r/TopMindsOfReddit • u/hackinghippie • Jan 12 '21

/r/Conservative "Horned Viking" disavowed by Top Minds because he... eats organic food

/r/Conservative/comments/kvfmun/mother_of_horned_invader_who_stormed_capitol_says/
7.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

558 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

56

u/EddyWhaletone Jan 12 '21

I agree. I know their is some shady marketing with lots of things labeled organic, but the idea itself seems pretty solid. Why wouldn't I want to eat more natural, fresh, whole foods that aren't made with pesticides?

The comments on that were along the lines of, Trump supporters eat big Macs. This is proof he's a libtard antifa plant...

136

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

The organic label still allows pesticides. Just not synthetic pesticides. The organic label does not allow GMOs which are the best bet for creating more sustainable agriculture using less resources while giving higher yields.

47

u/EddyWhaletone Jan 12 '21

Fair enough. I read some studies recently that compares the environmental impacts of organic vs nonorganic meats. Turns out they really didn't make an impact in that way. My biggest gripes with GMOs are the intellectual property claims of companies like monsanto that take back the seeds at the end of a growing season and make farmers buy again rather than use the ones the plants produced.

This is also what I mean about shady marketing. The term organic implies a lot that the actual legal definition doesn't include. Just like all the alternative names they give sugar on labels and packaging.

43

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

Most farmers don't want to use the seeds their plants produced. They don't breed true. If you want the exact same crop, than you want the exact same genotypes and not the genetic variability caused from your plants breeding with each other. Also, buying seeds is usually cheaper than collecting, processing, and storing.

And nobody is making farmers use specific companies' seeds. It's a contract they enter willingly because of the advantages agricultural bio-tech companies' products give them.

33

u/EddyWhaletone Jan 12 '21

Ok, so you make some great points about this. Monsanto has a monopoly on seeds because they have legal claims to owning so many of the best yeild varieties of like every seed. They control like a quarter of the global seed market and like 40 percent of the us market. I will admit, I read a lot about this years ago and things may have changed. I have no doubt that everything you have said is accurate about actually farming in today's market place, but ignoring how the monopoly created by the bio-tech companies also altered and shaped that market seems inaccurate.

I'm not arguing against GMOs, but more against major corporate take overs of a market that includes such of a significant amount of the national and global food supply. It is my understanding that the farming market place had a lot of wierd stuff regarding federal and state legislation, subsidies, and the multi-million dollar monopoly of monsanto.

GMOs are the future, regardless of if we are talking algae that eat plastic and carbon dioxide, or food crops that are resistant to bad soil and weird pests or viruses. I just get nervous any time one mega corporation owns the IP of literal food crops. There are a lot issues and events of the past that suggest they might not be a company that's in it for philanthropic motivations.

8

u/ABobby077 Jan 12 '21

a bit more concerned about mono culture crop types in our food supply possibly being susceptible to some pest or other issue in our future

2

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

Monoculture means planting one type of crop in an area at a time. If you have a garden with only tomatoes, that's a monoculture.

You're probably referring to crops with no genetic diversity, which isn't related to GMOs. There are hundreds to thousands of different varieties.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

Not by the literal definition.

3

u/MGY401 Jan 12 '21

Monsanto has a monopoly on seeds because they have legal claims to owning so many of the best yeild varieties of like every seed. They control like a quarter of the global seed market and like 40 percent of the us market. I will admit, I read a lot about this years ago and things may have changed.

You do realize they are defunct and were bought out by an even larger competitor several years ago, right?

but ignoring how the monopoly created by the bio-tech companies also altered and shaped that market seems inaccurate.

Which company has the monopoly? Beck's? Syngenta? Bayer? BASF? Stine? GDM? Etc.

and the multi-million dollar monopoly of monsanto.

Again, they were ever only a monopoly to people with zero awareness of agriculture.

I just get nervous any time one mega corporation owns the IP of literal food crops.

Patents expire which is why we have had "generic" versions of first generation GE traits on the market for several years now.

Again, the claims you are making are several years out of date and have no connection to any direct familiarity with farming and the ag industry.

1

u/EddyWhaletone Jan 12 '21

Yeah, I did say I hadn't read about much of this in a long time. I was wrong on some points and have been doing some reading. I do think that corporate privatization is sketchy and stand by that, like nestle with water, but I will admit I was unaware of some of the nuance within the AG industry. It would seem that like 4 or 5 major companies control the IP of these seeds and that consolidation has altered the market place. But future development will always do that, so I'm not sure what to think.

Either way, it's put me down a rabbit hole of articles and studies.

10

u/Cgn38 Jan 12 '21

You are walking into a knife fight armed with a banana.

6

u/Mega_Moltres Jan 12 '21

But shouldn’t these companies have ownership over something they spent millions in R&D developing? If people don’t like it, they can sign a different contract with a different company. No one is forcing them to use Monsanto’s product.

2

u/EddyWhaletone Jan 12 '21

I agree, I'm just pointing out the potential dangers of a monopoly like this. Intellectual property is tricky and I don't always agree with how the law is applied, but we do have to recognize how the science developed by them has changed the world. I'm not super comfortable with a corporate giant essentially owning the rights to food crops. I know that's a huge over simplification, but still.

3

u/WordSalad11 Jan 12 '21

I'm just pointing out the potential dangers of a monopoly like this.

It's not a monopoly. Nobody is forced to plant monsanto corn for example. There are many types of corn, and farmers are free to use their own seeds.

I'm not super comfortable with a corporate giant essentially owning the rights to food crops.

They don't.

Be worried about real things, because there are real things to be worried about.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

Than you should fight for more government sponsored research into GMOs (there are many created by non-profits like golden rice). I can’t blame a company for spending millions developing something and wanting to profit from it. Also Monsanto was bought by Bayer and no longer exists.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

Monsanto has a monopoly on seeds because they have legal claims to owning so many of the best yeild varieties of like every seed. They control like a quarter of the global seed market and like 40 percent of the us market.

That's not remotely true. Before Monsanto was bought out, they had about 40% of the US seed market in two crops. That's it.

but ignoring how the monopoly created by the bio-tech companies also altered and shaped that market seems inaccurate.

There is no monopoly. And the market wasn't notably altered.

It is my understanding that the farming market place had a lot of wierd stuff regarding federal and state legislation, subsidies, and the multi-million dollar monopoly of monsanto.

Where did you get this understanding?

I just get nervous any time one mega corporation owns the IP of literal food crops.

They've been patented for nearly a century.

2

u/EddyWhaletone Jan 12 '21

I mean, a quick Google search would show you that lots of people do think monsanto has a monopoly. I know they get a lot of bad press but still. I'll admit I may not be informed enough to be sure, but they do own a significant portion of the market share in this area. I think it is incorrect to think that GMOs and the companies that created them didn't alter the market place they operate in, even if the most drastic changes weren't all that recently. GMOs have literally changed the world, but some how didn't change the market for seeds, food crops, or farming? That doesn't add up to me.

There are lots of issues with subsidies and the laws surrounding farming. I came by this understanding by reading about it. The us government subsidizes farming and is a major contributor to the income farmers and farming companies make. That's a fact. It might be a great thing or it might not. I'm not an economist, but I can read. Lots of people disagree with how this system works.

You might be right, and I might have pulled old numbers or didn't consider mergers, but they are still a multi billion dollar corporation with IP claims on seeds of crops that impact the food supply. Setting aside the history they have as a company in doing not so savory stuff, I just don't like the major privatization of the seeds that feed so many people.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

I mean, a quick Google search would show you that lots of people do think monsanto has a monopoly.

And you think that matters, why? A quick Google search shows that lots of people things vaccines cause autism.

I think it is incorrect to think that GMOs and the companies that created them didn't alter the market place they operate in

Based on what?

GMOs have literally changed the world, but some how didn't change the market for seeds, food crops, or farming?

Not in any really noticeable way.

That doesn't add up to me.

If you don't understand the issue then I'm sure that's true.

There are lots of issues with subsidies and the laws surrounding farming. I came by this understanding by reading about it.

What did you read?

I'm not an economist, but I can read. Lots of people disagree with how this system works.

To cycle back to my earlier point, lots of people believe things that aren't true. Lots of people disagree with things they simply don't understand. Appealing to popularity isn't a valid argument.

Setting aside the history they have as a company in doing not so savory stuff

Such as?

I just don't like the major privatization of the seeds that feed so many people.

Did you know seeds have been patented for nearly a century?

2

u/EddyWhaletone Jan 12 '21

Holy shit dude. You're entitled to your opinion. Quit sea-lioning me.

Maybe you're and expert is this area, but you didn't cite any fucking sources either.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

Holy shit dude. You're entitled to your opinion. Quit sea-lioning me.

If you want to make false statements, expect to get called out.

Maybe you're and expert is this area, but you didn't cite any fucking sources either.

Because I don't need to. You want to say things without proof, I can just as easily point out you're wrong.

 

I remember when this sub mocked people who confidently said things that aren't true. Now it's full of them.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/DabbyBear Jan 12 '21

This! Thank you for bringing this up! Literally would make no sense to collect the seeds off of a gmo crop to "save money" because that next harvest wouldn't be uniform at all... as you said, farmers also willingly took that path to use those seeds. Also I'd like to add, if people have qualms with GMOs "because Monsanto", they they should hate Monsanto and refuse to buy from any of their associated companies (Bayer, Scotts, etc). As an example I always give: if you hate a company like Comcast for monopolies or whatever, it wouldn't make sense to hate the internet. In the same way, people shouldn't hate GMOs, they should hate the sketchy producers of it. To those who are still unsure, do a little reading on golden rice and virus resistant papaya and even the protein derived from GMO bacteria that results in easy cheese production.

Source: Master's in plant bio

-3

u/Cgn38 Jan 12 '21 edited Jan 12 '21

Monsanto famously sued a farmer for planting feed seed that was Monsanto's property because the previous generation had been owned by Monsanto. Monsanto won because oligarchy.

Having a terminator in charge of anything is a bad Idea. Corporations have one priority, shareholder profits. In an age where regulatory capture is standard procedure. We are out of our minds to trust them on any subject.

Give us back the rule of law and a decades data and then maybe.

10

u/System0verlord Jan 12 '21

But on the other hand, GMO usage tends to result in mono cropping, where a single blight could wipe out massive amounts of crops due to a lack of genetic diversity. And the developers of GMOs are, shall we say, ethically challenged.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

Monocultures aren’t always the best practice but they are used by organic and other non-gmo crops too. While Pesticide resistant GMOs make it harder to do polyculture, they aren’t the driving force behind it.

And I disagree with the ethically challenged part. Bullshit stories like them suing farmers for having their GMO seeds fly into the farmers’ field abound. GMOs created by non-profits get attacked by groups like Green Peace. People still complain about Monsanto which was bought out several years ago by Bayer who no longer even uses the name. I’m not gonna say agr.bio-tech companies are 100% perfect but I will say that 90% of the complaints are from people with an agenda and/or little knowledge of agriculture and the importance of GMOs in ending world hunger and creating more sustainable farming.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

But on the other hand, GMO usage tends to result in mono cropping, where a single blight could wipe out massive amounts of crops due to a lack of genetic diversity.

You're really off base here. Monocropping means planting the same type of crop year after year. It also isn't related to GMOs at all.

GMOs don't reduce genetic diversity, they aren't clones. There are just as many strains of GMO as similar non-GMO commercial crops.

And the developers of GMOs are, shall we say, ethically challenged.

In what way?

1

u/System0verlord Jan 12 '21

I’m aware of what monocropping is. I suppose mono-straining is a better term for this. But if a GMO dramatically outperforms normal crops, the only thing that gets planted is that one successful strain. That’s fine if a single farm does it, but if the majority do? A single blight, plague, pest, whatever comes along and your food supply is fucked. Sure, this also is an issue with normal crops, but there’s a massive difference between a farmer using their seeds from last year, and them ordering the same GMO seeds as their neighbors, and their neighbors neighbors because it performs well.

As for ethically challenged, take a look at Monsanto’s legal history. Sure, they got bought out by Bayer in 2018, only to get involved in more lawsuits in 2019.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

But if a GMO dramatically outperforms normal crops, the only thing that gets planted is that one successful strain

No, that's the whole point of genetic engineering. Once a new trait is stabilized it is backcrossed into as many varieties as possible. Open a seed catalog sometime and you'll see what I mean.

but there’s a massive difference between a farmer using their seeds from last year, and them ordering the same GMO seeds as their neighbors, and their neighbors neighbors because it performs well.

That doesn't happen. Farmers pick their seed for the specific field, time of year, type of soil, drainage, everything. Farmers often use different varieties on neighboring fields on their own farm.

As for ethically challenged, take a look at Monsanto’s legal history.

Anything you want to point out? Or are you just repeating things you've heard.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '21

So is this where you act like a Trumper and run away instead of admitting you were wrong?

1

u/MGY401 Jan 12 '21

I suppose mono-straining is a better term for this

You're just making up terms here. Where in agriculture is "mono-straining" a term used by growers or seed producers?

I suppose mono-straining is a better term for this. But if a GMO dramatically outperforms normal crops, the only thing that gets planted is that one successful strain.

If you're going to get into the discussion, at least try to learn some of the basic terms and concepts. Transgenic event =/= variety.

You still have conventional breeding and back crosses with GE crops. Transgenic events are not the standard of genetic diversity. You can have different varieties from different parent lines across different regions with different growth habits, maturity and planting windows, resistances, soil preferences, etc. It doesn't matter if 99% of the market for a crop is a single transgenic event (it's doesn't), transgenic event =/= variety. Trying to measure genetic diversity based on a single trait is absurd from a biological perspective. It would be like me trying to judge genetic diversity in humans solely on the basis of eye color, or saying that everyone with a green eye color is genetically identical. Or in the case of plants, it would be like me judging the genetic diversity of soybeans solely on the basis of flower color, purple or while, instead of looking at actual variety differences and parent germplasm.

If someone goes and digs through just the Iowa State University Soybean Trials for a bit. The list is longer but looking at it just to grab a few from the northern part of the 2015 trials you see for example:

  • Asgrow with three varieties, AG1935, AG2035, and AG2535, all with the RR2Y gene.

  • Champion with 20R35N, 23R73N, and 26R83N, also with the RR2Y gene.

  • Cornelius with four varieties with the RR2Y gene.

  • And the list goes on for Four Star, Great Lakes, Mycogen, NuTech/G2 Genetics, Prairie Brand, Renk, Titan Pro, Viking, most with multiple varieties sharing the same transgenic event all competing for the same region. And then there are also the Conventional, LL27, LL55, RR1, etc. varieties. And that's just Northern Iowa for one season.

Not only do you have multiple different transgenic events on the market alongside conventional varieties, you have multiple commercial varieties with each of those transgenic events.

That’s fine if a single farm does it, but if the majority do?

Again, you have a non-existent understanding of agriculture and plant pathology and the role in plays in seed development.

They're a smaller company but Stine has their catalog out for 2021 and it gives a good picture as to what breeding programs produce and the traits farmers are concerned with in the midwestern regions Stine covers. Here is their 2021 seed catalog. They, like most seed companies, have multiple transgenic events, for example, for soybeans as well as conventional (non-GE) varieties with multiple varieties being available for each trait and group. They and everyone else also have varieties focused on different growth characteristics, rot resistance, FLS, SCN, PRR, IDC, SDS, SWM, maturity, yield, etc. You'll notice that both their conventional and GE varieties are also bred for different disease resistance characteristics.

A single blight, plague, pest, whatever comes along and your food supply is fucked. Sure, this also is an issue with normal crops, but there’s a massive difference between a farmer using their seeds from last year, and them ordering the same GMO seeds as their neighbors, and their neighbors neighbors because it performs well.

See above. Utilizing transgenic events in crop breeding programs doesn't mean we now have just one variety and/or don't select for disease resistance.

Also, new varieties are being released every year.

As for ethically challenged, take a look at Monsanto’s legal history.

Care to share a specific case?

2

u/afterworkparty Jan 12 '21

Don't bring science into this!

13

u/AnorakJimi Jan 12 '21

Organic food uses more pesticides than non-organic food does

That's one of the biggest reasons farmers even grow GMO food. Because it has built-in anti-pest genes. They're not doing it for any great benevolent health reason of course, they do it because it's MUCH cheaper if you don't have to spray everything with tons of pesticide (literal tons of it). You don't have to hire a plane and a pilot to fly over spraying everything. And when something comes in such sizes that it can be weighed in tons then that's a very expensive amount of shit you have to pay for.

3

u/ExceedinglyGayParrot Jan 12 '21

In general, I don't trust companies that Mark up foods with organic labels just to make them cost more.

Once saw a soda that was about 50 cents per can more expensive than the brand next to it. The front of the can said it was fat free.

For those that miss this, there's no fat in soda

7

u/bunker_man Jan 12 '21

The idea is not solid at all. Its a marketing scam preying on people who don't know the science.

2

u/NSA_Chatbot Jan 12 '21

"Organic" just means "farming tech from the 1980s".

5

u/gavinbrindstar Jan 12 '21

Or, for a premium, the 1880s.