"If GM crops are bad, show us the evidence"- UK 'Independent'

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 

I see.

So it's not the processing of the food that's bad. It's because there are GM products in them.
Doesn't matter how much fat you consume if you're soaking organic products in it.
Got it.
edit on 6/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Um overprocessing foods is one problem, sterilizing nutrients, pasteurization, etc. This all harms food. GMO is another monster on the list. From soil depletion, to chemicals used in food production, to overprocessing and sterilizing food, to GMO, we are being harmed.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ScorchedFire
 





If you do a quick Google search on the issue then you'll have your answer.. Here's one article for example: Link Can't show more because I'm on a mobile.


Thanks. It would seem to me the statement "crops are not as nutritious as they once were," could also be attributed to soil depletion, as your article states, not GMO, since your article makes no reference to GMO...

The article also states that crops are more plentiful and larger in size...So a two pound cabbage has the same nutritional value as a one pound cabbage...



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tazdeill2
 


The burden of proof is not on the people who say GM is bad, the burden of proof is on those who say it's good, or at least not bad.


Why is it that those who say GM food is dangerous cannot come up with a reason why? Are they poisonous? No more so than many other non-GMOs. Can the genes somehow invade human bodies and cause harm? No more so than the genes from non-GMOs.

Why should GM crops be considered inherently more dangerous than any other crops?
edit on 6/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Why should your opinions be right and others wrong?
Does this post get removed too?
Am I banned?



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I've yet to see conclusive proof that GM foods harm humans....

You guys like to take it as absolute fact, but it's not.
All of the studies/articles I've seen have either been intentionally misleading, or flawed in some way.

Most of you have fallen for propaganda pieces. There are many people who have moral objections to GM food on religious grounds, so they will say whatever they can to sway your opinion.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
As totallackey said:

All I have found are studies stating the words, "possible," maybe," and, "potentially."



And the reply he got, about the Pig study was, and I quote...


indicate
preferably
similar
if the findings of this study are applicable to humans.


Much the same, really.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Done deliberately.

Soil depletion is not GMO, but even if it was, I would encourage you to start a thread demonstrating depleting the soil was a purposeful act. I understand crops can deplete the soil all by their lonesome. Are you suggesting we no longer plant crops?

I bet they hate organic aquaponics.

Hate is such a strong word. And if "they" truly hated it, I would think, based on the logic presented her, it would cease to exist. Since organic aquaponics exist, I can take that as evidence "they" do not hate it?

25% in studies isn't a "possibility". Its a huge statistical finding and very worrisome!

Well, the study you quoted states it requires further investigation...and it clearly states disease might be a possible factor. So, 25% in studies is a possibility whether you like it or not...
As far as the rest of your links, the rat experiment is a rat experiment...



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
From my interpretation of the research, it is not the actual GM food which is unhealthy. In fact, in theory it is perfectly fine. The problem is the pesticide/weed killer round-up needed for GM food. This is an extremely strong pesticide which GM food is immune to.

The biggest problem with GM food however, is not necessarily the adverse health affects (which is a massive problem itself), but rather the fact that so much power is placed into one corporation - Monsanto. Their seeds are genetically engineered to only last one planting season, upon which you have to buy more (allowing them to maximize profits). Theoretically they have higher crop yields (which is disputed now), which also means that non-GM farmers are pushed out of the market as GM crops are cheaper.

Monsanto is retarding the food market and that is what I am concerned about.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


well, the fact that gm farmers wear space suits to protect them from all the chemicals they apply, plus the genetically inserted poisons, should be enough to scare the crap out of you. polluting the air and soil, destroying biodiversity and killing bees, in preparation for gm bees, and various other lifeforms are also consequences of this calamity--not to mention the yearly tax on farmers for seeds. yeah, them frankenorganisms are awesome!



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by canucks555
Gotta go against the grain here (no pun intended)
Not worried about GM crops, HAve never seen proof that they have killed anyone.
I stay away from the topic usually.
Never effected me negatively.
Is that wrong?
edit on 13-6-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)


no, as with the rats and pigs, they will only eat your guts out, give you cancer and sterilize you (a good thing, considering your awareness level? -kidding), all while destroying the environment (or what's left of it).

eat up!



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


The problem is the pesticide/weed killer round-up needed for GM food. This is an extremely strong pesticide which GM food is immune to.
Glyphosate is not needed for GM foods but because there are glyphosate tolerant GMOs it can be used with them with less difficulty than with other crops. There are herbicides which are more dangerous than glyphosate which are used on non-GMO crops. But, in the case of corn (the largest GMO crop), the use of herbicides and pesticides has decreased since the their introduction.

Overall there has been an increase in the use of herbicides (when cotton and soy are included) but there has been a greater decrease in the use of insecticides. A net reduction of pesticides applied per acre.
www.enveurope.com...


Their seeds are genetically engineered to only last one planting season, upon which you have to buy more (allowing them to maximize profits).
That is the case with hybrid (non-GMO) seed as well. Farmers have been buying seed instead of saving them since long before there were GMO crops.

With the exception of hybrid seed firms, few compa-
nies had proprietary rights over the plant varieties
they sold as seed until the early 1970s.
Most private seed firms focused primarily on cleaning, handling,
storing, packaging, and selling seed developed in the
public domain. The 1970 PVPA, subsequent amend-
ments and rulings, and other actions strengthened
property rights by providing proprietary rights over
sexually- and tuber-propagated new plant varieties,
creating an incentive for private firms to enter the
seed market.

www.ers.usda.gov...


Monsanto is retarding the food market and that is what I am concerned about.
That is a valid concern however Monsanto is not the only source of seeds, though they are the largest.
edit on 6/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by totallackey
Is there a scientific study conclusively demonstrating GMO food is bad? I have not found one. Everything I have read contains the words, "possibly," "could," "potentially." I could potentially break a toe if I buy a certain type of shoe...


Whether it is safe to eat or not, it is the fact that these companies lobby our politicians, they have them under their control.

The seeds are patented, they are monopolising the food supply of the world, country by country. If it doesn't worry you, then at least worry for the poor bastards who will come to inhabit this world after us.


your missing the point entirely of the argument FOR GMO foods, the whole issue is weather its safe to eat or not, and the scientific data so far for the bulk of GMO crops says there is no inherant risk to health from their consumption, and why should there be.

The majority of anti GMO people are operating of the premise that the companies producing these foods are ''evil'' and that they are ''out to get us'' and that the data is skewed, which is rubbish for the majority of studies which have been through the peer review process and published in reputable journals.

the REAL issue is if they are safe to eat or not. Not who is producing them or what they cost or anything, the other issues are loss of biodiversity and genetic diversity which is a far bigger problem, although we have been selective breeding plants and animals for so long now that we have effectively bottlenecked the genetic variation of most mass produced species around the world anyway.

Also i am very concerned about the issuing of patents for genetics, that shouldnt be happening in my opinion, and we might see something happening in this area soon since the US courts banned patenting human genomes. If they cant be patented, then whats the difference between human genetics and any other genetic material from another species.

Most of the anti GMO proponents could use a healthy dose of science education, they might understand the issue better if they spent less time yelling the sky is falling and more time reading science and medical journals.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by totallackey
Is there a scientific study conclusively demonstrating GMO food is bad? I have not found one. Everything I have read contains the words, "possibly," "could," "potentially." I could potentially break a toe if I buy a certain type of shoe...


Whether it is safe to eat or not, it is the fact that these companies lobby our politicians, they have them under their control.

The seeds are patented, they are monopolising the food supply of the world, country by country. If it doesn't worry you, then at least worry for the poor bastards who will come to inhabit this world after us.


Is it safe to eat or not is what is important and because nobody has died from GM crops, and scientific evidence hasn't been provided that GM crops are harmful then until then GM crops should be regarded as a viable foodsource.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
A lot of people appear to be referencing the french GMO corn study as published in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. I've read the details of the experimental methods, and I'm appalled that it was allowed to be published in a respectable peer reviewed journal. There are many aspects of the study that are very poorly managed. Significantly, only 10 rats were used in each treatment condition. You cant develop meaningful statistical results from 10 rats. Secondly, only geriatric rats were used, there were no controls (such as younger rats, etc.). As with humans, the incidence of cancers in rats increases with age, so to base the results on this makes no sense at all. Rats are a terrible choice of laboratory animal for longitudinal studies anyway, as they have short lifespans. Essentially what the french researchers did was give a small number of rats GM food, waited two years for them to develop cancer as a result of old age, then presented this as damage caused by GM food. If they can do this again with 100s of rats with the proper controls, I'll believe the results. Until then, I'm unconvinced.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeReasonable

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by totallackey
Is there a scientific study conclusively demonstrating GMO food is bad? I have not found one. Everything I have read contains the words, "possibly," "could," "potentially." I could potentially break a toe if I buy a certain type of shoe...


Whether it is safe to eat or not, it is the fact that these companies lobby our politicians, they have them under their control.

The seeds are patented, they are monopolising the food supply of the world, country by country. If it doesn't worry you, then at least worry for the poor bastards who will come to inhabit this world after us.


your missing the point entirely of the argument FOR GMO foods, the whole issue is weather its safe to eat or not, and the scientific data so far for the bulk of GMO crops says there is no inherant risk to health from their consumption, and why should there be.

The majority of anti GMO people are operating of the premise that the companies producing these foods are ''evil'' and that they are ''out to get us'' and that the data is skewed, which is rubbish for the majority of studies which have been through the peer review process and published in reputable journals.

the REAL issue is if they are safe to eat or not. Not who is producing them or what they cost or anything, the other issues are loss of biodiversity and genetic diversity which is a far bigger problem, although we have been selective breeding plants and animals for so long now that we have effectively bottlenecked the genetic variation of most mass produced species around the world anyway.

Also i am very concerned about the issuing of patents for genetics, that shouldnt be happening in my opinion, and we might see something happening in this area soon since the US courts banned patenting human genomes. If they cant be patented, then whats the difference between human genetics and any other genetic material from another species.

Most of the anti GMO proponents could use a healthy dose of science education, they might understand the issue better if they spent less time yelling the sky is falling and more time reading science and medical journals.


1- GMO should 100% be proven safe for human consumption before being added to the food chain. The long term effects if GMO are not safe is not worth the risk. This is common sense. How anyone can disagree with this point and agree to mankind being used as test subjects for GMO is beyond me. You WILL NOT alter my view on this.

2- I think it is of incredible importance to acknowledge the dangers of allowing a few big corporations to patent the world's food supply. This is also is common sense and should scare you with its long term implications.

I'm sorry if you fail to understand what is important and the dynamics, my energy levels required to discuss stuff with ATS is wearing thin lately, my apologies.
edit on 14-6-2013 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by s4196606
A lot of people appear to be referencing the french GMO corn study as published in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. I've read the details of the experimental methods, and I'm appalled that it was allowed to be published in a respectable peer reviewed journal. There are many aspects of the study that are very poorly managed. Significantly, only 10 rats were used in each treatment condition. You cant develop meaningful statistical results from 10 rats. Secondly, only geriatric rats were used, there were no controls (such as younger rats, etc.). As with humans, the incidence of cancers in rats increases with age, so to base the results on this makes no sense at all. Rats are a terrible choice of laboratory animal for longitudinal studies anyway, as they have short lifespans. Essentially what the french researchers did was give a small number of rats GM food, waited two years for them to develop cancer as a result of old age, then presented this as damage caused by GM food. If they can do this again with 100s of rats with the proper controls, I'll believe the results. Until then, I'm unconvinced.


This is a fallacy.

If you highlight what you expect to happen and then it happens over a 10 sample, then the chances are you are onto something.

If someone points out a dice will land on 6 more often than it should, and I then roll it 10 times and get 7 6's, then even though the sample size is tiny, we have a certain dynamic that cannot be ignored.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 

In most situations, you're absolutely correct. In science, however, this does not hold. In order to have meaningful results, you need a large sample- generally, the larger, the better. Take the game yahtzee, for example. rolling 6 of the same number is incredibly unlikely. However, I dont think if played a game of yahtzee in which someone didnt, seemingly miraculously, roll 6 of the same number. What this example shows is that a lot of these things are purely down to chance. Without a large enough sample it is hard to tell what is due to chance, and what is due to the experimental variables.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 





From your second link, I entered the following:
2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn
In return, I received the following message:


Your search - 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn Learn more ... - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try fewer keywords.


Search results
Your claims are found wanting...



Here is the working Link

edit on 14-6-2013 by CosmicQuest because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicQuest
 


This "study" the link goes to is an either the worst science ever done or a complete fabrication being passed off as science to people who are too ignorant to know better. It was discussed weeks ago on ATS.

I'm 100% in agreement with the article the OP mentioned that organic food is dangerous (very dangerous in fact if you look at the recall data) and that there have been no studies which have shown GMO food is dangerous to people. There have been dozens, probably hundreds, of peer reviewed studies which have shown no difference between GMO and non-GMO food for nutrition and no ill effects in people.





top topics
 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join