Okay, I'll respond to these copy-n-paste talking points, but that's it, since I don't want to thread jack this any further.
Quote:
1. GMOs increase the corporate control of our food
|
This is more about paranoia and conspiracy than anything else. Worries that some big corporate entity is taking over the world is nothing new, and it's really rooted in fear rather than reality.
Do large corporations work in agriculture and food production? Absolutely. If you think that the stuff you get at the local grocery store is made by little independent farmers, you're fooling yourself. The market naturally incentivizes the production and business efficiencies that larger corporations are able to provide. This is what commercial businesses do. Profit is a great motivator, and it's a cornerstone of the American culture. It should be no surprise that businesses are always looking at way to increase production and improve margins.
If you see this as an evil cabal of corporate greed, or if you just want to have food items that are locally produced (and arguably fresher) you can always go to your local farmers market or food cooperative. Freedom of the consumer to make a choice like this is also a cornerstone of the free market system.
Quote:
2. GMOs don’t live up to the hype
|
I'm not sure how to address this broad of a claim, but I will say that on the limited amount of products that are produced via direct genetic modification, it can be argued that there is some tangible benefit, or the economic reality of it would end the process.
Quote:
3. More GMOs means more chemical use
|
In reality, crops that have insect resistance (Bt traits) built into them actually require LESS treatment than the crops that are used in more traditional production. That's part of the point of building the resistance into the plant to begin with. And while the glyphosate (Roundup) resistant traits do allow the farmer to apply higher levels of glyphosate, that isn't unexpected, since the goal is to eradicate unwanted weeds without harming the desired crop. They build in resistance so they can more efficiently kill off the competing plants.
What isn't mentioned is that other farming methods - organic among them - use pesticides that have a higher toxicity, and are required to use higher application levels to achieve their intended benefit.
Quote:
4. GMOs and organics can’t coexist
|
Cross contamination - or more accurately, cross pollination - of crops has always been a concern, even before the advent of direct genetic modification. Organic farmers worry that they will lose their ability to label their crops "organic" if the winds blow in from the GMO produced crops. and the reverse is also true - the unwanted traits of non-GMO crops can actually invade the GMO crops. This type of cross pollination has always been known, and while it can be problematic, there is no logical reason to think that both farming methods can't coexist.
One thing that bugs me is that "GMO" has become an inaccurately demonized buzzword. Like, "Ewww...I got some GMO on me!" It's not a disease that spreads, and it's not some nasty, evil compound that can spread. It's a production method similar to what has been done for eons (hybridization), and it's methods are arguably more accurate and useful.
Quote:
5. The research is biased
|
Like with any other industry, anti tech forces claim that the pro tech research is biased because they are funded by the tech companies. Of course many of them are. Why wouldn't they be? Does it mean that the research is less scientifically valid, especially if it is properly done and properly peer reviewed? No.
When all logic fails, throw out the shill card and attempt to impugn the source rather than argue the merits of the information.
Anyway, I do think it's wise to keep an eye on the topic, but I also believe that there is rampant, illogical paranoia being pushed by a variety of social media "experts," and sometimes it requires thinking people to take a step back and analyze the information from all points.
So...back to the original thread...