The thing that always bothered me about the subject of GMOs is how the discussion is ruled by corporations on both sides. You've got Monsanto pushing to completely eradicate all regulation over extend control of key markets on one side, and the Organic food companies looking to use disinformation via social networking and expand control of key markets in their own way on the other side.

But they're like chemtrails! /s

I think GMOs should not be banned, but I agree that GMO products should be labeled, at least in the US.

There are inherent risks to them. We don't know how they affect people over a long period of time, for all we know there could be some stuff people have allergies to or it could increase the risk for cancer, and if nothing is known about it we may well not even know it's killing us. Now obviously it depends on the organism and what they actually do to modify it, but there still are risks to changing the proteins.

I know the reason they are modified is for the benefit of the people and the industry, but I still think we need to know more about the long term effects of GMO foods and as such they should be labeled as such if possible.

we've been using genetically modified foods for the past 30 years, they are not as new as you think

it's a fact

And even if they are I'd rather have my kids die from cancer when they are 50 than die from hunger when they are 5

But what are companies using them for?

Enriched white rice (I won't go into the fact that non-white rices already have the nutrients needed) is the poster child for "our companies are feeding children!" but the main pricepoints of the gmo producers are products such as roundup ready soy, wheat, corn, and flax. GMO producers don't focus on feeding people-- they focus on selling chemical-tolerant GMOs that work with the chemicals that they produce.

TL;DR both sides are full of **** . The public needs truth more.

What GMOs actually do is make crops disease ans pest-tolerant, by giving them specific toxins - for example Bt cotton, which produces specific toxins from the bacteria bacillus thuringiensis that only affect target insect species that actually eat the crop and are completely harmless to humans. This drastically lowers insecticide use. An example of disease resistance is papaya, which was done about 20 years ago in Hawaii, making the papaya entirely resistant to a virus. These are well known examples, and there are plenty more. Just need to Google

Chemical-tolerant GMO's make it vastly easier to grow the crops in many countries, the issue is not with them focusing on making it chemical-tolerant, the issue is that they patent these things and sue the **** out of you if you don't have a license to use them.

The people know what they're getting into when they sign up for that, though, you act as though they're hiding the fact that it doesn't make parent plants.

Roundup(glyphosate) inhibits certain catabolic enzymes in plants, which in GMO crops is countered by overproducing these enzymes. Other plants normally don't have this excess of essential proteins, so they die. However, these competing plants(tares I think they're called in English?) have already found ways to take up the crops' gene in their own genome, therefore making the original modification obsolete.

Sustainability of GMO's is a big issue.

But not relevant to the previous statement, it's easy for farmers to use currently.

Why does every time GMO is brought up everyone screams the companies are trying to sue poor farmers, the only legal cases of them suing farmers is when the farmers continue to store and use GMO grain after their agreement with the company is ended. It's akin to someone renting a laptop and then being sued when they refuse to stop using it.

"B-but cross pollination happened and then the farmer was sued!" No legally documented cases such as these exist, those who did cry this when they were being sued were found to have reused the GMO grain from previous harvests (when they still had an agreement with the GMO company) after said contract has ended and they didn't renew it. In fact relatively recently farmers have attempted to sue GMO companies for the RISK of their harvests being cross pollinated.

In short, study the subject before you spread misinformation. Terribly ironic I have to post this on content such as it is.

Here are a few reputable sources from the last time I had to post this:
www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/07/24/top-10-myths-about-crop-biotechnology-and-gmos-heres-the-real-story/
naturalsociety.com/top-7-myths-about-gmo-foods-monsanto/
www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted

goddamnit forgot to sign in.

Yeah this is my number one disagreement with the anti-GMO effort. They always make a claim regarding lawsuits and the claim is just not true.

There are still other issues that need to be addressed-- The lack of conclusive testing regarding their new pesticides that have come to replaced roundup one pesticide is a chemical that makes up 50% of Agent Orange, which is a bioangent made by Monsanto that was used in Vietnam and caused millions of people to experience ****** up genetic defects. But instead of testing this chemical to prove conclusively that it's harmless to the environment and consumers. Monsanto suppresses public concern for GMOs by having several dozen high ranking connections in government.

Case of gmo companies suing states over labelling theantimedia.org/monsanto-sues-vermont-claims-first-ever-gmo-labeling-law-in-u-s-violates-free-speech/

Nevermind, then I have no complaints about GMO's.