Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
FINALLY? Is this bogus study some kind of relief to you, and why? Why would anyone be so joyous over such nonsense? Are you a Monsanto shill?
This is a standard illogical response, lacking in clear thinking. If someone shows credible evidence that counters your beliefs, you think they must be bought and paid for, is that it? It must be bogus, is that right? There's no other possibility, and you couldn't possible be wrong, is that it? Sorry, that's just nonsense, showing a complete misunderstanding of how scientific research actually works.
Quote:
Far more research has proven GMOs are dangerous.
Not credible research. Not statistically valid research. Not peer reviewed and reproducible research. Studying 20 rats is not remotely equivalent to studying 100 billion farm animals.
Quote:
You can eat GMOs to your hearts content, but I want to know if they are in my food; so I can avoid them!!! It's exactly the same as wanting to know what food colors, artificial flavorings, and how much sugar is in my food.
But it's not. There are proven health factors associated with those items, so the government has a basis to regulate them. But there is no credible evidence that GMOS are not safe, so the government has no legal basis to require labeling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
GMO's have skyrocketed since 1994, and go figure so has diseases such as diabetes, asthma, and alergies.
So has cell phone usage, fast food dining, microwave signalling, and thousands of other environmental factors, all at the same time. Correlation does not imply causation. And now, there is not only no credible evidence of causation, but there's a huge new study showing GMOs are not the cause of health problems.
Quote:
Check this out: GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) (<<<SCIENTISTS and DOCTORS at the top of the food chain) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients.
Ahh, yes, a fringe organization that is often cited by Quackwatch for their wacky beliefs. Isn't Jenny McCarthy the President? Sorry, let's talk about legitimate research from respectable organizations, shall we?
Quote:
It has also been proven that GM crops are starting to yield less and less every season. Right now, using organic methods will yield more per acre than the GMO counterpart. So my question is... if there's no advantage, and they are obviously harmful, why are some of these people so happy to have us all eating them?
There actually are significant advantages to be had, which is why most farmers will gladly pay more for GMO seeds than for open-pollinated varieties. And there's no credible evidence that they are harmful, so your argument holds no water.
Quote:
I think we can assume that when we bash Monsanto we are actually bashing them all. It shouldn't need to be pointed out but then some people are thick like that.
On the other hand, there are literally thousands of GMO projects around the world which have nothing at all to do with big corporations. The project that saved the Hawaiian papaya industry from total destruction by the Ringspot virus was conducted by a single researcher at Cornell, with one half time assistant. GMO is not equal to Monsanto OR any of its big competitors. Confusing the two does a great disservice to a very useful technology for solving agricultural problems.
You seem to be confused regarding who funds what and why. Our tax dollars and other countries fund global warming research. The government has little incentive to find global warming "real" because: 1. both parties would be at risk of losing their corporate donors like XOM. 2. It is going to cost money to move to alternative energy sources. Neither party wants that of course.
You are leaving out a great deal. Politics is mostly theater. Follow the money and the Accounting. Government and corps are completely intertwined. Govt is a construct, so are other corporations. People are who make the decisions and monetarily benefit. Nobody owns more shares of public corps than government investment funds. Just go spend some time reading CAFRs. There thousands upon thousands of government investment funds. Private equity and capital funds are also part of this.
Government has great incentive. Because the money benefiting those in govt comes from investments and the financial markets, just like any other business. The stock market is about 70% institutional now. Public utilities usually are allowed to make a certain amount over cost. This does not motivate cost cutting.
They are not looking for real alternatives that would free the debt-slaves. One has to have followed inventors over the years and the energy sector to see what has been going on there. Energy is the number one tie that binds. Essentially everything is about energy just different forms.
This is a standard illogical response, lacking in clear thinking. If someone shows credible evidence that counters your beliefs, you think they must be bought and paid for, is that it? It must be bogus, is that right? There's no other possibility, and you couldn't possible be wrong, is that it? Sorry, that's just nonsense, showing a complete misunderstanding of how scientific research actually works.
Calling it 'credible' was a stretch.
Quote:
Not credible research. Not statistically valid research. Not peer reviewed and reproducible research. Studying 20 rats is not remotely equivalent to studying 100 billion farm animals.
There are plenty of massive negative side effects to GMO and how the food industry currently works. I simple example is cattle. Non organic beef is fed corn, generally GMO corn because it's significantly cheaper. A cow's digestive system is not designed for corn and it can actually harm the cows. Does it harm the people? There's still plenty of research to really narrow that down to be done, but we know it harms our cattle, and that's ethically wrong.
Quote:
But it's not. There are proven health factors associated with those items, so the government has a basis to regulate them. But there is no credible evidence that GMOS are not safe, so the government has no legal basis to require labeling.
If people want it labeled, it should be labeled. Enough people want it but it hasn't been done because of corporate lobbyists. Obama himself said in 2008 he'd require GMO foods to be labeled and yet not too long ago he signed the Monsanto Protection Act.
Quote:
So has cell phone usage, fast food dining, microwave signalling, and thousands of other environmental factors, all at the same time. Correlation does not imply causation. And now, there is not only no credible evidence of causation, but there's a huge new study showing GMOs are not the cause of health problems.
Fast food used GMO and is loaded with preservatives. GMOs aside, we know foods heavy in preservitives lack positive nutritional value. This is a result of the same industry and is pushing organic foods aside to make room for monopolistic GMO products.
Quote:
There actually are significant advantages to be had, which is why most farmers will gladly pay more for GMO seeds than for open-pollinated varieties. And there's no credible evidence that they are harmful, so your argument holds no water.
On the other hand, there are literally thousands of GMO projects around the world which have nothing at all to do with big corporations. The project that saved the Hawaiian papaya industry from total destruction by the Ringspot virus was conducted by a single researcher at Cornell, with one half time assistant. GMO is not equal to Monsanto OR any of its big competitors. Confusing the two does a great disservice to a very useful technology for solving agricultural problems.
Monsanto has a patent on seeds and sue farmers who obtain the seed illegal, which basically means the seed landed in their field by natural processes. No, this is not representative of GMO as a whole, but Monstanto is undeniably the largest producer of GMO products.
It might also be worth noting that not all GMOs are the same. Specific types of GMO foods may have a negative impact on our health while others may have the exact same nutritional value as organic foods.
I'm not anti-GMO, but this is silly. Essentially all the climate scientists in the world are "a small cohort"? Comparing the rapidly-evolving science of GMOs, to millions of years of climate science evidence with an insurmountable consensus interpretation, is ridiculous.
How many climate scientists are there out of the entire scientific community?
strangely enough, the euros - who certainly are NOT funded by teh EEEVIL monsanto and would like nothing more, in many cases, to find a problem with GMOs - also conclude they are safe
Finally, overwhelming evidence to close down the anti-GMO activists' unproven and unscientific claims of risks from GMO food. It's time to put an end to the hysteria.
Researchers from University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science examined the health and productivity of 100 Billion farm animals over a 27 year period, encompassing a trillion feedings, both before and after GMO foods were introduced to their feedings... and look at what that massive project showed:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that GMO's can be perfectly safe. The people who think it is impossible are just putting fingers in their ears and going "Lalalalalalala!" because they don't like the concept.
However, Monsanto is a monster. They sue farmers for their plants getting pollinated by neighboring GMO fields. It is disgusting how they manipulate the intellectual property laws.
Genetic engineering is fine, as long as all the products are tested thoroughly. (I still might choose to buy none-GMO anyway.) But the laws around it need changed so that Monsanto and their ilk can't screw over honest farmers.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,080,865 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga
Lol! I certainly did not. Put my quote here saying that, or be revealed as a liar.
Oh, please. Now you claim it wasn't WHEAT you were talking about, when the entire discussion was about WHEAT
Wow. Having your story shredded sure makes you cranky
You didn't shred anything but your credibility and you had very little of that to spare..the posts are there ..no,what makes me cranky is someone goofy that twists,turns and lies(of which you have)...are you related to Roy Blunt by chance?Monsanto pay you to talk trash for them on forums? I can see no other reason why,but if that's the case then they really need to hire someone quite a bit slick than you ...the wheat is here that you lied about and the cross contamination was found by inspectors and the lawsuits were filed by Monsanto against farmers who DID NOT PLANT Monsanto GM products but yet the GMO grain was found to have crossed to their fields ...that's black and white with no gray area
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that GMO's can be perfectly safe. The people who think it is impossible are just putting fingers in their ears and going "Lalalalalalala!" because they don't like the concept.
However, Monsanto is a monster. They sue farmers for their plants getting pollinated by neighboring GMO fields. It is disgusting how they manipulate the intellectual property laws.
Genetic engineering is fine, as long as all the products are tested thoroughly. (I still might choose to buy none-GMO anyway.) But the laws around it need changed so that Monsanto and their ilk can't screw over honest farmers.
Monsanto is the problem though. It's the largest GMO manufacturer in the US (and the world I assume). It reflects poorly on the whole GMO thing, which makes sense because Monsanto and GMO are practically synonymous. The issue is that you don't always know because food isn't generally labeled as 'Monsanto.' It'll be labeled Tyson or McDonald's.
Monsanto is too heavily protected right now. It would require major political action to stop Monsanto, and to rally major political action, you need a massive social movement. Monsanto has incredibly poor business ethics, and even if their GMO products are perfectly safe (which is not a definitive yes), they still should be shut down.
And, for me personally, in an issue of safety, if a definitive yes can't be issues, I do not consider it safe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
