GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide

[Sargerasraider]

But hey, the significant rise in neurological and dietary disorders is just merely a coincidence. Pay no attention to the elephant in the room.

Since correlation obviously always equals causation, I think you might be misguided.



Watch out for big-organic!!

[Calfredd]

Just like in most of his threads, it seems like the OP just makes these threads only to disappear until he makes another thread. Kind of odd that he keeps doing that.

[Charge me Doctor]

There have been lots of studies that have been done with GMO's to study longterm effects, and almost everytime it shows bad symptons, the study/scientists gets discredited the same way climate change studies where lobbied out of politics.

This kind of attacks + the fact that there is a lot of money in GMO's for some people makes me suspicious and if you think I shouldn't be and that everything is all fine and dandy, then I seriously have to question your logic.

Because they are wrong, you can't, for example, take mice species from cancer cells growth research for GMO tests, feed them 100% corn diet and say "hey! they grow cancer cells! GMO is dangerous" and then expect not being attacked for tremendous mistakes you've made while doing your job, while your job has high impact on current events

[lockedout]

Since correlation obviously always equals causation, I think you might be misguided.



Watch out for big-organic!!

Meanwhile the kids with autism never ate one piece of organic food.

[Very Tired]

Why exactly does the OP have a deep seeded hatred for GMO that leads to to creating a million anti-GMO threads, always with him never staying to defend his point?

[Charge me Doctor]

Why exactly does the OP have a deep seeded hatred for GMO that leads to to creating a million anti-GMO threads, always with him never staying to defend his point?

He tried once but was proven wrong, so he doesn't try anymore i guess.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Meanwhile the kids with autism never ate one piece of organic food.

And you think that somehow causes Autism I bet.

[Sargerasraider]

And you think that somehow causes Autism I bet.

Well, it couldn't have been the MMR vaccine as children who didn't get it were equally likely to have autism...

(Madsen et al. (2002) A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1477-1482.)

[Rukentuts]

Haven't we debunked this bullshit premise once already? GMOs aren't the problem here, shitty farming practices are.

[Gheld]

In all fairness,'Natural foods' aren't completely useless. In the last year I've started avoiding foods that use sodium nitrite as a preservative and I've seen a reduction in both frequency and intensity of my migraines. But that obviously has nothing to do with GMO.

P.s. there's currently no transgenic GMO foods in the food chain. Which makes about 99.9% of the anti-GMO hysteria bullshit.

[Elim Garak]

In all fairness,'Natural foods' aren't completely useless. In the last year I've started avoiding foods that use sodium nitrite as a preservative and I've seen a reduction in both frequency and intensity of my migraines. But that obviously has nothing to do with GMO.

That's salt, salt causes high blood pressure -> migraines (in some people who have migraines, i.e. defective blood veins net in the brain)
But salt prevents botulism!

[Deleted]

meh i don't accuse you for having a simple mind. i think your evidence for making such a claim is flimsy. in any case, look up monsanto's market share vs. the organic industry. and read up on your news source bud

So are you saying organic industry is 1 company?
I don't need much evidence to make a claim, especially when the best evidence to counteract this claim is 'unsufficient data' and 'nobody dropped dead yet'.

You place me into the anti-GMO camp, I've stated many times that I am in favor of experiments with Geneticly modified DNA on all sorts of organisms. However I am not in favor of distributing large quantities of geneticly modified organisms into the food chain without knowing any long term effects, and so should you, if you have half a brain.

And don't give me the 'its the same as cross breeding', its obviously not, otherwise ancient farmers would have found a cure for cancer by crossbreading dandylions and strawberries.

[Charge me Doctor]

So are you saying organic industry is 1 company?
I don't need much evidence to make a claim, especially when the best evidence to counteract this claim is 'unsufficient data' and 'nobody dropped dead yet'.

You place me into the anti-GMO camp, I've stated many times that I am in favor of experiments with Geneticly modified DNA on all sorts of organisms. However I am not in favor of distributing large quantities of geneticly modified organisms into the food chain without knowing any long term effects, and so should you, if you have half a brain.

And don't give me the 'its the same as cross breeding', its obviously not, otherwise ancient farmers would have found a cure for cancer by crossbreading dandylions and strawberries.

It's not like "HEY GUYZ LETS ADD POO GENE TO THIS POTATO AND GROW 100 TONS OF IT TO SELL ON MARKET", they already pass a lot of tests until test samples even get out of laboratory

[Stir]

Just some random google search.

1. GMOs are unhealthy.

Nonsense. SOME GMOs are unhealthy. Don't blame modification itself; blame producers and greed. Don't blame steel for being used in guns.

2. GMOs contaminate―forever.

'Contaminate?' What exactly do you mean? Reproduce with non-GMOs? And if so... Does that have to be bad, or is it merely risky because some organizations are modifying crops in a way that is less than beneficial to anything but making money..?

3. GMOs increase herbicide use.

Untrue. Very specific GMO crops increase herbicide use, because they're engineered to sell more herbicides. GMOs could also reduce the amount of herbicides used, but there's no money in that. Blame the ones who're selling herbicides. Looking at you, Roundup.

4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.

Which can, and should, be controlled for. Blame the producers who don't really care about anything but lining their pockets.

5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.

Blame the governments doing the overseeing, the people having their palms greased, and the lobby groups. Don't blame genetic modification for something it doesn't do.

6. The biotech industry uses "tobacco science" to claim product safety.

Blame the biotech industry for THAT, then.

7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.

And I've never seen a GMO do that.

Like I said, it goes the way the climate changes reports went a few years ago.

Not really. Not entirely. Because the exhaust fumes that greatly exasserbate climate instability are inherently doing that. It's not as if they could ever be safe, or beneficial.

8. GMOs harm the environment.

And they do not have to. Again, blame greed for that.

9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.

That is a nonsense argument. They do in fact increase yields, but 'increasing yields' does nothing for the hungry because we don't really have a food shortage to begin with. Merely a huge distribution problem.

10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.

That's not an argument against GMOs themselves, nor will it be very effective. If GMO foods are less expensive, then it doesn't matter how you vote with your wallet... The largest group of people will still buy them no matter what.

What you want is to promote regulation and care. Do we really need more soy, when our fields are (globally) undergrazed? Do we really need to cut down more rainforest for that? What are the advantages of new cultivation methods like vertical farming? How can we engineer a crop so that it actually benefits the people, rather than just raise money? Why is genetic modification done mostly on crops that already cause more damage than that they contribute (soy and corn being the main problems, here)? How can we de-incentivize rapid profit on high-glucose/protein foods (for humans and farm animals, neither of whom has either as an optimal foodsource), and incentivize the production of high quality and reliable vegetables and fruits?

Most GMO 'problem deniers' do not deny that there is a problem with how producers go about things, with how large corporations are off the rails in many instances, and they don't deny that there is a large herbicide/incesticide problem that only gets worse by introducing crops that bring absolutely nothing other than a resistance to more poison (round-up ready, for instance). But that doesn't mean that GMO by default is bad.

[Deleted]

There should really be an anti-gmo discussion on this forum entirely. Let the plastic eaters do what the fuck they want, nobody cares...specially now since the gmo labeling law has been approved in the US.

[Rukentuts]

There should really be an anti-gmo discussion on this forum entirely. Let the plastic eaters do what the fuck they want, nobody cares...specially now since the gmo labeling law has been approved in the US.

1) "Plastic eaters"
2) I'm aware of the Vermont law, but I'm not aware of a federal one.

[Charge me Doctor]

8. GMOs harm the environment.
9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.

Go on, I am exited to hear your response

Golden rice my ass, your turn. Just quick sum up, people from red-cross--kind-of-program banned yellow rice (with high vitamin A concentration) from sending it to Africa (for example), because they (red cross) already send them medicine (expensive vitamins that are not that effective, because huge part of them are pissed out of body), because golden rice is GMO. How insane is that? People are dying from vitamin A deficiency, and red cross is denying them a cheap and effective solution of their problem, but instead get profit from sending expensive vitamins

[Deleted]

*snip*
Most GMO 'problem deniers' do not deny that there is a problem with how producers go about things, with how large corporations are off the rails in many instances, and they don't deny that there is a large herbicide/incesticide problem that only gets worse by introducing crops that bring absolutely nothing other than a resistance to more poison (round-up ready, for instance). But that doesn't mean that GMO by default is bad.

And again, pointing out problems with GMO's places me into the 'hysteria-anti-GMO-treehuggers'-camp, instead of blindly ignoring my actual standpoint on GMO's, you could try and read what I try to say:

- GMO-research in itself isn't the problem, distributing it amonst the population for consumation is, especially when little research is done on the longterm effects on the human body.

- GMO-research can be very beneficial especially, in the medical research and loads of other fields.

- When multinationals claim something that makes them a lot of money is completly safe, then a bell should start ringing. Especially when the same compagnies admit that they don't really fully understand what they are selling.
(Fastfood chains on fat & sugar, oil companies on climate change, ...)

But no, go ahead and create your strawman, you're making a really interesting debate partner when you don't even know what the actual disagreement is.

[Stir]

And again, pointing out problems with GMO's places me into the 'hysteria-anti-GMO-treehuggers'-camp, instead of blindly ignoring my actual standpoint on GMO's, you could try and read what I try to say: *SNIP*

But that's not what you were saying.

What you were saying is that GMOs are bad. By default. Because reasons that aren't intrinsic to GMOs (and in some cases aren't true, either).

You're blaming the badly built house for the stuff that the architect failed at, and blaming it even for things the architect didn't. GMOs are not the problem. Lack of regulation and poor distribution in an inefficient form of economy is the problem.
And 'your' side of the debate is as guilty of lies and deliberate misinformation as the other side.

[Belize]

Plastic isn't an organism, so "GMO" meaning "genetically modified organism" kind of implies they aren't plastic.

No! Nixx stop! You're using logic on the internet! If you continue it might explo-


Anyways, I'm not paying 3$ more for organic food. GMO doesn't give cancer/makes you die earlier, humans have been eating some sort of GMO for hundreds of years now.