ForumsWEPRWe're eating poison

79 8265
KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/17/gmo-global-alert-2yr-scientific-study-certifies-gmo-is-poison-cancer-causing/

The food companies are using pesticides that cause cancer. It's scientifically proven and it's horrible. Monsanto doesn't know what they're doing, and someone has to change it. Either shut them down, or make find a cleaner, and healthier way, to live.

  • 79 Replies
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

party..I said that =p

his fault, he is still not quoting people.

These teachers are forcing theories and opinions down children's throats like they're facts.

atleast they learn something from reality.

those teachers forcing doctrine down childrens throats like they are facts.
those should be banned from teaching children under the 21 anything.
Getoffmydangle
offline
Getoffmydangle
152 posts
2,995

GMO's should be labeled on/in food we buy. FYI for those of you not in America, this is not currently done. For those of you not in California, the food industry last year spent millions of dollars to convince voters to reject a GMO labeling requirement.
It is my understanding that in europe, GMOs were either banned or labeling is required. This was because no long-term studies had been conducted to show they were safe for consumtion. Unfortunately, the American Govt (by which i mean corporations) took the opposite approach and fully incorporated GMOs in all our food with telling because there were no long term studies showing that they are unsafe for consumption.

PS: To those who were arguing that organic is too expensive, or healthy food is too expensive: The reason S@#tty food is so cheap is because the government subsidizes the bajesus out of corn, wheat, and soy, which are the foundations of all of the highly processed junk foods. Meanwhile, they charge organic and sustainable farmers more money for certifications and give them less money in subsidies. This is why there is a disparity between healthy and junk food.

And Mage: that skeptoid video is highly biased: "all this gene does is make the caterpillars stop eating the corn." ... is a very political way of saying "we added a gene to this corn so that it produces its own poisons that kill things when they try to eat it. Then, without telling anybody, we feed this corn to people, and animals that people eat."
Plus that Dunning guy is a corporate shill who is currently in jail for stealing money from ebay.

KnightDeclan
offline
KnightDeclan
479 posts
280

Also, the amount of food in a package has been cut down greatly, but we're still paying the same amount for it.

Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
326 posts
1,000

So have we actually returned back to this 'oison' tid-bit?

I have to give you props KnightDeclan. I don't how you do it, but you're somehow able to make all the regular forum posters band together against your ignorant ideas and thoughts. Even I can't do that.

And it's your own fault for getting kicked out of school. Sure school didn't always agree with me or teach me actually useful things, but I now have a diploma. And it is a magical thing.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Plus that Dunning guy is a corporate shill


Before I go looking further, is this going to be your only argument to anything I find?
Getoffmydangle
offline
Getoffmydangle
152 posts
2,995

Before I go looking further, is this going to be your only argument to anything I find?


Are you going to solely cite convicted felons? Because otherwise I'm not sure how thats relevant...
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Are you going to solely cite convicted felons? Because otherwise I'm not sure how thats relevant...


No, and it's relevant because I don't need the information itself being dismissed in such a manner. the point the guy made in the video was quite valid regardless of any misdeeds he did, but you are using that as a count against what he is saying. Usually when someone starts calling the sources shills it a means of hand waving away any point being made.

But let's just start with the question. Do you think all genetic modification is bad?
Getoffmydangle
offline
Getoffmydangle
152 posts
2,995

But let's just start with the question. Do you think all genetic modification is bad?


Ridiculous oversimplification out of the way .... No.
Do you think all genetic modification is good? (an equally pointless question).

I don't need the information itself being dismissed in such a manner

What you cited in my post was essentially a footnote speaking to the ethical failings of your reference. So before you go "waving the hand" at me, read the whole thing. The main point (dismissing the information you presented) in my previous comment was about the obvious deception in the video where he was intending not to inform, but to convince. It shows that he is biased and not presenting information accurately. This is basic criteria you can use to determine the validity of a source. I know you are a smart person, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't look at that objectively.

Just to clarify: it is not the scientific process of "genetic modification" that I am opposed to for hippie or spiritual reasons. To the title of this thread, I object when they create new varieties of plants that produce their own poisons, and then feed those *plants* to the unsuspecting public and to the animals that the public eats.

Going back to your "good place to start," I think the entire model of industrialized agriculture, vast expanses of monoculture, over processing, overuse of antibiotics, and poisons (including when they are incorporated in the plant's genetics) as well as reductionist science and nutritionism, and the infrastructures (political and business) that support our food production and manufacturing is deeply flawed for many reasons and in need of an overhaul.

The fact that they genetically engineer crops to create their own poisons, or to sterilize themselves after X number of generations (when cross pollination with other varieties has been proven to occur) is symptomatic of greater problems, in my opinion.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Ridiculous oversimplification out of the way .... No.
Do you think all genetic modification is good? (an equally pointless question).


Never once did I allude to this point. In fact I nor the video I provided never made such a statement. The statement being made was that just saying GMO we are already generalizing without addressing the contents. This was all I've been trying to get across from the start.

Just to clarify: it is not the scientific process of "genetic modification" that I am opposed to for hippie or spiritual reasons. To the title of this thread, I object when they create new varieties of plants that produce their own poisons, and then feed those *plants* to the unsuspecting public and to the animals that the public eats.


Then it would seem we are in something of an agreement.

For me to clarify.
1: I'm not apposed to the use of GMOs.
2: Not all GMOs are good, not all GMOs are bad.
3: I think GMOs should be labeled so people can be better informed of what they are eating.
4:That labeling needs to be more detailed than just saying it contains GMOs because of point 2.
5: When addressing the matter of GMOs there are often sweeping generalizations which should be avoided, because as noted in point 2 there is both good and bad. (which is all the video I provided was stating)
6: Much of this current negative action against GMOs is actually the result of this over generalization on the matter further agitated by the actual bad stuff.
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,491 posts
2,950

@dangle- normally I agree with you on quite a few things, but in this case, I will have to go against you. please don't let this happen again.

I watched the video (regardless of the guy's background, he is still making a rather valid point. the process of genetic modification is just a tool. scientists do gene splicing a lot more often, and they are starting to get good at it.) and when the guy said "make the caterpillars not eat anymore" I understood it was a poison as well. maybe a bit of basic biology will teach you something.

different species are vulnerable to different things, what that caterpillar is weak against may not affect us at all (similar reason why chocolate and avocados kill dogs, but not us) because we have genes in our body that can produce enzymes that break down the chemical before it can harm us. that caterpillar may not have this trait, meaning the toxin might still be perfectly safe for humans. seeing as how BT corn is used rather often, it is safe to assume that it is safe for us to eat.

this is blade, rendering your poison argument invalid.

-Blade

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

different species are vulnerable to different things, what that caterpillar is weak against may not affect us at all (similar reason why chocolate and avocados kill dogs, but not us) because we have genes in our body that can produce enzymes that break down the chemical before it can harm us. that caterpillar may not have this trait, meaning the toxin might still be perfectly safe for humans. seeing as how BT corn is used rather often, it is safe to assume that it is safe for us to eat.


To add to this, even if the substance is also harmful to humans the dosage could be at a low enough level that it is safe to consume the produce on mass for us but not smaller creatures like caterpillars.
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,726 posts
20,765

To add to this, even if the substance is also harmful to humans the dosage could be at a low enough level that it is safe to consume the produce on mass for us but not smaller creatures like caterpillars.

And keep in mind cooking might denturate the poison and thus render it nontoxic to us. Might.

Production of toxins by plants is the least of my worries concerning GMOs, really. I'm much more worried on the lack of long-term studies concerning the influences of ingesting gene manipulated organisms in general on the human body. There may be nothing, but as long as we don't know, let's be cautious.

On the other hand, if we can use GMOs to feed poor countries, who cares if their life expectancy is decreased by a few years by GMOs as long as it is raised by decennies thanks to the food...
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,815 posts
1,030

Perusing the Wikipedia article for GM Food, there is very little of the modified DNA left in the final food product; most of the time there is no detectable amount in the final product. As for animals consuming GM feed, there is no affect on the meat of the animal. They only way to know they're eating GM feed is to actually know what feed they're eating.

I'm with Hahiha on this one. Any potential ills are greatly outweighed by the benefits. If rice (or any other grain) could be modified to contain essential vitamins, nutrients, and amino acids, think about what it could do to combat world hunger.

Getoffmydangle
offline
Getoffmydangle
152 posts
2,995

On the other hand, if we can use GMOs to feed poor countries, who cares if their life expectancy is decreased by a few years by GMOs...

Good point, But if feeding more people is they primary concern, why don't we start with stop paying farmers to not grow food? Profits are clearly the primary concern (over safety or feeding the hungry). Also if we are talking about helping those 3rd world countries feed themselves, There are better ways to do it. Once you start using industrialized factory farming and livestock techniques, you become dependent on them. As far as I know, all of monsanto's crops produce non-viable seeds, meaning farmers have to rebuy every year. Making poor people dependent on monsanto, chemical, and drug companies is not how to promote healthy and sustainable development. Btw, this has already happened in countries (besides the US) like brazil, india, mexico, paraguay, hungary, and poor African countries. They are finding that these GM seeds are causing more problems than they are solving.

Again, i'm very much in favor of scientific progress, but monsanto is clearly misusing their advances in genetic modification. I recognize and appreciate that GM crops claim to use less pestacides and herbacides, but I would Love to see a scientific study showing these things are safe to eat.
Another example, If they make drought resistance crops, that do not have a large interaction with the rest of the ecosystem, and do not place the farmers who use them in an "indentured servant" type of relationship with the company, and they can show methodologically valid studies showing that these plants are healthy to eat.... I'm all for it.

different species are vulnerable to different things,...please don't let this happen again.

Also a good point. But first prove to me that they are safe, not the other way around.
meaning the toxin might still be perfectly safe for humans

There is a lot of public fear about these GMOs. If they had information about their safety, (other than, "we tricked you into eating for a while now and you appear to be fine&quot why wouldn't they show it? I would rather take the cautious approach rather than them using me and the majority of the US population as a testing ground. Companies like monsanto (oil companies, tobacco companies, etc) have a proven track record of squashing and manipulating data, buying off regulators, and playing politics to further their profits whilst causing damage to the health of people and the environment. Therefore, I don't trust them to have my (or your) best interests in mind when implementing their global monopolistic strategy for dominating the food supply. Its the implementation that is wrong, not the science.

Any potential ills are greatly outweighed by the benefits. If rice (or any other grain) could be modified to contain essential vitamins, nutrients, and amino acids, think about what it could do to combat world hunger.

1st of all, Rice already contains vitamins nutrients, and amino acids.... and protein and fiber. Brown rice (or any other non-white rice), which is white rice before they remove the bran and the germ (aka the healthy parts), doesn't keep as long, but is a fairly nutritionally-complete food.
And again, there are much better ways to combat world hunger than forcing poor people to become dependent on monsanto.
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
6,726 posts
20,765

If they make drought resistance crops, that do not have a large interaction with the rest of the ecosystem, and do not place the farmers who use them in an "indentured servant" type of relationship with the company, and they can show methodologically valid studies showing that these plants are healthy to eat.... I'm all for it.

This, of course, is the ideal goal.
I am, like you, against those crops Monsanto sells which farmers have to rebuy every time (I've heard of that one too). If non-profit humanitarian groups could give culturable GMOs to starving farmers, that would be a big step. Yes, there are other ways; we theoretically always had the capacity to nourish all people on earth. But as you said, it's all about profit, and right now it seems almost easier to push the GMO way than to change people's minds.
Showing 46-60 of 79