NationStates

At my job, the prices are a lot higher than at other restaurants. Many customers complain about the cost of food and often wonder why the prices are so high, and the response from us is that our food is "healthful." you may be wondering what it means to be healthful and in truth it isn't quite the same as healthy. See, our food is packed full of enough calories to make triple bypass surgery necessary for your survival, and it isn't always the best tasting food either, but one thing my job prices itself on is that our food is organic and non-GMO. I've recently become very annoyed with the anti-GMO movement and upon further research came to realize that most scientists condone the usage of genetic modification on plants as a healthy alternative to just trying to grow them yourself in a garden. GMOs have actually improved the life expectancy in several parts of the world and made food cheaper in America, and yet to this day there are those who think GMOs are a danger to humanity. Like the "climate change is a hoax" crowd, they haven't totally thought out the reason for the conspiracy or the alleged danger, but their fear of GMOs has led them to fall prey to businesses that claim to sell non-GMO foods, even if those products are on average actually worse for your health than GMOs would be.

But I'm not gonna just use this time to flex on the anti GMO movement and related anti vaxxers. I want to take this time to open the floor to anti-GMO folks and the anti-anti-GMO crowd. If you're anti-GMO,why do you think Genetically modified organisms are dangerous? If you're pro-GMO, what is your opinion on the movement and society's response?

In what I hope is a surprise to no one,I’m very heavily pro. I think the movement is the epitome of ignorance and fear, and, if it hadn’t captured the minds of suburbia, should be taken as seriously as the anti-vaxxers.

Kowani wrote:In what I hope is a surprise to no one,I’m very heavily pro. I think the movement is the epitome of ignorance and fear, and, if it hadn’t captured the minds of suburbia, should be taken as seriously as the anti-vaxxers.

A guy pulled into my drive through and when he got to the window asked why the soup was $18. I explained to him that we make sure our food is non-GMO and he said "that's a load of bullshit! Tell your boss you guys just lost a customer!" And he sped away.

Why do we still try to pander to weirdos who are afraid of scientific facts?

Rojava Free State wrote:

Kowani wrote:In what I hope is a surprise to no one,I’m very heavily pro. I think the movement is the epitome of ignorance and fear, and, if it hadn’t captured the minds of suburbia, should be taken as seriously as the anti-vaxxers.

A guy pulled into my drive through and when he got to the window asked why the soup was $18. I explained to him that we make sure our food is non-GMO and he said "that's a load of bullshit! Tell your boss you guys just lost a customer!" And he sped away.

Why do we still try to pander to weirdos who are afraid of scientific facts?

Because there’s a lot of them.

no.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Kowani wrote:In what I hope is a surprise to no one,I’m very heavily pro. I think the movement is the epitome of ignorance and fear, and, if it hadn’t captured the minds of suburbia, should be taken as seriously as the anti-vaxxers.

A guy pulled into my drive through and when he got to the window asked why the soup was $18. I explained to him that we make sure our food is non-GMO and he said "that's a load of bullshit! Tell your boss you guys just lost a customer!" And he sped away.

Why do we still try to pander to weirdos who are afraid of scientific facts?

still 18 bucks is outrageous even if it was "healthy".. i could just go buy ramen for 20 cents

The licensing on GMO food stocks, seed and what not are absurd and are driving small farmers out of business. So I buy non-GMO when I dan.

Rainbowsix wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
A guy pulled into my drive through and when he got to the window asked why the soup was $18. I explained to him that we make sure our food is non-GMO and he said "that's a load of bullshit! Tell your boss you guys just lost a customer!" And he sped away.

Why do we still try to pander to weirdos who are afraid of scientific facts?

still 18 bucks is outrageous even if it was "healthy".. i could just go buy ramen for 20 cents

Yeah, that's definitely sustainable.

It's fine to be anti-GMO for business reasons. They are after all patented and sold by large corporations, and capitalists gonna capitalise.
There's no good reason to be anti-GMO from a scientific perspective.

It's my suspicion that a lot of opposition to GMOs would wither away if we stopped letting products be advertised as "GMO free", "organic", "natural", etc., unless the manufacturer could convince an independent panel that these terms refers to real, specific, legitimately and demonstrably beneficial features of their product. I bet that most people only care about GMOs because when they buy their groceries they see things advertised as GMO free and think, maybe subconsciously, that GMOs must be bad if this tin of beans is saying they don't have any.

---

Rojava Free State wrote:

Kowani wrote:In what I hope is a surprise to no one,I’m very heavily pro. I think the movement is the epitome of ignorance and fear, and, if it hadn’t captured the minds of suburbia, should be taken as seriously as the anti-vaxxers.

A guy pulled into my drive through and when he got to the window asked why the soup was $18. I explained to him that we make sure our food is non-GMO and he said "that's a load of bullshit! Tell your boss you guys just lost a customer!" And he sped away.

Why do we still try to pander to weirdos who are afraid of scientific facts?

Because they have money, duh.

Ifreann wrote:It's my suspicion that a lot of opposition to GMOs would wither away if we stopped letting products be advertised as "GMO free", "organic", "natural", etc., unless the manufacturer could convince an independent panel that these terms refers to real, specific, legitimately and demonstrably beneficial features of their product. I bet that most people only care about GMOs because when they buy their groceries they see things advertised as GMO free and think, maybe subconsciously, that GMOs must be bad if this tin of beans is saying they don't have any.

---

Rojava Free State wrote:
A guy pulled into my drive through and when he got to the window asked why the soup was $18. I explained to him that we make sure our food is non-GMO and he said "that's a load of bullshit! Tell your boss you guys just lost a customer!" And he sped away.

Why do we still try to pander to weirdos who are afraid of scientific facts?

Because they have money, duh.

People have a right to be wrong, if people dont want to buy GMO cause they hate the letter G, they have the absolute right too, no one should withhold information because they dont like the result if people find out the truth.

Kowani wrote:In what I hope is a surprise to no one,I’m very heavily pro. I think the movement is the epitome of ignorance and fear, and, if it hadn’t captured the minds of suburbia, should be taken as seriously as the anti-vaxxers.

I'm actually surprised given your European roots. I'm glad you overcame that handicap!

Cekoviu wrote:

Rainbowsix wrote:still 18 bucks is outrageous even if it was "healthy".. i could just go buy ramen for 20 cents

Yeah, that's definitely sustainable.

hey we all die sometime it doesn't matter what we do if it's inevitable





_{sorry for being emo}

Ifreann wrote:It's my suspicion that a lot of opposition to GMOs would wither away if we stopped letting products be advertised as "GMO free", "organic", "natural", etc., unless the manufacturer could convince an independent panel that these terms refers to real, specific, legitimately and demonstrably beneficial features of their product. I bet that most people only care about GMOs because when they buy their groceries they see things advertised as GMO free and think, maybe subconsciously, that GMOs must be bad if this tin of beans is saying they don't have any.

---

Rojava Free State wrote:
A guy pulled into my drive through and when he got to the window asked why the soup was $18. I explained to him that we make sure our food is non-GMO and he said "that's a load of bullshit! Tell your boss you guys just lost a customer!" And he sped away.

Why do we still try to pander to weirdos who are afraid of scientific facts?

Because they have money, duh.

Some places are forced to put GMO warnings, kind of like tobacco warnings.

Some old co-workers of mine thought it was hilarious that I would seek out GMO foods.

Alvecia wrote:It's fine to be anti-GMO for business reasons. They are after all patented and sold by large corporations, and capitalists gonna capitalise.
There's no good reason to be anti-GMO from a scientific perspective.

Ifreann wrote:It's my suspicion that a lot of opposition to GMOs would wither away if we stopped letting products be advertised as "GMO free", "organic", "natural", etc., unless the manufacturer could convince an independent panel that these terms refers to real, specific, legitimately and demonstrably beneficial features of their product. I bet that most people only care about GMOs because when they buy their groceries they see things advertised as GMO free and think, maybe subconsciously, that GMOs must be bad if this tin of beans is saying they don't have any.

These are my thoughts exactly. Honestly, I think the "organic" label is my biggest pet peeve - it's the exact same thing as trying to make people afraid of "cHeMiCaLs" but in the opposite direction. GMO or not, it's still gonna fucking be organic.

I wonder if people who place importance on that term realize that water is not organic...

Each GMO should be assessed on it's own merits. As far as I know, there aren't any GMO foods going around right now that aren't safe to eat.

Lab grown meat would be considered a GMO but it has the potential to end untold animal suffering. To refuse to consume it instead of animal meat even after it has been proven safe would be incredibly stupid.

Necroghastia wrote:

Alvecia wrote:It's fine to be anti-GMO for business reasons. They are after all patented and sold by large corporations, and capitalists gonna capitalise.
There's no good reason to be anti-GMO from a scientific perspective.

Ifreann wrote:It's my suspicion that a lot of opposition to GMOs would wither away if we stopped letting products be advertised as "GMO free", "organic", "natural", etc., unless the manufacturer could convince an independent panel that these terms refers to real, specific, legitimately and demonstrably beneficial features of their product. I bet that most people only care about GMOs because when they buy their groceries they see things advertised as GMO free and think, maybe subconsciously, that GMOs must be bad if this tin of beans is saying they don't have any.

These are my thoughts exactly. Honestly, I think the "organic" label is my biggest pet peeve - it's the exact same thing as trying to make people afraid of "cHeMiCaLs" but in the opposite direction. GMO or not, it's still gonna fucking be organic.

I wonder if people who place importance on that term realize that water is not organic...

Your GMO-Free water, now available.

The Anti-GMO "movement" is often conflated with 2 other movements, those being the "high yield crops are bad" argument and the "pesticides are bad" argument.

Those against high-yield crops point out soil erosion, soil depletion, and the ability of these crop yields to prop up ailing autocratic states such as North Korea as being their detriments.

Those against pesticides quote the documented effects on health they cause, directly or indirectly, e.g. the Round-Up lawsuits.

Those against specifically GMOs argue against the potential weakness of homogenized crops to single diseases and the dependence they create on a handful of massive monopolies (such as Monsanto).

Prolets Isl wrote:
Those against high-yield crops point out soil erosion, soil depletion, and the ability of these crop yields to prop up ailing autocratic states such as North Korea as being their detriments.

Famine is never desirable, even if it might potentially destabilize an oppressive regime.

Page wrote:Lab grown meat would be considered a GMO but it has the potential to end untold animal suffering. To refuse to consume it instead of animal meat even after it has been proven safe would be incredibly stupid.

It wouldn't be stupid to still consume animal products in spite of plant based alternatives, if said person isn't convinced that it has the same properties. For all I know, its inferior in taste compared to the original product. It'd take a while to transition people do it, if it really is so great. Lab grown meat is in its infancy for the most part and might well have some trade offs inherent to it.

The food industry has been eerily evasive about what's in food. Vague phrases like "natural flavours" and "artificial flavours" come to mind.

Can you blame people for not trusting them anymore?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:The food industry has been eerily evasive about what's in food. Vague phrases like "natural flavours" and "artificial flavours" come to mind.

Can you blame people for not trusting them anymore?

Easy solution: stop eating food

Cekoviu wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:The food industry has been eerily evasive about what's in food. Vague phrases like "natural flavours" and "artificial flavours" come to mind.

Can you blame people for not trusting them anymore?

Easy solution: stop eating food

Human beings evolved to need to eat food. We can't just do without it, I'm afraid.

We need to loosen the grip of the food industry where we can (backyard veggies, etc.) but on behalf of those in no position to grow their own food, we need to rein in the food industry's sleazy ways.

Cekoviu wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:The food industry has been eerily evasive about what's in food. Vague phrases like "natural flavours" and "artificial flavours" come to mind.

Can you blame people for not trusting them anymore?

Easy solution: stop eating food

>Not designing your own GMOs and processed foods

Page wrote:

Prolets Isl wrote:
Those against high-yield crops point out soil erosion, soil depletion, and the ability of these crop yields to prop up ailing autocratic states such as North Korea as being their detriments.

Famine is never desirable, even if it might potentially destabilize an oppressive regime.

Personally, I agree. However, that is an argument given even at such lofty places as the U.N.