# How many on the left are really anti-GMO? Anti-vax? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 4, 2017, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440 "2017-09-04T01:04:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/61 "2017-09-04T21:56:43Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Wait, what? Why was it a bad idea? It was a bad idea because they called it The Terminator Gene. If they had called it Seedless Wheat, we’d all be eating it today. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/62 "2017-09-04T22:00:00Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > . . . Show me actual cites then. Be specific. How is it an IP issue? . . . Are you familiar with laws forbidding the cutting of roses? That’s one specific example. I don’t know – and I don’t even really give a shit – whether that’s an “IP” rule or not. It is a rule, enforced as law, and it prevents the propogation of plants. There were proposals, early on in the GMO debate, for crop plants to be protected, both in this way and by genetic expiration codes. These were bad ideas, and have by and large not been implemented. Your pedantry is not helpful here. Please stop. ---
**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:** [September 4, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/63 "2017-09-04T22:01:35Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It’s absolutely crucial, if we’re gonna have productive conversation, that nobody pretends that GMO literally means any crop whose genetics have been modified. It’s never meant that: it refers, as I mentioned above, to crops whose genetics have been modified not through cross-breeding, but through modern biotechnology methods, including but not limited to transgenic techniques. This is often a distinction without difference. Say you have two seeds with the exact same genetic material; one was created accidentally by cross-breeding many seeds and the other explicitly created via modern GMO technology. Why should one be labeled differently from the other, especially if the modern one was tested more extensively than the first? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/64 "2017-09-04T22:01:53Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Wait, what? Why was it a bad idea? > > The concept of a genetic sequence that makes the crop sterile (i.e. what was called the ‘terminator gene’ back in the 1990s) isn’t any more problematic than seedless grapes. Do you object to seedless grapes too? . . . There isn’t any possibility of “seedlessness” migrating to other plants. There is a possibility of a “suicide gene” doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/65 "2017-09-04T22:12:34Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > This is often a distinction without difference. Say you have two seeds with the exact same genetic material; one was created accidentally by cross-breeding many seeds and the other explicitly created via modern GMO technology. Why should one be labeled differently from the other, especially if the modern one was tested more extensively than the first? The emotoin. Even the bacteria to the plant transfer it is not unknown in nature. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Roundup is not in fact a carcinogen (to be more precise, it’s not seriously carcinogenic or toxic, although some of the ‘adjuvants’ it’s formulated with may be somewhat toxic). What some foreign countries choose to ban, or not, isn’t really relevant to whether it is _in fact_ a carcinogen. It is even more relevant to note that contrary to the assertion the active chemical of the herbicide - the glyphosate - has not been found to be carcenogenic by the European - that is “fake news claim” > [@](#): > > [In November, 2015, the European Food Safety Authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate) published an updated assessment report on glyphosate, concluding that “the substance is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans.” Furthermore, the final report clarified that while other, probably carcinogenic, glyphosate-containing formulations may exist, studies “that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect.”[14][15] In May 2016, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues concluded that “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet”, even at doses as high as 2,000 mg/kg body weight orally.[16] In September 2016, a systematic review found no support for a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and the risk of NHL or of multiple myeloma.[17] of course since the product has existed since the 1970s it is not novel… > [@](#): > > There is no Roundup Ready wheat out there anyway as far as I know (at least, not on the commercial market), and herbicides are intended to be used well in advance of the harvest so that we won’t be ingesting them. Correct there is no such wheat in commercial usage at all. It is the soybean, the corn… So virtually no correct facts at all. but I am sure the minds will not be changed by their errors being noted. ---
**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:** [September 4, 2017, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/66 "2017-09-04T22:13:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There isn’t any possibility of “seedlessness” migrating to other plants. There is a possibility of a “suicide gene” doing so. By definition, there is no such possibility, since any such individual wouldn’t reproduce and the gene couldn’t spread. That was the whole goal of creating the sterility sequence in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/67 "2017-09-04T22:20:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Left Hand of Dorkness** : > > It’s absolutely crucial, if we’re gonna have productive conversation, that nobody pretends that GMO literally means any crop whose genetics have been modified. It’s never meant that: it refers, as I mentioned above, to crops whose genetics have been modified not through cross-breeding, but through modern biotechnology methods, including but not limited to transgenic techniques. There’s no percentage in pretending it means anything else; it’s a cheap way to win, a straw-man argument. (Note I’m not trying to pick on y’all–y’all all just kinda touched on this semantic issue). Absolutely there’s a difference between the current methods of modifying crops and the old methods. But the thing is, the difference goes the other way from what the anti-GMO crowd says. The old method is riskier and more poorly studied. So if you’re going to take a side based on safety, logically it should be in favor of the modern methods. As for the argument about not trusting the big agribusinesses, that gets back to what I said before about asking for what you actually want. I don’t trust Monsanto with gene-splicing, but then, I don’t trust them with cross-breeding, either. If there were labeling for Monsanto-free food, I’d be willing to pay extra for it. Maybe also for Archer Daniels Midlands. But there are plenty of other companies I do trust with gene-splicing, just like there are plenty I trust with cross-breeding. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/68 "2017-09-04T22:24:13Z")
Or the radiological bombardment, it is a I am sure nice and pure and should be loved. It is only in use since the 1920s… or the chemical induced mutagenics since the none of this is labelled. ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/69 "2017-09-04T22:39:18Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > . . Say you have two seeds with the exact same genetic materia. . . yeah, but are they? > [@Chronos](#): > > . . . > As for the argument about not trusting the big agribusinesses, that gets back to what I said before about asking for what you actually want. I don’t trust Monsanto with gene-splicing, but then, I don’t trust them with cross-breeding, either. If there were labeling for Monsanto-free food, I’d be willing to pay extra for it. Maybe also for Archer Daniels Midlands. But there are plenty of other companies I do trust with gene-splicing, just like there are plenty I trust with cross-breeding. See, that’s the point many I have talked to are making. These companies aren’t doing genetic modifications to make better tasting or more nutritious food. They’re trying to making farming easier and more profitable. Many, including myself do not trust these companies to have the consumers best interest at heart. Just because what they’ve done in the past seems to be nothing more than crop husbandry sped up, doesn’t mean that it will always be. CRISPR and other technologies are making it theoretically possible to create types of plants and animals that are impossible by other means. And nobody is certain of the long term implications to health and environment. Labeling is just the start of the vigilance I believe is required in this field. Regulation and oversight by disinterested parties should be considered as well. mc and labeling doesn’t have to occur at point of sale. we have this great information dispensing mechanism at our disposal (interwebs!) Maybe just requiring complete transparency from companies or a govt run database is a better approach ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/70 "2017-09-04T22:43:11Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Are you familiar with laws forbidding the cutting of roses? That’s one specific example. That’s an example of what? Of genetically modified organisms? Of terminator gene technology? Of “copyright” law? > [@](#): > > I don’t know – and I don’t even really give a shit – whether that’s an “IP” rule or not. It is a rule, enforced as law, and it prevents the propogation of plants. Why don’t you care? Isn’t this site about fighting ignorance? Doesn’t it matter if the specific problem you’re complaining about has anything to do with the cause that you’re identifying? > [@](#): > > There were proposals, early on in the GMO debate, for crop plants to be protected, both in this way and by genetic expiration codes. > > These were bad ideas, and have by and large not been implemented. What hasn’t been implemented? It is very common for plant varieties to be protected, under the Patent Act and under the Plant Patent Act of 1930 and the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970. So plant variety protection has not only been implemented, but the implementation happened nearly 90 years ago. And genetically modified organisms have been protected under the Patent Act since at least 1972, when the Supreme Court ruled in _Diamond v. Chakrabarty_ that Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty could claim patent protection for an oil-spill-eating bacteria that he created through genetic engineering. So what exactly is the bad idea that hasn’t been implemented? > [@](#): > > Your pedantry is not helpful here. Please stop. No, I don’t think so. My pedantry, as you call it, is trying to get you to clarify exactly what problem you’re identifying and what you think the source of that problem is. So far you’ve jumbled up genetic modification of plants, terminator genes, “copyrights,” and failed proposals to do something or other that is still not clear to me, because some of the things you seem to be identifying as rejected proposals don’t seem in fact to have been rejected because they are part of current science, commerce, and law. And you very much should care about the distinctions because if you’re criticizing something, you should be able to identify what it is you’re criticizing. If you can’t identify the source of the problem, how can you advocate against it? If the problem is the idea of a terminator gene, then “copyrighted crops” or any kind of intellectual property law isn’t the source of that problem, and at least in part because some of the things you seem to be describing don’t actually exist. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/71 "2017-09-04T23:06:14Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > By definition, there is no such possibility, since any such individual wouldn’t reproduce and the gene couldn’t spread. That does not make sense. If Farmer John is growing the commercial version next to Farmer Lou who is growing the heritage crop, the commercial crop will still produce pollen that will almost certainly find its way from John’s field to Lou’s. The terminator gene will get mixed into the heritage crop, eventually causing a successive planting to fail. You may make a plant sterile, but that will not stop it from going through the reproductive cycle. Which may be largely moot. If AgriCorp holds a patent on that crop, Farmer Lou is legally prohibited from growing it as a heritage crop from saved seeds (this is a WTO rule that crosses all borders and is not subject to any kind of democratic review). ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/72 "2017-09-04T23:22:11Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > By definition, there is no such possibility, since any such individual wouldn’t reproduce and the gene couldn’t spread. That was the whole goal of creating the sterility sequence in the first place. This is incorrect. The plants weren’t sterile, but had a sterility factor that could be triggered. The concern was that the sterility factor could migrate, and that it could be triggered wrongly. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/73 "2017-09-04T23:32:16Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Which may be largely moot. If AgriCorp holds a patent on that crop, Farmer Lou is legally prohibited from growing it as a heritage crop from saved seeds (this is a WTO rule that crosses all borders and is not subject to any kind of democratic review). THis is a distortion fiction made by people who do not understand the Trade related IP rules. and who mix the idea of the contracts of seed buying and usage incoherently into the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2017, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/74 "2017-09-04T23:37:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > This is incorrect. The plants weren’t sterile, but had a sterility factor that could be triggered. no you are incorrect in your correction. the primary thing meant by the ‘terminator gene’ is a genetic modification that leads to the effective second generation sterility of seeds. It is inherent there is no triggering. you are confused, possibly with an alternative approach of the chemical turn on the desirable trait with a post growth chemical enactor. > [@](#): > > The concern was that the sterility factor could migrate, and that it could be triggered wrongly. no that it could migrate and create by transference in a potential polination sterilities. there is no ‘triggering’ for the sterility ---
**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:** [September 4, 2017, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/75 "2017-09-04T23:57:14Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > yeah, but are they? Yes. So why should they be labeled differently? The science is conclusive: GMO food is just as safe as “natural” food and is a great boon. The arguments against GMO are similar in substance to global warming skeptics. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2017, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/76 "2017-09-05T00:14:48Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > It’s not a straw man when someone argues incorrectly against it, it’s a mistake because it’s a poor explication. > > You literally said Genetically modified organisms aren’t crops who’s genes have been modified, they’re crops who’s genes have been modified. “Literally” has a couple of meanings. Whichever you prefer, your sentence is uncontroversially, insultingly, and obviously wrong. I’ll dispense with the rest of your post unless and until you care to fix this error. > [@Saltire](#): > > One of the difficulties of arguing against a denialist of any sort (I’m not talking about anyone here), is the way they decide their conclusion, then start sweeping up varied justifications for it. > > So they switch to saying companies shouldn’t be allowed to patent living things. You point out that hybrid seeds have been patented for years before GMOs came along. Then they shift to another tack, et cetera, ad infinitum. To be fair, objecting to patenting living things predates GMOs, I believe. It is possible that many people object to GMOs for different reasons, and for some of those reasons to be scientifically inaccurate while others are not. > [@Deeg](#): > > This is often a distinction without difference. Say you have two seeds with the exact same genetic material; one was created accidentally by cross-breeding many seeds and the other explicitly created via modern GMO technology. Why should one be labeled differently from the other, especially if the modern one was tested more extensively than the first? If the methodology is different, it’s theoretically possible for there to be a significant difference in results. There are two routes I might take from home to work. Last year I tried the second route, compared to the old route I’d been taking for years. Google Maps shows that they take the same amount of time, but until I drove them both multiple times and found that they really were similar, I allowed the possibility that one route would have some unforeseen trickiness to it (e.g., worse traffic at the exact time I was going to work). Turns out, there’s a distinction without a difference between these routes, but I only was reassured about that after extensive testing. Again: THE SCIENCE IS IN AT THIS POINT. In the mid-nineties, it was not. > [@Chronos](#): > > Absolutely there’s a difference between the current methods of modifying crops and the old methods. But the thing is, the difference goes the other way from what the anti-GMO crowd says. The old method is riskier and more poorly studied. So if you’re going to take a side based on safety, logically it should be in favor of the modern methods. Now? Yes. A quarter century ago? No: at that point, one method had been tested for ten thousand years, and the second method had been tested for less than a decade. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2017, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/77 "2017-09-05T00:54:44Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > It’s not a straw man when someone argues incorrectly against it, it’s a mistake because it’s a poor explication. > > You literally said Genetically modified organisms aren’t crops who’s genes have been modified, they’re crops who’s genes have been modified. > I’ll give you, however, that’s it’s basically the same definition that I see on the nongmoproject’s website: > > > [@](#): > > > > A GMO, or genetically modified organism, is a plant, animal, microorganism or other organism whose genetic makeup has been modified using recombinant DNA methods (also called gene splicing), gene modification or transgenic technology. This relatively new science creates unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacterial and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods. > > But I’d like clarification since that’s fairly open ended. Can it better be defined what they ‘allow’ or ‘don’t allow’? It just seems like new=bad > > Can it be better explained what the problem is with GMOs? > > I’m sure there’s more, but I just think people have it in their head that gmos are bad and either don’t know what it is or equate non-gmo with organic. > > Either way, if I didn’t have the definition correct, I’d rather know the right one. It drives me nuts when people argue against something and clearly have no idea what they’re talking about. One that comes up regularly is “It’s so cold out, global warming is bullshit”. I see your point, so let me try to answer it from my perspective. Take a look at [this chart](https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nbt/journal/v31/n9/images_article/nbt.2686-F1.jpg), which is from a National Academy of Sciences report on GMOs. The scale at the bottom is the relative likelihood of unintended consequences in a GM product according to the method of genetic modification. If you take a technique like somatic hybridization as the approximate mid-point of the risk continuum, some interesting conclusions emerge. One observation is that at least one genetic engineering biotechnology – agrobacterium-mediated DNA transfer from closely related species – is well within the same extremely low-risk spectrum as conventional techniques like selective and cross breeding. Another observation is that mutation breeding through chemical mutagenesis or ionizing radiation – a technique that is considered “conventional” and not GE – is the highest of all on the risk scale, simply because the resulting modifications are uncontrolled and random. So one might question what it is about GE – genetic engineering – that is thought to pose risks. And I would suggest that first of all the term we should be using is “potential risks”, because it’s pretty well established that the GMOs presently in the food supply are as safe as anything else, and in some cases perhaps safer, though I can’t speak to the environmental impacts of GM crops. But the crucial point from that chart is that risk is seen to increase with the introduction of DNA from more distantly related species, and biotechnology is exceptionally powerful at doing this in ways that could never occur in nature, and getting more sophisticated all the time. Indeed the likelihood of unintended consequences starts to become non-trivial at around the level of somatic hybridization, whose advantage over conventional genetic hybridization is touted to be precisely the ability to force hybridization beyond the natural compatibility limits of conventional cross-breeding. It does this by forcing the fusion of cells that may be well outside the original taxonomic family. Boilistic and agrobacterium DNA transfers from distantly related species are assessed to have even higher potential for unintended consequences, and who knows what advanced techniques will yet be developed that overcome even more natural barriers. The power of biotechnology becomes worrisome given the track records of big agribusinesses and the food industry, and the degree to which their PR machines and lobbyists control public perceptions and public policy. It may be fashionable for the organic granola crowd to hate Monsanto, for instance, but that doesn’t change the fact of their aggressive and well-funded PR and lobbying which is on a par with what we used to associate with the worst of the tobacco companies, and with Exxon Mobil on climate change denial back in the days of Lee Raymond. I concur with government advisory reports and scientific studies that urge prudent caution as we move forward with biotechnology, and in particular, responsible oversight and regulation of these businesses with a view to transparency and full disclosure. A starting point would be the recommendations in [this document](https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/Jaffe%20RF%202016%2008%20GE%20Foods%20FINAL.pdf) [PDF] from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, recommending among other things a mandatory pre-market approval process at the FDA and science-based assessment and regulation of the environmental impacts of GE crops and the prevention of pesticide resistance in pests and weeds. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2017, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/78 "2017-09-05T01:13:29Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > no you are incorrect in your correction. the primary thing meant by the ‘terminator gene’ is a genetic modification that leads to the effective second generation sterility of seeds. It is inherent there is no triggering. you are confused, possibly with an alternative approach of the chemical turn on the desirable trait with a post growth chemical enactor. . . . Possibly. I did some Googling and found quotes such as this: > [@](#): > > Myth 1: Seeds from GMOs are sterile. > > No, they’ll germinate and grow just like any other plant. This idea presumably has its roots in a real genetic modification (dubbed the Terminator Gene by anti-biotech activists) that can make a plant produce sterile seeds. Monsanto owns the patent on this technique, but has promised not to use it. To me, that sounds like triggered sterility. In any case…all I really had to say on the matter was in my first post. The well was poisoned, early on, by companies such as Monsanto making this kind of thing known. It led many of us to have early worries about GMO foods. I’m none too happy having to rely upon a promise by a major chemicals corporation… ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2017, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/79 "2017-09-05T01:16:17Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Yes. So why should they be labeled differently? > > The science is conclusive: GMO food is just as safe as “natural” food and is a great boon. The arguments against GMO are similar in substance to global warming skeptics. If there are 2 automobiles that are exactly the same and one is made in detroit and one is made in mexico, why should they be labeled differently? It’s so the consumer has the info. And there are many more than just safety concerns in this issue (as others have pointed out.) Why shouldn’t they be labeled differently? mc ---
**Author:** ![Sasquatch\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8491ac/32.png) [@Sasquatch\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sasquatch_1)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440/80 "2017-09-05T02:06:14Z")
> [@SmartAleq](#): > > Likely the most prevalent GMO plant we encounter in the US is the “Roundup ready” group. Does anyone actually think that making a plant that’s resistant to an herbicide which is banned as a carcinogen in Europe is a good idea? The plants soak up the Roundup (and in the case of wheat, many farmers do a heavy dose right before harvest to increase the weight of the harvest) and then we eat it–does that seem like a good idea? > > And although I’m aware that it’s almost impossible to avoid GMO foods, putting it on the label is no more onerous than labelling that a food is produced in a facility that also processes nuts and dairy, etc. Somehow we’ve managed to survive that incredibly difficult hurdle–one more is not going to rip the fabric of the space-time continuum. Just freaking label it already, and if enough people don’t like it they’ll stop buying the products. That’s the free market in action, and isn’t that what we’re all about here in 'Murica? Like sevenwood noted, Roundup costs more per pound than wheat, spraying it on a wheat crop to increase weight is ridiculous. In the reportedly rare cases Roundup is sprayed on wheat as a dessicant to speed up harvest, the whole point is to kill the wheat plant - which makes the conflation of “roundup-ready” and “spraying Roundup on wheat” pretty bogus. If it was Roundup ready wheat, it wouldn’t be killed by spraying it with Roundup, so they wouldn’t be doing that anyway. The labeling issue sounds logical, but the whole point is to create a Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt cloud over GMO. To be rational and thorough, every risk associated with the food should be printed on the package. In a font size proportional to the annual deaths per year - so big font for pesticides and bacteria contamination risks, smaller for allergy or other risks, and apparently 0 size font for GMO so far. I’d guess most foods would probably have “choking hazard” as the largest warning though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-on-the-left-are-really-anti-gmo-anti-vax/795440.md?page=5)