Stop Bashing G.M.O. Foods, More Than 100 Nobel Laureates Say

[JohnBrown1917]

Will you also cancel existing trade agreements? Because in 2006 the WTO dispute settlement panel found that restrictions based on GMOs violated trade rules.

The US, if we wished to, could put Europe's feet to the fire on this issue, just based on existing treaty obligations.

If the US wants to force us to accept patented GMO crops, they can go fuck themselves. I'm sick of big corps trying to use political power to get what they want.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course you currently have free trade agreements. There's another, even more comprehensive, one being negotiated, but you have existing agreements.

And in 2006 the WTO found Europe's GMO regulations violated them.

You mean that shitheap called TTIP? That no proper democratic euro country will allow to be passed, and deserves to burn in the hottest hellfire?

[Reeve]

I am fine with GMO foods in general and eat them on a daily basis, I just want them labeled, since it's the right of consumers to know exactly what's in their food to make informed choices.

If we are not going to label them, then we may as well just sell nondescript cans and bottles labelled edible food and water and refuse to explain what's in it, because hey, it's good for you and safe to eat, so why bother with transparency and accountability?

But why label as GMO and not label the name of the farm they came from? Why stop there? Why not label whether it was transported on a train or in a truck? Why not label if they were picked by latinos or caucasians?

Labeling things that are irrelevant in the name of "transparency" doesn't help anyone, but it may validate people's fears that there is some sort of reason to label when there really isn't.

[Osmeric]

Well, if anyone knows bullshit, it's you Osmeric...


Every study that doesn't support the glorious GMO technology and add more profit to the GMO corporations is cherrypicked and false, Every scientist that opposes GMO's are a lying shrill, amrite?

Science builds on truth. Whatever shittastic thought processes you use... well, let's say if you come to any conclusion that resembles reality it's pure coincidence.

[Mayhem]

But why label as GMO and not label the name of the farm they came from? Why stop there? Why not label whether it was transported on a train or in a truck? Why not label if they were picked by latinos or caucasians?

Labeling things that are irrelevant in the name of "transparency" doesn't help anyone, but it may validate people's fears that there is some sort of reason to label when there really isn't.

Actually, we do that.

[AlphaOut]

I'm pretty sure that's bullshit, for the simple reason that the concentration in food would be extremely low, that it's a protein that's destroyed by digestion (that's why people take insulin by injection instead of by pill, you know), and because how could they possibly have tested that in people?

Or maybe what you mean by "is linked to cancer" is "some cherry picked experiment on rats with inadequate design and statistics gave a meaningless result that superficially supports my assertion"?

All I'm saying is there is evidence. In the end I don't care what people eat, nor do I tell people what to and not to eat. But I'll stick to growing my own food. But to touch up more on IFG-1 since that's what you chose to quote. It's good and bad. Its a growth hormone, as we know. Similarly, low levels of IFG-1 can be just as detrimental to our health. However, adding more IFG-1 to meat will not necessarily "cause" cancer, while there is evidence of the possibility, the evidence isn't conclusive. Since it is in fact a growth hormone, it will promote growth in cells, this includes cancer cells- and causing tumors to grow at a higher rate. In other words, if your family has a history of cancer, it's best to not choose GM bovine IFG-1. Here's my opinion, a proper diet does not require you to add anything to it, so why bother?

[Zecora]

But why label as GMO and not label the name of the farm they came from? Why stop there? Why not label whether it was transported on a train or in a truck? Why not label if they were picked by latinos or caucasians?

Labeling things that are irrelevant in the name of "transparency" doesn't help anyone, but it may validate people's fears that there is some sort of reason to label when there really isn't.

Marking food with the farm of origin is something that is done in a lot of countries, and should be done in ALL. It is a great help in case of an outbreak of foodborne disease, or in the case of damaged or low-quality produce.

So no, the one doing fear-mongering here is you, pretending that labelling products is somehow bad.

[Mayhem]

Science builds on truth. Whatever shittastic thought processes you use... well, let's say if you come to any conclusion that resembles reality it's pure coincidence.

The science of "i´m pretty sure that´s bullshit"?

[Osmeric]

All I'm saying is there is evidence.

I don't believe you. I believe there's evidence linking circulating concentrations of these sorts of growth factors to cancer, but those are growth factors manufactured inside the patients' own bodies. But from food? I am extremely skeptical, for the reasons I gave.

But, feel free to support your assertion with citations to the evidence you are saying exists.

- - - Updated - - -

The science of "i´m pretty sure that´s bullshit"?

Yes, for the reasons I explained and that you ignored.

[Zecora]

Science builds on truth. Whatever shittastic thought processes you use... well, let's say if you come to any conclusion that resembles reality it's pure coincidence.

You wouldn't know science if it bit you on the ass. Why? Because you pretend all the truth lie in one extreme only (in your case, the "GMO's are always good, anything that limit GMO companies profit is bad" one). There is absolutely NOTHING scientific about that approach, and that is why you have quite an intimate knowledge of bullshit. That is after all all you have to bring to the table.

[Mayhem]

Yes, for the reasons I explained and that you ignored.

http://www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/d...MP-results.pdf

lies, liees!

Oh wait, you weren´t talking about pestecides anymore, my bad.

[Forogil]

Yes, they are. And if people know about the positive effects instead of losing control of their seeds to the GMO corporations, they will be grown even more.

Losing control like paying 0$ and replanting the GMO-seeds?

[Osmeric]

http://www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/d...MP-results.pdf

lies, liees!

Which has nothing to do with the claim I was being skeptical about.

Can you please start trying to be honest?

[Mayhem]

I edited my post in the meantime.

[Spiffums]

I think their concern is with places actually starving, like Africa and Southeast Asia. Says that in the article at least.

You can send all the food you want to the places where people are actually starving and they would still be starving because the food doesn't go to them.

[Zecora]

Losing control like paying 0$ and replanting the GMO-seeds?

Bullshit. Losing control of their seed stock if they swap to GMO seeds. Which are uneeded, a threat to biodiversity, to soil health, to non-GMO and organic farmers, and via the pesticides, to your health.

Go ahead and eat that shit, just keep it to yourself and stop pushing it on the rest of the world.

[AlphaOut]

I don't believe you. I believe there's evidence linking circulating concentrations of these sorts of growth factors to cancer, but those are growth factors manufactured inside the patients' own bodies. But from food? I am extremely skeptical, for the reasons I gave.

But, feel free to support your assertion with citations to the evidence you are saying exists.

You can educate yourself. Honestly, there's information all over the place from well known and respected professionals in their field. Ranging from biologists to nutritionists. There's literally no reason for me to cite anything to someone who doesn't appear to be open minded. The problem I have with people is if there's a notable risk, or even a possibility, why risk it? Because it's more affordable? I have absolutely no problem tending to our garden, but I'm lucky enough to live in a zone 6 where we can grow practically anything. Not to mention it tastes better.

You need to keep in mind I'm all for GMO's when the technology is actually there. But the fact is, it isn't. Not yet at least. I never once said I was against it, but there are people that jump on GMO's like its the best thing for us. Incorrect, it has great potential when the bio-tech is actually there. You better believe I'm not going to be a guinea pig along the way to GMO success either. You can go back and forth all day on the health risks, but that's only a small piece of long term effects, such as ecological.

[Forogil]

Bullshit. Losing control of their seed stock if they swap to GMO seeds. Which are uneeded, a threat to biodiversity, to soil health, to non-GMO and organic farmers, and via the pesticides, to your health.

Millions are dying - and going blind - and those are your priorities. (And the free reseeding and zero cost is the truth for golden rice for those farmers.)

[Gheld]

Appeal to authority. Nice.

[Osmeric]

You can educate yourself. Honestly, there's information all over the place from well known and respected professionals in their field. Ranging from biologists to nutritionists. There's literally no reason for me to cite anything to someone who doesn't appear to be open minded.

I did do a search. I didn't find any citations to studies showing dietary IGFs are absorbed from the gut. Am I to continue this search indefinitely before I can conclude you don't actually have evidence supporting your assertion?

At some point, the person making the claim has to justify it. The ball is in your court.

- - - Updated - - -

Millions are dying - and going blind - and those are your priorities.

In all fairness, he's helping preserve a long european tradition of national purity and genocide.

[Zecora]

Millions are dying - and going blind - and those are your priorities. (And the free reseeding and zero cost is the truth for golden rice for those farmers.)

And I repeat, WE DON'T NEED IT! There are plenty of vegetables that contain ample amounts of vitamin A, and will grow just fine in Africa and in India. And UNLIKE GMO's, they do NOT carry any drawbacks or unknown risks.

And for your information, the soil health is sufficiently degraded, and we are losing so much soil to erosion that we have no more than 58 or 59 harvests left from most of the industrially farmed farmland on our world, according to the UN. NO amount of GMO pushing will fix that, on the contrary, continued use of pesticides will only serve to degrade the soil further, as will the BT strains that also kill off microorganisms that are important to the soil health and quality.

Put it simply for simple people: We are sawing off the branch we are sitting on, and you want to swap the saw for a chainsaw.