GMOs

[Siro]

Those plants you're referring to are not genetically engineered like many of the food products we are now eating that are engineered to resist heavy doses of Roundup and the glyphosate that is the main ingredient. There's a lot of controversy about unnatural genetic engineering which is what Genetically Modified Organisms (that's what they typically are called, but technically, evolution is the process of genetic modification as you say) are and how our bodies deal with it -- we haven't been eating them that long, and a lot of scientists are worried about it. But for sure the heavy use of glyphosate is not good for us or the environment. For one, it destroys everything but the GE crop and thus all the micro-organisms that make up the top soil and contribute to the natural ecology thus seriously eroding our top soil. It's unnatural. There's a documentary series about it that's coming up shortly. I can post a link for those who are interested.

I'm only going to discuss the health aspects of GMOs, and not the sometimes immoral behavior of some companies.

We've been using GM crops since the early 80s. Since then, there hasn't been a single piece of evidence that GMOs pose more danger than non-GM foods.

Have you ever seen a wild sheep? No, you haven't. Because there is no such thing. We're not even sure where sheep come from. Because we genetically engineered the **** out of them over the past 10 millennia. The only difference between breeding a characteristic in/out of an organism through traditional methods and genetic engineering is that the latter is faster, more accurate, and with vastly more potential.

My only regret about GMOs is that we're not pushing them far more aggressively. Wish we can have a ton of tailored foods that attempt to do different things with taste, nutritional contents, as well as the typical uses in hardening the crops and reducing the need for pesticides. I'm sure we will in the future, and I look forward to it.

Here's a summary of current mainstream scientific thought.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php

Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council,[12] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[13] and the American Medical Association.[14]

Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations,[15] organic farming organizations,[16] and consumer organizations.[17] A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach to regulating GMOs.[18]

Now I'm sure you can find some scientist who claims GMOs give you AIDS or something. After all, scientists are just people. But there is no evidence at the current state of knowledge of any diverse health effects from any available GM crops. It remains possible, of course, that some future product will pose a health risk, or that an existing product might have an undiscovered side-effect. None the less, I take 10000x the risk each time I get into my car, so I'm not going to fret over how every little thing may or may not affect my health.

Speaking of documentaries, I once watched one about an Obama conspiracy to turn the West Muslim. Is this GMO one made by the same guys? Because if that's the case, I'm definitely watching it.

 

[Getting Traded]

I can see many of you are the ones who are uneducated about GE products, which is because you are brainwashed about it. Monsanto has a huge P-R that extends into the large trade organizations mentioned like the AMA. No one took notice of the point about the effect on the ecology, which is very important. I saw a film called the "Symphony of the Soil" that discussed the effect on the soil and ecology from GMOs. Apparently, people here don't take stock in the philosophy of using organic products. The basic idea is the reduction of pesticide use. Sure there are natural pesticides in the plant word, like the lectins produced by nightshade plants (tomatoes, peppers, and potatoes), but they aren't the same as industrial pesticides, which are much more toxic and harmful to the ecosystem and the human organism. The increases in cancer and neurological diseases testifies to this. I think people need to keep an open mind on this and not fall prey to those with profit motives. Do GMO products prevent the world from starving; that's been the cliched argument -- well, organic farmers claim it's not necessary and ironically, GMO products may lead to starvation by destroying the earth's top soil needed to grow crops. I'll post the link to the new series to "educate" those of you who they think they know it all about this issue.

 

[Boris]

The anti-GMO stuff is straight BS.

GMOs are BETTER for the environment than non-GMO produce. Non-GMO is a stupid marketing gimmick, and is for the same anti-science crowd that are anti-vaxers.

Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app

My great auntie refused oxygen treatment cause she said it was not real oxygen. She died.

 

[Boris]

I'm only going to discuss the health aspects of GMOs, and not the sometimes immoral behavior of some companies.

We've been using GM crops since the early 80s. Since then, there hasn't been a single piece of evidence that GMOs pose more danger than non-GM foods.

Have you ever seen a wild sheep? No, you haven't. Because there is no such thing. We're not even sure where sheep come from. Because we genetically engineered the **** out of them over the past 10 millennia. The only difference between breeding a characteristic in/out of an organism through traditional methods and genetic engineering is that the latter is faster, more accurate, and with vastly more potential.

My only regret about GMOs is that we're not pushing them far more aggressively. Wish we can have a ton of tailored foods that attempt to do different things with taste, nutritional contents, as well as the typical uses in hardening the crops and reducing the need for pesticides. I'm sure we will in the future, and I look forward to it.

Here's a summary of current mainstream scientific thought.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php



Now I'm sure you can find some scientist who claims GMOs give you AIDS or something. After all, scientists are just people. But there is no evidence at the current state of knowledge of any diverse health effects from any available GM crops. It remains possible, of course, that some future product will pose a health risk, or that an existing product might have an undiscovered side-effect. None the less, I take 10000x the risk each time I get into my car, so I'm not going to fret over how every little thing may or may not affect my health.

Speaking of documentaries, I once watched one about an Obama conspiracy to turn the West Muslim. Is this GMO one made by the same guys? Because if that's the case, I'm definitely watching it.

Right? I wanna Curry plant a sushi plant a ***** plant. Come on GMO make me some Christmas presents!

 

[Getting Traded]

My great auntie refused oxygen treatment cause she said it was not real oxygen. She died.

What's your point, Boris? Just because science created GMOs doesn't make it good. Science also created the atomic bomb.

 

[Gameface]

What's your point, Boris? Just because science created GMOs doesn't make it good. Science also created the atomic bomb.

Whoa, mind blown!

 

[Gameface]

EM, you'll also want to avoid contact with dihydrogen monoxide. It kills thousands every year, and even though it is commonly used as an industrial cleaning agent it is perfectly legal to put in our food supply.

 

[Boris]

What's your point, Boris? Just because science created GMOs doesn't make it good. Science also created the atomic bomb.

Nucular power is cool.

 

[Getting Traded]

Whoa, mind blown!

Mind blown, so you think everything science creates is good? If it goes against the natural rhythm of the universe, then you have problems. For example, cloning -- think about its ramifications. It can be used for good or bad. GMOs were created as one poster said to alleviate the world's hunger, but at the same time has caused other problems like a heavy increase in the use of industrial pesticides. I don't see how anyone can say that is good, and when you factor in the ingredient of glyphosate, which even Monsanto executives admit is carcinogenic, you have to wonder if you can trust them and all that comes out about it. Did you know an alleged science writer who was a regular contributor to Forbes recently was fired for submitting an article that was written for him by Monsanto P-R people? Does that sound like someone interested in objective science?

 

[Getting Traded]

EM, you'll also want to avoid contact with dihydrogen monoxide. It kills thousands every year, and even though it is commonly used as an industrial cleaning agent it is perfectly legal to put in our food supply.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good for you -- use some common sense. This argument fails. Legal doesn't mean it's ok. Slavery used to be legal too. And yes, I would avoid it if I knew it was in a product that I might use.

All I am preaching here is that people inform and educate themselves about this issue because the mainstream information on this is controlled by the people who produce GMOs and the products that used in conjunction with it -- and it is those products, not so much the GMOs (though this is debatable) that are the bigger problem.

 

[Gameface]

I can see many of you are the ones who are uneducated about GE products, which is because you are brainwashed about it. Monsanto has a huge P-R that extends into the large trade organizations mentioned like the AMA. No one took notice of the point about the effect on the ecology, which is very important. I saw a film called the "Symphony of the Soil" that discussed the effect on the soil and ecology from GMOs. Apparently, people here don't take stock in the philosophy of using organic products. The basic idea is the reduction of pesticide use. Sure there are natural pesticides in the plant word, like the lectins produced by nightshade plants (tomatoes, peppers, and potatoes), but they aren't the same as industrial pesticides, which are much more toxic and harmful to the ecosystem and the human organism. The increases in cancer and neurological diseases testifies to this. I think people need to keep an open mind on this and not fall prey to those with profit motives. Do GMO products prevent the world from starving; that's been the cliched argument -- well, organic farmers claim it's not necessary and ironically, GMO products may lead to starvation by destroying the earth's top soil needed to grow crops. I'll post the link to the new series to "educate" those of you who they think they know it all about this issue.

You realize JTT is a farmer, right? I'd guess he's familiar with how farming works. But go ahead, educate him with your anti-GMO propaganda.

There is no credible source that says that GMOs are, in and of themselves, harmful. Why don't you put a number on all the people that have to be in on this conspiracy to pull of this lie. It goes far further than Monsanto if we're being misled to the degree your argument requires. It means probably millions of people across all socioeconomic levels with varying interests and political, religious, ecological views are complicit in this lie.

Is it exciting for you to think you have special secret knowledge that "the man" is trying to keep from all us fools? News flash, we all know about the claims that GMOs are harmful. This is not some secret you are exposing.

 

[Gameface]

Mind blown, so you think everything science creates is good? If it goes against the natural rhythm of the universe, then you have problems. For example, cloning -- think about its ramifications. It can be used for good or bad. GMOs were created as one poster said to alleviate the world's hunger, but at the same time has caused other problems like a heavy increase in the use of industrial pesticides. I don't see how anyone can say that is good, and when you factor in the ingredient of glyphosate, which even Monsanto executives admit is carcinogenic, you have to wonder if you can trust them and all that comes out about it. Did you know an alleged science writer who was a regular contributor to Forbes recently was fired for submitting an article that was written for him by Monsanto P-R people? Does that sound like someone interested in objective science?

No, I don't think everything science creates is good. I think even making that argument shows how stupid anything you're going to say is. That's an argument for a ****ing kindergartner to make.