04-16-2014, 01:22 PM | #133 |
Lieutenant
58
Rep 494
Posts |
This discussion would probably lead to nowhere. But if you look at GMO from a business perspective, it is a good way to control the market. That is patent seeds and force everyone to buy them, or sue them for bs until they have no money left and settle. Therefore you have continuing $$$ coming in, and the more markets you expand your GMO, the more hooked they will be to buy the future products.
Is it good or bad for you? Well, again, most studies are sponsored by universities, and therefore same companies (Monsanto), so do you think they will allow anyone to publish anything negative or even research negative effects of GMO? From the studies (can't recall exactly) that suggested GMO was not good for you, were either ridiculed or careers were ended for those scientists. In short look at the money trail and you will get your answer. As for yield of GMO crop and food shortage regarding GMO, again there is so much food thrown out daily, but yet we led to believe there is a shortage. Like I said there are many unknowns and you have to look at your sources of information, and then again the money trail... |
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2014, 01:41 PM | #134 | |
Major General
237
Rep 5,118
Posts |
Quote:
Like I said before I am not against gmo's just because it is new technology. I am against them because they are untested. Next you guys are going to start telling me that DDT, PCB's, and dioxins are safe and I am just overreacting. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2014, 02:05 PM | #135 | |
Lieutenant
58
Rep 494
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2014, 02:58 PM | #136 | |
Major General
237
Rep 5,118
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2014, 05:47 PM | #137 |
Lieutenant Colonel
1078
Rep 1,912
Posts |
You didn't even look at the studies I linked to you earlier. They have been EXTENSIVELY tested not only by universities worldwide but also the EU. RambleJ is right, I am wasting my time.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-20-2014, 09:29 PM | #138 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
81
Rep 1,644
Posts |
Quote:
Pragmatism is the name of the game. The only way to beat the status quo is to make the solution convenient enough for everyone. And to the dude mentioning HFCS. Lol... Just Lol. Not because you're wrong but because you think people aren't aware of that.
__________________
Former car
2011 BMW 335i Step - Montego Blue / Chestnut Brown |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-03-2014, 11:38 PM | #139 | |
Captain
60
Rep 704
Posts |
Quote:
I'm on your side about chemical contamination of our food. Not to mention the risks to ag workers. But one goal GMO's are engineered for is natural pest resistance, reducing the need for chemicals. It's a better tool, with less likelihood of unintended consequences. Take this statement for example: "Alternatively, the new gene could interfere with a metabolic pathway causing a stressed plant to produce more toxins in response. Although these effects have not been observed in GM plants, they have been observed through conventional breeding methods creating a safety concern for GM plants." In other words, we've seen this issue in conventionally genetically modified plants, which few worry about, so we're worried about it in GMOs, even though nobody has ever seen it in GMOs. To me, this is an argument for GMOs, not against. It seems to me that a lot of the force of the anti-GMO people comes from the unfortunate anti-science attitude prevalent today. Any time a sentence starts with "we just don't know enough...", I'm skeptical. Nothing is perfectly safe, but GMOs just haven't been found to have serious adverse consequences, and they have been tested extensively, even if not enough for some people. It's mostly speculative fear. Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 06-03-2014 at 11:58 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-04-2014, 01:13 AM | #140 | |
Major General
237
Rep 5,118
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-04-2014, 11:45 PM | #141 | |
Captain
60
Rep 704
Posts |
Quote:
You can speculate on whatever you like, but in science data trumps speculation, always. Let's see the data. As I said, I agree with you on chemical pesticide residues. But, if anything, those are worse on non-GMOs. In any event, it's a separate issue. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-06-2014, 10:16 AM | #142 | |
Major General
237
Rep 5,118
Posts |
Quote:
As discussed in this thread the only evidence that gmo's are harmful is empirical evidence and the reason for that is because Monsanto doesn't allow testing. The only testing that has been done is by Monsanto, and I do not trust them enough to say their own product is safe. GMO's have been banned in other countries because of reports of animals dying after eating genetically modified crops. All I am saying is that the long term effects of gmos need to be tested by an independent researcher. Of course Monsanto wouldn't allow this and if they did Monsanto would try to discredit any researcher that found any negative effects. Feel free to eat your pesticide laden, nutrient deficient, processed foods. I'll take care of myself and my family, and at this point I couldn't care less about what everyone else eats. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-06-2014, 10:54 AM | #143 |
New Member
5
Rep 21
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-06-2014, 02:22 PM | #144 |
Captain
60
Rep 704
Posts |
Hardly. GMOs have been extensively tested, moreso than most foods. Many tests done by independent researchers. Here is a detailed list of 600 peer reviewed studies on GMOs. No doubt a few funded from Monsanto, no doubt most not.
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/ Other less specific sources I have say 2000+ peer reviewed papers. 70% not funded by seed producers of whatever stripe. Here's a good review of the scientific literature article, covering the last ten years. "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE. Our collection of scientific records is available to researchers, communicators and teachers at all levels to help create an informed, balanced public perception on the important issue of GE use in agriculture" http://www.geneticliteracyproject.or...olia-20131.pdf I'm no great fan of heavy pesticide residues. Or Monsanto. I am a fan of science. GMOs are not all about pesticide residues or Monsanto. And they have been extensively tested, often by independent researchers. I'm done here. Feel free to have the last word. Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 06-06-2014 at 02:54 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-06-2014, 09:33 PM | #146 |
Captain
435
Rep 686
Posts
Drives: 06 330xi (TRADED IN)
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Baconville, BN
|
Then again, they're self-funded, so of course they're going to highlight all the good, ergo a bit biased... If BMW paid me $1,000,000 to say that the F30 is the best thing since sliced bread, of course I can even go around saying that it's faster than a Veyron, has better ride comfort, quietness and technology than a Phantom, better handling than a go-cart and as reliable as a benchmark-grade Lexus... None of it is true, but it shows that people can be bought, while the truth is that I don't like how light the steering is and dare I even say Merc has a slightly more refined interior.
Of course, I skimmed through the responses of the first and last pages, so if it has been covered, please disregard... But then again in my own, unpaid opinion, GMOs may be "proven" safe by people who probably got paid off to say otherwise, I still have a conscientious objection with messing with nature... As a red-blooded male, I like girls with a larger chest, but it doesn't mean I like her stuffing silicone into her body either. Heck, I only believe in surgery done for life-sustaining purposes, i.e. no plastic surgery. Also, as much as it IS "proven", how thorough and trustworthy is it? Like others said, if GMOs "are" safe, how safe are the pesticides? After all, you're putting trace amounts of chemicals into your body that is designed to kill an insect, but how safe it is for humans may not be determined on a linear perspective as a statistic, but it might be creating a butterfly effect that may lead to cancer or some other disease.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|