Soylent is Proudly PRO-GMO


This is why organic farming should not be pushed as a solution to feed the planet’s population. It’s all fine and good for some individuals personal gardens or to make a high end product for rich minority who can and want to splurge on it. It is not a good way to feed 7 billion people.

Remember, those workers need to eat too. ‘Natural Living’ doesn’t scale. Yes, there is a way to make it work. If there wasn’t then our pre-industrial ancestors could have never survived to build our modern, industrial world.

So how do you make it work? Well… I don’t think it’s any accident that slavery finally started coming out of favor around the same time as technology began to reduce the amount of work necessary to produce our food and goods. They don’t know it but that is what the luddite, anti-gmo, anti pesticide ‘simple life’ advocates are really advocating, a return of slavery. Well… that or mass starvation.

There are certainly problems to be solved with pollution, both from the petticides and the CO2 produced by the equipment. If there is an answer to be found, and I think there is it is in more resarch and more technology. Moving backwards will take us to a place that we should never ever return. Our history as a species is full of slavery, pilaging and starvation. It is not something we should want to repeat.


Now that they’ve fully scared-off the anti-GMO people, why not use soybeans genetically modified to lack phytoestrogens, to win potential customers who are afraid regular soy will give them man-boobs?


Change the recipe to appease those that don’t understand basic endocrinology?

How bout no?


Does such a GMO even exist?..yet


38 countries that have some kind of ban on GM crops ( most of Euope) but I guess we in the US (were we do not test the GMO products that come from Corporations) know more than all these countries combined including Germany which houses some of the greatest research labs in the world ( Fraunhofer, Max Planck):
Algeria (since 2000)
Madagascar (since 2002)
Saudi Arabia
Northern Ireland
The Netherlands
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ukraine (although there is massive GM contamination in the country)



You have to look at why they are banning them and for how long.


Okay, since we’re using such shallow criteria as how many countries ban them, since 38 countries ban them that means 150+ countries don’t ban them. There, I win.

Imagine someone in one of those countries you list saying “We shouldn’t ban GMO foods because after all, the USA doesn’t ban them.” Your argument is EXACTLY the same as theirs.

I don’t know who Fraunhofer is but nice citation of Max Planck, a guy that won a Nobel Prize a hundred years ago in an entirely different branch of science than the topic at hand.

I don’t care if I wake up tomorrow and every country in the world has banned GMOs or every country in the world has legalized them. The current status of scientific knowledge is that with proper research and caution GMOs are entirely safe and so that’s what I’m sticking with until or unless the scientific consensus changes.



You’re absolutely right.

And many times, banning is done out of misguided fear-mongering, the result of lobbyist campaigns with a vested interest in banning, or simply sheer ignorance. Politicians have continually drafted ludicrous, anti-science policies throughout the millennia. This is just another example.

The whims of politicians are far from authoritative and hold little substance in debate.


hey totally agree with you - why I am a big science guy (prof, researcher: cognitive scientist, computational evolution, artificial intelligence > 100 papers to my name, lab of 8 PhDs, …) and why as science guys it is really important that we do not use the name of science to talk about absolutes ( all GMOS are great) when it is more complex because when the world says yea but this is not totally true and we lose their respect, folks will not believe scientists on other issues evolution, climate change, vaccines (all proven and important) … so scientist need to be truthful – gmos is not a done issue, we are not even close to understanding the genetic code and it complexities and will not be for many years – it is corporations fiddling around for quick bucks here ( gmos will be great one day , but again as 38 countries and all of Europe’s scientists will tell you - not yet). This is why I am so pushy on this issue. You will note in all my pushback has been from scientists never lobbyist or politicians (as you claim). In this thread, I have cited real scientific papers ( that I have read through) on real GMO problems, I have cited top scientists ( eg Salk Inst) , quoted from scientific sources ( including that in the US the FDA does NOT do independent safety testing of GMOs) … I like and still use Soylent - luckily for me with boxes of 1.5 left ( and no need to go to 1.6). I still believe in the company. But “proudly GMO” is the most extreme stance that any company has ever taken (based more on geek testosterone FU absolutism - I get it I am a geek) and this extreme is not supported by the scientific evidence. In a sane world ( hey look the world of Europe and 38 countries) - the gov would put huge resources into understanding the genetic systems involved before having companies trying out cheap early tricks.


Umm , yes they were scientists, but here I am stating they are the names of the best research labs in the world ( named after these old scientists) pumping out 1000s of new scientists. University’s I have been faculty at ( NYIT, Stanford Univ and SFU) think highly of anyone from these institutions and our grads /PhDs are trying to get gigs there. Max Plank in Germany is the largest research Inst in the world with 83 institutes in it. Europe has a clue and so do their scientists ( I am from the US working in Canada, so not just doing the my continent thing) and see the issues with GMOs. Just the fact that so many scientists from Europe have issues - shows that the science is not definitive with GMOs ( and shows Soylents extreme position that it is proudly …).

Another example different the GMOs about the US being behind science-wise when corporate money is at stake is Europe ( The European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, more every year) have banned Neonicotinoids because slowly but now with strong consensus science has shown that Neonicotinoids are the number one cause (although complex issue) of Bee Colony collapse disorder. Bayer makes most Neonicotinoids pesticides ( A Germany company but yet Germany banned their biggest products/profits for science reasons, but now Bayer USA that is a different matter). US knows this but still hasn’t banned it. France did it early and does not have the Bee problem US has. It is obvious science but the tricky corporate greed thing. Greed over science - just like GMOs - banned in Europe for science reason, not banned in USA cause … well you decide. M O N S A … Surely a controversy but not for Soylent they out of any nutrition based company have the most extreme view of Proudly GMO.


At no point has anyone on this forum said all GMOs are great.


If you are really a big science guy and if you are able to look at this subject without dogma (which is the hard part for many people) then you’ll realize you are simply mistaken.

The “all GMOs are great” remark" is pure strawman. Nobody says that. And you’re continued appeal to science when science is not on your side is wrong and frankly offensive. You equate this to evolution and climate change and vaccines. Well I can site some scientists that say evolution did not occur and that climate change isn’t happening and that vaccines are not safe. So what? The scientific consensus is that evolution occurs, climate change occurs and vaccines are safe…and also that GMOs are safe. That is reality.

It is possible for otherwise educated people to think that GMOs are the devil. I know because I live in a town like that.

Your use of the word “corporation” as a slur betrays you. Whether GMOs are safe has NOTHING to do with corporations. Corporations can do good or bad things. It is a completely separate issue. When you tell someone that GMOs are bad and you invoke corporations people know immediately that your objections have nothing to do with GMOs themselves.


The irony of your statement is the name of this thread is called “Soylent is Proudly PRO-GMO”. Proudly PRO-GMO does not sound like a kinda thing to me it sounds looking at all companies in the USA the most extremely ALL-CAPS endorsement (of any company) of how great GMOs are.

“scientific consensus” ? Yet my posts in this thread show science papers, reputable top scientists (Salk Inst) , science institutes and all of Europe’s banning GMOs as specific evidence of not having the “scientific consensus” that we know climate change, evolution, vacines have.

I PROUDLY (get it) except that slur when we are talking corporations like Monsanto and others here in the US doing bad science for greed reasons. Again in Europe (and many other countries now - in fact growing bans on GMOS worldwide) they ban them, as in another sceine of greed issue - even though it is one of Germany’s biggest profit corporations Europe/Germany ban Bayer’s use of neonicotinoids because of proven ( while complex) evidence of its contribution to Bee Colony Collapse ( for Germany it is science over greed). The US has yet to ban neonicotinoids in Bayer USA products that are at Home Depot and almost all your local green houses and garden centers and wiping our bees in a devastating way. Do you want to argue this neonicotinoids science with me ( I can show you the published papers), or can you see if the US cuts corporations slack on neonicotinoids (greed over science) they just might do the same for too early and fast and un tested ( voluntary data from companies) GMOs food tinkering.


If you base scientific consensus on public policy then we do not have a scientific consensus on climate change.


Are you sure you’re really a teacher?


Europe has a continent-wide regulatory body that tests food for safety and it has tested and deemed safe many GMOs. The reasons GMOs are banned in some European countries has nothing to do with the scientific consensus in Europe. Instead it’s because Europe has a lot of people like you that are scared of the idea of GMOs and they demand the government ban them. If most people in the USA woke up tomorrow and believed that red sweaters cause cancer then they’d agitate to ban red sweaters and eventually the US government would ban red sweaters but that doesn’t mean red sweaters cause cancer.

In addition to the European and US regulatory agencies, the US National Academies of Sciences, which is the highest body an American scientist can aspire to, has no problem with GMOs, assuming they undergo property testing that is of course. Same goes for the World Health Organization.

As far as Monsanto having nothing to do with whether GMOs are safe, suppose Monsanto disappears tomorrow. Does that change whether GMOs are safe? No, it has no effect. If a country is capitalist or communist or socialist or whatever, again, that has no effect on whether GMOs are safe. If you’re going to use GMOs to make as much money as you can or if you’re going to use them to give away food for free to the poor, again it has no effect on whether GMOs are safe. You dislike certain business practices (although you despise GMOs so much that that probably trumps any business practices) and you’re conflating that with GMOs.


If a scientific organization writes a statement on vaccines and says “We’re Proudly PRO-Vaccine” do you interpret that as “All Vaccines Are Great”?


We once thought DDT, atomic bombs, and fried food were safe

We once thought that the result of a project to create the ultimate weapon was safe? is that why we dropped it on japan? it was really a peace offering and we had no idea it would do that? and then we dropped another just to be sure that wasn’t an isolated incident?


Note the “many” in your quote ( deemed safe many GMOs). That body is EFSA European Food Safety Authority - and unlike the US have come down both supportive and negative on different GMO products based on the scientific testing of each product - so they have not deemed all GMOs safe, they have found some to be not safe ( wonder if those ones in the US are out and maybe in Soylent?). Making my point that it is still an open issue. Not all GMOs are safe. And by safe we do not just mean safe for consumption by humans we mean holistically safe, – safe for the environment, safe given the need peticide use, over decades for say seed production, safe to not contaminant other crops, and so forth). Given EFSA has scientifically come out against some GMO products is why so many European countries ( and many other countries now, growing not shrinking list) ban GMOs crops till there is better genetic science understanding, better genetic modification techniques and better science. Companies are playing with things they do not fully understand - we need 20 more years of scintists doing the basic research so we can use informed and correct techniques, Europe gets this.

Note also that unlike the FDA and the US - Europe (EFSA) does actual independent scientific testing for each GMO product- the US does not ( at all any any product). The FDA relies on the corporations that will make the profit on the GMO to voluntarily test and give their “SUMMARY” (yes summary!) data results on how well the product has fared to the FDA. Even then, the FDA has been complaining that they barely get compliance even for voluntary testing ( see refs in my earlier posts).


Exactly which GMOs have they proven unsafe??? Or have they just not sufficiently proven them safe YET?