Is Soylent non-GMO?

That’s my point. If round up was really so dangerous it would be easy to find cases of it causing problems. There is no proof that it’s any more dangerous than anything else you come in contact with on a daily basis.



I don’t know what is more disappointing: that six people replied to your transparent attempt to troll, or that I am the seventh.

  1. You ask if Soylent is non-GMO. You know Soylent is not non-GMO; you basically admit it in a later post where you say you’ve searched other GMO threads here in discourse.

  2. After leading with your blatantly insincere question, you link a youtube video. People who post a video as their first words are not looking for answers, or even looking for information. They are looking to spread propaganda.

  3. This is further evident when you reply to the first sincere answer with “wait 'till you see the rat tumors.” Hardly the response of a person searching for genuine information.

  4. In your second reply, you transition to glyphosphates. As you no doubt know from your exhaustive search (see point 5), there is a very recent thread on this matter. Which leads to…

  5. You say you searched GMO, and the last post was 2013. That doesn’t preclude your “question” being posted there. There is no statute of limitations on threads; if it still applies, it still applies. Not to mention, your search also turned up tens of individual posts from recent weeks and months that deal with GMOs.

  6. In the same post, you mention Roundup. Rather than rehashing the insincerity of people railing against Roundup, I would just point you back to the glyphosphate thread (and the post that shows that glyphosphates is literally safer than table salt).

The fact is you created a duplicate thread and posted an insincere question (the answer is easiy-found and already known by you) so you could post an anti-GMO documentary. Since that was your true motive, I’ll respond to that with a quote from Myles Powers,

“So in conclusion, the documentary has shown the calibre of the people behind the alarmist anti-GMO movement. By getting such basic science incorrect, it is an insult to people who have legitimate concerns about the technology and some of the companies involved.”


I like how nobody in this thread has yet managed to spell “glyphosate” correctly


Point by point for those who want to get into the weeds (so to speak)


Except that you missed my point entirely. I’m pointing out that we really don’t know how ingesting round up is affecting us over the long term.

OP it is important to understand what GMO is, and how it can not by itself be dangerous to us… It really depends on what was changed in the organism. It is simply different DNA than what it normally has. To assume it is more dangerous than any other DNA is without reason. If your worried about additives that have nothing to do with the plant itself, then that is a different issue than GMO. You could argue that a specific GMO is bad, because it produced a toxin that was bad for us… But labeling all GMO as bad is nonsense :slight_smile: not saying that you are, and I understand your position if you don’t truely know about our digestive system and DNA.
(Most people don’t.)

Most people are attacking your post because they misunderstand you, and my response is general and not targeted at you. The other posters need to take a step back and read your post again as it is clearly not directly all anti gmo, you are simply asking the question… Its not your fault there is so much misinformation out there from the anti
GMO people.

1 Like

Right, so to say that Round Up is dangerous is at this point preposterous. There is no proof that it’s dangerous in the amounts found in our food. You keep making my point for me.

1 Like

Except for the clearly anti-GMO video the OP posted. @Ric was right in calling the OP a troll.

Point taken, though I assume the video is one of the reasons OP is concerned, and he wanted to share why he was concerned. I doubt he is trolling. We as a community need to stop reacting to everyone coming from a view full of anti gmo propaganda as if they were trolls and instead simply disprove the view they have been deep in. That is my opinion at least, but I simply fear we end up painting our community in a bad light if we attack people… Even if they were trolls

The irony is it is probably because we are all copy-pasting the spelling used by the person who started the discussion. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:


Hence my attempts to encourage the OP to find evidence that Round Up in the amounts found in our food is in fact making people sick.


The vast majority (or all?) of the criticism in this thread is attacking the ideas and actions, not the person. His primary motive in starting this thread was clearly distributing an anti-GMO propaganda film, not asking a question or starting a real discussion.

I don’t accept that calling someone a troll is an “attack” if that person is trolling any more than calling someone a spammer would be an attack on someone who is spamming.

1 Like

GMO risk is mostly to farmers**, not to consumers. And that’s not to diminish the potential danger; the power large corporate producers --like Monsanto-- of GMO seeds have to potentially corrupt and ruin food production markets is a huge risk.

The business of farming moving to a licensing model for raw materials is a big change and one that probably, in my opinion, should be undertaken more carefully than it has. The power currently resides overwhelmingly on the side of seed producers.

Many people get alarmed that music/software/books are often not owned anymore, but licensed, at the whim of the production company. Think how serious those arguments become when the same thing happens with food, to some degree.

**That is market risk, commercial risk, legal risk, etc - not health risk.

1 Like

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

1 Like

Nor is it proof positive.

1 Like

Corn, by definition is GMO. It would not exist without human intervention. I know this definition is probably different than others have, but cross-breeding and selection of preferable traits is making a GMO.

Whether we do it naturally or artificially is just a detail. I don’t like the bullying of companies like Monsanto, but their products have not been shown to be harmful. And they are much more efficient to farm. If you want to stick with purely natural farming method (not using the word organic, because it doesn’t mean what 90% of the people think it means) then so be it, but you are being wasteful.

Rats are not humans. I didn’t watch the video because it didn’t play for me, but many studies on rats have been inconclusive on humans, or just plain performed poorly. Think of the saccharin study. Feed a rat 10,000 (or so) times the usual does for a human, and yes, I bet bad things happen.


It’s not just a detail. It’s THE detail. It’s like saying murder and suicide are the same; whether someone does it to you, or you to yourself - that’s just a detail.

I’m no fan of banning GMO’s, or even avoiding them. But you know as well as everyone here there is a distinction between intentional hybridization and lab-based genetic manipulation. There’s no way that a round-up resistant gene could find it’s way into a vegetable through traditional selective breeding. Edit: this is not insinuating any harm comes from the Roundup resistant gene.

(edit: changed difference to distinction.)

1 Like

This is a false analogy. A real analogy would be between two methods of murder or between two methods of suicide.

Name one example of a GMO that has been harmful to humans. Seriously.

Yes, there is a difference, but I don’t think we’ve seen one example of any of them being harmful to humans. You can gives rats doses that extreme, just like ingesting too much water can kill a human.

The fear is largely misplaced. Mostly by poorly designed experiments.

Also, I’m not sure a Roundup resistant gene is harmful.


Correct. So the poster is saying that intentional hybridization is like murder and lab-based genetic manipulation is like suicide? Or is it the opposite? :slight_smile: