Are GMO food safe?

[seanD]

I don't see the need to be uncivil. What have I ever done to you? You say there are scientific studies that show consumption of GMO's is hazardous. I'd just like to see one. 'Look it up yourself' is not really a great debate tactic.. Secondly you have said you are not a scientist so I wonder how you evaluate scientific information. How did you arrive at your conclusion about GMO foods?

Here's an example of a citation, not peer reviewed but still interesting.

I'm not being uncivil (okay blow it out your rear was a bit harsh), nor do I have anything personal against you; it's just the nature of the forum, stop whining about it all the time. Since when do we have to be a scientist to express opinions and views about scientific research? Is that some sort of exceptional rule only I must follow? And I never gave a conclusion one way or the other, other than it isn't as cut and dry as PM claimed it was (why do I have to keep repeating that?).

[pancreasman]

I'm not being uncivil (okay blow it out your rear was a bit harsh), nor do I have anything personal against you; it's just the nature of the forum, stop whining about it all the time. Since when do we have to be a scientist to express opinions and views about scientific research? Is that some sort of exceptional rule only I must follow? And I never gave a conclusion one way or the other, other than it isn't as cut and dry as PM claimed it was (why do I have to keep repeating that?).

Possibly because your first response was so brief. I don't think I'm particularly 'whining' about anything other than asking you to clarify your views. Thanks for doing that.

[Sparko]

We have been using GMO for centuries. We used to call it selective and cross-breeding.

This is what corn originally looked like and what it has become over the centuries:

[Psychic Missile]

The problem, seanD, is that it is cut and dry. All concerned academic bodies consider GMOs safe. Studies have overwhelmingly found them harmless. Most evident, there is no method by which GMOs could harm people. The DNA of the food we eat doesn't affect us. The chemical composition is what's important.

You said you found the arguments from anti-GMO advocates convincing. You also said you don't know how GMOs could harm people's health. So then what sort of argument persuaded you? Additionally, you need not be a scientist to read the data or, more importantly, know the simple basis for your argument.

[Truthseeker]

I just made a post in another thread that seems to me to be applicable here.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post151027
Monsanto is the company that makes Roundup herbicide and GMOs that survive being soaked in that. I do think there is a possibility that Roundup residues in our food may be too harmful. Have you seen those pictures of mice with huge tumors? Those Roundup food plants may be too toxic in the long run. Most of the residues may be in the plants themselves; they can't be washed off. So the plants are exceptions to the opinion that GMOs are generally safe. There may be a coverup or an attempt to obscure the truth, including the fact that we may not have yet any long-term safety study.

[pancreasman]

Ignore what? You mean stuff like this?

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/0...gmo-activists/

When you come across a claim that you disagree with, the rational approach is to providing arguments and evidence against it. People who do not have any tend to resort to a number of logical fallacies, cognitive simplifications or thought-terminating clichés. One such key example is the dismissal of any evidence or arguments in favor of genetically modified foods by deploying the shill gambit. In the context of Scientific American and genetically modified foods, this amounts to the bare assertion that some large corporation that deals with GM crops, seeds or foods (often Monsanto) must have paid them off to publish that article. This conveniently allows the reduction of cognitive dissonance without having to address any of the actual arguments.

[Psychic Missile]

I just made a post in another thread that seems to me to be applicable here.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post151027
Monsanto is the company that makes Roundup herbicide and GMOs that survive being soaked in that. I do think there is a possibility that Roundup residues in our food may be too harmful. Have you seen those pictures of mice with huge tumors? Those Roundup food plants may be too toxic in the long run. Most of the residues may be in the plants themselves; they can't be washed off. So the plants are exceptions to the opinion that GMOs are generally safe. There may be a coverup or an attempt to obscure the truth, including the fact that we may not have yet any long-term safety study.

The issue is with the herbicide then, not GMOs.

[Sparko]

Ignore what? You mean stuff like this?

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/0...gmo-activists/

Monsanto paid you to post that!!!

[Truthseeker]

The issue is with the herbicide then, not GMOs.

Well, yes, but do include the GMO issue.

[Truthseeker]

Monsanto paid you to post that!!!

Pancreasman!? Who would have even thought!? No, you clever guy, you're the one whom Monsanto is paying. You point to pancreasman to throw people off the track. When the thief is on the point of getting caught red-handed, he goes to the street, point in one direction and cry, THIEF! Ooo, you're slick, Sparko.

[Psychic Missile]

Well, yes, but do include the GMO issue.

Why? The plants aren't becoming unsafe because they are genetically modified. They are becoming unsafe because an unsafe herbicide is being used. If the plants didn't have the herbicide used on them there would be no issue.

[pancreasman]

Pancreasman!? Who would have even thought!? No, you clever guy, you're the one whom Monsanto is paying. You point to pancreasman to throw people off the track. When the thief is on the point of getting caught red-handed, he goes to the street, point in one direction and cry, THIEF! Ooo, you're slick, Sparko.

You have become incoherent. So incoherent you are incapable of seeing the humour in posts. Nobody here is being paid by Montsanto ... except me. You're on their list pal.

[Truthseeker]

Why? The plants aren't becoming unsafe because they are genetically modified. They are becoming unsafe because an unsafe herbicide is being used. If the plants didn't have the herbicide used on them there would be no issue.

Maybe you missed the post in which I said that the herbicide could not be washed off totally because the plant stuff has it inside. I don't know any more about this, but it does seem that we still have to include the GMO issue, as far as glyphosate is concerned.

[Psychic Missile]

Maybe you missed the post in which I said that the herbicide could not be washed off totally because the plant stuff has it inside. I don't know any more about this, but it does seem that we still have to include the GMO issue, as far as glyphosate is concerned.

If the herbicide wasn't being used, would the plant being genetically modified have any negative impact?

[Truthseeker]

If the herbicide wasn't being used, would the plant being genetically modified have any negative impact?

Not sure. It may. But that's rather irrelevant, farmers using GMO seeds should be expected to use glyphosate liberally.