Academies of Science finds GMOs not harmful to human health

[Deleted]

It wouldn't deter me at all. Because I'm not some science-fearing luddite.

Then why the fuck do you care?

[Tradewind]

Then why the fuck do you care?

I dislike it when people fight science with bullshit and feelings. Makes us all retarded.

[Deleted]

Kind of a silly thing to take a semantic stand on. I think the warnings on hair driers are nothing more than words because I'm not an idiot that would use it in a bath. Does that mean it isn't a warning label?

The warnings on an hairdryer are warning you of potential risks. A GMO label would INFORM the buyer of the presence of GMO on the product he's about to buy.
Give the customer the choice to choose freely? No? Too "hippie" for you guys?

- - - Updated - - -

You are all over the fucking map lol.

Thankfully we have solid guys like yourself that are standing on rock solid bottom on this.
So you were saying how totally unaffected you are by gmo labeling yet you dont want em on because reasons?

[Pantelija]

i didnt know we had GMO shills on mmo-champ, i learn something new every day

[Tradewind]

Thankfully we have solid guys like yourself that are standing on rock solid bottom on this.
So you were saying how totally unaffected you are by gmo labeling yet you dont want em on because reasons?

Goddamn...quoting it again rather than explaining it all over to someone else...

Forcing labeling on harmless products is just an unfair burden on businesses of all kinds, not just big companies either. Costing businesses and individuals for no reason other than consumer fear driven by misinformation.

[Spectral]

If you can't see reasons to single out GMOs as the agriculture production technique that needs labeling, considering the impact they have on local agriculture and the lack of long term studies (findings on monsanto's corn), well then that is your own problem. It's my right to be informed as a customer about which company make use of products spearheaded by a lobby of companies I find myself in disagreement with.
Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, of course I have a problem with arbitrarily requiring onerous regulation and paperwork for a standard modern agriculture technique. No such structures exist for the use of automated wheat threshers, agricultural hybridization, or mechanical soil tilling. Labeling an agricultural method on packaging would be a really unusual step that demands an important reason more than, "some consumers would like it".

For the consumers that desire GMO-free food, they already have a route to go - they can simply seek out GMO-free food. This status quo allows the people who don't want GMOs to avoid them without placing undue burden on the agricultural industry.

No they don't have a process for doing so. And this is the root of the issue.

You're advocating for creating such a regulatory apparatus to define the requirements for labeling, an enforcement apparatus to ensure these requirements are met, and a compliance division to handle all paperwork and claims. I don't really know what you're trying to say here. Obviously this doesn't exist for such labels right now. Obviously it costs a lot of money. You kind of need to demonstrate why this is a good use of tax dollars and consumer costs if you're advocating for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why the fuck do you care?

It's costly for taxpayers and consumers while providing no tangible benefit. I've worked at a regulatory agency and I've worked in science - as a result of this, I'm aware of how enforcement for labeling regulation works and it's not some trivial process where we just say, "OK, everyone label things tomorrow!" and move on. I do not desire to incur this cost if there's not a really good reason to do so.

[Matchles]

i didnt know we had GMO shills on mmo-champ, i learn something new every day

The label you are looking for is "scientifically literate."

[Deleted]

Goddamn...quoting it again rather than explaining it all over to someone else...

Oh it's an unfair burden on businesses! Well sure we wouldn't want businesses to have their feelings hurt by those bad bad people that for a variety of reason decide not to give them their own money.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, of course I have a problem with arbitrarily requiring onerous regulation and paperwork for a standard modern agriculture technique. No such structures exist for the use of automated wheat threshers, agricultural hybridization, or mechanical soil tilling. Labeling an agricultural method on packaging would be a really unusual step that demands an important reason more than, "some consumers would like it".

For the consumers that desire GMO-free food, they already have a route to go - they can simply seek out GMO-free food. This status quo allows the people who don't want GMOs to avoid them without placing undue burden on the agricultural industry.

You're advocating for creating such a regulatory apparatus to define the requirements for labeling, an enforcement apparatus to ensure these requirements are met, and a compliance division to handle all paperwork and claims. I don't really know what you're trying to say here. Obviously this doesn't exist for such labels right now. Obviously it costs a lot of money. You kind of need to demonstrate why this is a good use of tax dollars and consumer costs if you're advocating for it.

- - - Updated - - -


It's costly for taxpayers and consumers while providing no tangible benefit. I've worked at a regulatory agency and I've worked in science - as a result of this, I'm aware of how enforcement for labeling regulation works and it's not some trivial process where we just say, "OK, everyone label things tomorrow!" and move on. I do not desire to incur this cost if there's not a really good reason to do so.

Yes. They're called "regulations". See, in a society not run by corporations is the state who regulates the market, and the state is represented by people who voted them.
I know it might sound absurd or abstract to you but this is how a state should work.
Otherwise you don't have a state, you have a franchise.

- - - Updated - - -

But of all the crap this has to be the most hilarious. Spectral did you just say "its expensive for the taxpayers"? GMO labeling is expensive for the taxpayers?

Such science and reason.

[Illuminance]

Such science and reason.

Don't pretend like science and reason factor into your decision making when it comes to this topic. Science and reason are not on your side in this debate.

[Deleted]

Don't pretend like science and reason factor into your decision making when it comes to this topic. Science and reason are not on your side in this debate.

You're right. Science and reason are on the side of the guys shouting "science and reason".

[Osmeric]

You're right. Science and reason are on the side of the guys shouting "science and reason".

So tell me, how DID you come to the anti-GMO position, seeing as how the actual scientific evidence doesn't support it? And do you use this same evidence-free approach to other decisions in your life?

[May90]

I don't quite understand where this fear of GMO products came from. We have been cultivating and modifying food since many thousands years ago - why is doing it with more modern means suddenly bad? Of course GMOs are not harmful; why would they be? It is like, I don't know, saying that a katana made by a robot is more dangerous than one made by a human smith: "We've never done it in the past! What if the katana hurts our health by us holding it in our hand somehow?"

[Spectral]

Yes. They're called "regulations". See, in a society not run by corporations is the state who regulates the market, and the state is represented by people who voted them.
I know it might sound absurd or abstract to you but this is how a state should work.
Otherwise you don't have a state, you have a franchise.

Normally, we try to back regulations with sound science and best practices, not just make them up arbitrarily on the basis that uninformed people are upset about something. Why should GMOs be an exception to that?

But of all the crap this has to be the most hilarious. Spectral did you just say "its expensive for the taxpayers"? GMO labeling is expensive for the taxpayers?

Such science and reason.

Yes, regulatory policy and enforcement costs money.

At this point, you're just being deliberately obtuse. Seriously, do you have any background or even the slightest interest in science or regulatory policy?

[Hardkorr]

I don't quite understand where this fear of GMO products came from. We have been cultivating and modifying food since many thousands years ago - why is doing it with more modern means suddenly bad? Of course GMOs are not harmful; why would they be? It is like, I don't know, saying that a katana made by a robot is more dangerous than one made by a human smith: "We've never done it in the past! What if the katana hurts our health by us holding it in our hand somehow?"

Well, you are what you eat. Foods people consume affect their biology, no doubt, and my main concern about GMO is the seedless foods. I think GMO which are modified to be sterile also sterilize animals who eat them over time, including humans. However that's just my opinion and here are some articles you can check out to form your own.

http://www.academia.edu/3138607/Morp...Corn_Ajeeb_YG_
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240732/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314908/

[haxartus]

Pretty much everything we have eaten for the past few thousand years has been genetically modified by us and didn't exist in nature before us.
Here is a wild, unmodified watermelon:

Nobody has eaten anything "natural" in a very, very long time.

[Bigbamboozal]

GMOs have been around for two decades. Good thing science doesn't operate based on your unfounded feelings.

wow...you think two decades is a long time? bwahaha life noob
Long term effects don't look at one generation, but several. As in we find out what it does to your children's children.
Good thing science has a greater attention to detail than you...

[Jinpachi]

Wait, is this right? COOL! Man we humans are a clever bunch.

This is not genetic modification. Hybridization or cultivars. Taking animal dna to produce desired traits in plants is fucked up, not natural, and hasnt been around long enough to do any real studies on long term effects.

[Allerius]

Open question to you anti-GMO types: can any of you provide some sort of mechanism or theory as to how GMOs are harmful to human health? Bonus points if you include at least a high school level understanding of genetics or molecular biology.

[Forogil]

This is not genetic modification. Hybridization or cultivars. Taking animal dna to produce desired traits in plants is fucked up, not natural, and hasnt been around long enough to do any real studies on long term effects.

At least dna transfer from plants, fungi, and bacteria to completely different plants is "natural" since it occurs in nature and is important for the evolution.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal...comms2148.html

[Deleted]

So tell me, how DID you come to the anti-GMO position, seeing as how the actual scientific evidence doesn't support it? And do you use this same evidence-free approach to other decisions in your life?

See, my dear Osmeric... There is a ton of issues once you look at it using not only SCIENCE!!!! but also common sense. For example, I don't like the fact that the product is being pushed by a limited number of companes that is aggressively seeking to control our food market. I don'tlike the fact that we have "two decades of studies" (lol science!!!) on a matter that needs to take 50 years more to make sure there aren't any nasty consequences on the local ecosystem, like, pesticide resistant weeds or no more bees or replacement of the local variey of seeds with only ONE seed.
There is NO DOUBT that genetic modification of food can bring to incredible results. There is also NO DOUBT that what private companies want is profit. I'm not ok with the two mixing.
That too much hippie of a thought for you? Not too much SCIENCE!!! in it?

- - - Updated - - -

Normally, we try to back regulations with sound science and best practices, not just make them up arbitrarily on the basis that uninformed people are upset about something. Why should GMOs be an exception to that?

Yes, regulatory policy and enforcement costs money.

At this point, you're just being deliberately obtuse. Seriously, do you have any background or even the slightest interest in science or regulatory policy?

You can keep on ignore the myriad of issues at play with GMO that really aren't as sound as SCIENCE!!! tells us. Like... what the poster below you states for example. OR simply the fact that you have a lobby monopolising the food market. Those two only should be enough to at least warrant customers the option to choose wether or not to support them.
The fact that you dont want citizens to have that choice because "theyre ignorant" is not reasonable in the slighest. It's actually pretty pathetic.
PLEASE spectral. Just dont talk about "taxpayers" ok? Fucking ridiculous.