Support NeoGAF

[mnz]

Would you feel this way for any populist position?

"Populist" is very judgemental, but if we're really going down the theoretical hole here then I would say "yes" if the position is strong enough within the population.

The position is also ignoring critics not against the healthiness of those products, but those against the workings of the modern food and agriculture industry.

Do you think people should be told about the link some think exists between vaccinations and autism before their kids get shots?

No, because it's unsubstantiated nonsense.

This doesn't really fit the argument unless there are anti-vaxxers that distinguish between vaccines, which I'm not aware of.

 

[Wereroku]

There's a lot of research indicating that's actually NOT the case. (That all gets dismissed though; it's more pleasing to confirm biases.) One of many sources: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408

The biggest advantage to farming that GMO's have brought is the reduction in manpower required to work them. Before roundup ready crops farmers had to spend much more time to get the same yield. It also allowed for the use of less toxic herbicides and significantly less use of pesticides.

"Populist" is very judgemental, but if we're really going down the theoretical hole here then I would say "yes" if the position is strong enough within the population.

The position is also ignoring critics not against the healthiness of those products, but those against the workings of the modern food and agriculture industry.

This doesn't really fit the argument unless there are anti-vaxxers that distinguish between vaccines, which I'm not aware of.

To fit withing the concept an Antivaxer would say Vaccines are equivalent to GMO's and the Organic equivalent would be letting your kid get the disease itself. With vaccines being lab grown and diseases being natural.

 

[Kinitari]

There's a lot of research indicating that's actually NOT the case. (That all gets dismissed though; it's more pleasing to confirm biases.) One of many sources: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408

You shared this link before, and i talked about how it was fundamentally flawed. I don't mean that it's methods were bad, but that it intentionally fucks the data

http://gmopundit.blogspot.ca/2013/06/why-do-heinemann-2013-use-wrong-year-to.html?m=1

Heinemann and colleagues have chosen to drawn conclusions of no beneficial yield impact of GM technology in North America by using a comparison period starting in 1986 which is ten years away from the actual start date. In their paper, they give no clear justification for using this start year, and ignore the relevant start point for GM introduction that occurred a decade into their 1986-2011 comparison period.

On the other hand, if they had used the right comparison time period, they might have picked up this interesting observation noted by Chris Preston:

The link goes into detail. If I share some studies, you can feel free to take them apart

 

[Beer Monkey]

The biggest advantage to farming that GMO's have brought is the reduction in manpower required to work them. Before roundup ready crops farmers had to spend much more time to get the same yield. It also allowed for the use of less toxic herbicides and significantly less use of pesticides.

Also, much more tilling before glyphosate, and tilling destroys our topsoil (and increases runoff, harming our water supply).

 

[djSyndrome]

Was IT for a (much) smaller company that Bayer CropScience swallowed whole some years ago. They only wanted patents and scientists; nearly everyone else was out within 12 months.

I fully expect the same from this deal.

 

[Matt]

This doesn't really fit the argument unless there are anti-vaxxers that distinguish between vaccines, which I'm not aware of.

Yes, of course there are.

And it fits the argument perfectly. Giving people useless information doesn't solve any problems. The only thing warning people about the supposed dangers of vaccinations would do is make less people get vaccinations, even though those dangers are actually completely made up. Likewise, forced labeling of GMO food would only serve to make people think there is a reason it needs to be labeled. Which there isn't.

 

[prag16]

I'll see your cherry picked study and raise it with a meta-analysis showing that "GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%".

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

There is plenty of other research that has found all those claims questionable for varying reasons.

We're too quick to smugly declare this or that "settled". It makes us feel smart. I get it. But eschewing the scientific method as a result helps nobody. EDIT Like Matt does in the post directly above me.

 

[Beer Monkey]

There is plenty of other research that has found all those claims questionable for varying reasons.

We're too quick to smugly declare this or that "settled". It makes us feel smart. I get it. But eschewing the scientific method as a result helps nobody.

Do you understand hierarchy of evidence and why metastudies >>>> studies?

This is the scientific method.

 

[mnz]

To fit withing the concept an Antivaxer would say Vaccines are equivalent to GMO's and the Organic equivalent would be letting your kid get the disease itself. With vaccines being lab grown and diseases being natural.

With the difference that anti-vaxxers risk the death of their children and people that don't want to buy GMOs risk...absolutely nothing.

Yes, of course there are.

And it fits the argument perfectly. Giving people useless information doesn't solve any problems. The only thing warning people about the supposed dangers of vaccinations would do is make less people get vaccinations, even though those dangers are actually completely made up. Likewise, forced labeling of GMO food would only serve to make people think there is a reason it needs to be labeled. Which there isn't.

Again. GMO criticism is not only about the health of the product.

 

[Kill3r7]

Ha. That's bullshit, too.

Also, simply owning he rights to seeds is bullshit. Allowing companies to copyright DNA is nonsense.

Any man-made/synthetic alterations to DNA should be patentable and it is as long as the DNA is performing the function for which it was originally patented — known as purpose-bound protection.

 

[Matt]

With the difference that anti-vaxxers risk the death of their children and people that don't want to buy GMOs risk...absolutely nothing.


Again. GMO criticism is not only about the health of the product.

Mandatory food labeling should be for medical reasons, not political. Otherwise we can start demanding forced labels for all sorts of things.

Producers are free to label their food as GMO-free if they want to appeal to that market.

 

[FStubbs]

Bayer is much more evil than Monsanto. Didn't they literally supply Hitler with Zyklon B?

 

[Kinitari]

For more on how GMO is devastating developing nation communities and the environment:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/bt-brinjal-destroying-the-anti-gmo-narrative/

The story of Bt brinjal in Bangladesh is perhaps and even more dramatic example, and is farther along in development. Bt brinjal (eggplant) varieties were developed by several universities. In 2014 Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) released four Bt brinjal varieties that had completed years of field trials showing that they were safe and viable.

Seeds were given to farmers who, by many accounts, are thrilled with the results. Brinjal is a staple in the region. Typically a farmer might expect 40% of their crop to be lost to pest damage. They have to spray heavy doses of insecticide 140-180 times throughout the growing season, as often as several times per week.

Farmers growing the Bt varieties report a dramatic reduction in pesticide use by over 80% and virtually no crop loss to pests. The plants are healthy and productive.

 

[Valhelm]

No matter your thoughts on Monsanto, a merger of this scale is frightening

 

[ClosingADoor]

Bayer is much more evil than Monsanto. Didn't they literally supply Hitler with Zyklon B?

I'm going to guess current management and employees had little say in that.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

Bayer is much more evil than Monsanto. Didn't they literally supply Hitler with Zyklon B?

Their precursor was member of the AG Farben, who made Zyklon B.
So yes and no.

 

[mnz]

Bayer is much more evil than Monsanto. Didn't they literally supply Hitler with Zyklon B?

They were a part of I.G. Farben, which did that. So kind of, yes.

 

[johnny956]

Another big loss for St. Louis, Anheuser Busch was the other big company bought by a German company

 

[Uhyve]

I've not really been following this, how are they getting around the vertical integration anti-trust laws? Isn't this a pretty clear cut example?

I mean, they might be inclined to make their seeds more reliant on crop chemicals.

 

[ColdLasagna]

I love me some Agent Orange.

Spoiler

The band, fuck Monsanto

 

[Nategc20]

I don't like the "revolving door" Monsanto has with the FDA and their CEOS. Pretty shady shit.

 

[Alexlf]

There's a lot of research indicating that's actually NOT the case. (That all gets dismissed though; it's more pleasing to confirm biases.) One of many sources: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408

Just an FYI as far as that study reads to me they are saying that current GMOs aren't altered enough for the US midwest climate (specifically because of corn blight), and are suggesting new alterations that could be of more benefit.

So it's actually in favour of them lol.

EDIT: And further, a number of people seem to have raised objections to how they are collecting and presenting the data. Doesn't even seem like a very good study lol.

EDIT: And beaten.

 

[Wereroku]

I've not really been following this, how are they getting around the vertical integration anti-trust laws? Isn't this a pretty clear cut example?

I mean, they might be inclined to make their seeds more reliant on crop chemicals.

Huh? You realize Roundup ready crops can grow without ever applying roundup to them right? As far as I know they have never made a crop dependent on a chemical to grow usually they make them resistant to chemicals.

 

[wildfire]

Interesting buyout as they have been in negotiations and fended off an earlier deal. I just hope they keep their spunk. Contrary to the belief of just being an evil corp, they did actually fight for LGBT rights in their state.

I had to Google to make sure it was Monsanto you were talking about and I was poised to say they are more unethical than you try to downplay but looking into the matter I was wrong.

 

[M3d10n]

These fuckers have been "lobbying" (to use the milder version of the word) in my country so they can keep selling pesticides that have been banned for years in the US and Europe.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Damn, no one brought up the Indian farmer suicide myth or the fraudulent Seralini research. I was hoping to complete my "regurgitated anti-GMO talking points" bingo sheet before page 3 ends.

 

[RedToad64]

I can't believe people are defending Monsanto here.

 

[WolfeTone]

I can't believe people are defending Monsanto here.

Why not? They've done a lot for the advancement of food science across the world.

Most of the complaints people seem to have against them are scientifically unfounded or based on urban legends and hearsay.

 

[Matt]

I can't believe people are defending Monsanto here.

If you are going to damn them for something, damn them for something awful they actually do, not urban legends and internet gossip.

 

[Kinitari]

I can't believe people are defending Monsanto here.

It would be great if we could talk through any reasons you have for disliking Monsanto. I mean, the company is not without issues - but they're in line with the sort of issues you see every large company have, not the sort of thing people usually accuse them of conducting in.

People defend Monsanto because they are mischaracterized as some demonic entity, as a part of an overall campaign to demonize GMO.

Consider how many people in this thread 'can't believe we are defending Monsanto' do not actually engage in discussing the issues with Monsanto. I feel like it might be because Evil Monsanto is one of those truisms not many people bother to actually research.

 

[WolfeTone]

It would be great if we could talk through any reasons you have for disliking Monsanto. I mean, the company is not without issues - but they're in line with the sort of issues you see every large company have, not the sort of thing people usually accuse them of conducting in.

People defend Monsanto because they are mischaracterized as some demonic entity, as a part of an overall campaign to demonize GMO.

Consider how many people in this thread 'can't believe we are defending Monsanto' do not actually engage in discussing the issues with Monsanto. I feel like it might be because Evil Monsanto is one of those truisms not many people bother to actually research.

Every discussion about GMO or Monsanto on GAF goes this way. It's nice to see well-informed posters such as yourself linking to credited studies which dispel these notions. Liberal-minded folks (at least 90% of posters here) tend to have a strong anti-corporation bias that is hard to shake for a lot of people. Big corporation does not always equal evil corporation.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

I feel like it might be because Evil Monsanto is one of those truisms not many people bother to actually research.

You know this is exactly what it is. I held the same beliefs until I actually did some damn research into GMO's and the company itself.

 

[nacimento]

Another big loss for St. Louis, Anheuser Busch was the other big company bought by a German company

InBev is Belgian-Brazilian, though.

 

[Xe4]

I love me some Agent Orange.

Spoiler

The band, fuck Monsanto

The US used the Defense Production act to compel Monsanto and other companies to produce agent orange. During the production and testing, Monsanto warned the US government of possible negative health effects, a warning that was not heeded. Years after the war, Monsanto fully stopped producing chemical agents for any purpose, and moved fully into the field of biochemistry. Of course they're not guilt free, but saying they made Agent Orange is a bit of a misnomer.

And why fuck Monsanto? Any particular buisnesses, medical, or legal decisions that lead you to say that?

 

[Divvy]

You know this is exactly what it is. I held the same beliefs until I actually did some damn research into GMO's and the company itself.

Same.

I mean, they aren't like some noble company or anything, but they aren't particularly evil either. I just lump them in with all the other corporations I have a healthy general distrust of.

 

[RedToad64]

Every discussion about GMO or Monsanto on GAF goes this way. It's nice to see well-informed posters such as yourself linking to credited studies which dispel these notions. Liberal-minded folks (at least 90% of posters here) tend to have a strong anti-corporation bias that is hard to shake for a lot of people. Big corporation does not always equal evil corporation.

It would be great if we could talk through any reasons you have for disliking Monsanto. I mean, the company is not without issues - but they're in line with the sort of issues you see every large company have, not the sort of thing people usually accuse them of conducting in.

People defend Monsanto because they are mischaracterized as some demonic entity, as a part of an overall campaign to demonize GMO.

Consider how many people in this thread 'can't believe we are defending Monsanto' do not actually engage in discussing the issues with Monsanto. I feel like it might be because Evil Monsanto is one of those truisms not many people bother to actually research.

If you are going to damn them for something, damn them for something awful they actually do, not urban legends and internet gossip.

Why not? They've done a lot for the advancement of food science across the world.

Most of the complaints people seem to have against them are scientifically unfounded or based on urban legends and hearsay.

I know that it is probably intentional, but when posters gang up like this and pat each other on the back it makes it seem like you have some sort of agenda that is trying to be pushed.

I know farmers that are scared of Monsanto. When a huge company like that - which is basically in bed with the FDA - is so sue-happy, the farmers have difficulties keeping wind from carrying Monsanto's samples and their own soil fresh. Wouldn't you be frightened of a company that comes into your farm to check if there are any issues with the soil... ya know, for "legal reasons"?

I don't want to start an argument here, but there are some real reasons to be frustrated with them.

 

[Matt]

I know that it is probably intentional, but when posters gang up like this and pat each other on the back it makes it seem like you have some sort of agenda that is trying to be pushed.

I know farmers that are scared of Monsanto. When a huge company like that - which is basically in bed with the FDA - is so sue-happy, the farmers have difficulties keeping wind from carrying Monsanto's samples and their own soil fresh. Wouldn't you be frightened of a company that comes into your farm to check if there are any issues with the soil... ya know, for "legal reasons"?

I don't want to start an argument here, but there are some real reasons to be frustrated with them.

Except, again, Monsanto has never sued a farmer for accidental cross-pollination. If they have, please point out when.

The people asking for actual evidence of what is being suggested aren't the ones trying to push an agenda.

 

[Hilbert]

I know that it is probably intentional, but when posters gang up like this and pat each other on the back it makes it seem like you have some sort of agenda that is trying to be pushed.

I know farmers that are scared of Monsanto. When a huge company like that - which is basically in bed with the FDA - is so sue-happy, the farmers have difficulties keeping wind from carrying Monsanto's samples and their own soil fresh. Wouldn't you be frightened of a company that comes into your farm to check if there are any issues with the soil... ya know, for "legal reasons"?

I don't want to start an argument here, but there are some real reasons to be frustrated with them.

The last time in this thread someone brought this up, they were asked for the court cases.

The cases were not provided. Can you provide them?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I never thought I would buy Monsanto stock but I did it today. I hope this merger goes through, the premium Bayer is promising is enticing indeed.

The consolidation in agriculture this year should worry anybody who's paying attention. We're not quite to the point where VersaLife is possible in the real world but we're getting closer every day.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Monsanto reduces the carbon footprint of our crop production dramatically and reduces the use of highly toxic pesticides. Stop believing bullshit you see in "documentaries".

By enabling a giant livestock husbandry industry to exist primarily for the benefit of procesed food giants? When the crops they help grow start primarily feeding people directly, you will have a point. Until then, they are enabling climate change acceleration.

 

[G.ZZZ]

I am so ready for our supercorps overlord.

I got money and arable land you fuckers can't blackmail me.

 

[numble]

Another US company becomes a foreign company with the combined entities saving a ton on taxes.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Another US company becomes a foreign company with the combined entities saving a ton on taxes.

What's crazy is Bayer actually had themselves delisted from NYSE almost a decade ago because they got tired of being subject to US accounting regulations. You can only buy Bayer as ADRs on the OTC market.

 

[ZOONAMI]

I worked at a Monsanto corn seed development place in middle school and high school and the supervisors basically admitted to hiring illegal immigrants and keeping them away from us kids. Like we could see them working but they would keep them away from us and not let us talk to them.

I actually don't think this is such a bad thing as illegal workers need jobs too but I'm sure they were paying them jack shit which sucks, I was just surprised at the brazenness of it.

But yeah they were basically doing all their manual labor with 12-16 year olds and illegal workers, which I don't think is a good look.

 

[Princess Carl]

The last time in this thread someone brought this up, they were asked for the court cases.

The cases were not provided. Can you provide them?

Of course he cant.

 

[MCN]

I don't like this. Monsanto is an evil company, plain and simple, and Bayer, well, they're not angels either. It's like this big super monster.

So between a company that is literally saving lives and reducing toxicity in food and the environment, and a company that literally produced the gas that was used to kill millions of Jews during the holocaust, you think the former is the most evil one?

Get to fuck.

 

[Xe4]

By enabling a giant livestock husbandry industry to exist primarily for the benefit of procesed food giants? When the crops they help grow start primarily feeding people directly, you will have a point. Until then, they are enabling climate change acceleration.

I don't think that's fair. Monsanto makes seeds. They don't decide who uses them or what they're used for. It is not the onus of Monsanto to ensure that there is less meat production, that is on the government needing to regulate those industries and promote healthy eating.

 

[mnz]

So between a company that is literally saving lives and reducing toxicity in food and the environment, and a company that literally produced the gas that was used to kill millions of Jews during the holocaust, you think the former is the most evil one?

Get to fuck.

1) It was IG Farben
2) Agent Orange
3) Bayer invented Heroin, too!
4) Why would you not look at current practices? The fuck does Bayer of 2016 have to do with WWII?

 

[MCN]

1) It was IG Farben
2) Agent Orange
3) Bayer invented Heroin, too!
4) Why would you not look at current practices?

1) IG Farben is the predecessor of modern Bayer, and were the parent company of Bayer at the time. They are basically one and the same.
2) This has already been covered earlier in the thread. They were made to do it by the government.
3) Is that a defence?
4) Why wouldn't you, and I don't mean some Youtube video put together in somebody's basement about TEH EVUL CORPORASHUNS.

 

[ReAxion]

I still won't drink Fanta!