Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Are GMO food safe?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are GMO food safe?

    GMOs remain controversial. A speculation advisor wrote a blast against the anti-GMO movement, published today, that called it full of "empty brains" and "scientifically ignorant people." He claimed that over a 30-year period two studies (published last September) studied 100 billion animals and trillions of meals. The studies concluded that GMOs are probably safe.

    Until now I thought the anti-GMO side was the right side. Now I'm not so sure.

    I don't expect this thread will help me sort out the best side in this controversy, but I've been wrong before. Here's a commercial webpage that alleges GMOs are bad for us http://research.lfb.org/research/htm...r=MC&g=0&ver=7
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

  • #2
    GMO is a "mixed bag" so to speak. Making crops, for example, poisonous to insects. Can yet have unforeseen problems for birds who eat the insects and animals and humans who eat that corp. The developers claim it is safe. But is it? I'm not so sure the science is settled. Note the lose of bees and the monarch butterfly. Was it GMO? Maybe regarding the bees. GMO nicotine in come crops? Bees were not the target. The butterfly loss seems to be do to eradication of milk weeds around crops in farm land. I may not have all my facts straight here. But those things as I remember hearing them.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #3
      There are legitimate issues with GMOs when it comes to ecology and agribusiness. There are no legitimate issues with GMOs when it comes to consumption.

      Comment


      • #4
        We've been talking about this in AP Environmental Science class.
        "Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
        "And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
        Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.

        Comment


        • #5
          It's "Is" not "are"!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
            There are legitimate issues with GMOs when it comes to ecology and agribusiness. There are no legitimate issues with GMOs when it comes to consumption.
            Bull.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seanD View Post
              Bull.
              That's what I like: a cogent argument backed up with peer reviewed data.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                There are legitimate issues with GMOs when it comes to ecology and agribusiness. There are no legitimate issues with GMOs when it comes to consumption.
                I'd be interested in seeing what the net impact on ecology actually is. Certainly, those sorts of crops are affecting the local ecology, but it seems like we could reach a point where we need to consume less to get the nutrients we need (especially in low fertility areas).


                Originally posted by Cerealman View Post
                We've been talking about this in AP Environmental Science class.
                I'd be interested in seeing what's been said about it.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                  That's what I like: a cogent argument backed up with peer reviewed data.
                  Yep, that's what PM did; offer a cogent argument backed by peer review data. Blow it our your rear. It's a very controversial issue with many sides of the argument and many sides with peer review studies saying different things. Only in this case, I find the side saying GMO is unhealthy a bit more legitimate than say a side being funded by Monsanto who has more to lose.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    Yep, that's what PM did; offer a cogent argument backed by peer review data. Blow it our your rear. It's a very controversial issue with many sides of the argument and many sides with peer review studies saying different things. Only in this case, I find the side saying GMO is unhealthy a bit more legitimate than say a side being funded by Monsanto who has more to lose.
                    By what mechanism do GMOs threaten people's health?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                      By what mechanism do GMOs threaten people's health?
                      I'm not a scientist.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I never understood most GMO debates. It's always "GMOs are bad!" or "GMOs are good!" as if GMOs are a single "thing." It's like debating whether or not drinking liquid is good for you.

                        There is no simple answer to the question of whether or not GMOs are safe or harmful because it varies depending on what sort of GMO we're talking about.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seanD View Post
                          Yep, that's what PM did; offer a cogent argument backed by peer review data. Blow it our your rear. It's a very controversial issue with many sides of the argument and many sides with peer review studies saying different things. Only in this case, I find the side saying GMO is unhealthy a bit more legitimate than say a side being funded by Monsanto who has more to lose.
                          Great, then you'll have no problem citing some scientific evidence that the consumption of GMO foods is hazardous to health.

                          And I think you mean 'blow it out your ear'!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                            Great, then you'll have no problem citing some scientific evidence that the consumption of GMO foods is hazardous to health.

                            And I think you mean 'blow it out your ear'!
                            Nah, rear has a better ring to it, especially in your case. What's the point of offering peer reviewed studies here when you can google the studies at your heart's content? There are peer reviewed studies on both sides, as I said. It isn't a cut and dry issue as PM made it out to be.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seanD View Post
                              Nah, rear has a better ring to it, especially in your case. What's the point of offering peer reviewed studies here when you can google the studies at your heart's content? There are peer reviewed studies on both sides, as I said. It isn't a cut and dry issue as PM made it out to be.
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              6 responses
                              45 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              42 responses
                              230 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              24 responses
                              104 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              32 responses
                              173 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              73 responses
                              285 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X