Page 59 of 60 FirstFirst ...
9
49
57
58
59
60
LastLast
  1. #1161
    Quote Originally Posted by Canpinter View Post
    For those saying gmos still need more testing i have to ask how much testing would be necessary to convince you.
    I don't care as long as all their food has to undergo the same treatment and certification process.

    Edit: and the certification can't just be is it GMO or not.

    Frankly, it's surprising that this get as much news as it does compared to the supplement industry that's essentially held to no standards.
    Last edited by Ripster42; 2016-05-09 at 06:49 PM.

  2. #1162
    I am Murloc!
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    5,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Canpinter View Post
    For those saying gmos still need more testing i have to ask how much testing would be necessary to convince you.
    The idea is absurd to begin with

    It is not gmo's that need to be proven safe, it is a given gmo product that need to be proven reasonably safe.

  3. #1163
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Taftvalue View Post
    GM food is not unhealthy. There is no scientific evidence at all to support this paranoia.

    There are valid reasons to be against this, but this isn't one of them.
    GM food? We eat GM food for at least 10 000+ years! Early farmer used selective breeding to get the best results, early form of GM food. Yet more we modify our crops the more people are born, more people can be fed and more people are healthy. Yeah lets commit massive genocide by starving people and throw thousands years worth of hard labour out of window because some retarded SJW vegan GM hater wants to eat shit.

  4. #1164
    Yes we do eat GM food but that GM is done by selective breeding by activating genes that can show up in their current habitat. GMOs have genes that are activated or transplanted that would probably take eons to do so under natural conditions and to be honest we do not know what effect they have on the ecosystems. We know for sure they can contaminate non-GMO cultures. One problem is that even if so far the "contaminations" were sometimes intended, by farmers for profit, once you lose control of seeds to corporations, and this will happen, the GMO plants are too resilient to not take over, you're stuck not being able to grow your own food without having to pay someone. Bye bye any chance of retiring to a small farm and being self-sufficient.

    Anyway, you're not committing genocide by not adopting GMOs, that's not even an argument. We, as a planet, already produce too much food, we just prefer to let people starve because they can't afford to buy said food. It may sound harsh and untrue since we do feel sorry for those people and wouldn't want them to starve but it's not like we do much to help them ... when's the last time you asked politicians to use surplus food to help poor countries, and I don't mean token donations. Or when you asked them to actually make an effort to help them get a sustainable agriculture model, which would help the most but that has a very high upfront cost.

    I'm not even going to go into food in US/EU, both continents are able to produce massive surpluses and there's still land that can be used for agriculture in the underdeveloped countries that recently joined the EU.
    I know this as I am from one, in Romania we have millions of acres of arable land that was used for agriculture back in communist days, that is now unused. Not to mention millions more that was split to people to return the land stolen by communists. That split land is made up of small 2 acre parcels that's very poorly used also.

    Going to add that I don't believe GMOs to be unsafe for consumption by humans or animals - but we sure have no idea what would happen if a certain gene is unstable or activates some other unwanted genes. It's the effect on the ecosystem that we do not know. We will though, the US is experimenting with that for the rest of us.
    Last edited by dakalro; 2016-05-10 at 08:04 AM.

  5. #1165
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Fauier View Post
    GM food? We eat GM food for at least 10 000+ years! Early farmer used selective breeding to get the best results, early form of GM food. Yet more we modify our crops the more people are born, more people can be fed and more people are healthy. Yeah lets commit massive genocide by starving people and throw thousands years worth of hard labour out of window because some retarded SJW vegan GM hater wants to eat shit.
    No just no. We have used selecting breeding over a long time to get it were we want it but GM is Genetically engineered food. Just because you get blue eyes doesn't mean you are a GM person because your parents had those cell allele that pushed for that change. If someone went in and changed your setup using genetic engineering then you would have been a GM person.

  6. #1166
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexton View Post
    No just no. We have used selecting breeding over a long time to get it were we want it but GM is Genetically engineered food. Just because you get blue eyes doesn't mean you are a GM person because your parents had those cell allele that pushed for that change. If someone went in and changed your setup using genetic engineering then you would have been a GM person.
    So we changed genetics of plant by selective breeding, now we change genetics by DNA cannons, same thing faster and better results.
    Breeding - waiting for random damage to DNA to change the plant and keep if better. GM - shooting the damn DNA ourselves and hoping for the best or maybe doing educated guess on what part of DNA to shoot. I say GM is better now.

    Or we just glue some parts from other things. We have to learn to use that damn thing.

  7. #1167
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    Do not try to educate me on what I think or mean or think to mean. Let's stick to your definition. The EU asks nothing more of the US than to adhere to EU labelling regulations. You do not want to do that. EVERYONE else in the EU already complies with those rules. Yet, you think you're the special snowflake that can just sneak undeclared stuff in and then has the fucking nerve to complain when we perk up and say "Huh? What's this? You don't want to declare the content like everyone else? Can't have that, same rules for everyone."

    What you call protectionism... and this doesn't get much better... what you call protectionism is actually about equality as far as we're concerned. And you'll find that this type of equality is a bit stricter than it is in the US. In some cases, Germany, your offer would bounce back with a little note saying "Ha. Ha. Ha." and not much else than that. You'd directly violate the constution and they couldn't let you do that even if they wanted to. Same goes with the ludicrous idea of suing gouvernments. You can appeal to regulation courts like everyone else, but no, you do not get to sue England based on your punk ass wild west legislation that you call the US Code...

    And again, YOU want something from US. Keep that in mind.
    Woah Woah Woah, I did clearly state that I don't find it unreasonable to enforce your own standards for your own lands, did I not, so chill a bit on the hostility, kay? The only problem I had was your misuse of the term protectionism, so calm down and learn to read the whole post before you start freaking out, sound good?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by LeRoy View Post
    Allegedly.
    Allegedly, he has payments in the tens of thousands clearly going into his account and the expenses marked are for ties, suits, and shoes. He either has the most expensive wardrobe ever, or he's a fucking dirty politician who got caught using payouts from his political party to launder his black money.

  8. #1168
    Quote Originally Posted by Fauier View Post
    So we changed genetics of plant by selective breeding, now we change genetics by DNA cannons, same thing faster and better results.
    Breeding - waiting for random damage to DNA to change the plant and keep if better. GM - shooting the damn DNA ourselves and hoping for the best or maybe doing educated guess on what part of DNA to shoot. I say GM is better now.

    Or we just glue some parts from other things. We have to learn to use that damn thing.
    The difference is that with selective breeding there is a set of information that you start out with and only with a very low chance will you accidentally introduces something completely new and unrelated. With GM there is no such limit, you can insert something completely foreign. You can make your corn produce poison to kill off bugs (and end up with one that might harm humans, too).

  9. #1169
    GMOs aren't really the issue.

  10. #1170
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    The difference is that with selective breeding there is a set of information that you start out with and only with a very low chance will you accidentally introduces something completely new and unrelated. With GM there is no such limit, you can insert something completely foreign. You can make your corn produce poison to kill off bugs (and end up with one that might harm humans, too).
    Did you know that 0.65% of the genome of the common grape is composed of DNA from florendoviruses?

    Genomes are full of random crap, and every time you eat some new species, or even some new subvariety of a species you've already eaten, you are being exposed to many thousands of new proteins.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  11. #1171
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    The difference is that with selective breeding there is a set of information that you start out with and only with a very low chance will you accidentally introduces something completely new and unrelated. With GM there is no such limit, you can insert something completely foreign. You can make your corn produce poison to kill off bugs (and end up with one that might harm humans, too).
    Without it there's a good chance you'd be dead, i'd be dead like 90% of population would be dead. You want more players in WOW? You need more people, to feed more people you need some ULTRA GM Food to be able to feed us all. So yeah It have to continue!

  12. #1172
    Quote Originally Posted by Fauier View Post
    Without it there's a good chance you'd be dead, i'd be dead like 90% of population would be dead. You want more players in WOW? You need more people, to feed more people you need some ULTRA GM Food to be able to feed us all. So yeah It have to continue!
    You didn't respond to a word I said.
    Selective breeding is not the same as GMO. It has different limitations.
    The range of possible effects is wider and thus the effects less predictable with GMO, because GMO generally does not take sequqnces o the same species of plant and recombines them. It is used to insert foreign sequences.

    Also, who said I want more people?
    And even if there were more people, we have excess in Europe anyway. For reasons I have explained in previous post we do not want to improve our agricultural food production right now. It would be diatrimental to our ecology in Europe. Thus, at the moment, we have no need for such GMO products that just increase productivity. Sell those to China or India.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Did you know that 0.65% of the genome of the common grape is composed of DNA from florendoviruses?

    Genomes are full of random crap, and every time you eat some new species, or even some new subvariety of a species you've already eaten, you are being exposed to many thousands of new proteins.
    I know, it does not matter for the issue at hand.
    There is a reason why the EU certificates seed.

  13. #1173
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatherRae View Post
    Based on what? I've yet to see a study that backs this claim. Got a link?
    Based on my studies in agricultural engineering and plant doctor. These studies helped me realise, that not many people know here how to use science direct. They know nothing about agriculture, but thanks to these studies they think they do. Some idiots fail to realise that GMO is a term used for specifically for organisms whose genom was altered through bioengineering, thus selective breeding does not equal GMO.
    Last edited by mmocbd16b602c3; 2016-05-21 at 10:58 PM.

  14. #1174
    Legendary! TirielWoW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    You didn't respond to a word I said.
    Selective breeding is not the same as GMO. It has different limitations.
    The range of possible effects is wider and thus the effects less predictable with GMO, because GMO generally does not take sequqnces o the same species of plant and recombines them. It is used to insert foreign sequences.
    Actually, both direct intervention and selective breeding fall under GMO. All GMO stands for is "Genetically Modified Organism." Selective breeding modifies organisms on the genetic level. It's just more haphazard than what goes on in a lab.

    I know, it does not matter for the issue at hand.
    There is a reason why the EU certificates seed.
    Because of fear and ignorance, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by iAnnEr View Post
    Based on my studies in agricultural engineering and plant doctor. These studies helped me realise, that not many people know here how to use science direct. They know nothing about agriculture, but thanks to these studies they think they do. Some idiots fail to realise that GMO is a term used for specifically for organisms whose genom was altered through bioengineering, thus selective breeding does not equal GMO.
    Alright. Please link me to your peer-reviewed studies that prove, scientifically, that Organic food is "healthier."

    I'll wait.
    Tiriél US-Stormrage

    Signature by Shyama

  15. #1175
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatherRae View Post
    Actually, both direct intervention and selective breeding fall under GMO. All GMO stands for is "Genetically Modified Organism." Selective breeding modifies organisms on the genetic level. It's just more haphazard than what goes on in a lab.



    Because of fear and ignorance, yes.



    Alright. Please link me to your peer-reviewed studies that prove, scientifically, that Organic food is "healthier."

    I'll wait.
    My peer-reviewed studies come from hundreds of textbooks, several professors and a few sales managers of bigger plant protection companies. There is a reason why conventional farming gets higher and higher restrictions each year in EU.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0881461501208X

    Just one of the thousand researches.

  16. #1176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatherRae View Post
    Actually, both direct intervention and selective breeding fall under GMO. All GMO stands for is "Genetically Modified Organism." Selective breeding modifies organisms on the genetic level. It's just more haphazard than what goes on in a lab.
    Yes, that is the words it litterally stands for, but that is not its definition as used here.
    You're just being obstuse.

    If someone mentions the US, the United States, would you think they might speak of Germany? Because it is made up of states (each with a constitution and everything) and it united not too long ago. So if you took the words literally, those could be the United States. We know of course that that isn't what someone using that title means, because we have something called context.

    If we took the words the way you imply we should, then it would apply to all organisms that aren't exact clones (even the cloning we can do right now would be GMO, because they only shared the same DNA and might differ in RNA).
    Hell, even contracting some illness might make an organism "GMO" the way you interpret it.

    In short: Your interpretation of the meaning of the words is nonsense - designed only for (ab)use in the argument you are trying to make.
    Last edited by Noradin; 2016-05-22 at 12:52 PM.

  17. #1177
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatherRae View Post
    Actually, both direct intervention and selective breeding fall under GMO. All GMO stands for is "Genetically Modified Organism." Selective breeding modifies organisms on the genetic level. It's just more haphazard than what goes on in a lab.
    Once you realize that norridin doesn't actually care about GMOs and really just wants to protect domestic agriculture you can pretty much just stop arguing with them.

  18. #1178
    Legendary! TirielWoW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,616
    Quote Originally Posted by iAnnEr View Post
    My peer-reviewed studies come from hundreds of textbooks, several professors and a few sales managers of bigger plant protection companies. There is a reason why conventional farming gets higher and higher restrictions each year in EU.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0881461501208X

    Just one of the thousand researches.
    Okay. Show me more.

    There are two major studies that I know of that have addressed the question of whether or not Organic foods are "more nutritious" than non-organic foods (and by "major," I mean that they focused on a huge amount of data). Each study came to the opposite conclusion. So, in essence, the jury is out, but there is no irrefutable proof that organic foods are more nutritious than non-organic foods. Even the study you linked simply says that the organic version of the oranges has different levels of certain chemicals than the non-organic version. Some things are higher in the organic oranges, while other things are higher in the non-organic oranges. But they both basically have the same nutrients.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Once you realize that norridin doesn't actually care about GMOs and really just wants to protect domestic agriculture you can pretty much just stop arguing with them.
    If he wants to protect domestic agriculture, more power to him. All I care about is that he's spouting bullshit. :|
    Tiriél US-Stormrage

    Signature by Shyama

  19. #1179
    Deleted
    There is NO DOUBT that the TTIP is an atrocious deal for Europe in terms of lowering the standards we managed to achieve in the food industry.
    Having said that, politicians in power in Europe have ALREADY damaged European interests several times in the past few years so it wouldn't surprise me at all if TTIP or a close version of it would come to pass.

  20. #1180
    Legendary! TirielWoW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    There is NO DOUBT that the TTIP is an atrocious deal for Europe in terms of lowering the standards we managed to achieve in the food industry.
    Having said that, politicians in power in Europe have ALREADY damaged European interests several times in the past few years so it wouldn't surprise me at all if TTIP or a close version of it would come to pass.
    If we're being perfectly honest, the TPP deal is terrible for everyone except for some rich fatcats. It's an awful treaty.
    Tiriél US-Stormrage

    Signature by Shyama

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •