Millennials’ ندارد qualms درباره محصولات GM بر خلاف قدیمی تر دو نسل سوم در 30s تکنولوژی است چیز خوبی برای کشاورزی و حمایت از فنون کشاورزی مربوط به اینده، یک نظرسنجی در بریتانیا است.
32 دیدگاه برای “Millennials’ ندارد qualms درباره محصولات GM بر خلاف قدیمی تر دو نسل سوم در 30s تکنولوژی است چیز خوبی برای کشاورزی و حمایت از فنون کشاورزی مربوط به اینده، یک نظرسنجی در بریتانیا است.”
دیدگاه‌ها بسته شده‌اند.
The insulin that keeps me alive is manufactured by genetically modified E. coli. People so often miss all the ways science improves their lives.
Can only speak for myself – am 66 years old. I have no problems with GM crops. I think all the panic about GMOs is ridiculous.
GMOs, used ethically and safely, can change the world for the good – reduce the need for pesticides and increase crop yields for our burgeoning population.
Technological change makes people uncomfortable because they don’t understand it, and most don’t bother to try.
So how does this get spun where millennials are killing another industry?
Almost all our food is genetically modified in some way. We’ve been breeding our food to improve it for centuries. It’s just now we’ve got a more direct way of manipulating this stuff.
My only beef with GM crops are the business practices of companies like Montesano.
> The poll of more than 1,600 18 to 30-year-olds, carried out for the Agricultural Biotechnology Council
Aaaaand result discarded!
Before anyone in this thread dives too deep into this debate, it’s worth pointing out that this is astroturfing.
This “study” was commissioned by the [Agricultural BiotechnologyCouncil](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Agricultural_Biotechnology_Council), which is an industry lobbying group.
*The Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC) is a UK corporate lobby group funded by major biottechnology companies and run from the offices of a PR company, Lexington Communications.*
*On its website, ABC lists members as comprising:*
BASF
Bayer CropScience
Dow AgroSciences
Pioneer (which is part of DuPont
Monsanto
Syngenta
In typical astroturf fashion they try to draw some kind of connection with “Millennials” to give themselves credibility.
I’m not against genetically modified crops, and if you could make me an orange the size of a watermellon I’d eat it. But it’s worth pointing out that this study is most likely bogus.
Cuz they follow media and latest developments. The older generation often thinks that things are how they used to be, while science and our understanding of the world has changed immensely
I recommend people watch a VICE HBO special on soybeans. The farmers had to use Monsanto’s GM-soybeans as they would be the only ones to survive the herbicides (also sold by Monsanto) that have been sprayed and now in the water.
Millenials are 23-38; not 18-30. That journalist does not know what they are talking about. They are sharing results about under 30 people and incorrectly presenting them as results about Millenials. There is an overlap but those are two distinct groups.
The problem with GM crops is the predatory business practices of these big companies. The food itself is fine. The science is sound.
While a lot of GM tech is being used to actually help people (mostly by the UN and other NPO’s), a lot of it is also being used in ways I find potentially disastrous by big agra companies.
**This poll was funded and conducted by agrochemical companies, specifically BASF, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta, not an independent third party like a University. Does anyone check sources anymore?**
The article states that “The poll of more than 1,600 18 to 30-year-olds, carried out for the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC)”
So I looked up who exactly makes up the ABC.
Directly from their [website] (http://www.abcinformation.org/index.php/about-abc/agricultural-biotechnology-council) **“The Agricultural Biotechnology Council (abc), comprising of six member companies… The companies are BASF, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta”** Mark Buckingham (Monsanto) is the Chair and Dr. Julian Little (Bayer CropScience) is the Deputy Chair.
I always assumed people didn’t like GMO crops due to the pesticides used in conjunction with them. Also companies like Monsanto are well known to be extremely unethical at best (suing farmers for using their patented strain if it by chance blows into their fields). Anyway, it seems like the “problem with GMO foods” issue is always misrepresented in a “durr I don’t like genetic modifications in my tomaters” way when it’s more of a “I don’t like eating food that has been bathed in neurotoxins” way. But maybe I’m overestimating people?
We wouldn’t need GMO corn/soy/wheat if, instead of giving 90% of these crops to animals to support factory farming, we just used the land to feed ourselves.
Believe it or not we can feed the entire world on non-gmo crops and without fertilizer derived from oil and without herbicides like glyphosate.
We’re to the point that some crops aren’t even edible for humans because it’s been GMO’d with pesticides and herbicides built into the seed. Yet we feed it to the animals we eat and somehow people think this is ok or efficient.
I don’t support GM foods because it feeds people and we have *way* too many of those.
I don’t think most people that are against gm food are against it for the right reasons. The ones that claim “Frankenstein food” are idiots.
I am not against gm foods, I am against the way it is being used by many large companies. The fact that strains of food are now property of companies poses a very large problem.
Just look at how Monsanto handled soy beans.
There are legitimate concerns about GMOs, but anyone opposed to GMOs is an idiot. People who know what they’re talking about know what aspects of GMOs they’re concerned about, such as patents, or a specific gene or class of genes, or the testing procedure. Being opposed to GMOs in general would be like being opposed to civil engineering because certain bridges aren’t sound.
GM, vaccines, and nuclear energy are all in the same PR boat.
I really wish that dishonest activism wasn’t a thing.
See it’s a large misunderstanding. GMO crops mean really shit all. The issue comes from the chemicals you can now spray on these plants which will survive due to the GMO process while all the microbes in the soil and local waterways die and your left with dead soil and toxic rivers. It’s the chemicals they spray onto the GMO crops which are the issue. Not the seed itself, atlthough it too, has a lower nutrient value than heirloom because they often grow in very low nutrient high till chimically fertilized soil.
The reason older people are against GM crops is simply because they mostly have no idea what it is/ what it does.
Wow. Are people already immune to the cry of fake news? This survey was performed by a lobby group backed by large chemical companies. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Agricultural_Biotechnology_Council
The fact is, science will lead us into the future & will solve many problems. On a large scale, GMOs will certainly benefit millions, especially those in resource constrained countries.
The Law of Inintended Consequences. In the short term, consumers are guinea pigs. Unless one knows exactly how the modifications play themselves out in the long term, they’re a risk. The most glaring example is GMO ‘roundup ready’ crops (most common is corn), strains immune to herbicide glyphosate. That allows farmers to spray their entire crop indiscriminately, saving lots of time & increasing yield by eliminating competing weeds. What is also does is 1) raise the amount of roundup to consumers by as much as 500% (http://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-exposure-humans-2501317778.amp.html), & 2) similar to over use of antibiotics, can create super weeds (http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/)
While I love the fact that our generation is extremely science gung ho, it’s very concerning that a healthy dose of skepticism isn’t more prevelent. The examples of misuse are staggering.
To be fair, it’s not really been the farming and eating that’s the problem, it’s the aggressive use of intellectual property laws to try to gain control of food supply chains, and shady tactics like forcing the neighbours of your customers involuntarily into contracts they don’t want because your product polluted their fields with your modified pollen.
“Two thirds of those under 30 don’t have a problem with it, so no one under 30 has a problem with it”
Another poor interpretation and misleading headline.
I’m all for GMOs, they aren’t harmful. It takes very little effort to dig up the studies. That doesn’t mean that that there aren’t millennials that are vehemently opposed to them. This is just another article to put generations at each other’s throats.
I have no problem whatsoever with GMO per se. Creating more efficient, higher yield, more resilient crops is a good thing. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the technological aspect of it.
What I have a problem with is companies being able to patent life.
Think of it this way: if you’re having trouble conceiving, you might go to an IVF clinic. What if the doctor there could patent your child, and then demand that your child never be able to reproduce naturally on their own, and must always return to the IVF clinic if they want children. And so on for their children’s children.
We would be horrified at such a scenario. But that’s the kind of thing we allow companies like Monsanto to do with patents on GMO.
I don’t care about the arguments of “well, without patents, companies have no incentive to create GMO.” That’s a bullshit argument, and holds no water whatsoever. Life is life, and *no one* should ever be able to hold a monopoly on an any kind of life or the procreation of that life.
GMO Tomatoes are bland and starchy. One millennial’s opinion.
I don’t have an issue with genetically modified crops but I do have an issue with Monsanto and it’s crushing litigation that has destroyed small family farms across the US.
I don’t have a problem with GMOs but I don’t like how the companies that monopolize them (formerly Monsanto), use them to bankrupt small farms due to uncontrollable seed dispersion.
The only thing I have against GMO’s is the control it grants big corporations over small farms. The fact that if a farmer takes seeds from a GMO crop they grow can be seen as stealing is so beffudling.
Suck a cock monsanto your bullshit paid upvotes wont save you
The younger generations haven’t yet been jaded by years of experiences of corruption of large companies with large pockets, that other people realize have only gotten bigger and more powerful. We aren’t just talking about selective breeding anymore. This is true Gene editing. Penn State actually found a gene in mushrooms that makes them go brown when they are getting bad, modified it so that they always stay white and look good even if they probably aren’t safe to eat any more.
Sure there are lots of good things that can come of GM foods. The problem with this being debate of “should we or shouldn’t we” is really there should be a middle ground. The problem with genetic engineering is that the very few, large companies that would be producing these foods just also happen to own chemical companies that produce the nutrients, insecticides, herbicides, vaccines, and treatment drugs. If we straight up say, sure go ahead we will trust you to make only good things, they can legitimately create foods that slowly poison people over a course of decades that they then hold the cure for when you finally end up in the hospital. This seems far fetched but isn’t. Companies like Monsanto do already flex their muscle to prevent farmers from planting their own seeds from season to season because the seeds are patent protected, or even engineered to make seeds (or to not make them) that arent fertile. You can use engineering to produce plants with pollen that kills competitors products. You can engineer plants that require your brand of herbicides to prevent overgrowth or invasive growth. You can engineer plants that attract pests unless you buy their brand of insecticides. And all of the bad things will be done along side of good things like increased nutritional value, better appearance, higher yield, better resilience to pests, better growth in less ideal conditions, etc. You can engineer food that never loses its color, making it harder to discern if it is safe to consume. You can engineer plants end up supplanting natural ones and then lead to a collapse of natural insect colonies. You could fuck up and end up killing all bees with neo-nicotinoids (oops?).
My point is don’t make this a yes no debate. Ensure that you fight for proper regulation of the industry before you fuck future generations over
I’m perfectly fine with GM crops with the caveat that it’s only used for things like making them have bigger yields or be more nutritious. Making them withstand pesticides is a bad idea because you’re then eating those pesticides.
If you want more information, watch the documentary Food, Inc. I watched it a year ago and it changed my life.