Killer GMOs!

[DrZoidberg]

The big problem with GMOs is creating strains of plants resistant to weedkillers and then dowsing everything in said weedkillers.
Which may not be healthy for us and may cause slow creation of weedkiller resistant weeds. Which is not what the nutters complain about. And which the GMO nutters ignore.

Ok, but what you need to understand is that this has been going on for millions of years. Evolution is a constant arms race. Whatever we do that is weed resistant, the weeds will figure out a way to be resistant to it. And then we'll come up with something else, and on and on and on it'll go. And if we didn't do it nature itself would keep the arms race going by itself. Coming up with new weed resistant crops is nothing new, and didn't start with humans and GMO. We're just helping nature out a bit.

The main difference is that when nature tries coming up with new disease resistant crops it just introduces random genetic changes, and instantly release them to the wild. How safe do you think that is? Answer: not at all.

Everything in this world is poisonous to us. We have very sophisticated systems to sort out poisons. We are well adapt to deal with it. This is one of the reasons why it's so important to eat a varied diet. We really are the cockroach of the primate world. We're a very durable species. It really needs to get pretty extreme before it starts impacting us negatively. We'll be fine.

Health scares that pop up now and again is mostly just sensationalism. If we look back at the various health advice that's been given the last hundred years nearly all of them turned out to be bullshit or largely irrelevant. Also, most people don't give a shit anyway. We're fatter then ever. Do you really think that a smidgeon added poison in our new square tomatoes will make any difference?

 

[bilby]

The big problem with GMOs is creating strains of plants resistant to weedkillers and then dowsing everything in said weedkillers. Which may not be healthy for us and may cause slow creation of weedkiller resistant weeds. Which is not what the nutters complain about. And which the GMO nutters ignore.

Well, that could be a problem. But it's actually not, because the weed killers in question are actually far less harmful to animals (including humans) than their predecessors; and because weed killers used on food crops are, quite rightly, tightly regulated and tested.

Glyphosate is less toxic to animals than table salt (and in the maximum permissible residue level, is present in food in minuscule quantities). It has replaced highly toxic substances such as paraquat, which would be an excellent thing for health and safety reasons, even without genetic modification to produce glyphosate resistant crop plants.

 

[Will Wiley]

Glyphosate is less toxic to animals than table salt (and in the maximum permissible residue level, is present in food in minuscule quantities). It has replaced highly toxic substances such as paraquat, which would be an excellent thing for health and safety reasons, even without genetic modification to produce glyphosate resistant crop plants.

It's not glyphosate you need to be worried about. It's roundup you need to be worried about. Roundup contains adjuvuncts as well as glyphosate.
I know you said you use Roundup at home but it's not Roundup that gets tested. You can't rely on a glyphosate test to tell you that Roundup is safe. You need to test the actual Roundup.

Watch at 2 minutes 30

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBQNNDrT-zM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[bigfield]

Glyphosate is less toxic to animals than table salt (and in the maximum permissible residue level, is present in food in minuscule quantities). It has replaced highly toxic substances such as paraquat, which would be an excellent thing for health and safety reasons, even without genetic modification to produce glyphosate resistant crop plants.

It's not glyphosate you need to be worried about. It's roundup you need to be worried about. Roundup contains adjuvuncts as well as glyphosate.
I know you said you use Roundup at home but it's not Roundup that gets tested. You can't rely on a glyphosate test to tell you that Roundup is safe. You need to test the actual Roundup.

Watch at 2 minutes 30

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBQNNDrT-zM[/YOUTUBE]

Cites a piss-poor study that was retracted by the journal after widespread criticism of the study's methodology.

The Séralini team have become the heroes of anti-GMO cranks despite repeatedly publishing shitty research. The study by Mesnage et al is just the latest example.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Cites a piss-poor study that was retracted by the journal after widespread criticism of the study's methodology.

The Séralini team have become the heroes of anti-GMO cranks despite repeatedly publishing shitty research. The study by Mesnage et al is just the latest example.

The anti-GM crowd is a total joke. Complete idiots on par with chemtrailers or 911 truthers. There are legitimate concerns and potential issues regarding GMO's but these people aren't smart enough to figure out what those are. They're only attacking straw man science.

And it is a serious problem because molecular biologists have to spend an inordinate amount of time to explain to people basic science. Yes, part of the scientist job is to explain science to the public. But this is a public who not only are ignorant but have a farcical image of what molecular biologists do all day, or even what they are trying to do or the context in which they're doing it.

Very often the anti-GMO crowd are against things that nature is doing all by itself. They've got this badly deluded image of the goodness of nature and anything we do to it is evil. No, that's not science. That's Lord of the Rings.

 

[fromderinside]

Very often the anti-GMO crowd are against things that nature is doing all by itself. They've got this .... image of the goodness of nature and anything we do to it is evil. No, that's not science.

Yes. They're enlightened so much they are "blinded by the light".

 

[bilby]

Glyphosate is less toxic to animals than table salt (and in the maximum permissible residue level, is present in food in minuscule quantities). It has replaced highly toxic substances such as paraquat, which would be an excellent thing for health and safety reasons, even without genetic modification to produce glyphosate resistant crop plants.

It's not glyphosate you need to be worried about. It's roundup you need to be worried about. Roundup contains adjuvuncts as well as glyphosate.
I know you said you use Roundup at home but it's not Roundup that gets tested. You can't rely on a glyphosate test to tell you that Roundup is safe. You need to test the actual Roundup.

Watch at 2 minutes 30

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBQNNDrT-zM[/YOUTUBE]

I don't watch video online.

And your lack of a basic understanding of chemistry is showing. Again.

 

[Will Wiley]

Cites a piss-poor study that was retracted by the journal after widespread criticism of the study's methodology.

The Séralini team have become the heroes of anti-GMO cranks despite repeatedly publishing shitty research. The study by Mesnage et al is just the latest example.

I did not cite a study. I pointed out that glyphostae is tested and Roundup not tested. You dodged that, but whatever. You can't test glyphosate and then conclude that Roundup is therefore safe/not safe

- - - Updated - - -

And your lack of a basic understanding of chemistry is showing. Again.

You can't test glyphosate and then conclude that Roundup is therefore safe/not safe.

You need to test Roundup not glyphosate. You should stop using Roundup if you are relying on it to be safe by looking at glyphosate studies.

 

[bigfield]

I did not cite a study. I pointed out that glyphostae is tested and Roundup not tested. You dodged that, but whatever. You can't test glyphosate and then conclude that Roundup is therefore safe/not safe

DeFarge's claim about the toxicity of Roundup is based on the Seralini team's retracted study:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair

 

[Will Wiley]

I did not cite a study. I pointed out that glyphostae is tested and Roundup not tested. You dodged that, but whatever. You can't test glyphosate and then conclude that Roundup is therefore safe/not safe

DeFarge's claim about the toxicity of Roundup is based on the Seralini team's retracted study:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair

Do you think it is possible you will address the point?

Is testing glyphosate enough to conclude that Roundup is safe?


Whether DeFarge points this out or the queen on England points it out is irrelevant.

 

[bigfield]

DeFarge's claim about the toxicity of Roundup is based on the Seralini team's retracted study:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair

Do you think it is possible you will address the point?

Is testing glyphosate enough to conclude that Roundup is safe?

Yes: testing glyphosate is enough to conclude that Roundup is safe.

The concerns raised by the Seralini team and their crank followers are groundless. Hell, you know so little about the chemistry involved that you don't even know how to spell adjuvant, yet you expect us to take your paranoid fears seriously?

Whether DeFarge points this out or the queen on England points it out is irrelevant.

It is indeed relevant, because without the Seralini team, the anti-GMO movement would find it much harder to maintain a pretense of scientific credibility. Your recent thread citing the Mesnage et al study is a perfect example of that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The whole Monsanto/Roundup "scandal" was total bullshit. Just loads of spin and outright lies. Pairing crops with specific fertilisers and weed killers farmers have been doing since we figured out that shit was a fertiliser 10 000 years ago. Not doing so would be being an idiot farmer.

I've yet to find Monsanto at any major fault. They didn't create the economic system or the patent system. They're just following the incentives. If we want companies like Monsanto to behave differently we just need to change the rules. The fact that Monsanto has the patent on stuff they have developed and then try to sell it is not a scandal.

The various documentaries on Monsanto and GMO have all been about the economic realities of being a farmer today. Which sucks for small operators. That's not Monsanto's fault. Pictures of sad farmers sad about not being able to compete on a free market unless they get competitive is not news.

The middle-class insistence on eating eco friendly whole foods grown in harmony with nature has nothing to do with helping small farmers. It's about showing how rich you are by being able to buy expensive food in expensive shops. All these documentaries are all about that. It's all about proving to the middle class how they are morally superior by only buying this kinds of expensive food. No, shit most farmers can't produce that kind of food because most people aren't rich enough to needlessly blow cash on overly expensive food. Most people have a hard time just paying all their bills each month. Most people need efficient GMO farmers.

 

[Will Wiley]

The whole Monsanto/Roundup "scandal" was total bullshit.

Do you have any studies showing Roundup is safe. Not glyphosate studies, but Roundup studies?

 

[bilby]

The whole Monsanto/Roundup "scandal" was total bullshit.

Do you have any studies showing Roundup is safe. Not glyphosate studies, but Roundup studies?

Do you have any studies showing that Disprin is safe? Not aspirin studies, but Disprin studies?

Do you understand enough chemistry to grasp why your question implies that you are either ignorant, disingenuous, or both?

Is anyone really able to care as much about a subject as you appear to care about this one, while still remaining as badly informed as you appear to be?

So many rhetorical questions.