Why not GM?

[k15n1]

There is plenty of information avail. and have been plenty of studies conducted that prove them to be unsafe. The problem is that these studies were done long after it was too late to matter. There is virtually no way to live without consuming these poisons or something that already consumed them or a product containing derivatives of them.
Picture Picture
All You Need to Know About GMO
Let's look at another couple of examples of the FDA failing the people for big business, aspartame and fluoride....I'm sure we all know about aspartame so lets focus on fluoride. If you want to believe what the FDA and CDC claim about it, fine, just don't read the recent Harvard study Harvard Fluoride Study I wonder why it is in our water even though the FDA has never actually approved it for consumption? I know, I've just got my tinfoil too tight....Still trust the government not to lower your childrens IQ? Then you certainly don't want to ask me about our institutions of public instruction....

Those pictures look like they came from a scientific article but they're worthless on their own. See, it's not the result that makes the scientific method so valuable---it's the disclosure of the method. I can think of many things that could cause the testis of any animal to change and I would want to see the Methods and Materials section of the paper to rule out some of the obvious ones. For example, were the rats the same strain? At what age were they sac'd? Etc, etc.

The article you posted states

GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. The inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and viruses, which have never been in the human food supply.

It's true that sometimes genes from other species are inserted into certain food crops but it's not always the case. And it's implied that all genes from bacteria and viruses are a problem. But what about the many substances we extract from plants and use as food or medication? Those are produced by non-human genes and they don't harm us. While this article isn't totally wrong, it isn't compelling evidence either.

So I'm sending you back to the drawing board. Pick up a book on genetics while you're at it. Right or wrong, it's good to understand genetics. And ifi it turns out you're right about all of this, you'll be better able to convince others with your new knowledge.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

There is plenty of information avail. and have been plenty of studies conducted that prove them to be unsafe. The problem is that these studies were done long after it was too late to matter. There is virtually no way to live without consuming these poisons or something that already consumed them or a product containing derivatives of them.
Picture Picture
All You Need to Know About GMO
Let's look at another couple of examples of the FDA failing the people for big business, aspartame and fluoride....I'm sure we all know about aspartame so lets focus on fluoride. If you want to believe what the FDA and CDC claim about it, fine, just don't read the recent Harvard study Harvard Fluoride Study I wonder why it is in our water even though the FDA has never actually approved it for consumption? I know, I've just got my tinfoil too tight....Still trust the government not to lower your childrens IQ? Then you certainly don't want to ask me about our institutions of public instruction....

Those pictures look like they came from a scientific article but they're worthless on their own. See, it's not the result that makes the scientific method so valuable---it's the disclosure of the method. I can think of many things that could cause the testis of any animal to change and I would want to see the Methods and Materials section of the paper to rule out some of the obvious ones. For example, were the rats the same strain? At what age were they sac'd? Etc, etc.

The article you posted states

GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. The inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and viruses, which have never been in the human food supply.

It's true that sometimes genes from other species are inserted into certain food crops but it's not always the case. And it's implied that all genes from bacteria and viruses are a problem. But what about the many substances we extract from plants and use as food or medication? Those are produced by non-human genes and they don't harm us. While this article isn't totally wrong, it isn't compelling evidence either.

So I'm sending you back to the drawing board. Pick up a book on genetics while you're at it. Right or wrong, it's good to understand genetics. And ifi it turns out you're right about all of this, you'll be better able to convince others with your new knowledge.

Extracting something from a plant is a far cry from genetically manipulating said plant. That is a strawman argument. Whether you believe in creationism or evolution or both, GMOs don't fit. Evolution is perfect, natural selection just plain works and these gmos don't. God is perfect, he made things the way they are because it works, these gmos don't. Go read the UN plan for global sustainability and development in the 21st century and then you may have a better understanding of what is going on in the world and perhaps will be better able to argue against it if you think you still can.

 

[DeniseCharleson]

k15n1 is correct. Reasoned conclusions can be drawn from replicated, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover studies that are published in established peer-reviewed journals. Rants by the "Institute for Responsible Technology" don't count. The writings of Euell Gibbons don't count. Vague fears about UN agendas or Big Ag don't count. The question is whether or not GMO crops have been proven to cause harm to humans ... and the answer is that they have not.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

k15n1 is correct. Reasoned conclusions can be drawn from replicated, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover studies that are published in established peer-reviewed journals. Rants by the "Institute for Responsible Technology" don't count. The writings of Euell Gibbons don't count. Vague fears about UN agendas or Big Ag don't count. The question is whether or not GMO crops have been proven to cause harm to humans ... and the answer is that they have not.

Don't be so quick to cast doubt on these "Vague fears" and "big ag". Read the organic farming bill and then go to the UN website and spend the next few years reading the Agenda 21 mandate first. This is fact my friend, not theory.

 

[~gd]

And who really cares what the UN thinks about anything? Fancy Debate Club always has been ineffective in the Past and I doubt they ever will get much done that the big powers don't agree with.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

And who really cares what the UN thinks about anything? Fancy Debate Club always has been ineffective in the Past and I doubt they ever will get much done that the big powers don't agree with.

For Christs sake sheeple, they/we have been implementing it since the mid '90s, worldwide. It isn't something new that they just thought up. Ever heard of NAFTA? The SPP? Both integral parts that technically eliminated our sovereignty as a nation in favor of the NAU...The whole world has been laughing at us for more than a decade the same way we laughed at the EU...What do you suppose all this mess in the middle east and Africa is all about, oil? You deserve everything you get from it.

 

[ORChick]

Anybody else notice that the OP, after the original post, has only commented twice on this thread? After the thread had languished for a couple of weeks ... as though perhaps to bring it back to the top, and get people excited about the topic again. Kind of wonder if the question was honestly meant, or whether the idea of starting a feud with a hot button topic like GMO was the real thought behind it. Of course, maybe it is just me being skeptical.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

The problem comes when well trained sheeple ignore and outright refuse to recognize any and all information not presented by other well trained registered herd sheeple. No one elses research could ever mean anything to the thoroughly indoctrinated. When someone ignores fact directly from the source simply because it sounds too terrible to be true, they become a part of the problem as unwitting accomplices.

 

[~gd]

The problem comes when well trained sheeple ignore and outright refuse to recognize any and all information not presented by other well trained registered herd sheeple. No one elses research could ever mean anything to the thoroughly indoctrinated. When someone ignores fact directly from the source simply because it sounds too terrible to be true, they become a part of the problem as unwitting accomplices.

Oh I'm a sheeple, she is a sheeple but you are a sheeple too! sing it loud and clear.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

The problem comes when well trained sheeple ignore and outright refuse to recognize any and all information not presented by other well trained registered herd sheeple. No one elses research could ever mean anything to the thoroughly indoctrinated. When someone ignores fact directly from the source simply because it sounds too terrible to be true, they become a part of the problem as unwitting accomplices.

Oh I'm a sheeple, she is a sheeple but you are a sheeple too! sing it loud and clear.

Sort of far left as far as distraction tactics are concerned don't you think? Read the organic farming bill yet? The global sustainability and development agenda? Still in denial i see.