20 Jun 13
7 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
No no, you must label it, people have the right to pick what they eat, Some people don't want additives , GM , gluten even they need that right, when you have x million folks some will have serious allergies to things or simply not want them.
I'm picky about additives - eg sodium benzoate. But If I like a drink with it in I'll buy it, but I won't make it ...[text shortened]... wouldn't go to a supermarket that didn't label its food, but that won't happen in the UK
Some people don't want additives , GM ….
Well, label or no label, they have no choice because ALL food has been GM! -by evolution! (if not by selective breading as well).
So what do do your propose to do about that? perhaps label ALL foods with the scary warning sign that would get any ignorant GM-paranoid squeamish consumer concerned with:
DANGER!
THIS FOOD HAS BEEN GENETICALLY MODIFIED BY EVOLUTION!
HANDLE WITH EXTREME CAUTION!
and then have mass global protests and riots from all these millions of outraged ignorant GM-paranoid squeamish consumers to put a stop to this total outrage of evolution genetically modifying all our foods?
20 Jun 13
Originally posted by e4chrisI'm fine with producers labeling their food, but it certainly shouldn't be mandatory by law unless there is a health risk, which there is not.
No no, you must label it, people have the right to pick what they eat, Some people don't want additives , GM , gluten even they need that right, when you have x million folks some will have serious allergies to things or simply not want them.
I'm picky about additives - eg sodium benzoate. But If I like a drink with it in I'll buy it, but I won't make it ...[text shortened]... wouldn't go to a supermarket that didn't label its food, but that won't happen in the UK
20 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyStill, GM is not as dangerous as dihydrogen monoxide.Some people don't want additives , GM ….
Well, label or no label, they have no choice because ALL food has been GM! -by evolution! (if not by selective breading as well).
So what do do your propose to do about that? perhaps label ALL foods with the scary warning sign that would get any ignorant GM-paranoid squeamish consumer concerned wit ...[text shortened]... consumers to put a stop to this total outrage of evolution genetically modifying all our foods?
20 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLOL. 😀
Still, GM is not as dangerous as dihydrogen monoxide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
That is a real classic! I love it!
With environmentalist language, they actually persuaded members of the public to ban water!!!
It just shows the irrationality of public opinion when it comes to environmentalism.
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraGMO crops can cross pollinate with non-GMO crops. Corn has already been contaminated in most of Mexico where many non-hybrid strains are from. Wheat has been contaminated in the USA and an entire shipment of wheat had to be sent back from South Korea. Shipments are now suspended pending an investigation.
What are the dangers specifically?
There is good reason to distrust Monsanto. They were supplying agent orange during the Vietnam war. Monsanto also produced PCBs and rBST (growth hormones used in the dairy industry).
http://www.eatnakedblog.com/2013/04/ddt-is-good-for-me-monsanto-gmos-and-ddt/
There is plenty more scandal with Monsanto. All you have to do is watch this documentary instead of convincing yourself Monsanto can be trusted.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/
23 Jun 13
A 2012 review of more than 24 long-term animal feeding studies conducted by public research laboratories, concluded that none of these studies discovered any safety problem linked to long-term consumption of GM food.[71] A 2009 review by Javier Magaña-Gómez found that although most studies concluded that GM foods do not differ in nutrition or cause any detectable toxic effects in animals, some studies did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by some GM foods, concluding that "More scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any form of health problem".[72] A review published in 2009 by Dona and Arvanitoyannis concluded that "results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters".[73][74] However responses to this review in 2009 and 2010 note that the Dona and Arvanitoyannis concentrated on articles with an anti-GM bias that have been refuted by scientists in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere - for example the 35S promoter, stability of transgenes, antibiotic marker genes and the claims for toxic effects of GM foods.[75][76][77] Gerhard Flachowsky concluded in a 2005 review that the current GM food with only a single gene modification are similar in nutrition and safety to non-GM foods, but noted that food with multiple gene modifications would be more difficult to test, and would require further animal studies.[61] A 2004 review of animal feeding trials by Aumaitre et al. found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants.[78]
Source: Wikipedia
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWho funded those studies?A 2012 review of more than 24 long-term animal feeding studies conducted by public research laboratories, concluded that none of these studies discovered any safety problem linked to long-term consumption of GM food.[71] A 2009 review by Javier Magaña-Gómez found that although most studies concluded that GM foods do not differ in nutrition or cau ...[text shortened]... differences among animals eating genetically modified plants.[78]
Source: Wikipedia
Thierry Vrain claims that Monsanto itself funded some. If Darth Vader funded a study on the Empire and is was determined that it was a kinder and gentler empire would that satisfy you?
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe references are here:
What references?
Your timeline seems to be going in reverse through time with regards to pro Monsanto studies. I tend to think of that as highly suspect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Animal_feeding_studies
I'm not sure how you concluded that all of them are "pro-Monsanto". I didn't check the affiliations of the authors, but while I don't hold peer-reviewed research in the environmental and health sciences in particularly high regard I still prefer it over some obscure hysterical website.
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainTypically it's drugs companies who fund the clinical trials of their drugs. It doesn't mean that the drugs you take are ineffective. The studies are probably fine, provided they followed the correct protocols and so forth. In this case it's perfectly natural for Monsanto to fund animal trials on whatever it's products are. The problems with GM are less likely to do with direct health food effects, and more to do with ripping off farmers (who become locked into buying GM seeds) and migration of GM genes into a wild population - and it's the latter case where the totally uncontrolled risks are.
Who funded those studies?
Thierry Vrain claims that Monsanto itself funded some. If Darth Vader funded a study on the Empire and is was determined that it was a kinder and gentler empire would that satisfy you?
24 Jun 13
10 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI agree with most of what you say before this last point you make here:
Typically it's drugs companies who fund the clinical trials of their drugs. It doesn't mean that the drugs you take are ineffective. The studies are probably fine, provided they followed the correct protocols and so forth. In this case it's perfectly natural for Monsanto to fund animal trials on whatever it's products are. The problems with GM are le ...[text shortened]... into a wild population - and it's the latter case where the totally uncontrolled risks are.
...and migration of GM genes into a wild population - and it's the latter case where the totally uncontrolled risks are.
there is virtually no danger whatsoever of significant harm coming from migration of GM genes into a wild population.
For starters, genes from a crop can only migrate to a wild population of plants if the two species of plants are pretty closely related.
For example, a gene in a pea crop may, via cross pollination, migrate to a wild pea population. But, because of various biological barriers, it couldn't migrate to the vast majority of other species such as dandelions or chickweed etc. This massively restricts how often the gene can migrate between species and to which species.
Also, all crops, whether from a so called “GM” crop or not, ARE genetically engineered! If not by selective breading then certainly from evolution! So you could ague that, in that sense, ALL genes are GM genes! And genes often do migrate between a crop and a closely related wild plant and this has been going on for thousands if not millions of years! And yet we still haven't seen any evidence of some terrible disaster happening or some kind of significant harm as a result of this! And a man made GM gene is not necessarily fundamentally different or more 'dangerous' than that of a natural wild gene.
We can make a gene that makes a pea crop resistant to, say, a strain of mildew and then put that gene in a pea crop. That would make that pea crop a “GM” pea crop. That gene would not be fundamentally different from genes for mildew resistance that already exist in wild plants -it would be made of exactly the same natural DNA bases, just sequenced in a different order. It might even be identical or very similar to a gene that already exists in the wild. Now, what is the 'risk' of such a gene being in such a GM crop? It cannot migrate to most other plant species but, lets say it migrates to a wild pea population. So how would that be a “risk”? What harm would such a GM gene do when all it could do is make a wild pea population resistant to a strain of mildew?
Of course, not all man-made GM genes are for mildew resistance, but the point I am making here is that, just because a gene is man-made, it doesn't mean it must be potentially harmful if put into a crop EVEN if it can migrate to a closely related species. And, in most cases, there is no risk of harm if the gene does migrate. And in the few cases were there is a risk of harm, such as when the GM gene is for resistance to a herbicide and there is a weed closely related to the crop which may obtain that gene if it was put in that crop, we can simply decide if that risk is worth taking for the benefits and, if not, simply don't take that particular specific risk with that gene but without banning ALL GM because that would just be stupid, but, if we decide the risk is worth taking, manage that risk. We could take measures to minimize the risk by, for example, keep switching the herbicide by alternating the crops. And, even if the worst happens and the wild weed becomes herbicide resistant (which it may do eventually even without that GM gene), that would simply mean we would have to switch herbicides or resort to more traditional weed control methods such as hoeing -big deal! -it may even create jobs!
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIf the genes in question had been arrived at via selective breading, would any of these problems be different? If not, then this has nothing to do with the crop being GM. If yes, then what would the differences be?
The problems with GM are less likely to do with direct health food effects, and more to do with ripping off farmers (who become locked into buying GM seeds) and migration of GM genes into a wild population - and it's the latter case where the totally uncontrolled risks are.
Is it possibly a legal issue where Monsanto can patent genes that it creates via GM but not via selective breeding? Is this the case?
24 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
If the genes in question had been arrived at via selective breading, would any of these problems be different? If not, then this has nothing to do with the crop being GM. If yes, then what would the differences be?
Is it possibly a legal issue where Monsanto can patent genes that it creates via GM but not via selective breeding? Is this the case?
If the genes in question had been arrived at via selective breading, would any of these problems be different? If not, then this has nothing to do with the crop being GM. If yes, then what would the differences be?
Brilliant questions! -Exposes the common irrational GM-paranoia for what it is.