Monsanto sign...

[Playinghardball]

[tecelote]

1. Monsanto asks California to pull plan to list herbicide as cancer cause

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/20/usa-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSL1N12K2P820151020#Pb8Xqo3thmbCwOAT.97

---

Why the United States Leaves Deadly Chemicals on the Market

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18504/epa_government_scientists_and_chemical_industry_links_influence_regulations

---

Dirty Money, Dirty Science

http://foodtank.com/news/2015/09/corruption-of-academic-crop-science-by-the-biotech-industry-reaches-far

[Mnemosyne]

2. Hear, hear! nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

3. Slow sickening deadly poisoning. It's kinda like they're doing it on purpose.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Population control.

And our government approves it!

[gregcrawford]

4. It's a tight grouping...

... and close competition for the distinction of "Most Evil Corporation on the Planet." There's Bayer and their neonictitinoids, but at least they make aspirin. Nestle is a bunch of malignant scumbags, but they make chocolate bars. So the winner is... MONSANTO! Their stated desire to control food production from seed to supper while intentionally poisoning half the world's population earns them the coveted title of "OBSCENELY EVIL FILTH BENEATH CONTEMPT!"

[Dont call me Shirley]

6. +1,000,000,000

[longship]

7. Monsanto may be an evil corporation, but genetic modification is not.

It is science. It may be perverted by a horrible corporation, but the science behind genetic modification has underpinned agriculture since its beginning. All the food one eats today is genetically modified.

The two things, genetic modification and Monsanto, are as different as two things can be. One is something that has been going on since the birth of agriculture, the other is corporate excess.

Maybe the two are orthogonal. Genetic modification, a normal process, is being exploited by a corporation.

What are called GMOs these days is the product of a natural process. To malign it is to malign, and misunderstand, nature. All of what we eat is genetically modified. All of it. There is no qualitative or quantitative difference between what humans have been doing since the birth of agriculture and the science that has given birth to modern crops, like golden rice which fucking prevents kids from going fucking blind.

But then there are the idiots who see all genetic modification to be connected to evil Monsanto. Of course, they are wrong. And they are also wrong that genetic modification is anything new.

And yes, Monsanto is evil. But so is thoughtless anti-GMO. Science tells the difference. Trust the science.

[Enthusiast]

8. No.

There is a qualitative and quantitative differences between what humans have been doing since the birth of agriculture and genetic modification. There is a huge difference in the time required and the changes available to the breeder vs the geneticist.

Yes, selective breeding is genetic modification but farmers could never insert the genes from a completely different species. And doing anything like this in one generation? No fucking way.

Farmers were the original geneticists. They had no genomes available to them. It is not the same. The scale is off the charts different.

What early 20th Century crop geneticist could imagine making corn super herbicide resistant?

[longship]

9. Yes!

Nature has been doing these things for millions of years. You have more bacterial mass in your body than human. So any foolish argument about bacterial genes in food is ignorant at best. All life on Earth are related, so all life on Earth has bacterial genes! All of it!

All food is frankenfood.

Now if one wants to argue against Monsanto business practices, that is a different thing. But genetic modification has been going on for millenia. The problem is not GMO.

[Enthusiast]

17. My argument is neither foolish nor ignorant.

But do continue to display your passion for defending genetic modification by corporations that are motivated entirely by profit considerations. This level of passion doesn't pass the smell test. The more you say the less we believe.

[longship]

19. I defend genetic modification...

not because it is supported by corporations, but because none of the food we eat would exist without genetic modification. NONE OF IT!!!

Wheat would not be today's wheat. Maize would not be today's corn. Cauliflower? Nope. Tomatoes? Nope. (No marinara sauce for you!)

Every single food we eat has been genetically modified over millenia by agriculture. That is what it does.

Meanwhile idiots who hate a despicable corporation, Monsanto, extend their hatred to what has given humankind the ability to feed some nearly 7 billion people (and counting). The fact that their arguments both ignore the best science and will likely result in lots of people dying seems to be a secondary issue as long as a single corporation (Monsanto) dies.

Well, what happens if Monsanto dies and farmers are still utilizing genetically modified plants? Who will the anti-GMO kooks demonize then?

The science is what the science is. One can put ones fingers in ones ears, close ones eyes and scream at the top of ones lungs " IS NOT! IS NOT!" all one wants. But current science says that genetic modification has not only been happening naturally for billions of years on Earth, human directed modification is responsible for all of modern agriculture.

Anti-GMO kooks have no leg to stand on.

And yes, Monsanto is still fucking evil.

[Enthusiast]

20. You keep saying the same thing even though it remains untrue.

None us that voice concerns over genetic modification are the least bit concerned about selective breeding or animal husbandry as practiced over the ages.

We do not see traditional agriculture as a threat because it is not the same as genetic modification as practiced today. You can claim it is the same all you want but we know the difference.

You keep saying Monsanto is evil. This is part of your camouflage. We can see through it. It is unconvincing.

Why do you passionately continue this argument? What is your motivation? One would think you were defending citizens deprived of justice. Such passion.

You haven't convinced anyone to adopt your position.

[longship]

21. It is the same damned thing!

In fact, because of molecular biology genetic modification can have much more specificity. That makes it safer and less prone to the vagaries of cross breeding.

But you cannot say such things to anti-GMO kooks who have their fingers in their ears and are screeching "La la la la -Monsanto!!". They don't listen to the scientists or the science.

It is maddening to engage them in a discussion on the topic.

Again, there is no qualitative difference between cross breeding animals and plants and today's genetic modification. They are both the same damned thing.

My passion is for the science.

I support genetic modification because the all the science says that it is safe.

[appal_jack]

23. Just like lovemaking is exactly like going to the doctor.

Sure, the same damned thing. I mean, in one case I am naked and with a partner I love and trust, and we are thrilling at each other's touch, and, if we so choose, we can mingle human DNA into a zygote, which could grow into a human being. And that's EXACTLY like going to a medical lab, getting my blood drawn, and then that guy in a lab coat taking that blood and exposing its cells to radiation and retroviruses and gene guns to create something that could not possibly be bred in a million years.



Sorry longship, but Enthusiast is in the right here. Breeding, even controlled breeding, is much different than genetic engineering. Yes, we have more bacterial DNA in us than human DNA, but it is a symbiotic, ecological relationship rather than an anthropogenic artifice. And if you eliminate the scientists with direct financial ties to Syngenta, Bayer, Monsanto, and other GMO corporations, I think that your perspective would be well outside the remaining learned and free-thinking consensus.

-app

[delrem]

11. They sell seed that's been modified to withstand the chemicals they sell.

They don't explain what those chemicals do to the environment.
That's not a profitable line of discussion.

[tecelote]

24. Exactly!

Even if they are healthy to eat in the short term, the extra chemicals needed to grow them are destroying our ecosystem.

We have to stop poisoning the earth.

[roody]

12. Not true.

[longship]

14. Is not! Is! Is not! Is!

What is this? An argument by two year olds?

Argument is an intellectual process. It is not the mere gain saying of ones opponent.

A helpful illustration:

If one has an argument, it had better fucking be better than "is not".

I rest my case. In other words,
QED

[Enthusiast]

16. You can rest your case. You have changed no minds here.

[longship]

18. Cemented minds are the problem.

That is something that science does not have. Scientists only hold an opinion based on current evidence. When the evidence changes, opinions change.

It is minds which do not change which are the problem.

All the science says that genetic modification is a natural process which humans have used for millenia, way before Monsanto, which BTW, is still utterly evil.

An unchangeable mind is a closed mind.

My mind is led by the science. And that says that genetic modification is safe and effective, and has been happening for thousands of years. It is called agriculture.

Biology 101, my friend.

[roody]

29. I took Biology and learned that

A tomato and a fish cannot reproduce.

[longship]

30. Then you should have also learned that tomato and fish have a common origin.

Like all life forms on Earth.

So your ignorant straw man argument is cast into ashes.

This is really getting tiring .

I am done here. Too much ignorance.

[roody]

31. Goodbye!

[rhett o rick]

25. When people speak badly of GMO they are referring to the exploitation by corps like Monsanto.

The fight against the abuse of GMO has nothing to do with hating science. That's a strawman. I love the science I hate the abuse by corps like Monsanto.

[longship]

28. I would agree with that.

There is no science against genetic modification.

However, the antics of Monsanto have a huge number of arguments against.

The two issues are two different things. One is supported by science (genetic modification) the other is corporate excess (Monsanto). When people conflate the two, they do damage to what is nature, and what is not. Genetic modification is a natural process. Politics is not.

[eridani]

33. I am dependent on human insulin made with genetically modified organisms

So I don't have a beef with the technology. But you know what? Adding the gene for insulin isn't the only thing they do. They also slice out the genes for the synthesis of several key metabolites, so that the resulting bugs can't survive in the wild. Why do you suppose they go through all that extra trouble?

Genetically modifying organisms to be resistant to a pesticide whose use increases dramatically thereafter is not an ethical thing, IMO.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

10. And Hillary gets more stock options. n/t

[sabrina 1]

13. They are on the defensive now pretty much everywhere, except here in the US.

[Eleanors38]

22. It's former P.R. hack is Bloomie's go-to for gun bans.

[ZombieHorde]

15. Even before Monsanto

we were supposed to wash our fruits and veggies before we ate them for a reason.

[rhett o rick]

27. Mostly psychological washing the poisons off the outside and consuming the poisons on the inside. nm

[cantbeserious]

26. Know Thy Enemy - Oligarchs, Corporations, Banks And Their Media Minions And MIC Henchmen

eom