It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tigershark1988
It is my personal opinion that not enough research has been done in regard to long term effects on human beings
Not necessarily. But the fact that the research cited in the letter is very obsolete indicates that their opinions (which would seem to be based on that research) as stated in the letter are also obsolete. Like I said, I wonder if they all hold that same opinion now, 13 years later. Maybe the lack of evidence of harm in that period of time has changed some of their minds.
So I guess since 800 scientists is the minority, that means they are wrong? Pretty weak argument there.
Where have I made any "excuses" for Monsanto. Where have I made any "excuses" for GMOs?
Why am I not surprised that you have joined this thread and are making excuses for Monsanto and GMO's?
Seems like to me that you assume their opinions have changed, since you call the letter "obsolete" and all.
You may find me correcting falsehoods and trying to clarify some claims. I guess you have a different definition for "excuses".
Check any thread calling GMO's unhealthy or dangerous and you'll see your excuses.
Yes, a 5 year moratorium. That was 13 years ago.
The main focus of the letter was to halt or slow down GMO production in order for studies to be conducted on them.
You don't think that research which has been done over that 13 years might have changed their opinions?
IF these scientists still have the same opinion as they did back then, the main focus of the letter is far from "obsolete" as you imply.
Yes. It's called critical thinking. You should try it some time. Or are you afraid you might see things differently if you do? en.wikipedia.org...
Seems to me like you argue against yourself a lot of the time.
What falsehoods on labeling? Are you going to repeat everything we talked about in that other thread? Why not at least try to stay on the topic, which is the obsolete letter.
You don't seem to have any problem defending Monsanto's falsehoods on why GMO's shouldn't be labeled, so it seems you have set a double standard.
That would be because his argument seemed to be hypothetical. Or can you point out a rat experiment in which the outcome and conclusions were something like what he suggested?
I like how you left out your response to xploder's rat argument