208 replies to this topic

[evolvedhuman2012]

hey folks, look who's back. check this out:



and these aren't just monsanto and gmo but everything else... consumers need be more critical if they know what's good for them...

Edited by evolvedhuman2012, 29 November 2013 - 06:06 AM.

[ymc]

I think anti-GMO people should all take Genetics 101 to learn about the relationship between gene and protein.

Having said that, if it is convenient, I would always pick non-GMO food over GMO food because non-GMO food is more likely to be cultivated in a better way than GMO food. But I won't sweat about it if I am forced to eat GMO food due to convenience.

[evolvedhuman2012]

I think anti-GMO people should all take Genetics 101 to learn about the relationship between gene and protein.

Having said that, if it is convenient, I would always pick non-GMO food over GMO food because non-GMO food is more likely to be cultivated in a better way than GMO food. But I won't sweat about it if I am forced to eat GMO food due to convenience.

yea, sure. you can say just the same for ddt and agent orange. people should be eating those too.

[Ark]

I think anti-GMO people should all take Genetics 101 to learn about the relationship between gene and protein.

Having said that, if it is convenient, I would always pick non-GMO food over GMO food because non-GMO food is more likely to be cultivated in a better way than GMO food. But I won't sweat about it if I am forced to eat GMO food due to convenience.

yea, sure. you can say just the same for ddt and agent orange. people should be eating those too.

You made his point.

[evolvedhuman2012]

I think anti-GMO people should all take Genetics 101 to learn about the relationship between gene and protein.

Having said that, if it is convenient, I would always pick non-GMO food over GMO food because non-GMO food is more likely to be cultivated in a better way than GMO food. But I won't sweat about it if I am forced to eat GMO food due to convenience.

yea, sure. you can say just the same for ddt and agent orange. people should be eating those too.

You made his point.

oh yea? why don't you eat some agent orange and see if your kids would glow in the dark? actually, you might not even be able to have kids on agent orange. i pity the fool that does it.

[Ekaterinya Vladinakova]

In all honesty I have not came across any credible sources that prove that GMO foods are harmful to our bodies. The negative health effects could be related to things like excessive HFCs and too much sugars in general, pesticides and some synthetic chemicals.

[Ark]

I don't see how you can compare AO to GMOs since we are still debating GMOs effects and AO is a very dangerous chemical.

[Ark]

In all honesty I have not came across any credible sources that prove that GMO foods are harmful to our bodies. The negative health effects could be related to things like excessive HFCs and too much sugars in general, pesticides and some synthetic chemicals.

I would also add that irradiation of food is more dangerous then GMOs, I've read somewhere that a combination of many things including irradiated food cakes to the inside small/large intestines & prostate and it causes cancer in those who let it build up via inactivity lack of fiber bad diet and age but most of all having so much irradiated food to your insides.

[ymc]

Well, think about it, if we don't have GMO food in the last twenty years, food prices would go to the roof and food shortage would be everywhere. War would likely break out all over the war and millions would have died as a result.

Instead of using your energy to fight GMO food, it is better spent fighting against air, water, land, radiation pollution which are proven to be harmful to our food chain.

[dz93]

GMO technology isn't bad. They just aren't doing it right.

[evolvedhuman2012]

Well, think about it, if we don't have GMO food in the last twenty years, food prices would go to the roof and food shortage would be everywhere. War would likely break out all over the war and millions would have died as a result.

Instead of using your energy to fight GMO food, it is better spent fighting against air, water, land, radiation pollution which are proven to be harmful to our food chain.

yea sure monsanto is an honorable corporation. i bet they put human health ahead of margin and not other way around.



geez i can't believe how many folks are spreading the food shortage around the world lie...

Edited by evolvedhuman2012, 20 December 2013 - 01:01 PM.

[evolvedhuman2012]

GMO technology isn't bad. They just aren't doing it right.

that's the thing, i think jeffrey smith raised this point on dr oz show. i don't think they smart enough to do it right.


it was explained like imprecision in altering the genome, they intend to change one but end up changing like 100. and in that case, it wouldn't be surprising to have unpredicted consequences.

the advanced technology to precisely change only one doesn't exist yet i think. and that not the only element that need attention.

as long as big businesses put margin over consumer health, this kind of conflict of interest could produce harm to consumers.

Edited by evolvedhuman2012, 20 December 2013 - 01:04 PM.

[evolvedhuman2012]

sums up everything i been saying and more....



boo yah baby! boo yah!

Edited by evolvedhuman2012, 27 December 2013 - 05:26 PM.

[evolvedhuman2012]

for all the pro-gmo folks here. i don't know if they are bio-tech industry promoters and agents. maybe ,maybe not. maybe they were just misguided civilians in the population. who knows? who cares?

Edited by evolvedhuman2012, 27 December 2013 - 05:25 PM.

[Darryl]

Personally, I want the best of both worlds, nutritionally enhanced GMO foods (like Golden Rice and high EPA/DHA transgenic flax), pursued in the public sector and distributed at nominal cost to farmers (as with Golden Rice), using low chemical input methods (crop rotation, integrated pest management, companion planting) borrowed from the sustainable side of organic agriculture.

Organic crops that find their way to grocery wholesale are almost invariably grown on high chemical input factory farms. This kind of organic is arguably worse for the environment, as higher application rates of less selective and arguably more toxic compounds are required, and yields are about 20% lower requiring more tilled land. We're probably not going to see widespread sustainable, but labor intensive practices (crop rotation, integrated pest management, companion planting) in large scale organic agriculture so long as energy inputs are so much cheaper than labor.

This year will see the first commercial GMO crops of any nutritional benefit to consumers. While high-oleic low-saturated oil won't be marketed to consumers, I'm very much looking forward to some long-shelf life processed foods (esp whole grain tortillas) without the ubiquituous partially hydrogenated oil. Its a game changer, in that the usual glyphosate resistance or Bt genes used in nearly all transgenic crops to date, while harmless to consumers, have largely been a benefit only to farmers, through reducing pesticide applications and enabling no-till soil conservation practice.

That said, I still hate the legal abuses by the seed IP oligopoly.

Edited by Darryl, 28 December 2013 - 12:31 AM.

[evolvedhuman2012]

GMO technology isn't bad. They just aren't doing it right.

 

hey dz93, yea perhaps. i been thinking about something armad pusztai said in an interview, something about them spending six and a half year identifying the gene, and it's product shouldn't doing that. 

 

can you point out one instance of "doing it right" ?does the tech even exist? 

[evolvedhuman2012]

You should see all the job adds in the jobs section here by Monsanto.
Mayhaps many members have been employed by them to avoid an outcry on this and similar forums!?

I thinks its important to collect links here and post them wherever one sees an opportunity elsewhere in forum subjects.
As usual; its important to have good references and citations posted in any posts made.

 

yea, well, never underestimate the power of big money.  big money can influence a lot, i suppose this has really always been true. it can buy law. it can buy politics. and when you have law and politics, you have real power in the society. who dare to challenge you then?

 

and what is a key fundamental of a lot of corruption?  the ability to influence government.  you don't think mafia  cops is just in the movies eh?

[Logic]

The Showa Denko Tryptophan disaster reevaluated
genetic engineering was the cause of death to 37 persons
http://www.psrast.org/demsd.htm

[Logic]

http://www.psrast.org/

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

[evolvedhuman2012]

Japan and South Korea Bar Imports of U.S. Wheat

 

http://www.nytimes.c...ports.html?_r=0

 

everyone else has been using common sense...

 

moreover, some of the gmo advocacies on this thread reads illogically and nonsensically....

Edited by evolvedhuman2012, 15 October 2014 - 06:51 PM.

[evolvedhuman2012]

an interesting new development that came up was a debate between jeffrey smith and neil deGrasse tyson.

 

 

why the heck would an astrophyicist support gmo people may ask?  some may think he been bribed. heck, may not have been the first time, doesn't surprise me.

 

 

furthermore, something fishy i wanna touch upon is that michael taylor whom been in "revolving door roles" in fda and monsanto.  if people don't find this fishy, people don't seem to be using objectivity.  none of the gmo adovcates respond to that fact.

 

heck this is public information, i like to see people justify that with logic and objectivity.  such a red flag and reek of corruption. 

Edited by evolvedhuman2012, 17 October 2014 - 04:28 AM.

[Bonee]

an interesting new development that came up was a debate between jeffrey smith and neil deGrasse tyson.

 

why the heck would an astrophyicist support gmo people may ask?  some may think he been bribed. heck, may not have been the first time, doesn't surprise me.

 

 

furthermore, something fishy i wanna touch upon is that michael taylor whom been in "revolving door roles" in fda and monsanto.  if people don't find this fishy, people don't seem to be using objectivity.  none of the gmo adovcates respond to that fact.

 

heck this is public information, i like to see people justify that with logic and objectivity.  such a red flag and reek of corruption. 

 

ooooh yes, everyone must be bribed who can understand science and gmo and is not against it... I am so fed up by these allegations.

obviously you are not of a scientific background...please study some biochemistry and molecular biology (I know its hard)

Of course monsanto and the fda going hand in hand is fishy, but stop making straw man arguments please this supposed to be an intellectual forum. Please make some scientific arguments against it instead of quoting pseudoscience.

there are other successful biotech companies, there are drugs manufactured by gmos (think insulin!)

 

GMO soy is on the market for more than 15 years, we have billions of control animals eating them, don't you think someone would not notice if their animals are growing slower or dying?

I really want to know how many facts do you need to understand that well controlled gmo is safe but please don't be an ignorant fool time is working against the anti GMO people.

Edited by Bonee, 28 October 2014 - 10:08 PM.

[Antonio2014]

Anti-GMO movement is really stupid. Among many other reasons, because after 15 minutes in the stomach, it's chemically and biologically impossible to distinguish GMO from non GMO food.

Edited by Antonio2014, 29 October 2014 - 01:33 PM.

[Skyguy2005]

Well, think about it, if we don't have GMO food in the last twenty years, food prices would go to the roof and food shortage would be everywhere. War would likely break out all over the war and millions would have died as a result.

Instead of using your energy to fight GMO food, it is better spent fighting against air, water, land, radiation pollution which are proven to be harmful to our food chain.

 

That's not true, that's just something they (GMO companies) made up.

 

Yields of GMO crops in the USA aren't any higher than what we get in Europe.

[Skyguy2005]

 

an interesting new development that came up was a debate between jeffrey smith and neil deGrasse tyson.

 

why the heck would an astrophyicist support gmo people may ask?  some may think he been bribed. heck, may not have been the first time, doesn't surprise me.

 

 

furthermore, something fishy i wanna touch upon is that michael taylor whom been in "revolving door roles" in fda and monsanto.  if people don't find this fishy, people don't seem to be using objectivity.  none of the gmo adovcates respond to that fact.

 

heck this is public information, i like to see people justify that with logic and objectivity.  such a red flag and reek of corruption. 

 

ooooh yes, everyone must be bribed who can understand science and gmo and is not against it... I am so fed up by these allegations.

obviously you are not of a scientific background...please study some biochemistry and molecular biology (I know its hard)

Of course monsanto and the fda going hand in hand is fishy, but stop making straw man arguments please this supposed to be an intellectual forum. Please make some scientific arguments against it instead of quoting pseudoscience.

there are other successful biotech companies, there are drugs manufactured by gmos (think insulin!)

 

GMO soy is on the market for more than 15 years, we have billions of control animals eating them, don't you think someone would not notice if their animals are growing slower or dying?

I really want to know how many facts do you need to understand that well controlled gmo is safe but please don't be an ignorant fool time is working against the anti GMO people.

 

 

If it isn't dangerous yet, it will be some day, because Monsanto/Bayer etc will lobby US government for less and less testing to be required, in order for bigger profits. And the US government will cave like a pussy as it always does.

 

What does "understanding science" mean? Safety shouldn't rely simply on understanding (which could be flawed). It should rely on trials which demonstrate safety.

 

And in any case, GM seeds are not a science. It's a technology. Being against GMOs is not anti science because it isn't science...

 

Even if GMO seeds can be safe, there's no point having them unless they increase yield, and it seems we are still waitingfor this.

 

The reason they are being so aggressively pushed is to make corporate multinationals sh1tloads of money by increasing their control over the food supply.

 

That's enough reason to oppose GMOs for me. Companies like Monsanto will say anything to get their way, you can't trust them and you can't make a deal with them.
 

Edited by Skyguy2005, 30 October 2014 - 08:00 PM.

[Skyguy2005]

I think anti-GMO people should all take Genetics 101 to learn about the relationship between gene and protein.

Having said that, if it is convenient, I would always pick non-GMO food over GMO food because non-GMO food is more likely to be cultivated in a better way than GMO food. But I won't sweat about it if I am forced to eat GMO food due to convenience.

 

But understanding of genetics does not automatically entail that GMO seeds are a good idea...

 

You need more.

[Antonio2014]

I didn't say that GMO seeds are a good idea. I only said they aren't a bad idea, as you (unsuccesfully) are trying to probe.

 

Anyway, since GMO are enhaced varieties of common crops, in any way or another, (for example, golden rice produces vitamin A precursor but regular rice doesn't), they are allways better in some respect than a non modified crop. The same happens with modified crops that aren't GMO.

 

 

 

What does "understanding science" mean? Safety shouldn't rely simply on understanding (which could be flawed). It should rely on trials which demonstrate safety.

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2217210

 

 

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Oct;87(19):7777-81.

Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural).

Ames BN¹, Profet M, Gold LS.

Abstract

The toxicological significance of exposures to synthetic chemicals is examined in the context of exposures to naturally occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods. We conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant.

 

 

Quick! Stop eating vegetables! You don't know their effects!

Edited by Antonio2014, 30 October 2014 - 09:35 PM.

[ymc]

 

I think anti-GMO people should all take Genetics 101 to learn about the relationship between gene and protein.

Having said that, if it is convenient, I would always pick non-GMO food over GMO food because non-GMO food is more likely to be cultivated in a better way than GMO food. But I won't sweat about it if I am forced to eat GMO food due to convenience.

 

But understanding of genetics does not automatically entail that GMO seeds are a good idea...

 

You need more.

 

 

A good understanding of genetics will let you know the limitations of what can be done by modifying genes. Then you will understand that the likelihood of bad GMO food is much much lower than food contaminated by water, land and air pollution.

 

Do you know that 70% of US grown crops in the last 20 years are GMO according to USDA? So people have eaten enough GMO food already. Was there any single case of sickness or death linked back to GMO food????

[Antonio2014]

Also, non GMO crops are more modified than GMO crops, and in a random way.

 

GMO is a bad name. All other organisms we cultivate or breed are genetically modified. The difference is that GMO are modified by genetic engineering, and the others are modified by other means, like:

 

- artificial selection

- interbreeding between different varieties

- random mutations induced by colchicine and other means

 

GMO usually have only one gene inserted by humans, or only a few. The other other organisms we created have hundreds or thousands of different genes than the original crop, and most are unknown.

 

Anti-GMO movement is not only stupid and ignorant of basic biology and chemistry, it is very hypocritical, because it is not against organisms that are much more modified and in a random way.

Edited by Antonio2014, 31 October 2014 - 07:02 AM.

[evolvedhuman2012]

 

I think anti-GMO people should all take Genetics 101 to learn about the relationship between gene and protein.

Having said that, if it is convenient, I would always pick non-GMO food over GMO food because non-GMO food is more likely to be cultivated in a better way than GMO food. But I won't sweat about it if I am forced to eat GMO food due to convenience.

 

But understanding of genetics does not automatically entail that GMO seeds are a good idea...

 

You need more.

 

 

 

 

no they don't cuz they haven't been making sense thus far.  whenever any piece of evidence/info harmful to the grand status of gmos are brought up, they will immediately be dismissed as like either pseudoscience, lies, ignorance of basic bioscience.  lmfao!  this is the kind of twisted bias you are up against man.

 

 

on this thread , quite a few talk in this style.  oh yeah then there the troll that likes to say, " gmo in moderate is good for your health."

 lmfao!  they will see no objectivity because if they do, they will be gmo opponents.  lol.