what does "made in the USA" have to do with safety? I think you are confused. I never said GMO was not safe. I only said that people should get to know.
Why should I pay for some stuff you want to know? These costs get passed down to the consumer. I draw the line of "should get to know" at safety.
I don't think you understand how evolution works or what a GMO is. Well, in that case GMOs aren't dangerous. A GMO doesn't directly kill you. The imaginary disease you think GMOs cause, kills you. That's the truth. And here's an article about your "polls": http://www.balancedpolitics.org/editorial-the_case_against_polls.htm
Can't tell if serious, or just went full r****d. Alright i'm done with this thread lol, I recommend anybody who truly wants to learn why I and many others are against GMO's to watch the interview/documentary I posted. If anybody has a serious or semi intelligent rebuttal to the interview with a good point, question or observation about it, I'll reply. I'm open minded, I just want to know the truth, whether it be that GMO's are dangerous, or safe. I just truly care about health and well being of people, and right now I firmly believe GMO's are unhealthy and dangerous for our future.
It's alright, you went full r****d 5 pages ago. If you don't understand how a "pesticide resistant" plant from natural selection through evolution could occur, then again, you don't understand evolution. It would take a longer period of time, but farmers would just spray some pesticide and keep the seeds of plants that didn't die. The truth is the FDA has been monitoring GMOs and they deem them safe. http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm352067.htm I trust GMOs a lot more than I'd trust the supplant industry.
And do you know how much you'd be paying extra? Did you do the match? And how much extra do you pay to have the country of origin put on the inside of every shirt you buy? Are you against that as well then?
That's silly. The people against GMOs also include all the producers of non-GMO products - all out for profit. I could easily ask who's for GMOs? People who want to end starvation, help the lives of farmers, etc. Dumb all around. I think you need to start over in your research of GMOs, what it is, and what it is. Again, what do you think the purpose of GMOs are? Again, I don't think you understand the basic history of food. As to your last sentence, I again ask if you are anti-grapefruit?
I do have a degree in Biology and one of my good friends works for a non-Monsanto GMO company. I have a very good grasp on the science, am not a shill, and think you're quite ignorant not just of the science behind it but how science works in general. “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov It's not like every food you eat wasn't modified in one way or another, even without lateral gene transfer (even then we use grafting quite a bit in many crops). Ever eat cauliflower? Broccoli? Brussels Sprouts? Those all came from wild mustard. Quite a change, no?
Umm, you do realize, of course, that pyrethrins (one of the major insecticides) comes from chrysanthemum flowers, right? Chemists have modified them a bit to make them more stable in light and a bit more powerful, but they are fairly effective in their normal form as well, directly from the plant. Many plants have proteinase inhibitors in their leaves that deter caterpillars from eating them. It happens. Hell, one of my favorite examples of natural selection in action deals with taking the caterpillar protection a step further - as the caterpillar chews the leaf it releases volatile compounds that attract parisitoid wasps. The wasps lay their eggs in the caterpillar and when they hatch they eat the caterpillar from the inside out. Awesome.
Sorry, didn't address your "documentary". http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...frey-smith-withdraw-from-food-biotech-debate/ I'll trust scientists over self-published ballroom dancers, thank you. I hope rational thinking individuals do the same.
The man in the video does not for once second claim to be a scientist. Just because he is presented on Dr.Oz as one doesn't mean he has ever claimed to be one. If you watched it, you might of understood that. I'm guessing you watched about 3 minutes, dismissed what little you heard, looked him up and tried to find something to make fun of him with. What he's doing is quoting multiple scientist that he has met and researched, and also using public knowledge about GMO's. Bruce chassy, you know, the one who talked **** about him Bruce Chassy has received research grants from major food companies and has conducted seminars for Monsanto, Genencor, Amgen, Connaught Labs and Transgene. What a surprise! PS. LOL at quoting the guy who's convinced black people biologically superior at sports. Look up taboo before you make fun of Jeffrey for being a ball room dancer. ANYWAYS http://www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks#24 This is Smith's website, there is a link to sources, scientist names, articles on the health risk of GMO's. http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html that link also provides more information with sources listed at bottom of page. GMO's and natural plant evolution, selection are not the same. Nature is by far the absolute most advanced scientist in the world, and I will take its work over everyday over some monsanto employees throwing **** at a wall hoping it sticks, focusing on profit with no concern for human health.
I guess you love citations from dubious sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Environmental_Medicine#Criticism_of_legitimacy Scanning through the sources, I could only find one study that was published, the rat one, which failed under scrutiny. http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html Seriously, feels like talking to a global warming denier.
We can exchange links all day, it's not getting us anywhere. I believe GMO's are unhealthy and I don't trust the science for them, you believe they are healthy and you don't trust the science for against them. Lets leave it at that. Aside from questionable science, I have a problem with companies modifying food thats already perfectly healthy and nutritious. I have a problem with the environmental damage done by mono crops and pesticides. I have a problem with our foods being laced with poisonous pesticides, as the chemicals and poisons in pesticides have adverse effects on human health. I have a problem with food and seeds having patents on them. All of these concerns are justifiable, agreed? Truth is, if soil was taken care of properly, and given the proper nutrients, and if crops were diverse, there would be no need for pesticides or genetic modifications as the gardens ecosystems could sustain and protect it's self from disease. The environment could be restored by the planting of food instead of ravaged. We could use food to help eliminate toxins from our bodies, instead of adding them. So much is ass backward in most modern agriculture, so much is unnecessary. GMO's, whether you think they are dangerous or not, are still another step in the wrong direction in my opinion. I believe in global warming btw.
I would not trust the FDA as a paragon of food safety and more as a Minimum Viable Product or Least Common Denominator in the bar of food safety. They have multiple concerns to look after, and they receive funding by the industries they're tasked to watch over. To reach a level of safety and standards compliance to the level I'd like, they'd probably have to increase their staff 4 fold. It'd probably reduce the drug approval pipeline too. Because of manpower shortage, studies like these or the studies drawn to make the conclusions of the article you posted are heavily sourced from private research or briefs. While that alone doesn't refute the science, there isn't a complete break in concerns over conflicts of interest. While I don't distrust GMOs heavily, I share most of the concerns you wrote above. The only part of GMOs I'm concerned is about tailor-made products that would never be naturally derived, such as a food that provides some crucial enzyme for a particular disease or syndrome. While I'm not calling for an outright ban, I'd totally support ethics committees to weigh the risks or at least reduce introducing a potentially wild and invasive species that can totally alter the surrounding environment because of natural pollination and hybridization. The next post after yours touched upon the Green Revolution, and while it did and has served a purpose for continued population growth, the practice itself is unsustainable. Here, we agree that the technology (GMO) advances that promotes the practice of over watering and over polluting of chemicals and pesticides has several effects that damage the surrounding environment and reduces food quality for the customer. For example, the tomato we have today is a shell of the same product 20 years ago. Less nutritious, less flavorful, and less mature. So just to nitpick, I don't think your point about "perfectly healthy and nutritious" is an exclusive complaint about GMOs. It's more about soil quality and the practices to sustain it as well as preserving those naturally occurring minerals that we used to enjoy from produce. That's just a critique against the practices sprung from Green Revolution, the desire to copy it everywhere and the hurdles moving forward to support an increasingly growing world population
Just as you posted you link without comment, I will quote your link without personal comment. Spoiler for length. Spoiler
This has nothing to do with your stance on GM crops. but I will say that you have a tenuous grasp at best on the workings of American agriculture and food production.
