Ironically, there is a lot of propaganda pushed by the likes of USRTK and the OCA, calling anyone including university scientists that contradict them as Monsanto shills. These groups are also anti vaccine, against water fluoridation [1] etc...
I've largely stopped arguing online, because conversations become really super polarised and sometimes nasty. Its hard to have an intelligent discussion. A good place to find info on these issues is the Food and Farm Discussion Lab
https://facebook.com/groups/FAFDL/
[0] https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/how-mainstream-media... [1] https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/water-fluoridation-che...
The scientific consensus on GMOs being safe is stronger than consensus on climate change. If you go against the scientific consensus, you are rightly labeled as being anti-science.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_657213...
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark-lynas/gmo-s...
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-...
I'm meh about the genetics of GMO, its just accelerated selection. Transgenetic could be worrisome, so we should be hippocratic there.
But crops that allow us to expand into more arid, saline, or whatever areas are probably good to have. And developing perennial grains (eg kernza) sounds great.
But that's not why I oppose GMO.
--
I'm utterly opposed to "ReadyUp Ready" genetic engineering. Any effort to increase, permit the use of more pesticides (herbicides, insecticides) must be opposed. We need to reduce the use of pesticides, maybe even eventually ban all pesticides.
I'm utterly opposed to Monsanto's (and Big Ag's) business practices, especially patenting life, and secondarily turning all farmers (people who work the land) into serfs. Their GMO efforts, independent of the actual plants and biology, or just the wedge for those strategies.
I reject the pro-GMO arguments about increasing yield. We already toss 1/3 to 1/2 of the food produced. Trying to increase yields is passing over dollars to pick up pennies.
Lastly if Monsanto (and Big Ag) is for it, I'm against it. They've done so much harm, for so long, with zero contrition, I presume they're guilty. If there was some kind of truth and reconciliation tribunal, maybe, just maybe, I'd give them a second chance. And massive reparations followed by acts of goodwill.
But the burden of proof is on them, not me.
You are fighting your own best interests.
Roundup ready has reduced harmful pesticide application by millions of tons.
Yes, zero pesticide is best, but you can't reach the moon in one step. It takes incremental change. Glyphosate replaces much more harmful pesticides like atrazine, and we are all the better for it.
>especially patenting life,
You can't patent natural genetic sequences.
>and secondarily turning all farmers (people who work the land) into serfs
Contracts are willingly signed, and those that don't sign are successful in other areas of agriculture (see organic farming).
>I reject the pro-GMO arguments about increasing yield.
No GMO plant has ever directly tried to increase yield. Rather they mitigate risk from weather or pests.
>Lastly if Monsanto (and Big Ag) is for it, I'm against it.
I'm glad you're willing to approach this topic reasonably, and with an open mind.
Wise words. Big fan of incrementalism. Even though I’m currently freaked out about decline of pollinators, I’ll keep your viewpoint in mind.
If Big Ag owns this issue, and helps address it, I’ll ease up.
”...approach this topic reasonbly, and with an open mind.”
No such luck. I’m fresh out of goodwill. When Monsanto et al stop lying (being merchants of doubt), I’ll resume listening.
As my libertarian bestie teases me: the problem with you liberals is you can’t tolerate hypocracy. Guilty as charged. To my tribe, any good Monsanto does is completely negated by their (documented, proven) malfeasance.
- Terminator seeds? myth, that technology was never commercialised [0] - Suing farmers for accidental contamination? Mostly false. For example in the case of the canadian farmer, he knowingly replanted GM seeds from plants that he sprayed with roundup and ending up with 95% GM canola, breaking patent law and hence getting sued - Indian Suicide caused by GM Cotton ? Myth. Indian farmers are committing suicide but not because of GM cotton. In fact, GM cotton got approved because Indian farmers where importing it on the black market. [2]
I'm not saying Monsanto is completely blameless in everything (as the dicamba story shows), but they do provide a very easy target to demonise and blame for a lot of issues. I used to be on the anti monsanto bandwagon as you, but after looking deeper, I realised a lot of it is BS. Those stories (especially the Indian suicide one), are very compelling so I understand why a lot of people believe them wholesale. Alas, the reality is a lot more complex.
[0]https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/gmos-and-patents-part-1... [1]https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/lawsuits-against-farmer... [2]http://issues.org/30-2/keith/
I wish they'd just argue about sports teams.
Not that I am saying your definitely are, but looking at your post history it is easy to see how people might believe that. You barely talk about anything other than Monsanto being a positive force.
It has a chilling effect and silences the discussion.
An argument should be able to stand on its own regardless of whether an astroturf exists or not. Money doesn't change the facts, and astroturf is by definition finite. Facts, especially quantitative facts will win in the long term.
Money can make facts go unheard and/or unheeded.
>astroturf is by definition finite.
What definition says that? Astroturfing can be and is often automated
>Facts, especially quantitative facts will win in the long term
Many religions and mythologies seem to indicate otherwise
This is why it's important to respond with a factual debate only. You're actually helping them if you make more noise about other matters instead of sticking with facts.
For a time. But people get bored, tired, and distracted. Facts are permanent.
>What definition says that? Astroturfing can be and is often automated
Servers cost money. Bandwidth costs money. Admins cost money. Businesses aren't going to fund astroturfing indefinitely. Even in the most extreme circumstances, like the climate change debate, the truth still dominates.
>Many religions and mythologies seem to indicate otherwise
You're right. Thats why modern science believes in creation, and the geocentric model. Clearly religion and mythology won out.
-If the truth dominates in the climate change debate, why is it still being debated while the problem continues to get worse?
-It remains that the majority of people on the planet have a religious faith, and those beliefs continue to affect government/state policy (i.e. bans on stem cell research, birth control etc) as it has for thousands of years
All carefully calculated to get you to buy their overpriced luxury product!
Look, people disagree about things. Get over it.
Occam's razor. What is more likely :
A. This normal person on the internet disagrees with me.
B. There is a multinational conspiracy to control the narrative on topic X and in reality everyone universally agrees with me that topic X is a bad thing.
How about
B. Huge conglomerate with huge advertising budget uses some of that money on new innovative grass-roots advertising strategy (which is not illegal and can be very effective especially compared to online ads).
— Upton Sinclair
Imagine that.