Anti-anti-GMO rant...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
The fact of the matter is the FDA doesn't test GMOs for safety, they let the companies who invent them test them... without any formal regulations. Since the GMO seeds are considered the intellectual property of the biotech companies, those who wish to publish their reports when they test the GMOs must get expressed written permission to do so. Biotech, and food producers constantly fight GMO labeling laws. Biotech companies boast about how few pesticides and herbicides are needed on GMO crops, however, crops today are using more pesticides and herbicides than ever before, and the rate at which they are used increase almost every year. Before GMOs hit the market, food allergies in children were relatively low, but today 1 in 13 kids have a major food allergy. http://www.foodallergy.org/facts-and-stats < more stats

Biotech companies are hiding something. otherwise they wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep people in the dark.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 03:20 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(16-02-2015 10:49 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(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

There are distinctive differences between cross breeding, and GMOs.

Cross breeding occurs when 2 strains of the same plant that have desirable traits are breed together.
GMOs occur in a lab. DNA from anything from fish to bacteria and viruses are injected into the DNA sequence of the plant being modified.

You cannot say that they are the same. They are not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  The fact of the matter is the FDA doesn't test GMOs for safety, they let the companies who invent them test them... without any formal regulations.

That's... not actually true, and it's absurd to boot to suggest that the FDA is the only regulatory agency on Earth, but, you know what? Sure. We'll ignore that and move on.

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Since the GMO seeds are considered the intellectual property of the biotech companies...

Conventionally developed cultivars are patentable in most jurisdictions. This has been true for a century.

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  ... those who wish to publish their reports when they test the GMOs must get expressed written permission to do so.

Nor is that true.

Even if we pretend that the big, bad, biotech companies try to keep these things locked down... they're still also, simultaneously, trying to sell them. All you have to do to obtain something already being marketed is to freaking buy some.

If, rather, you're speaking of trials before that point, well - tests for safety are required for all new agricultural varieties, "genetically modified" or not, by that same FDA and its international equivalents. These tests must perforce involve using the actual products in the testing protocol.

You are thus left alleging a feeble "lol conspiracy". Forgive me for finding that wanting.

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Biotech, and food producers constantly fight GMO labeling laws.

The kind pushed by the sorts of people who couldn't coherently define "genetic modification" if their lives depended on it?

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Biotech companies boast about how few pesticides and herbicides are needed on GMO crops, however, crops today are using more pesticides and herbicides than ever before, and the rate at which they are used increase almost every year.

Citation needed.

But seriously, now. Pesticides aren't free. Developing them and deploying them isn't free. Why, on the Flying Spaghetti Monster's green Earth, would these (wonderfully generic) "biotech companies" pretend to develop crops so as to decrease pesticide usage - note that this is done through conventional breeding techniques regardless - a thing which self-evidently costs a great deal of money - when it doesn't work, according to your unsubstantiated claim? What possible reason is there for the charade?

I mean, what's the endgame there? Why do it? For shits and giggles? How can such an unnecessary action benefit them? For the sake of human misery? Because lol conspiracy? Help me figure this one out, man!

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Before GMOs hit the market, food allergies in children were relatively low, but today 1 in 13 kids have a major food allergy. http://www.foodallergy.org/facts-and-stats < more stats

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

PS: the link makes absolutely no pretense about identifying a cause. So there's that.

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Biotech companies are hiding something. otherwise they wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep people in the dark.

Ah, yes. Good reasoning, that. "They must be hiding something! The fact that they're hiding it so well I don't even know what they're hiding is just proof that they are hiding it!"

Seems legit.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
19-02-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(19-02-2015 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  The fact of the matter is the FDA doesn't test GMOs for safety, they let the companies who invent them test them... without any formal regulations.

That's... not actually true, and it's absurd to boot to suggest that the FDA is the only regulatory agency on Earth, but, you know what? Sure. We'll ignore that and move on.

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Since the GMO seeds are considered the intellectual property of the biotech companies...

Conventionally developed cultivars are patentable in most jurisdictions. This has been true for a century.

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  ... those who wish to publish their reports when they test the GMOs must get expressed written permission to do so.

Nor is that true.

Even if we pretend that the big, bad, biotech companies try to keep these things locked down... they're still also, simultaneously, trying to sell them. All you have to do to obtain something already being marketed is to freaking buy some.

If, rather, you're speaking of trials before that point, well - tests for safety are required for all new agricultural varieties, "genetically modified" or not, by that same FDA and its international equivalents. These tests must perforce involve using the actual products in the testing protocol.

You are thus left alleging a feeble "lol conspiracy". Forgive me for finding that wanting.

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Biotech, and food producers constantly fight GMO labeling laws.

The kind pushed by the sorts of people who couldn't coherently define "genetic modification" if their lives depended on it?

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Biotech companies boast about how few pesticides and herbicides are needed on GMO crops, however, crops today are using more pesticides and herbicides than ever before, and the rate at which they are used increase almost every year.

Citation needed.

But seriously, now. Pesticides aren't free. Developing them and deploying them isn't free. Why, on the Flying Spaghetti Monster's green Earth, would these (wonderfully generic) "biotech companies" pretend to develop crops so as to decrease pesticide usage - note that this is done through conventional breeding techniques regardless - a thing which self-evidently costs a great deal of money - when it doesn't work, according to your unsubstantiated claim? What possible reason is there for the charade?

I mean, what's the endgame there? Why do it? For shits and giggles? How can such an unnecessary action benefit them? For the sake of human misery? Because lol conspiracy? Help me figure this one out, man!

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Before GMOs hit the market, food allergies in children were relatively low, but today 1 in 13 kids have a major food allergy. http://www.foodallergy.org/facts-and-stats < more stats

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

PS: the link makes absolutely no pretense about identifying a cause. So there's that.

(19-02-2015 03:15 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Biotech companies are hiding something. otherwise they wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep people in the dark.

Ah, yes. Good reasoning, that. "They must be hiding something! The fact that they're hiding it so well I don't even know what they're hiding is just proof that they are hiding it!"

Seems legit.

Harsh. Ill leave on this next note:
If GMOs are truly as good as the people would have you believe, if they dont harm anything, WHY THE FUCK AREN'T THEY JUST SLAPPING A "Proudly contains GMOs" sticker on foods that have them? I dont have a strong knowledge of the subject, but this entire argument over GMOs sounds suspiciously similar to the arguments over the Tobacco industry. You are BLINDLY supporting something you know little about yourself. Sound familiar?... Thats the same thing atheists say about Christians.

So good bye, have fun, im not gonna jump on any bandwagon until i get strong evidence either way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(19-02-2015 03:59 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 03:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's... not actually true, and it's absurd to boot to suggest that the FDA is the only regulatory agency on Earth, but, you know what? Sure. We'll ignore that and move on.


Conventionally developed cultivars are patentable in most jurisdictions. This has been true for a century.


Nor is that true.

Even if we pretend that the big, bad, biotech companies try to keep these things locked down... they're still also, simultaneously, trying to sell them. All you have to do to obtain something already being marketed is to freaking buy some.

If, rather, you're speaking of trials before that point, well - tests for safety are required for all new agricultural varieties, "genetically modified" or not, by that same FDA and its international equivalents. These tests must perforce involve using the actual products in the testing protocol.

You are thus left alleging a feeble "lol conspiracy". Forgive me for finding that wanting.


The kind pushed by the sorts of people who couldn't coherently define "genetic modification" if their lives depended on it?


Citation needed.

But seriously, now. Pesticides aren't free. Developing them and deploying them isn't free. Why, on the Flying Spaghetti Monster's green Earth, would these (wonderfully generic) "biotech companies" pretend to develop crops so as to decrease pesticide usage - note that this is done through conventional breeding techniques regardless - a thing which self-evidently costs a great deal of money - when it doesn't work, according to your unsubstantiated claim? What possible reason is there for the charade?

I mean, what's the endgame there? Why do it? For shits and giggles? How can such an unnecessary action benefit them? For the sake of human misery? Because lol conspiracy? Help me figure this one out, man!


Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

Correlation is not causation.

PS: the link makes absolutely no pretense about identifying a cause. So there's that.


Ah, yes. Good reasoning, that. "They must be hiding something! The fact that they're hiding it so well I don't even know what they're hiding is just proof that they are hiding it!"

Seems legit.

Harsh. Ill leave on this next note:
If GMOs are truly as good as the people would have you believe, if they dont harm anything, WHY THE FUCK AREN'T THEY JUST SLAPPING A "Proudly contains GMOs" sticker on foods that have them? I dont have a strong knowledge of the subject, but this entire argument over GMOs sounds suspiciously similar to the arguments over the Tobacco industry. You are BLINDLY supporting something you know little about yourself. Sound familiar?... Thats the same thing atheists say about Christians.

So good bye, have fun, im not gonna jump on any bandwagon until i get strong evidence either way.

What is your concern? Are you afraid of the food itself? Pesticides? Possible effect on the ecology? What effect on the ecology?

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, 04:30 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(19-02-2015 03:59 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Harsh.

I don't like science denial. So there's that.

(19-02-2015 03:59 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Ill leave on this next note:
If GMOs are truly as good as the people would have you believe, if they dont harm anything, WHY THE FUCK AREN'T THEY JUST SLAPPING A "Proudly contains GMOs" sticker on foods that have them?

Because people are afraid of it? That's independent of whether or not they should be, mind. They are, as I'm sure you would agree.

Thus, by what logic is it a good idea to say something about a product that will cause a portion of your target audience to dislike it? To actively reject it? What kind of deranged business sense is that supposed to make?
(notwithstanding that the actual shipping-product-to-consumers companies are several steps removed from the development-of-cultivars companies and tracing the life history of every grain of wheat is an impossible fool's errand)

(19-02-2015 03:59 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  I dont have a strong knowledge of the subject, but this entire argument over GMOs sounds suspiciously similar to the arguments over the Tobacco industry. You are BLINDLY supporting something you know little about yourself. Sound familiar?... Thats the same thing atheists say about Christians.

Sweet noodly appendage, that's what you're reduced to?

I am a scientist. I am a graduate student. I am not an ignorant layperson. I am not blindly endorsing anything. I am drawing an informed conclusion based on the overwhelming majority of credible scientific evidence.

That is the difference between our "positions", if yours might even be so characterised. You literally just said you were not well-informed. That's fine, too; nobody is born knowing anything! But it does not follow that those disagreeing with you are somehow automatically not well-informed either, and it certainly does not enable you to judge the knowledge of others in light of your own self-professed lack of it.

(19-02-2015 03:59 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  So good bye, have fun, im not gonna jump on any bandwagon until i get strong evidence either way.

The evidence exists. Whether or not you choose to accept it is on your head, and so be it.

The vast majority of scientific research, and the overwhelming majority of informed viewpoints, are in total accord as to the utter non-issue of GMO safety. That is a fact. Deal with it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
19-02-2015, 05:00 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(19-02-2015 04:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 03:59 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  Harsh. Ill leave on this next note:
If GMOs are truly as good as the people would have you believe, if they dont harm anything, WHY THE FUCK AREN'T THEY JUST SLAPPING A "Proudly contains GMOs" sticker on foods that have them? I dont have a strong knowledge of the subject, but this entire argument over GMOs sounds suspiciously similar to the arguments over the Tobacco industry. You are BLINDLY supporting something you know little about yourself. Sound familiar?... Thats the same thing atheists say about Christians.

So good bye, have fun, im not gonna jump on any bandwagon until i get strong evidence either way.

What is your concern? Are you afraid of the food itself? Pesticides? Possible effect on the ecology? What effect on the ecology?

I'm not afraid of anything. I have the RIGHT to know what i'm eating. Whether or not GMOs are 100% safe, i want to know where they are in my food. Is that a bad thing?... For me wanting to know?... Im not for or against GMOs. I just want transparency, and i begin to distrust those who hide information from me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 05:03 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(19-02-2015 03:20 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  
(16-02-2015 10:49 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I guess twelve thousand years of agriculture is just over your head. Big Grin

There are distinctive differences between cross breeding, and GMOs.

Cross breeding occurs when 2 strains of the same plant that have desirable traits are breed together.
GMOs occur in a lab. DNA from anything from fish to bacteria and viruses are injected into the DNA sequence of the plant being modified.

You cannot say that they are the same. They are not.

I.. Wha... How do you think DNA works?
No, seriously; how do you think it works?

Now, I've just had me a public edumacation so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that in terms of genetic engineering, the source of the DNA is pretty much irrelevant, because all DNA is fundamentally the same. What matters is the DNA sequence otherwise know as the gene, which produce particular proteins or enzymes which bring about desired effects in the target organism.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(19-02-2015 05:03 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 03:20 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  There are distinctive differences between cross breeding, and GMOs.

Cross breeding occurs when 2 strains of the same plant that have desirable traits are breed together.
GMOs occur in a lab. DNA from anything from fish to bacteria and viruses are injected into the DNA sequence of the plant being modified.

You cannot say that they are the same. They are not.

I.. Wha... How do you think DNA works?
No, seriously; how do you think it works?

Now, I've just had me a public edumacation so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that in terms of genetic engineering, the source of the DNA is pretty much irrelevant, because all DNA is fundamentally the same. What matters is the DNA sequence otherwise know as the gene, which produce particular proteins or enzymes which bring about desired effects in the target organism.

Do you see a fish humping a corn plant to make hybrid corn plants?...No... Because those 2 species are incompatible. Only with human intervention can DNA from incompatible species be mixed. FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm

Im sorry if i put uncomfortable images of Corn/fish sex into peoples minds... Confused
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 05:19 PM
RE: Anti-anti-GMO rant...
(19-02-2015 05:00 PM)ResistenceXD0001 Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 04:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  What is your concern? Are you afraid of the food itself? Pesticides? Possible effect on the ecology? What effect on the ecology?

I'm not afraid of anything. I have the RIGHT to know what i'm eating. Whether or not GMOs are 100% safe, i want to know where they are in my food. Is that a bad thing?... For me wanting to know?... Im not for or against GMOs. I just want transparency, and i begin to distrust those who hide information from me.

Everything you eat has been genetically modified. There is no difference between direct direct gene manipulation and indirect gene manipulation.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: