Scientists Declare No Consensus on GMO Safety

[Randec]

The issue isn't whether GMO's are safe, it's the obvious consequences of the type of agriculture practices that they facilitate.

They're modifying these plants to be immune to poisons and then spraying them all over the earth. They make their plants immune so that they can douse on higher concentrations of herbicides and insecticides. Their crops will survive, but will the other insects/animals/plants in the area that haven't been genetically modified to be resilient to their herbicides and insecticides? Bees are already suffering for this very reason, and bees play a vital role in the ecosystem.

[Wixwix]

People still believe GMO are safe and healthy?

Jeez.

[Zecora]

The issue isn't whether GMO's are safe, it's the obvious consequences of the type of agriculture practices that they facilitate.

They're modifying these plants to be immune to poisons and then spraying them all over the earth. They make their plants immune so that they can douse on higher concentrations of herbicides and insecticides. Their crops will survive, but will the other insects/animals/plants in the area that haven't been genetically modified to be resilient to their herbicides and insecticides? Bees are already suffering for this very reason, and bees play a vital role in the ecosystem.

Precisely, the value of pollination done by bees alone runs into billions of dollars every year. In addition, monoculture is very harmful to the environment and biodiversity. The use of patented strains of food plants also leads to an indenture of farmers who can no longer get seeds from their crop for next year, or for sale, but have to buy new every year. There is also a huge negative impact with GMO's spreading and ending up contaminating the crop of organic farmers who then are unable to sell their produce.

All this comes on top of the health issues of GMO foods, issues that are by no means settled. There is no shortage of peer-reviewed studies that cause considerable concern over the long-term effects of consumption of GMO foods. A few of these can be found here.

[ComputerNerd]

Your anti-GM crusade has been proven to simply be a childish bias multiple times, but you still keep on on about it.
Cross or selective breeding is just as much genetic manipulation, but on an uncontrolled, less studied and much larger scale
You are in denial of basic facts.
Grow up.

This has nothing to with the consequences, those simply being a smokescreen for them to use in their argument to cover up basic facts they don't want discussed.

[Zecora]

Your anti-GM crusade has been proven to simply be a childish bias multiple times, but you still keep on on about it.
Cross or selective breeding is just as much genetic manipulation, but on an uncontrolled, less studied and much larger scale
You are in denial of basic facts.
Grow up.

This has nothing to with the consequences, those simply being a smokescreen for them to use in their argument to cover up basic facts they don't want discussed.

I register that you feel you have to resort to ad hominem attacks, presumably since you have no actual counter-arguments. You should be aware that selective breeding is in NO way the same as genetic manipulation. Quite besides them differing in every significant way, the former is well studied and has been performed for milennia, while the latter is poorly studied, poorly understood and may or may not pose a significant problem to health and safety as well as the environment. This is what those the OP cites wish for, more studies giving us more understanding.

[Deleted]

Your anti-GM crusade has been proven to simply be a childish bias multiple times, but you still keep on on about it.
Cross or selective breeding is just as much genetic manipulation, but on an uncontrolled, less studied and much larger scale
You are in denial of basic facts.
Grow up.

This has nothing to with the consequences, those simply being a smokescreen for them to use in their argument to cover up basic facts they don't want discussed.

Clearly you did not read the OP, your anti-anti-GM crusade has been proven to simply be a childish bias.. blablahblabla
Grow up and learn to read shit before you post.

[Osmeric]

And these scientists haven't done any research?

These people are a cherrypicked fringe, and do not represent the scientific community as a whole. That's the difference. You can always find fringe whackos in any scientific field who believe bizarre crap. And, as was pointed out, many of these names are of people who aren't actually in the relevant field.

- - - Updated - - -

People still believe GMO are safe and healthy?

Jeez.

We believe it because it's actually the truth. Why do you believe, falsely, that they are unsafe or unhealthy? How did you come to have this incorrect opinion?

[Deleted]

Not really news for me. But I'd see how mentally enslaved puppets of mega-corporations such as Monsanto would be willing to give their own life to defend their (false) reality.
If you really despise GMO's, and also don't eat them, then I don't see why you'd go miles just to convince some indoctrinated strangers about health.

[Osmeric]

But I'd see how mentally enslaved puppets of mega-corporations such as Monsanto

Cults often have little memes like this to dismiss uncomfortable contrary opinions. Someone thinks you're full of shit? Why, let's just proclaim they're in mental thrall to Monsanto, and, presto, you can ignore them!

Doesn't it get kind of uncomfortable when so many people start telling you you're mistaken, though? I mean, Monsanto must have some REALLY powerful mind control rays to work on all of is. Thank Gaia you have a tinfoil hat to keep those rays out of your brain.

[Gheld]

The problem with this thread is that the title is misleading. It should read "93 PhD holders, only some of whom are scientists, only some of whom are scientists in fields relevant to this topic declare argumentum ad ignorantiam on claims of GMO safety"

[Themius]

This may sound insane to you, but when you have a question, wouldnt you ask the expert? Or are ALL experts authorities and therefore your "argument" can be used against anythign any educated person ever said? Why stop there? The law is an authority too, right? Let's not believe anything any more that anyone says "according to law".

I hope that my irony shows you how stupid your position is.

I would ask the experts in that field... if I have a question about black holes. I'm not going to ask the person with the phd in sociology.

[Nakura Chambers]

We believe it because it's actually the truth. Why do you believe, falsely, that they are unsafe or unhealthy? How did you come to have this incorrect opinion?

IIRC it has to do with the European beef industry trying to defame the United States, in order to convince people to buy European beef, instead of American beef.

[ringpriest]

Really, Rukentuts? You're going to call out the OP for using what you perceive to be an improper argument style, while simultaneously implying that I can't argue in good faith because you believe I have a military/gun obsession?

As long as it doesn't take long to type and derails the discussion, he'll say anything. Remember George Bernard Shaw's line, "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

Personally, I think it's nice to see a group of relatively informed individuals saying, "We don't actually know" about something. Of course, I'm sure Monsanto hates it, because they've spent years claiming it's all perfectly safe, even when they don't have the ability to know either way.

[Zecora]

We believe it because it's actually the truth. Why do you believe, falsely, that they are unsafe or unhealthy? How did you come to have this incorrect opinion?

Well, if you're so sure they are safe, what exactly is the problem with more knowledge? Because that is all the scientists in the OP's post is calling for. Now me, I'd ban all GMO foods, but that is in no way, shape or form what the ones in the OP's post is calling for.

- - - Updated - - -

Cults often have little memes like this to dismiss uncomfortable contrary opinions. Someone thinks you're full of shit? Why, let's just proclaim they're in mental thrall to Monsanto, and, presto, you can ignore them!

Doesn't it get kind of uncomfortable when so many people start telling you you're mistaken, though? I mean, Monsanto must have some REALLY powerful mind control rays to work on all of is. Thank Gaia you have a tinfoil hat to keep those rays out of your brain.

You know, I don't really need to think you're a "thrall to Monsanto" to ignore your opinions, your posts and the tone in them are more than reason enough.

[Osmeric]

Well, if you're so sure they are safe, what exactly is the problem with more knowledge? Because that is all the scientists in the OP's post is calling for. Now me, I'd ban all GMO foods, but that is in no way, shape or form what the ones in the OP's post is calling for.

I am objecting to a liar saying that there isn't a consensus that GMOs are safe. All responsible organizations that have studied the issues have found that the concerns aren't matched by evidence.

You know, I don't really need to think you're a "thrall to Monsanto" to ignore your opinions, your posts and the tone in them are more than reason enough.

Yes, ignorance is one of your key competencies. But please, continue to regard me with disdain. Given your advocacy for a position that is effectively genocidal, I consider your disapproval a point of honor.

[Zecora]

I am objecting to a liar saying that there isn't a consensus that GMOs are safe. All responsible organizations that have studied the issues have found that the concerns aren't matched by evidence.

Really?

Yes, ignorance is one of your key competencies. But please, continue to regard me with disdain. Given your advocacy for a position that is effectively genocidal, I consider your disapproval a point of honor.

By all means, go on proving your inabillity to make posts without strawmen or ad hominems.

[Osmeric]

Really?

Yes, really. That's link is a compendium of low quality, bad science, cherrypicked by an advocacy organization.

By all means, go on proving your inabillity to make posts without strawmen or ad hominems.

Tell me, yes or no: do you support the introduction of Golden Rice in the third world?

[Underverse]

I wouldn't ask the person with a PhD in sociology anything, except perhaps what decisions they made in life so I don't accidentally end up with a degree in sociology.

ahahahahaha you're too mean

[Zecora]

Yes, really. That's link is a compendium of low quality, bad science, cherrypicked by an advocacy organization.

I suspect you would say so no matter how long the list or who is on it. I also see that you can't actually offer any actual counter-arguments to the peer-reviewed studies, but fall back to a position of refusing to believe what contradicts your chosen position.

Tell me, yes or no: do you support the introduction of Golden Rice in the third world?

You can't get yes or no answers to complex issues.

[Osmeric]

I suspect you would say so no matter how long the list or who is on it. I also see that you can't actually offer any actual counter-arguments to the peer-reviewed studies, but fall back to a position of refusing to believe what contradicts your chosen position.

Let's see what the net has to say about some of these. I see the list has three papers from Séralini in it. Let's see what wikipedia has to say about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

Before 2012, Séralini had published other peer-reviewed papers which concluded that there were health risks to genetically modified foods. In each case, members of the scientific community and food safety authorities had concluded that Séralini's data were insufficient to support his conclusions.

In 2007, Séralini and two other authors from University of Caen and the University of Rouen published a study of these data, funded by Greenpeace.[16][17][18] The study concluded that MON 863 caused numerous health problems in rats, including weight changes, triglyceride level increases in females, changes in urine composition in males, and reduced function or organ damage in the liver, kidney, adrenal glands, heart, and haematopoietic system.[16] The study concluded that evaluating MON 863 safety required experiments longer than 90 days, as chronic organ problems are rarely evident within such a short amount of time.[16] Greenpeace cited the study in a press release, in which it said that MON 863 should be completely recalled from the global market and called for a strict review of current testing methods.[19]

The paper prompted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to reexamine the MON 863 safety data. This included asking EU countries for any new data about the strain and new opinions on the original Monsanto toxicity study, and a technical meeting with the authors of the 2007 CRIIGEN paper. The EFSA concluded that all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the normal range of values for control animals[20] and that the paper used incorrect statistical methods.[21] These conclusions were reported by Markos Kyprianou (European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy) to the European Parliament on 9 July 2010.[22] The French Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire (AFBV) also reached critical conclusions.[23] Food Standards Australia New Zealand also reviewed the 2007 Séralini study and concluded that "...all of the statistical differences between rats fed MON 863 corn and control rats are attributable to normal biological variation."[24][25]

In 2009, the Séralini lab published another study, which re-analyzed the toxicity data for NK603 (glyphosate resistant), MON 810, and MON 863 strains.[26] The data included three rat feeding studies published by Monsanto scientists on MON 810 (Bt corn).[27][28][29] This study concluded that the three crops caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in the rats.[26]

The EFSA reviewed the 2009 Séralini paper and concluded that the authors' claims were not supported by the data in their paper, that many of their fundamental statistical criticisms of the 2007 paper also applied to the 2009 paper, and that there was no new information that would change the EFSA's conclusions that the three GM maize types were safe for human and animal health, and for the environment.[30] The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee[31] (HCB) also reviewed the Séralini 2009 study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."[32] The HCB also questioned the authors' independence, noting that, in 2010, the Séralini web page still showed a 2008 Austrian anti-GM article which had been previously withdrawn by the authors themselves as flawed. Food Standards Australia New Zealand concluded that the results from the 2009 Séralini study were due to chance alone.[33]

To see what a reputable, mainstream scientific body says, look at this EU report:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosoci...o_research.pdf

“The main conclusion drawn from the 130 research projects and involving more than 500 independent research groups is that biotechnology and particularly GMOs are not per se more risky than e.g. traditional plant breeding.”

You can't get yes or no answers to complex issues.

Sane individuals have no trouble saying that a technology that would prevent millions of premature deaths is a good thing. You seem to be unable to abandon your inhuman ideology, even in the face of its horrific implications.