What's new

GMOs

Suppressed how? You realize there is all the information, on both sides, right here on the internet? All of us have been bombarded with this anti-GMO nonsense. We know the anti-GMO story. We chose to believe more credible sources who aren't offering free chapters of their books or selling us over-priced and inferior products.

You think Monsanto has bought off the whole government, all the agricultural universities, all the farmers, all scientists who know the field?

People, like you, just get excited thinking they know a secret that "smart" people don't know. It's not a secret and we all know the hogwash well enough.

Monsanto has bought off a lot of people, that allowed them to produce PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange, and Roundup Ready. Did they know the ill effects when they developed them. Likely not. But after problems began to appear, did they take these products off the market? No, the government had to step in.
 
We don't want labeling because millions of idiots like yourself wouldn't buy anything because of your ignorance. It's an economics issue, not a safety one. The safety is solid, and any honest and intelligent person can see that.

And an unbiased person not clouded by personal issues might question the troublesome reports. Is the science solid? Maybe so far as the effects of GMOs on human biology, but like I have maintained from the start, it's not the GMOs, it's the glyphosate.

I think this is all I'm going to say about this. I'm glad I started this discussion because I have learned some things from Tip. People can reflect on it if they wish. Post all you want but I would appreciate people not calling me names for starting an intelligent discussion, which I think all viewpoints here can learn something from. I have an opinion based on my own reasoning and I'm just asking legitimate questions.
 
Wrong again. The World Health Organization did a study that showed no economic effects were caused by the switch to labeling in Europe. People say crap about a lot of people, that they're "hacks." That's merely an ad hominem argument, an opinion without substance.

So explain why Europe requires it then?

Europe is wrong, and they're scared.

If labeling wouldn't hurt the economics, we wouldn't have a non-gmo label that's becoming vastly popular. Common sense man.
 
And an unbiased person not clouded by personal issues might question the troublesome reports. Is the science solid? Maybe so far as the effects of GMOs on human biology, but like I have maintained from the start, it's not the GMOs, it's the glyphosate.

I think this is all I'm going to say about this. I'm glad I started this discussion because I have learned some things from Tip. People can reflect on it if they wish. Post all you want but I would appreciate people not calling me names for starting an intelligent discussion, which I think all viewpoints here can learn something from. I have an opinion based on my own reasoning and I'm just asking legitimate questions.

weird thread title
 
Interesting article on the safety of roundup. Turns out that the glyphosate isn't the bad thing in it for humans, and even the bad thing isn't that bad as it has a very limited exposure. There is also some debate about the whole thing, but I thought this article was balanced and interesting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

POEA was recognized as a common inert ingredient in herbicides in the 1980s, when researchers linked it to a group of poisonings in Japan. Doctors there examined patients who drank Roundup, either intentionally or accidentally, and determined that their sicknesses and deaths were due to POEA, not glyphosate.
POEA is a surfactant, or detergent, derived from animal fat. It is added to Roundup and other herbicides to help them penetrate plants' surfaces, making the weed killer more effective.
 
You're so bleepin ignorant ... since when do we eat PCBs. They're not the name of a cereal.

Consumption ain't limited to eating bonehead.


Anyway I tell y'all why GMO ever became a think. The Great US of A feeds the damn world. Are engineerin an capitalist society has been destroyin farming culture in other countries for decades by dumpin cheap food. We simply kick arse. So Europe comes up with this trade protectionism on GMO an beef an **** ta keep us out there markets. That is what my farmer neighbors tell me.
 
I think we should git rid of DDT cause malaria is so much more better. Oh wait, you liberal hippies already done that when we were on the verge of exterminating malaria. Now thousands of people die thanks to you.

I just want to briefly intrude, as an ex hippie, and put in a good word for Rachel.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...der_clears_up_myths_about_rachel_carson_.html

"It’s true that Carson found little good to say about DDT or any of its toxic cousins—the chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbon insecticides developed in the years after World War II and after the Swiss chemist Paul Muller had won a Nobel Prize for discovering DDT. But it’s a stretch to see how the mood surrounding Silent Spring was the prime cause of DDT’s exit from the fight against malaria. And, as the New York Times and other publications proved, it was understood by anyone who took time to read Silent Spring that Carson was not an absolutist seeking to stop all pesticide use.

DDT had been effective against malaria in Europe, in Northern Africa, in parts of India and southern Asia, and even in the southern United States, where the disease was already being routed by other means. But these were mostly developed areas. Using DDT in places like sub-Saharan Africa, with its remote and hard-to-reach villages, had long been considered problematic. It was an old story and one still repeated: Africa was everybody’s lowest priority.

And in any case, the World Health Organization had begun to question its malaria-eradication program even before Silent Springwas published. One object lesson was that the heavy use of DDT in many parts of the world was producing new strains of mosquitoes resistant to the insecticide. Much as it can happen with antibiotics, the use of an environmental poison clears susceptible organisms from the ecosystem and allows those with immunity to take over. The WHO also faced declining interest in the disease among scientists and sharp reductions in funding from the international community.

When the recently created Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT for most domestic uses in 1972, this ruling had no force in other parts of the world and the insecticide remained part of the international anti-malaria arsenal. The United States continued to manufacture and export DDT until the mid-1980s, and it has always been available from pesticide makers in other countries.

One result is that DDT is still with us—globally adrift in the atmosphere from spraying operations in various parts of the world, and also from its continuing volatilization from soils in which it has lain dormant for decades. The threat of DDT to wildlife—as a deadly neurotoxin in many species and a destroyer of reproductive capabilities in others—has never been in doubt. Carson’s claims in Silent Spring about DDT’s connection to human cancer and other disorders have not been completely resolved. The National Toxicology Program lists DDT as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” The same holds for two of its common break-down products, DDD and DDE, which are also suspected of causing developmental problems in humans.

These are cloudy but worrisome presumptions. DDT is stored in fat tissues—including ours—and that storage amplifies with repeated exposures over time, as well as through food chains, with unpredictable consequences. We walk around with our personal body-burden of DDT, a poison we still consume both from its decades-old residuals and its ongoing uses. If Rachel Carson hoped to end the use of DDT and our exposure to it, she did a lousy job.

In 2006, the World Health Organization announced a renewed commitment to fighting malaria with DDT, mainly in Africa—where the WHO had never lifted its approval for this purpose. The move was backed by environmental groups, as it surely would have been by Rachel Carson had she been with us still."

See also:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/rachel-carson-ddt-malaria-retro-report.html
 
Guys, guys, 30 years of studies is now anecdotal evidence.

What a world we live in.

He thinks being a farmer just means you grew up on a farm and now you get up when the rooster crows to go out and feed the chickens and cows then you get on your tractor and plow the field then come home and churn some butter. No education required, you're obviously just a dumb farmer who's been bought off by Monsanto.
 
Guys, guys, 30 years of studies is now anecdotal evidence.

What a world we live in.

1key4i.jpg
 
Here's a big problem I have with the world right now:

into the fray of an important debate rushes an ignoramus who flattens one side's opinion so profoundly that all heretofore productive directions are lost. For example, Trump and his (nationalist) anti-globalization arguments. Anti-globalization debates used to define one pillar of progressive thought -- and now plenty of people seem almost wistful at the idea of returning to a sober leadership guiding us along the same globalization pathways of the last 30 years. It seems like because Trump and his cronies are pounding the anti-globalization claims, plenty of people seem satisfied that anti-globalization arguments are wrong.

Eenie-Meanie is Trump here.

And count me amongst those who are deeply suspicious that spraying Round-Up all over the ground + what we consume ain't no thang.

For over a generation we were told that plastics were just fine for any of our consumables. For over a generation we were told that Industrial Forestry techniques were the best way (or, at least the most realistic) to manage forests. Examples of this type are legion.

As for the GE-GMO-'natural' debate: again, there are plenty of dumb asses out there who fall for some romantic notion of a 'wild' or 'natural' crop, but don't let them define the axis of the debate.
 
Here's a big problem I have with the world right now:

into the fray of an important debate rushes an ignoramus who flattens one side's opinion so profoundly that all heretofore productive directions are lost. For example, Trump and his (nationalist) anti-globalization arguments. Anti-globalization debates used to define one pillar of progressive thought -- and now plenty of people seem almost wistful at the idea of returning to a sober leadership guiding us along the same globalization pathways of the last 30 years. It seems like because Trump and his cronies are pounding the anti-globalization claims, plenty of people seem satisfied that anti-globalization arguments are wrong.

Eenie-Meanie is Trump here.

And count me amongst those who are deeply suspicious that spraying Round-Up all over the ground + what we consume ain't no thang.

For over a generation we were told that plastics were just fine for any of our consumables. For over a generation we were told that Industrial Forestry techniques were the best way (or, at least the most realistic) to manage forests. Examples of this type are legion.

As for the GE-GMO-'natural' debate: again, there are plenty of dumb asses out there who fall for some romantic notion of a 'wild' or 'natural' crop, but don't let them define the axis of the debate.

Wait a daggum minute. You tellin me selective harvestin of pine trees is worse then forest fires that pump out tons of pollution an cause asma?
 
There are studies out there on both sides, and both sides have some motivation to proceed the way they do.

I found this article (Dr. Michael Antoniou), and there are two links to their studies. I am curious what you think about this [MENTION=3073]JustTheTip[/MENTION].

The first quote, does this sound right that the GMO backed studies have not gone deep enough? The corn analysis study link goes more into this.

The second quote, does his answer to the GMO backed criticism of his study answer the criticism? I think the corn analysis study link also goes more into this topic.

I would like your insight into this as well as to see if his approach and practices were sound. TIA

Finally, will you look at the links to the 2 studies

http://non-gmoreport.com/articles/scientists-ground-breaking-research-uncovers-new-risks-gmos-glyphosate/


Please summarize the findings of your study showing that the GMO corn NK 603 was not substantially equivalent to a non-GMO corn.

Dr. Michael Antoniou: We used a modern in-depth compositional analysis to test the claim that a genetically engineered corn variety, NK603, was substantially equivalent to an isogenic non-GMO counterpart.

The establishment of substantial equivalence is a foundation for safety evaluation of GMO crops. In the United States and in other countries, the crops that have been commercialized are claimed to be substantially equivalent to non-GMO equivalents, and therefore safe.

But the kind of compositional analyses done thus far to see if a GMO crop is substantially equivalent is a crude nutritional analysis of total protein, fats, and vitamins.

If you use cutting-edge molecular profiling methods as we did, they will provide a spectrum of different types of proteins and small molecule metabolites. It’s a very in-depth analysis.

Does the claim of substantial equivalence stand up to this fine compositional analysis? No, it doesn’t. Our analysis found over 150 different proteins whose levels were different between the GMO NK603 and its non-GMO counterpart. More than 50 small molecule metabolites were also significantly different in their amounts.

also-

What about the criticisms from supporters of GMO crops?

Dr. Antoniou: There have been vociferous attacks, and we have dealt with them in a rational, evidence-based way. We have posted four extensive rebuttals.

For example, critics said we had to compare the GMO corn with many other non-GMO varieties to see the range of “natural variation.” But comparing with more varieties has the effect of hiding the differences—the exact opposite of what we were trying to do.

Our aim was to analyze to see any effect of the GM transformation process, so the only scientifically valid comparator is the nearest possible isogenic non-GMO counterpart. When you do that, you find differences.

Study links -
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep39328 Liver Toxicity - Roundup causality
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37855 Corn analysis - NK603 GM maize v isogenic maize kernels
 
Back
Top