Support GMO foods

[laughing dog]

I have no idea what that means.

It is the difference between claiming you are not liable for yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater because the information 'fire' merely described a fire depicted in the film. The communication implies data beyond its mere content. In a similar way, mandated necessary labels such as 'this contains GMOs' transmits 'GMOs are dangerous' even if the text doesn't say that outright. It is assumed because of external contexts. This additional data that is communicated due to context is called 'exformation', because it is not 'in'formation.

I see understand now why I didn't understand what it meant. It is based on a view that I find inaccurate: communication implies information beyond its content.

 

[arkirk]

The intent is to make a GMO that is resistant to herbicide. Now, the plant can be drenched in the shit and not show any signs treated at a different point in the growing cycle, so instead of nuking the weeds with lots of really toxic shit, then growing crops, now farmers can use small amounts of herbicides that are less persistent and less toxic to humans instead. It is strictly for the convenience and cost cutting of the grower...not the eater but has a side effect of reducing the amount and toxicity of any herbicide residue on the harvested crops, so it benefits the eater too. WeThose opposing GMOs really do not have a clue. I can agree with you that we DON'T KNOW IF A GIVEN GMO IS UNSAFE. WE REALLY DON'T KNOW IT IS SAFE IT HAS BEEN TESTED AND NOT ONE RISK HAS BEEN FOUND. AND WITHOUT LABELLING WE WON'T KNOW IF IT IS AT ALL...MAYBE TILL IT IS TOO LATE. BECAUSE IT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE NON-GMO VARIETY

FIFY.

Oh boy, you really got me there with the strikeout. You are so accepting...not one risk has been found. IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF TRUSTING THEM TO LOOK REAL HARD ISN'T IT? I will thank you to refrain from re-writing my posts. GMO's actually are NOT INDESTINGUISHABLE FROM THE NON-GMO VARIETY...OR IT WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE TO PRODUCE IT. The reason for producing herbicide resistant crops is to allow greater exposure of these crops to Roundup for instance. I feel the rule should be label it and shut the fuck up. Let us know what we are eating. Whenever someone objects vehemently to letting the public know what they are getting, I have to ask myself why.

Regarding genetic herbicide resistance this just means the plant shows no effects from the herbicide, it does not mean that there is no uptake of the herbicide. Show me the tests...a good idea to put that on the label too.

 

[laughing dog]

laughing dog, the consumers who find the GMO information relevant are exactly the ones that shop for the "GMO-free" and "Organic" product varieties.

Do you have rigorous empirical study that shows this? I don't think that is relevant, even if it is true.

So what purpose does the labeling requirement serve?

It allows anyone who does not have the time nor energy that ardent "GMO-freers" may have to glean some information about the food they are purchasing.

Also, how are you distinguishing relevant information from irrelevant information?

Consumer demand.

 

[Axulus]

Do you have rigorous empirical study that shows this? I don't think that is relevant, even if it is true.

Why is it not relevant? We are discussing two possible systems here: a voluntary system or a government mandated one, and comparing and contrasting each. If one of the purported benefits of the government mandated system is already realized under the voluntary system, then that seems quite relevant to the discussion.

It allows anyone who does not have the time nor energy that ardent "GMO-freers" may have to glean some information about the food they are purchasing.

Why should we care if they are making purchasing decisions while ignorant of this information? There are literally thousands of pieces of information about the product that people are ignorant of when making a purchasing decision.

The only time we typically mandate a label is if there is objective data to establish danger to oneself, either from a safety standpoint or a health standpoint. You seem to want to overturn this principle and label all those thousands of pieces of information that do nothing to warn about safety or health effects so long as each piece of information influences in any way, rationally or irrationally, the purchasing decision of any consumer. That seems asinine, not to mention extremely costly, making all of us poorer.

 

[bilby]

FIFY.

Oh boy, you really got me there with the strikeout. You are so accepting...not one risk has been found. IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF TRUSTING THEM TO LOOK REAL HARD ISN'T IT? I will thank you to refrain from re-writing my posts. GMO's actually are NOT INDESTINGUISHABLE FROM THE NON-GMO VARIETY...OR IT WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE TO PRODUCE IT. The reason for producing herbicide resistant crops is to allow greater exposure of these crops to Roundup for instance. I feel the rule should be label it and shut the fuck up. Let us know what we are eating. Whenever someone objects vehemently to letting the public know what they are getting, I have to ask myself why.

Regarding genetic herbicide resistance this just means the plant shows no effects from the herbicide, it does not mean that there is no uptake of the herbicide. Show me the tests...a good idea to put that on the label too.

From the Credible Hulk's FB page:

The following is meta-analysis (published in PLOS One) of 147 studies on the impact of genetically modified crops. The study finds that the adoption of herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean, maize, and cotton, and insect-resistant (IR) maize and cotton has resulted in a 22% increase in average yields, a 37% overall decrease in pesticide use, and a 68% increase in farmer profits.

The yield increases were accomplished by way of a reduction in pest-related crop losses, an effect which was greater in farm surveys (e.g. real-world use) than in controlled field trials. Moreover, the gains were greater in developing countries, many of which have more of a problem with insect-related crop losses.

The IR plants afforded a significant decrease in insecticide use. The HT plant results were more mixed; some of them showed an increased in herbicide use, while others showed a decrease. However, there was a significant overall decrease in total pesticide (insecticide plus herbicide) use by 37%, contrary to the claims of anti-GMO activists.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

(my bold)

His full post can be found here:https://www.facebook.com/therealcrediblehulk/posts/904141262950526:0

 

[arkirk]

I am not pushing for anything nor do I understand that GMOs are perfectly safe. Nor do I care if GMOs are safe (nothing is really perfectly safe). I am simply expressing disbelief that labeling is costly. And I am applying the dictum that labelling in general is a good idea since it provides more relevant information to consumers.

The motivations of the anti-GMOers is not really relevant in my view. They believe GMOs are unsafe or immoral or whatever. Consumers should have easy access to information relevant to them in order that they can make legal purchasing decisions that they feel are in their best interests.

And how is the lack of mandatory label preventing anti-GMOers from making legal purchasing decisions to buy "GMO-free" or "Organic" products that they feel are in their best interests?

You know, Axulus, I definitely want all you GMO lovers out there to get all the GMO they want. So we should just label these products...
NEW IMPROVED....WITH GMO.
That way, you are sure of getting GMO. You can be our guinea pig.
As a matter of fact, GMO's are hard to avoid. Almost anything containing soy or corn is GMO. It just moved in on us like the Silent Spring. In the blink of an eye, the food "Industry" makes these changes without our knowledge or consent. Maybe requiring them to label it will serve warning on these producers that we can track the safety and health impacts of their products.

 

[bilby]

...

Finally, I gave you a specific example of an immensely profitable GMO product that happens to cause harm that DuPont has strong interest in creating. Pesticide resistant crops are guaranteed to increase use of pesticides and the use of stronger and more environmentally dangerous pesticides. That is DuPonts primary motive in creating such resistance, because they sell 60% of agricultural pesticides. The damage that pesticides can do to crops themselves creates a kind of natural check on the amount of pesticides they use. Making the crops themselves resistant to pesticide damage is only of interest to farmer or DuPont because it allows farmers to use more and stronger pesticides.

Actually, the claim in bold is common sense, highly intuitive, and - like so much that is intuitively obvious - completely wrong, when you actually look at the details.

Traditional hebicides, such as paraquat, are highly toxic to humans, and are also highly persistent (ie they break down very slowly in the environment); They are traditionally applied early in the growing cycle, because if applied later, they would kill the crops as well as the pests. By growing glyphosate resistant crops, farmers can stop using persistent, high toxicity herbicides; they can apply smaller amounts of herbicide at a stage when weeds are more susceptible, because the crops are no longer going to die if they do this. The amount of herbicide used can be lower; the amount of herbicide reside on the harvested crop can be lower still, as non-persistent pesticides can be used; and the toxicity to humans of any residue that is present is far less than with traditional herbicides.

As I mentioned in an earlier reply, a meta-analysis (published in PLOS One) of 147 studies on the impact of genetically modified crops finds that the adoption of herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean, maize, and cotton, and insect-resistant (IR) maize and cotton has resulted in a 22% increase in average yields, a 37% overall decrease in pesticide use, and a 68% increase in farmer profits.

So much for guarantees and common sense; Pesticide resistant crops are actually shown to decrease use of pesticides, and to allow the use of weaker and less environmentally dangerous pesticides. Observation trumps theory, every time.

 

[arkirk]

Oh boy, you really got me there with the strikeout. You are so accepting...not one risk has been found. IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF TRUSTING THEM TO LOOK REAL HARD ISN'T IT? I will thank you to refrain from re-writing my posts. GMO's actually are NOT INDESTINGUISHABLE FROM THE NON-GMO VARIETY...OR IT WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE TO PRODUCE IT. The reason for producing herbicide resistant crops is to allow greater exposure of these crops to Roundup for instance. I feel the rule should be label it and shut the fuck up. Let us know what we are eating. Whenever someone objects vehemently to letting the public know what they are getting, I have to ask myself why.

Regarding genetic herbicide resistance this just means the plant shows no effects from the herbicide, it does not mean that there is no uptake of the herbicide. Show me the tests...a good idea to put that on the label too.

From the Credible Hulk's FB page:

The following is meta-analysis (published in PLOS One) of 147 studies on the impact of genetically modified crops. The study finds that the adoption of herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean, maize, and cotton, and insect-resistant (IR) maize and cotton has resulted in a 22% increase in average yields, a 37% overall decrease in pesticide use, and a 68% increase in farmer profits.

The yield increases were accomplished by way of a reduction in pest-related crop losses, an effect which was greater in farm surveys (e.g. real-world use) than in controlled field trials. Moreover, the gains were greater in developing countries, many of which have more of a problem with insect-related crop losses.

The IR plants afforded a significant decrease in insecticide use. The HT plant results were more mixed; some of them showed an increased in herbicide use, while others showed a decrease. However, there was a significant overall decrease in total pesticide (insecticide plus herbicide) use by 37%, contrary to the claims of anti-GMO activists.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

(my bold)

His full post can be found here:https://www.facebook.com/therealcrediblehulk/posts/904141262950526:0

The information is about increased yields, not about improved quality and decreased (or maybe not) use of pesticides.

A little chemical tale for you: Some protesters were sitting in a non violent protest in a congressman's office about something. The police arrived with pepper spray. Instead of spraying the protesters from the distance, they put a little pepper spray on cue tips and applied it directly to the protesters' eyes. Use of pepper spray down 95%. Oh yeah!

 

[ronburgundy]

You're not getting it. It has nothing to do with them wanting to or having an interest in harming people or with harming people as being a motivator.
It is simply a matter of not having a strong enough motive to deliberately reduce their own profits by spending $ to make sure their actions and products do not cause harm, and refusing to engage in actions that may cause harm, no matter how profitable.
Their defining and sole interest is in increasing their own profits. Their are many ways of making profits that can cause harm to people. In fact, there are likely more ways to profit by harming people than by helping them. When your business involves food production, poison use, and agricultural practices that can have massive long term environmental impacts then you are highly likely to stumble upon profitable actions that have harmful impact without even trying. Which means you have to put great effort into trying to actively avoid such actions, and sacrifice the profits you could otherwise gain.
Profit has to not be your top priority, public safety must trump it. Since profit is the top and really only priority of DuPont, they are guaranteed not to give public safety sufficient consideration, unless the public actively forces them to. To believe any thing else is to deny the most basic facts of corporate economics and human behavior.

Finally, I gave you a specific example of an immensely profitable GMO product that happens to cause harm that DuPont has strong interest in creating. Pesticide resistant crops are guaranteed to increase use of pesticides and the use of stronger and more environmentally dangerous pesticides. That is DuPonts primary motive in creating such resistance, because they sell 60% of agricultural pesticides. The damage that pesticides can do to crops themselves creates a kind of natural check on the amount of pesticides they use. Making the crops themselves resistant to pesticide damage is only of interest to farmer or DuPont because it allows farmers to use more and stronger pesticides.

How do you figure they don't have a strong enough motive to spend necessary funds to make sure their actions do not harm people?

1. A harmful product will no longer sell, meaning the R&D and other investment that went into it is useless

Nonsense. Plenty of harmful products sell. The harm need not be to people buying the product. In the case of GMO, the famers have DuPonts same profit interests. As long as the product helps the famers bottom line, they will use it despite harm to others. Even when the harm is done to the direct consumer, they have to become aware of the harm and its cause to know to stop buying the product.

2. There will be a major hit to reputation, many customers will stop buying your other products

The harm has to be discovered to at all impact "reputation" and even then without a smoking gun of corporate knowledge they just feign ignorance. And even with a smoking gun, "reputations" have little long term impact on consumer behavior. Most corporations caught doing really shitty stuff are alive and well and making a killing (pun intended). Even when the company goes under, the decision makers most responsible for the harm usually get out and get off scott free with all the millions they made from those harmful products. They just restart under a different corporate banner.

3. Class action lawsuits: expensive attorney fees, settlement payments in line with the amount of harm caused, etc.

Republicans have done a good job at making it very hard to successful sue corporations or to get adequate compensation. I know a corporate lawyer, and he regularly tells me about companies knowingly selling dangerous and harmful products and being more than willing to take the lawsuit gamble. Most of the time the suit payouts are a tiny fraction of the profits they make by selling such products.

Please elaborate how you determined that these factors are insufficient.

Every single product ever sold that either directly or due to its production method has caused harm to anyone or to the environment is proof that these factors are not sufficient. History is filled with companies (including DuPont) doing things that harm others because their profit motive was stronger than expending sufficient effort to prevent or avoid that harm. The very class action suits your reference are part of that evidence, and those are just the cases where negligence is provable in a court.
IF they were sufficient, then there would never be any products ever sold that either themselves or their method of production/dist cause any harm to anyone or have any negative environmental impact. Only if you content that this is in fact the case, can you pretend that those factors are remotely sufficient to prevent profit seeking from causing harm.

In regards to environmentally dangerous pesticide use, that needs to be kept in check like all pollutants. There needs to be regulation/taxes/fines to make creating environmental damage costly. The problem is therefore more a failure of pollution regulation than anything else.

Effectively policing exact amount of use by every end-user is extremely implausible and expensive.

Finally, glyphosate resistance is a counter example to "Pesticide resistant crops are guaranteed to increase use of pesticides and the use of stronger and more environmentally dangerous pesticides". Glyphosate is a more environmentally friendly pesticide and safer for humans, compared to pesticides used before the introduction of glyphosate resistant GMO seeds. This is not to say that glyphosate causes no environmental damage, but rather less so than other previous viable options. Not much of a guarantee if the most famous GMO seed variety already falsifies your hypothesis.

First, the fact that GMO can be used to reduce currently harmful practices does not speak to whether it can and will likely be used in ways to increase harm, without very strict controls and oversight. I said in my initial post that GM is itself neutral and can be used in positive or negative or neutral ways. Also, development of pesticides that are even less environmentally impactful than glyphosate is deincentivized because farmers are not going to switch to a safer pesticide unless a new GMO crop resistant to that new pesticide is also developed. What if glyphosate resistance was not achievable, but resistance to one of the more dangerous pesticides was? Does your blind faith in the free market make you think that DuPont would not have developed that crop and/or farmers would not use it and switch from less to more environmentally dangerous pesticides? OF of course they would and every remotely valid economic theory says they would. Whether DuPont develops products that help, hurt, or are neutral is a crapshoot of circumstance and whatever happens to be profitable and feasible.

 

[laughing dog]

Why is it not relevant? We are discussing two possible systems here: a voluntary system or a government mandated one, and comparing and contrasting each. If one of the purported benefits of the government mandated system is already realized under the voluntary system, then that seems quite relevant to the discussion.

Why would anyone think the purported benefits of a voluntary system would ever be met?

Why should we care if they are making purchasing decisions while ignorant of this information? There are literally thousands of pieces of information about the product that people are ignorant of when making a purchasing decision.

You keep missing the point. Whether you or I care is irrelevant. An informed consumer is a better consumer. Maybe informing people of what is GMO and what is not will make them better decisions, not worse.

The only time we typically mandate a label is if there is objective data to establish danger to oneself, either from a safety standpoint or a health standpoint.

Nonsense. We mandate labelling for all sorts of reasoning. MPG on cars has nothing to do with safety or health. Are you against that as well? After all, someone who actually cares could find out on their own. Yes that would ignore the economies of scale in information gathering and the requisite expertise, but so what?

You seem to want to overturn this principle and label all those thousands of pieces of information that do nothing to warn about safety or health effects so long as each piece of information influences in any way, rationally or irrationally, the purchasing decision of any consumer. That seems asinine, not to mention extremely costly, making all of us poorer.

This is no principle to overturn. And that "costly claim" smells no better with repetition no matter how many time you pull out of your ass.

 

[bilby]

From the Credible Hulk's FB page:

The following is meta-analysis (published in PLOS One) of 147 studies on the impact of genetically modified crops. The study finds that the adoption of herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybean, maize, and cotton, and insect-resistant (IR) maize and cotton has resulted in a 22% increase in average yields, a 37% overall decrease in pesticide use, and a 68% increase in farmer profits.

The yield increases were accomplished by way of a reduction in pest-related crop losses, an effect which was greater in farm surveys (e.g. real-world use) than in controlled field trials. Moreover, the gains were greater in developing countries, many of which have more of a problem with insect-related crop losses.

The IR plants afforded a significant decrease in insecticide use. The HT plant results were more mixed; some of them showed an increased in herbicide use, while others showed a decrease. However, there was a significant overall decrease in total pesticide (insecticide plus herbicide) use by 37%, contrary to the claims of anti-GMO activists.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

(my bold)

His full post can be found here:https://www.facebook.com/therealcrediblehulk/posts/904141262950526:0

The information is about increased yields, not about improved quality and decreased (or maybe not) use of pesticides.

So your eyes simply rejected the bit about decrease in total pesticide (insecticide plus herbicide) use by 37% without passing the information to your brain, did they? That would explain a lot.

A little chemical tale for you: Some protesters were sitting in a non violent protest in a congressman's office about something. The police arrived with pepper spray. Instead of spraying the protesters from the distance, they put a little pepper spray on cue tips and applied it directly to the protesters' eyes. Use of pepper spray down 95%. Oh yeah!

That is awful. It is also completely unrelated to the topic under discussion in just about every way possible.

Once I saw a policeman made entirely from chemicals!!

True story.

 

[tupac chopra]

I take it, from your response, that you do understand that GMOs are perfectly safe?

We don't know that without doing long term tests. So, again, you are spreading false information.
There has been only one long term study of Monsantos' GMO corn.
The results were found to be inconclusive WRT to certain health issues.

If the only study was found to be inconclusive, then you have no basis to make your claim...do you?

 

[ZiprHead]

Some one here quoted Dr. Malcolm from Jurassic Park saying "Life will find a way."

He also said, " If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now [bangs on the table] you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Well..."

Out of my own curiosity, I've spent a good deal of time researching GMOs. I specifically avoided woo-ridden links. While I have not concluded that GMOs are unsafe, I do feel much more extensive testing is warranted. The US FDA testing was woefully inadequate and some European more extensive testing has found what could be problems. Please don't ask for links. I've followed hundreds and didn't record them.

I am definitely in the more testing camp.

 

[bilby]

I take it, from your response, that you do understand that GMOs are perfectly safe?

We don't know that without doing long term tests. So, again, you are spreading false information.

We don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow. So either, anyone who claims it will is spreading false information; or you fail at logic.

I am going to go with the latter.

There has been only one long term study of Monsantos' GMO corn.
The results were found to be inconclusive WRT to certain health issues.

You just broke the Seralini Rule.

]If you cite this study as demonstrating any dangers in genetically modified food, you are either (a) so clueless as not to have spent 30 seconds checking to see if there are any reported problems in the study, or (b) so dishonest in citing a blatantly fraudulent study, that you are not worthy of any more serious consideration. You just lost the debate and you’re done.

...

Compare this fraudulent anti-GMO study with the 600 studies (and counting) in the GENERA database, that show the safety of GM foods. Or if you prefer, 126 with independent funding (although lack of independent funding doesn’t invalidate a study).

Ask yourself: if anti-GMO experimenters are so sure of their conclusion, why would they not design a study that was based on sound scientific practices?

If the only study was found to be inconclusive, then you have no basis to make your claim...do you?

The only study? or just the only one you want to believe?

Your memory must be abysmal, because you seem to have forgotten about all the other studies linked to in previous discussions of this topic. I mean, if you remembered those, then saying "There has been only one long term study of Monsantos' GMO corn" would be an outright lie, and that would be beneath you. Or perhaps we can be charitable, and say that you are simply abusing the phrase 'long term' to exclude results you don't like - but then, that would be dishonest too, so I doubt you would be so base as to try it.

If there are literally hundreds of studies that indicate that I am right, and the only study you have to support your position is one that is blatantly fraudulent, and has been retracted by the journal that originally published it, then you have no basis to counter my claim...do you?

 

[tupac chopra]

If the only study was found to be inconclusive, then you have no basis to make your claim...do you?

The only study? or just the only one you want to believe?

No, the only long term study. I clearly stated it was the only long term study.

Your memory must be abysmal, because you seem to have forgotten about all the other studies linked to in previous discussions of this topic. I mean, if you remembered those, then saying "There has been only one long term study of Monsantos' GMO corn" would be an outright lie,

No. there has only been one long term study. Here is what I wrote.

There has been only one long term study of Monsantos' GMO corn.
The results were found to be inconclusive WRT to certain health issues.

If the only study was found to be inconclusive, then you have no basis to make your claim...do you?

Are you really so desperate that you need to truncate what I wrote in order to make it look like I was saying "only study" instead of "only long term study"? Seriously!

So we are back to the same point. There has only been that one long term study and it was found to be inconclusive.

if there are literally hundreds of studies that indicate that I am right,

There has only been one long term study of that corn, so you can't be right to say that corn is safe.

and the only study you have to support your position is one that is blatantly fraudulent

The study was not found to be fraudulent. Those responsible for the retraction made it very clear there was no fraud, and the reason it was withdrawn from that publication was that it was "inconclusive."

The Editor-in-Chief again commends the corresponding author for his willingness and openness in participating in this dialog. The retraction is only on the inconclusiveness of this one paper.​

And from the link above which you appear not to have read.

Our read is that Hayes is basically saying that while the paper doesn’t meet the usual criteria for retraction, it should never have been published in the first place. This will likely be quite controversial, and it will be interesting to see how the scientific community reacts. Based on comments here at Retraction Watch, many scientists say that retraction should be reserved for fraud and serious error.

No fraud involved. And again from the same link, which you apparently did not read.

The international journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) has requested the retractation of our study published more than one year ago (ref) on the long term toxicity of the herbicide Roundup, and of a GM maize tolerant to it. After the analysis of all our raw data, the chief editor signs that there is no fraud nor incorrect data, nor intentional misinterpretation. However, he writes that the data are inconclusive, because of the rat strain and the number of animals used.

 

[tupac chopra]

The proper response to dangerous food ingredients is to ban their use, not to label them as dangerous.
.

The problem is that GMO's have been put into the food supply without any long term testing.
If you want to know whether something is dangerous you need to test it.

 

[bilby]

If the only study was found to be inconclusive, then you have no basis to make your claim...do you?

The only study? or just the only one you want to believe?

No, the only long term study. I clearly stated it was the only long term study.

Yes. But you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I will take your word for anything on this subject, despite your having clearly shown your word to be valueless in this regard.

What you clearly state is of less than no importance; I actively assume that you are wrong on this topic unless proven otherwise - and so far I am very glad that I didn't hold my breath while I waited.

Your memory must be abysmal, because you seem to have forgotten about all the other studies linked to in previous discussions of this topic. I mean, if you remembered those, then saying "There has been only one long term study of Monsantos' GMO corn" would be an outright lie,

No. there has only been one long term study. Here is what I wrote.

Once again, what YOU write is not impressing me at all. Can you quote a qualified professional who has not been exposed as a fraud?

There has been only one long term study of Monsantos' GMO corn.
The results were found to be inconclusive WRT to certain health issues.

If the only study was found to be inconclusive, then you have no basis to make your claim...do you?

Are you really so desperate that you need to truncate what I wrote in order to make it look like I was saying "only study" instead of "only long term study"? Seriously!

I didn't truncate what you wrote; I quoted it verbatim, as anyone can see for themselves (here, I bolded it in red for you). I didn't think it worthwhile to repeat your redundant qualifier the second time I mentioned it - because given that it is inconclusive, the details cease to matter; No result is no result on any time-scale. When you make false statements that everyone can see are false, you do nothing to add to your already woeful credibility.

So we are back to the same point. There has only been that one long term study and it was found to be inconclusive.

Nope. There has been only one study you care about, and it was found to be fraudulent, and therefore meaningless. There have been hundreds of studies that show that you are wrong; it is a serious abuse of reason to ignore these in favour of the discredited Seralini study.

if there are literally hundreds of studies that indicate that I am right,

There has only been one long term study of that corn, so you can't be right to say that corn is safe.

and the only study you have to support your position is one that is blatantly fraudulent

The study was not found to be fraudulent. Those responsible for the retraction made it very clear there was no fraud, and the reason it was withdrawn from that publication was that it was "inconclusive."

And if they were the only commentators on this issue, then you might have a point. But you are even cherry-picking your defence of your cherry-picking. Your epistemology is, frankly, shit. I find it increasingly difficult to accept that this is just lousy thinking on your part, rather than deliberate deceit.

The Editor-in-Chief again commends the corresponding author for his willingness and openness in participating in this dialog. The retraction is only on the inconclusiveness of this one paper.​

And from the link above which you appear not to have read.

Our read is that Hayes is basically saying that while the paper doesn’t meet the usual criteria for retraction, it should never have been published in the first place. This will likely be quite controversial, and it will be interesting to see how the scientific community reacts. Based on comments here at Retraction Watch, many scientists say that retraction should be reserved for fraud and serious error.

No fraud involved.

Not so; But even if we were to accept that, for the sake of argument, you would still be basing your position on one 'inconclusive' study, and ignoring literally hundreds of conclusive studies that disagree with you. So the score is:

Conclusive papers in support of your position: ZERO
Inconclusive papers: 1
Conclusive papers in opposition to your position: 600

...and you are strutting around claiming victory

Give it up. You have nothing; even if your beloved Seralini study wasn't a fraudulent piece of crap, it still wouldn't (by your own assessment of it) be evidence in support of your position.

<snip>

 

[tupac chopra]

Not so; But even if we were to accept that, for the sake of argument, you would still be basing your position on one 'inconclusive' study, and ignoring literally hundreds of conclusive studies that disagree with you. So the score is:

Now you have moved the goalposts.
You claimed that GMO foods were safe. Yet the only longterm study of this corn did not find it to be safe.

Conclusive papers in support of your position: ZERO
Inconclusive papers: 1
Conclusive papers in opposition to your position: 600 ZERO

Fixed It For You
There are no long term studies in opposition.

We only have the one (long term) study, so we don't know what the long term effects might be.

 

[tupac chopra]

<snip>

 

[bilby]

Now you have moved the goalposts.
You claimed that GMO foods were safe. Yet the only longterm study of this corn did not find it to be safe.

Conclusive papers in support of your position: ZERO
Inconclusive papers: 1
Conclusive papers in opposition to your position: 600 ZERO

Fixed It For You
There are no long term studies in opposition.

We only have the one (long term) study, so we don't know what the long term effects might be.

Sure. You believe whatever crap you like; clearly you are incapable of taking a rational approach to this issue, so I am wasting my time trying to change your mind. If you want to know my response to this (repeated) idiocy, please simply refer to my earlier answer:

We don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow. So either, anyone who claims it will is spreading false information; or you fail at logic.

I am going to go with the latter.

I have done enough in this thread to ensure that nobody unsuspectingly gives any credence to your crazy claims; so knock yourself out. You have lost the argument - if you don't know when you are beaten, I can't help you with that. But the fact that the best you are even prepared to claim is a no-score draw, should tell you something.

You can have the last word. No reasonable person will give it any weight anyway.