Any views on gmo's? some gmo info....

Post Reply New Topic

OK then, 90% of computers run a Microsoft Windows operating system, and using Windows seriously compromises your computer security, so let's ban the Internet.

Do you see now why this line of arguing is ridiculous?


I actually would happily bring DDT back, in smaller quantities than was used before. The problems from DDT use were largely from massive overdoses of it, far more than were really necessary to deal with mosquitoes. Given the number of Africans dying of malaria every year, I think using DDT is completely justifiable.


HERE. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of studies spanning over 25 years. The RSM found that the widespread consumption of GMO foods over 15 years has not resulted in any measurable ill effects.

A word of advice: don't call someone out to provide evidence if you have never actually bothered to check into it yourself. You end up getting embarrassed when they comply.

So there are 42 studies on GMO foods. All of these were done on livestock, mice, or fish. 2 of them found adverse reactions to the test subjects. So 95% of the time, on non-human test subjects GMO foods were found to be "safe". Should 95% safe really be considered safe for human consumption?

There were also hundreds of industry-sponsored "studies" touting the health benefits of trans fats. The few scientists warning about the increased incidence of heart disease seen from the increased consumption of trans fats were written off as "alarmist crackpots" by the industry.

BTW, DDT is still legal to use in several African nations. It isn't used because the mosquitoes have built up a resistance to it.

the point here is nothing is really safe, not even the air you breathe.

if you increase sample size (oh lets say the more than a billion people that have been using some form of GMO over the last 2 decades)
you also find that there is very little increased risk compared to normal plants, some of them are actually more dangerous through increased chance of parasites.
you have allergic reactions, bacteria and hundreds of other things as dangerous everywhere.

DDT is proven through chemsitry to be poisonous, that cant be said of most GMO crops, you are trying to make this about GMO's in general but the fact is it is as individual as people, we are speaking of dna.
some might have ill effects, most wont, as for your 90% figure, that is pure bs.
take a look at the wiki article for GMO's and you will quickly find that only a fraction of used GMO's are US central, a bloody wiki article.
most gmo's in excistense are here out of neccesity, like the mod that saved the hawaiian papaya industry from complete destruction, you have golden rice wthat is in another nutritional group than normal rice improving single food survivability for humans by orders of magnitude, you have the resistant soybean that use a similar technique to a vaccine to make the plant immune to a specific kind of rot.

all of these things require so vastly different aproaches and areas that to think they have anything in common with eachother the normal plants didnt is ridicoulous.

as orwell said, everything has it's use in the right quantities, too much or too little is equally harmfull.
if we were to use completely organic growing methods our crops would quickly succumb to one disease after another,
large scale growing capable of sustaining the earth requires methiods where large machinery can be used in the process, especially if organic.
that in turn would turn the entire food industry into a very large petri dish with little protection, bacteria love petri dish (no really, it's their favourite food, or so i hear)
it would allow such rapid spread and in turn rapid evolution of disease that we would literally kill all the crops quicker than we can grow them.(happened in hawaii, one little bacteria evolved in one tree, it might have been hundreds of years ago, but then they started huge plantations only with papaya, all of that organic simply because there was no need for anything else, the bacteria came in and spread in a couple of years to all of hawaii, then it apeared in asia)


again read orwells comment, ONLY the timescale is truly different here, just as there is poisonous plants in nature(many as a defence against getting eaten, by bugs) some GMO's will exhibit similar tendencies.
testing is important but it doesnt need to be 50 years to be effective, many of the tools we have today can tell so long before it reaches humans (at least if statistically significant)

Again, this is a false argument. As proof, I give you thousands of years of history when mankind subsisted off of organic farming alone. In fact, your argument is so wrong that the opposite is true. Organic farming encourages diverse crops with different disease resistances. The monoculture produced by GMO farming methods encourages a single genetic makeup so that 1 disease can wipe out the entire world's supply of that food.

We take our shoes off at the airport and allow them to x-ray us to get on an airplane. What would happen if a terrorist cell recruited a biologist and told him to develop a crop disease to target "roundup ready" corn or soybean plants? The death toll from starvation would make 9-11 look like a picnic.

Sorry mate but you really are out of your depth and it shows, although we have been a few rounds on this one in the past, I don't remember you ever making such an outrageous claim as the one above. Best leave it here though hijacking threads is rude, maybe round five in PPR sometime in the future

yes but organic multi crop farming is a lot less effective pr square meter, there has never been anything near the population pressures we have today, so while the output may have been enough in the past they arent today.

there is very little genetic variance even in natural grains, because they have all been slowly modified over the last 6000 or so years, you speak of the history of agriculture without factoring in all of this.
if you look at the first grain types they didnt even have 10% of the yield we have today, tastes good and is more nutritious but havent really been grown for the last several thousand years.

as for the bioterroism, same goes for any normal grain so what is your point?
many of the normal grains today suffer from a similar effect naturally (internationalism sopreading disease humans never notice) some GMO's were made specifically to combat this purpose.

you are still focusing on a form of GMO practically only found in the us, there is a whole world outside you know


as for herbal remedies,
what orwell says about alternative medicine that works becoming medicine is true.
there is however still the possibility of the natural remedy being offered alongside.
there are many herbal remedies that have effects, but they are often riddled with side effects or lacking specifics needed and so medicine based on the herbal remedy will usually have better effects with less side effects.

Do you have some convincing stats to back that up?

The benefit of herbals is the synergistic effects that come from using a whole herb rather than an isolated extract.

Proper application of drugs is necessary, whether it's herbal or pharmaceutical. Amusingly, I've never had a bad effect from any of the many herbals I've used over the last few years, but the one Pharmaceutical I took (under the instruction of a professional) f****d me up real bad.

if you take the antipsychotic CBD for example, in its natural form it comes bundled with THC a psychotic drugs, now for most people these have synergistic effects and that is desirable, in others it is not.
i think you might5 have misunderstood what i meant by sideeffects, all sideffects is is an effect not desirable in itself in relation to the use of the medicine.
what makes a sideffect in one case might be the primary effect in another.

as you say yourself proper use of medicine is important and most herbal remedies have a much lower concentration of active ingredients making an overdose(when the effects turn from positive to negative) less likely.
think of how many active ingredients there are in herbal remedies, some might be beneficial but some are almost sure to be harmfull.

so while many of the sideeffects could be beneficial it isnt because one is pharmacology and the other herbal, it's because one is a mixed product and the other is pure, apply accordingly.

I'm firmly in the "No, thanks" camp. I totally agree with the others posters that the studies are too recent and insufficient. The process itself may not be inheritantly evil, but the way that it's used by corporation(s) (it really is mostly just Monsanto) is. You can't separate the science from the application here, unless or until there exists an organization able to use this technology without the ethical misconduct of exploiting farmers and consumers.

I have little faith in our government acting to protect our best interests here, especially considering that Obama has appointed several Monsanto exec's and lobbyists to head positions at the FDA and USDA.

There are constantly new discoveries about how things that we once thought were either beneficial or safe, are actually neither. Long ago the doctors told my mom not to quit smoking when she was pregnant with me because they feared withdrawal symptoms would affect my development. Mercury (fillings), asbestos, BPA, fluorocarbons, lead, etc., all were once no big deal. Now, after many years, we know better. There simply cannot be a guarantee on something so new.