GMOs

**Frownland** · 12-07-2014, 01:39 PM

Couldn't find a thread on the subject without an incredibly biased OP in either direction so I made a new one.

What's your position on GMOs? Good? Bad? Evil? Great? Super evil? Like really super evil? Really good?

Your thoughts, post em.

Chula Vista · 12-07-2014, 02:01 PM

I'd rather talk about GTOs.

DwnWthVwls · 12-07-2014, 02:57 PM

Giant Tranny Orgies? Sounds awesome.

On topic: I'm not very knowledgeable about the topic, but from what little I do know I'm against it. With a quick google search I found this: Institute for Responsible Technology - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

I can't speak for it's accuracy but if those are facts and not biased propaganda, I only need a couple things out of that list to make my decision pretty easy.

Edit: I don't have a problem with the concept of genetic modification, but those side effects on that list are just not worth it to me.

**Frownland** · 12-07-2014, 03:29 PM

I'm thinking it's leaning towards propaganda. It's posted by an organization that is led by this man: Jeffrey Smith | Academics Review.

I'm not going to run through every point on the list, but for the first one, it suggests that health risks have increased with use of GMOs, when in reality that's confounded by new definitions of things like autism widening the umbrella for more things that it covers. So that number isn't actually increasing, the diagnoses are since they're being more inclusive. From what I've read, there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed study of GMOs showing that they have any negative health effects. Each GMO is studied intensively and has to pass through rigorous FDA regulations to even make it to the market. If there was any significant link between a GMO and cancer/autism/whatever, the FDA wouldn't approve it and it would be pretty stupid for the company to continue to distribute it.

Another one on there saying that mixing genes from different animals is a load of hooey too. Every living creature is made of the same DNA, and taking DNA from bacteria and putting it into corn isn't going to confuse the corn's genes in the same way that if you copy and paste the word "and" from Mein Kampf in an essay on religious tolerance in a word processor.

I'd really like to see their sources on their information, because some of them are outright lies like the government oversight being lax.

If you haven't noticed yet I'm pretty pro-GMO. I think the anti-GMO movement is really just based in fear-mongering and naturalist bias (i.e. chemicals and science=evil, so chow down on that hemlock, it's all natural). Because of things like strict regulations on the GMOs, it really only allows large corporations to be able to afford to put their products on the market, so there's the factor of disdain towards corporations in the anti-GMO field (Monsanto comes to mind). Really, we've been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years through artificial selection. Without genetic modification, that fruit you're eating would be bitter and full of seeds, your puppy wouldn't be so goddamned adorable, and you'd be chewing on grass when you eat corn with your steak. Science has just come up with ways to speed up the process without the arduous process of continuing to select for ideal traits in artificial selection (and natural selection to a degree, but that doesn't really apply to agriculture).

Here's a good article from an accredited source: Core Truths: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked | Popular Science

William_the_Bloody · 12-07-2014, 05:35 PM

Unfortunately I work too much these days to educate myself on political issues, so I guess it depends upon the credible evidence surrounding the health & legal consequences of GMO's and the corporations that produce them.

I assumed that there was a definite connection between GMO's and cancer? (ie the study that came out of France with mice that were fed genetically modified grain, and developed tumours as a result) Was this debunked?

If there is even a probable link, I think that products that have GMO's in them should be labeled in the supermarket here in North America as they are in Europe. I have a right to know what I am putting into my body. (So many foods have GMO ingrediants from Kit Kat & Diary Milk bars to Ruffles potato chips, ect ect)

On the other hand, if there is no direct link between cancer and GMO's than it is a great way to bring down food costs globally, which is great for us, our pocketbooks, and retirement savings.

Finally there is the issue of GMO seeds spreading to local farms & taking over or damaging their crops. If your corn seed pollinates on my soil I shouldn't be sued for harvesting them under intellectual property rights.

In the end, I believe that the science should determine the politics of GMO's, not corporate profit, or environmental ideologues, I know this is a lot to ask though.

**Frownland** · 12-07-2014, 06:33 PM

That rat cancer paper has been retracted after it didn't stand up to peer review. As for the cross pollination, it doesn't really affect neighbouring farms. There hasn't been a single case where a farmer has been sued due to cross pollination. Any cross pollination that would occur would be so miniscule that it would be difficult to notice. The case of Schmeiser, the famous intellectual property rights case with Monsanto, was not the product of cross pollinating. 95 percent of his crops had the anti-herbicide gene, which makes cross pollination out of the question as it can affect up to 5% of crops and that's being generous.

This post is sponsored by Monsanto Company.

There are swaths of misinformation about GMOs out there. I live in California so I get to see the worst of the ignorance.

Sparky · 12-07-2014, 07:03 PM

you have the whole wheat gluten debacle

I read recently that sucralose causes lymphonia in rats at extremely high doses.

The way they test GMO's does not adequately reflect the effects of long term consumption. GMO's may not produce any negative effects in clinical trials but I don't know if that necessarily translates to long-term.

We're the same nation that previously thought cigarette smoking, high alcohol consumption and fast food were okay.

**Frownland** · 12-07-2014, 07:18 PM

^That last line is hardly an equivalent to the GMO field. Also

http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsr...-food-studies/

DwnWthVwls · 12-07-2014, 07:31 PM

That's hardly long term... Also, just wanted to point out that plenty of things have been deemed safe initially and then years later pulled because of effects that were not previously recognized.

We'll just have to wait and see the effects 10-20 years from now. I don't see GMOs going away any time soon.

**Frownland** · 12-07-2014, 07:32 PM

They've been around for thirty years though.

12-07-2014, 01:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	GMOs Couldn't find a thread on the subject without an incredibly biased OP in either direction so I made a new one. What's your position on GMOs? Good? Bad? Evil? Great? Super evil? Like really super evil? Really good? Your thoughts, post em. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

12-07-2014, 02:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
Chula Vista Toasted Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: SoCal by way of Boston Posts: 11,332	I'd rather talk about GTOs. __________________ “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

12-07-2014, 03:29 PM	#4 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	I'm thinking it's leaning towards propaganda. It's posted by an organization that is led by this man: Jeffrey Smith \| Academics Review. I'm not going to run through every point on the list, but for the first one, it suggests that health risks have increased with use of GMOs, when in reality that's confounded by new definitions of things like autism widening the umbrella for more things that it covers. So that number isn't actually increasing, the diagnoses are since they're being more inclusive. From what I've read, there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed study of GMOs showing that they have any negative health effects. Each GMO is studied intensively and has to pass through rigorous FDA regulations to even make it to the market. If there was any significant link between a GMO and cancer/autism/whatever, the FDA wouldn't approve it and it would be pretty stupid for the company to continue to distribute it. Another one on there saying that mixing genes from different animals is a load of hooey too. Every living creature is made of the same DNA, and taking DNA from bacteria and putting it into corn isn't going to confuse the corn's genes in the same way that if you copy and paste the word "and" from Mein Kampf in an essay on religious tolerance in a word processor. I'd really like to see their sources on their information, because some of them are outright lies like the government oversight being lax. If you haven't noticed yet I'm pretty pro-GMO. I think the anti-GMO movement is really just based in fear-mongering and naturalist bias (i.e. chemicals and science=evil, so chow down on that hemlock, it's all natural). Because of things like strict regulations on the GMOs, it really only allows large corporations to be able to afford to put their products on the market, so there's the factor of disdain towards corporations in the anti-GMO field (Monsanto comes to mind). Really, we've been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years through artificial selection. Without genetic modification, that fruit you're eating would be bitter and full of seeds, your puppy wouldn't be so goddamned adorable, and you'd be chewing on grass when you eat corn with your steak. Science has just come up with ways to speed up the process without the arduous process of continuing to select for ideal traits in artificial selection (and natural selection to a degree, but that doesn't really apply to agriculture). Here's a good article from an accredited source: Core Truths: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked \| Popular Science __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

12-07-2014, 06:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	That rat cancer paper has been retracted after it didn't stand up to peer review. As for the cross pollination, it doesn't really affect neighbouring farms. There hasn't been a single case where a farmer has been sued due to cross pollination. Any cross pollination that would occur would be so miniscule that it would be difficult to notice. The case of Schmeiser, the famous intellectual property rights case with Monsanto, was not the product of cross pollinating. 95 percent of his crops had the anti-herbicide gene, which makes cross pollination out of the question as it can affect up to 5% of crops and that's being generous. This post is sponsored by Monsanto Company. There are swaths of misinformation about GMOs out there. I live in California so I get to see the worst of the ignorance. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x Last edited by Frownland; 12-07-2014 at 06:44 PM.

12-07-2014, 07:18 PM	#8 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	^That last line is hardly an equivalent to the GMO field. Also http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsr...-food-studies/ __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

12-07-2014, 05:35 PM	#5 (permalink)
William_the_Bloody Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Sunnydale Cemetary Posts: 2,093	Unfortunately I work too much these days to educate myself on political issues, so I guess it depends upon the credible evidence surrounding the health & legal consequences of GMO's and the corporations that produce them. I assumed that there was a definite connection between GMO's and cancer? (ie the study that came out of France with mice that were fed genetically modified grain, and developed tumours as a result) Was this debunked? If there is even a probable link, I think that products that have GMO's in them should be labeled in the supermarket here in North America as they are in Europe. I have a right to know what I am putting into my body. (So many foods have GMO ingrediants from Kit Kat & Diary Milk bars to Ruffles potato chips, ect ect) On the other hand, if there is no direct link between cancer and GMO's than it is a great way to bring down food costs globally, which is great for us, our pocketbooks, and retirement savings. Finally there is the issue of GMO seeds spreading to local farms & taking over or damaging their crops. If your corn seed pollinates on my soil I shouldn't be sued for harvesting them under intellectual property rights. In the end, I believe that the science should determine the politics of GMO's, not corporate profit, or environmental ideologues, I know this is a lot to ask though.

12-07-2014, 07:03 PM	#7 (permalink)
Sparky not really Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 5,223	you have the whole wheat gluten debacle I read recently that sucralose causes lymphonia in rats at extremely high doses. The way they test GMO's does not adequately reflect the effects of long term consumption. GMO's may not produce any negative effects in clinical trials but I don't know if that necessarily translates to long-term. We're the same nation that previously thought cigarette smoking, high alcohol consumption and fast food were okay.

12-07-2014, 07:32 PM	#10 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	They've been around for thirty years though. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x