You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
It's arrogant for me to want to eat natural, unmodified foods? LOL! In 30 countries around the world, GMO's are banned or proposed to be banned. Many major companies such as Mcdonalds and Burger King refuse GMO corn and potato's. Your comment about every study into the health effects of GMO is just plain wrong.
In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats. There are 18 other studies that suggest the same thing. "Organizations are doing their best to learn about these foods"...so shouldn't we wait until they have done more research...ALOT more research until we put these things in our bodies? Perhaps they will prove to be safe, but we should not be the test subjects in the mean time.
Disagree if you want, but there is no reason to address me personally seeing as you know nothing about me or what I do with my time.
QFT
If you want to be the tester and potentially ruin your organs then by all means continue eating the foods derived from the seeds of a big pesticide manufacturer..
People should be able to make their own options but you should become informed on all the side effects instead of just accepting what the government is tryin to force upon us...
You call me a conspiracy theorist but I am just a person who prefers to be informed
I always think of Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park when this stuff comes up.
"you guys were in such a rush to find out if you could, that you forgot to ask if you should"
I have a huge problem with a bunch of guys rushing to get life...LIFE to the patent office to claim it and doing it for mass profit. You are now messing with the fabric of life itself, thinking you can outdo millions of years of evolution(or god, depending on where you want to go).
Are we feeding more people for it? I don't think so. Are we doing it significantly cheaper? Once again, I think that answer is no.
It's arrogant for me to want to eat natural, unmodified foods? LOL! In 30 countries around the world, GMO's are banned or proposed to be banned. Many major companies such as Mcdonalds and Burger King refuse GMO corn and potato's. Your comment about every study into the health effects of GMO is just plain wrong.
In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats. There are 18 other studies that suggest the same thing. "Organizations are doing their best to learn about these foods"...so shouldn't we wait until they have done more research...ALOT more research until we put these things in our bodies? Perhaps they will prove to be safe, but we should not be the test subjects in the mean time.
Disagree if you want, but there is no reason to address me personally seeing as you know nothing about me or what I do with my time.
You are misinformed. But I am not surprised, there is a wealth of BS information all over the web., so it's not as simple as doing a Google search anymore.
I don't care if every country and company in the world stopped using/selling GM foods, that only means every country in the world stopped using/selling GM foods.
You need to look at the reasons.
Ask any human in the world, would you rather eat 'natural food' or 'genetically modified food' and line up all the people who said GM in front of me, I bet my view is pretty unobstructed.
So the lobby groups and activists already have a huge advantage, the terms are not accepted by people yet, as something desirable. Companies will sell whatever makes their consumers happy.
You mention the International Journal of Biological Sciences to substantiate your claim of empirical evidence regarding the horrors of GM food.
It just so happens the study from that journal (an open access journal ranked 123 out of 228 in the molecular science field btw) was reviewed by the European Food Safety Authority. The authority that overlooks the entire region responsible for the worldwide GM scare.
What did they determine?
GMO Panel deliberations on the paper by de Vendômois et al. (2009, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5: 706-726)
The EFSA GMO Panel has considered the paper by de Vendômois et al. (2009, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5: 706-726), a statistical reanalysis of data from three 90-day rat feeding studies already assessed by the GMO Panel (EFSA, 2003a,b; EFSA 2004a,b; EFSA 2009b,c). The GMO Panel concludes that the authors’ claims, regarding new side effects indicating kidney and liver toxicity, are not supported by the data provided in their paper. There is no new information that would lead it to reconsider its previous opinions on the three maize events MON810, MON863 and NK603, which concluded that there were no indications of adverse effects for human, animal health and the environment.
I often hear people saying GM foods cause cancer (I am sure many of those 18 credible studies allude to that 'fact')
So instead of turning to greenpeace.org organicconsumers.com or healthylivinghippies.net I turned to an actual reliable source: the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Wow, low and behold, GM foods are not even listed in any category as a potential risk. Meanwhile cell phones fall into Group 2 (possibly carcinogenic to humans) and the possibility of them causing cancer is significantly more convincing than GM foods by any research standards.
I guess we should all stop using cellphones and wait 100 years until we have concluded rats can use them for 12 generations without long term biological effects.
I stick by what I said about using your time. If you chose to become informed on your chosen topic of debate with superficial, biased, and one sided research I will consider it a nonconstructive use of time 365 days a year.
I don't have any great desire to eat GMO food, but as long as it is correctly researched and regulated by the same body I trust to bring every bite of food safely to my mouth, I'll support its development (and constructive criticisms) and growth.
In the future it may be the only answer to world food shortages, and perhaps even eventual extinction. It's a fascinating field of research, and there is limitless potential. But if we bury it in some laboratory in Connecticut with a group of 3 scientists, the breakthroughs are going to be few and far between.
First to fail !SG evar! Now i have yellow fever...
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,482
Thanked 2,431 Times in 475 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane
It just so happens the study from that journal (an open access journal ranked 123 out of 228 in the molecular science field btw) was reviewed by the European Food Safety Authority. The authority that overlooks the entire region responsible for the worldwide GM scare.
It just so happens that a senior management staff and chair holder on the European Food Safety Authority was also on the board of directors of ILSI (International Life Science Institute) which acts as adviser to Monsanto. Interesting.
You assume I just do all of my research via activist or hippie sites and you continue to make comments about me personally. I'm always up for a good intelligent debate, and I even make an effort to understand other peoples perspective on the issue, but I'm not going to address this further with someone who doesn't give mutual respect.
Too much BS being spewed in this thread I don't even know where to start.....
I find it funny people can categorize a company as "good" or "bad". Did you all just get out of high school and read about things going on in the real world and decide you have to do something about it? Did anyone actually make a list of all the things a company like Monsanto does, look at the pros and cons, and then make the judgement? Or did you listen to very biased and one-sided documentaries and articles that list none of the things Monsanto does that actually provide a real benefit to you in your daily lives and concentrate solely on the things you think are evil?
We've used Monsanto products on the farm for as long as I can remember (admittedly, we no longer farm and lease our land to a neighbor who farms it for us). The money we spend on Monsanto (and other companies with similar products) brings numerous benefits. We are able to get higher yields on our land. The end product is higher quality. We reduce costs and increase our profits. We don't look at companies like Monsanto as being evil since they provide products that are of great use to us. Of course, people who never farm and never have to worry about the 1,001 problems you might have with your crops wouldn't have any idea as to why these products are used.
I know farmers who've used Monsanto Canola. The suggestion that Monsanto "owns" you once you've used their seeds is pure BS. Yes, if you plant their seeds then you agree to let Monsanto take a sample of your crop to see if you're still using their seeds. But you are not obligated to keep using their seeds and are free to switch to whatever you want whenever you want. I know farmers who've switched from Monsanto seed back to using Canola from one of Canada's 4,000+ registered seed growers and had no issues with Monsanto. All you have to do is provide a receipt/proof of purchase for a quantity of seed that is appropriate for the acreage you planted. No farmer is going to spend $$$ on "regular" seed, throw it away, and then go ahead and plant "saved" Monsanto seed. It would be cheaper to just buy the Monsanto seed in the first place. So having proof of purchase is good enough to keep Monsanto off your back.
Many people might not know it, but chemical theft is very common in the prairies. Some herbcides used in farming are expensive. Really expensive. So much so that crooks making off with a pickup truck full of stolen chemicals could pocket $20K in cash by selling stolen chemical to farmers. Of course, the farmers know it's stolen because the sellers want cash and will sell it to you half price out of the back of their truck. Even so, there's a big enough demand from farmers willing to buy stolen chemicals that theft is a serious issue for companies selling it.
Why is this relevant? People have the idea that farmers are all down-to-earth, honest God-fearing people. Many are, but as with any group of people there are also the people who are less than honest (buying stolen chemical, for example). Knowing this, and knowing farmers I've grown up with, I'm surprised Monsanto hasn't sued 10x the number of people for using their seeds. If a farmer is willing to buy stolen chemicals how much of a stretch is it to think they might buy Monsanto seeds, grow a crop and save the seeds and sell them to another farmer (who may or may not know they bought Monsanto seeds)? Or buy Monsanto seeds one year, switch crops the following year and then plant another crop two years later with Monsanto seeds thinking they won't come back to check?
These are the types of things that would set off a red-flag with Monsanto. Why would a farmer buy only one year's worth of seeds and then stop buying them after that? Although there are legitimate reasons (a farmer might want to compare one year of Monsanto with one year of regular or a farmer might want to use Monsanto on one section of land and regular on another to do a direct comparison of their yields) it could still be seen as suspicious.
Although I don't approve of the methods Monsanto uses and they can be heavy-handed, I can see where they're coming from. Imagine if a police officer entered into a residence and did a search without a warrant and found a cache of drugs. The case would get thrown out in court due to the illegal search. However, that doesn't mean the owner of the house is innocent - after all, they were caught red-handed with the drugs. I have a feeling a lot of the farmers are in this same situation - they did something wrong, but Monsanto improperly gathered their evidence. Just because a farmer "won" their case, does not mean Monsanto didn't catch them doing anything wrong. I personally think Monsanto needs to do a significant reform of how they handle cases of farmers suspected of using their seeds.
As to GMO's being bad or causing cancer and other problems, I'd like to see the links to the studies. I don't buy the idea that a genetically modified food is somehow riskier. It's easy for scientists to take a food product (let's say a tomato) and process it to determine it's exact makeup of compounds. They could compare dozens of naturaly grown tomatoes with tomatoes that have been genetically modified. They can compare tomatoes that were sprayed with herbicide/pesticide to those that weren't. They can look at tomatoes that were washed to ones picked straight from the vine (which may have traces of pesticides on the skin).
In order to make me believe a GMO poses a health risk I'd have to see a complete breakdown of the GMO vs non-GMO and see a difference in the chemical compounds contained within. If there's no difference, then I don't see how someone could claim the GMO version is unsafe.
Your stomach/intestines are nothing more than a chemical reactor. Food you ingest gets broken down through various chemical means into their basic components which are then absorbed and used by our body. Your stomach doesn't care (nor can it tell) if the tomato you ate has a different gene. Your intestines don't extract DNA from the food you eat - they extract chemicals/compounds. So I want to see the proof that GMO's have a significant difference in the compounds contained or have compounds that don't occur in the "natural" foods.
First to fail !SG evar! Now i have yellow fever...
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,482
Thanked 2,431 Times in 475 Posts
^Why do people insist on making personal insults? If you do not agree can you not just make your point without the petty trash talk?
Your argument is almost entirely based on the fact that GMO's yield you more profits..well guess what, there are bigger concerns in life. There are numerous studies that relate to health complications, birth defects, etc..most of them relating to Round-up ready seed. In addition, there is evidence that these GM crops lack the micro nutrients that its organically grown counterparts possess.
Here is one quote I pulled from Dr. Don Huber who is a former professor at Purdue University where he taught plant pathology, soil microbiology, and micro-ecological interactions.
Spoiler!
The major danger of genetically engineered foods may be related to the increased use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s weed killer Glyphosate, which is the most common weed killer in the US and just happens to be more toxic than DDT. Roundup, can accumulate and persist in the soil for years, where it kills off beneficial microbes and stimulates virulence of pathogens
Since organically-farmed fields are not doused with glyphosate, organic fields still contain beneficial soil bacteria that actually hinder pathogens in and on the food from multiplying out of control. This may be yet another reason why organic foods are less prone to be contaminated with disease-causing pathogens than conventionally-grown foods
When applied to crops, glyphosate becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. And once you eat this crop, the glyphosate ends up in your gut where it can decimate your beneficial bacteria. This can wreak havoc with your health as 80 percent of your immune system resides in your gut and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria
Glyphosate is a strong chelator, meaning it immobilizes critical micronutrients, rendering them unavailable to the plant. As a result, the nutritional efficiency of genetically engineered (GE) plants is profoundly compromised. Micronutrients such as iron, manganese and zinc can be reduced by as much as 80-90 percent in GE plants
Now, though glyphosate can be used on any crop, the way I understand it is that in Round-up ready crops the chemical is already genetically intertwined into the seed so that the crop can survive when being sprayed.
Not saying the anti-GMO crowd is 100% right, but if we are going to make a mistake, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? Most GMO opponents are calling for more research, not for the elimination of GMO's. I think if most educated people were presented with long-term, independent studies that proved these crops are safe then most would be willing to accept GMO's (myself included). The problem people have is that many of these studies have been tainted by groups that have a financial interest in proving that they are safe. Monsanto has done this time and time again with some of their previous products. If those of you who are proponents to GMO's are satisfied with the current research that has been done, then by all means eat their food...but for those of us who aren't, we will continue to wait.
A fun side note - Monsanto offers organic produce in their cafeteria (along side GMO's and traditionally grown crops of course). Interesting they would offer this, since there isn't supposed to be any difference between the crops.
Last edited by Redlines_Daily; 06-05-2012 at 11:26 PM.
It just so happens that a senior management staff and chair holder on the European Food Safety Authority was also on the board of directors of ILSI (International Life Science Institute) which acts as adviser to Monsanto. Interesting.
I don't know anything about this GM food topic, but if you're going to imply that EFSA or another source is not a trustworthy organization for which to study food safety, then you have to actually demonstrate how they are not. Making a few passing references followed by "Interesting" is a good political tactic used to change lazy minds, but that's really just a huge logical hole that means absolutely nothing for ppl interested in getting at the truth.
It just so happens that a senior management staff and chair holder on the European Food Safety Authority was also on the board of directors of ILSI (International Life Science Institute) which acts as adviser to Monsanto. Interesting.
You assume I just do all of my research via activist or hippie sites and you continue to make comments about me personally. I'm always up for a good intelligent debate, and I even make an effort to understand other peoples perspective on the issue, but I'm not going to address this further with someone who doesn't give mutual respect.
If you want to receive mutual respect, start bringing something to the table. Do you even understand how ridiculous your statements are??
Diana Banati, the lady in question, was a member of the management board of the EFSA – she decided to take up a professional position at ILSI and was asked to resign from her previous position with the EFSA.
51% of the ILSI board members come from the public sector (ie. universities, public corporations, and government agencies), the rest from the private sector. One of the other board members of the ILSI is Dr. John Milner from the National Cancer Institute (USA) so I guess they are a bullshit corrupt organization too as your inference suggests.
At the end of the day, it was a political move anyhow. A majority of the funding for ILSI comes from industry (68%) so the EFSA was worried about accusations of a conflict of interest. I can’t say I blame them, and if anything, it proves the EFSA is a squeaky clean operation.
You do realize the EFSA is equivalent to the FDA for the EU - the organization that every American is supposed to trust to put safe food in their homes.
On top of that, that one woman’s role with the EFSA gave her zero power to review or influence any of the scientific activities of the EFSA. So, even if she was the most corrupt horrible person on the planet, she still couldn’t have affected the study that said your study is garbage.
Finally, to infer the ILSI is some kind of personal adviser to Monsanto is ludicrous. Do you realize who else the ILSI ‘advises’?
…get ready for it…
Spoiler!
3M Microbiology
Abbott Nutrition
Ajinomoto USA Incorporated
Archer Daniels Midland
BENEO Group bio
Merieux
Cadbury Adams USA, LLC
Campbell Soup Company
Cargill, Incorporated
The Coca-Cola Company
Cognis Nutrition and Health
Danisco USA, Incorporated
Dannon Company
Dr Pepper Snapple Group
DSM Nutritional Products
General Mills
The Hershey Company
H.J. Heinz Company
Kellogg Company
Kraft Foods
Mars
Martek Corporation
McNeil Nutritionals
Mead Johnson Nutritionals
Monsanto Company
National Starch Food
Nestlé USA
Novozymes
PepsiCo
Procter & Gamble
Red Bull GmbH
Sara Lee
Senomyx
The Solae
Tate & Lyle
Unilever
And that is just in North America. The membership literally covers every food product from around the globe (so it seems).
It’s a research organization funded by member support mostly, as well as grants, contributions, and publications to name a few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlines_Daily
Your argument is almost entirely based on the fact that GMO's yield you more profits..well guess what, there are bigger concerns in life. There are numerous studies that relate to health complications, birth defects, etc..most of them relating to Round-up ready seed. In addition, there is evidence that these GM crops lack the micro nutrients that its organically grown counterparts possess.
Here is one quote I pulled from Dr. Don Huber who is a former professor at Purdue University where he taught plant pathology, soil microbiology, and micro-ecological interactions.
Spoiler!
blah blah
You keep saying there are numerous studies and evidence (what is evidence if not a study?) without actually posting the links or quotes from the studies.
Then you post the quote of a retired teacher, as if it actually has any relevance to this discussion.
There are more than 10 PhD level professors from well-known Universities around the world on the ILSI board. If I learned anything from you, it’s that we absolutely can’t trust the ILSI, so I surely can’t trust a professor, especially one who says something ‘CAN be reduced by AS MUCH AS’ can I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlines_Daily
[Someone who knows nothing about science trying to interpret science with reasonable persons perspective]…[/end]
A fun side note - Monsanto offers organic produce in their cafeteria (along side GMO's and traditionally grown crops of course). Interesting they would offer this, since there isn't supposed to be any difference between the crops.
Who said there is isn’t supposed to be any difference? Tell that to people who farm like dangonay. I am sure when his farm’s yield and quality went up, they felt like that was a difference.
The statement they are making is that the difference is positive, and they are not trying to stuff it down your throat, but rather giving you the choice.
Sounds like they believe in their product.
Everything said, I am trying to make this an interesting discussion, because I would like people to be engaged. I have no personal stake, and I don't hate you as a person whatsoever. So stop thinking like everyone is out to get you and participate, or move on.
If you run away from everyone who calls you a hippie, you're just reinforcing the stereotype.
First to fail !SG evar! Now i have yellow fever...
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,482
Thanked 2,431 Times in 475 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by goo3
I don't know anything about this GM food topic, but if you're going to imply that EFSA or another source is not a trustworthy organization for which to study food safety, then you have to actually demonstrate how they are not. Making a few passing references followed by "Interesting" is a good political tactic used to change lazy minds, but that's really just a huge logical hole that means absolutely nothing for ppl interested in getting at the truth.
If people are really interested in getting at the truth then I definitely encourage them to do their own research. Forum discussions like this are a good jumping off point for people who are new on a particular subject as they encourage interest, however, there will also be biased opinions and misinformation on either side. Now, me making passing references as you say is not any kind of tactic because I'm not on here to win anything or change any minds. I am merely presenting my opinion in hopes that it will open the eyes of others and inspire them to form their own, whether they agree with me or not.
The comment I made regarding the EFSA is not hype. Diana Banati was chairman of the board for EFSA until it was discovered that she held a lobbying position with ILSI and was not forthcoming about this position. The EFSA asked her to resign from ILSI because it was a gross conflict of interest obviously. She agreed, but later it was found that her ties with ILSI had not been cut so she was ordered to resign from EFSA, in which she immediately took up a full-time position with ILSI(which is a food-industry sponsored lobbying group). I don't have a link for you because I'm not just google searching this stuff as I post, but if you do a search Im sure you can find some info.
Now, me making passing references as you say is not any kind of tactic because I'm not on here to win anything or change any minds. I am merely presenting my opinion in hopes that it will open the eyes of others and inspire them to form their own, whether they agree with me or not.
OK. But, if you're going to question the integrity of that organization's research, I am saying your reasoning is very weak. It might pass if you were using it for a class that deals with the art of arguing. Maybe you're used to dealing with that level of standard.
For perspective, here's another one: It would fail mightily for any place that has consequences for getting things wrong. If someone used that at a place where I worked (let's say 90% hard science ppl), the first words out of my mouth would be, "How the fuck did this guy get hired?" because those guys are such a waste of time. Feelings do come second to getting things right, being precise, and correcting your mistakes.
You made a huge claim to say that you can't trust those ppl who do that research to find out information that we base our decisions on. That's a big deal! You should be able to back that up with more than what you've given or else you might have to give in to the fact their work has merit on some level, even if it disagrees with what you believe.
My AFC gave me an ABS CEL code of LOL while at WOT!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 1,843
Thanked 563 Times in 229 Posts
Quote:
For perspective, here's another one: It would fail mightily for any place that has consequences for getting things wrong. If someone used that at a place where I worked (let's say 90% hard science ppl), the first words out of my mouth would be, "How the fuck did this guy get hired?" because those guys are such a waste of time. Feelings do come second to getting things right, being precise, and correcting your mistakes.
No idea what you are trying to say.
Quote:
You made a huge claim to say that you can't trust those ppl who do that research to find out information that we base our decisions on. That's a big deal! You should be able to back that up with more than what you've given or else you might have to give in to the fact their work has merit on some level, even if it disagrees with what you believe.
Redlines made that comment merely highlighting the fact there is a conflict of interest, which can be a potential source of bias. This is something taught and brought up frequently by many profs in general when you are critically analyzing academic articles as something to consider (being aware of the link) so I have no problem with what he said.
__________________
Cars:
02' Lexus IS300 5spd
07' BMW 323iA
05' BMW Z4 5spd
06' BMW 330i 6spd
10' Audi A4 quattro
08' BMW M3 6spd
15' Kawasaki Ninja300
08' Yamaha R6
10' Honda Ridgeline
17' Audi Q5
16' BMW X5D
Really? That's it? Can you not provide references for articles you've read that caused you to have your opinions?
I've read up on Dr. Huber. He sure likes to use the words "may cause" or "could cause". A lot. He also likes to exaggerate numbers.
For example, he claims glysophate remains in soil for years. This is true, but he ignores the actual quantities left behind and implies that the levels continually increase with subsequent application. The typical average half-life of glysophate is about 30-40 days (in some soils/climates it can be as short a 1-2 days and some tests have gone for over 150 days). In Saskatchewan, if I apply 1,000 grams of Roundup to a certain area of soil I could reasonably expect that by the same time next year there would be about 30 grams left, with the rest having been broken down by microbes in the soil (based on our short growing season and expecting no microbial breakdown during winter). Or in other words, 97% of the Roundup I appled would be broken down by the time I was ready to apply it for next years growing season.
As I already mentioned, it's easy to take (for example) an organic tomato, a non-organic tomato and a GE tomato and break them down in a lab into their individual compounds. Then compare the differences and see if certain chemicals/compounds are present in the same, higher or lower quantities. It would be so easy to perform such a simple experiment, find out that GE foods have unusual levels of certain chemicals, and then conclude they are not as safe.
Yet try as I might, I can't find any such studies. Oh, there are lots of articles about glyphosate (for example), so why can't I find studies which show me exactly how much glysophate is in a GMO?
BTW, there's no glysophate in GMO seeds. How they made seeds Roundup ready is by locating certain naturally occurring micro-organisms that were already resistant to glysophate inhibition. They took genes from these organisms and inserted them into seeds to transfer over the "trait" of being glysophate resistant. They are not made similar to how we vaccinate humans (introduce a weaker version of the actual organism to build up immunity). They don't put small amounts of glysophate into seeds until they build up resistance.
Really? That's it? Can you not provide references for articles you've read that caused you to have your opinions?
As expected, he has abandoned this thread. He conveniently alluded to his 'mistreatment' earlier in the thread, so some doubt could be raised as to the reason for his departure.
At the end of the day, he provided no evidence to support his claims, just a bunch of hearsay and conjecture.
The truth is, there is no convincing scientific evidence that GMO foods are bad for us. So he was in over his head before the discussion started.
This is typical for an RS science discussion.
Some of these guys are used to talking to their parents and friends only, so they need about 1 or 2 stages of knowledge breadth, and everyone just goes along with it.
But when someone actually provides counterpoints, it becomes too much effort to continue.
Ah well, I hope someone learned something from this thread.
First to fail !SG evar! Now i have yellow fever...
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,482
Thanked 2,431 Times in 475 Posts
if you see me at a meet come up and say hi, I'll be happy to have this discussion in person. You are right about it being too much effort to continue, I have no need to prove myself to guys like you..if you don't believe what I say, I could careless, Im sure not going to waste my time linking articles and studies just to continue a debate with strangers on the internet.
I would be happy to discuss GMO foods with any member of RS in person, however, I've learned the forum itself is not conducive to a respectful debate due to a select few unfortunate members. I have well informed, strong opinions on GMOs, both from my independent research and first hand experience as a member of a family still actively engaged in farming, but I certainly won't be sharing them here. Props to Redlinesdaily for doing so.
My AFC gave me an ABS CEL code of LOL while at WOT!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 1,843
Thanked 563 Times in 229 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane
As expected, he has abandoned this thread. He conveniently alluded to his 'mistreatment' earlier in the thread, so some doubt could be raised as to the reason for his departure.
At the end of the day, he provided no evidence to support his claims, just a bunch of hearsay and conjecture.
The truth is, there is no convincing scientific evidence that GMO foods are bad for us. So he was in over his head before the discussion started.
This is typical for an RS science discussion.
Some of these guys are used to talking to their parents and friends only, so they need about 1 or 2 stages of knowledge breadth, and everyone just goes along with it.
But when someone actually provides counterpoints, it becomes too much effort to continue.
Ah well, I hope someone learned something from this thread.
The other side of the coin could be, is there any convincing evidence that they are safe? Or are we to operate on the assumption that they are safe until proven otherwise? Is this a potential risk? and if it is, one that people should involuntarily take? Regardless of evidence, this is an important health issue about how people get nourished and there are highly qualified people on both sides of the debate. Obviously, this is a starting point and everyone should do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
__________________
Cars:
02' Lexus IS300 5spd
07' BMW 323iA
05' BMW Z4 5spd
06' BMW 330i 6spd
10' Audi A4 quattro
08' BMW M3 6spd
15' Kawasaki Ninja300
08' Yamaha R6
10' Honda Ridgeline
17' Audi Q5
16' BMW X5D
if you see me at a meet come up and say hi, I'll be happy to have this discussion in person. You are right about it being too much effort to continue, I have no need to prove myself to guys like you..if you don't believe what I say, I could careless, Im sure not going to waste my time linking articles and studies just to continue a debate with strangers on the internet.
I would be happy to say hi too. But the only advantage to debating in person vs. online, is the inability of people to fact check what you say. Very convenient if you want to introduce the type of 'evidence' you have thus far.
I would be happy to keep this debate professional assuming we can continue some kind of dialogue. I actually just want to see the evidence you have. Because I have been scouring high and low to find reasons not to eat GMOs - thus far unsuccessfully.
I apologize for my previous 'comments' - I have noticed just how all enveloping the anti-GMO campaign has become during my recent online activity. I should be more understanding, but I hope your willing to view the material I post from here on out with an open mind.
Ill do the same for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindBomber
I would be happy to discuss GMO foods with any member of RS in person, however, I've learned the forum itself is not conducive to a respectful debate due to a select few unfortunate members. I have well informed, strong opinions on GMOs, both from my independent research and first hand experience as a member of a family still actively engaged in farming, but I certainly won't be sharing them here. Props to Redlinesdaily for doing so.
Thanks for your worthy contribution - of exactly nothing. Very insightful. Doors that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bing
The other side of the coin could be, is there any convincing evidence that they are safe? Or are we to operate on the assumption that they are safe until proven otherwise? Is this a potential risk? and if it is, one that people should involuntarily take? Regardless of evidence, this is an important health issue about how people get nourished and there are highly qualified people on both sides of the debate. Obviously, this is a starting point and everyone should do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
Convincing evidence they are safe? How about over 350 cited/peer reviewed studies of GMOs (and I can tell you, none of them are saying GMOs are dangerous) Studies for GENERA « Biofortified
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
could be the reason of zombie like attacks this year
