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

Originally posted by s4196606
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.

As some people have pointed out (on other message forums, I think),a large scale experiment has been carried out for some years now.

The vast majority of GMO foods are grown and used in the USA. Whereas most other places (such as Europe) are essentially GMO free.

So, on the basis of all these millions of people eating one or the other, then the hypothesis is this:
If GMO foods are harmful, then we should expect to see diseases that are found ONLY in American citizens, and that those studies can be taken further to isolate diet as the difference within the American population.
But we dont.

All you have to do is look at the rise in cancer rates. It's increasing by the scores. Pancrreatic, breast and prostate. Young as well.

reply to post by StoutBroux


Thats not just localised to America. And cancer is a complicated disease, has many potential environmental factors related to it

Listen . . . there have been plenty of studies on the harmful effects of GMO crops, along with the death genetics placed into plants to kill monarch butterflies and honey bees. The pollen drift from these plants is in and of itself harmful, in that it has contaminated and eliminated conventional food plants in this world.

As for these genetics yielding more than conventional seeds, is absolutely false, these products are have increased the size of agricultural operations which are ran by "slob farmers" who care little about the contamination of the environment.

I have never used poisons on my farm in 45 years of farming and at one time I was a large farming operation and owned of my land. Only "slob farmers" trying to farm the world here in Iowa, have fallen for the Madison Avenue rhetoric promoting GMO seeds. Next year RR1 goes off patent, then soybeans and seed corn carrying that trait can be held back by farmers and avoid the $60 per 140,000 seed soybean purchase price (plant population per acre), and the $350 a bag for 80,000 seeds (which plants a little over 2 acres of corn per acre).

Right now . . . seed dealers have notified farmers that RR1 seed will no longer be available in 2014, I did pick up 45 bu. of RR1 seed beans this year to provide seed stock for 2015. With the price of soybeans being $12 a bu. and raised by the farmer himself, one can save $48 an acre, on a 2,000 acre farming operation in Iowa, that is enough to pay for a year at Harvard. Adios Amigos. John

reply to post by Faust100f


Sadly because most of the corn and soy beans plus derivatives are mostly GMOs for mass production I only buy corn by local farmers that are organic growers.

The rest is embedded in any processed food you buy in the stores, so no processed food for me and neither can, unless is from reliable organic manufacturers.

It takes time and effort to go into the grocery stores and spot the GMOs crap on the food you buy but is worth it specially if you know the companies that uses them and if you can trust your local organic markets.

reply to post by CosmicQuest


I appreciate your effort, but I want the actual report...not some review of the report.

why does anyone trust what a corporation says. they say what they do to enhance profits, that's it. they "do the right thing" only when it is forced on them. take a look how they treat people in third world countries when freed from government regulation. they have no ethics, no moral responsibility, no compassion, until forced to do so.

Originally posted by s4196606
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.

I agree with you, in terms of a small sample not being good enough to provide 'concrete' proof.

But when you have GMO, which is essentially still in its testing phase on mankind (20 years or so), if small sample research is indicating there could be health problems, then I would recommend avoiding GMO until more research comes out.

Eating GMO assuming it is safe based on the fact that the research out there is undermined because it only has small samples is a crazy attitude when you step back and think about it.

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

I agree with you, in terms of a small sample not being good enough to provide 'concrete' proof.

But when you have GMO, which is essentially still in its testing phase on mankind (20 years or so), if small sample research is indicating there could be health problems, then I would recommend avoiding GMO until more research comes out.

Eating GMO assuming it is safe based on the fact that the research out there is undermined because it only has small samples is a crazy attitude when you step back and think about it.

Replace GMO with cellphones....and it is equally applicable, actually more so, I still haven't seen any studies done involving humans with GM(I will double check to see if anyone provided a link to my previous mention of this)...but with cellphones, you kind of have to use humans.

Yep double checked...still no studies indicating ill effects in humans....
and most of the ones involving animals are very suspect.

You need to understand there are many with moral objections to GM stuff, so they will say whatever they can to get more people on their side. The science doesn't matter to these people.

reply to post by totallackey


Here are somearticles about actual testing.
______beforeitsnews/health/2013/06/hard-hitting-report-pigs-fed-gm-diet-experience-significant-health-problems-photos-2493508.html

www.iol.co.za...

If YOU want to go ahead and consciously eat GMO things after reading this or still think they are SAFE...Good luck to you. There are many places around the world if you only look that have shown what GMO foods do to livestock over time.

If they weren't bad they would be labeling foods that were GM. BUT THEY DON'T, so there's clearly a darker side to the story. If you guys want to keep letting so-called "professionals" or studies tell you what's safe to eat and what isn't, go ahead but I know for a fact that if they don't want to let us know exactly what the # we're eating it's safe to assume that it's not healthy. Besides, this isn't about poisoning us but rather gaining control of what we can eat.

reply to post by Opportunia

Here are somearticles about actual testing.

Actual testing of what exactly? The way that experiment was conducted there is no way to know what caused the differences. The way the results were analyzed it's impossible to tell if natural variation between animals was accounted for.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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...

Meanwhile, the studies "concluding" GMOs are safe are full of words like "have not been proven to be damaging" and the like. I think a food that is engineered to CONTAIN pesticide speaks for itself.

Originally posted by ObservingYou

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by ObservingYou

 

And to gain the same nurishment we would have from cabbages 100 years ago - we'd have to eat 50 times more!!

I would like to see some supporting documentation for this statement.

I saw it on a news peice - get researching!

I don't know about cabbages, but certainly a lot of the food we eat is not nearly as nutrients dense as it was 100 years ago. Almost every single food has been altered to fit the needs of those manufacturing it. Tomatoes are picked while still green so that they can ripen them later, otherwise, after transportation, the tomatoes will have gone bad. But doing this, and then ripening them artificially leaves at least 40% of the taste and nutrition that would have been delivered by the vine if they'd let it ripen.

All wheat has been bred (not genetically modified as in this thread) to contain more gluten than ever, again, because the processing methods call for it. And we have a ton of gluten intolerance.

Go buy a farm fresh egg raised by a chicken without antibiotics, allowed to roam, eat worms, etc., and then crack open a store bought egg. The difference might astound you. The former has a yolk that is ORANGE, not pale yellow. Instead of saying, "Hey we're treating these chickens like crap, maybe that's why they have salmonella," they put a band aid on it and give them antibiotics. It goes on and on, example after example of how food has been altered for the large manufacturers.

I think GMO is just the last straw for a lot of people, provable studies not withstanding. It's like the whole issue just stands for "enough is enough." Whether anyone can prove it's bad or not, it's pretty normal for most people to not like the idea of injecting a fish gene into a tomato. That's where the :"Franken" word comes from - and why shouldn't it? It's WEIRD.

Nothing science has done yet has ended up being that great - MOST of it has had unforeseen consequences. Why should people think this is any different?

Here's an interesting STUDY

But before whoever goes through it and finds whatever flaws they think it has, remember this: I'm pretty sure if you took that intellect you use to discover the flaws in all these studies, and pointed it at the studies and methods of GMOs and their makers, you would definitely come up with the same weak links, inconsequential correlations etc., etc. This has to be remembered because it's glaringly true. Anyone who bothers to study the methods they've used, or look at the studies they've conducted (and that right there is supposed to be a red flag, THEIR OWN studies) will find many problems there too. In fact, there are many people and groups who have pointed them out.

So deconstructing any evidence doesn't really cut it in my book. It's still evidence and is no weaker than the "evidence" pro GMO.

Originally posted by Ghost375
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.

Again, I can only say, they've never proven to be safe either. There's also the propaganda that safety of GMOs has been established. I have never seen any studies proving they are. Many countries in the world have banned them. They don't make these kinds of decisions on a whim.

After all this time, who is stupid enough to trust or at least not question the US government?

And the main purveyor of GMOs, Monsanto, who created DDT and at the time ran ads that said it was safe for children, who were later sued over DDT,and the same scenario with their Agent Orange.

I'd say it's pretty silly of any thinking logical person to say, "Okay, sure, Monsanto say GMOs are cool. I'm up for that." I realize that a lot of pro GMO people are simply not wanting to impede scientific advancement, etc. But to not even question this, seems to be that there's a correlation somewhere in your heads that is being blocked by your pro science leanings.

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

An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops

Health Hazards of GM foods

Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods

50 Harmful Effects of GM Foods

Pigs fed GM grain suffer health problems, study says

Tests on rats suggest genetically modified foods pose health hazards

Edit :

Health risks of genetically modified foods

The Very Real Danger of Genetically Modified Foods

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

Why genetically engineered food is dangerous : New report by genetic engineers

Genetically Modified Foods Unsafe? Evidence that Links GM Foods to Allergic Responses Mounts

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Well , Massive Honey Bee Dieoffs around the World where GM Crops are believed to be Planted is one Indicator that they are Poison to the Natural Enviorment of our Planet .

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Monsanto paid a fortune getting various media outlets to print nonsense about organics not being better for you .
Then they buy out and pay to cover up any studies proving gmos and round up are killing us and the bees.
Then our government protects them .

reply to post by Phage


This would mean all animal testing is invalid . There's alleged natural variation in animal in all testing according to Monsanto's whining about results that don't back their own ,so if its not good enough to draw conclusions here ,its not good enough to draw conclusions for any other tests ,in the history of animal testing .
That's a lol of an argument if ever there was one .