# Are GMO's Necessarily Bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 17, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461 "2014-12-17T01:27:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/121 "2015-07-25T11:05:14Z")
> [@sbunny8](#): > > Before you say it’s impossible to persuade all those woman to make that choice, consider the fact that, in the last 80 years, we have already succeeded at persuading women to stop having 5 babies each and instead only have 2. Why are you ignoring the men? Seriously, every discussion of population controls discusses the women but completely ignores the men. And the fact that in many of the places with the worst over population problems women have little or no access to birth control and little to no ability to say “no” to sex when their man demands it. How about _men_ limiting themselves to one child? Get snipped after that one. It’s a relatively easy and straightforward operation (as opposed to surgical sterilization of women which is much more involved and expensive). Even if women in such places _wanted_ more babies they can’t have them if their partner is sterile. Since men still tend to have more access to money and medicine it would be far easier and simpler to focus on limiting male fertility than female fertility in many areas. Except, of course, for male hang-ups which are more important, apparently, than overpopulation and justifies subjecting women to all manner of inconvenience (non-surgical birth control) and pain (surgical operations) in the name of limiting births. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/122 "2015-07-25T11:18:15Z")
> [@sbunny8](#): > > By my estimates, there are right now 7 billion humans, of which roughly 2 billion are children and just over 1 billion are females of childbearing age. If those 1 billion women decided to only have 1 baby each instead of 2.3 babies each, then 18 years from now we’d have 1 billion children instead of 2 and the world population would be down to 6.3 billion. Until there is _universal_ availability of contraception and abortion at reasonable/affordable prices _for all_ and easy access _for all_ and equal society/legal status for _all women_ then the notion of women “deciding” to have fewer babies is nonsense. As I said, in most of the places where over population is at its worst women _do not_ have easy access to birth control of any sort (often it requires male consent for her to get it) and abortion is becoming more restricted, not less, with time. Unless you bring the MEN into the equation you won’t get fewer babies because the brutal truth is that in such places men can force conception on women and then deny them the means to terminate their pregnancies. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/123 "2015-07-25T12:15:15Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Until there is _universal_ availability of contraception and abortion at reasonable/affordable prices _for all_ and easy access _for all_ and equal society/legal status for _all women_ then the notion of women “deciding” to have fewer babies is nonsense. > > As I said, in most of the places where over population is at its worst women _do not_ have easy access to birth control of any sort (often it requires male consent for her to get it) and abortion is becoming more restricted, not less, with time. > > Unless you bring the MEN into the equation you won’t get fewer babies because the brutal truth is that in such places men can force conception on women and then deny them the means to terminate their pregnancies. Uh, no. Latin America has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, and their fertility rates have cratered in the last couple of decades. El Salvador, where abortion is illegal even to save the mother’s life, has a slightly lower fertility rate than America (something like a quarter of women there have gotten sterilized). The same is true of the European countries with restrictive abortion laws (Poland and Ireland) for that matter. Abortion laws doesn’t seem to have much of an impact on fertility. The same is of course not true of contraception- that actually does matter. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/124 "2015-07-25T12:16:46Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Aside from periods of famine (to which farmers were also vulnerable), hunter-gatherers ate a diverse and nutritious diet and DID eat better than a lot of modern folks… largely because the widely consumed convenience foods are closer to those of premodern farming than hunting-gathering. > > So no, the _average_ modern industrialized citizen doesn’t eat better than the old hunter-gatherers. Keep in mind, too, that most study of HG’s has been on remnant populations inhabiting areas too marginal for farmers. Back when the best and most fertile and productive lands were occupied by HG’s their diets were probably healthier yet. > > The advantage of farming is that you can feed more people from a given area, even if the diet isn’t as healthy, and 10 farmers beat 1 HG in any armed conflict with comparable weapons. “Aside from periods of famine” is kind of giving away your store, there. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/125 "2015-07-25T14:49:17Z")
[QUOTE=Deeg] The issue is that you posted a link to a book and about the _only_ thing you mentioned was: 1) it was anti-GMO; 2) it was endorsed by Goodall. Nothing about why the book is anti-GMO; no idea to discuss. What else could we debate? I’m certainly not reading the book on just that info any more than you’ll read a pro-GMO book just because it’s endorse by some minor celebrity scientist. [/QUOTE] We could debate some of the dumb things Goodall has said about GMOs (like the study she claimed showed allergic reactions in people traced to ingestion of GM corn (it didn’t). Or we could wonder why she correctly notes the scientific consensus supporting climate change, but ignores the strong scientific consensus supporting the safety of GM foods (instead praising those who “speak out” against this consensus). And we could also point out that her book “Seeds of Hope” [plagiarized numerous passages from others’ work](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/26/jane-goodall-s-troubling-error-filled-new-book-seeds-of-hope.html). _“When the Post and the New York Times reported (Moynihan’s) findings, both avoided saying that Goodall had plagiarized—which, even by the strictest definition of the word, she did—instead writing that she “borrowed” passages, fully intending, apparently, to return them upon publication.”_ > **[The Jane Goodall Book Scandal: Most Journalists Hold Back but One Doesn’t Shy...](https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker-archive/jane-goodall-book-scandal-most-journalis/)** > > Jane Goodall reportedly plagiarized much of her new book, “Seeds of Hope” and, worse still, included quotes from an interview that the interviewee said he doesn't remember. The coverage of the scandal was mostly deferential. The Washington Post broke... It is noteworthy how many dubious and frankly loony websites have leaped on Goodall’s endorsement of the Druker book as evidence that it must be valid (including NaturalNews and collective evolution dot com (also known for revealing the Truth about extraterrestrials). This is all the more bizarre since such sites typically scoff at expert opinion on scientific matters as “biased”, “corrupt” etc., but are eager to promote a supposed expert’s opinion if it supports their ideology. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/126 "2015-07-25T16:58:58Z")
> [@Ken001](#): > > As a worried anti-GMO thinker, I was impressed by the pro-GMO Cosmos magazine published in 2014. It has largely persuaded me to view GMO as a positive contribution to mankind. > > [hawaiian flag - Google Search](https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=hawaiian+flag&biw=1242&bih=571&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQsARqFQoTCPrLtaDx88YCFcwelAodaDIM1w#imgrc=iT4X6_msfjwYRM%3A) This is probably not the link you intended to post. Do you have another link to the article? I’d like to read it. I’m looking for a good article written (at least in part) by appropriate scientists that I can send to my GMO-suspect friends. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/127 "2015-07-25T17:22:33Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > This is probably not the link you intended to post. Do you have another link to the article? I’d like to read it. I’m looking for a good article written (at least in part) by appropriate scientists that I can send to my GMO-suspect friends. Did you even CLICK the link? [Here you go.](http://hawaiiflag.facts.co/hawaiistateflagof/hawaiiflag.php) ---
**Author:** ![Canadjun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/128 "2015-07-25T17:33:57Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Did you even CLICK the link? [Here you go.](http://hawaiiflag.facts.co/hawaiistateflagof/hawaiiflag.php) What does the Hawaiian flag have to do with GMOs? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/129 "2015-07-25T17:35:01Z")
Am I being whooshed somehow? Both links bring up pages about the Hawaiian flag. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/130 "2015-07-25T18:19:54Z")
> [@Canadjun](#): > > What does the Hawaiian flag have to do with GMOs? Papayas. The [Slate article linked to up thread](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html) was pretty good and discussed GMO papayas. > [@](#): > > Twenty years ago Hawaiian papaya farmers were in trouble. Ringspot virus, transmitted by insects, was destroying the crop. Farmers tried everything to stop the virus: selective breeding, crop rotation, quarantine. Nothing worked. But one scientist had a different idea. What if he could transfer a gene from a harmless part of the virus, known as the coat protein, to the papaya’s DNA? Would the GE papaya be immune to the virus? > > The scientist, Dennis Gonsalves of Cornell University, got the idea, in part, from Monsanto. But Monsanto wasn’t interested in papaya. Although papaya is an important staple in the developing world, it isn’t a big moneymaker like soybeans or cotton. So Monsanto and two other companies licensed the technology to an association of Hawaiian farmers. The licenses were free but restricted to Hawaii. The association provided the seeds to farmers for free, and later at cost. > > Today the GE papaya is a triumph. It saved the industry. But it’s also a cautionary tale. The papaya, having defeated the virus, barely survived a campaign to purge GE crops from Hawaii. The story of that campaign teaches a hard lesson: No matter how long a GMO is eaten without harming anyone, and no matter how many studies are done to demonstrate its safety, there will always be skeptics who warn of unknown risks. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/131 "2015-07-25T18:35:47Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > This is probably not the link you intended to post. Do you have another link to the article? I’d like to read it. I’m looking for a good article written (at least in part) by appropriate scientists that I can send to my GMO-suspect friends. Is this the Cosmos article? [GM food is safe according to independent studies](https://cosmosmagazine.com/life-sciences/gm-food-safe-according-independent-studies) ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/132 "2015-07-25T22:50:41Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Uh, no. Latin America has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, and their fertility rates have cratered in the last couple of decades. El Salvador, where abortion is illegal even to save the mother’s life, has a slightly lower fertility rate than America (something like a quarter of women there have gotten sterilized). The same is true of the European countries with restrictive abortion laws (Poland and Ireland) for that matter. Abortion laws doesn’t seem to have much of an impact on fertility. The same is of course not true of contraception- that actually does matter. I wasn’t talking about JUST abortion - contraception is very available in Europe, even in countries where abortion is restricted. Likewise, it’s available in Latin America. Look somewhere like one of those African nations where the population is still swelling and you’ll find women with no options for controlling their fertility, where even married couples have trouble either finding or affording contraception, and the men don’t trouble themselves with controlling fertility. If you don’t get the men on board, on some level - giving women some rights over their own bodies, seeing the wisdom of limiting births, whatever - then it doesn’t matter what the women want. So stop putting it all on the women. It really does take two types to tango. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461.md?page=6)