Readers: "Genetically modified organisms are going to kill us" versus "They're perfectly safe"

Yesterday, we posted about a small group that defended the safety of genetically modified organisms, during this weekend's March Against Monsanto. Shortly after publication, a debate broke out between the pro-GMOs group, the Monsanto Defense Fund, and the anti-Monsanto forces. Here's an example of the spirited back-and-forth.

plantdoctor writes:

Horseshit to everything you say Monsantodefensefund. They are a chemical company. The only way to patent a plant, and gain a food monopoly is by GENETIC MODIFICATION. Save the world??? Ha! Most of the genetic changes are so they can sell more chemicals. Genetic modifications DO NOT happen naturally, and are not the result of evolution. How will these cropss evolve? What are the long term damages from consuming them? There is no solid proof, and you biotech link is garbage. No solid proof hence why GMO's are banned in other countries. And yes, they have plenty of people who are working in our government now. Do you really think they want their precious stock and investments in GMO's to tank?????

Not to mention the fact that if you are a farmer, you can not use the seeds that fall from the plants to re-plant the next year. The seeds that fall from the plant will grow nothing because they have been contaminated with weed killer that has been put in the previous seeds. You have to BUY NEW seeds every year and THAT is how Monsanto makes it's money.

MonsantoDefenseFund writes:

I guess just dismissing everything I say is easier than arguing any of the points I made. That's ideology for you, folks!

Sure, they're a business. The private sector can't afford to sink the millions upon millions into research that Monsanto has. Flood tolerant rice and Golden Rice are examples of what that research has yielded. (no pun intended) They should be allowed to make money.

Corn as we know it wasn't the process of evolution, it was forced breeding. Again, these crops have gone through the most testing in modern agriculture. You can always say there's not enough research, but that's anti-science and anti-progress. Is a decade of testing enough for you? A century? You don't offer alternatives.

GMO's are banned in other countries (or continents, in Europe's case) because it's a form of protectionism. After WWII, Europe decided it wanted to control its own food production. Most of their GM imports were from the U.S., hence the ban. Economics, not safety. The FDA's European counterpart actually says their safe.

And unless you can prove that there's been favorable treatment in the government toward Monsanto, that's just conjecture.

Like most of your arguments.

For more memorable takes, visit our Comment of the Day archive.


Sponsor Content

Newsletters

All-access pass to the top stories, events and offers around town.

  • Top Stories
    Send:

Newsletters

All-access pass to top stories, events and offers around town.

Sign Up >

No Thanks!

Remind Me Later >