208 replies to this topic

[evolvedhuman2012]

 

 

an interesting new development that came up was a debate between jeffrey smith and neil deGrasse tyson.

 

why the heck would an astrophyicist support gmo people may ask?  some may think he been bribed. heck, may not have been the first time, doesn't surprise me.

 

 

furthermore, something fishy i wanna touch upon is that michael taylor whom been in "revolving door roles" in fda and monsanto.  if people don't find this fishy, people don't seem to be using objectivity.  none of the gmo adovcates respond to that fact.

 

heck this is public information, i like to see people justify that with logic and objectivity.  such a red flag and reek of corruption. 

 

ooooh yes, everyone must be bribed who can understand science and gmo and is not against it... I am so fed up by these allegations.

obviously you are not of a scientific background...please study some biochemistry and molecular biology (I know its hard)

Of course monsanto and the fda going hand in hand is fishy, but stop making straw man arguments please this supposed to be an intellectual forum. Please make some scientific arguments against it instead of quoting pseudoscience.

there are other successful biotech companies, there are drugs manufactured by gmos (think insulin!)

 

GMO soy is on the market for more than 15 years, we have billions of control animals eating them, don't you think someone would not notice if their animals are growing slower or dying?

I really want to know how many facts do you need to understand that well controlled gmo is safe but please don't be an ignorant fool time is working against the anti GMO people.

 

 

If it isn't dangerous yet, it will be some day, because Monsanto/Bayer etc will lobby US government for less and less testing to be required, in order for bigger profits. And the US government will cave like a pussy as it always does.

 

What does "understanding science" mean? Safety shouldn't rely simply on understanding (which could be flawed). It should rely on trials which demonstrate safety.

 

And in any case, GM seeds are not a science. It's a technology. Being against GMOs is not anti science because it isn't science...

 

Even if GMO seeds can be safe, there's no point having them unless they increase yield, and it seems we are still waitingfor this.

 

The reason they are being so aggressively pushed is to make corporate multinationals sh1tloads of money by increasing their control over the food supply.

 

That's enough reason to oppose GMOs for me. Companies like Monsanto will say anything to get their way, you can't trust them and you can't make a deal with them.
 

 

 

 

 

if monsanto ever achieve theoretical mega-corporation status, the whole human race would be severely genetically deformed just like those lab rat in those studies,studies they tried so hard to suppress.  thats why it is such a threat to humanity, their profit margin is so important that people getting sick and generational problem is not important to them.  "megalomania"  wouldn't be a bad word for them. and but how do you get people to eat a lot of gmos(corn, soy, canola)?  gmos has been in heavy concentration in the processed food to ensure everyone eats them.  so yes, that's hard to fight.

 

 

funny thing is people say why haven't we heard about health problems.  do you know that a while back there was this case when two reporter filed for whistleblower status cuz they worked for fox news and fox forced them to ignore/mitigate findings that rbgh was in usa milk?  in court juries rule on reporters' favor.  they won the case but got no award money cuz judge ruled falsifying news broke no law.  rbgh didn;t get banned in usa while europe and canada banned them.

 

stop sounding like a corrupted corporate agent and respond logically to my points if you have something of substance to say instead of the mantra," go study more biosciences." to any and all points against gmos.   is saying that suppose to give you some authority on the subject matter? lol. it doesn't make you sound more correct but just more  corrupted. don't matter whether the user's labeled from hong kong, spain, budapest, and/or freckin north pole for that matter. lol.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by evolvedhuman2012, 12 November 2014 - 11:07 AM.

[Bonee]

stop sounding like a corrupted corporate agent and respond logically to my points if you have something of substance to say instead of the mantra," go study more biosciences." to any and all points against gmos.   is saying that suppose to give you some authority on the subject matter? lol. it doesn't make you sound more correct but just more  corrupted. don't matter whether the user's labeled from hong kong, spain, budapest, and/or freckin north pole for that matter. lol.

 

 

see, thats what I'm speaking about, I am just trying to see things with a scientists eye,  and regarding all evidence I can't see any evidence that says that GMO-s have done any harm - yet and you already labelled me as an agent... I think we can agree that most studies of either party are biased, but I think the pro GMO party has irrefutable evidence which I said, that we have millions of control animals / humans. You must be the type also who thinks big pharma are poisoning us and/or suppressing cures so they can sell more medicine...
The solution would be that if Monsanto like corps could not influence politicians, but the problem is that politicians are also dumb on the subject and without lobbying they would ban it just to appease people like you. I am not an agent of biotech corps but I am pro GMO, and I think it can help humanity tremendously on the long run and for that we need pioneers corporations.

And your points are just picking out things like fox didn't let something out... hows that evidence for gmo milk caused anything I think it is 99% that the milk did no harm but they had to withdraw it because of the public so afraid of gmo.

I am not saying that you should learn biochemistry to mock you but so you can understand how gmo works, how it influences things on the long run.

[Antonio2014]

I was going to answer, but changed my mind and will follow the rule of not arguing with idiots.

[StevesPetRat]

Precautionary principle applies. GMO benefits have been overstated and rely on the assumption that our current monoculture megabusiness agriculture, with its adversarial stance towards nature, is the only viable food production strategy. Furthermore, the global hunger problem is one of distribution, not production.

That said, I am annoyed how this debate is pro- or anti-GMO, as though "GMO" was a single product and not hundreds. I am sure some are fine for humans and some will turn out to be detrimental. Each product should be required to undergo testing at least as rigorous as the drug approval process before being allowed to be brought to market. Actually, it should be stricter, as the population exposure rates to food are far higher than they are for drugs. It is still a primitive technology, and I personally would prefer control over which experimental substances I consume.

[Antonio2014]

Precautionary principle is not a principle but a stupid idea, and almost never is applied. Indeed, if it were applied, we will die of starvation, as the link I posted above shows.

 

GMO benefits have been overstated and rely on the assumption that our current monoculture megabusiness agriculture, with its adversarial stance towards nature, is the only viable food production strategy.

 

So what do you propose? Returning to the hunter-gatherer era? Would you like to be between the billions of people that will die of starvation?

[evolvedhuman2012]

Precautionary principle is not a principle but a stupid idea, and almost never is applied. Indeed, if it were applied, we will die of starvation, as the link I posted above shows.

 

GMO benefits have been overstated and rely on the assumption that our current monoculture megabusiness agriculture, with its adversarial stance towards nature, is the only viable food production strategy.

 

So what do you propose? Returning to the hunter-gatherer era? Would you like to be between the billions of people that will die of starvation?

 

the statements are quite extreme and bias, possibly trolling. the philosophy being putting forth is to be cautious is stupidity. if you reject gmo , you'll starve!  and if you cause gmo to go extinct, the deaths of millions would be on your hands. it is either gmo or hunter -gather way.

 

 

i have to say, this feel very much an attempt to confuse, bully, and pressure all rolled into one.  i don't know who you can win over this way.

i don't think anyone with common sense can be persuaded this way.

 

 

i think you may be intensifying people's mistrust of the gmo industry this way, not persuading people to trust it more.

 

 

Edited by evolvedhuman2012, 29 November 2014 - 08:17 AM.

[evolvedhuman2012]

Precautionary principle applies. GMO benefits have been overstated and rely on the assumption that our current monoculture megabusiness agriculture, with its adversarial stance towards nature, is the only viable food production strategy. Furthermore, the global hunger problem is one of distribution, not production.

That said, I am annoyed how this debate is pro- or anti-GMO, as though "GMO" was a single product and not hundreds. I am sure some are fine for humans and some will turn out to be detrimental. Each product should be required to undergo testing at least as rigorous as the drug approval process before being allowed to be brought to market. Actually, it should be stricter, as the population exposure rates to food are far higher than they are for drugs. It is still a primitive technology, and I personally would prefer control over which experimental substances I consume.

 

ok to be fair, which ones do you think are fine?  i like to be open-minded also.  i recall this interview with armad pusztai.  he was actually  surprised that gmo poisoned the food chain in his experiment .  he said like they spent six and a half time identifying the gene for splicing .

 

 

the aphids that ate the gmo crop got sick and the ladybugs that ate the aphids also got poisoned, that your food chain model right there. so what the hell was going on there?

 

that can happen in the human population too.  he went public with his research and was sacked and his team disbanded. he worked 36 years at Rowett and was world expert on lectin.  now what could he 've done that was so bad that warranted such a harsh penalty? is it possible he stumbled upon a problem with gmo technology and monsanto did all it could to cover up by silencing him?  people can feel free to verify his case. i don't think monsanto wants people to hear about him cuz that would make them look bad.

 

 

i heard interviewed scientists said that geneticist had no control where foreign genes are spliced in and therefore, the process is very unstable and can create new allergens, toxins, and so on. 

 

is there a tech to integrate foreign genes into host and create stability? 

 

i'm sure some gmo proponents would say that scientists that allege gmo tech of creating instability are rogues or something bad about them. hahaha... i don;t know what to say then....

 

 

 

ok let me help out the proponents here:

maybe you can justify poisoning billions and billions if it would feed the world. hahaha.  but then again there are experts who say that food shortage is myth and fake. the problem is corruption prevents people from receiving food ,not shortage.  oh man....

Edited by evolvedhuman2012, 29 November 2014 - 09:13 AM.

[Antonio2014]

 

the statements are quite extreme and bias, possibly trolling. the philosophy being putting forth is to be cautious is stupidity. if you reject gmo , you'll starve!  and if you cause gmo to go extinct, the deaths of millions would be on your hands. it is either gmo or hunter -gather way.

 

 

i have to say, this feel very much an attempt to confuse, bully, and pressure all rolled into one.  i don't know who you can win over this way.

i don't think anyone with common sense can be persuaded this way.

 

 

i think you may be intensifying people's mistrust of the gmo industry this way, not persuading people to trust it more.

 

WTF??

 

Are you trolling me?

 

First, precautionary principle is not 'being cautious', it's not using something until its effects are completely known. That is why people are still talking about precautionary principle in GMO discussions nevertheless they have been used for more than two decades now withouth any adverse effect on people, cattle or the environment.

 

Second, as I said, it's a stupid idea, because, as the link I posted above shows, we don't know non-GMO crops effects any better than GMO crops effects. 99.9% of the pesticides we eat are naturally produced by the plants to defend themselves, only a minuscule part of them have been studied and half of them have cancerous effects on mice. But precautionary principle is never applied here!

 

That leads to my third point, precautionary principle is just an excuse in order to be able to ban GMO crops without any solid proof or argument, calling 'principle' what is only prejudice, and worse, and alleged principle that is only applied when it benefits their prejudice.

 

On the other hand. You said:

 

 

GMO benefits have been overstated and rely on the assumption that our current monoculture megabusiness agriculture, with its adversarial stance towards nature, is the only viable food production strategy.

 

"Our current monoculture megabusiness agriculture" includes all modern agriculture, not only GMO crops. So, the only alternatives are hunt-gather or subsistence farming, both of which will make billions of people starve, and your magic solution I asked you for, and you opted for trolling instead of answering.

Edited by Antonio2014, 01 December 2014 - 09:38 AM.

[Antonio2014]

i recall this interview with armad pusztai.  he was actually  surprised that gmo poisoned the food chain in his experiment .  he said like they spent six and a half time identifying the gene for splicing .

 

 

What experiment?

[evolvedhuman2012]

 

 

the statements are quite extreme and bias, possibly trolling. the philosophy being putting forth is to be cautious is stupidity. if you reject gmo , you'll starve!  and if you cause gmo to go extinct, the deaths of millions would be on your hands. it is either gmo or hunter -gather way.

 

 

i have to say, this feel very much an attempt to confuse, bully, and pressure all rolled into one.  i don't know who you can win over this way.

i don't think anyone with common sense can be persuaded this way.

 

 

i think you may be intensifying people's mistrust of the gmo industry this way, not persuading people to trust it more.

 

WTF??

 

Are you trolling me?

 

First, precautionary principle is not 'being cautious', it's not using something until its effects are completely known. That is why people are still talking about precautionary principle in GMO discussions nevertheless they have been used for more than two decades now withouth any adverse effect on people, cattle or the environment.

 

Second, as I said, it's a stupid idea, because, as the link I posted above shows, we don't know non-GMO crops effects any better than GMO crops effects. 99.9% of the pesticides we eat are naturally produced by the plants to defend themselves, only a minuscule part of them have been studied and half of them have cancerous effects on mice. But precautionary principle is never applied here!

 

That leads to my third point, precautionary principle is just an excuse in order to be able to ban GMO crops without any solid proof or argument, calling 'principle' what is only prejudice, and worse, and alleged principle that is only applied when it benefits their prejudice.

 

On the other hand. You said:

 

 

GMO benefits have been overstated and rely on the assumption that our current monoculture megabusiness agriculture, with its adversarial stance towards nature, is the only viable food production strategy.

 

"Our current monoculture megabusiness agriculture" includes all modern agriculture, not only GMO crops. So, the only alternatives are hunt-gather or subsistence farming, both of which will make billions of people starve, and your magic solution I asked you for, and you opted for trolling instead of answering.

 

 

 

 

 

actually precautionary principle simply put is " being cautious". 

 

"the precept that an action should not be taken if the consequences are uncertain and potentially dangerous "-http://dictionary.re...onary principle

 

 

and your point on "billions starving without gmo", if food shortage is nothing but propaganda drummed up by gmo industry to advocate gmo.  and if the fact is corruption is the true cause of people  not getting food, gmos contributes nothing to solving problem. 

 

in fact, the heavy use of pesticide on gmo may exacerbate the problem by poisoning the soil.  the pesticide kills bugs, what the heck you think they do to humans?  would you be so naive to say the effect would be "benign"?

 

 

 

[evolvedhuman2012]

WTF??

 

Are you trolling me?

 

First, precautionary principle is not 'being cautious', it's not using something until its effects are completely known. That is why people are still talking about precautionary principle in GMO discussions nevertheless they have been used for more than two decades now withouth any adverse effect on people, cattle or the environment.

 

 

depends on what side you listen to. there been reports of harm to people and animals.

[Antonio2014]

 

depends on what side you listen to. there been reports of harm to people and animals.

 

For example?

[StevesPetRat]

I was going to answer, but changed my mind and will follow the rule of not arguing with idiots.

Ditto. However, I will rebut some of your ignorant "points" and misdirected juvenile hostility and then unfollow this topic. Go nuts.
 

First, precautionary principle is not 'being cautious', it's not using something until its effects are completely known.

Read this. You do not understand the precautionary principle.
 

So what do you propose? Returning to the hunter-gatherer era? Would you like to be between the billions of people that will die of starvation?

Here is a link that explains in detail the so-called food shortage. In summary, there is no global shortfall of agricultural capacity, only typically human bullshit about wanting things that aren't necessarily sustainable.
My solutions would of course be
1) Promote generous international aid to developing nations to help them escape from the subsistence farming modality in which production shortfalls translate into starvation; implement a plan to transport "waste calories" that would otherwise be lost to such nations.
2) Increase micro-farming efforts; decentralize the production of food much as solar panels allow decentralized production of power. This has the potential to increase yield.

3) Implement sane farming practices: crop rotation, fallow fields, natural predators / pest reduction methods.
4) Take urgently needed corrective action to slow the progression of global warming. If anything is a true threat to the food supply, this is it. Of course, though Canada and Russia may become the new fertile crescent, I strongly doubt the net effect will be positive.

 

Are these likely to be implemented? No. But instead of making the wise choice when faced with a problem, humanity will yet again make the expedient one. And if GMOs do turn out to be harmful, it's going to be damn near impossible putting that genie back in the bottle. In the absence of a compelling reason (not a fabricated one) to use them, I see no reason to go forward on a global without a lot more safety data.

 

 

And now to address somebody who made his points in an articulate and adult manner:

see, thats what I'm speaking about, I am just trying to see things with a scientists eye,  and regarding all evidence I can't see any evidence that says that GMO-s have done any harm - yet and you already labelled me as an agent... I think we can agree that most studies of either party are biased, but I think the pro GMO party has irrefutable evidence which I said, that we have millions of control animals / humans. You must be the type also who thinks big pharma are poisoning us and/or suppressing cures so they can sell more medicine...

I don't think these "data" are really powered to detect anything but lethality. More specifically, farm animals lead highly artificial and foreshortened lives, so the fact that they're not dropping dead en masse simply tells us that current GMO tech won't kill us outright. Similarly, we just know from "human trials" that GMOs aren't frankly fatal. If they were even as harmful as cigarettes, we wouldn't be able to tell without a much more careful analysis. Running with that example, it took centuries of tobacco smoking before the link between cigarettes and cancer was proven. On the other hand, I don't know yet that the evidence of harm is that strong, either, as I haven't read the studies carefully (some of them seem outright fabricated at a glance).

On the topic of Big Pharma, seriously, so many drugs turn out to have adverse effects that don't even show up in clinical trials. What is soooo unreasonable about holding the biggest experiment we've done since the dawn of agriculture to at least standards that rigorous, if not moreso?
 

ok to be fair, which ones do you think are fine?  i like to be open-minded also.  i recall this interview with armad pusztai.  he was actually  surprised that gmo poisoned the food chain in his experiment .  he said like they spent six and a half time identifying the gene for splicing .

I'm going to guess that golden rice is probably just fine. Simple things like turning on the vitamin A producing gene are likely to be safe. Enhancing natural characteristics like drought resistance may be OK too. Placing proteins from totally unrelated species together in a crop? Not so sure about that one. 
 

Alrighty, had my say, got better things to do than stand in the middle of a pissing contest.

[Antonio2014]

 

I was going to answer, but changed my mind and will follow the rule of not arguing with idiots.

Ditto. However, I will rebut some of your ignorant "points" and misdirected juvenile hostility and then unfollow this topic. Go nuts.
 

 

LOOOL... How old are you? 8? 10?

 

 

 

First, precautionary principle is not 'being cautious', it's not using something until its effects are completely known.

Read this. You do not understand the precautionary principle.

 

That's what antiGMO people say they are using, not what they are really using. If they were usign that, they'd be proGMO.

 

(1) THERE IS scientific consensus that GMO aren't more dangerous than other crops. Not only that, anybody with basic knowledge of biology knows that organisms can't tell apart GMO food from non GMO food (apart from biotech lab staff, of course). They are chemically indistiguishable after few minutes in the stomach, as I said before and you refused to refute (because you can't).

 

(2) THERE IS overwhelming evidence that GMO crops aren't more dangerous than other crops (for example this: http://journalofanim...4-8124.abstract ).

 

 

 

 

So what do you propose? Returning to the hunter-gatherer era? Would you like to be between the billions of people that will die of starvation?

Here is a link that explains in detail the so-called food shortage. In summary, there is no global shortfall of agricultural capacity, only typically human bullshit about wanting things that aren't necessarily sustainable.
My solutions would of course be
1) Promote generous international aid to developing nations to help them escape from the subsistence farming modality in which production shortfalls translate into starvation; implement a plan to transport "waste calories" that would otherwise be lost to such nations.
2) Increase micro-farming efforts; decentralize the production of food much as solar panels allow decentralized production of power. This has the potential to increase yield.

3) Implement sane farming practices: crop rotation, fallow fields, natural predators / pest reduction methods.
4) Take urgently needed corrective action to slow the progression of global warming. If anything is a true threat to the food supply, this is it. Of course, though Canada and Russia may become the new fertile crescent, I strongly doubt the net effect will be positive.

 

Are these likely to be implemented? No. But instead of making the wise choice when faced with a problem, humanity will yet again make the expedient one. And if GMOs do turn out to be harmful, it's going to be damn near impossible putting that genie back in the bottle. In the absence of a compelling reason (not a fabricated one) to use them, I see no reason to go forward on a global without a lot more safety data.

 

 

Yeah, let's choose an unfeasible "solution" instead of one that works but goes against your prejudices. Again, how old are you?

 

 

 

And now to address somebody who made his points in an articulate and adult manner:

 

 

You are really amusing.

 

 

 

see, thats what I'm speaking about, I am just trying to see things with a scientists eye,  and regarding all evidence I can't see any evidence that says that GMO-s have done any harm - yet and you already labelled me as an agent... I think we can agree that most studies of either party are biased, but I think the pro GMO party has irrefutable evidence which I said, that we have millions of control animals / humans. You must be the type also who thinks big pharma are poisoning us and/or suppressing cures so they can sell more medicine...

I don't think these "data" are really powered to detect anything but lethality. More specifically, farm animals lead highly artificial and foreshortened lives, so the fact that they're not dropping dead en masse simply tells us that current GMO tech won't kill us outright. Similarly, we just know from "human trials" that GMOs aren't frankly fatal. If they were even as harmful as cigarettes, we wouldn't be able to tell without a much more careful analysis. Running with that example, it took centuries of tobacco smoking before the link between cigarettes and cancer was proven. On the other hand, I don't know yet that the evidence of harm is that strong, either, as I haven't read the studies carefully (some of them seem outright fabricated at a glance).

 

 

As I said above, the same can be said of the majority of the chemicals that non-GMO plants produce. But hey, we antiGMO people can't apply our beloved precautionary principle to our sacred organic foods! How you dare, heretic! Keep that dirty logic apart from our beliews!

 

 

ok to be fair, which ones do you think are fine?  i like to be open-minded also.  i recall this interview with armad pusztai.  he was actually  surprised that gmo poisoned the food chain in his experiment .  he said like they spent six and a half time identifying the gene for splicing .

I'm going to guess that golden rice is probably just fine. Simple things like turning on the vitamin A producing gene are likely to be safe. Enhancing natural characteristics like drought resistance may be OK too. Placing proteins from totally unrelated species together in a crop? Not so sure about that one. 

 

MEGALOL. Well, if rice and bacteria aren't different enough for you to ban golden rice, what organisms are different enough to require a ban in the GMO produced from them?

 

And while we are at that, please provide a (non risible) reason why more different organisms produce less safe or less predictable GMOs. (And why GMOs are less safe or less predictable than non GMOs, BTW.)

 

 

 

Alrighty, had my say, got better things to do than stand in the middle of a pissing contest.

 

 

http://funnystack.co...y-Insult-26.jpg

Edited by Antonio2014, 05 December 2014 - 11:37 AM.

[Antonio2014]

For the people that still follow this thread, an interesting TV debate: http://intelligences...lly-modify-food

[Logic]

Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America
"...Evidence is mounting that glyphosate interferes with many
metabolic processes in plants and animals and glyphosate residues have been detected in both.
Glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, it damages DNA and is a
driver of mutations that lead to cancer..."
http://www.organic-s...anson-et-al.pdf

[Antonio2014]

- Correlation doesn't imply causation.

 

- The Journal of Organic Systems doesn't even appear in PubMed, so it's quality is at least very dubious. Indeed, a simple Google search shows that this journal has a long history of very poor quality articles (for example this: http://www.marklynas...e-junk-science/ ).

 

- From all the GM crops in the market, only a few have glyphosate resistance, so your association glyphosate-GMO-disease is non-existent.

 

- Glyphosate's mode of action is to inhibit an enzime involved in the synthesis of the aromatic aminoacids tyrosine, tryptophan and phenylalanine. Humans don't produce these aminoacids (they must be obtained by eating vegetables) so we don't have the enzime that glyphosate acts upon and thus glyphosate affects plants but barely affect us (and other animals). It's indeed toxic to humans in high amounts (don't try to drink a glyphosate bottle), but the amounts present in the plants we ate are many orders of magnitude below that levels.

 

- Serious studies (like this of the NIH) don't show problems of toxicity for animals or humans, nor pollution of the environment, by glyphosate.

 

- Glyphosate easily degrades in Nature (see the above report). Thanks to this, for example, it doesn't accumulate in aquifers, like other herbicides. Indeed, some herbicides used in organic agriculture, like copper salts, are much more polluting than glyphosate.

 

- The article cites other articles supposedly demonstrating that GM crops produce cancer, Alzheimer's disease and a lot of other diseases. I will not discuss all of them here, but there are authors of very dubious reputation in these articles, the most famous of them is probably Seralini, that claimed in 2012 that GM corn produces cancer in rats in an article that was retracted by the journal that published it due to the many and serious errors the readers pointed out (also, it violated bioethics normative for animal research, but that is another story). This is another evidence of the low quality of the article you linked.

Edited by Antonio2014, 10 December 2014 - 12:08 PM.

[Logic]

Ok; forget the studies.

Some yes or no questions:

• Are countries like China setting fire to GMO corn etc. on the advice of the village idiot?
• Are we able to plant GMO seeds and have them grow?
• Do GMO crops cross breed with non GMO crops?
• Do these other crops then also produce seed that does not germinate?
• Do Monsanto and co. sue farmers that end up with a couple of GMO plant in their fields by chance, cross breeding, or nefarious means?
• Do the insecticides used on GMO crops kill bees and other insects that pollinate plants making for the next generation?
• Will all plants that rely on insects for pollination die out if said insects die out?
• Will the cost of basic foodstuffs rise dramatically if the only place to get seed is from one company/monopoly?
• Will such a company be able to hold a country to ransom be denying them seed/food?

 

[Antonio2014]

 

Ok; forget the studies.

Some yes or no questions:

1. Are countries like China setting fire to GMO corn etc. on the advice of the village idiot?
2. Are we able to plant GMO seeds and have them grow?
3. Do GMO crops cross breed with non GMO crops?
4. Do these other crops then also produce seed that does not germinate?
5. Do Monsanto and co. sue farmers that end up with a couple of GMO plant in their fields by chance, cross breeding, or nefarious means?
6. Do the insecticides used on GMO crops kill bees and other insects that pollinate plants making for the next generation?
7. Will all plants that rely on insects for pollination die out if said insects die out?
8. Will the cost of basic foodstuffs rise dramatically if the only place to get seed is from one company/monopoly?
9. Will such a company be able to hold a country to ransom be denying them seed/food?

 

I numbered your points to more easily reply to them.

 

1. What is this, argument ad populum? Do you know it's a phalacy? Chinese people also massively use acupunture. Are you also proposing that acupunture cures? Did you know that Chinese government approved some GMO crops and public Chinese universities are actively researching new crops?

 

2. Of course.

 

3. It depends on the GMO. Anyway, GM crops, like all other man-made crops, can't survive without human help and would be extinct in a few decades if not cultivated.

 

4. Not all GMO are sterile. Also, a sterile crop becomes very rapidly extinct.

 

5. I don't know any case. I do know some cases for non GMO crops. The vast majority of crops cultivated in the world for commercial agriculture (not subsistence agriculture) are patented or licensed, and most aren't GMO.

 

6. That's a stupid question. The insecticides used for GMO are also used for other crops.

 

7. Another stupid question.

 

8. Another stupid question. There is no monopoly on GMO (for example, in Europe there are at least 30 companies that sell GMO), most non-GMO crops are also patented and they aren't a monopoly either. Also, there are GMO developed by governments (like Brazil, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Cuba, Argentine...) and NGOs (like the Golden Rice Project) and NPOs (like many universities). Even Greenpeace sells Monsanto seeds in Europe.

 

9. Another stupid question.

 

Now my question:

 

Why do you refuse to discuss evidence and prefer to talk about your prejudices?

 

Edited by Antonio2014, 10 December 2014 - 02:03 PM.

[Skyguy2005]

Antonio:

 

(1) Does Monsanto bother you at all?

 

(2) Do you think golden rice is very useful?
 

[Antonio2014]

I will not answer more questions until my question is answered or my arguments refuted.

[evolvedhuman2012]

Anti-GMO movement is really stupid. Among many other reasons, because after 15 minutes in the stomach, it's chemically and biologically impossible to distinguish GMO from non GMO food.

 

chemically and biological impossible for the human body to distinguish? tell that to the many people that admitted to having sick/allergic reaction after consumption.  but these same people had no issue with the organic counterparts.  so if gmos and organic are same, why the hell does the body react differently?

 

try refuting that. it must be the people's fault who have allergies to gmos. because it cannot be monsanto's fault! lmfao! case closed.

Edited by evolvedhuman2012, 15 December 2014 - 01:00 AM.

[Antonio2014]

Some paper that proves that?

[Antonio2014]

Anyway, what I said is still true. What is different in a GMO from the organism it is obtained is a protein or a few proteins, and their corresponding genes. After 3 minutes in the stomach, all proteins are splitted in aminoacids and all DNA is splitted in its bases. So the body can't know that the food in the stomach is from GMO or non GMO.

 

Allergy is different. Allergy can be caused by other substances apart from proteins, like some sugars or metals. Also, your body can react to an allergenic substance through the skin, the tongue, etc., you don't need to eat them. Also, alergenic proteins allways act before eaten, since, as I said, after 3 minutes in the stomach, they are broken apart (I don't know any allergy to DNA).

 

Also, unlike non GMO new varieties, it is precisely known what proteins of the new organism are different from the old one. That's not the case for other varieties, that tipically have hundreds or thousands of different, unknown proteins. So, it's almost impossible that a GMO contains some allergenic protein, because they are known beforehand and they were all purpotedly introduced. For non GMO, it depends on chance.

 

Also, GMO regulation in Europe (probably it's the same in the US) prohibites approving any GMO that causes any allergy on humans. This is not true for non GMO food! If that where true, peanuts or wheat would be prohibited! This is another example of the stupidity that surrounds GMO politics.

 

Here in Spain a public univesity was researching GM wheat without gluten (wheat for coeliac people) but, since all GMO for human food is prohibited in Europe, they finally stopped the research. It seems that, for the European politicians, it's better that these people continue being unable to eat bread than going against their antiGMO religion. Yeah, another stupidity of GMO politics.

 

 

try refuting that. it must be the people's fault who have allergies to gmos. because it cannot be monsanto's fault! lmfao! case closed.

 

I'm seriously considering not answering again your stupid arguments paranoia.

Edited by Antonio2014, 15 December 2014 - 08:13 PM.

[evolvedhuman2012]

http://politicalblin...rcenary-group/-

 

"That’s a good question. The more cynical among us might suspect a financial incentive from Monsanto itself to such “journalists.” Monsanto indeed has hired a public relations team to seek out critical blogs and websites reporting on their crimes against both Nature and humankind. We have seen this first hand in comments on PoliticalBlindSpot.com articles on Monsanto. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that they have created blogs where seemingly legitimate authors write organic thoughts, observations and rebuttals. The public presumes these are real-world people, when in fact they are working PR for the company."

 

 

something interesting to bear in mind. there no point arguing with a pr agent. 

 

some points to bear in mind:

-no matter how logical /suspicious gm industry behavior have been, the proponent never consider those things and always twist things around.  (monsanto's role in agent orange and pcb go ignored.  accusation they kept secret gm food on the market until exposure later in time.  )

-the sacking of arpad pusztai in "arpad pusztai affair" is ignored.(nope nothing wrong/suspicious there.)

-accusation of harassment of scientists researching harm of gmos is ignored.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Antonio2014]

Still waiting for the paper on allergy...

[Antonio2014]

For all anti-Monsanto conspiracy theorists:

 

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0111629

 

Farmers aren't stupid.

 

http://www.plosone.o...sentation=PNG_L

[Logic]

Addressing the issue of horizontal gene transfer from a diet containing genetically modified components into rat tissues

Genetically modified (GM) food crops are considered to have the potential of providing food security especially in developing countries. Scientists have raised concern over the hazards associated with the consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). One of these hazards, which have great controversy reports, is the possible horizontal gene transfer from GM-food or feed to human or animal tissues. Many researches were conducted to investigate the presence of some transgenic sequences in animal tissues fed on GM- crops. Many of the inserted genes in the GM-crops are under the control of the promoter of the Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMVP35S) and produce insecticidal proteins. Health hazards are suggested to accompany the ingestion of this promoter. CaMVP35S can function in a wide range of organisms (plants and animals). It has also been demonstrated that the CaMV-P35S promoter sequence can convert an adjacent tissue- and organ-specific gene promoter into a globally active promoter. The present work was conducted to evaluate the possibility of horizontal gene transfer from a diet containing DNA segments from Cauliflower mosaic virus -35S promoter (CaMVP-35S) to the cells of different organs of rats fed for three months on diets containing genetically modified components. Analysis of the results revealed that: 1) ingested fragments from the CaMV-35S promoter incorporated into blood, liver, and brain tissues of experimental rats, 2) The total mean of transfer of GM target sequences increased significantly by increasing the feeding durations, and 3) The affinity of different transgenic fragments from the ingested GM-diet, to be incorporated into the different tissues of rats varied from one target sequence to the other.

http://www.academicj...xt/BE5331948800

[dz93]

You people need to get over this GMO bs. I used to be against GMOs but then I realized if we never created GMOs most everyone on this planet would be starving. GMOs feed the world. They feed people. They give people what they need. Who cares if we have to buy seeds from Monsanto or some other company every year this is how we survive. Without companies like Monsanto humans would be on the streets starving. They saved us. Who cares if they may have adverse health effects. Can you tell me what food doesn't cause cancer? Can you tell me what food doesn't harm anyone? None. Foods will always hurt people but some day Monsanto will figure out how to make foods actually healthy. GMO foods could some day prevent cancer which non-GMO foods cause. So can you tell me what you'd rather have? Gene transfer from an up and rising tech or cancer from organic food? This planet doesn't have what we need to thrive but we can change that. We can change everything. We can change the way plants grow, how animals develop, we could even create genetically modified humans to make them immune to cancer or immune to anything. This is technology and this is where we go. If we have to be irresponsible while developing it then so be it. Its the cost of becoming gods. Some people HAVE to die in order for the rest to thrive. That's how life works. Accept it. We will become gods some day and Monsanto will be paving the path for that to happen.

[Antonio2014]

People repeating the antigmo mantra is so boring...