I have a friend who bought into the "all natural" meme, and thinks GMOs are evil and organics are the way to go to save the earth
His arguments are
1.Its not natural
2. it allows plants to grow in places mother nature did not intend for them to grow
3. its not natural
4. a food is only food for you if its made naturally with natural ingredients rather than ingredients i a lab
5. we have enough food in the world, why do we need gmos?
How should I explain to him that GMOs are not all the evil?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
geneticliteracyproject.org
youtube.com
google.com
twitter.com
tell him to google golden rice.
he'll just say its unnatural and we already have enough food on this planet to feed everyone, and that we need to be more responsible with our food wastes
>1.Its not natural
Show him the artificial selection of corn.
well, because we did it in "nature" as in outside, its "natural"
Wait a minute, that pepper...
> (You)
> well, because we did it in "nature" as in outside, its "natural"
Ok.... Ok... What about actively mutating plants until we get something useful, like the Osa Gold Pear?
en.wikipedia.org
I believe there is little room for argument with these people. They're not open minded enough. We can only educate as many people as possible, focusing on the children since they have no preconceptions, and hope that similar ideas are sooner or later eradicated.
>1.Its not natural
Wrong, but even so, so is medicine.
>2. it allows plants to grow in places mother nature did not intend for them to grow
Mother nature didn't intend for subsharan african to be in Europe or USA, should we kill/deport them?
>4. a food is only food for you if its made naturally with natural ingredients rather than ingredients i a lab
GMO are 100% natural, 0% certified surnatural elements.
5. we have enough food in the world, why do we need gmos?
Not for long, world population is exploding and most farmable land are taken. Only deforestation gives us new land.
Richard would be proud.
>I believe there is little room for argument with these people. They're not open minded enough. We can only educate as many people as possible, focusing on the children since they have no preconceptions, and hope that similar ideas are sooner or later eradicated.
I'm in favour of GMOs, but that sounds like you are starting a sect....
What I said is true though. How are you going to persuade someone who replies "it's just, like, not natural maaan" to anything you tell him?
> (You)
> What I said is true though. How are you going to persuade someone who replies "it's just, like, not natural maaan" to anything you tell him?
You are right on that: "Contra negantem principia non est disputandum". But the second part sounds too much like child indoctrination (even though you can also argue that teaching basic arithmetic is a kind "child indoctrination" against the true fact that 1+1=0).
Well I didn't mean we should teach children to just swallow anything that comes out of a lab without hesitation, I meant that we should teach them actual science instead of some "muh mother earth" bullshit.
Take away his iPhone and car keys and tell him technology "is not natural" and offer to drive him to the nearest forrest.
> (You)
> Well I didn't mean we should teach children to just swallow anything that comes out of a lab without hesitation, I meant that we should teach them actual science instead of some "muh mother earth" bullshit.
And I totally agree, it's only the way you phrased it, which was a worryingly similar to what a crazy creationist would have said about evolution.
Humulin ™
>I hate GMOs!
Do you eat seedless graps or oranges?
>Yes...
Then you like GMOs.
This worked on my brother so it's worth a try.
Ask him if he knows any diabetics.
Insulin is mostly made from E. coli nowadays.
>Insulin is mostly made from E. coli nowadays.
That's why the Anti-GMO hate it and try to ban it with lies
geneticliteracyproject.org
show him this
youtube.com
tl;dw Richard Muller explains the Ames test and why selectively breeding pest resistant foods are often naturally high in carcinogens.
>"If you eat natural foods do it because you like the flavor, don't do it because you think you're avoiding carcinogens, if anything it's just the opposite."
I'm not educated enough in this field so I have a question.
Through artificial selection and hybridization, the crops don't produce any other chemicals other than the original, all natural plant would produce, or at least I think so.
Do GMO foods produce more other substances than the original or are they the same?
Accuse him of being a science denier. It works for global warming, right?
what the fuck does "all natural" even mean, or why do you care? through artificial selection you can make dangerous as fuck poisons in everyday plants. hell, there are wild very poisonous plants. would you eat that?
>we already have enough food on this planet to feed everyone, and that we need to be more responsible with our food wastes
Yeah, we do. But the market does a shit job of coordinating use values and exchange values, now doesn't it?
What I mean is, can you make a carrot be poisonous through artificial selection?
All-natural = from the the fucking woods.
you can make it harmful, useless shit if that's what you're asking.
>1.Its not natural
Naturalistic Fallacy
>2. it allows plants to grow in places mother nature did not intend for them to grow
Who is this "mother nature"? if it is just a cute name for the natural happenings uncaused by humans, how can it have intentions?
>3. its not natural
See 1.
>4. a food is only food for you if its made naturally with natural ingredients rather than ingredients i a lab
Your friend has defined food in such a way that they can't be wrong. Such a definition is dishonest to debate. If you and your friend can't agree on the definition of food, there is no debate.
>5. we have enough food in the world, why do we need gmos?
How much food is "enough"? Don't all humans have unlimited desires in traditional economic models?
Can you make a carrot produce ricin through artificial selection?
Let's narrow it down to just that.
>Yeah, we do. But the market does a shit job of coordinating use values and exchange values, now doesn't it?
Free markets are self correcting mechanisms that tend towards maximum efficiency. They do a great job of determining price (value). At the very least, markets lead to the most overall wealth for the poorest classes. In the United States, "the poor" now have a car, a TV, a smartphone, a bathtub, and many other things that most of the worldwide poor lack.
First start by telling him that genetically engineered food has existed for thousands of years.
Every single fruit/vegetable/animal you eat has been selected and bred based on their phenotype which is a somewhat good representation of the genotype.
Modern science went even further by selecting and breeding plants and animals by looking directly at their genes (without modifying).
GMO is only the logical continuation of this trend and is a lot safer and ecological than pesticides and artificial fertilizers.
Monsanto is not a GMO company, they are a chemical company that created a few GMO crops with the only purpose to sell more herbicides.
The process they use to produce GMO is pretty old now and more modern techniques have appeared (CRISPR-CAS9 namely) and are safer and more efficient.
Finally, being afraid of GMOs only empowers the countries and companies that are not afraid to use and produce them (and that may use them for evil purposes) since they are the only ones to have developed the knowledge in that field.
>1 in 5 children food insecure
>11x as many vacant homes as homeless
Riiiight...
Economics is pseudoscience anyways
>self-correcting mechanisms
Not when a firm's economic incentives always point towards the accumulation of market power and state control, the frustration of competition, and interference in product, resource, labor and commodity markets m8. Capitalism itself is deeply and inherently anti-free market
>At the very least, markets lead to the most overall wealth for the poorest classes. In the United States, "the poor" now have a car, a TV, a smartphone, a bathtub, and many other things that most of the worldwide poor lack.
Forgot to laugh at this. Obvioisly technological advance and growth of the productive forces are going to improve potential standards of living. But the -social organization- around production is not the same as the -material conditions- of production, they don't "go together" or presuppose each other.
>tl;dr muh iphones
1. cows, pigs, chicken, corn, apples, oranges, banana, all that food is basically GMO. Those organisms are not natural, we created them sometimes thousands of years ago. And aztecs said that corn is gift from gods.
2. plants grow everywhere, he may have however some valid point here, if plant grows in different conditions it may taste differently.
3. nope it is not natural but see 1. if he ever had one of those plants/animals it is too late now.
4. he cannot eat salt then, it is totally artificial thing
5. we do not have enough of food in world. Only rich countries do, rest of world is starving
Only one bad thing about new GMO is that those organisms are patented and you get sued for growing them.
>Mother nature didn't intend for subsharan african to be in Europe or USA, should we kill/deport them?
yes
Fuck GMOs, i dont want Monsanto controlling all my crops, telling me i cant breed my crops because its Monsanto special wheat.
And you can never test the product extensively enough to prove its not going to fuck something up, just because of brand of GMOs are safe does not mean all of them are.
Selective breeding is enough for foods, and is not the same as GMOs, not even close.
Fuck GMOs, we realy dont need them.
5. the problem is not the pants they have but the infrastructure and farming methods.
Example in Africa, they cant farm anything since the warlord across the rivers comes every year to raid and fuck their shit up.
Their society is just not stable enough or does not have the knowledge how to farm properly. See Zimbabwe for example of a country expelling farmers and failing into a famine in a few years.
Sure you can have GMO that have a resistant to some diseases but that not the main problem in the world when it comes to food.
>i dont want Monsanto controlling all my crops, telling me i cant breed my crops because its Monsanto special wheat.
That wouldn't happen if associations like Greenpeace were not busy destroying GMO crops used by public universities to study them (instead of Monsanto).
>And you can never test the product extensively enough to prove its not going to fuck something up, just because of brand of GMOs are safe does not mean all of them are.
Interestingly, thanks to that way of thinking, we now know how GMO affect our body better than the usual food (completely invalidating your argument).
>Fuck GMOs, we realy dont need them.
"Look at me, I'm more intelligent than everyone and my words are law".
Free market doesn't work very well for basic needs (food and meds) and infrastructures.
This. Markets could be fine for luxury goods, but for socially necessary things, and for automation we need democratic planning. And otherwise the luxury market isn't going to be free in the first place
>and for automation we need democratic planning
"Who wants to be substituted by a machine that can do your job more efficiently and in less time?"
"Nay"
"Proposal for automation dismissed, we should go back to pre-industrial era"
The ecological consequences of the industrial agriculture GMOs accommodate are extremely negative.
GMOs can be used ethically and for good purposes but there is few examples.
Most destroy biodiversty in the crops we grow and the earth systems we grow them in.
Terrible industry, just like pretty much everything you can buy at a store.
Stop being an unwitting corporate shill, GMO/agrochem are very bad hombres ya hear
what a retard, op
explain to him that gmos are the reason we can mass produce food and without it, it would be signifficantly difficult to feed the population
>The ecological consequences of the industrial agriculture GMOs accommodate are extremely negative.
"Look at me, I'm more intelligent than everyone and my words are law".
>GMOs can be used ethically and for good purposes but there is few examples.
Idem.
>Most destroy biodiversty in the crops we grow and the earth systems we grow them in.
What about the deforestation to create new crop land. Even the action of digging to plant is already destroying biodiversity.
>Terrible industry, just like pretty much everything you can buy at a store.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"
>Stop being an unwitting corporate shill, GMO/agrochem are very bad hombres ya hear
Tell Greenpeace to stop destroying public university crops where they are studying GMO and, maybe, they will not be monopolized by industries.
Tell him if he likes natural so mug he should get polio, that's natural too
Hand the basterd a biology book.
>not natural
neither are cars or antibiotics
>1.Its not natural
Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy
>2. it allows plants to grow in places mother nature did not intend for them to grow
>intend
Nature is not a conscious entity with intentions.
>3. its not natural
>4. a food is only food for you if its made naturally with natural ingredients rather than ingredients i a lab
Appeal to nature fallacy
>5. we have enough food in the world, why do we need gmos?
We have enough food precisely because of GMOs.
Why explain something to a stupid person who's already made up his mind?
>I can't reason my position so I need someone else to do it for me.
Why appealing to nature is logical fallacy?
Eat some natural poison ivy and find out.
>Why appealing to nature is logical fallacy?
Can you differentiate natural urea from urea made using Wöhler synthesis?
...
Yes you can
I don't understand
--
The question still stands
>natural = good
It has very shallow logic that only appeals to your gut feeling.
>Yes you can
How?
I'm not so sure about that. Nature is ancient and colossal. The way things are organized in nature reveals us very profound wisdom.
By looking at the time axis. One came from organism, one from laboratory/factory.
Economics aside. Urea from organism has more species diversity than urea from synthesis.
>By looking at the time axis. One came from organism, one from laboratory/factory.
You're just a fucking pedant that will try to avoid any sort of honest conversation.
>Urea from organism has more species diversity than urea from synthesis.
>species diversity
What did you mean by this?
>I'm not so sure about that. Nature is ancient and colossal. The way things are organized in nature reveals us very profound wisdom.
That reveals nothing other than the fact that you're attempting to hide your retardation behind buzzwords and vague mystic mumbo-jumbo.
Yeah, when the means of production are socially owned people enjoy the product of the labor the machines are now doing. So they can actually work less as the machines do the work for them, rather than scramble to compete with 50 other eliminated workers for hours in some other drudgery.
>"Who wants to be substituted by a machine that can do your job more efficiently and in less time?"
If it means you don't have to work, fuck yes.
Recall these are the only conditions under which automation helps the workers
>tfw your effective labor value is vastly increased by machines, and as a result you're laid off or paid less
>only in capitalism
>Urea from organism has more species diversity than urea from synthesis.
Lmao what the fuck
So then does cocaine from organism have more species diversity than cocaine from synthesis?
No, they reach maximum profit making efficiency, not actual efficiency in any other way. Free markets suck the money away from the poor, not give it to them
Urea from organism contains urea and many other molecules, which depend on the species and properties of the organism and its environment. For example there is DNA and bacteria.
Urea from synthesis contains almost entirely urea
Of course you can move the goalpost by saying "there is no difference between synthetic urea and organic urea that has been throughoutly filtrated" but no such technology exists yet.
I don't understand your argument.
There's no such thing as 100% pure substance. Only in imaginary realm of human thought. Even vacuum is filled with virtual particles.
>Urea from organism contains urea and many other molecules, which depend on the species and properties of the organism and its environment. For example there is DNA and bacteria.
>Urea from synthesis contains almost entirely urea
No, urea from organisms doesn't contain any other molecules, because urea is a molecule. -Samples containing urea- derived from an organism contain molecules besides urea, but then so too do -samples containing urea- derived from synthesis. Yes, the -samples- are distinguishable, and often the task of a forensic drug lab is to quantify impurities in seized drug samples to determine how they were produced. But the molecules themselves are indistinguishable, provided they're actually the same molecules and not, say, radiolabeled so they can be distinguished.
It doesn't make any sense to refer to a broader impurities profile as "greater species diversity." The two concepts have nothing to do with each other. It's certainly not a good thing to have more impurities in something you plan to ingest.
You're arguing that "natural" is better than "unnatural" and I don't see how that follows at all just from your comments on synthetic vs isolated impurities and how you can't remove absolutely every last molecule
>I don't understand your argument.
I don't need an argument because what you said is a non-argument. Just some vague shit that can easily be used to avoid answering a question.
selective breeding (what we do normally) is just a slower, more imprecise version of GMO
>What about the deforestation to create new crop land. Even the action of digging to plant is already destroying biodiversity.
of which GMOs are a huge driver, GMOs being shoved town traditional socio-ecological systems throats by international finance organizations like the world bank, and foreign investors from neoliberal trade agreements, arbitrarily imposed on non-enfranchised natives and 'citizens' of the commonly called 3rd world countries. First the forest is chopped or grassland cleared, rivers damned then large scale monoculture of GM soya, maize, cannola, rice, wheat, you name it
, it's all the same giant agrochem corps that make it possible, and with this MOA agriculture degrades soil carbon and Acidifies soil, destorys ecological communities in the soil, plant pollinators, Trophic levels of all kinds reaching from on the farm to aquatic biota to ocean population dynamics with the phosphate/nigtrogen pollution, and the startling happenings of soil erosion. All of this because traditional socio-ecological systems where uprooted with the emergence of industry and don't exist to utilize modern scientific understanding, decentralized social agriculture is far superior to industrial agriculture yet lacks the economic protection big ag has aswell as 100 years of state-social engineering of industrial agriculture and the consumer culture.
Reforestation is possible and preferable with agroecological practices
>evidence
Bow down brainlet I don't need evidence
Pssssssshhhhhh
>
I'm not affiliated with greenpeace
Peace
>of which GMOs are a huge driver
[Citation needed]
>GMOs being shoved town traditional socio-ecological systems throats by international finance organizations
"Shoved" or maybe the prefer them over traditional crops?
> First the forest is chopped or grassland cleared, rivers damned then large scale monoculture of GM soya, maize, cannola, rice, wheat, you name it
Saying that it only happens with GMO...
>it's all the same giant agrochem corps that make it possible
Implying that traditional communities are ecological...
>Acidifies soil,[...] the phosphate/nigtrogen pollution, [...]startling happenings of soil erosion
Implying again that this only happens with GMOs and it wasn't happening before (see Mesopotamia, salinated and eroded since centuries)
>decentralized social agriculture is far superior to industrial agriculture
[Citation needed]
Wow... that system seems to be a failure then. As far as I know those poor usa-citizens pay for the gadgets with borrowed money... so yeah that self-regulating thing was,is and will always be bullshit
Having robots do everything for you would finally mean you'd have time use that massive brain of yours for its actual purpouse. Go to pre-industrial era if you want but please leave most of your knowledge before you go because you don't need it there.
I would tell my friends that GMOs are yet another shit product pushed onto consumers like many other things, and do not do anything to benefit anyone let alone the planet (unless you count the people at the top of the corporate food chain of the new "tobacco" industry)
It is honestly insane to me that a company can profit from CREATING crops with alien DNA through a risky trial and error process. It's even more insane to me that they breed them specifically to accept pesticides and herbicides, not only to accept them and incorporate them into their cell structure but to accept it through out its entire life span?
GMOs are all bred to accept poison as part of their diet, and you are eating the same when you consume it, you can't just "wash" it out of every single cell.
Anyone who advocates GMO use is either a paid shill, or a poorly informed consumer. OP is one or the other.
>we have enough food in the world
Ya your 'friend' is right there you stupid fuck and we always have believe it or not, we have always been able to feed the world before the GMO bullshit of the late 80s.
The bigger issue is
>food distribution system; the global market
This is not in anyway akin to the process of creating GMOs
Like comparing a hamster to a space station.
You mean... artificial selection.
not GMOs
Learn the fucking distinction.
Lol you probably think the world is flat too right
Lol cuz that's the same thing, ya, you horrendous moron
>Samefagging this hard
At least offer up a real argument, something pro GMO labels have never been great at in the broad spectrum
>all talking out the ass and paid private research studies with highly questionable head staff (CEO of Monsanto you say?)
GMOs claim to be real science while in turn not defending itself with and real science.
>decentralized social agriculture is far superior to industrial agriculture.
Centralized agriculture worked so well for the USSR that they collapsed.
And the main problem with the GMO industry it's the patenting of genetic material.
The process itself also takes advantage of a particular bacteria property to mimick genetic material, wich could backfire terrible if the bacteria mutates.
>Centralized agriculture worked so well for the USSR that they collapsed.
Agriculture was decentralized in '21 under the NEP, so this has nothing to do with its collapse. It's also a moot point, as he's obviously referring to economies of scale. Which, spoiler alert, make """industrial""" farming far more labor and cost- efficient than that of subsistence farming communities. Which is why the one has a subsistence farming society and the other has civilization.
>And the main problem with the GMO industry it's the patenting of genetic material.
You can patent conventionally bred crops as well, this has nothing specifically to do with "GMOs"
>The process itself also takes advantage of a particular bacteria property to mimick genetic material, wich could backfire terrible if the bacteria mutates.
What are you on about lmao
Another thread where people don't understand what the definition of GMO is and think it means any thing that has to do with selective breeding.
>people think GMOs are evil
>GMOs haven't been around for very long term studies (50 year)
>short term study results conflict horribly
>companies use all manner of tactics to vilify anti-GMO ala tobacco company tactics in the 1970s and 1980s.
There's so much shit with GMO that I'll avoid it until it has been properly sorted out and impartially tested. I can live my entire live without eating or using GMO products. Hell, I farm most of my own food already and soon that will be 100%.
Why do you think they will be more responsible if they use golden rice? The same logistical problem exists with golden rice, no one is actually growing it in the first place.
>Which is why the one has a subsistence farming society and the other has civilization.
And the trade off is shit like this. I think I'd rather spend my time farming really.
no it's like comparing a polka-dotted hamster that took 100 years to breed to a polka dotted hamster that took 1 year to breed
No, it is akin to breeding a hamster that has longer fur and using non-breeding genetic engineering a hamster that has genes from plants added to it so it can get a small amount of energy from the sun.
>"The people who I think only disagree with me because they were paid to do so regress to ad hominems!" he exclaimed, without the barest hint of irony
Historical evidence via the posts ITT show that they do not know the definition of GMO. That is an observation, not an ad hominem; which is something else you don't know the definition.
>don't understand what the definition of GMO is
It doesn't HAVE a definition you fucking mong. It's not a scientific concept. People often USE it to mean transgenically bred organism, but artificial selection literally does change the heritable characteristics of a population. It literally is something that modifies what genes a population has. Antis have this wierd idiosyncrasy about them where they absolutely refuse to use proper scientific terminology, and you have the absolute gall, the audacity, to spin that around and claim that people who adhere to the scientific consensus don't know what they're talking about, because they don't latch on to your vague, impressionistic, ad hoc labels that scientists don't use in hehe first place?
>muh never been tested muh conflicting reports
google.com
>Why do you think they will be more responsible if they use golden rice?
>implying
I don't, but there clearly are things which improve the human condition under capitalism, besides fighting for the radical transformation of society.
Ok kaczynski
>Historical evidence via the posts ITT show that they do not know the definition of GMO.
See above
>That is an observation, not an ad hominem; which is something else you don't know the definition.
The shill gambit is ad hom you dense idiot
>do not do anything to benefit anyone let alone the planet (unless you count the people at the top of the corporate food chain of the new "tobacco" industry)
Ever heard of Golden Rice? (Which has humanitarian use license)
>CREATING crops with alien DNA through a risky trial and error process.
I think you are thinking about mutation breeding and not current GMOs.
> It's even more insane to me that they breed them specifically to accept pesticides and herbicides
Why? One of the main problem of crops is weed control, and this kind of plants simplify the problem.
>GMOs are all bred to accept poison as part of their die
Then, why do you eat chocolate? It's poison for dogs, why do you eat poison?
Because what is poison for one it may not be for other.
Do you have receptors for that? Is it absorbed by human digestive system? Do it decomposes in the plant cells so it doesn't get to us?
>Anyone who advocates GMO use is either a paid shill, or a poorly informed consumer
And you are just dumb.
>
>You mean... artificial selection.
>not GMOs
>Learn the fucking distinction.
Just see how the Osa Gold Pear was made: it was created using irradiating plants with gamma-rays until they got something useful, and then breeding them. It's not GMO, but it isn't usual artificial selection either.
>The same logistical problem exists with golden rice, no one is actually growing it in the first place.
Maybe because of the pressure from Greenpeace against it everywhere?
GMO - Genetically Modified Organism
You're WELCOME.
>"shoved"
As in native land was taken by state-capitalist agents, deforested, and traditional agricultural communities where displaced by large scale industrial agriculture.
>saying that only happens with GMO
No I'm saying GMOs almost always happen with that.
>implying traditional communities are ecological
Wew lad.
Do you really not understand that agricultural systems are ecological systems?
Google "socio-ecological systems model".
>implying that only happens with GMOs
No I'm implying that GMOs are a part of the agricultural industry that have ruined most of the earths arable land in the past century.
>citation needed
Actually knowing what I am talking about and basic application of propositional logic.
I'm not here to inform you I'm here to tell you that your ignorant.
government modified organism
he's obviously referring to economies of scale. Which, spoiler alert, make """industrial""" farming far more labor and cost- efficient than that of subsistence farming communities. Which is why the one has a subsistence farming society and the other has civilization.
>substinence farming
No I'm talking about liberterian socialist agriculture, which is an economy of scale. And I'm talking against commercial economies.
> make """industrial""" farming far more labor and cost- efficient than that of subsistence farming communities
No they make turning a profit from labour, land and capital much more effecient.
The actual use of material is much more effecient in Agro-ecological systems, and since labour and land are not considered capital, they are not exploited for profit.
>market efficiency
You'd think people would stop thinking this is a good thing after the recent financial and real estate market collapses. Capitalist markets are effecient but not effecient at producing and trading goods and services, theyre efficient at exploiting profit from it.
If you aren't literate don't respond like you are like you have in your previous posts.
The story of golden rice is simultaneously the best argument for and against GMO crops.
>Hey guys, we made rice that has vitamin A
>Oh, by the way, we got lucky. We had originally planned to splice in genes for the entire vitamin A synthesis process but a few genes in we discovered the rice was making beta carotene itself!
>We literally expected the rice to come out red at one stage but it came out gold. I guess it had the ability all along but some genes controlling the intermediate portions of the chain broke first when they weren't evolutionary desirable
>I guess our genetic structure is like some Indian Jones style ancient temple with lots of old mechanisms that have degraded over time and putting a single artifact into a hole can wake up a whole latent genetic history and send a giant rolling bolder crashing down on the surrounding environment.
no
What does it matter to you? He only buys natural food. So what?
Maybe he just doesn't want his food to give him cancer and autism?
>1.Its not natural
Natural fallacy
>2. it allows plants to grow in places mother nature did not intend for them to grow
The fuck does this even mean? Does your friend believe that there is a entity that decides where plants should and should not grow? Is he retarded?
>3. its not natural
See point 1
>4. a food is only food for you if its made naturally with natural ingredients rather than ingredients in a lab
Natural fallacy again. Moreover, virtually all Western foods are produced in processioning plants which can be akin to a lab of sort. Concerns over food processing and production are valid however it doesn't matter if the are produced as GMOs (e.g. not getting FDA approval) or "naturally" in a farmland (e.g. not adhering to FDA standards and exposing livestock to pathogens)
>5. we have enough food in the world, why do we need gmos?
GMOs can make food cheaper to produce which benefits the economy on the whole, they can be used for purposes not related to foods (e.g. pharmaceuticals, fur, etc), there are places in the world where food is not in excess, securing enough food matters as population increase in size etc.
>Fuck GMOs, i dont want Monsanto controlling all my crops, telling me i cant breed my crops because its Monsanto special wheat.
If you are referring to the Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser case then you should realize the only thing in contention was that the farmer was intentionally planting the special patented crop that he did not pay for that he acquired through taking them from the crops of the contaminated fields. He was not liable for the crops resulting from the contamination of his field. If you are going to contest this, you may as well contest the entire patent system.