Any views on gmo's? some gmo info....

Page 3 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

bergie
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 290
Location: Phoenix, AZ

20 Jun 2011, 11:22 am

Orwell wrote:

7 billion people will not be well fed with conventional methods- not even with the massive improvements in conventional agriculture during the Green Revolution. And there are competing demands on land, so we will not be able to farm every single acre of arable land anyways.

But we could feed 6 billion people in the 1990s before frankenfoods?

bergie
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 290
Location: Phoenix, AZ

20 Jun 2011, 11:28 am

Orwell wrote:

bergie wrote:

Oodain wrote:

it is now virtually impossible to grow non gmo papaya on hawaii because of a specific virus that evolved to target the non-GMO plant.

So you are saying that it would be profitable for a corporation to create a crop disease that would kill all of the competition's crops and give them a monopoly? Yeah, that makes me feel so much better...

Fun with conspiracy theories now?

Yeah, because it is crazy to think that the same corporation that produced DDT, milk hormones, and Agent Orange, is responsible for 56 Superfund sites in the US alone, and sues family farmers and takes their land because their fields were contaminated with their GMO pollen, would ever do anything devious for profit.

Moog
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

20 Jun 2011, 11:40 am

Orwell wrote:

I already gave an example in golden rice. I tend to think that saving children in developing countries from blindness is a good thing. Perhaps you disagree.

Yuck. That's an ugly debaters trick.

Quote:

You are equivocating on the meaning of "herbalism" and I think you know it. Plant-based remedies that were tested and found to be effective are now called "medicine."

I agree with your definitions. As long as herbal medicine isn't conflated with homeopathy, I have no complaints.

_________________
Not currently a moderator

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Jun 2011, 12:14 pm

bergie wrote:

Orwell wrote:

But we could feed 6 billion people in the 1990s before frankenfoods?

6 billion people weren't being fed in the 1990s. 7 billion people aren't being fed now. People die of starvation every day. Opposition to new technologies that could help alleviate that suffering is irresponsible.

Moog wrote:

Yuck. That's an ugly debaters trick.

You asked for an example of positive impact from GMO while uncritically spouting an uninformed viewpoint about the effect GMO has. I may be sarcastic, but I am not wrong.

Quote:

I agree with your definitions. As long as herbal medicine isn't conflated with homeopathy, I have no complaints.

Why shouldn't it be? The stuff labeled "herbal" is no better than homeopathy.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

bergie
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 290
Location: Phoenix, AZ

20 Jun 2011, 12:43 pm

Orwell, you obviously believe that GMO "food" is perfectly safe. I, and many others, do not. So I go back to my question of:

"Why not force food corporations to label their food if it contains GMOs so that consumers can make an educated choice about what they put into their own bodies?"

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

20 Jun 2011, 1:03 pm

bergie wrote:

in my book that is reasonable,

what are people's views on non food GMO crops?

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Jun 2011, 1:55 pm

bergie wrote:

I don't really care one way or the other on that issue. My local grocery store sells milk advertised as coming from cows not treated with rBST, along with a brief disclaimer stating that the FDA doesn't believe there to be any measurable difference from milk from cows that have been treated with rBST. I have no objection to honest labeling, but I would object to deceptive advertising practices. If the labeling is not mandated in a way to deliberately steer consumers away, as though it were a Surgeon General's warning on a pack of cigarettes, I'm fine with it.

Nice try attempting to pigeonhole me into a stance I never took. The labeling issue (like any questions about Monsanto's business practices) is distinct from the question of GMO. Clearly you have no intelligent contribution to make to the discussion and so resort to red herrings.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

bergie
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 290
Location: Phoenix, AZ

20 Jun 2011, 2:43 pm

Ok so let's label GMO "food" with something like:

"This product contains food that has been genetically modified to allow more poison to be sprayed onto it without it dying. There have been no long term studies to determine the safety of this food, but we pay a lot of money to our lobbyists so that the FDA will say that it is perfectly safe."

My warning is 100% honest and factual.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

20 Jun 2011, 3:05 pm

bergie wrote:

i call BS

you are again equating a single instance to everything.

it doesnt cover the several hundreds of different species made to do the excact opposite.

also the FDA is only one part of an international puzzle here,

advertisement or marketing like this is nothing short of unjustified forced change of perception

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Jun 2011, 3:16 pm

bergie wrote:

As oodain said, BS. Fear of scare tactics like this nonsense being forced on them is probably why companies selling GMO fight against labeling.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

20 Jun 2011, 4:52 pm

GMOs are going to be the next asbestos, only worse...

I like how nobody even tested GMO crops before they started growing them everywhere. People don't spontaneously combust upon consumption, so therefore, they must be safe! :lol: Who knows what that spliced foreign virus DNA will do to our insides. It'll be far too late to reverse the process once we find out.

Even if a company like Monsanto didn't exist, GMO crops still provide a large negative externality. They end up cross-pollinating with plants on farms whose owners don't want to grow this garbage. You can't get much more economically inefficient than that.

I'm sure most of you have heard of all the dying bees... Bees didn't start dying until GMOs started being grown in heavy amounts, so It'd be pretty surprising if GMOs aren't linked to this at all. Without bees to pollinate our crops, we'll have a much bigger problem on our hands than a few plants being eaten by bugs...

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

20 Jun 2011, 6:20 pm

Orwell wrote:

You are equivocating on the meaning of "herbalism" and I think you know it. Plant-based remedies that were tested and found to be effective are now called "medicine." The stuff that is referred to (and marketed as) "herbal" is useless BS on the same level as homeopathy. Actually, it's worse; some quack "herbal" remedies have the potential to do serious harm, while homeopathy is just expensive water.

Statements like this are incredibly foolish. There are many herbal compounds not used in conventional drugs which have been shown through reputable studies to be efficacious and safe (when used in the correct manner). Yes some stuff is BS, but to label all Herbal Medicine as such, is, BS. You have access to pubmed if you want the studies on individual plants I can once again furnish you with them.

Oh and as a side note, if you respond to this post please refrain from slandering me as a believer in homeopathy.

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Jun 2011, 6:28 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

Not really. Anytime some plant compound is found, through repeatable, verifiable experimentation, to be an effective treatment, it is assimilated into conventional medicine. The only things that retain the "herbal" label are the quack remedies that range from useless to dangerous.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

bergie
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 290
Location: Phoenix, AZ

20 Jun 2011, 6:41 pm

Oodain wrote:

bergie wrote:

i call BS

you are again equating a single instance to everything.

it doesnt cover the several hundreds of different species made to do the excact opposite.

Yes, I am mostly discussing the "roundup ready" brand of GMO foods as they comprise like 90% (completely made up percentage but I am sure it is close) of the GMO food market.

Quote:

also the FDA is only one part of an international puzzle here,

Most other nations already require labeling or ban the import of GMO foods.

Quote:

advertisement or marketing like this is nothing short of unjustified forced change of perception

And the advertisements saying that these "foods" are completely safe are doing what exactly?

bergie
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 290
Location: Phoenix, AZ

20 Jun 2011, 6:48 pm

Cyanide wrote:

Who knows what that spliced foreign virus DNA will do to our insides. It'll be far too late to reverse the process once we find out.

Even if a company like Monsanto didn't exist, GMO crops still provide a large negative externality. They end up cross-pollinating with plants on farms whose owners don't want to grow this garbage. You can't get much more economically inefficient than that.

I'm sure most of you have heard of all the dying bees... Bees didn't start dying until GMOs started being grown in heavy amounts, so It'd be pretty surprising if GMOs aren't linked to this at all. Without bees to pollinate our crops, we'll have a much bigger problem on our hands than a few plants being eaten by bugs...

Exactly. Corporations used to tell us that DDT was "harmless". Lead paint used to be "completely safe" as well. GMO "foods" were rushed into production without nearly enough testing and has become so pervasive that it is now in nearly 70% of items in the typical US grocery store (that is just for GMO soy and corn). And these are items that are designed to be ingested into our bodies.

Would you take an experimental drug if there was an alternative that had the exact same results and has thousands of years of proven track record?

bergie
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 290
Location: Phoenix, AZ

20 Jun 2011, 6:51 pm

Orwell wrote:

So where is the "repeatable, verifiable experimentation" that shows that GMO plants are safe for human consumption?

Page 3 of 4 [ 57 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Any views on gmo's? some gmo info.... Post Reply New Topic

Any views on gmo's? some gmo info....