Is GMO really that bad, or is it Monsanto ? Read the whole post....

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 08:04 PM

Against Monsanto, For GMOs
Posted: Sun, June 09, 2013 | By: Gennady Stolyarov II
The depredations of the multinational agricultural corporation Monsanto are rightly condemned by many. Monsanto is a prominent example of a crony corporation – a company that bolsters its market dominance not through honest competition and innovation, but through the persistent use of the political and legal system to enforce its preferences against its competitors and customers. Most outrageous is Monsanto’s stretching of patents beyond all conceivable limits – attempting to patent genes and life forms and to forcibly destroy the crops of farmers who replant seeds from crops originally obtained from Monsanto.
Yet because Monsanto is one of the world’s leading producers of genetically modified crops, campaigners who oppose all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) often use Monsanto as the poster child for the problems with GMOs as a whole. The March Against Monsanto, which took place in cities worldwide in late May of 2013, is the most recent prominent example of this conflation. The blanket condemnation of GMOs because of Monsanto’s misbehavior is deeply fallacious. The policy of a particular company does not serve to discredit an entire class of products, just because that company produces those products – even if it could be granted that the company’s actions result in its own products being more harmful than they would otherwise be.


The view of a Sadist....

Ok, I have to admit, every single thing I read in this article rang true to my ears. We are seeing the beginning of actual overpopulation. Water shortages are looming in the future. We have stripped the vital nutrients out of our limited farming land.

Monsanto is the EPITOME of evil in my book. Everything that is wrong with Corporate America is represented by Monsanto. They've been in bed with the US Gov't for a VERY long time, and do not a single thing in a transparent method where the public actually knows what is going on.

But, as the old saying goes, we cannot afford to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We DO need to work on genetically modified seeds. If nothing else, think about the first attempts to establish colonies on other planets. Or the need to make seeds that will better adapt to zero-G or even artificial soil/atmospheric conditions. We have starvation and rampant faming/water issues.

Change happens. Advances happen. Perhaps it's time to think this through logically, and not emotionally.

This also means doing it in such a way where HEIRLOOM crops stay pure, and the GMO crops are isolated as much as humanly possible. Every effort must be taken to make this happen.

Also, testing needs to occur to make sure that what we are being given is actually SAFE for human AND animal consumption.

Perhaps this CAN be achieved. I hope so. But I feel that Monsanto needs to go down. Just my $.02.

posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 08:51 PM
From the link:
Indeed, the loathing of all GMOs stems from a more fundamental fallacy, for which any criticism of Monsanto only provides convenient cover. That fallacy is the assumption that “the natural” – i.e., anything not affected by human technology, or, more realistically, human technology of sufficiently recent origin – is somehow optimal for human purposes or simply for its own sake. While it is logically conceivable that some genetic modifications to organisms could render them more harmful than they would otherwise be (though there has never been any evidence of such harms arising despite the trillions of servings of genetically modified foods consumed to date), the condemnation of all genetic modifications using techniques from the last 60 years is far more sweeping than this. Such condemnation is not and cannot be scientific; rather, it is an outgrowth of the indiscriminate anti-technology agenda of the anti-GMO campaigners. A scientific approach, based on experimentation, empirical observation, and the immense knowledge thus far amassed regarding chemistry and biology, might conceivably give rise to a sophisticated classification of GMOs based on gradations of safety, safe uses, unsafe uses, and possible yet-unknown risks. The anti-GMO campaigners’ approach, on the other hand, can simply be summarized as “Nature good – human technology bad” – not scientific or discerning at all.
I couldn't disagree more...

For one thing, safety issue and heirloom seeds isn't as simple as the author would have you believe.

Let me give you an example from a thread in another forum I frequented years ago that started by contemplating how the misbehavior of children at putt-putt golf courses was a small scale example of the degradation of respect growing disregard for authority in modern society.

One of the regulars took the stance that an occasional group of kids that started holes while those in front of them weren't done yet wasn't indicative of a gradual breakdown in American society. He also had no problem with them jumping holes as they saw fit. For example 2-5-3-8, etc...

Someone else made what I considered to be a brilliant example.

Consider your society an 8oz. glass of pure water. Now introduce contamination, let's say we add a tsp. of dirt. It is a physical impossibility to ever bring that glass back to its original state. You can add all the water you want, but it will never be pure again.

There is NO foolproof way of isolating a GMO crop. The only way to assure neighboring farms of never becoming contaminated is to NOT PLANT GMO crops. Worst of all is the fact that the farmer who should rightfully be upset is the one treated like a criminal...

As far as safety?? Don't forget that the human gut has been found to play a much, much greater role in our overall well-being than once thought. Serotonin, for example, is produced in the gut.
65 Health Risks of GM Foods

edit on 16-10-2013 by CornShucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 05:19 AM
gmos are bad and monsanto is also bad

new topics

log in