Support GMO foods

[laughing dog]

Did you miss the part I bolded? I bolded it so that you wouldn't miss it, which suggests you aren't even bothering to read my posts.

The randomness makes mutagenesis less precise than St. Louis-based Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs, the NAS said in a 2004 report. It’s the breeding technique most likely to cause unintended genetic changes, some of which could harm human health, the academy said.

And now that you accept mutagenesis being a method to genetically modify an organism and the method most likely to cause harm to human health, shall we move on to plant tissue culture breeding that allows two different plants that don't sexually reproduce to be combined into a new seed, which also alters hundreds of unknown genes?

Let me get this straight. There is no evidence that this technique has caused any problems. There is speculation that it might. And this is relevant to the issue of labeling because...?

Don't you realize that every seed in existence has been genetically modified by humans though countless breeding techniques?

If you are going to say that breeding using natural reproductive techniques is mutation, then everything that is ever "born" is a mutant.

And how can mutation bred varieties be labeled when many plant breeders in the past have been secretive about their methods of breeding? We are talking about a method that has been used since 1950 and has spawned over 3,000 seed varieties that have been introduced into the food supply. How exactly is everyone supposed to trace the complete history of breeding processes of every single commercial seed in use - most of which have been bred, and rebred, and cross bred (with plant tissue culture breeding), and mutation bred many generations ago?

Seems to me you have just rebutted the argument that labeling food as GMO is expensive.

 

[bilby]

Yes. It is actually a serious issue.
It's unfortunate that people are against or resistant to actually doing the long term tests before we possibly contaminate the entire planet.
How will the GMO advocates get the GMO out of the food chain if we find problems we didn't understand?
Lets do the tests before we get to the point of no return

The problem with this call for more tests is that if past history repeats then no studies will be sufficient for the anti-GMO crowd.

If the anti-GMO campaign follows the pattern of the other anti-science, anti-technology campaigns, climate change deniers, anti-Vaxx, pro-smoking, etc., there will be a defense in depth, where any test that that supports GMO safety will never be enough. The term of the tests will never be long enough, the animals selected will never be close enough to human physiology, there will never be enough different variations of GMO foods tested, etc.

The people whose job it is to do these tests have done enough to satisfy themselves that no further tests are needed. Calling upon them to do more won't achieve anything; If someone wants more tests, and they can't persuade the USDA or the FDA or whoever to fund more tests, then they can fund them themselves; or even go learn some biology, and run some tests themselves.

The people who know about this stuff don't want to waste time with any more testing. People who want more testing should go and learn about this stuff; and if they still want more testing after doing so, then they can do the testing.

I don't want to pay for testing to see if GMOs are safe to eat, for the same reason that I don't want to pay for testing to see if potatoes are safe to eat.

If people are scared of potatoes, they can pay to test them test them themselves. Same with GMOs. Nobody will stop you from running a research program; but you have to find your own funding.

 

[bilby]

Don't you realize that every seed in existence has been genetically modified by humans though countless breeding techniques?

If you are going to say that breeding using natural reproductive techniques is mutation, then everything that is ever "born" is a mutant.

Er... Yes. That is kinda central to the Theory of Evolution.

All life is mutants; all vegetables and all domesticated animals have been genetically modified by humans, and by a variety of natural processes.

The observable difference between a DNA sequence generated as a result of artificial modification and a DNA sequence generated as a result of natural modification is, well, none. DNA is just DNA.

The difference between adding desirable traits through selective breeding and adding those traits via mutation breeding is merely that the latter is faster; The difference between adding desirable traits through selective breeding and adding those traits via direct genetic modification is meremly that the latter is faster and more precise.

No food is entirely natural, apart from some wild-caught seafood, and a few items of bush tucker; even these likely have evolved in response to humans eating them. But that's OK, because 'natural' has exactly bugger all to do with 'good', 'safe', 'healthy' or 'desirable'.

 

[laughing dog]

No food is entirely natural, apart from some wild-caught seafood ..

Even those would be "mutations"

But that's OK, because 'natural' has exactly bugger all to do with 'good', 'safe', 'healthy' or 'desirable'.

Maybe for people to eat, but it may mean something else for the ecosystem.

 

[bilby]

Even those would be "mutations"

Of course. But they are 'natural' mutations. If that makes you feel better.

But that's OK, because 'natural' has exactly bugger all to do with 'good', 'safe', 'healthy' or 'desirable'.

Maybe for people to eat, but it may mean something else for the ecosystem.

What else, exactly?

The ecosystem is what it is; people are as much a part of it as any other animal, and we change it at our peril; but that doesn't render our changes 'unnatural', and nor does the distinction between 'natural' and 'unnatural' tell us anything about the effect of anything on the ability of the ecosystem to support humans, or animals, or plants...

K/T extinction - kills all animal life larger than a small dog, aside from a handful of marine and semi-marine creatures such as crocodilians and cetaceans. 100% natural.

The great oxygenation event - 100% natural, killed almost every life-form on the planet except blue-green algae.

Natural doesn't necessarily mean good for the ecosystem. Indeed, defining what is 'good' can't be done at the ecosystem level; the K/T extinction was great for mammals, but shit for dinosaurs; The great oxygenation event was a disaster for obligate anaerobes, but essential for most life that has appeared since. 'Good' can only be defined for a specified group of organisms, or a specified habitat - anaerobic shallow ocean pools with plenty of sunlight no longer exist at all, but it seems extreme to refer to this state of affairs as not good for the ecosystem.

If we do something that renders the ecosystem incapable of supporting humans, that's bad. If we do something that makes the ecosystem less easily able to support humans, that too is bad; and if we make the ecosystem incapable of supporting something humans like, such as passenger pigeons, pandas or penguins, then that's bad, but perhaps on a lesser level than our own extinction.

Everything humans have done since the first agricultural experiments in the golden crescent has had impacts on the ecosystem; some have been good for humans, some not so good, none deadly to humans at the extinction level (yet). There is nothing about GMO crops that suggests that they might be more likely than any other agricultural practice to render the ecosystem incapable of supporting both humans and the other life on which we depend.

 

[tupac chopra]

The people whose job it is to do these tests have done enough to satisfy themselves that no further tests are needed.

oh...like Monsanto.
It's Monsanto's job to test their own products.

Strangely Monsanto say they don't need to do long term tests.

Calling upon them to do more won't achieve anything;

What a silly thing to say.
Of course it will achieve something. It will give us a good idea whether long term use is hazardous.

If people are scared of potatoes, they can pay to test them test them themselves. Same with GMOs. Nobody will stop you from running a research program; but you have to find your own funding

We all know when we are eating potatoes. We just want to know when we are eating GMO's too. Which means labels

 

[tupac chopra]

The difference between adding desirable traits through selective breeding and adding those traits via mutation breeding is merely that the latter is faster; The difference between adding desirable traits through selective breeding and adding those traits via direct genetic modification is meremly that the latter is faster and more precise.

More precise, but not safer. You can bleat on about it being more "precise" but until you actually do long term tests you can say it's safer.
Only when you do the actual tests will you know if it's more "precise" in any helpful way. This is called science.
Only then will you know if the unintended consequences through GMO methods are better or worse in terms of health than those of other methods.
I know you want to assume this is the case, but assuming like that is not science

 

[tupac chopra]

If you are going to say that breeding using natural reproductive techniques is mutation, then everything that is ever "born" is a mutant.

Yes everything is a mutant. What Arpad Pusztai saw was that when they tried to make certain changes, other unpredictable things happened, and that the unintended consequences appeared to be at times unhealthy.So he questioned whether the GMO technique itself wasn't the problem.

This is the part we don't understand. Don't be fooled by people going on and on about it being more "precise", or faster or anything like that.
The important question is this, is there something about the actual techniques that we don't fully understand that is producing something harmful?
It is an important but also a fascinating scientific question.
Is it better to not take too much control, to leave some of the work to the "randomness" of nature? The "randomness" that is the result of billions of years of natural selection.

It's amusing how the GMO advocates call the GMO technique a scalpel and other methods a sledgehammer.
Using GMO methods are a true "sledgehammer".

We will put this bloody gene in and who cares what damage putting it in does and who cares whether there might be a reason "nature" would not have put it there.
They just assume they are playing with LEGO and they can build whatever they want.

 

[Axulus]

If you are going to say that breeding using natural reproductive techniques is mutation, then everything that is ever "born" is a mutant.

Yes everything is a mutant. What Arpad Pusztai saw was that when they tried to make certain changes, other unpredictable things happened, and that the unintended consequences appeared to be at times unhealthy.So he questioned whether the GMO technique itself wasn't the problem.

This is the part we don't understand. Don't be fooled by people going on and on about it being more "precise", or faster or anything like that.
The important question is this, is there something about the actual techniques that we don't fully understand that is producing something harmful?
It is an important but also a fascinating scientific question.
Is it better to not take too much control, to leave some of the work to the "randomness" of nature? The "randomness" that is the result of billions of years of natural selection.

It's amusing how the GMO advocates call the GMO technique a scalpel and other methods a sledgehammer.
Using GMO methods are a true "sledgehammer".

We will put this bloody gene in and who cares what damage putting it in does and who cares whether there might be a reason "nature" would not have put it there.
They just assume they are playing with LEGO and they can build whatever they want.

You don't seem to understand basic cell reproduction and organism growth. The DNA is the blueprint on how the organism gets built. Only the particular DNA sequence itself is relevant to the properties that the organism has and the capabilities it has at the seed stage. If traditional breeding techniques produced seeds with the exact same DNA sequence as a GMO technique, then there would not be any difference whatsoever between the GMO variety and the random mutation seed. The properties they have would be identical when grown in identical environments.

 

[arkirk]

Yes everything is a mutant. What Arpad Pusztai saw was that when they tried to make certain changes, other unpredictable things happened, and that the unintended consequences appeared to be at times unhealthy.So he questioned whether the GMO technique itself wasn't the problem.

This is the part we don't understand. Don't be fooled by people going on and on about it being more "precise", or faster or anything like that.
The important question is this, is there something about the actual techniques that we don't fully understand that is producing something harmful?
It is an important but also a fascinating scientific question.
Is it better to not take too much control, to leave some of the work to the "randomness" of nature? The "randomness" that is the result of billions of years of natural selection.

It's amusing how the GMO advocates call the GMO technique a scalpel and other methods a sledgehammer.
Using GMO methods are a true "sledgehammer".

We will put this bloody gene in and who cares what damage putting it in does and who cares whether there might be a reason "nature" would not have put it there.
They just assume they are playing with LEGO and they can build whatever they want.

You don't seem to understand basic cell reproduction and organism growth. The DNA is the blueprint on how the organism gets built. Only the particular DNA sequence itself is relevant to the properties that the organism has and the capabilities it has at the seed stage. If traditional breeding techniques produced seeds with the exact same DNA sequence as a GMO technique, then there would not be any difference whatsoever between the GMO variety and the random mutation seed. The properties they have would be identical when grown in identical environments.

It is unwise to make remarks like the one you made above. Tupac's remarks do not reflect the condition you suggest.

 

[bilby]

You don't seem to understand basic cell reproduction and organism growth. The DNA is the blueprint on how the organism gets built. Only the particular DNA sequence itself is relevant to the properties that the organism has and the capabilities it has at the seed stage. If traditional breeding techniques produced seeds with the exact same DNA sequence as a GMO technique, then there would not be any difference whatsoever between the GMO variety and the random mutation seed. The properties they have would be identical when grown in identical environments.

It is unwise to make remarks like the one you made above. Tupac's remarks do not reflect the condition you suggest.

Oh yes they do.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes everything is a mutant. What Arpad Pusztai saw was that when they tried to make certain changes, other unpredictable things happened, and that the unintended consequences appeared to be at times unhealthy.So he questioned whether the GMO technique itself wasn't the problem.

This is the part we don't understand. Don't be fooled by people going on and on about it being more "precise", or faster or anything like that.
The important question is this, is there something about the actual techniques that we don't fully understand that is producing something harmful?
It is an important but also a fascinating scientific question.
Is it better to not take too much control, to leave some of the work to the "randomness" of nature? The "randomness" that is the result of billions of years of natural selection.

It's amusing how the GMO advocates call the GMO technique a scalpel and other methods a sledgehammer.
Using GMO methods are a true "sledgehammer".

We will put this bloody gene in and who cares what damage putting it in does and who cares whether there might be a reason "nature" would not have put it there.
They just assume they are playing with LEGO and they can build whatever they want.

[Originally Posted by Axulus

You don't seem to understand basic cell reproduction and organism growth. The DNA is the blueprint on how the organism gets built. Only the particular DNA sequence itself is relevant to the properties that the organism has and the capabilities it has at the seed stage. If traditional breeding techniques produced seeds with the exact same DNA sequence as a GMO technique, then there would not be any difference whatsoever between the GMO variety and the random mutation seed. The properties they have would be identical when grown in identical environments./QUOTE]

It is unwise to make remarks like the one you made above. Tupac's remarks do not reflect the condition you suggest.

It is unwise to make remarks like the one you made above. Tupac's remarks do not reflect the condition you suggest.

Oh yes they do.

Not necessarily. If the gene is inserted in a recursive set part of which is subject to such as  DNA methylation the change is effective outside the constraints set by tupac choprea

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The difference between adding desirable traits through selective breeding and adding those traits via mutation breeding is merely that the latter is faster; The difference between adding desirable traits through selective breeding and adding those traits via direct genetic modification is meremly that the latter is faster and more precise.

More precise, but not safer. You can bleat on about it being more "precise" but until you actually do long term tests you can say it's safer.
Only when you do the actual tests will you know if it's more "precise" in any helpful way. This is called science.
Only then will you know if the unintended consequences through GMO methods are better or worse in terms of health than those of other methods.
I know you want to assume this is the case, but assuming like that is not science

Part of the problem here: You're after the impossible.

You can't prove something is safe. All you can do is show that there's no observed harm at some confidence level. You feed 10,000 rats the food for their life--if it randomly kills 1 in 100,000 you probably won't realize it.

 

[arkirk]

More precise, but not safer. You can bleat on about it being more "precise" but until you actually do long term tests you can say it's safer.
Only when you do the actual tests will you know if it's more "precise" in any helpful way. This is called science.
Only then will you know if the unintended consequences through GMO methods are better or worse in terms of health than those of other methods.
I know you want to assume this is the case, but assuming like that is not science

Part of the problem here: You're after the impossible.

You can't prove something is safe. All you can do is show that there's no observed harm at some confidence level. You feed 10,000 rats the food for their life--if it randomly kills 1 in 100,000 you probably won't realize it.

That wasn't the case in the Rowlett Institute study. The precentages of problem outcomes were large within only a 10 day window and it was discovered also that the genetic characteristics of the potatoes were different from potato to potato. What they discovered was that we have a lot to learn before turning this technology loose on the world...even though it is already loose.

 

[scombrid]

Look up Rowlett Institute GMO on Google.

I did. No study popped on on page one. Videos and articles on websites such as Epochtimes.com

It was the implanted genes and they replicated in the creature...insects and mammals who consumed the product.

That's a right tall claim. I think we deserve a link to primary literature on that one. Sounds like anti-GMO mythology a la Mike Adams the "Health Ranger" or similar. By what mechanism did the genes replicate?

My information did not come from Serlini.

First page of google search got me Theepochtimes.com and ghorganics.com . That's about as useful to me as Seralini.

 

[bilby]

Part of the problem here: You're after the impossible.

You can't prove something is safe. All you can do is show that there's no observed harm at some confidence level. You feed 10,000 rats the food for their life--if it randomly kills 1 in 100,000 you probably won't realize it.

That wasn't the case in the Rowlett Institute study. The precentages of problem outcomes were large within only a 10 day window and it was discovered also that the genetic characteristics of the potatoes were different from potato to potato. What they discovered was that we have a lot to learn before turning this technology loose on the world...even though it is already loose.

"We have a lot to learn"; "more testing is required"; "Results so far are inconclusive"; "Not enough testing has been done"...

Essentially, what the anti-GMO crowd are arguing is NOT that GMOs are harmful - they have no evidence to support that claim - but that we don't know for sure that they are harmless. This is a standard not met by ANY technology; and yet we are suppose to hold GMOs to this standard. Only someone who is either completely ignorant of how knowledge is acquired, or someone who is being deliberately deceitful, would demand such a standard.

If GMOs are harmful, then stop with all the 'we don't know' crap, demonstrate the harm you claim they cause, and that will be an end to it.

All you need to do is to run one well designed, statistically significant and repeatable study that demonstrates harm, and that will be the end of the matter. But instead of getting into the lab themselves, or taking up a collection to fund qualified researchers to do such a study, the anti-GMO loons run around like headless chickens crying 'Doom, doom'. Such antics can safely be ignored.

If you want to claim that GMOs are dangerous, you have to demonstrate that your claim is valid.

No more bullshit; no more FUD; no more insinuations or disingenuous calls for someone else to fund and perform the research you call for; Do the research, or STFU.

Despite your repeated ad-nauseam claims that GMO use should stop pending this 'more research' you claim to want, the fact is it has not stopped, and will not stop, until you present some hard evidence that it should stop. So if you really care, you will stop wasting time calling for a ban that won't happen based on current science, and start producing hard evidence to back your demand for a ban. If you can do this, then get on with it - as you yourselves claim that it is very important and urgent, it seems very odd that you are not doing it. If you can't produce hard evidence, then go away. The adults are busy trying to make things better, and they don't need uninformed idiots cluttering the place up with irrelevancies.

 

[arkirk]

That wasn't the case in the Rowlett Institute study. The precentages of problem outcomes were large within only a 10 day window and it was discovered also that the genetic characteristics of the potatoes were different from potato to potato. What they discovered was that we have a lot to learn before turning this technology loose on the world...even though it is already loose.

"We have a lot to learn"; "more testing is required"; "Results so far are inconclusive"; "Not enough testing has been done"...

Essentially, what the anti-GMO crowd are arguing is NOT that GMOs are harmful - they have no evidence to support that claim - but that we don't know for sure that they are harmless. This is a standard not met by ANY technology; and yet we are suppose to hold GMOs to this standard. Only someone who is either completely ignorant of how knowledge is acquired, or someone who is being deliberately deceitful, would demand such a standard.

If GMOs are harmful, then stop with all the 'we don't know' crap, demonstrate the harm you claim they cause, and that will be an end to it.

All you need to do is to run one well designed, statistically significant and repeatable study that demonstrates harm, and that will be the end of the matter. But instead of getting into the lab themselves, or taking up a collection to fund qualified researchers to do such a study, the anti-GMO loons run around like headless chickens crying 'Doom, doom'. Such antics can safely be ignored.

If you want to claim that GMOs are dangerous, you have to demonstrate that your claim is valid.

No more bullshit; no more FUD; no more insinuations or disingenuous calls for someone else to fund and perform the research you call for; Do the research, or STFU.

Despite your repeated ad-nauseam claims that GMO use should stop pending this 'more research' you claim to want, the fact is it has not stopped, and will not stop, until you present some hard evidence that it should stop. So if you really care, you will stop wasting time calling for a ban that won't happen based on current science, and start producing hard evidence to back your demand for a ban. If you can do this, then get on with it - as you yourselves claim that it is very important and urgent, it seems very odd that you are not doing it. If you can't produce hard evidence, then go away. The adults are busy trying to make things better, and they don't need uninformed idiots cluttering the place up with irrelevancies.

Your argument is a classic lesson in Ad Hom 101. This type of argument was used for cigarettes, asbestos, leaded gas and paint, thalidomide, DDT, hexachloraphene, etc. etc. etc. and to what end? You are saying, unless we have the money to make something apparent we should just shut up and go away, so we can experience the harm en masse. I feel you are trusting, not crews of scientists, but Monsanto lobbies and their shills in government...people with a vested interest in regulatory inaction, who frankly feel just as you have come to feel.

What you are not understanding is that I am in favor of GMO investigations of new applications that stand alone and can be studied. Currently funded GMO research is loaded with concomitant goals which really are experimental engineering efforts to consolidate the chemical industry's massive control of agriculture. We are not seeing any result in terms of anything in terms of immunity on plants excepting resistance to a VERY few BRAND NAME HERBICIDE. Such research is done in the interest of profit and NOT TO INFORM THE PUBLIC.

You claim people who want real answers they can trust should get into our laboratories and fund and do the research...or STFU. This is an unrealistic and disingenuous demand. We have essentially the same problem with big pharma we have with Monsanto..."Trust us! It's making us lots of money and your belly is full...so just shut up!" This is hardly acceptable.

 

[bilby]

"We have a lot to learn"; "more testing is required"; "Results so far are inconclusive"; "Not enough testing has been done"...

Essentially, what the anti-GMO crowd are arguing is NOT that GMOs are harmful - they have no evidence to support that claim - but that we don't know for sure that they are harmless. This is a standard not met by ANY technology; and yet we are suppose to hold GMOs to this standard. Only someone who is either completely ignorant of how knowledge is acquired, or someone who is being deliberately deceitful, would demand such a standard.

If GMOs are harmful, then stop with all the 'we don't know' crap, demonstrate the harm you claim they cause, and that will be an end to it.

All you need to do is to run one well designed, statistically significant and repeatable study that demonstrates harm, and that will be the end of the matter. But instead of getting into the lab themselves, or taking up a collection to fund qualified researchers to do such a study, the anti-GMO loons run around like headless chickens crying 'Doom, doom'. Such antics can safely be ignored.

If you want to claim that GMOs are dangerous, you have to demonstrate that your claim is valid.

No more bullshit; no more FUD; no more insinuations or disingenuous calls for someone else to fund and perform the research you call for; Do the research, or STFU.

Despite your repeated ad-nauseam claims that GMO use should stop pending this 'more research' you claim to want, the fact is it has not stopped, and will not stop, until you present some hard evidence that it should stop. So if you really care, you will stop wasting time calling for a ban that won't happen based on current science, and start producing hard evidence to back your demand for a ban. If you can do this, then get on with it - as you yourselves claim that it is very important and urgent, it seems very odd that you are not doing it. If you can't produce hard evidence, then go away. The adults are busy trying to make things better, and they don't need uninformed idiots cluttering the place up with irrelevancies.

Your argument is a classic lesson in Ad Hom 101.

Only those hopelessly deluded by their ideology consider being asked to support their claims as an ad-hominem.

This type of argument was used for cigarettes, asbestos, leaded gas and paint, thalidomide, DDT, hexachloraphene, etc. etc. etc. and to what end?

Well, in each of those cases, people went out and demonstrated that the product in question was harmful; and its use was subsequently restricted or banned. That's exactly how the system is meant to work; and for every one of the products in your list, there were dozens of equally novel but harmless products, which we still use to this day.

You are saying, unless we have the money to make something apparent we should just shut up and go away, so we can experience the harm en masse.

Pretty much, yes. There are plenty of you; it wouldn't cost much if you all chipped in. So if you want to ban GMOs (or any other technology), the answer is simple - demonstrate harm. If there is no 'apparent' harm, then 'harm en-masse' is not on the table. People have been eating GMOs for two decades. 'Harm en-masse' has not materialised; any harm there may be would have to be very subtle to have gone unnoticed at this stage.

I feel you are trusting, not crews of scientists, but Monsanto lobbies and their shills in government...people with a vested interest in regulatory inaction, who frankly feel just as you have come to feel.

Frankly, I don't give a rats arse who you 'feel I am trusting'. I am trusting nobody at all - I am simply asking those who oppose GMOs to demonstrate that they have a case. I am sure as shit not going to trust anyone who says they might have a case, but that they have no evidence.

What you are not understanding is that I am in favor of GMO investigations of new applications that stand alone and can be studied.

So fund such investigations. Chip in a few bucks each, along with all the other anti-GMO activists, and prove that you have a point.

Currently funded GMO research is loaded with concomitant goals which really are experimental engineering efforts to consolidate the chemical industry's massive control of agriculture.

If by this you mean that the people who fund research tend to seek answers to the questions they have, rather than the questions you think they should have, then you are absolutely right. So what? If you have questions that are not being answered by the current research, fund some new research to answer your questions. Or do the research yourself. Nobody will stop you.

We are not seeing any result in terms of anything in terms of immunity on plants excepting resistance to a VERY few BRAND NAME HERBICIDE. Such research is done in the interest of profit and NOT TO INFORM THE PUBLIC.

Yes. So? It would be nice if corporations did pure research more often; but such pure research as they do is entirely at their own whim; they don't care what you want, and nor should they. When you go to buy something, you might look at a few possible purchases, check the prices in different stores, compare the features each item has, and use that research to make a decision. Should I lambast you for doing this research purely for your own purposes, with no intent to INFORM THE PUBLIC?

You claim people who want real answers they can trust should get into our laboratories and fund and do the research...or STFU.

Indeed I do. And they should.

This is an unrealistic and disingenuous demand.

Why? You want something, you pay for it. You are the one with a claim - that GMOs are dangerous. You need to prove it. Or to accept that the rest of us don't care for your unsupported claims.

We have essentially the same problem with big pharma we have with Monsanto..."Trust us! It's making us lots of money and your belly is full...so just shut up!" This is hardly acceptable.

Indeed, but that's not actually what anyone is saying. You don't have to trust anyone. You just have to do your own research. Given that you wouldn't trust the results if they came from Monsanto funded research, there really isn't any other choice - the research needs to be independently funded - by the people who have a claim to test. You claim that GMOs are harmful. Prove it or STFU.

It's the same argument with any other unsupported claim. If you claimed that God wants me not to eat pork - prove it or STFU. If you claim that you have a unicorn in your garage - prove it or STFU. If you claim that sacrificing a virgin at the full moon will bring an abundant harvest - prove it or STFU.

It is not up to Monsanto to do your homework; and you wouldn't accept the results of any testing they did anyway.

You want testing - do some testing.

 

[SimpleDon]

The problem with this call for more tests is that if past history repeats then no studies will be sufficient for the anti-GMO crowd.

Why wouldn't any curious open minded person want to see what happens over the long term rather than merely over the short term?
Some health problems wont become evident in a short term study. Do we just pretend these don't exist?

If the anti-GMO campaign follows the pattern of the other anti-science,

Testing things to gain knowledge is not anti-science.
Thinking you know and therefore arguing you don't even need to do a test is anti-science.

Those campaigns aren't called anti-science because they argued for or against a science methodology, for example, your repeated chant for more testing. They are called anti-science because, like your anti-science, anti-GMO campaign, they opposed the accumulated judgement of the existing science on the subject.

The pro-tobacco forces denied that smoking caused cancer, which was the accumulated judgement of the existing science on the subject.

The anti-Vaxx forces deny the science that has shown that the preservative in vaccines doesn't cause autism.

The climate change deniers go against the weight of the science that the atmosphere and the oceans are heating and that it is human activity that is causing it.

Likewise, you are pitting yourself and your reasoning against the accumulated judgement of science that GMO foods are safe for human consumption.

It is stunningly arrogant.

 

[tupac chopra]

That wasn't the case in the Rowlett Institute study. The precentages of problem outcomes were large within only a 10 day window and it was discovered also that the genetic characteristics of the potatoes were different from potato to potato. What they discovered was that we have a lot to learn before turning this technology loose on the world...even though it is already loose.

"We have a lot to learn"; "more testing is required"; "Results so far are inconclusive"; "Not enough testing has been done"...

Essentially, what the anti-GMO crowd are arguing is NOT that GMOs are harmful - they have no evidence to support that claim - .

We have reason to think it could be true.
That evidence is that the only long term test on Monsanto corn was inconclusive.

But...wait for it......without doing the tests we don't have evidence either way. D'uh.