There's No Debating the Benefits of GMO Foods!

[GreatGazoo]

Because that is the strategy of GMO backers like Bill Gates. Likely they have focus grouped and strategized and found out that putting the alleged benefits of GMO food in front of the end consumer is a losing proposition. They don't want to talk about the biggest benefits of GMO corn and soy: They can be sprayed with more and more glyphosate.

At exactly the time when consumers are demanding healthier, fresher and better tasting food, GMO food offers exactly the opposite of all three -- more pesticide residue, longer shelf life, more durable during shipping and taste be damned. In the anti-trust lawsuit of the 1990s, emails were discovered in which Bill Gates infamously told employees at MicroSoft to

Put the customer on a treadmill and force feed them upgrades.

The present strategy of "force feeding" advanced by Gates and other GMO food supporters is to:

1) say, despite peer-reviewed meta studies to the contrary, that the science and safety of GMO foods is "settled",
2) refuse to support this absurd religion-like claim, but instead
3) attack critics and the cautious as "anti-science", or "brainwashed,"
4) fight the consumer-requested labeling laws in Vermont and elsewhere, and
5) refuse to talk to consumers about what the benefits of eating GMO food allegedly are because that wouldn't help sell them at all.

Sound familiar?

McDonald's doesn't want to have that conversation either and they have rejected a new GMO potato. They don't want to tell their customers that the new potato has better storage tolerance, can be pre-sliced without browning as quickly, and produces less cancer in consumer than some other fried potatoes because NONE of those are benefits for the consumer except maybe the cancer thing but they don't want to talk about that either. Any discussion like that would underline the fact that GMO food is less fresh and less healthy by design.

The Innate potato is engineered to bruise less, keep for longer, resist browning when exposed to oxygen, and contain less of an amino acid called acrylamide (which was speculated back in 2002 to be carcinogenic). None of those qualities are flavor- or texture- or vitamin-related, but still, that quest would seem to be not so awful for GMO protestors. The issue many anti-GMO activists have with genetically modified plants is that they encourage the use of pesticides, which can in turn lead to mutated bugs resistant to bacteria — not the Innate potato.

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/

Since there is no way for the sellers of GMO foods to win an open discussion of GMO food's "benefits" for end consumers they don't want to have that discussion. Any attempt at such a discussion will be trolled and interrupted with attacks and logical fallacies.

[KittyWampus]

1. having any industrial crop comprised of genetic carbon copies of each other is insanity.

It is basic botanical science.

Crops MUST have some diversity within it.

There are many other reasons I am against most GMO's. Not all GMO's, but most. Mainly crops sown by seed.

But the first and foremost reason is the utter lack of any genetic diversity in GMO crops.

Crops hybridized using normal cross pollination have minute genetic differences so in the event of an infestation/blight at least some of them will remain and be resistant.

This is the most basic science.

Diversity within life forms is ESSENTIAL> GMO's eliminate that diversity.