

Golden retrievers are my favorite GMOs.
---

Mead posted...

Some of it is fear that the crops are somehow bad since theyve been modified, but people have been modifying produce for as long as people have been farming. Were just better at it now.

Another reason is that some corporations like Monsanto are very controversial for their habit of putting patents on specific modified versions of crops, and then they do things like sue farmers or landowners if that crop is discovered to be growing on their land, even if they didnt plant it.

GMOs have resulted in a gigantic reduction in worldwide famine though. Hard to argue against that.

Thats bad. But thats on Monsanto. You shouldnt be mad at all GMOs for what a shitty company does...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Thats bad. But thats on Monsanto. You shouldnt be mad at all GMOs for what a shitty company does...

Yeah I agree

---

It's hard for me to hate an inanimate object.

DDirtyDastard posted...

It's hard for me to hate an inanimate object.

GMOs aren't inanimate, though. :p

They're organisms.
---

Because people distrust science while hating business and GMOs are a combination of the two. Then you have the organic movement which profits on and promotes GMO fear through use of the naturalistic fallacy.

Anti-GMO activists have gone so far as to promote starvation in parts of the world where GMO seeds and crops were distributed by attempting to convince residents that GMOs are unsafe (because, you know, starvation is *so* much safer...). And there's some other stuff I could add about the other impacts, but who knows if the mods might be offended.

Sarcasthma posted...

DDirtyDastard posted...

It's hard for me to hate an inanimate object.

GMOs aren't inanimate, though. :p

They're organisms.

Once they're dead or separated from the living organism, they're inanimate =p
---

Sarcasthma posted...

Golden retrievers are my favorite GMOs.

One of my dogs is half retriever...

Mead posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Thats bad. But thats on Monsanto. You shouldnt be mad at all GMOs for what a shitty company does...

Yeah I agree

Maybe they need to help people learn what they are...

DDirtyDastard posted...

It's hard for me to hate an inanimate object.

For some, I guess its super easy...
---

Zeus posted...

Because people distrust science while hating business and GMOs are a combination of the two. Then you have the organic movement which profits on and promotes GMO fear through use of the naturalistic fallacy.

Anti-GMO activists have gone so far as to promote starvation in parts of the world where GMO seeds and crops were distributed by attempting to convince residents that GMOs are unsafe (because, you know, starvation is *so* much safer...). And there's some other stuff I could add about the other impacts, but who knows if the mods might be offended.

Sarcasthma posted...

DDirtyDastard posted...

It's hard for me to hate an inanimate object.

GMOs aren't inanimate, though. :p

They're organisms.

Once they're dead or separated from the living organism, they're inanimate =p

Your accounts will be inanimate once the mods get here, mister.
---

I just dislike some of the corporate shenanigans, but it's not as bad as it seems.

For example, self-terminating seeds aren't actually on the market.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

DDirtyDastard posted...

It's hard for me to hate an inanimate object.

GMOs aren't inanimate, though. :p

They're organisms.

I mean, at least some may be inanimate...

Zeus posted...

Because people distrust science while hating business and GMOs are a combination of the two. Then you have the organic movement which profits on and promotes GMO fear through use of the naturalistic fallacy.

Anti-GMO activists have gone so far as to promote starvation in parts of the world where GMO seeds and crops were distributed by attempting to convince residents that GMOs are unsafe (because, you know, starvation is *so* much safer...). And there's some other stuff I could add about the other impacts, but who knows if the mods might be offended.

Sarcasthma posted...

DDirtyDastard posted...

It's hard for me to hate an inanimate object.

GMOs aren't inanimate, though. :p

They're organisms.

Once they're dead or separated from the living organism, they're inanimate =p

Thats sucks. I mean, in some countries, people would rather eat dirt cookies instead of starving. Im sure theyd appreciate food, even if they are GMOs. I mean, starving people would eat candy and other unhealthy foods to not starve. Probably foods they think are gross, as well...

I understand organic wants more support. But to promote starvation and lies to get it is horrible...
---

Lokarin posted...

I just dislike some of the corporate shenanigans, but it's not as bad as it seems.

For example, self-terminating seeds aren't actually on the market.

That would suck if they were...
---

I like the ones I like, I guess. Like I dont have anything against GMO bananas, I just dont like any bananas.

And pretty much everything is genetically modified.

Sarcasthma posted...

Your accounts will be inanimate once the mods get here, mister.

---

The biggest concern (outside of the general distrust of science and corporations and Monsanto's specific douchebaggery) is that nobody really knows what the long-term effects of any of these modifications could be. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that something people thought was safe (and was marketed as safe by the companies peddling it) turned out to be very harmful decades down the line (asbestos and tobacco are two very notorious examples of this). Conceptually, there's nothing wrong with the idea, but I can understand people being a bit wary of potential undiscovered side effects.
---

The other concern is that when people ask for a long-term study they never set a time limit... 10 years? 40 years?
---

adjl posted...

The biggest concern (outside of the general distrust of science and corporations and Monsanto's specific douchebaggery) is that nobody really knows what the long-term effects of any of these modifications could be. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that something people thought was safe (and was marketed as safe by the companies peddling it) turned out to be very harmful decades down the line (asbestos and tobacco are two very notorious examples of this). Conceptually, there's nothing wrong with the idea, but I can understand people being a bit wary of potential undiscovered side effects.

But that could happen with a lot of things, couldnt it? Also, I mean, they seem to think its ok with some stuff. Like the impossible burger...

Lokarin posted...

The other concern is that when people ask for a long-term study they never set a time limit... 10 years? 40 years?

That seems like something they should work out...
---

LinkPizza posted...

But that could happen with a lot of things, couldnt it?

It can, but most other things are old enough to have noticed problems by now. Most GM crops (in the colloquial sense, though issues have also arisen from more traditional methods of genetic modification, like selective breeding) out there are less than 50 years old, and certainly haven't been on the market for anywhere close to that long. There simply isn't enough data to be conclusively certain that they're safe, so people avoid them.

Of course, those same people do plenty of other things that are conclusively proven to be unsafe, so really the issue is that people suck at risk analysis and latch on to paranoid panic far too easily.

LinkPizza posted...

Also, I mean, they seem to think its ok with some stuff. Like the impossible burger...

That's usually a matter of ignorance, more than anything else. It's not readily advertised that the impossible burger contains GM soy (because advertising that would be a major blow to its sales potential), so the anti-GMO people that don't do much research to back up their paranoia don't know that avoiding it would be the logically consistent thing to do.
---

adjl posted...

LinkPizza posted...

But that could happen with a lot of things, couldnt it?

It can, but most other things are old enough to have noticed problems by now. Most GM crops (in the colloquial sense, though issues have also arisen from more traditional methods of genetic modification, like selective breeding) out there are less than 50 years old, and certainly haven't been on the market for anywhere close to that long. There simply isn't enough data to be conclusively certain that they're safe, so people avoid them.

Of course, those same people do plenty of other things that are conclusively proven to be unsafe, so really the issue is that people suck at risk analysis and latch on to paranoid panic far too easily.

I think they should probably do a little research before just jumping to theyre all unsafe. Plus, gotta try them somehow, I would think...

adjl posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Also, I mean, they seem to think its ok with some stuff. Like the impossible burger...

That's usually a matter of ignorance, more than anything else. It's not readily advertised that the impossible burger contains GM soy (because advertising that would be a major blow to its sales potential), so the anti-GMO people that don't do much research to back up their paranoia don't know that avoiding it would be the logically consistent thing to do.

Not only GM soy, but like 40 other proteins not studied in the human body...
---

adjl posted...

The biggest concern (outside of the general distrust of science and corporations and Monsanto's specific douchebaggery) is that nobody really knows what the long-term effects of any of these modifications could be. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that something people thought was safe (and was marketed as safe by the companies peddling it) turned out to be very harmful decades down the line (asbestos and tobacco are two very notorious examples of this). Conceptually, there's nothing wrong with the idea, but I can understand people being a bit wary of potential undiscovered side effects.

...you mean understand and can articulate fearmongering? >_> Keep in mind that new foods created by more traditional methods hypothetically run that same risk, so it's a silly claim.

adjl posted...

It can, but most other things are old enough to have noticed problems by now. Most GM crops (in the colloquial sense, though issues have also arisen from more traditional methods of genetic modification, like selective breeding) out there are less than 50 years old, and certainly haven't been on the market for anywhere close to that long. There simply isn't enough data to be conclusively certain that they're safe, so people avoid them.

How many hundreds of years do you want to wait before declaring GMOs safe while ignoring that new food additives are being concocted all the time, new plants are being created via hybridization, crops are being grown in different ways, and animals are being raised in different ways? You're being awfully selective about what data to use. And you also reverse the burden of proof -- It's up to others to prove that something is unsafe, not to prove that something is safe. As we well know, there have been countless people trying to prove that GMOs are unsafe that, if they actually were, we'd likely know it.

As for actual safety risks, I'll take bug-resistant crops over "organic" crops flooded with "organic" pesticides to get that same effect.
---

omg zeus stfu and stop trying to start arguments in every damn topic

---

Yup.
---

Mankind has been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years, up until now we've been doing it entirely at random. It's only in the past few years that we've been able to make precision changes to the genome.

This is what corn looked like thousands of years ago:

---

Mead posted...

omg zeus stfu and stop trying to start arguments in every damn topic

Why does Mead both posting? And why does he see me responding to somebody else, get jealous, and try to provoke an argument with me? It's really creepy.
---

Why does Mead both posting?

Theres only one of me I dont need thirty accounts like some users

---

people are woefully ignorant of genetics
---

Mead posted...

Why does Mead both posting?

Theres only one of me I dont need thirty accounts like some users

Really? Because you're on my thunderbolt so much that it feels like there must be two or three of you.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I mean, some are pretty good, health-wise. And have good potential for being super healthy and stuff. Why all the hate?

Cause people are ignorant. There's nothing wrong with GMOs. They're also the same kind of person who would think vaccines cause autism.
---

seeing as every fruit and veggy we consume daily has been genetically modified over the past 40-60yrs I honestly can't hate GMO's that much. Some, yes. Like purple potatoes or grapes that taste like cotton candy, or seedless watermelons aka zoomer fruit.
---

The main thing I've seen is people believing that we've basically gone out and irradiated, mutated, and everything else to the poor food. Like we took a harmless tomato and just turned it into some sort of monster from Attack of the Killer Tomatos and are now selling it right beside 'real' food. A GMO 'chicken' isn't a 'real' chicken but some mutant monstrosity and the farmers are bribing the government to let them sell their freak chickens as if it were real food.

Of course I have no clue why they never thought of 'maybe they are making a scam and bribing the government to slap a 'non-GMO' sticker on their food so they can sell it at jacked-up prices'. Not saying non-GMO's are a scam; just that these people seem to be veeeeery selective about what they believe.
---

Mead posted...

Some of it is fear that the crops are somehow bad since theyve been modified, but people have been modifying produce for as long as people have been farming. Were just better at it now.

I mostly agree - but to be fair to the other side, there's kind of a difference between deliberately cross-breeding two crops with features you like in the hopes of creating a hybrid that have the best of both, versus being able to directly modify something at the genetic level by injecting entirely new DNA into a strand.

There's also the question of whether or not the people doing the splicing have considered all of the possible negative side-effects of the changes they're making, thus introducing hidden risks into the food that wouldn't have been present via more natural breeding methods.

Which ties into this:

Lokarin posted...

The other concern is that when people ask for a long-term study they never set a time limit... 10 years? 40 years?

This is one of the major problems. They can test, retest, and guarantee that something is completely safe, but they're studying it in the short-term and looking for dramatic immediate reactions. What they can't tell you is if you're doing damage that is going to result in consequences 20-30 years from now. Certain negative side-effects would never show in the short term (like increased risk of certain cancers, Alzheimer's, etc), because they do damage incrementally. What we'd essentially need is long-term longitudinal and cohort studies, but we'd never, ever do those because they'd cost way too much and prevent corporations from profiting from their research for decades.

And unfortunately, "Is this something that is going to prove to be really, really bad over the long term?" becomes an even more important question to ask when modified plants can effectively crossbreed with other plants in nature, spreading their modified DNA far beyond anyone planting the initial crop. As Mead mentioned, Monsanto was notorious for trying to sue farmers who wound up growing Monsanto's "intellectual property" crops entirely by accident (because Monsanto-approved crops cross-pollinated with their existing crops), and that highlights just how easy it can be for that to happen by accident.

When it comes to unforeseen consequences, consider the "Africanized bee" - an attempt to hybridize different species to create a breed that would generate more honey, where the end result wound up being a far more aggressive breed that spread across thousands of miles and displaced existing colonies to the point of becoming dominant in many areas. If a GMO crop winds up spreading as effectively but also has unforeseen negative side-effects that weren't detected during testing, it can potentially hurt a LOT of people.



Mead posted...

Another reason is that some corporations like Monsanto are very controversial for their habit of putting patents on specific modified versions of crops, and then they do things like sue farmers or landowners if that crop is discovered to be growing on their land, even if they didnt plant it.

It's worse than that. They also engineered certain crops to specifically not reproduce naturally, where the seeds all come out sterile, so that farmers can't just harvest their own crops and replant, but have to buy seeds directly from Monsanto every year.

Monsanto is the largest supplier of seeds in the world - which is why they tend to come up in these sorts of conversations. They're a HUGE force in the marketplace, and have influence over almost every aspect of the subject.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

This is one of the major problems.

I was more saying that whenever people demand a long term study they never state the term they want... so it's an easy out if they don't like the results of the test.
---

Lokarin posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

This is one of the major problems.

I was more saying that whenever people demand a long term study they never state the term they want... so it's an easy out if they don't like the results of the test.

Kind of like cherry picking, in a way?
---

People act as if nature was just designed for us to eat.

They are to an extent, but mostly they're just conveniently edible.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Another long post

But for once, it's a PO post I read that I read the whole post and like the post.

Especially this,
ParanoidObsessive posted...

there's kind of a difference between deliberately cross-breeding two crops with features you like in the hopes of creating a hybrid that have the best of both, versus being able to directly modify something at the genetic level by injecting entirely new DNA into a strand.

Since in this topic people are treating cross breeding as being the same as modifying things on a genetic level.
---

Other, it is basically my area of expertise, I understand them too well to go full hate or love, but that also means I am saddened by the misinformation people spout, leading to the views of the majority on GMOs.

I did a class with Food Technologists (as in, mandatory for them, free choice for me) and I was the only one there who did not think negatively of them...
---

GMOs are fine and in fact help reduce starvation and malnutrition as they can produce crops that can grow with greater ease.

GMOs have a guilt by association status due to other awful things the company they are most closely associated with (Monsanto) has done. Putting aside their unethical economic practices with respect to seed hoarding in particular, you should not forget that Monsanto is the company that made and sold Agent Orange to be used in Vietnam. Yeah, Monsanto literally profited off chemical warfare that destroyed the lives of both the invading forces and the invaded people. A company willing to do that is inevitably going to end up being distrusted for anything else it produces.
---

Lokarin posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

This is one of the major problems.

I was more saying that whenever people demand a long term study they never state the term they want... so it's an easy out if they don't like the results of the test.

And I was sort of pointing out that no study is ever going to really be long enough in a realistic sense, because no scientists are ever going to do a 50+ year study, and no corporation would ever wait for the results even if they did. So we're always going to be in a situation where we're never entirely sure of the long-term repercussions of new technology being introduced.

It's like with the recent rise in autism. IS it related to vaccines, like some people claim? (the answer is no) Is it a long-term and poorly understood symptom stemming from kids basically being weaned right out of the womb and directly onto TV and computer screens in modern times? Might it be related to changes in diet and food production? Is it at exactly the same level of occurrence it's always been, but we've simply gotten better at identifying it, so it seems to be more prevalent than before (but isn't)? It's an extremely difficult factor to isolate, and it would take elaborate longitudinal studies lasting for decades to ever really know for sure, but we're never going to do that.
---

Hating GMOs is like the liberal version of anti-vaxxers. It's a conspiracy theory born from the thought that science-y, artificial-y sounding things MUST be bad for you.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

This is one of the major problems. They can test, retest, and guarantee that something is completely safe, but they're studying it in the short-term and looking for dramatic immediate reactions. What they can't tell you is if you're doing damage that is going to result in consequences 20-30 years from now. Certain negative side-effects would never show in the short term (like increased risk of certain cancers, Alzheimer's, etc), because they do damage incrementally. What we'd essentially need is long-term longitudinal and cohort studies, but we'd never, ever do those because they'd cost way too much and prevent corporations from profiting from their research for decades.

...and equally unfortunately, the "long-term study" argument would completely derail GMOs forever because no span would be long enough for the natural fallacy crowd.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

When it comes to unforeseen consequences, consider the "Africanized bee" - an attempt to hybridize different species to create a breed that would generate more honey, where the end result wound up being a far more aggressive breed that spread across thousands of miles and displaced existing colonies to the point of becoming dominant in many areas. If a GMO crop winds up spreading as effectively but also has unforeseen negative side-effects that weren't detected during testing, it can potentially hurt a LOT of people.

At this point, I should mention that conventional farming -- without any hybridization at all -- has also had massive slews of unintended side-effects. You talk about hybrid bees, but forget things like Australia's frog problem which came from trying to find a natural solution for dealing with a crop-killing pest. No matter how you try to address an issue, you always run the risk of other problems.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's worse than that. They also engineered certain crops to specifically not reproduce naturally, where the seeds all come out sterile, so that farmers can't just harvest their own crops and replant, but have to buy seeds directly from Monsanto every year.

That's largely misleading, considering that Monsanto never sold sterile seeds. This fact was addressed earlier in the discussion as well, but because you apparently missed it:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

More importantly, as the article notes, most farmers don't replant their own seeds any more anyway.

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Since in this topic people are treating cross breeding as being the same as modifying things on a genetic level.

...because you somehow feel that cross-breeding has no impact on genes? You understand what genes are, right?

The only differences are that these gene editing processes are scarier-sounding to the public because science, they're more effective than traditional methods, and they can potentially introduce genes that you might not otherwise achieve through hybridization.
---