RE: GMO's For or Against?

RE: GMO's For or Against? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Gauge -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/2/2014 7:13:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TeaseAndSpankMe Could you at least check out the movie www.GenticRouletteMovie.com and then let me know your thoughts? GMO's are attributed to many food intolerances...corn allergies are very high now, for example. Also, I'm not just talking about folks weight, but actual health issues and food related allergies. You can also look up "leaky gut" it's where your body starts attacking it...just a couple of decades ago, we didn't have numerous people allergic to corn, soy, etc... Obviously, when it comes down to eating processed fast food (which is GMO) VS. conventional GMO produce...then of course THAT is the lesser of two evils. But, take it a step further where the food is not so heavily sprayed with chemicals & is non GMO...bet their health is far better for it...and the environment, bees, butterflies... our pollinators aren't fans of the GMO crops I am looking at both sides of this, both pro and con. I will look at the movie, but I admit that I have a fairly low tolerance for documentaries that are not objective and balanced. I have great difficulty in believing that GMO's are all bad, and I also have difficulty believing that the rise in food allergies are simply caused by GMO products, but rather additives and preservatives along with other chemicals in our foods are causing our bodies to suffer more and become sensitive. In fairness and to attempt to remain objective, I will watch the movie, but I am viewing most things right now with an air of skepticism. Hopefully they do not throw out a lot of garbage science which there is a ton of out there, and they remain factual with the source materials to back them up.

Gauge -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/2/2014 7:18:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 I just LOVE the fact that CS has so many molecular biologists as members! Guess what folks: EVERYTHING we eat is a GMO! Here's an example: You like bananas? They've been genetically modified over 100's of years to make the sweet, tasty fruit we know today. You wouldn't recognize must of what we eat today even 100 years ago. Farmers have been cross-breeding crops for as long as there have been farmers. The difference is that today we can do in a lab in a week what took decades in the field. Oh, and since your post is right above this: TeaseAndSpankMe (great name, BTW) insects don't know the difference because from their perspective there isn't any. Hybridization is a different process than genetically modifying foods in a lab. GMO's do have risks to agriculture and our food supply which should be enough to cause concern. To sum up my point of view about tinkering too much with nature is just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should. I understand the benefits and risks alike. I am just too much of a skeptic to fall down on one side of this or the other at this point.

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/2/2014 8:43:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BecomingV DomKen I genuinely care about being informed and checking the veracity of claims and the factors which influence information presented. And, here's what's sad. Because you pulled "Dr. Oz" out of you ass, you discredit yourself! I've never read, nor heard, Dr. Oz's point of view on the subject of GMOs. Apparently, YOU have. LOL Instead of advancing my knowledge base on GMOs, you've advanced my knowledge of your inadequacy in staying on topic, in your close-mindedness and lack of curiosity towards others' points of view and in your erroneous assumptions that being open, means being duped. IF you do have something to add which is worthy of learning, I would be less open to your point of view because of all of the above. The "attack" and "diminish" angle you use here, informs me that even when you are presented with facts, ego and histrionics cloud your ability to perceive. You got in your own way in terms of your ability to persuade. In short, other posters' contributions have my attention on this one. I am unsatisfied that GMOs are healthy and safe. Somehow, and trust me on this... life will go on even though that's my stance. Calm down. Since I am learning more about GMOs, if the information which informs you is valid, I'll find it. But, you've discredited yourself to the point of not being a respectable source of information, for me. And, to be fair, thanks for the references you did offer. You have yet to deal with a single point I've raised you've simply whined. It's fucking pathetic. You believed a quack. I'm sorry that you're a fucking gullible fool but it happened. Pull up your panties and grow up. I've fully documented the facts that the guy is wrong. BTW because you seem monstrously, completely and shockingly uninformed dwarf wheat was developed by Norman Borlaug by traditional selective breeding techniques in the late 1950's (A fact that you'd already know if you had actually read any of the links I'd previously posted). It is not GMO anything. You have no idea what you are babbling about. Dwarf wheat contains no genes from any organisms but wheat. It was never ever modified in a lab. The techniques did not exist when it was developed.

MistressKel -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/2/2014 9:28:08 PM)
Selective breeding is not Genetically Modified, in case any sane person is wondering. Genetically Modified Organisms are classified as organisms that have had genes added or removed from them through means other than a natural growth cycle. i.e. The soybean crop that Monsanto manufactures for resistance to specific herbicides actually has genes from a fungus added to it.(All of this information is available through the US Patent Office). The corn crop with the same resistance actually has cockroach genes added to it. There are only currently patents on corn, soy, rice, and oats. Anything else is not genetically modified at this point in time. Edit for context: My sister is a patent attorney for a rival plant genetics company.

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/2/2014 10:12:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressKel Selective breeding is not Genetically Modified, in case any sane person is wondering. Genetically Modified Organisms are classified as organisms that have had genes added or removed from them through means other than a natural growth cycle. i.e. The soybean crop that Monsanto manufactures for resistance to specific herbicides actually has genes from a fungus added to it.(All of this information is available through the US Patent Office). The corn crop with the same resistance actually has cockroach genes added to it. There are only currently patents on corn, soy, rice, and oats. Anything else is not genetically modified at this point in time. Edit for context: My sister is a patent attorney for a rival plant genetics company. Those are the only GMO's in the food stream. There are some others not being consumed like the fish that glow in the dark. http://www.glofish.com/

Gauge -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/2/2014 10:18:11 PM)
Ken, You seem to speak with some authority on this subject. Is that from individual research or are you somehow in a field that you know something about all of this? Please note that this is not sarcasm or argumentative, text unfortunately does not often covey what we would hope and that is why I am explaining my question.

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/3/2014 6:17:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge Ken, You seem to speak with some authority on this subject. Is that from individual research or are you somehow in a field that you know something about all of this? Please note that this is not sarcasm or argumentative, text unfortunately does not often covey what we would hope and that is why I am explaining my question. Individual research.

Kirata -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/3/2014 3:07:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge You seem to speak with some authority on this subject... Individual research. Looking up your ass isn't what most people mean by research. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine position paper on genetically modified foods states unequivocally that... GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health From the paper... The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies. Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported... For greatly expanded details and copious references from a different source, see: State of the Science on the Health Risks of GM Foods Interestingly, the AAEM position paper also notes that: In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: "The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn." However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements. K.

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/3/2014 4:39:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge You seem to speak with some authority on this subject... Individual research. Looking up your ass isn't what most people mean by research. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine position paper on genetically modified foods states unequivocally that... GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health From the paper... The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies. Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported... For greatly expanded details and copious references from a different source, see: State of the Science on the Health Risks of GM Foods Interestingly, the AAEM position paper also notes that: In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: "The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn." However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements. K. Of course if you were not just reflexively trying to discredit everything I write you would have done some research and found that AAEM is a group of quacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Environmental_Medicine But of course why would you believe real science? You always believe the quacks and the pseudo science. Why should this time be unusual.

Kirata -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/3/2014 5:35:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You always believe the quacks and the pseudo science. Why should this time be unusual. Why indeed. Back to making shit up and calling people names. You really need to update your act, Ken. Half the audience already knows the "Frauds and Liars" bit by heart. The citations I linked were well-referenced. Face the data. K.

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/3/2014 8:37:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You always believe the quacks and the pseudo science. Why should this time be unusual. Why indeed. Back to making shit up and calling people names. You really need to update your act, Ken. Half the audience already knows the "Frauds and Liars" bit by heart. The citations I linked were well-referenced. Face the data. K. LOL No it isn't. There is no such research. Your sources are terrible and when investigated fall apart. One is a bunch of quacks and the other is a guy who thinks he can fly by meditating. How about producing something published in a first tier peer reviewed publication? Because you can't?

Kirata -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/3/2014 8:59:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There is no such research. You're going for another Golden Shovel Award, is that it? K.

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/3/2014 9:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There is no such research. You're going for another Golden Shovel Award, is that it? Present the published peer reviewed research then.

Kirata -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/3/2014 9:15:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There is no such research. You're going for another Golden Shovel Award, is that it? Present the published peer reviewed research then. Ah I see, you don't know what those little numbers in the papers mean. Okay, take this slow. They're called references. They are listed in full at the end of the paper. See how that works now? Glad to help. K.

subrosaDom -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/3/2014 9:27:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 I just LOVE the fact that CS has so many molecular biologists as members! Guess what folks: EVERYTHING we eat is a GMO! Here's an example: You like bananas? They've been genetically modified over 100's of years to make the sweet, tasty fruit we know today. You wouldn't recognize must of what we eat today even 100 years ago. Farmers have been cross-breeding crops for as long as there have been farmers. The difference is that today we can do in a lab in a week what took decades in the field. Oh, and since your post is right above this: TeaseAndSpankMe (great name, BTW) insects don't know the difference because from their perspective there isn't any. Hybridization is a different process than genetically modifying foods in a lab. GMO's do have risks to agriculture and our food supply which should be enough to cause concern. To sum up my point of view about tinkering too much with nature is just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should. I understand the benefits and risks alike. I am just too much of a skeptic to fall down on one side of this or the other at this point. Well, there's an interesting point here and hybridization isn't the only factor here -- mutations are, too (which don't involve crossbreeding). The question is: can you look at the genome of a crop a posteriori and determine, without reference to earlier genomes, whether that crop's genotype (or phenotype for that matter) was "made by nature over the course of time" or "made in lab in a much shorter course of time." Note my condition. Of course, if you had access to prior genomes, you'd know, but the point is -- is there anything in and of itself that says "I am a GMO, hear me roar!" To the best of my knowledge, and I'm not a molecular geneticist, the answer is no. You might be able to say the probability it's a lab GMO is greater that it's a natural mutation, but that's a probability of < 1.0. Can a lab introduce bad shit (everyone here should appreciate my scientifically precise terms)? Sure, but since we in principle know what we are doing, much less likely than nature would. Can a GMO bioterrorist do that? Yes, they probably could. But then they'd have to get it into the food supply. Whereas, for example, if you found a human being, with a pig's foot grafted on to his leg, you would know with certainty it was not a natural occurrence. GMOs aren't like that.

subrosaDom -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/3/2014 9:33:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You always believe the quacks and the pseudo science. Why should this time be unusual. Why indeed. Back to making shit up and calling people names. You really need to update your act, Ken. Half the audience already knows the "Frauds and Liars" bit by heart. The citations I linked were well-referenced. Face the data. K. LOL No it isn't. There is no such research. Your sources are terrible and when investigated fall apart. One is a bunch of quacks and the other is a guy who thinks he can fly by meditating. How about producing something published in a first tier peer reviewed publication? Because you can't? Indeed, these guys are quacks. Not quite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society but that's only because everyone laughs at Flat Earthers. The more obscure the science and the less obvious to the average person, the more likely a quack can sound reasonable. There are great sounding arguments for a Hollow Earth, for the fact that the moon landing was faked, and for the fact that the Bible numerologically specified, well, you name it. All of them are candidates for Penn & Teller's Bullshit!

Kirata -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/3/2014 10:07:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Indeed, these guys are quacks. Your derisive opinion of the sources of the two papers is irrelevant. Both present an argument for which they cite competent research, in the presence of which bald assurances that all is well don't stand up. K.

DomKen -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/4/2014 3:02:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen There is no such research. You're going for another Golden Shovel Award, is that it? Present the published peer reviewed research then. Ah I see, you don't know what those little numbers in the papers mean. Okay, take this slow. They're called references. They are listed in full at the end of the paper. See how that works now? Glad to help. K. And I've already looked at those references. they don't point to published peer reviewed research. They point to such things as this: Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007 and this: Dan Quayle, “Speech in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Office Building,” May 26, 1992.

tj444 -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/4/2014 7:19:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MistressKel Selective breeding is not Genetically Modified, in case any sane person is wondering. Genetically Modified Organisms are classified as organisms that have had genes added or removed from them through means other than a natural growth cycle. i.e. The soybean crop that Monsanto manufactures for resistance to specific herbicides actually has genes from a fungus added to it.(All of this information is available through the US Patent Office). The corn crop with the same resistance actually has cockroach genes added to it. There are only currently patents on corn, soy, rice, and oats. Anything else is not genetically modified at this point in time. Edit for context: My sister is a patent attorney for a rival plant genetics company. Those are the only GMO's in the food stream. There are some others not being consumed like the fish that glow in the dark. http://www.glofish.com/ There have been gmos that were not supposed to be in the human food supply but yet ended up there, like Starlink corn.. There have been other instances of gmos getting away from these gmo corps.. Stuff like that does not instill confidence.. [8\|] Just sayin' I wonder how Monsanto, etc are gonna up the anti now that their gmo crops have helped to create superweeds that their chemicals/Round-up can no longer kill/control..

Kirata -> RE: GMO's For or Against? (8/4/2014 12:06:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen they don't point to published peer reviewed research. Of course they do. You're lying, and dumber than a box of hammers in the bargain. Did you forget that everyone here can read? K.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875