Support NeoGAF

[nampad]

If this happens, I am not sure what I hate more about Bayer, the suckers from Neverkusen or Monsanto.

 

[WolfeTone]

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.

While you are correct that the livestock industry is extremely harmful to the environment, Monsanto is simply meeting demand for seeds. If Monsanto didn't provide the seeds for cattle feed, some other company would.

What you describe is a problem with consumers' demand for meat.

 

[213372bu]

ITT I learned:
Monsanto stans actually exist.
By virtue of creating GMOs, which aren't produced by any other source, Monsanto is actually pretty cool.
By being Anti-Monsanto practices you are anti-GMO.
Monsanto seeds blowing into neighboring farms that don't use their seed and being sued is totally not bullshit.
Rather than make an argument it's pretty cool to just compare based on tangentially tied causes.
People who believe Monsanto's shenanigans are BS are similar to anti-Vax conspiracy nuts.
It's cool to judge an argument based on those who are stereotyped as "followers".
Watching documentaries and reading testimonials is a thing to be laughed at and mocked, whereas not watching them is actually a sign you're not a sheep.

Good stuff.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

ITT I learned:
Monsanto stans actually exist.
By virtue of creating GMOs, which aren't produced by any other source, Monsanto is actually pretty cool.
By being Anti-Monsanto practices you are anti-GMO.
Monsanto seeds blowing into neighboring farms that don't use their seed and being sued is totally not bullshit.
Rather than make an argument it's pretty cool to just compare based on tangentially tied causes.
People who believe Monsanto's shenanigans are BS are similar to anti-Vax conspiracy nuts.
It's cool to judge an argument based on those who are stereotyped as "followers".
Watching documentaries and reading testimonials is a thing to be laughed at and mocked, whereas not watching them is actually a sign you're not a sheep.

Good stuff.

Are you cereal?
You didn't read anything f the sources?

 

[WolfeTone]

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.

I'm not sure I understand, but because multiple posters say the same thing it means we're 'ganging up'? Could it not just be the case that Monsanto not being evil is a valid opinion?

I don't mean to be dismissive, but you have some anecdotal evidence of farmers being scared of Monsanto. Every time someone mentions Monsanto suing farmers it's always anecdotal, never evidence-based. That's not to say I don't believe what you're saying. I just prefer to rely on evidence and actual court cases.

 

[Kinitari]

ITT I learned:
Monsanto stans actually exist.
By virtue of creating GMOs, which aren't produced by any other source, Monsanto is actually pretty cool.
By being Anti-Monsanto practices you are anti-GMO.
Monsanto seeds blowing into neighboring farms that don't use their seed and being sued is totally not bullshit.
Rather than make an argument it's pretty cool to just compare based on tangentially tied causes.
People who believe Monsanto's shenanigans are BS are similar to anti-Vax conspiracy nuts.
It's cool to judge an argument based on those who are stereotyped as "followers".
Watching documentaries and reading testimonials is a thing to be laughed at and mocked, whereas not watching them is actually a sign you're not a sheep.

Good stuff.

Are you looking to engage with someone or just sort of... talk at the thread?

 

[Dai101]

ITT I learned:
Monsanto stans actually exist.
By virtue of creating GMOs, which aren't produced by any other source, Monsanto is actually pretty cool.
By being Anti-Monsanto practices you are anti-GMO.
Monsanto seeds blowing into neighboring farms that don't use their seed and being sued is totally not bullshit.
Rather than make an argument it's pretty cool to just compare based on tangentially tied causes.
People who believe Monsanto's shenanigans are BS are similar to anti-Vax conspiracy nuts.
It's cool to judge an argument based on those who are stereotyped as "followers".
Watching documentaries and reading testimonials is a thing to be laughed at and mocked, whereas not watching them is actually a sign you're not a sheep.

Good stuff.

Are you sure you actually read?

 

[RedToad64]

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.

Nope. The information I posted was heard personally from farmers I know. If they were lying then they got me good.

You guys won. I don't want to argue about this. Get the last word in, please.

I'm not sure I understand, but because multiple posters say the same thing it means we're 'ganging up'? Could it not just be the case that Monsanto not being evil is a valid opinion?

It is a valid opinion. It just reminds me of trying to discuss the Xbox One shortly after the PS4 released; you'd be laughed out of this forum. Hive minds are a real thing that exists. It's why I prefer NeoGAF over Reddit - unpopular opinions get drowned out over there with the post voting system.

 

[ReAxion]

Watching documentaries and reading testimonials is a thing to be laughed at and mocked.

Documentaries are entertainment. You really didn't know that?

 

[213372bu]

Are you cereal?
You didn't read anything f the sources?

Are you sure you actually read?

The article on the merger or the GMOs aren't actually bad sources?

Because neither are on what I'm addressing.

Are you looking to engage with someone or just sort of... talk at the thread?

At the thread, I don't want to get in an argument over my beliefs on Monsanto, go through a dance that I know GMOs are perfectly fine etc.

Just wanted to note that they aren't exactly a perfect company and I'm not sure why people feel the need to defend them or something.

That and some of the tangential arguing is crazy.
--

Documentaries are entertainment. You really didn't know that?

Of course, I'm a big proponent of not taking documentaries at face value. Most documentaries have very valid criticism against them.

Blackfish is one of the more egregious ones as of late.

 

[KHarvey16]

Nope. The information I posted was heard personally from farmers I know. If they were lying then they got me good.

You guys won. I don't want to argue about this. Get the last word in, please.

So does the nonexistance of court cases where Monsanto sued a farmer for accidental contamination change your position at all?

 

[Beer Monkey]

So does the nonexistance of court cases where Monsanto sued a farmer for accidental contamination change your position at all?

Secret courts, the records were hidden by the shadow government of reptilians, I'm guessing.

 

[KHarvey16]

Secret courts, the records were hidden by the shadow government of reptilians, I'm guessing.

But do reptiles even like corn? We have to go deeper.

 

[213372bu]

I feel like clarifying myself over a few points just to make sure I'm clear, rather than ending on a vague note.

My initial post, and entire point of posting, was to just address some of the posts here.

I know that they've never actually threatened to sue a farmer over use of their seed. I know they aren't killing anyone with GMOs etc.

I hope my later posts put that across.

I just think that some of the positions lead on principle and assumption are very weak and that further tangential arguing has lead out to insane assertions.

Especially in the first two pages.

 

[Wensih]

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.

I'm for transparency, consumer awareness, and public knowledge, so while I support the use of GMO products; I also think proper labelling that informs the public what they're buying and ingesting is important not only to improve public trust in government and corporations but to improve public understanding (the latter is something that should also be improved through public education). I'm not advocating an audacious sticker, but more of a note on the nutritional facts and ingredients. For example, the golden rice box saying "bacterial cltr biosynthesized beta-carotene" in the nutritional facts and ingredients label. If people see that label and decide they do not want to purchase it because of the genetic modification then that is their individual freedom to do so, but I do not think the answer is to obscure how the food was produced and the benefit of being produced in such a way.

While this may be considered off-topic, Monsanto, the Corporation, threads are oddly synonymous with GMO and Vaccines, so I guess this is still within the topic of the thread.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm for transparency, consumer awareness, and public knowledge, so while I support the use of GMO products; I also think proper labelling that informs the public what they're buying and ingesting is important not only to improve public trust in government and corporations but to improve public understanding (the latter is something that should also be improved through public education). I'm not advocating a audacious sticker, but more of a note on the nutritional facts and ingredients. For example, the golden rice box saying "bacterial cltr biosynthesized beta-carotene" in the nutritional facts and ingredients label. If people see that label and decide they do not want to purchase it because of the genetic modification then that is their individual freedom to do so, but I do not think the answer is to obscure how the food was produced and the benefit of being produced in such a way.

How do you feel about the Canadian governments stance on what constitutes a GMO, and how should it affect labeling in your mind?

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/fs-if/gm-foods-aliments-gm-eng.php

What is genetically modified (GM) food? Essentially, a GM food is one derived from an organism that has had some of its heritable traits changed. This can involve:

Traditional techniques of crossbreeding.

Using chemicals or radiation to alter the genetic make-up of the organism's cells in a process called mutagenesis.

Applying recombinant DNA or genetic engineering techniques - for instance, introducing a gene from one species into another species.

Regardless of how they are produced, GM foods are regulated by Health Canada, which is responsible for establishing standards for the safety and nutritional quality of all foods sold in Canada. The Department controls the sale of GM foods through a mandatory pre-market notification procedure described under Division 28 of the Food and Drugs Regulations, also known as known as the Novel Foods Regulation.

 

[Wensih]

How do you feel about the Canadian governments stance on what constitutes a GMO, and how should it affect labeling in your mind?

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/fs-if/gm-foods-aliments-gm-eng.php

Sure, those criteria all fit the term genetically modified, and I understand that as genetic modification becomes more prevelant, it will be harder to fit everything onto the back of a soup label. Directing the public to an easily accessible product information database of genetically modified organisms detailing how they were genetically modified and the reasons why the genetic modification is beneficial and any possible health concerns that arise from genetic modification with the use of asterisk next to ingredients and the database website below the ingredients could be a solution to help inform the public.

Honestly, a federally funded database of food products and ingredients used in food production should be listed on the cans under the ingredients as some of those ingredients are non-informative as they are at the moment. If the can lists the database to look up the information using the keywords described on the can's nutrtional fact and ingredient label, then you could forgo the whole asteriking GMO ingredients because the database upon look-up should give the user information on the areas I specified above.

Edit: In the past directing the consumer somewhere else not readily available for information on decisions they were making in the moment wasn't a viable option in disseminating nutritional and ingredient facts; however, the internet and smart phones would allow this database to be in the pockets of shoppers at grocery stores, easily accessible.