I found this neat article on GMOs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2014, 02:44 PM
I found this neat article on GMOs
http://www.grain.org/article/entries/472...r-20-years

I don't see what is wrong with GMOs, in fact aren't they useful? Anyway just had to share this old piece of work and here is a comment that bothers me.

"The scientists promoting GMOs and their supporters are being exposed for what they really are: LATERDAY NEOCOLONIALISTS targeting Africa for corporate giants to take over. The so-called science will not end hunger in Africa and the rest of the world, but only changes in power relations and dispersal and equitable utilization of the world's resources. Too many people are obese worldwide because even a greater number is emaciated. Some people are getting more than their fair share. This short article reveals the lies!"

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 03:27 PM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2014 05:05 PM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
"Cocaine, and cigarettes are like vitamin's! 9 in 10 doctors agree. So take a drink, take a puff, and continue to keep women from voting."

I heard fracking was fun and safe for everyone too... before peoples tapes caught on fire, and artificial earthquakes.

Knowing how powerful US lobby's are, and how inept US health and safety and corporate regulations are - i'd rather we took the time to determine how safe everything is. Someones profits is NOT WORTH sick and dying people.

Note on Africa.

Those states are primarily agricultural exporters. The US and EU for decades have been OVER producing food products. One is for "national security" and another is large agricultural lobbyists that just want the money.
The result? African states become poorer because they can't compete with subsidized US/EU agriculture. Agriculture which just goes to waste.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 03:31 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
There is no reason to believe GMOs are harmful. No evidence that GMO food are either less healthy or harmful to our bodies. No evidence that it is really any different, in practice, than artificial selection. It is simply fear. A society that has seen too many science fiction movies, perhaps. GMO's are food.

I do support labeling GMO's, because people should have the choice to be afraid of harmless things if they want too. Outside of that, I don't see the controversy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
08-07-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 03:31 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  There is no reason to believe GMOs are harmful. No evidence that GMO food are either less healthy or harmful to our bodies. No evidence that it is really any different, in practice, than artificial selection. It is simply fear. A society that has seen too many science fiction movies, perhaps. GMO's are food.

I do support labeling GMO's, because people should have the choice to be afraid of harmless things if they want too. Outside of that, I don't see the controversy.

I wonder why people think GMOs are harmful in the first place. I mean all genetics can be modified by artificial selection, so it could just be that bigger animals and plants were selected to breed.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
First of all, I'm going to mention that I can't comment on the specific article the op linked. The url bar goes to something on a "grain.org" but then only loads a white page with no words or pictures. Is it a site that is disable for the US, or is something just wrong with my browser? Or has it been deleted?

(08-07-2014 04:02 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I mean all genetics can be modified by artificial selection, so it could just be that bigger animals and plants were selected to breed.

Actually, there is a big difference between a species containing genes through natural or artificial selection vs. removing specific genes from an entirely different species and splicing it. When people bring up domesticated dogs and/or cruciferous vegetables and claim those situations are somehow similar to modern genetic modification, it's really just a red herring (and a decidedly bad argument.) All of the genes that an organism inherently possesses are there "for a reason." That DNA "belongs" to their species, and even the junk DNA and non-coding DNA belongs to their unique evolutionary pathway.

Considering humans have known about DNA for less than 60 years, I think it's actually pretty arrogant to assume we know enough about genetics to reconfigure organisms that then breed indefinitely once we've unleashed them. Semantics aside, it seriously is just arrogant. And I obviously LOVE science!

Hopefully they turn out to be just fine (like vaccines) and not horrible for our health (like trans fats.) I'm actually going to school to get an Agriculture degree, but I've already accepted that people on the internet are going to argue me to death about this. I don't know why I bother anymore. It's almost like if you try to say anything negative about GMOs at all, people automatically assume you're a FAR left liberal hippie who spends the entire day smoking green you bought with fraudulent welfare. *sigh*

It kind of reminds me of the good ole' climate change switcheroo. Someone on the internet blogged about how "most climate scientists are in agreement that climate change is not caused by humans. Anybody who questions that is a commie bastard who hates America....and science!" without citing any actual climate scientists or sources for thinking this way. So then EVERY FUCKING BODY on the internet started parroting the idea that human induced climate change was unscientific and downright preposterous. (100% true story: I actually learned what the word preposterous means when I googled it upon reading a skeptic refer to global warming as 'preposterous' last decade. I'm not joking, even a little bit.) So then along comes Gore with his inconvenient truth, along with geologists, meteorologists, etc. getting increased exposure and mentioned on national T.V. that the notion of them all "being in agreement" about climate change was bogus.

Then suddenly OVER NIGHT the internet changed it's tune.

Wth, web? Sadcryface2

I'm not saying that climate change and genetic modification are in the same arena. I'm just saying that I find the situations similar because everyone was claiming the science was on their side...without actually citing any reasons for thinking so. They were just repeating what they had been told without questioning it, which is what they accuse non-skeptical sheeple of doing. It's hypocritical and mind numbing! Stahp doing it!

Actually, you can go to any accredited scientific journal database that offers a search function, and you will find a roughly equal percentage of positive and negative studies involving GMOs in the environment, and by human ingestion. The earlier ones start at about 2006ish, so they are all recent enough. There is even a special list that gets passed around by skeptics who claim it to be all neutrally funded positive studies, but when you click on the individual studies to check them out yourself, there is actually an equal amount that speak of either ill effects or no change whatsoever over non GMOs. And two of the studies of the first six I couldn't even verify for certain where the funding was really from. So I seriously don't understand why they are sharing it and claiming it to be proof of their claim when 99% of them obviously haven't even read the studies contained therein.

Ok, I need to stop rambling now. Sorry. Nobody except my professors will even let me talk about this without whining, so I always go overboard once I get started. Tongue

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 06:59 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 06:49 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  First of all, I'm going to mention that I can't comment on the specific article the op linked. The url bar goes to something on a "grain.org" but then only loads a white page with no words or pictures. Is it a site that is disable for the US, or is something just wrong with my browser? Or has it been deleted?

(08-07-2014 04:02 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I mean all genetics can be modified by artificial selection, so it could just be that bigger animals and plants were selected to breed.

Actually, there is a big difference between a species containing genes through natural or artificial selection vs. removing specific genes from an entirely different species and splicing it. When people bring up domesticated dogs and/or cruciferous vegetables and claim those situations are somehow similar to modern genetic modification, it's really just a red herring (and a decidedly bad argument.) All of the genes that an organism inherently possesses are there "for a reason." That DNA "belongs" to their species, and even the junk DNA and non-coding DNA belongs to their unique evolutionary pathway.

Considering humans have known about DNA for less than 60 years, I think it's actually pretty arrogant to assume we know enough about genetics to reconfigure organisms that then breed indefinitely once we've unleashed them. Semantics aside, it seriously is just arrogant. And I obviously LOVE science!

Hopefully they turn out to be just fine (like vaccines) and not horrible for our health (like trans fats.) I'm actually going to school to get an Agriculture degree, but I've already accepted that people on the internet are going to argue me to death about this. I don't know why I bother anymore. It's almost like if you try to say anything negative about GMOs at all, people automatically assume you're a FAR left liberal hippie who spends the entire day smoking green you bought with fraudulent welfare. *sigh*

It kind of reminds me of the good ole' climate change switcheroo. Someone on the internet blogged about how "most climate scientists are in agreement that climate change is not caused by humans. Anybody who questions that is a commie bastard who hates America....and science!" without citing any actual climate scientists or sources for thinking this way. So then EVERY FUCKING BODY on the internet started parroting the idea that human induced climate change was unscientific and downright preposterous. (100% true story: I actually learned what the word preposterous means when I googled it upon reading a skeptic refer to global warming as 'preposterous' last decade. I'm not joking, even a little bit.) So then along comes Gore with his inconvenient truth, along with geologists, meteorologists, etc. getting increased exposure and mentioned on national T.V. that the notion of them all "being in agreement" about climate change was bogus.

Then suddenly OVER NIGHT the internet changed it's tune.

Wth, web? Sadcryface2

I'm not saying that climate change and genetic modification are in the same arena. I'm just saying that I find the situations similar because everyone was claiming the science was on their side...without actually citing any reasons for thinking so. They were just repeating what they had been told without questioning it, which is what they accuse non-skeptical sheeple of doing. It's hypocritical and mind numbing! Stahp doing it!

Actually, you can go to any accredited scientific journal database that offers a search function, and you will find a roughly equal percentage of positive and negative studies involving GMOs in the environment, and by human ingestion. The earlier ones start at about 2006ish, so they are all recent enough. There is even a special list that gets passed around by skeptics who claim it to be all neutrally funded positive studies, but when you click on the individual studies to check them out yourself, there is actually an equal amount that speak of either ill effects or no change whatsoever over non GMOs. And two of the studies of the first six I couldn't even verify for certain where the funding was really from. So I seriously don't understand why they are sharing it and claiming it to be proof of their claim when 99% of them obviously haven't even read the studies contained therein.

Ok, I need to stop rambling now. Sorry. Nobody except my professors will even let me talk about this without whining, so I always go overboard once I get started. Tongue

You have the sources stating GMOs are bad?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 07:14 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
Do you have the sources that state, unarguably, that they are "good?" Wink

Sorry. I couldn't resist. My real answer is:

It doesn't do any good to debate this over the internet. The last four times I got into a e-discussion like this, it went exactly the same way; Me and the other person involved kept tit-for-tatting one study at a time, and when I finally had enough and decided to walk away, the other party claimed victory anyhow. Again: just go to ANY scientific journal yourself and you will be able to see the mixed results for yourself.

Besides that, I didn't directly state that they are "bad." I said that at this point in time, there is an equal amount of good AND bad evidence present, but everyone on skeptic-based forums claims that there are only positive studies with neutral funding, even though the sources they link say something else. So I presented a few ideas I had about why they *might possibly* be a bad idea/dangerous/whatever-terminology-carries-the-least-negative-connotations-here.

At this point in time, we don't know with 100%r certainty. And all we can do is hope that the fears are unfounded, as they were with vaccines & autism.

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 07:18 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:14 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Do you have the sources that state, unarguably, that they are "good?" Wink

Sorry. I couldn't resist. My real answer is:

It doesn't do any good to debate this over the internet. The last four times I got into a e-discussion like this, it went exactly the same way; Me and the other person involved kept tit-for-tatting one study at a time, and when I finally had enough and decided to walk away, the other party claimed victory anyhow. Again: just go to ANY scientific journal yourself and you will be able to see the mixed results for yourself.

Besides that, I didn't directly state that they are "bad." I said that at this point in time, there is an equal amount of good AND bad evidence present, but everyone on skeptic-based forums claims that there are only positive studies with neutral funding, even though the sources they link say something else. So I presented a few ideas I had about why they *might possibly* be a bad idea/dangerous/whatever-terminology-carries-the-least-negative-connotations-here.

At this point in time, we don't know with 100%r certainty. And all we can do is hope that the fears are unfounded, as they were with vaccines & autism.

Actually their is one person who knows about this, but this time he decided not to show upDodgy

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 07:33 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:14 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Do you have the sources that state, unarguably, that they are "good?" Wink

Yes. It's called agriculture. Maybe you've heard of it?
Cool

(08-07-2014 07:14 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  It doesn't do any good to debate this over the internet. The last four times I got into a e-discussion like this, it went exactly the same way; Me and the other person involved kept tit-for-tatting one study at a time, and when I finally had enough and decided to walk away, the other party claimed victory anyhow. Again: just go to ANY scientific journal yourself and you will be able to see the mixed results for yourself.

Anti-GMO science is almost uniformly dogshit awful. The methodology is inadequate, the analysis is superficial, the results are cherrypicked, and the conclusions are unfounded.

(08-07-2014 07:14 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Besides that, I didn't directly state that they are "bad." I said that at this point in time, there is an equal amount of good AND bad evidence present, but everyone on skeptic-based forums claims that there are only positive studies with neutral funding, even though the sources they link say something else. So I presented a few ideas I had about why they *might possibly* be a bad idea/dangerous/whatever-terminology-carries-the-least-negative-connotations-here.

... that's still false equivalence.
(and the reason there are not more articles saying "gee, turns out GMOs aren't bad after all" is the same reason there aren't lots of articles saying "gee, looks like gravity's still a thing")

To say they (define "they" - can one define GMO in such a way as to preclude human artificial selection?) are bad (define bad) requires one to propose a plausible mechanism for any putative badness.

That is to say, one must be able to state, very clearly, what they are talking about, and say, very clearly why the specific differences might have an adverse effect, by what means and under what circumstances.

In your earlier post you alluded to transgenic modification. That, at least, is a reasonable distinction to draw. One still lacks - utterly - a plausible mechanism for adverse effects.
(for example - can one establish that any such changes are not in principle possible through random mutation? of course not, and that's before considering viral transmission; being unlikely does not here matter, if the point is to demonstrate how it is most certainly not a difference in kind...)

(08-07-2014 07:14 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  At this point in time, we don't know with 100%r certainty. And all we can do is hope that the fears are unfounded, as they were with vaccines & autism.

My ass we don't. Genetic modification as a process is as utterly harmless as selective breeding.

All that is then left is for one to go full conspiracy and say, "but they put bad things in it because reasons rabble rabble monsanto rabble reptiloids", but, that's quite a different claim.
(I stress that you are not making it; there are those who do, and they are idiots)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
08-07-2014, 07:34 PM
RE: I found this neat article on GMOs
(08-07-2014 07:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 07:14 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Do you have the sources that state, unarguably, that they are "good?" Wink

Yes. It's called agriculture. Maybe you've heard of it?
Cool

(08-07-2014 07:14 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  It doesn't do any good to debate this over the internet. The last four times I got into a e-discussion like this, it went exactly the same way; Me and the other person involved kept tit-for-tatting one study at a time, and when I finally had enough and decided to walk away, the other party claimed victory anyhow. Again: just go to ANY scientific journal yourself and you will be able to see the mixed results for yourself.

Anti-GMO science is almost uniformly dogshit awful. The methodology is inadequate, the analysis is superficial, the results are cherrypicked, and the conclusions are unfounded.

(08-07-2014 07:14 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Besides that, I didn't directly state that they are "bad." I said that at this point in time, there is an equal amount of good AND bad evidence present, but everyone on skeptic-based forums claims that there are only positive studies with neutral funding, even though the sources they link say something else. So I presented a few ideas I had about why they *might possibly* be a bad idea/dangerous/whatever-terminology-carries-the-least-negative-connotations-here.

... that's still false equivalence.
(and the reason there are not more articles saying "gee, turns out GMOs aren't bad after all" is the same reason there aren't lots of articles saying "gee, looks like gravity's still a thing")

To say they (define "they" - can one define GMO in such a way as to preclude human artificial selection?) are bad (define bad) requires one to propose a plausible mechanism for any putative badness.

That is to say, one must be able to state, very clearly, what they are talking about, and say, very clearly why the specific differences might have an adverse effect, by what means and under what circumstances.

In your earlier post you alluded to transgenic modification. That, at least, is a reasonable distinction to draw. One still lacks - utterly - a plausible mechanism for adverse effects.
(for example - can one establish that any such changes are not in principle possible through random mutation? of course not, and that's before considering viral transmission; being unlikely does not here matter, if the point is to demonstrate how it is most certainly not a difference in kind...)

(08-07-2014 07:14 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  At this point in time, we don't know with 100%r certainty. And all we can do is hope that the fears are unfounded, as they were with vaccines & autism.

My ass we don't. Genetic modification as a process is as utterly harmless as selective breeding.

All that is then left is for one to go full conspiracy and say, "but they put bad things in it because reasons rabble rabble monsanto rabble reptiloids", but, that's quite a different claim.
(I stress that you are not making it; there are those who do, and they are idiots)

Bout god damn time you showed up. Have any sources that show GMOs are good?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: