I wonder if people realize they are protesting beneficial science. I can only hope that in Portland, at least, they were doing it ironically.
I think that it's pretty mixed as far as cost benefit goes. Many of the IP practices in the field are odious at best, not being able to sell produce as organic or overseas in the case of genetic contamination of non gmo crops is a pain in the ass. I also think that there isn't a lot of transparency about the impacts of things like roundup resistant insects and excessive use of roundup like chemicals on the food chain. GMO offers a lot of hope for providing safe and healthy food to feed expanding populations, it's also mostly being controlled by a group of corporate stakeholders that put profits before the environment and consumer safety. In an ideal world GMO would be used in a way that is a boon for the environment, health and nutrition, food security and safety, but at this point I don't think it's mostly a profit game with societal benefit as mixed bag.
I wouldn't say hope -- GMOs have already done this. They don't offer hope, they offer a cheap, non-starvation reality. However, you're right that it's a mixed bag; you take the nutrition and efficiency with potentially detrimental effects to the socio-economic status of farmers. Jury's still out on that, perhaps literally. There are also negative genetic possibilities, but I would remind detractors who think the industry is going too fast that people die of starvation every single minute. Everything's a profit game. Eradicating disease in Africa is (sadly) a profit game. The trick is making sure the profits come with benefits, and they already have. EDIT: one more thing -- criticisms of Monsanto shouldn't be mixed up as criticisms of genetically-modified foods, but they always end up being so. This is due to public ignorance, the bane of our country, and has no factual basis. EDIT2: it certainly doesn't help that Monsanto is or has been in the past engaged in two somewhat different lines of work -- the questionable chemicals side and the food modification side. Monsanto has pioneered a lot of technologies, and I guarantee you the average protester knows about maybe a tenth of them.GMO offers a lot of hope for providing safe and healthy food to feed expanding populations, it's also mostly being controlled by a group of corporate stakeholders that put profits before the environment and consumer safety. In an ideal world GMO would be used in a way that is a boon for the environment, health and nutrition, food security and safety, but at this point I don't think it's mostly a profit game with societal benefit as mixed bag.
On a side note, I just stopped using roundup for weed control at my house and switched to a spray bottle with white vinegar instead. That stuff sort of freaked me out because I have a garden. Don't particularly want it even remotely near it.I also think that there isn't a lot of transparency about the impacts of things like roundup resistant insects and excessive use of roundup like chemicals on the food chain.
All great points cgod, but most all of them support protesting Monsanto and not necessarily GMO. I agree that in an ideal world things like this would be open sourced and used for only the betterment of humanity as opposed to the betterment of shareholders.
I think many people have a narrow view of what GMOs are. Plus, "Frankenfood" is pretty catchy. In the broadest sense, many things are genetically modified. Perhaps not in labs, but take the humble dog for example. There is no doubt that there is something other than nature at work in many breeds of dogs. Certainly, sex is genetic modification at its most primitive. That a company like Monsanto made use of GMOs before the benefits of GMOs were made apparent to consumers, is really unfortunate.
No one was clamoring for genetically modified "high yield" wheat to be labeled as not real wheat when it was saving millions in Southeastern Asia a few decades ago. Frankly, it's an illustration of how well off most of America is that we can afford to take GMO tech with a grain of salt at all. Most places are just grateful for the food. Yep, but you can't blame the company too much. The people who harp on about liberalism and freedoms are the very same ones out there protesting Monsanto's attempts to make a profit on the free market.That a company like Monsanto made use of GMOs before the benefits of GMOs were made apparent to consumers, is really unfortunate.
As far as the environment goes, we should be protesting oil companies, not food and chemicals corporations. Monsanto is just a company; they aren't perfect and they've gotten in trouble a couple times in the past for slightly shady dealings. They produced Agent Orange at the government's request. But it's all about where you allocate the blame, like you say.Well, I think there's plenty that Monsanto can legitimately be blamed for