Soylent is Proudly PRO-GMO


I hope you realize you just alienized your biggest customer base, who drinks Soylent because we believed it was healthy and environmental friendly? You better have a backup plan to find new customers who couldn’t care less about these issues or you will pay dearly for this in regards to profits.


[quote=“Regor, post:41, topic:25870, full:true”]
I hope you realize you just alienized your biggest customer base, who drinks Soylent because we believed it was healthy and environmental friendly? You better have a backup plan to find new customers who couldn’t care less about these issues or you will pay dearly for this in regards to profits.
[/quote]Soylent is healthy and environmentally friendly.

GMO’s are too. They give you more food per land, which leaves more land for nature.


Given how publicly they have touted their pro-GMO stance over the past couple years I suspect your a part of Rosa Labs smallest customer base. The pro-GMO stance is one factor that drew me to purchasing their product.


I have given you articles from the NEJM, I have shown you how many countries believe so, I think you have the evidence.


The anti-GMO crowd are always entertaining, in their smug egotistical kind of way. Quite adorable. :upside_down:


You have indeed provided plenty of evidence that pesticides are bad for you. I never denied that. But you have yet to provide evidence that GMOs are bad for you.


Well your choice folks - you can listen to a company that saves money and time using GMOs - explaining via very bias filtering in a blog OR you can look at what some of the best scientists (especially from Europe) are saying and peer reviewed journal articles (attached). Remember we are not saying that GMOS are all bad - we are saying that “proudly pro GMO” is an extreme view given the evidence and that we scientists barely understand genetics at this molecular level. So allowing this greed based capitalist (eg evil companys like Monsanto people) full force molecular edit anything, so they can make money first with little testing is ( as Europe and The World Health Org say) not a safe direction - and a precautionary principle given you are fooling with the 20,000 years of nutrition, evolution, seed production and agriculture is a better direction ( OR screw that 20,000 natural way lets take 10 years of greed based corporate research and just change everything - – its PROUDLY PRO GMO !!!) We are saying it is much more complex and two sided issue that many are being careful ( at least case by case) with GMO use - not Soylent, they say ( and you by support them - this is why I am stopping) it is the greatest thing in the world, (Europe, WHO, Salk Inst, Journal - they are fools). So anyway here are the other balanced science voices that might know more than the Soylent post:

How about the Professor and Laboratory Head, Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute ( DAVE SCHUBERT - written in the NYtimes and here CNN:

or other NY Times articles on the subject:

OR fully peer reviewed science articles ( more technical read):

  • Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – the first sixteen years - Environmental Sciences Europe
  • Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition
    and health, Nutrition Reviews Vol. 67(1):1–16 1
    GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence from
  • Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood
    Reproductive Toxicology - Volume 31, Issue 4, May 2011, Pages 528–533

  • DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them ---- Journal Plos | one 2013
  • Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors — Food and Chemical Toxicology, Vol50, Issue 11, 2012, (Environmental Sciences Europe)

  • Glyphosate in Round Up Linked To Birth Defects and more
    Chemical. Research. Toxicology 2010,

  • GMO feed pigs have severe stomach inflammation
    Journal: Organic Systems Syst 8.1 (2013): 38-54.

All these are full peer reviewed journals - please do not refute them using corporate lobby articles ( Monsanto pays for scores of them).

Ok - I am done. I made my case. I will finish off my 3 boxes of Soylent v5 and call it a day. Thanks I lost weight and dealt with food in a more mature way thanks to this product. Good luck all - it was a great community to be involved with. I hope I got some of you to consider what Soylent is doing here ( extremely onesided). Again I believe in Soylents “world nutrition” mission, I believe that one day GMOs will make sense, and I also believe like Europe, WHO, Salk Inst and others that like in a few very complex fields, it is better to have real scientists study for many many years how a system works, to get an agreed upon knowledge base of it before we allow greedy multi-national corporations to play molecular mashups experiments on humans and the natural systems and slander good questioning scientists. If you are going to screw with the 20,000 yr agriculture system and change it radically in 10 yrs just for corporate greed, rather than giving it say 30 years of science mapping it out (just 20 more years) - well I for one do not want to support you with my money/time.


Now see. Was that so hard?


We trust the science and it has told us that GMO’s are safe, healthy, and environmentally friendly. We have never hid the pro-GMO stance and as a company we continue to grow. We must be doing something right.


Dipaola, I hear you. It is like talking into a wall, often an arrogant wall that downplay how difficult this decision really is. Also, they never address their link to Monsanto crops. Using GMOs is irresponsible and gambling with people’s health, but supporting Monsanto is deliberately unethical. Will their next blog be “We buy our soy from Monsanto and we are very proud of that too”? I am done with this company as well. They had their time. So sad greed overtook idealism.

Horsfield, your sarcastic comments look very arrogant and are probably not in your companies PR interest since customers read this page. But hey, how can anything hurt you more after this? Keep up your contemptuous barking and let the customers see who you have become! I am just waiting for the first t-shirt “Soylent is Pro-GMO (and proudly so)” - no libel or slander needed, just print the headline of the blog.


Where have I been sarcastic?

Um. What company would that be? I don’t own a company nor do I work for RL.

What link? You seem to have this weird notion that being pro-GMO and using GMOs somehow makes someone in Monsanto’s pocket. I buy Cheetos. That doesn’t mean I am in league with Frito Lay or somehow in their debt or under their control.


It wouldn’t surprise me. I’d buy one. :smiley:


Those are pretty nice! Still I think we might be hiding. Maybe a blimp next?


Because they’re rich and take up a sliver of global agri-business?

Tbh I’m more worried about companies like DynCorp and Gamma Group than I am about some food scientists.


From Rob Rhinehart’s blog post Nothing to Fear from 2013:

Certain other observers might also have choice words for Monsanto as a corporation. However, Monsanto ≠ genetic engineering. Every last genetically modified crop in the food supply, regardless of the company of origin, has a proven record of safety. Monsanto’s possible corporate malfeasance is totally unrelated.


Jane Goodall (and I) recommend reading “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.” Personally, I would prefer that Soylent did not have GMO ingredients, but I’m not going to quit over it. But I might if somebody would point me at a non-GMO alternative.


And to follow that up, I recommend reading this review of that book by Dr. Terry Simpson. The book contains many false claims which he clarifies.


Ouch! Good counter-reference, Sententia. I think I shall stop recommending that book. But I’m still not won over to the pro-GMO side.


Jane Goodall the primate researcher?