Why do you support banning GMOs? I don't mean to be snarky, but I don't know of any good scientific case for doing so. In my estimation, GMOs are one of the most promising technologies for increasing quality of life around the world.
* GMOs tend to promote monoculture and pesticide use.
* Studies have shown that the same developments that make GMOs more insect resistant can also make them more difficult to digest.
* When it comes to animals, GMOs tend to have much poorer quality of life and tend to be completely incapable of surviving without constant support (chickens who can't stand on their own, cows who can't go more than 48 hours without milking, etc).
* GMOs almost never focus on the true value of a food item, but rather the sell value. A food that looks nutritious is more valuable than one that actually is and GMOs make it easier to create that false association (deep red tomatos that taste like wall paper glue, etc).
It's important to note that all of these things are really a byproduct of industrial agriculture, but many people associate them more directly with GMOs. I think the development of GMOs is a completely normal part of our agriculture and has been for thousands of years, we just need to make sure we're responsible about it.
I am sure we do not we need genetic manipulation to create such animals (regular breeding does 'wonders', too) and do not know of any case where we used GM here. Care to elaborate?
Then again, GMOs and conventional breeding taken to a commercial extreme get tangled so often it's hard to separate them in these sorts of arguments.
A more nutritious food that nobody wants to eat is a food that is not of improved value.
That's true for industrialized agriculture in general and not specific to GMOs. Growing GMOs doesn't promote monoculture or pesticide use any more than growing conventional crops do. In fact the same farmers that grow GMOs often grow conventional crops at the same time, or switch from year to year, with very little change in their practices.
> * Studies have shown that the same developments that make GMOs more insect resistant can also make them more difficult to digest.
Without knowing what studies those are, it's impossible for me to rebut or defend it. I will say, the record on studies that claim to show that GMOs have safety issues is not a good one (http://academicsreview.org/2012/09/scientists-smell-a-rat-in...)
> * When it comes to animals, GMOs tend to have much poorer quality of life and tend to be completely incapable of surviving without constant support (chickens who can't stand on their own, cows who can't go more than 48 hours without milking, etc).
I am not aware of any GM livestock in use. Monsanto, the bogeyman of anti-GMO activists, does not research or produce GM animals. AFAIK the only GM animals on the market are things like glowing goldfish.
> * GMOs almost never focus on the true value of a food item, but rather the sell value. A food that looks nutritious is more valuable than one that actually is and GMOs make it easier to create that false association (deep red tomatos that taste like wall paper glue, etc).
Again this is a broader symptom of industrialized food production and is not related to GMOs. Yes, there are GM traits that are meant to do what you expect (e.g. the Flavr Savr tomato which was a commercial flop, and the Arctic Apple which is just recently rolling out) but this is a trend that goes back decades.
The Open Source Seed Initiative is doing some really cool work to change this, and sits at an interesting place in the GMO debate. But barring a huge amount of institutional and policy support, I'm sticking on the side of banning GMO's.
This is emphatically not true, unless you mean it in the trivial sense (where "monsantos" are "any companies funding GMO seed development".)
Its not quite as inaccurate as saying the microsofts of the world are the only people really funding software development, but its the same kind of inaccurate.
Maybe.
> Many of them have nothing to do with the fact that the product is GMO:
Then they aren't logical reasons to be against GMOs, though they may (or may not) be logical reasons to be against particular GMOs.
> * GMOs tend to promote monoculture and pesticide use.
GMOs may or may not do this. This really depends on what they are designed for -- GMOs designed to be well adapted to particular growing conditions don't promote monoculture, since you'll prefer different ones for different growing conditions.
> * Studies have shown that the same developments that make GMOs more insect resistant can also make them more difficult to digest.
Insect resistance isn't the only feature GMOs are designed for, and that is -- at most -- a reason to be against GMOs designed for that particular feature in food roles.
> * When it comes to animals, GMOs tend to have much poorer quality of life and tend to be completely incapable of surviving without constant support (chickens who can't stand on their own, cows who can't go more than 48 hours without milking, etc).
Again, that's an argument against the specific features, not against GMOs.
> * GMOs almost never focus on the true value of a food item, but rather the sell value. A food that looks nutritious is more valuable than one that actually is and GMOs make it easier to create that false association (deep red tomatos that taste like wall paper glue, etc).
That's an argument against capitalism, not GMOs.
> It's important to note that all of these things are really a byproduct of industrial agriculture, but many people associate them more directly with GMOs.
That makes them illogical, even if understandable reasons to be against GMOs.
It's that simple
GMOs, surely, are just a technology
- Robert Bellé, Ph.D., French National Center for Scientific Research
- Dan Glickman, US Secretary of Agriculture, 1995-2000
- John Hoffman, Vice President of the American Soybean Association
- Richard Burroughs, D.V.M, FDA Veterinarian, 1979-1989
- James Maryanski, Ph.D., Biotechnology Coordinator at the FDA, 1985-2006
- Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Staff Scientist of the Consumers Union
- Samuel Epstein, Ph.D., President of the Cancer Prevention Coalition
- David Carpenter, Ph.D., University of Albany