Post: #51

I could write a lengthy post with all the problems with GMO backed by numerous studies and research which include all the health problems that accompany modified foods, I don't have the time to do so at the moment but maybe soon.

If you think there is nothing wrong with them you're clearly delusional.

Post: #52

(05-10-2015 03:49 PM)Oz. Wrote:  I could write a lengthy post with all the problems with GMO backed by numerous studies and research which include all the health problems that accompany modified foods, I don't have the time to do so at the moment but maybe soon.

If you think there is nothing wrong with them you're clearly delusional.

And it's less delusional to believe that inserting a gene into a plant to make it grow more heartily in an arid climate or smell bad to bugs automatically makes it poisonous to humans?

Being inherently against "GMO crops" as in the sweeping generalizations people in this thread are expressing doesn't make much sense, seeing as they're modified in different ways to do different things. Even if we had hard evidence (which we don't) that a specific set of GMO crops were bad, that doesn't somehow mean they're all bad.

Also, hate to break it to you guys, but every fruit and vegetable you've ever eaten in your entire life has been genetically modified.
Wild bananas? Before humans started cultivating them they were stringy, starchy, filled with seeds, and tasted like shit. A few thousand years of genetic modification later, and you now have the ripe and delicious yellow fruit you've come to know and love.

Breeding to select for random mutations = A-OK
but apparently...
Tweaking genes manually to do exactly the same thing but better and faster = OMG poison?

Post: #53

GMOs are the coolest thing in Artificial Selection. You Can get new traits in Years Instead of Decades or Hundreds of years. You can create new traits that you could not have with Plant Breeding 1.0. I don't know why people fuss over GMO... Most of the complaints seem to come from people who have little science education and instead spout wild conspiracy theories.

The Scientific Consensus is that the current crop of GMO Foods are Safe and show no nutritional differences between conventionally bred crops. Other than that the technology is ground breaking and will lead to more drought resistant crops, crops that can grown with less water, in salt water, basically the posibilities are endless with this type of plant breeding.

Post: #54

(05-10-2015 04:01 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  Also, hate to break it to you guys, but every fruit and vegetable you've ever eaten in your entire life has been genetically modified.
Wild bananas? Before humans started cultivating them they were stringy, starchy, filled with seeds, and tasted like shit. A few thousand years of genetic modification later, and you now have the ripe and delicious yellow fruit you've come to know and love.

Breeding to select for random mutations = A-OK
but apparently...
Tweaking genes manually to do exactly the same thing but better and faster = OMG poison?

Yeah because there is no difference between selective breeding and GMO's.

Post: #55

(05-10-2015 05:26 PM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 04:01 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  Also, hate to break it to you guys, but every fruit and vegetable you've ever eaten in your entire life has been genetically modified.
Wild bananas? Before humans started cultivating them they were stringy, starchy, filled with seeds, and tasted like shit. A few thousand years of genetic modification later, and you now have the ripe and delicious yellow fruit you've come to know and love.

Breeding to select for random mutations = A-OK
but apparently...
Tweaking genes manually to do exactly the same thing but better and faster = OMG poison?

Yeah because there is no difference between selective breeding and GMO's.

There is no difference from a scientific point of view. Both have the traits you want I'ts just how you get there. One is years of trial and error and the other is super accurate (compared to conventional breeding) where you insert the exact trait you want.

Post: #56

(05-10-2015 05:30 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 05:26 PM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 04:01 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  Also, hate to break it to you guys, but every fruit and vegetable you've ever eaten in your entire life has been genetically modified.
Wild bananas? Before humans started cultivating them they were stringy, starchy, filled with seeds, and tasted like shit. A few thousand years of genetic modification later, and you now have the ripe and delicious yellow fruit you've come to know and love.

Breeding to select for random mutations = A-OK
but apparently...
Tweaking genes manually to do exactly the same thing but better and faster = OMG poison?

Yeah because there is no difference between selective breeding and GMO's.

There is no difference from a scientific point of view. Both have the traits you want I'ts just how you get there. One is years of trial and error and the other is super accurate (compared to conventional breeding) where you insert the exact trait you want.

There is a huge difference.

There are things that can be done with GMO's that could never be done with selective breeding.

Post: #57

I agree with zigaz, but still think GMO foods should be outlawed. You don't need GMO foods to feed the world, just good farming practices.

The reason I'm against GMO's isn't the science, but the ethical track record of companies making them.

Monsanto is a very disturbed, unethical and domineering corporation who doesn't care about the health of its consumers, only its profits.

Post: #58

(05-10-2015 05:32 PM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 05:30 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 05:26 PM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 04:01 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  Also, hate to break it to you guys, but every fruit and vegetable you've ever eaten in your entire life has been genetically modified.
Wild bananas? Before humans started cultivating them they were stringy, starchy, filled with seeds, and tasted like shit. A few thousand years of genetic modification later, and you now have the ripe and delicious yellow fruit you've come to know and love.

Breeding to select for random mutations = A-OK
but apparently...
Tweaking genes manually to do exactly the same thing but better and faster = OMG poison?

Yeah because there is no difference between selective breeding and GMO's.

There is no difference from a scientific point of view. Both have the traits you want I'ts just how you get there. One is years of trial and error and the other is super accurate (compared to conventional breeding) where you insert the exact trait you want.

There is a huge difference.

There are things that can be done with GMO's that could never be done with selective breeding.

...And this is a bad thing?

If you dislike human technological and scientific progress so much, strip naked wand walk into the woods, see how long you last.

I presume if you ever get cancer, you won't stoop to taking any of those icky man made drugs created in a lab, right?

Post: #59

(05-10-2015 05:34 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  I agree with zigaz, but still think GMO foods should be outlawed. You don't need GMO foods to feed the world, just good farming practices.

The reason I'm against GMO's isn't the science, but the ethical track record of companies making them.

Monsanto is a very disturbed, unethical and domineering corporation who doesn't care about the health of its consumers, only its profits.

Monsanto does have shitty unethical practices, but they're really not far behind any other company in that regard, especially compared to tech companies.

Don't outlaw GMO's, outlaw patent trolling.

Post: #60

(05-10-2015 05:35 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  If you dislike human technological and scientific progress so much, strip naked wand walk into the woods, see how long you last.

I presume if you ever get cancer, you won't stoop to taking any of those icky man made drugs created in a lab, right?

You like technology so much. It must be all good.

Why don't you take a bath in radioactive waste. After that choke down some Anthrax.

Come back a month later and tell us the results.

Post: #61

(05-10-2015 05:41 PM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 05:35 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  If you dislike human technological and scientific progress so much, strip naked wand walk into the woods, see how long you last.

I presume if you ever get cancer, you won't stoop to taking any of those icky man made drugs created in a lab, right?

You like technology so much. It must be all good.

Why don't you take a bath in radioactive waste. After that choke down some Anthrax.

Come back a month later and tell us the results.

...You're aware that radioactivity and anthrax aren't manmade, right?
Add lead, arsenic, and cyanide to that list.

You seem like the type of person to buy anything you see at the supermarket labeled "all natural".

Quote:Asbestos, the new ALL NATURAL flame retardant!

Post: #62

(05-10-2015 05:34 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  I agree with zigaz, but still think GMO foods should be outlawed. You don't need GMO foods to feed the world, just good farming practices.

The reason I'm against GMO's isn't the science, but the ethical track record of companies making them.

Monsanto is a very disturbed, unethical and domineering corporation who doesn't care about the health of its consumers, only its profits.

@Darius - Then I guess you should get back to the caves then because almost all scientific advances can be used for evil. Splitting the atom can give you nuclear energy or bombs. Chemistry and biological advances can give you Nerve agents or they can give you Cures and Vaccines to disease.

Umm Yeah monsanto is a corporation who wants to protect its intellectual property, grow revenues and make investors happy... same as every other corp. I don't find their practices unethical tbh. If they were not making customers happy(Farmers who buy their seeds) Then they would be out of business. I think there is a lack of education on what the technology is and what it can do and what it has done among the Anti-GMO crowd.

Your claim of monsanto not concerned about your health is true they are concern about profits. However if the products they sold caused people to have health problems then they would quickly go out of business.

Post: #63

(05-10-2015 05:44 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  ...You're aware that radioactivity and anthrax aren't manmade, right?

Weapons grade Anthrax and radioactive waste aren't man-made. Good to know. Got any other wonderful facts you care invent?

You sound like you are the kind of guy that would eat a diet consisting of just McDonald's fast food, because all technology must be good for you.

Post: #64

Zigzag-

You are simply uninformed. I grew up right by Monsanto's corporate headquarters. I personally know a board member of Monsanto.

I know monsanto better than you. They harass farmers who don't use their seeds, do not publish results of studies that demonstrate health risks associated with some of their GMO's, have an army of lawyers not much different than Scientology to quash dissent, have infiltrated the FDA, and own at least one member of the Supreme Court.

They are a huge company who has done a lot of very unethical things, destroyed many small farmers lives for wanting to stay independent, and employ an army of thugs and lawyers.

GMO's, like many technologies, if used properly, are probably harmless.

They can be very harmful too. Food modified to be resistant to pesticides have been shown to greatly increase risk of certain tumours and cancers. No studies have been done on the LONG TERM effects of GMO's.

For now, its best to outlaw GMO's, or, at least require labeling.

Post: #65

Post: #66

It really depends how and what they are modified for.

For instance, designing "Round Up Ready" (glyphosate resistant) crops is a terrible way to farm. They basically make the (soybean, corn) crops resistant to weed killer and then douse the whole field with it.

Post: #67

(05-10-2015 06:06 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Zigzag-

You are simply uninformed. I grew up right by Monsanto's corporate headquarters. I personally know a board member of Monsanto.

I know monsanto better than you. They harass farmers who don't use their seeds, do not publish results of studies that demonstrate health risks associated with some of their GMO's, have an army of lawyers not much different than Scientology to quash dissent, have infiltrated the FDA, and own at least one member of the Supreme Court.

They are a huge company who has done a lot of very unethical things, destroyed many small farmers lives for wanting to stay independent, and employ an army of thugs and lawyers.

GMO's, like many technologies, if used properly, are probably harmless.

They can be very harmful too. Food modified to be resistant to pesticides have been shown to greatly increase risk of certain tumours and cancers. No studies have been done on the LONG TERM effects of GMO's.

For now, its best to outlaw GMO's, or, at least require labeling.

Please cite those studies.

So you want to ban Molecular breeding(What the technology is called) Because you don't agree with the business practices of one company who uses said technology?

Post: #68

(05-10-2015 06:19 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 06:06 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Zigzag-

You are simply uninformed. I grew up right by Monsanto's corporate headquarters. I personally know a board member of Monsanto.

I know monsanto better than you. They harass farmers who don't use their seeds, do not publish results of studies that demonstrate health risks associated with some of their GMO's, have an army of lawyers not much different than Scientology to quash dissent, have infiltrated the FDA, and own at least one member of the Supreme Court.

They are a huge company who has done a lot of very unethical things, destroyed many small farmers lives for wanting to stay independent, and employ an army of thugs and lawyers.

GMO's, like many technologies, if used properly, are probably harmless.

They can be very harmful too. Food modified to be resistant to pesticides have been shown to greatly increase risk of certain tumours and cancers. No studies have been done on the LONG TERM effects of GMO's.

For now, its best to outlaw GMO's, or, at least require labeling.

Please cite those studies.

So you want to ban Molecular breeding(What the technology is called) Because you don't agree with the business practices of one company who uses said technology?

Or mandatory labeling.

Post: #69

(05-10-2015 06:25 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 06:19 PM)zigZag Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 06:06 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Zigzag-

You are simply uninformed. I grew up right by Monsanto's corporate headquarters. I personally know a board member of Monsanto.

I know monsanto better than you. They harass farmers who don't use their seeds, do not publish results of studies that demonstrate health risks associated with some of their GMO's, have an army of lawyers not much different than Scientology to quash dissent, have infiltrated the FDA, and own at least one member of the Supreme Court.

They are a huge company who has done a lot of very unethical things, destroyed many small farmers lives for wanting to stay independent, and employ an army of thugs and lawyers.

GMO's, like many technologies, if used properly, are probably harmless.

They can be very harmful too. Food modified to be resistant to pesticides have been shown to greatly increase risk of certain tumours and cancers. No studies have been done on the LONG TERM effects of GMO's.

For now, its best to outlaw GMO's, or, at least require labeling.

Please cite those studies.

So you want to ban Molecular breeding(What the technology is called) Because you don't agree with the business practices of one company who uses said technology?

Or mandatory labeling.

That would not be necessary because GMOs aren't any different to conventionally bred crops. The Very act of labeling them would send the message that they are inferior eve when they arent and so they should not be labeled. It's like labeling crops that have been picked by illegal aliens and crops that have been picked by american citizens. Doesnt make any sense.

Post: #70

Yea, they are different. GMO crops are modified in a lab.

Post: #71

(05-10-2015 06:43 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Yea, they are different. GMO crops are modified in a lab.

They are both modified by people and the net result is the same. So no they aren't different. Well one takes Takes a few years the other takes decades or more.

Post: #72

people would believe you more if your advocates weren't so dishonest.



Published on Jul 24, 2013

Please Share this Vid, thank you. Highly toxic levels of Pesticides now legally allowed in your food, not just GMO's but all non-organic foods, thanks to Monsanto and the EPA. This is a direct result of super weeds becoming resistant to Monsanto's Round-up pesticide in their GMO crops. The amount of allowable glyphosate(ROUNDUP) in oilseed crops such as flax, soybeans and canola will be increased from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 40 ppm, which GM Watch acknowledged is over 100,000 times the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells. Additionally, the EPA is increasing limits on allowable glyphosate in food crops from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm
Just last month, The Cornucopia Institute concluded a study by finding glyphosate "exerted proliferative effects in human hormone-dependent breast cancer." A similar study released in April concluded that "glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins."

"Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," independent scientist Anthony Samsel and MIT's Stephanie Seneff concluded in the April study. "Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer's disease."

Dr. Don M. Huber, emeritus professor of plant pathology at Purdue University, found in yet another examination that "Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things," in turn removing most nutritional value from GMO foods.

A press release issued by the group Beyond Pesticides criticized the decision as well. "Given that alternative methods of growing food and managing weeds are available, like those that exist in organic agriculture, it is unreasonable for EPA to increase human exposures to Roundup," they wrote.

In the past, Monsanto has long-defended their use of the chemical. "We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has," Jerry Stainer, Monsanto's executive vice president of sustainability, stated previously. "It has been very, very extensively studied."
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-glyphosate...

Post: #73

(05-10-2015 07:01 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  people would believe you more if your advocates weren't so dishonest.



Published on Jul 24, 2013

Please Share this Vid, thank you. Highly toxic levels of Pesticides now legally allowed in your food, not just GMO's but all non-organic foods, thanks to Monsanto and the EPA. This is a direct result of super weeds becoming resistant to Monsanto's Round-up pesticide in their GMO crops. The amount of allowable glyphosate(ROUNDUP) in oilseed crops such as flax, soybeans and canola will be increased from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 40 ppm, which GM Watch acknowledged is over 100,000 times the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells. Additionally, the EPA is increasing limits on allowable glyphosate in food crops from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm
Just last month, The Cornucopia Institute concluded a study by finding glyphosate "exerted proliferative effects in human hormone-dependent breast cancer." A similar study released in April concluded that "glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins."

"Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," independent scientist Anthony Samsel and MIT's Stephanie Seneff concluded in the April study. "Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer's disease."

Dr. Don M. Huber, emeritus professor of plant pathology at Purdue University, found in yet another examination that "Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things," in turn removing most nutritional value from GMO foods.

A press release issued by the group Beyond Pesticides criticized the decision as well. "Given that alternative methods of growing food and managing weeds are available, like those that exist in organic agriculture, it is unreasonable for EPA to increase human exposures to Roundup," they wrote.

In the past, Monsanto has long-defended their use of the chemical. "We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has," Jerry Stainer, Monsanto's executive vice president of sustainability, stated previously. "It has been very, very extensively studied."
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-glyphosate...

If You drink enough water.. It can kill you. What's Your point?

Post: #74

He said it wasn't dangerous and that he would drink it. Then, it was offered to him, he didn't drink it, and declared, "I'm not an idiot".

My point is that advocates for GMO are on record for being disingenuous liars. Why should we not label GMO's if their spokespeople are documented liars?

Post: #75

(05-10-2015 07:13 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  He said it wasn't dangerous and that he would drink it. Then, it was offered to him, he didn't drink it, and declared, "I'm not an idiot".

My point is that advocates for GMO are on record for being disingenuous liars. Why should we not label GMO's if their spokespeople are documented liars?

It isn't dangerous but that does not mean you should drink a glass of it. That makes no sense. The only people I see going on private property destroying fields are Anti-GMO people. The only people that lie about GMOs causing cancer are anti-GMO people.

There has not been Any studies done to show GMOs are how you say. Your fear is completely irrational.