Why are GMO's bad? (Hint: they're not)


Thanks for posting 2nd grade level pitch for GMOs! Glad to see kids are being direct marketed with anti-history and non- science. Genetic contamination is now rampant in world crops thanks to GMOs and NO ONE is tracking gene pollution. GMO patent owners are writing thier own legislation to block labeling, glyphosate is NOT proven safe. there is no shortage of food, there is a serious problem with farm subsidies, food distribution and crops as a commodity. The “green revolution” helped cause this insane disfunctional food monopoly and now the same biotech companies are saying we need GMO technology to save us from the damage of monocropping, tilling, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticide technology - I.e. the green revolution. You can’t fix a problem with more of the problem. GMOs might not kill you, but they are a serious, dangerous threat to the world’s food security.

If you think GMOs are non-science and unsafe then what are you doing here? You should be telling it to the scientists that say otherwise instead.


That’s a lot of buzzwords without a shred of evidence.


Unfortunaley new things never work perfectly. Just look at Soylent.

But we owe it to ourselves to embrace better methods despite their faults, because that’s just what humans do.

1 Like

I would spend time point out how everything you said is wrong but there is no reason too you clearly are not looking for evidence you just want to spout your own personal opinion regardless of facts.

Soylent’s ultimate goal is to be 100% GMO synthesized by single celled GMOs. If you do not like GMOs you should not be here. Leave so that we do not have to listen to your anti-science opinions.


First off everyone has a right to their opinion. Asking someone to leave because they don’t agree with you on some topic is impolite. Science isn’t a consensus. It isn’t a diety. It can’t reward your zeal. Science is a method.

If you want to shame the non believers please go to church.

Second I’m pretty sure no one is trying to make GMO algaelent, the science is just no where near that. It may be something the company would like to get in on when the time is right, but as of now soylent isn’t really all that artificially engineered. By weight it’s probably more “natural” than a big Mac.

What I’m really getting at is please share with us why you like these various gm organisms, rather than preach their virtues in the name of the one true science.


I think asking the poster to leave may have been a bit harsh, but they are not approaching this issue very politely. Saying things like “2nd grade level pitch” is rude. The staff that work for SciShow are consistent and do their research. “Anti-history” was antagonizing. This is on the border of name calling. If there was something specifically from the video that @kelleysh found inaccurate, they shouldn’t be afraid to discuss it here - preferably with sources.

There are many things in science that do hold a general consensus. GMO safety is one of them. The only people that dislike GMO’s are the public, most of which are scientifically illiterate and prone to fear mongering and bunk statistics.

For the record, someone is trying to make GMO algaelent, namely the Soylent team but no doubt others have taken to the cause. You cannot say “the science is just no where near that”. The science is there. The tools are there. The methods need worked on, but we don’t need to discover anything new in science to engineer such a bacterium.


Not only are you posting scientific illiteracy, but you also are actually being rude. I’m rude because I tell you to leave, and yet “Thanks for posting 2nd grade level pitch for GMOs! Glad to see kids are being direct marketed with anti-history and non- science.” is perfectly ok?

What you are doing is being incredibly hypocritical and disingenuous. You are trying to play a victim in attempts to get others to take your side.

The fact of the matter is this is not an opinionated subject. Just like anti-vaxers you can have all the rights to opinions as you want. That does not mean you opinion is based in fact. We do not have to humor you and pretend your opinion has merit. It doesn’t. There is a general scientific consensus and as of yet there is zero scientific evidence of GMOs ever harming anyone.

Science is not a deity. Never implied that it was so you can go ahead and keeping battling your strawman.

Don’t know what you mean by algaelent because it is not a word.
Anyone that attempts to equate science as some kind of religion is obviously scientifically illiterate.

1 Like

@Fatikis tone it down a bit. It’s very ok to disagree just try to be a little more tactful about it. You come across as very angry and border line trollish.


The official claim by Monsanto scientists was that glyphosate is safe enough to drink. Doctors used to recommend cigarettes for a sore throat. Hell not that long ago there was lead in the paint and asbestos in the attic. Consensus changes. Try finding a doctor today that removes appendixes like it was a hobby. That’s why appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Everybody makes mistakes.

Also I would like all the information you can provide on the work with micro organisms at Rosa Labs please. That would be fascinating if they were for example synthesizing sugars from sunlight or something.

I didn’t say that. Even so I don’t see anything wrong with it. The video was a piece of pro-gmo propaganda. It’s just as intellectually misleading as a video that only focuses on the potential risks associated with GMOs.

I’m a conservative supporter of GMOs, I think it’s cool science with alot of potential. I want to see it used for something other than glyphosate resistance and endogenous toxin production.

I’m sorry if you get that impression but I promise you I don’t feel victimized. Maybe you just feel guilty for being impolite? It happens to everyone.

Pesticides aren’t good for you buddy.

The important thing in science isn’t being right, it’s finding the truth.

Look, people, GMOs are a toxic hellstew of death and suffering put here by the dark lord Satan and his general Monsanto. These mutant frankencrops pervert and corrupt the undeniable bioelectric quality of life force from the living thing. How hard is that to understand? Do I have to spell it out in a haiku?


Patrick Moore, the guy who claimed glyphosate was safe enough to drink, is not affiliated with monsanto. He’s not a monsanto scientist and that’s not their “official claim”.

The video appropriately presented the current scientific consensus, moreover unlike the past lead and cigarette situations this consensus is based on a couple thousand studies, about a third of them independent and many of them high quality. The study you cited is what’s known as a process study (it’s about an herbicide btw, not a pesticide), which is accounted for when we look at outcome studies, and it turns out there’s no evidence of worse outcomes.

GMOs are used for more than glyphosate resistance though. The video even mentions one: increased nutritional value.


Yes, unfortunately we didn’t even know what DNA looked like at that time, so I imagine it would have been hard to assess risks. Today we know how to sequence the DNA of anything and analyze it.

I wouldn’t overuse “logical fallacy” too much. Appeal to authority is fair in many cases, it isn’t universally a bad thing.

I don’t work for Rosa Labs, but there is no doubt they are conceptualizing and designing the GMO’s Rob has alluded to. Don’t expect them to bring something into the real world overnight, but just because they haven’t yet doesn’t mean they aren’t working on it.

The toxicology report does not point to GMO’s having any significant risk to human cells. If you could possibly find a study that isn’t behind a paywall, the actual results and conclusion section might help your case. Abstracts are difficult for making judgments.

1 Like

I would also like to add that there are many institutions that already have working sugar-producing bacteria. The applications so far are limited to biofuels and medicine, and even these have narrow use cases. Nevertheless, we know this process is not impossible so it is now just a matter or refinement.

1 Like

I’m going to need an old timer here to back me up because Google won’t give me old information. But he certainly wasn’t the first person to make that claim, I’ve heard it from so many older people that it must have been on TV or in the news at some point. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time Monsanto had made such claims. DDT was marketed as safe enough up eat.

I’m not trying to assert that glyphosate or bt toxin are concentrated death but you can’t make such sweeping statements as " no one has ever been injured by GMOs" and be factually correct.

In any event GMOs altered to be more nutritious than their natural counterparts is wonderful. I’d love to see more of that.

Sorry but this isn’t even the bone I came in here to pick. It’s obvious that too much of anything will kill you and I’m sure glyphosate is no different. That being said I know that some people have survived drinking a significant quantity so it’s not as deadly as some would lead you to believe.

I’m roundup agnostic. I’m not trying religiously to avoid it but I don’t use it in my garden. It probably isn’t all that different from the long term effects of eating nicotine if I had to guess. But I choose to smoke so that obviously doesn’t bother me too much.

One of my pet peeves though is people using “science” to justify very unscientific things like stifling debate and silencing questions.

I’m not attempting to silence you or stifle debate. I’m sorry if you got that impression.

1 Like

I guess I’ll make the point that inevitablely gets made on any thread that talks about GMOs. All domesticated species are GMOs.


Saying “it wouldn’t be the first time” is not a justification for asserting they have said it this time. That’s how rumors and other crap spread, from people who consider the assertion plausible but don’t bother to check the facts to others of like mind.

[quote=“Groulund92, post:17, topic:22493”]
you can’t make such sweeping statements as " no one has ever been injured by GMOs" and be factually correct.
[/quote]I didn’t. I said: “it turns out there’s no evidence of worse outcomes.” “No evidence” is different from asserting it doesn’t exist. However there’s no good reason to believe it does exist, from either a process or outcome standpoint.

I would be worried if glyphosate were used in amounts likely to be dangerous, but less worried than I would be for non-GMO crops which use a higher amount of combined pesticide and herbicide. Farmers with GMO crops may use more herbicide but they use much less pesticide, making it a net benefit if we assume both herbicide and pesticide are toxic in sufficiently large doses, which is evidently the case.

I don’t like the stifling of debate or questions either, but that’s not what’s happening in the public-science perception of GMOs. A shockwave of lies and nonsense has been rolling through the public for the last decade regarding GMOs, and some people who know what they’re talking about agitating against it. Even though I don’t recommend it, I can sympathize with snappy responses when confronted by tripe like this: “Thanks for posting 2nd grade level pitch for GMOs! Glad to see kids are being direct marketed with anti-history and non- science.”


Not only that, but they are all descended of GMOs that were first developed in the 1920’s using crude techniques that relied on radiation and blind luck.