GMOs: If sleaze were infectious, Chipotle would be causing a pandemic

How can we be sure the testing on non-GMO food is comprehensive enough?

(Technically all modern food is genetically modified to some point, even if it is through selective breeding over hundreds of years, but you get the point, I’m sure.)



80% of corn in america is GMO. We don’t need so much because it just ends up as animal feed… but GMOs are undoubtedly safer than pharma. Immunity to x-icides takes decades to evolve right, and thats plenty of time to build an even more fortified plant. Hundreds of thousands of people overdose on pharma pills every year. GMO can’t even touch that.


What war went on exactly?

Non-GMO food has been field tested for thousands of years. :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

GMO Food Scientist: “Let me just cut and paste some code here!”


Chemical weapons being sold to poor people in the third world that thought it was medicine. Chemical weapons are a war crime.

What does that have to do with the people at Bayer?

Often the terms “war crimes”, “racist”, “fascist”, and whatnot mean nothing more or less than “something or someone I dislike intensely”. In cases like this, I see them as a kind of moral bullying.

1 Like

We’re not ignoring those studies or pretending they don’t exist; we’re analyzing them and seeing that they are flawed either in their methods or their statistical analyses and deciding that their conclusions are invalid. This does not necessarily mean that their conclusions are wrong, just that they haven’t adequately supported their conclusions. There are examples of this on the pro-GMO side as well, which ought to be dismissed in any argument, but there is actually a substantial body of valid research in support of GM crops. I’m still waiting for anti-GMO researchers to accomplish the same.

Sounds like your understanding of genetic modification is based on Jurassic Park. I suggest you take a course in molecular genetics before commenting on the actual process of developing GM crops. Until then, it would be more productive for you to focus on what the final product looks like.


I don’t hate “the people at Bayer”. I hate the individuals that personally did this and lied about it for a decade.

And it isnt a morally superior kind of hate. They killed humans, an endangered and strategically valuable species. Its like if someone bombed a farm. Your first thought wouldn’t be morality, it would be the fact that someone just blew up expensive food.

What do the individuals at Bayer have to do with war crimes?

They committed them, a half dozen executives with presumably bottomless pockets.

You can PM me if you want to continue this, I’m anticipating it could go off topic pretty fast

Well, I don’t want to go down a rabbit hole. If you could just give me a brief reason why the actions of specific individuals at Bayer might fall under the category of, and law associated with, war crimes, that’d be great.

sure thing

from wikipedia

“using weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.”

ergo war crime

1 Like

Leaving aside for a moment the idea that Bayer’s factorate was a “weapon”, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article says:

“A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the law of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility.”

The law of war is a law that pertains to war, hm? It pertains to acts that occur pursuant to war, not to drug manufacturing, however callously negligent the manufacturing might be. It’s not just a definitional mistake, either. When you apply terms like “war crimes” to the acts of bad people under corporate sponsorship, you trivialize the suffering of people who have actually suffered from real war crimes. It reminds one of PETA’s comparing the factory killing of chickens to the Holocaust.

1 Like

Okay. I understand your stance on the matter. We have different standards for what constitutes war crime and war in general. For example, to me, killing people with chemicals for greed is an act of war and a war crime. I don’t require the offender to be a nation-state, militia or already war-like entity. But we’re just disagreeing on personal semantics I suppose.

1 Like

Most words appear in multiple dictionaries and often under multiple definitions. I really didn’t want to get into semantics with this because focusing on principles usually produces less repetitious arguments. I would argue that words don’t mean anything and very rarely does everyone agree on the meaning of a word (or phrase, or law, etc).

I don’t consider my use of the term “war crimes” to be hyperbolic or melodramatic at all. The perpetrators of the Bayer conspiracy were not just negligent but actively sadistic and extremely indiscriminate. Indiscriminate killing is a war crime, in the war of greed vs man specifically.

1 Like

I apologize for the miscommunication, and one thing I just want to clear up is I would never compare the Bayer conspiracy with the atrocities of the holocaust, nor would I ever think my reaction to the incident is trivializing historical genocides. I would never have even thought to make that connection if you hadn’t brought it up. I categorize what the perpetrators did as a war crime because my personal worldview says it was.

If someone attacks my species unprovoked and indiscriminately, I will stop assuming they’re a “friendly” and want them monitored - so everyone knows where they are and what they’re doing.

I’m not saying its a war crime to try to incite mob rage. I have no moral stance on the incident. But to say it was just a few bad apples is naive. Plenty of “individual actors” in pharma, tobacco etc, have interests that are destructive to society and humans specifically.

If I said Soylent should be considered healthy, most people wouldn’t ask you which institution’s numbers you were going off of. They’d just ask what was in it, if they doubted you at all. I use the phrase “war crime” in an informal way but I still personally take it seriously.

1 Like

Thanks for the Wikipedia ref.

I thought things were looking a bit over-heated here so I looked up the issue, perhaps best articulated by our old friend:

Yup, Bayer sold product they should have tossed, as did several other pharma companies. This is bad, but not nearly as bad as has been stated here.

There is also the reality that nobody really understood WTF was happening with HIV/AIDS in the early years. A buddy with a science PhD once told me, and he was very serious, that you could get it off a many days dry toilet seat.

Bad decisions were made and and people died before their bodies were scheduled to otherwise wear out or other hazards actuaryilly bit them.

That’s bad enough, so there is really no reason to exaggerate. You lose all cred when you overstate something that badly.

1 Like

there is this