Anti-anti-GMO rant...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2015, 10:39 AM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(16-02-2015 10:38 AM)Anti Wrote:  sorry Natachan, it is not the same. there is a big difference between cross breeding and gmo. I dare you to try an cross breed animals and plants together.

What are you - 12?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(16-02-2015 10:28 AM)Anti Wrote:  No long term testing of GMO has ever been done.

I guess twelve thousand years of agriculture is just over your head. Big Grin

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
16-02-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(16-02-2015 10:49 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I guess twelve thousand years of agriculture is just over your head. Big Grin

sorry its not the same thing and you know gmo is not the same as 12,000 years of agriculture. so you are either dishonest or stupid?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 11:51 AM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(16-02-2015 10:57 AM)Anti Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 10:49 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I guess twelve thousand years of agriculture is just over your head. Big Grin

sorry its not the same thing and you know gmo is not the same as 12,000 years of agriculture. so you are either dishonest or stupid?

Why can't I be both? Big Grin

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(16-02-2015 11:51 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Why can't I be both? Big Grin

you'll get no argument from me on that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(16-02-2015 10:38 AM)Anti Wrote:  sorry Natachan, it is not the same. there is a big difference between cross breeding and gmo. I dare you to try an cross breed animals and plants together.

What, precisely, is the difference? And what danger do you fear?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 09:16 AM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
Some of the science still seems to be out on this one. But...
--http://earthopensource.org/earth-open-source-reports/gmo-myths-and-truths-2nd-edition/

--http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/
What are GMOs?
GMOs (or “genetically modified organisms”) are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering, or GE. This relatively new science creates unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.

Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.


Are GMOs safe?
Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment.


What are the impacts of GMOs on the environment?
Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.

How do GMOs affect farmers?
Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States.


...So maybe there should be more scrutiny with GMOs?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 09:19 AM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(19-02-2015 09:16 AM)Multiplex82 Wrote:  Some of the science still seems to be out on this one. But...
--http://earthopensource.org/earth-open-source-reports/gmo-myths-and-truths-2nd-edition/

--http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/
What are GMOs?
GMOs (or “genetically modified organisms”) are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering, or GE. This relatively new science creates unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.

Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.


Are GMOs safe?
Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment.


What are the impacts of GMOs on the environment?
Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.

How do GMOs affect farmers?
Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States.


...So maybe there should be more scrutiny with GMOs?

Or maybe you should provide citations for your otherwise unsupported assertions? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-02-2015, 10:23 AM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(19-02-2015 09:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 09:16 AM)Multiplex82 Wrote:  Some of the science still seems to be out on this one. But...
--http://earthopensource.org/earth-open-source-reports/gmo-myths-and-truths-2nd-edition/

--http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/
What are GMOs?
GMOs (or “genetically modified organisms”) are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering, or GE. This relatively new science creates unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.

Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.


Are GMOs safe?
Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment.


What are the impacts of GMOs on the environment?
Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.

How do GMOs affect farmers?
Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States.


...So maybe there should be more scrutiny with GMOs?

Or maybe you should provide citations for your otherwise unsupported assertions? Consider

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/bioha...sses-point
http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Benbrook2012
http://genera.biofortified.org/view/Aris2011
http://genera.biofortified.org/view/BakkeMcKellep2007
http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/
http://www.gmofreepa.org/compelling-peer...OYL7_nF-gY

I'm just saying there should be more studies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 10:32 AM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2015 10:44 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(19-02-2015 10:23 AM)Multiplex82 Wrote:  I'm just saying there should be more studies.

You mean, beyond the thousands of entirely consistent studies that have been performed with universal null results?

I'd be far more willing to give the anti-science hysteria the time of day if they were capable of providing a genuine hypothesis: a credible mechanism of action whereby "genetic modification" (which would need to be coherently defined before even beginning, and in such a way as to exclude spontaneous mutations and gene transfers as well as selective breeding) led to some unique effect on composition that was capable of causing an adverse reaction in other organisms.

But, of course, that wouldn't be anti-science, then, would it? It would be science. Which we do. In spades. And find no such thing. Oh, well.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: