Academies of Science finds GMOs not harmful to human health

[bigbaddan]

Oh, are you the authority on truths? Or just on truths decreed upon Europeans?

Oh come on. It has absolutely nothing to do with "trust". That's an even dumber argument than thinking GMOs are unhealthy. It's nothing more than a guise to push this anti-GMO nonsense through.

The only statements backed up by facts in this thread are that GMO foods are inherently healthy and are good for the world. Everything else is opinion...mine included.

[Canpinter]

Probably.

But why should we even accept it, it brings no benefits. We're already destroying food because we produce too much and farms are being abandoned en masse.

because among other things gmos use less pesticides and are less damaging on the environment.

[Kujako]

if you don't want to support big corporations don't by any food that's not locally grown.

Locally grown, can still be Monsanto.

[Noradin]

Europeans are anti-GMO cause they make twice as much from US/EU trade as the Americans. Accepting US agricultural products would help balance that trade.

I'm sure European agriculture is backing the anti-GMO push.

It seems like it would, because the prices for agricultural goods are artificially kept up in Europe to pay for the upkeep of the landscape that farmers provide as a byproduct. If we were to import your goods freely that system would collapse and prices would drop when we would need to pay our farmers directly for their former byproduct with tax money (just to keep our enviroment which we like very much), thus making the agricultural goods the new byproduct they provide for free.

The massive trade opportunity you see in this regard is an illusion, because the price on our food is not what we pay for the food alone, we pay it for the work being done while producing said food. We would still pay a great part of that money if the food was for free. We would have to do it in taxes.

Transfering money to another continent would not keep our lands in the state they are now. (Yes, some people life of this and make good money, we are aware, it is by design.)

[Deleted]

Not it so many words you didn't, but your overarching attitude is that your rights are more important than everything else. The main problem is you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Yes my rights are more important than a private company's profit. You have a problem with that?

[Independent voter]

It seems like it would, because the prices for agricultural goods are artificially kept up in Europe to pay for the upkeep of the landscape that farmers provide as a byproduct. If we were to import your goods freely that system would collapse and prices would drop when we would need to pay our farmers directly for their former byproduct with tax money (just to keep our enviroment which we like very much), thus making the agricultural goods the new byproduct they provide for free.

The massive trade opportunity you see in this regard is an illusion, because the price on our food is not what we pay for the food alone, we pay it for the work being done while producing said food. We would still pay a great part of that money if the food was for free. We would have to do it in taxes.

Transfering money to another continent would not keep our lands in the state they are now. (Yes, some people life of this and make good money, we are aware, it is by design.)

Well, that's fine. We can use tariffs to balance out trade.

[Deleted]

Europeans are anti-GMO cause they make twice as much from US/EU trade as the Americans. Accepting US agricultural products would help balance that trade.

I'm sure European agriculture is backing the anti-GMO push.

Sure Hubcap, evil european farmers against Monsanto's world saving monopoly.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh come on. It has absolutely nothing to do with "trust". That's an even dumber argument than thinking GMOs are unhealthy. It's nothing more than a guise to push this anti-GMO nonsense through.

The only statements backed up by facts in this thread are that GMO foods are inherently healthy and are good for the world. Everything else is opinion...mine included.

Behold guys. This is 2016 "science" aka... religious zealotry of the worst kind.

[bigbaddan]

Exactly. I totally support those corporations with my money, it's well spent.

And that's great. Buy the all natural, 100% organic stuff. By all means. Just don't stand in the way of those that want to see science improve upon the food and the world as a whole. GMO products cut down on water usage, chemical usage, fuel usage, land usage, etc. Frankly, there will come a time (if it hasn't already arrived), when GMO crops will be better for the environment than organic. Which I find humorous.

[Deleted]

because among other things gmos use less pesticides and are less damaging on the environment.

This is without taking into consideration GMO crops and their effect on local ecosystem.

[Halicia]

Locally grown, can still be Monsanto.

everything's local to somewhere.

And while I generally trust this food, it doesn't change the fact that allergic reactions are still lethal.

[bigbaddan]

Yes my rights are more important than a private company's profit. You have a problem with that?

Feel free to separate it out like that if it makes you feel better. By association, your rights are more important than the lives of people throughout the world. Again, if food is already labeled as being organic why force GMO products to be labeled? It's very easy to go full organic with the products available today.

Behold guys. This is 2016 "science" aka... religious zealotry of the worst kind.

Does anyone know what this guy is saying? Does he even know?

[Kujako]

As I said, go save Africa.

They tried. The GMO monocrops had a detrimental overall effect on both the environment and the diet of the people.

[Deleted]

Feel free to separate it out like that if it makes you feel better. By association, your rights are more important than the lives of people throughout the world.



Does anyone know what this guy is saying? Does he even know?

Your association "private company's profit" and "people if the world" is a testament of your delusions of grandeur. You're selling us a product. Not saving the world.

No study clearly states what you have stated, as it has been pointed out to you by many other posters.

[bigbaddan]

They tried. The GMO monocrops had a detrimental overall effect on both the environment and the diet of the people.

That has nothing to do with GMO. Monocrops in general (but not always) are detrimental to the soil/environment, regardless of where in the world they are planted.

[Deleted]

They tried. The GMO monocrops had a detrimental overall effect on both the environment and the diet of the people.

Whoops....

[Matchles]

Which GMOs? They are not a single thing.... they are many if not infinite. If I genetically alter an egg to contain a lethal dose of cyanid (while trying to make an apple hash egg), it's not safe. Thus not all GMOs are safe.

Even it that outrageously bizarre and likely impossible case the danger isn't from the egg being a GMO but from intentional addition of a poison.

[Kujako]

Even it that outrageously bizarre and likely impossible case the danger isn't from the egg being a GMO but from intentional addition of a poison.

My point being (and remains) that saying "all GMOs are safe" is as stupid as saying "all GMOs are unsafe".

[bigbaddan]

Your association "private company's profit" and "people if the world" is a testament of your delusions of grandeur. You're selling us a product. Not saving the world.

It's not possible for a company to make a profit AND help the world. Got it.

No study clearly states what you have stated, as it has been pointed out to you by many other posters.

No study says GMO products are inherently safe? Did you read the first post in this thread? Have you read any study on GMO products? What other posters are saying this?

[feellucky]

It reviewed more than 900 studies and data covering the 20 years since genetically modified crops were first introduced.

- bs science, just reviewing other studies. Did they cherry pick the studies?

Overall, genetically engineered (GE) crops saved farmers in the United States money but didn’t appear to increase crop yields. They have lowered pest populations in some areas, especially in the Midwest but increased the number of herbicide-resistant weeds in others. There’s also no evidence that GE crops have affected the population of monarch butterflies, the report said.

- Main thing here, they don't increase crop yields (according to bs study) and we don't know if GMOs alone lowered pest pops but we can pretty safely say they increased resistant weeds.

The genetic material of GE plants is artificially manipulated to give them characteristics they would not otherwise have. The two most common are pest resistance and the ability to withstand certain herbicides. That allows farmers to spray fields with herbicide, killing weeds while not harming the crops. Drought tolerant traits are newer and also becoming popular.

- are you round-up ready?

Safe for humans

To gauge whether foods made from genetically modified crops were safe for human consumption, the committee compared disease reports from the United States and Canada, where such crops have been consumed since the mid-1990s, and those in the United Kingdom and western Europe, where they are not widely eaten.

- really shitty science

No long-term pattern of increase in specific health problems after the introduction of GE foods in the 1990s in the United States and Canada was found.

There was no correlation between obesity or Type II diabetes and the consumption of GE foods. Celiac disease, which makes humans intolerant of gluten, increased in both populations. Patterns in the increase in autism spectrum disorder in children were similar in both the United Kingdom and the United States, the committee reported

- 36% in the US are obese compared to 22% in europe, how do they explain the difference?






It's not about GMOs being unsafe, pretty sure they're safe by themselves in most cases, but we have plenty of studies to show that pesticides and herbicides are unsafe for human consumption. Now this doesn't mean organic or non-GMO is always better. Plenty of them use so called "natural" pesticides and herbicides which can in some instances be worse than round-up. The best thing is to educate yourself and know where your food comes from by buying from local farmers you know personally or grow yourself. I can also attest that this is cheaper in some cases if you are in the right area of the US.

Anti-GMO is really about business (monsanto) controlling the food supply. They make the farmer's purchase seed from them again every year and they viciously go after farmers in the US who refuse to use their crops. They sued countless farmers for using their products because their crops had been contaminated from neighbors fields. In many cases they drove these farmers to ruin through endless litigation or just broke them into using their crops through intimidation. That's why GMO use is so high in the US. They're branching out into other parts of the world now too, most notably in India.

That said there is a place for GMOs, just look at golden rice. I don't however believe there is a place for what most farms do in the US now, mono-culture and round up. Even this study found no evidence for increased yields and other studies have found this way of farming is not sustainable because of how it depletes nutrients from the soil. Other studies have shown that traditional farming has higher yields and is more sustainable long term than mono-culture with pesticides. Pests are also becoming resistant too just like the weeds which means more and more pesticides and herbicides are needed to be effective or new ones are needed. We need to get away from the labels and look at individual methods.

What we really need is an educated public on all of these issues (really goes to the failure of our press), even highly educated people either are unaware or misinformed on the complexities of this issue, but i can safely count myself on the Anti-GMO side for now because in my view the bad outweighs the good.

[Noradin]

Oh come on. It has absolutely nothing to do with "trust". That's an even dumber argument than thinking GMOs are unhealthy. It's nothing more than a guise to push this anti-GMO nonsense through.

The only statements backed up by facts in this thread are that GMO foods are inherently healthy and are good for the world. Everything else is opinion...mine included.

You are deflecting.
So lets cut to the chase and get back to the the point I brought up and you claimed had no truth in it:

I provided my opinion that 1) asking for labling rules is one of the rights people have in their own democraties and 2) that such lableling would likely raise awareness and lessen the suspicion that the GMO industry is trying to sneak something past the customers if done correctly.
If you try to hide something in a deal or business proposal Europeans will always assume you are trying to cheat them, it is a lesson we have well learned in history. With constant repetitions. Secret arrangements haven't turned out so well for us.
If you want to raise acceptance for your GMO products in Europe then advertise them raise awareness of which products offer benefits already.
If someone slanders your products you can sue them for it and you will win unless they can prove they are right. You do not even need to prove them wrong.

If that is not enough for you and you need the people of Europe to be ignorant of what you are selling them in order to get your deals, then sorry, but we would rather not invite you to sneak things past us an deceive us about your products.

Those lables do not discriminate against protected groups and they do not impose undue hardship. If your only argument against such lables is that people could use them to decide whether to buy the products, then your point is basically that you want to sell us something you assume we would not want if you were truthful about what you sell.
After being presented with such an argument by your side how can any European trust anything you sell unless you provide those lables as asked by our countries and give us adequate ways to make sure you are actually trustworthy concerning them?