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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

There is no such research.

You're going for another Golden Shovel Award, is that it?

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.

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?

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.

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/