Originally posted by twhiteheadDoes it matter? GMOs are GMOs. Isn't that what this thread is all about?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-gmo-pigs-study-idUSBRE95A14K20130611
A very strange article in which they blame GMO crops but totally fail to state which crops in particular or what modifications were made. Why is that?
You can't just say that some are harmful and others are not and stick with your "GMOs are all safe" position. Are you disputing the study? If so what study do you think is accurate and who funded it?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, I did. Did you?
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/
Wow. Did you even bother to read it yourself?
If you have a point now is the time to make it. Don't avoid the issue entirely. It makes you look evasive and feeble.
8 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have just read the link and it is just totally worthless garbage from begging to end!
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/
Wow. Did you even bother to read it yourself?
It is so bad that, if it wasn't for the horrifying fact that many ignorant people seem so gullible as to be taken in by this total crap, I would laugh at it!
They claim to have found small bits of RNA (NOT to be confused with DNA of course! ) in the blood and organs of humans who eat rice that came from the rice -a claim that has yet to have been confirmed by other research groups. They didn't say that the rice was GM because it wasn't and then said:
"...This study had nothing to do with genetically modified (GM) food,...”.
In other words, unlike what the title implies, they have proved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about GM food!
The link then just continuous with vastly more totally worthless unscientific and often vague garbage.
I cannot help but wonder, where the hell does such total unscientific trash keep coming from? -there must be one hell of a lot of morons dishing it out by the ton! This, obviously, has nothing to do with real science that has proven GMs are generally no more dangerous than non-GMs.
Originally posted by humyInteresting how you purposely omitted the rest of it.
I have just read the link and it is just totally worthless garbage from begging to end!
They claim to have found small bits of RNA (NOT to be confused with DNA of course! ) in the blood and organs of humans who eat rice that came from the rice -a claim that has yet to have been confirmed by other research groups. They didn't say that the rice was GM because ...[text shortened]... sly, has nothing to do with real science that has proven GMs are no more dangerous than non-GMs.
"This study had nothing to do with genetically modified (GM) food, but it could have implications on that front. The work shows a pathway by which new food products, such as GM foods, could influence human health in previously unanticipated ways."
Much like how Dolly the sheep was found to be flawed science, this could be too. Is it proof? No, but it does open the possibility that something unanticipated could result.
Reasonable doubt is all we need to show that GMO food labeling is justified. The Reuters article about pig health being compromised is enough for that alone. Humy, address the other 2 links I provided. Don't just cherry pick to mislead others.
4 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
Interesting how you purposely omitted the rest of it.
"This study had nothing to do with genetically modified (GM) food, but it could have implications on that front. The work shows a pathway by which new food products, such as GM foods, could influence human health in previously unanticipated ways."
Much like how Dolly the sheep was found to be fl ...[text shortened]... hat alone. Humy, address the other 2 links I provided. Don't just cherry pick to mislead others.
"This study had nothing to do with genetically modified (GM) food, but it could have implications on that front. The work shows a pathway by which new food products, such as GM foods, could influence human health in previously unanticipated ways."
That proves my point because that is a contradiction! -They first say it has NOTHING to do with GMs and then they say it DOES!
I had already noticed that contradiction but thank you for bringing that up for me.
The operative and vague words there is “could influence” why would this vague “influence”, whatever exactly that is supposed to mean, would be any worse from non-GMs than from Gms? Answer, NO REASON!
As I said, its vague worthless garbage from beginning to end.
As for the dolly the sheep you bring up, that is irrelevant to GM crops because that is NOT genetic modification but CLONING! You do understand what cloning actually is, right?
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainOf course it does. Its as ridiculous as saying: 'the pigs got sick because they ate some food.'
Does it matter?
GMOs are GMOs.
And food is food.
Isn't that what this thread is all about?
Yes. This thread is about the ridiculous belief by some irrational people that 'GMO' constitutes a reasonable category when assessing the danger of food.
You can't just say that some are harmful and others are not and stick with your "GMOs are all safe" position.
I don't have a 'GMOs are all safe' position.
Are you disputing the study? If so what study do you think is accurate and who funded it?
I am saying the study is ridiculously badly reported in the article you referenced. I am reluctant to criticize the study itself further as I the article is by a reporter not by the people who did the study. However it did seem at first glance that the numbers involved were too small to be making any conclusions.
But most important of all, the article appears to conclude that the problem had something to do with the crops being GMO - yet they didn't even bother to check which specific modifications had been made, nor even isolate which of the various crops they were feeding the pigs.
Originally posted by Metal BrainIn what way was Dolly the sheep 'flawed science'? I agree that cloning is not ready for use on humans, but that doesn't equate to the description 'flawed science'.
Much like how Dolly the sheep was found to be flawed science,
Don't just cherry pick to mislead others.
You provided the articles, you should have checked them before posting them.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you admit that some GMOs can be harmful. That is an incredible admission for you.
Then labelling stuff 'GMO' simply because some of them may be harmful is equally stupid of you. If there are GMO products that are harmful them label them specifically, just as you label peanuts.
[b]It tells them it contains GMOs which can be harmful and not discovered to be harmful until a later date like bt GMOs.
All foods 'can be harmful' as yo ...[text shortened]... he label 'fruit' as it may turn out one day that certain fruit like bananas are in fact harmful.[/b]
Some people are allergic to peanuts and could die from them. This is not new. What you don't want to face is that peanuts must be listed in the ingredients and even beyond that, but you want a double standard where peanuts must be listed but not GMOs that you admit are harmful to people's health.
You have destroyed your own position. Admit it. Don't be a denier.
Originally posted by humy"This study had nothing to do with genetically modified (GM) food, but it could have implications on that front. The work shows a pathway by which new food products, such as GM foods, [b]could influencehuman health in previously unanticipated ways."
That proves my point because that is a contradiction! -They first say it has NOTHING ...[text shortened]... NOT genetic modification but CLONING! You do understand what cloning actually is, right?[/b]No, it is not a contradiction at all. I established reasonable doubt which is all that is needed to justify clear labeling of GMOs in the ingredient list.
I didn't just do it with one link either, I did it with all 3 and you stil avoid the others like the plague because you can't prove your OP is true at all. Your OP is FALSE!
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou can't accept the premise of reasonable doubt. That is all that is required to justify labeling GMOs on food ingredients. You want absolute proof which is unreasonable and you know it.
Of course it does. Its as ridiculous as saying: 'the pigs got sick because they ate some food.'
[b]GMOs are GMOs.
And food is food.
Isn't that what this thread is all about?
Yes. This thread is about the ridiculous belief by some irrational people that 'GMO' constitutes a reasonable category when assessing the danger of food.
You ...[text shortened]... fications had been made, nor even isolate which of the various crops they were feeding the pigs.
Your position is that ALL GMOs are safe and that listing GMOs on the ingredient label is unjustified. I proved you wrong and now you want to change your position without acknowledging it. FAIL!