Started By
Message
re: Can anyone enlighten me about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
Posted on 5/29/14 at 12:39 pm to Spaceman Spiff
Posted on 5/29/14 at 12:39 pm to Spaceman Spiff
Well Celiac Disease is a very real thing triggered by gluten, but yeah a ton of people want gluten free stuff because they're idiots and it's a trendy diet fad. Jimmy Kimmel did a funny bit where he asked people on the street if they eat gluten free foods and when they said yes, he asked what exactly is gluten and no one could even answer him.
0
Posted on 5/29/14 at 12:43 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
I don't know that the seeds contain pesticides, however they are trated with them. It is more like a coating.
You can't re use the seed because these seed companies have TM on their technologies. No one wants to plant a crop that is not Round-Up Ready or Liberty Link. There is no way to keep the weeds out unless you pull them by hand. Like it or not these big companies spend major money working on these technologies, they are not just going to give it to the farmer and let them use their technology for nothing.
People are against GMO's and Round Up Ready, but I am not sure we could feed the Earth without it.
ETA: the treatment they put on these seeds is way safer than Temik and Methyl they used to put in the ground to keep nematodes and such off. These products were outlawed, which led to the seed treatment movement.
You can't re use the seed because these seed companies have TM on their technologies. No one wants to plant a crop that is not Round-Up Ready or Liberty Link. There is no way to keep the weeds out unless you pull them by hand. Like it or not these big companies spend major money working on these technologies, they are not just going to give it to the farmer and let them use their technology for nothing.
People are against GMO's and Round Up Ready, but I am not sure we could feed the Earth without it.
ETA: the treatment they put on these seeds is way safer than Temik and Methyl they used to put in the ground to keep nematodes and such off. These products were outlawed, which led to the seed treatment movement.
This post was edited on 5/29/14 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 5/29/14 at 6:32 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
You have to pay and go through hoops to get certified as organic while a big portion of GMO farming receives subsidies from the government.
Oh, I see you were just trolling. Carry on.
There's nothing untrue about that, so no, I'm not trolling.
This post was edited on 5/29/14 at 6:33 pm
Posted on 5/29/14 at 6:36 pm to deltaland
quote:
Well if you're going to sell a product labeled as organic then you should have to prove it is truly organic. Otherwise people will use non organic techniques to increase production and label it organic to sell at a higher price than non organic but lower than true organic in order to dominate a market
At one point 'organic' was just 'food'.
I understand why certification is required to be labeled organic, the problem is the other guys (the GMOs) are getting subsidies.
One is paying extra, the other is getting paid.
It's an issue.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 7:46 pm to Sleeping Tiger
The argument against corporate farming is legitimate if you are a communist, but the claims about health risks of consuming GMOs are completely false.
99% of everything that everyone has eaten in their entire life is a GMO.
99% of everything that everyone has eaten in their entire life is a GMO.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:03 pm to deeprig9
I ate some GMO corn and my spleen spontaneously combusted.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:08 pm to deeprig9
quote:
The argument against corporate farming is legitimate if you are a communist,
There hasn't really been a discussion on corporate farming in this thread, but I'll tell you right now mono farming (which is one result of the corporate takeover of the industry) is very bad, there are undeniable arguments against it. And the fact that today, for instance, 95% of corn is owned by multi national corporations is a big deal, it used to be 100% farmer owned.
There's about an hours worth of face to face discussion on that alone, and we'd just be hitting the main veins without digging deep.
quote:
but the claims about health risks of consuming GMOs are completely false.
Well, in actuality the risks are not false, it's scientifically proven, but I don't think that will stop you from believing what you want to believe.
quote:
99% of everything that everyone has eaten in their entire life is a GMO.
And look at the disease, health problems, rapid aging, out of shape bodies, mental issues.. not like we're doing so hot as a collective culture. I'll just respond to this for you and the rest of the heathens, but it's not GMOs fault people make unhealthy choices.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:09 pm to the808bass
quote:
I ate some GMO corn and my spleen spontaneously combusted.
Immediate reaction has never been claimed, the humor is appreciated but totally irrelevant.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:10 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Well, in actuality the risks are not false, it's scientifically proven, but I don't think that will stop you from believing what you want to believe.
The safety of GMOs is as big a scientific consensus as there is in the field of health. There are more people who dispute the dangers of high cholesterol than GMO safety.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:11 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Well, in actuality the risks are not false, it's scientifically proven, but I don't think that will stop you from believing what you want to believe.
I think we have different definitions of scientific proof.
Most arguments I see about organic food or against vaccines or against GMOs are sciencish. "There's aspartame in Diet Coke and aspartame metabolizes into cyanide and cyanide kills you. Ergo Diet Coke kills you." I'm only partially hyperbolizing.
I haven't seen a single scientific study which demonstrates a conclusive health risk from consuming GMOs.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:13 pm to the808bass
Is definition of scientific proof of a claim is apparently a consensus toward the exact opposite.
See, he believes what he reads on the internet.
See, he believes what he reads on the internet.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:16 pm to the808bass
And aspartame is now one of the most thoroughly tested substances in existence. All claims of its toxic effects or carcinogenicity in normally consumed amounts has been completely debunked. They have taken dosages equivalent to 50 cans of diet coke a day and seen no conclusive relationship.
This post was edited on 5/29/14 at 8:16 pm
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:18 pm to Roger Klarvin
Good to know my one Diet Coke a day habit won't kill me. 
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:19 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
And look at the disease, health problems, rapid aging, out of shape bodies, mental issues..
You mean longer and longer lifespans?
As far as mental issues, what evidence is there to suggest these issues didn't already exist throughout humanity at the same or greater rates, but weren't defined or diagnosed?
Why does it have to be caused by a cross-bred blueberry they used in Blueberry Morning cereal that was consumed by a lot of pregnant women in the 90's?
This post was edited on 5/29/14 at 8:20 pm
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:20 pm to UMTigerRebel
I think my favorite claim was that sugar free Metamucil was giving people cancer because of the aspartame. They then studied it and found that Metamucil actually decreases the risk of colon cancer if used over long periods. 
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:20 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:21 pm to Roger Klarvin
Do you think aspartame is not harmful to the body?
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:22 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
The Mind Unleashed
Well it all makes sense now
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:26 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Without linking the thousands of studies and numerous endeavors by health departments across the globe revealing the same findings over the years, I'll post this nice summary. Much of the info is linked in the article.
LINK
LINK
quote:
Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods. But until now, the magnitude of the research on crop biotechnology has never been cataloged. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists summarized 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.
The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.
This post was edited on 5/29/14 at 8:27 pm
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:30 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Do you think aspartame is not harmful to the body?
It isnt a matter of what I think because I, unlike you, do not believe my personal opinion or those of fringe internet sites carry any weight in matters such as these. The science says it isnt. Unless you have PKU or a rare allergy to artificial sweeteners, it is believed to be perfectly safe at present.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News