If GMOs are so good for you..

this is why I won't eat them - attempting to stay clear of glyphosate, not that I can be totally clear I live in an ag area so it is in the air we breathe and our water even.

I really doubt it is actually the gene splicing that makes them dangerous just the chemicals - of course without the chemicals we would not NEED gene splicing

 

http://articles.***********/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/06/genetic-modification.aspx

 

Hey mane, I'm on your side of the debate but it is debatable. I guess I should have said conclusive rather than solid.

 

Come again?

 

I mean I have not seen convincing evidence that GMO is bad for you, but my intuition tells me they are going to find something bad in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Just because you haven't seen any evidence does not mean none exists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FkY8tKS1uo"]The Alarming Truths About GMOs - YouTube

 

There was a massive GMO study in india that showed alarming rates of cancer in rats, but the company that did the study was bought up by certain powerful entities and the results were covered up. Also there is no statistic proving GMO crops out-produce traditional organic farming, in fact quite the opposite.

 

There was a study in 2012 in France that linked gmos to high rates of tumors but it was recently retracted because the breed of rats they used are already prone to high tumor rates. They were also putting round up in the rats water so, like I mentioned, it makes it tough to discern if round up or actual genetic modification was responsible.

Genetic modification can also mean a number of things so for any study to be credible and 100 % conclusive it would have to identify the exact factor leading to higher rates of cancer. Some genetic modification is simply speeding up the process of natural selection. I doubt this is harmful, but I am very suspicious of inserting proteins and viruses into the genetic code of a plant to make the plant resistant to pests.

Genetic modification also causes a number of non health related problems I find equally concerning.

 

Because I don't need to. Anti gmo people post enough useless b.s. to discredit themselves all on their own.

 

\

It was easy to find.

https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/24176/
GM IR corn (targeting corn boring pests) 2011
Country Areaoftrait Yield%
US 22,330 +7
Canada 841 +7
Argentina 3,250 +5.5
Philippines 557 +18
Spain 97 +12.6
Uruguay 98 +5.5
Honduras 30 +24
Portugal 7 +12.5
Brazil 8,681 +20.1
Colombia 52 +22

I could post many more articles on yield and safety, But I suspect it wouldn't be productive. If you believe that any evidence counter to your view is a conspiracy, I will not change your mind. Discussions like these put me in a position where I'm expected to support all of Monsanto's actions which I do not. I support labeling, and don't support their litigation.

Genetics is a field with innovations going on which will likely change the world as much as the internet within the next 30 years, and you're likely going to benefit from the advantages in nutrition and healthcare that it will bring regardless of your stance.

 

Why so sassy? I guess I won't waste any of my time posting articles to the contrary as I suspect it wouldn't be productive.

Pffft, I'll believe it when I see it. What changes and who benefits being the main concern. Investors aren't backing this kind of research out of the goodness of their hearts to benefit mankind, they are doing it for maximum return.

 

As soon as people realize that the citizens of this country are now not much more than objects with money/labor to be taken by ANY WAY POSSIBLE---clarity may cause some changes in our favor. Doubt it, actually. Compliance is very popular.


( I must admit, it's rare to misspell is!)

 

I've read your questions, and I'm wondering why you would prefer to have those questions answered before you look into if it is ' remotely good to digest'.
Why not look at 'the science' first?
I can't figure out if you are opposed to GM and are asking unanswerable questions (to those opposed to its satisfaction) or genuinely on the fence.
I presume you are only eating organic food at the moment - while you decide.

I think their website explains the reason.

We agree with the AMA and support FDA’s guidance on labeling food products containing GM ingredients. We oppose mandatory labeling of food and ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks, as it could be interpreted as a warning or imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.

(Imho, the reason advocacy groups (such as Greenpeace) want GM labeling is to slap some sort of subconscious 'warning' labels on food.
The vast majority of people, at this point, opposed to GM are not going to rest at just labeling, but a ban.
They have no intentions on 'looking at the science' any more than they already have, and have no intention of eating GM food, anyway.
Imho, consumers have a choice: Organic. Everything else.)

FDA allows food manufacturers the choice to voluntarily label their products noting certain attributes or production methods (e.g., organic) provided the label is truthful and not misleading. We support this approach. Food companies are in the best position to determine what type of information meets the needs and desires of their customers.

Position Statements and Reports

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/food-labeling.aspx

I don't think labels would 'inform' but confuse.

I doubt Monsanto, on it's own, contributes 'billions' or 'billions' are spent on lobbying (unless you are talking since year 1) ...
I think (if we are being Americentric) The Grocery Manufacturers of America 'contribute' millions to lobby government - which I think they have a right to do, but perhaps not at the level of money involved.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...ers-reject-washington-gmo-labeling-initiative
No on 522 campaign
http://preview.tinyurl.com/q2j675r
However, it should not be discounted the level of free emotional lobbying groups such as Greenpeace can use toward 'the government' and, more importantly, the general public, and how much those opposed spend on lobbying themselves.
And lets not forget the level of opposition from the mainstream media (e.g http://preview.tinyurl.com/nuyjswn )

Is a year the amount of time you consider a total GM diet would take to see if it was 'safe' or 'unsafe'?

 

To be fair, perhaps instead of looking into the distant future perhaps look at the the past where there is tangible evidence one way or another.
For an easy e.g look at the electronics industry, while it can not be denied there are clear financial benefits for producing better products - the outcome is still that 'mankind' has benefited.

 

Why should anyone believe what the FDA says when there is a revolving door between the FDA and corporations like Monsanto?

 

I think 'revolving door' is a slight exaggeration.
But It's not just the FDA.
Also, as far as I am aware, the FDA are not saying do NOT put any labels on food.
If Monsanto (and the food industry as a whole) had such influence, that is what I presume they would have happen.

It would be interesting to know the percentage of packaged food that did have labels (either GM or organic) on them.

 

Yeah, we can't have people making their own informed decisions. If a big corporation says their products are safe, they must be, and who dare question it?

You are fucking ridiculous! Are you really that fucking brainwashed by the system?

 

Exaggeration? Jesus Christ, you sound you're a fucking lobbyist yourself.

Of course it's "not just the FDA."

 

Away from America:

Aleast 21 countries and the European Union have established some form of mandatory labeling (Gruere and Rao, 2007; Phillips and McNeill, 2000).

Obviously Monsanto don't care about aleast 21 countries and the European Union.

 

I wondered when you would throw that in.

I did find an article entitled 'The Amazing Revolving Door - Monsanto, FDA & EPA' on Rense.
I'm sure you have read it, and maybe even basing your opinion on that.
But it was relating to nearly twenty years ago.

edit: some unarguable, some tenuos: http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm

Have you any e.g's of this 'revolving door' from the last 3-5 years?

I wondered when you would throw that in.

Food nutritional labels are confusing already, an additional label wouldn't make it any easier to be 'informed', imho.
I'm not opposed to having a GM label on food, but what's the real point?
If we are to believe Greenpeace and others the majority of processed food has some GM traces in it - especially in the U.S
So like I said: Organic. Everything else.

Where have I mentioned anything about the 'safety' ?
I've purposely avoided mentioning anything about that.
I do agree with them with regards to giving the manufacturer the choice.