GMO - No Scientific Reason to Oppose

[video=youtube_share;VWQ8ci4PP5c]http://youtu.be/VWQ8ci4PP5c[/video]

[youtube]fIgqXCRkMkA[/youtube]

Sigh... Heis...
You know how I feel about this subject, (no scientific reason, but maybe an ethical one,) so unless you want me to chime in I will keep quiet. It could be a discussion that I really need to have though.

That second video was a little unfair in my opinion. It's a cop out to compare gmo food to typewriters/computers and ask if books are bad. That is a false comparison as it should really be comparing the computer to the typewriter, but still even that is a terrible comparison.

Don't know much about GMO's. What I have heard I've taken with a grain of salt. I know, for example, they've made different types of grains that will grow in places like Africa and provide extra nutrients. There's no question, GMO's like this are beneficial.

I've heard more terribles things about Monsanto that have credibility, than negative aspects of GMO's in general.

Just check out the Farmer Assurance Provision...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision

The only real concern that I have about GMOs themselves is the ones that are insect resistant. I've thought that if the bugs don't want to eat it... maybe we shouldn't be eating it either; Hopefully they have thought of that.

I read that GMOs were able to feed so many more millions of people each year, but this also means that it will support that many more people on this earth and humans, as I see it, will keep increasing in number until we, once again, cannot feed them all.

budsmoker87 said:

Right. No "scientific reason"...only anecdotal evidence...like the hogs with inflamed livers/kidneys...the rats with tumors...the surgery where they put holes in cows to check their stomachs for problems, while giving them a shit ton of antibiotics... you're an idiot

Click to expand...

None of those things you just mentioned had anything to do with science. Science is a process with specific protocols. When you manipulate the process and ignore protocols, you are no longer doing science.

Here is a breakdown of the pig study which includes links breaking down the rat study.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

"The study was a fishing expedition and not hypothesis-driven. It’s not surprising that it found something. I’d be shocked if it hadn’t. In the end, this study abused a fairly large number of innocent pigs to produce no useful data. "

Click to expand...

NietzscheKeen said:

They only real concern that I have about GMOs themselves is the ones that are insect resistant. I've thought that if the bugs don't want to eat it... maybe we shouldn't be eating it either; Hopefully they have thought of that.

I read that GMOs were able to feed so many more millions of people each year, but this also means that it will support that many more people on this earth and humans, as I see it, will keep increasing in number until we, once again, cannot feed them all.

Click to expand...

If your ideology is that humans shouldn't live past age 30 or 40 or that the earth should have a population cap then I suppose GMO doesn't seem like a good idea. My point is that nobody opposing GMO can point to science for support. Unlike you, most do not reveal their political/emotional/ideological motivation until after you have shot down their pseudoscience.

This quote from another thread sums up the anti-gmo argument nicely.

If ignorant voters don't understand how bad corporatism is for the planet, what can we do besides use pseudoscience to convince them that Monsanto is evil? Selective breeding is ok, splicing genes is ok, patenting and monopolizing supercorn so you can sell more roundup - not ok!

Click to expand...

Incidentally, this is the same pattern I find with almost all pseudoscience. If you argue long enough with an anti-vax person, they eventually say "I don't care what anyone says, I wont vaccinate". If you argue long enough with a creationist, they eventually say "nothing will shake my faith that God created the world". Such people only value science as long as they perceive it agrees with them.

NietzscheKeen said:

The only real concern that I have about GMOs themselves is the ones that are insect resistant. I've thought that if the bugs don't want to eat it... maybe we shouldn't be eating it either; Hopefully they have thought of that.

I read that GMOs were able to feed so many more millions of people each year, but this also means that it will support that many more people on this earth and humans, as I see it, will keep increasing in number until we, once again, cannot feed them all.

Click to expand...

im with you here, i have no desire to eat corn and grains that produce so much of their own internal insecticides that they kill of the bugs eating them. that is scary and cannot be good for anyone's health.

GreenSummit said:

im with you here, i have no desire to eat corn and grains that produce so much of their own internal insecticides that they kill of the bugs eating them. that is scary and cannot be good for anyone's health.

Click to expand...

I don't even know that it is doing that. I'm just concerned because I don't know or understand how it really works. If I knew more about it and took the time to look up some studies I may or may not be concerned anymore, lol.

Heisenberg said:

If your ideology is that humans shouldn't live past age 30 or 40 or that the earth should have a population cap then I suppose GMO doesn't seem like a good idea. My point is that nobody opposing GMO can point to science for support. Unlike you, most do not reveal their political/emotional/ideological motivation until after you have shot down their pseudoscience.

Incidentally, this is the same pattern I find with almost all pseudoscience. If you argue long enough with an anti-vax person, they eventually say "I don't care what anyone says, I wont vaccinate". If you argue long enough with a creationist, they eventually say "nothing will shake my faith that God created the world". Such people only value science as long as they perceive it agrees with them.

Click to expand...

I agree, I have seen this when discussing certain topics with certain people, creationism being one of them.

And yes, while you (Heis) know I am anti-vaccine and opposed to GMO's, I do not deny the science behind them. It's just my crazy anarcho-primitivist political views muddling things up, lol.

Seems like a lot of people use the reasoning;

Monsanto is bad,
Monsanto makes GMO's,
Therefore, GMO's are bad.

[video=youtube;tjL3OiQ-Tqg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjL3OiQ-Tqg[/video]

If I crush an aphid, it gives off a scent to warn its friends. If we can take that gene from the aphids, put it in the crop they attack, and make it smell like aphid death, then we are preventing aphid damage while not using any pesticides. We know which genes make which proteins. This isnt a crap shoot.

It's much more precise than the current method, which simply jumbles the entire genome. And yes, this method is accepted as "organic"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding

I was looking through my books and I completely forgot that I had this one.

yeah i think gmos are intrinsically bad because of eventual genetic adaption they push, putting all you're genetic variety in one basket can be super risky too depending on the future. their interplay with chemical ferts such roundup® which is big business in politcs and govt .. Lastly 80 if not 90 or 100% of all this shit could be sustained organicity and if we were properly terraforming and maintaining our planets health at a ground level but we do quite the opposite.

but thats just me, i feel like gmo food might as well be part of a future where humans decide if they 'chemicalize' per say their diet or not. i surely wouldnt be excited to run a gmo farm over organtic, and on top of that and with shit like this http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods-on-animal-health/16747 (not saying thats an end all be all article,) b ut ive even heard from professors shit about covered up testings...and the economic and free-market strangle hold this shit induces. well i dont see how anyone favors it to a large extent, its just an easy way out to me.

interesting topic though

Here are some links to independent scientists who explain the Seralini study’s flaws.

1. Academics Review: Scientists Smell A Rat In Fraudulent Study
2. Declan Butler writing in Nature.com: Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny
3. Respectful Insolence: Bad science about GMOs: It reminds me of the antivaccine movement
4. Steven Novella: The GM Corn Rat Study
5. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): Séralini et al. study conclusions not supported by data, says EU risk assessment community
6. Mark Hoofnagle of Denialism Blog: Anti-GMO study is appropriately dismissed as biased, poorly-performed
7. Emily Sohn, a freelance journalist working for Discovery.com: GM Corn-Tumor Link Based on Poor Science
8. Deborah Blum: A rancid, corrupt way to report about science
9. Carl Zimmer: Journalists should not let themselves be played
10. Debora MacKenzie writing in New Scientist: Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned
11. John Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project: Scientists savage study purportedly showing health dangers of Monsanto’s GM corn and Does the Seralini Corn Study Fiasco Mark a Turning Point in the Debate Over GM Food?
12. Dan Charles, NPR's food and agriculture correspondent: As Scientists Question New Rat Study, GMO Debate Rages On
13. Kevin M. Folta: Rats, Tumors and Critical Assessment of Science
14. Scicurious, a postdoc in biomedical research: Under Controlled: Why the New GMO Panic Is More Sensational Than Sense

Also, http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html

"Currently there are near 600 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds. Close to 30% of these publications are produced and funded by organisations that are completely independent of large commercial seed companies."

yeah theres good and bad science, but that doesn't really negate the impact of what i was saying.

quote from med journal i found "Males are clearly more sensitive than female animals to show physiological disturbances when fed NK 603. This is not observed for all three GM maize varieties. Moreover, most effects appear to be dose-dependent since 83% of male effects emerge only at the 33% feeding level (15/1, the highest GM maize concentration in the diet (Table ​(Table1).1). The maximal mean differences are observed in male kidney parameters."

what im saying, is corn didnt do that before, and it doesnt have to now unless you trust your future health to a pesticide corp.

i can tell you're stuck into some great belief in our scientific future though, but just try to see where im coming from... some fucking K2 shit. just gimmie my fucking sweet, properly tended for, sun fed, ground raised and watered, organtic!!! GOOD!

A grain of salt is one of the most simple crystalline predictable forms.... nothing like what were spewing through higher levels of organisms.
^^reply to first page post.

I am not sure why you would quote a study that is considered to be discredited, as the links I provided cover it as well.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gilles-Eric_Séralini

I acknowledge that there are important issues to consider that go beyond the science, but none that would give us cause to abandon the technology.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4166

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019

[youtube]9j2a0q14wOs[/youtube]