There is no evidence that GMO's are bad for you.
  • Just as a general response to the latest intro's on the podcast. I love you duncan, but you got this wrong. GMO is not dangerous and it's helping feeding the world! But yea, Monsanto sucks for other obvious reasons, and if that was your only point, I'm sorry.



    Cara Santa Maria also dropped some very good knowledge about GMO on her appearence on the Joe Rogan Experience (#293)
    Post edited by Hobbito at 2013-01-08 07:52:32
  • my only concern is that there are long-term consequences that we don't know about.

    and, you should be able to not buy GMO food if you want. it needs to be labeled. that said, i eat it without concern because like you said, there is no proof it's bad for you - and it's just a protein sequence in the DNA that is changed... how could that be harmful? it's not a toxin or something... it's just a different protein sequence that you'd eat anyway if you ingested that other thing that was spliced into the corn.
    sunt lacrimae rerum
  • Hobbito said:

    Just as a general response to the latest intro's on the podcast. I love you duncan, but you got this wrong. GMO is not dangerous and it's helping feeding the world! But yea, Monsanto sucks for other obvious reasons, and if that was your only point, I'm sorry.

    Cara Santa Maria also dropped some very good knowledge about GMO on her appearence on the Joe Rogan Experience (#293)



    Cara was wrong, think for yourself, go to pubmed and search for peer reviewed science. Cara does not have a monopoly on the truth, nor does she necessarily know every study that has been done. She is a hot and intelligent woman though, so this becomes harder.

    There are, despite what she says, studies that show biologically relevant and detrimental effects. She also is ignorant to how the the conclusion that they are "safe" has come about. The GMO companies themselves conduct the studies and toxicity is based on 3-month rat studies and the FDA uses this industry-funded science. This is a HUGE conflict of interest, but is fairly typical of the regulatory environment in the US, another unrelated example is the the OCC, which is supposed to regulate banks, is funded by the banks themselves.

    - We need data over a longer time-frame, 3 months is not adequate
    - We need studies using a more relevant organism (should use primate)
    - We need impartial experimenters, too many (BIG) financial conflicts of interest as it stands with the "official FDA science"

    Anyway, here are some studies of interest:

    Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice.
    "As compared to control maize, MON810 maize induced alterations in the percentage of T and B cells and of CD4(+), CD8(+), gammadeltaT, and alphabetaT subpopulations of weaning and old mice fed for 30 or 90 days, respectively, at the gut and peripheral sites. An increase of serum IL-6, IL-13, IL-12p70, and MIP-1beta after MON810 feeding was also found."

    A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
    "Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded."

    Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide
    "In these results, we argue that modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present combined side-effects with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants"

    A controversy re-visited: Is the coccinellid Adalia bipunctata adversely affected by Bt toxins?
    "The new data corroborates earlier findings that Cry1Ab toxin increases mortality in A. bipunctata larvae."

    Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada
    Cry1Ab protein is detectable in the blood of pregnant women, their fetuses, and also in non pregnant women. Glyphosate was also detected in non pregnant women


    There are other studies as well. No, this does not "prove" GMOs are harmful to humans, but it also does not support the hypothesis that "GMOs are safe." I view with extreme skepticism any science that is provided by the industry itself, as Monsanto is fucking evil.

    I do not want to be a research subject for these experiments.
  • The problem with Monstanto is:
    5% Unsure health effects of GMO.
    20% Spreading new lifeforms into the environment uncontrolled. (That never goes wrong!)
    75% Agressive tactics to push-out 'natural' seeds and turn growing food into a toll booth. Also yknow, making farmers commit suicide on the way.

    I would be willing to bet money that in their GMO endeavors they have on the priority list to make their plant's DNA dominant over natural seeds'. So when the Monsanto pollen breeds with natural plants, they also become self-terminating seeds. Meaning that one day only Monsanto corn will exist and you'll have to buy new seeds every year because all corn will make dead-end seeds.

    That's the final vision of Monsanto, taking away the free resource of naturally reproducing seeds, and making themselves the gatekeepers of food.

    Cara Santa Maria Started off ok on the joecast, but quickly I realized she's got some serious issues. Couldn't you feel the anger in her voice? She's an insecure person that clings to science like a religion, and as such celebrates anything scientific as unquestionably good. She'd probably also sing the praises of nuclear power and say we should all get with the program and go all-nuclear.

    Careful who you take at their word. Even scientists have angry fundamentalist nuts and I smell it on her. The clue is how much ego and aggression they have towards differing opinion.
    Post edited by Higher_Ideas at 2013-01-08 09:11:04
    i - Host of Higher Ideas Podcast - Aspiring to be as awesome as the DTFH someday.
  • From what I understand the scary part of GMO's is the fact that parasites and other crop killing organisms become more resistant and essentially evolve with these GMO's to the point where normal crops stand no chance.

    Regular crops have worked since we have been here on this earth and in just a few years we are shocking the system with evolution that would take thousands upon thousands of years naturally.

    Furthermore the lawsuits surrounding it are ridiculous. If a GMO farmer starts a farm next door to you and the wind(like it is meant to do) sends seeds and impregnates your neighbor's dirt then they can sue you. Not to mention the bugs in the area now laugh at your silly weak crops and wipe you out.
    If you want to view paradise simply look around and view it.
  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    Absence of evidence of danger ≠ Proof of safety.

    In Europe the burden of proof is on the manufacturer to prove their product is safe, in America the burden is on the consumer to prove a product is dangerous. This is why GMOs are not legal in most European countries: a failure to meet their burden.
    Post edited by orgone at 2013-01-08 11:39:55
    image
  • well, to be fair, there has been testing done, even in Europe:

    "The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." - Wikipedia
    sunt lacrimae rerum
  • If we c are so much about starvation, why do we pay farmers to not grow food? The scarcity is a lie.

    How its splicing animal DNA into plant DNA considered safe?

    Monsanto created a toxic waste dump near my house growing up. They are the definition of evil and we must become politically active to destroy them by pulling their corporate charter.
  • @Hobbito

    Not going to waste an hour of my time listening to some dude with an english accent who goes against the slew of negative reports on GMOs & Monsanto I've read in the last few years since Food Inc introduced me to that wonderful sect of the world.

    Please watch Food Inc and inform yourself: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/ (couldn't find an internet version)

    Michael Pollan, educated and respected by the community, has written several books on the subject; worth your time to hear what he has to say:
    http://michaelpollan.com/books/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pollan

    Monsanto has a FUCK TON of money and power to throw around to gain more money and power. Monsanto IS our government just like big oil IS our government:


    ^^^ A Florida University professor was paid off to spew some bull shit on BP's behalf! Don't fool yourself into thinking that this isn't happening elsewhere.

    Monsanto has enough money to do whatever they please including paying people loads of money to shut up or speak about them positively. Saying Monsanto sucks is an understatement... I would say it's more like satan taking form to control the food supply, without regards to anything but profit.

    GMO = Tumors!
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26833.cfm
    http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html
    image

    Based on the things I've read about in the last four years, Monsanto is absolutely not to be trusted and GMOs are things I'd rather not have in my body.

    image
    image

    If you don"t think mega-corps like Monsanto and BP are the mind and hands under the puppets of our elected officials, yous has some eye-openin' to do.
  • @straightbananas

    You forgot this gem!
    US embassy cable recommends drawing up list of countries for 'retaliation' over opposition to genetic modification
    http://tiny.cc/ae7lqw
  • I would like to add that I am no GMO expert and perhaps there are positive things, among the bad, resulting from it.

    But...

    Is it right to release GMO animals to breed with organic animals?

    GMO mosquitos:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.
    com/2012/07/16/oxitec-mutant-mosquitoes_n_1676344.html


    GMO Salmon:
    http://www.livescience.com/25799-frankenfish-salmon-gmo.html

    What if shit goes really bad with either of these two scenarios and no one has the manual to fix the problem? *cough* Remember Deepwater BP spill, humans pushing boundary, and when shit goes wrong no one knows how to fix the problem until after after a extraordinary amount of damage has been done??
  • So...this thread is going well.

    Great stuff from everyone here, even the OP, whose questioning brought about the responses.
  • OP, that's like saying there's no evidence of cannabis having medical benefits because the government says so. Think beyond their box.
  • @Hobbito

    Not going to waste an hour of my time listening to some dude with an english accent who goes against the slew of negative reports on GMOs & Monsanto I've read in the last few years since Food Inc introduced me to that wonderful sect of the world.



    As an undecided observer, you do injustice to your cause.

    LOVE! <3
  • Love said:

    @Hobbito

    Not going to waste an hour of my time listening to some dude with an english accent who goes against the slew of negative reports on GMOs & Monsanto I've read in the last few years since Food Inc introduced me to that wonderful sect of the world.



    As an undecided observer, you do injustice to your cause.



    His cause? What I see is a man well versed with the issue, dropping some knowledge that will most likely not be addressed by anyone directly.

    When people are getting paid a lot of money to say that 2+rainbow=potato, we no longer have to examine every bit of bullshit they produce. Dismissing the arbitrary is ok. There is no synthesis solution with liars.

  • @johnsaintjohn Two studies from sources I suspect to be highly biased just by looking at their url or...

    "The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.""

    We also have that Cara girl from Rogan's podcast who said they're safe, whom I trust more than @straightbananas. Especially since the crux of his argument was fear mongering via character assassination rather than hard facts. I'm receptive to the idea that GMO foods might be dangerous if something were to go awry, but the burden of proof is on these special interest groups to generate conclusive evidence if they want to make the claim that ALL GMO's are bad; even the cisgenic ones.

    The thing with GMO's is if the technology is that experimental (which I no longer believe it is) they should probably just be using animals, since if they fuck up they're easy to dispose of and you don't need to actively worry about them spreading their genetics into the general population.
    Post edited by Love at 2013-01-09 15:38:58
    LOVE! <3
  • This all being said, it would be pretty awesome if someone would do a podcast with some expert on the topic of substantial equivalence.
    LOVE! <3
  • Heeee said:

    OP, that's like saying there's no evidence of cannabis having medical benefits because the government says so. Think beyond their box.



    Completely agree, and as I learned from @fnord, belief is the birth of ignorance.
    If you want to view paradise simply look around and view it.
  • Love said:


    I'm receptive to the idea that GMO foods might be dangerous if something were to go awry, but the burden of proof is on these special interest groups to generate conclusive evidence if they want to make the claim that ALL GMO's are bad; even the cisgenic ones.


    Your cause needs a better rep as well.

    But since you are the only one speaking for your cause, I'll ask you how many people died while tobacco companies stood behind a similar "show us proof that it is dangerous" line of bullshit?

    It is unfortunate that there are so many suckers for such a simple problem like equating absence of evidence (if indeed there is absence) with evidence of absence.
    Post edited by sherpa17 at 2013-01-09 17:53:38
  • @sherpa17 I have no cause. I'm just trying to be as best informed as possible in order to be able to make healthy life choices.

    sherpa17 said:

    I'll ask you how many people died while tobacco companies stood behind a similar "show us proof that it is dangerous" line of bullshit?



    The difference being that the tobacco industry had studies showing the harmful effects of smoke inhalation. Also, as far as I'm aware no causal mechanism for harm has been singled out by the anti-GMO crowd. There are theories, such as new proteins could be synthesized by genetic modification and introduced into our diet which could cause, for example, allergy, but as far as I'm aware of nothing as been substantiated, let alone proved. There has been no such burning bush.
    Post edited by Love at 2013-01-09 18:25:50
    LOVE! <3
  • Love said:

    @sherpa17 I have no cause. I'm just trying to be as best informed as possible in order to be able to make healthy life choices.


    Then perhaps you should look at the history of science, junk science and nutrition and stop being a sucker for induction.
  • @sherpal17 You have no proof, why should I just trust your qualifications?

    The people that study this barely have a clue.

    "This process was examined further in a 2002 review published by Harry Kuiper 2002 in the journal Toxicology. It stated that substantial equivalence does not measure risks, but instead identifies differences between existing products and new foods, which might pose dangers to health. If differences do exist, identifying these differences is a starting point for a full safety assessment, rather than an end point.[44] It concluded that "The concept of substantial equivalence is an adequate tool in order to identify safety issues related to genetically modified products that have a traditional counterpart". The review also noted difficulties in applying this standard in practice, including the fact that traditional foods contain many chemicals that have toxic or carcinogenic effects and that our existing diets therefore have not been proven to be safe. This lack of knowledge on unmodified food poses a problem, as GM foods may have differences in anti-nutrients and natural toxins that have never been identified in the original plant, raising the possibility that harmful changes could be missed.[44] The possibility also exists that positive modifications may be missed."

    All that says, is it could be bad or it could be good.

    "A survey of publications describing comparisons between the intrinsic qualities of GM and non-GM reference crop lines (comparing genomes, proteomes, and metabolomes of the plants themselves, not the plants' effects on an organism eating them) indicates that transgenic modification of crops has less impact on gene expression or on protein and metabolite levels than the variability generated by conventional breeding.[48]"

    In other words your getting more variation by natural mutations than you do via splicing genes from a different organism.

    All you people have been fighting with have been character assassinations and just the studies that came out with a negative result, which apparently flies in the face of general scientific consensus.
    Post edited by Love at 2013-01-09 18:37:53
    LOVE! <3
  • Being fair, they did find that allergic reactions have been caused by GM foods, but they were caught because of proper testing. In other words the system works.

    "The development of GM products which have been found to cause allergic reactions have been halted by the companies developing them before they were brought to market. In the early 1990s, Pioneer Hi-Bred attempted to improve the nutrition content of soybeans intended for animal feed by adding a gene from the Brazil nut. Their studies showed that the modified strain produced immune reactions in people with Brazil nut allergies[52] and Pioneer Hi-Bred discontinued further development.[53][54] In 2005, a pest-resistant field pea developed by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for use as a pasture crop was shown to cause an allergic reaction in mice.[55] Work on this variety was immediately halted. These cases of products that failed safety testing have been viewed as evidence that genetic modification can produce unexpected and dangerous changes in foods, and as evidence that the current tests are effective at identifying safety problems before foods come on the market.[8] Genetic modification can also be used to remove allergens from foods, potentially reducing the risk of food allergies.[56] A hypo-allergenic strain of soybean was tested in 2003 and shown to lack the major allergen that is found in the beans.[57] "
    Post edited by Love at 2013-01-09 18:40:34
    LOVE! <3
  • Human studies and obstacles
    While some groups and individuals have called for more human testing of GM food,[78] there are several obstacles to such studies. Both the US General Accounting Office (in a review of FDA procedures requested by Congress) and the FAO/WHO have confirmed that long term studies of the effect of GM food on humans are not feasible, for reasons including: there is no plausible hypothesis to test; very little is known about the potential long-term effects of any foods; identification of such effects is further confounded by the great variability in the way people react to foods; and epidemiological studies are not likely to differentiate the health effects of GM foods from the many undesirable effects of conventional foods.[79][80]
    Post edited by Love at 2013-01-09 18:46:49
    LOVE! <3
  • Tobacco (actually recommended by doctors at one point in time), ADHD medication, SSRIs, statins, scheduled caesarian births, ear tubes, iron supplements, lobotomies, hormone replacement, cortisone, bariatric/gastric bypass, Vioxx, Thalidomide...on and on it goes. Love and the OP would have you all be fools in a fairly simple game....all of these have been prescribed with drastic effects despite being "proven safe" or "proven effective with acceptable risk"

    If you are putting it in your body, make sure it has at least a few centuries worth of evidence of its safety.

    Love has fallen into a simple trap by claiming there is a difference between tobacco companies and companies like Monsanto et al..."The difference being that the tobacco industry had studies showing the harmful effects of smoke inhalation."

    I wonder what studies Monsanto has. Why they spend so much on lobbying and stacking the deck on K street.
    Post edited by sherpa17 at 2013-01-09 19:55:53
  • @sherpa17 ADHD medications have been effectively life saving for me. I'm glad you showed where you stand in a wider context.

    But seriously man... ear tubes, iron supplements, then cutting out peoples brain followed by what trannies do so they feel they're the proper gender...

    You should've at least ordered your list better. lol

    XD
    Post edited by Love at 2013-01-09 21:13:32
    LOVE! <3
  • this guy is super harsh, but he does a good job on describing why that Rat GMO study is malarky.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/
    sunt lacrimae rerum
  • @fnord Awesome find.
    LOVE! <3
  • As someone who does not support the "GMOs are safe hypothesis" I will tell you that that rat GMO study is bullshit. But that is one data point in the sea, and unfortunately, that one has become the paradigm to which the "GMOs are safe" supporters say "see the science doesn't support it" as if this study was the only one.

    A landmark study found 93 per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80 per cent from umbilical cords tested positive for traces of the chemicals (Bt toxins)..

    It is not known what, if any, harm this causes ..

    http://tiny.cc/6e8qqw

    If you want to take these sorts of risks, then go ahead.

    The (paid for) spokesperson says "GM ingredients have been safely consumed around the world over the past 15 years without a single substantiated health issue."

    But, it often takes multiple decades before long-term effects of these sorts of things are keyed into. For example, BPA has been used since the 60's in industry, but the science concerning its long-term effects really didn't start coming in until the mid 2000's. Now go to sciencedaily and do a little 'BPA' search
    http://tiny.cc/jv8qqw

    I'm not saying this is a perfect analogy, but I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to things like this, especially since the 'official science' is industry funded, there are huge financial conflicts of interest, and Monsanto is fucking evil


  • orgoneorgone
    I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
    type_one_ said:

    I'm not saying this is a perfect analogy, but I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to things like this, especially since the 'official science' is industry funded, there are huge financial conflicts of interest, and Monsanto is fucking evil


    Wh.... wh... what? It's like you're saying corporations don't release data when that data shows their products are harmful... It's like you're saying these multinational corporate executives don't care about the people injured by the deleterious side effects of their products!

    For shame sir, for shame. The burden is clearly on you to prove your radical hypothesis that corporations will do whatever is necessary to protect their profits, market share, image, and bottom line.
    image
  • two things

    1. GMO seeds are apparently choking out pre-existing 'natural' seeds and harming biodiversity.

    2. GMO foods generally taste like shit compared to their natural counterparts.

    Call me a sentimentalist but i like good food and nature.
    "I'm like an opening band for the sun".

    NEW for the holidays 12/24/13:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMysteryMoment
  • @orgone

    That is actually how some people think, where the onus should lie on the consumer all the way downstream, rather than upstream - fucking scary. If you try and shift the onus to the producer, you might be a) communist and/or Marxist b) terrorist c) hate America d) don't believe in the power of the free market
    Post edited by type_one_ at 2013-01-11 12:09:19
  • @type_one_

    I totally don't trust BPA. Avoid cans like the plague, but the contrarian in me hates your evidence.

    1) Daily Mail. Traces. I'm sure you could find trace level of arsenic.

    2) BPA is used in canned food. Eating more canned foods is going to directly result in more BPA in your urine.

    "Bisphenol A Exposure Linked to Increased Risk of Future Onset of Heart Disease"

    "BPA Link to Narrowing of the Arteries"

    Correlation does not equate to causality. Would it really surprise you that eating more shitty food leads to health problems. Who would've thought?

    3) Scientists understand how BPA is harmful. They know how BPA works:

    "According to Michael E. Baker, PhD, UCSD professor of medicine, and Charlie Chandsawangbhuwana, a graduate student in the UCSD Department of Bioengineering, several research labs have reported that BPA binds weakly to the estrogen receptor, suggesting that something else is interacting with this receptor.

    In 2004, Shin'ichi Yoshihara, PhD, and colleagues at Hiroshima International University, discovered that another compound, dubbed MBP, was produced when BPA was metabolized. MBP has a 100-fold to 1,000-fold stronger bond to the estrogen receptor than BPA. However, the structural basis for MBP's high affinity for the estrogen receptor was not investigated further."

    from "BPA's Real Threat May Be After It Has Metabolized: Chemical Found in Many Plastics Linked to Multiple Health Threats"
    Post edited by Love at 2013-01-11 12:54:14
    LOVE! <3
  • @love

    1) Although that was from the Daily Mail, you can go to the original study from where the information came from, it's not like the Daily Mail did the study, merely reporting on it, and it seemed to be a fair assessment based on browsing the original. With that being said, science reporting is often overly-dramatized in the media. And just because something is a "trace" doesn't mean it's biologically irrelevant.

    "Our concern with human exposure to BPA derives from 1) identification of molecular mechanisms mediating effects in human and animal tissues at very low doses.."

    2) You neglect the animal studies when you say this, BPA doesn't come from cans or any other environmental source which could serve as a confounding variable, so in these cases, it's diet-independent

    "Additional epidemiological studies are clearly warranted based on the extensive literature that now exists for adverse effects of BPA in animals at very low doses"

    "there are now over 40 published studies reporting significant effects in rats and mice at doses below the predicted safe dose of 50 μg/kg·d"

    When the animal models corroborate human evidence, the case gets stronger

    "BPA has also been reported to interact with drug- and steroid-metabolizing activity of rat (111), pig (112), and human hepatic cytochrome P450s"

    "In vitro studies indicate that this occurs via an inhibition by BPA of the androgen-synthesizing enzyme 17α-hydroxylase in both rats (117) and humans"

    3) Correlation does not equal causation, of course, but this quote is used all the time for the wrong reasons. If you look 125 studies that have been done through time, and you begin to see a similar story, it becomes increasingly probable that this correlation is valid and isn't due to statistical chance. After 125 studies, I think it can be safely said that the null hypothesis can be rejected.

    "...there are now over 125 published studies funded by government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health documenting that BPA has a wide range of significant effects including structural and neurochemical changes throughout the brain associated with behavioral changes, such as hyperactivity, learning deficits, increased aggression, and increased likelihood of drug dependency; abnormalities in sperm production in males and oocytes in females; disruption of hormone production and fertility in both males and females; immune disorders, increased growth rate; and early sexual maturation"

    Is it any coincidence that

    "the majority of published reports that our findings are not valid or reliable emanate from corporate-funded publications, 100% of which report that BPA causes no significant effects"

    Source
    http://endo.endojournals.org/content/147/6/s56.long
  • So in conclusion, we agree on BPA and disagree on GMO's in the sense that I find the evidence inconclusive at this time.

    http://tinyurl.com/4q2ohbx
    Post edited by Love at 2013-01-11 13:41:50
    LOVE! <3
  • Love said:

    So in conclusion, we agree on BPA and disagree on GMO's in the sense that I find the evidence inconclusive at this time.

    http://tinyurl.com/4q2ohbx



    Yup, I find the evidence inconclusive for GMO's too though, but two people can have this view and go opposite directions. Saying the evidence is inconclusive when it comes to this issue I think is the right answer at this time.
    Post edited by type_one_ at 2013-01-11 13:52:37
  • Apologies for posting the faulty rat study. I'll think twice before I bust out some ammo next time. Weeding out bull shit on the internet is a chore. That's why we have forums..??

    All you folks not worried about GMOs out there - go for it. The less to worry about the better.

    I'll continue supporting locally grown REAL food at farmers markets/co-ops and food from small farms as much as I can because the overall check and balance systems in our food production industry are shady at best.

    To quote a friend about to complete her UC education on sustainable farming:

    "GMO = bad for biodiversity and crop variety.
    bad for small farming.
    bad for food sovereignty
    bad for food justice issues
    bad for the environment... not so much
    bad for our health... ?? that is the real unanswered question and where the science truly is lacking."

    Genetically modified foods encourage corporate control of food supply and make it harder for small time farmers to survive. The future of such foods is unpredictable considering we are diving deeper and deeper into uncharted territories by doing things like spicing insect genes with food genes.

    The release of GMO salmon and mosquitos (legislation enacting RIGHT NOW) into the natural world is a prime example of combining our questionably beneficial technology into nature, resulting in who fucking knows. Possibly irreversible consequences....

    This is a controversial, sensitive issue that needs to be responsibly handled, NOT just overseen/regulated by the FDA which is Monsanto which is the FDA.

    image
  • orgone said:

    Absence of evidence of danger ≠ Proof of safety.

    In Europe the burden of proof is on the manufacturer to prove their product is safe, in America the burden is on the consumer to prove a product is dangerous. This is why GMOs are not legal in most European countries: a failure to meet their burden.



    /thread

    This is probably the funniest set of intromercials a podcast has ever done. Self-secreting butter corn.
  • First, to give you an idea of where I am coming from, I am wary of GMOs. However, I know enough to know that I don't really know shit about biology and agriculture outside of having grown up on a horse farm.

    A question to those of you who are anti-gmo, if there are so many problems with cross pollination how do you go about avoid gmo foods? I don't really buy that by going to a farmer's market that I am not getting GMO. First, there is nothing stopping a farmer with GMO from selling at a market or not knowing that his shit has been cross pollinated. It is possible that some traits have gone over but not the ones that stop the plant from reproducing.
    Everybody dies but not everybody lives ~ Drake
  • Just because I can't hit the bulls eye because its too dark to see, doesn't mean that I will pretend that there is no bulls eye or that some thief doesn't have his hand on the dimmer switch.

    Or maybe. I can't jump this barb wired fence around this pasture, but I'm not going to wear a damn saddle.
  • @anarox21 The advantage to buying from a farmer's market is being able to talk directly to the people who grew the food. They should be able to answer any questions you have about the status of your food.

    Avoiding GMO food in USA is loads more difficult because we are one of the few industrialized nations that don't require labeling.

    What we have learned in this thread is that the effect of GMO on health is not proven either way. The "big-agri" manipulations of GMO affect small time farmers negatively. I prefer to support those farmers whenever I can; I get honest, local, often tastier food and they get my money directly. A direct relationship is born.

    Pesticide use is something I try to avoid (some GMOs reduce the need for pesticides, another side of the argument), so going organic is good, but when the FDA regulates these things and it is heavily staffed with officials with vested interest in corporate agriculture...how are we to know if things are actually organic or what the label says they are?? Buy as local as you can from establishments you trust or grow your own food.


  • JUST came here to post this! hahaha love you squatch!


  • i dont understand why christians dont abhor these things as unnatural. except of course that every thing they think is programmed into them by the controlling class.
  • virusb23 said:

    i dont understand why christians dont abhor these things as unnatural. except of course that every thing they think is programmed into them by the controlling class.



    That is a GREAT point I hadnt even thought of! Queer butt sex is unnatural? How about fucking plants that are modified by MAN to not procreate? Some one call the West Burrough Baptists!

  • I was going to link this article, thank you.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!