GMOs- Vegan or Not

[PrincessPeach]

Monsanto's hold the patents to over 11,000 + seeds....
Most of the dangers from monsanto's is the fear of the unknowning I'll quote from their site;
"Scientists warn that GMOS may:
Harm beneficial insects, increase toxic pesticide use, create super-pests, super weeds, & new plant viruses, increase cancer risks, produce dangerous toxins, contaminate non-gmo crops, set of allergies, produce antibiotic resistant patthogens. "

[brimstoneSalad]

Monsanto's hold the patents to over 11,000 + seeds....

The patenting of living things, and the bad business practices associated with that, are the real worry.

We should oppose Monsanto on those grounds, and encourage them to improve their behavior.

We should support genetic engineering that seeks to make plants more nutritious, or use genetically modified organisms to clean up the environment.
We should support open source genetic projects, or even copyleft, because these have more potential to be used for good.

"Scientists warn that GMOS may:

"Scientists" also warn that Jesus will be returning soon and the apocalypse is coming, and that space aliens are real and they will destroy us if we don't worship them.

The question is, which "scientists". Scientists can be ignorant. Very ignorant- they're human.

Just saying that some scientist somewhere once said something doesn't carry much weight. Scientific consensus, and the consensus of scientific bodies, which have specialization in the field, however, do carry weight.

Most scientists have no idea how genetic engineering works, and journalists pull quotes from them anyway.
The FDA and the EPA both have oversight over these matters, and they're both staffed by very experienced scientists who have joined the organization for the public good (not on Monsanto's payroll).

Congressmen may be in the pockets of industry because they rely on being elected, but these governmental bodies are more removed from politics (and have to be), so are less biased.

See here, some of the regulations and cautions that the EPA takes:

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/tbio.html#Types

Genetically engineered plant biopesticides are such a good thing for the environment it's crazy that every environmentalist doesn't support it wholeheartedly. The gap there is because of ignorance.

"Harm beneficial insects" The EPA monitors this, and they ban things that might.

"increase toxic pesticide use" Genetic engineering decreases toxic pesticide use. Less insecticide is used. Sometimes more herbicide can be used- herbicide is harmless to humans (it affects plants).

"create super-pests" The EPA monitors this carefully. But they're not really "super", that just means they're immune to the insecticide. It's not a really big deal, it just means we have to switch to another insecticide.

"super weeds" That's not how DNA works. The weeds would have to be the same species as the plants that were engineered. "Super weeds" evolve just fine on their own. And again, "super" just means they're herbicide resistant.

"new plant viruses" That's just silly.

"increase cancer risks" More likely decrease cancer risk, through safer biological pesticides that target the pests more directly and are less harmful to humans.

"produce dangerous toxins" Dangerous toxins to certain kinds of pest insects, yes. Harmless to humans- and LESS dangerous than the alternatives.

"contaminate non-gmo crops" If farmers are not careful, yes. Does this really matter that much? Crops have been cross breeding since there was agriculture. The issue here is the evil corporations very vehemently asserting their patent rights.

"set of allergies" Any food can do this, but GE foods have not been shown to be particularly allergenic.

"produce antibiotic resistant patthogens." What? That's absurd. Of course not. Genetic engineering for plants has nothing to do with antibiotics in animals.

[PrincessPeach]

Wow what bias, misleading information they are putting out but I guess that would be there agenda right? They're against monsanto's but instead of educating people they are using scare tactics and misleading people! Believe me, I've been pretty scared but again Brimstone you've brought a little more light on another one of my 'paranoia's'. Thanks again z

[brimstoneSalad]

Wow what bias, misleading information they are putting out but I guess that would be there agenda right?

Yes, I think the problem is that none of them are scientists, and none of them really understand genetic engineering.

Genetic Engineers won't usually say so, because they have relationships to maintain, but they hate Monsanto too - they just criticize them on more political/business grounds.

But it's not totally hopeless; lately Monsanto has provided some evidence that they're responding to public criticism and slowly changing their policies to become less evil. Most of this is probably due to government pressure, but it's something.

Personally, I think technologies like these needs to be held in the non-profit sector, and Monsanto should just stick to selling the products of that technology rather than hoarding the patents and throwing its legal and lobbying weight around.

[EquALLity]

I'm not trying to resurrect this thread, but is it the same deal with food dyes like red 40?

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm not trying to resurrect this thread, but is it the same deal with food dyes like red 40?

That's kind of different.

The main thing is that they aren't really necessary/useful for anything, and are easily replaced.

There are a lot more claims that are better substantiated regarding side effects, and carcinogenicity.

I know CSPI is against them:

http://www.cspinet.org/fooddyes/

[EquALLity]

I meant regarding animal testing. Sorry, should have clarified.
But that's useful information and a reason to avoid them anyway.

[EquALLity]

The thing is, Halloween is coming, and I don't want it to look like veganism makes trick-or-treating impossible.
So I'm still looking for an answer.

I would probably just secretly throw away the candy in the end if it's dangerous.

[brimstoneSalad]

The thing is, Halloween is coming, and I don't want it to look like veganism makes trick-or-treating impossible.
So I'm still looking for an answer.

I would probably just secretly throw away the candy in the end if it's dangerous.

Give away the nasty stuff. A little artificial coloring won't likely kill you though, if it's just on Halloween. The problem comes when it's eaten regularly.

[EquALLity]

Give away the nasty stuff.

Nah. Wouldn't that be bad for the people I'd be giving it to?

A little artificial coloring won't likely kill you though, if it's just on Halloween.
The problem comes when it's eaten regularly.

I kind of figured that, but still.

So it must be different with the animal testing then, because those food dies are bad for you?
Oh. Hm.