Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are GMOs bad for you?
Replies
-
For you to blindly believe that all the FDA studies you read are 100% legit is really telling. The FDA is made up of ex-monsanto employees. I don't have a scientific website to back up this claim, so it's probably "slanderous", but a number of books, articles and documentaries have stated this.
Which books, articles and documentaries? Give us those. Surely those authors cited their sources. Surely.
they're usually a circle jerk of citing each other6 -
I avoid GMO if I can. Do I end up eating them? Unfortunately yes because they are in almost everything and most are not labeled. I 100% believe they are harmful. Monsanto's glyphosate is in everything. I try to buy organic or GMO free if I can.
Sure the government says it's safe, but it has come out that monsanto employees have been the ones who write the studies and they slap a scientists name on it. Monsanto doesn't want to "feed the world"...they simply want to line their pockets full of money and are sacrificing our health to do it.
I have spoken to a number of horticulturist who outright say GMO are harmful. Disease and allergies have spiked in the past 10 years. I believe it is due to our food supply. Kids who have food allergies and need epi-pens are on the rise...it all has to do with our food.
This obviously is my own opinion.
And here-in lies my biggest issue with this whole 'conspiracy' theory about the evil Monsanto company... here is the basic argument that the non-GMO crowd makes:
1. They are evil because they are motivated by profits
2. They can increase their profits by selling 'bad' GMO products
3. The 'bad' GMO products are destroying the people who consume them
If they are killing us off or destroying us with the 'bad' GMO products, wouldn't that be counter-productive to increasing their profits?? Dead customers don't spend a whole lot of cash in the consumer arena, do they?
As to the increase in disease/allergies/etc, all of the evidence is correlative and DOES NOT and CANNOT provide a direct link to GMO consumption. How do we know that any increase in these is simply not a matter of more wide-spread medical identification or access/reporting of incidences? Heck, this could simply be a correlation between the increase in population of the planet and greater access to medical care and identification of medical issues (given that there are a billion more people on this planet than there were a decade ago).
eta: And, since Monsanto isn't the largest producer of either food stuffs or pesticides, why do they always pick on Monsanto????6 -
Monsanto secretly runs the world (although their secrecy apparently isn't that good -- get better, Monsanto!). I believe that all Monsanto officers and directors also were members of Skull and Bones and, of course, are Masons.7
-
I ran in to this so-called profit motivation when I researched the treatment of animals on the farm. A profitable farmer is one who produces healthy livestock. If the animals are healthy, they don't need antibiotics or growth hormones. Regular feed is a lot cheaper than hormones and antibiotics.
Where you find illness and disease is where the farmer is a poor manager and is losing money. That's when corners will start to get cut.
For crop farmers, they are going to be looking at yield. They will be looking at ROI, yield per acre, and suitability of the crop on their land.1 -
I'm glad you all are so secure in your belief that the FDA couldn't possibly allow anything to harm you. You are completely allowed to hold that opinion, just as I am allowed to hold mine (although you all don't seem to feel anyone is allowed to differ from you). Yes...your response will be that I can't back my claims. I just don't see the point when you will just rip it to shreds anyway. Books, websites, first hand accounts....it's not good enough so I don't bother. If I name am author, you will say they are stupid. So why waste my time.
If gmo is 100% safe, why have so many counties ban it and ban the import of it?7 -
I'm glad you all are so secure in your belief that the FDA couldn't possibly allow anything to harm you. You are completely allowed to hold that opinion, just as I am allowed to hold mine (although you all don't seem to feel anyone is allowed to differ from you). Yes...your response will be that I can't back my claims. I just don't see the point when you will just rip it to shreds anyway. Books, websites, first hand accounts....it's not good enough so I don't bother. If I name am author, you will say they are stupid. So why waste my time.
If gmo is 100% safe, why have so many counties ban it and ban the import of it?
Because they bow to opinions instead of science. It's really not that complicated.7 -
I'm glad you all are so secure in your belief that the FDA couldn't possibly allow anything to harm you. You are completely allowed to hold that opinion, just as I am allowed to hold mine (although you all don't seem to feel anyone is allowed to differ from you).
If gmo is 100% safe, why have so many counties ban it and ban the import of it?
You are welcome to have your beliefs about the safety of GMO's. The only thing that I have seen questioned is what you are basing those beliefs on.
Nobody on this thread has said that GMO is 100% safe. Hell, life isn't 100% safe and there are no foods (GMO or not) that are consumed today that are 100% safe so let's get realistic here. If a product has been shown to not cause harm 99% of the time, then I will quite happily consume that product - as MY personal choice, regardless of what the conspiracy/fear mongers of the world would have me believe.
As to the ban of GMO in many countries - initially it was done based on flawed studies that even the EU (one of the most liberal and paternalistic organizations around) has repudiated. I don't have a good answer as to why the bans are continued given that scientific evidence does not support the position - maybe they have better lobbying efforts on behalf of the food producers than we have in the US. Maybe they simply believe the hype and have made it a part of their laws.2 -
I'm glad you all are so secure in your belief that the FDA couldn't possibly allow anything to harm you. You are completely allowed to hold that opinion, just as I am allowed to hold mine (although you all don't seem to feel anyone is allowed to differ from you). Yes...your response will be that I can't back my claims. I just don't see the point when you will just rip it to shreds anyway. Books, websites, first hand accounts....it's not good enough so I don't bother. If I name am author, you will say they are stupid. So why waste my time.
If gmo is 100% safe, why have so many counties ban it and ban the import of it?
Since not naming sources is making you look awesome3 -
I'm glad you all are so secure in your belief that the FDA couldn't possibly allow anything to harm you. You are completely allowed to hold that opinion, just as I am allowed to hold mine (although you all don't seem to feel anyone is allowed to differ from you).
If gmo is 100% safe, why have so many counties ban it and ban the import of it?
You are welcome to have your beliefs about the safety of GMO's. The only thing that I have seen questioned is what you are basing those beliefs on.
Nobody on this thread has said that GMO is 100% safe. Hell, life isn't 100% safe and there are no foods (GMO or not) that are consumed today that are 100% safe so let's get realistic here. If a product has been shown to not cause harm 99% of the time, then I will quite happily consume that product - as MY personal choice, regardless of what the conspiracy/fear mongers of the world would have me believe.
As to the ban of GMO in many countries - initially it was done based on flawed studies that even the EU (one of the most liberal and paternalistic organizations around) has repudiated. I don't have a good answer as to why the bans are continued given that scientific evidence does not support the position - maybe they have better lobbying efforts on behalf of the food producers than we have in the US. Maybe they simply believe the hype and have made it a part of their laws.
On average, a bottle of water is more dangerous than GMO vegetables or meat.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Monsanto secretly runs the world (although their secrecy apparently isn't that good -- get better, Monsanto!). I believe that all Monsanto officers and directors also were members of Skull and Bones and, of course, are Masons.
It all fits together really, first the flying saucers on the grassy knoll, then Elvis is falsely proclaimed dead, and now aspartame.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/02/132591244/our-brains-are-shrinking-are-we-getting-dumber3 -
You can not be of the "opinion" that GMOs are bad for you. That is simply a misunderstanding or a delusion. You can be of the opinion that you think they taste worse than "natural" foods. That's subjective. But the nutritional facts of a food are an objective fact. You aren't entitled to opinions on objective facts.
Yes I certainly can be of the "opinion" that GMOs are bad for you...it hasn't been proven 100% either way that they are safe or harmful, hence my stance of "I believe they are harmful". There are just as many studies that say they are harmful as those that say they are safe, so maybe you are "delusional" to think they are safe.singingflutelady wrote: »
So people should just blindly believe each other just because someone says something as fact without backing it up? You claim that they are faking studies. That's a big claim and potentially slanderous. You can't say things as fact without providing proof especially when they are controversal and damaging. If it has come out the proof should be easy for you to cite.
I don't bother backing up my "opinions" with Prof because every time I do in this forum I get told it's not scientific enough. I am not saying anything slanderous...I'm simply paraphrasing what I had read on other websites (and there are plenty).
I find it funny that you guys will blindly believe a study the government/FDA puts out, yet you condemn all others.
No where in my posting did I say people should believe what I say...I simply gave my opinion and clearly stated that at the end.
Well no. What you are essentially defining is a logical fallacy.
This is the same as stating that wearing blue pants on your head will cause cancer. How do I know you ask? Well you have not proven that wearing blue pants on your head will not cause cancer, hence the statement is valid.
There is no evidence suggesting that GMO carries any more inherent risks that any other food product.3 -
Haiku time.
Earth's flat, I am sure.
How would I conclude this fact?
Websites told me so.11 -
I'm glad you all are so secure in your belief that the FDA couldn't possibly allow anything to harm you. You are completely allowed to hold that opinion, just as I am allowed to hold mine (although you all don't seem to feel anyone is allowed to differ from you). Yes...your response will be that I can't back my claims. I just don't see the point when you will just rip it to shreds anyway. Books, websites, first hand accounts....it's not good enough so I don't bother. If I name am author, you will say they are stupid. So why waste my time.
If gmo is 100% safe, why have so many counties ban it and ban the import of it?
Wanting to see evidence for your conclusions doesn't mean that we believe the FDA couldn't possibly allow anything to harm us. What a ridiculous strawman argument.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Saying monsanto wrote studies themselves and just slapped a scientist's name on them is not an opinion, it's a lie. And probably slander.
Can you prove that it's not true then?
Are you saying the emails that came out are made up/forged? Prove it with vetted sources. (You don't actually have to do this...just being like everyone else. You can't 100% prove they are fake just like you can't prove 100% they are real. You can't prove GMOS are safe just like I can't prove they are harmful. All the testing in the world can't predict what will happen in the future...hence the reason I choose to avoid them.5 -
are you an anti-vaxxer too? what are your thoughts on chemtrails? how do you feel about floride in the water?3
-
stevencloser wrote: »
Saying monsanto wrote studies themselves and just slapped a scientist's name on them is not an opinion, it's a lie. And probably slander.
Can you prove that it's not true then?
Are you saying the emails that came out are made up/forged? Prove it with vetted sources. (You don't actually have to do this...just being like everyone else. You can't 100% prove they are fake just like you can't prove 100% they are real. You can't prove GMOS are safe just like I can't prove they are harmful. All the testing in the world can't predict what will happen in the future...hence the reason I choose to avoid them.
Since you refuse to share your sources or where you heard these claims, we can't even be sure what emails you're referring to.
Yet the burden of disproving the unsourced, unnamed claims is on the people who doubt them?
2 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Saying monsanto wrote studies themselves and just slapped a scientist's name on them is not an opinion, it's a lie. And probably slander.
Can you prove that it's not true then?
Are you saying the emails that came out are made up/forged? Prove it with vetted sources. (You don't actually have to do this...just being like everyone else. You can't 100% prove they are fake just like you can't prove 100% they are real. You can't prove GMOS are safe just like I can't prove they are harmful. All the testing in the world can't predict what will happen in the future...hence the reason I choose to avoid them.
I say that I saw Bigfoot and Elvis swimming together in my backyard pool last night. And they left in a silent, invisible UFO after they were done, so none of my neighbors even noticed. Can you prove it's not true?6 -
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
To me, thalidomide is a warning. It was approved for human use before we understood it properly. Our eagerness to say "this is safe" resulted in great human suffering. How do we know we aren't making the same kind of mistake now?0 -
The only websites I could find that tried to provide any "proof" that Monsanto has infiltrated the FDA in order to ensure their unsafe GMO seeds were approved, also had 9/11 conspiracy theory stories and anti-vax propaganda. And most were selling supplements.
6 -
The only websites I could find that tried to provide any "proof" that Monsanto has infiltrated the FDA in order to ensure their unsafe GMO seeds were approved, also had 9/11 conspiracy theory stories and anti-vax propaganda. And most were selling supplements.
Does it have the "Stevie Wonder isn't really blind" conspiracy theory on there? That one is my favorite, and I'm not going to lie, I kind of sort of feel like that one might be true.0 -
The only websites I could find that tried to provide any "proof" that Monsanto has infiltrated the FDA in order to ensure their unsafe GMO seeds were approved, also had 9/11 conspiracy theory stories and anti-vax propaganda. And most were selling supplements.
Does it have the "Stevie Wonder isn't really blind" conspiracy theory on there? That one is my favorite, and I'm not going to lie, I kind of sort of feel like that one might be true.
"Katy Perry is Jonbenet Ramsey" is my favorite0 -
This content has been removed.
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »The only websites I could find that tried to provide any "proof" that Monsanto has infiltrated the FDA in order to ensure their unsafe GMO seeds were approved, also had 9/11 conspiracy theory stories and anti-vax propaganda. And most were selling supplements.
Does it have the "Stevie Wonder isn't really blind" conspiracy theory on there? That one is my favorite, and I'm not going to lie, I kind of sort of feel like that one might be true.
"Katy Perry is Jonbenet Ramsey" is my favorite
I thought it was Taylor swift.....
Maybe that's why they don't like each other
0 -
Why can't you name one website that says GMO's are harmful? We can then have a look and have a debate about. Not sure why that's so hard.I see you all have taken care of my response for me...no need to respond with any sources. There are plenty of websites that say gmo are harmful.
From experience, anti-gmo websites tend to cherry pick poorly done studies, skew the science behind GMO technologies, prey on the scientifically illiterate and fearmongering. But I'm open to be proven wrong.A simple Google search will show that, but of course they are not scientific enough to satisfy your requirements so why bother.
A bit of a strawman, no one claims they are perfectly safe, but the data we have now shows that there is no harm in GM foods. If you have any studies showing harm, please post them.All you guys have it all figured out. GMO is perfectly safe because some studies/fda/government say they are.
This is such a common excuse from people like yourself. Those with fixed ideologies tend to have very closed minds and usually get their "beliefs" from website that agree with that ideology. As such, your position is very weak and based on limited knowledge so the only way to support your argument id logical fallacies and excuses.Also, it is a waste of time for anyone to try and back their beliefs with you guys because they simply get sarcastic responses. I really believe a lot of people don't bother posting there opinions because they will only get ganged up for not having the majority opinion.
4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
To me, thalidomide is a warning. It was approved for human use before we understood it properly. Our eagerness to say "this is safe" resulted in great human suffering. How do we know we aren't making the same kind of mistake now?
Thalidomide is a very poor example, given that the widespread havoc that this vaccine caused actually sparked the creation of the FDA and the stringent testing of drugs/vaccines that we currently have in place today.1 -
Another strawman argument. And why do you assume we blindly believe? A fair number of people on these boards are actual scientists and researchers and who can read and understand the research. There are also people like myself who come from a science based backround who can read and understand the research, and there are people who have a strong love and apptitude for science who can read and understand the research. None of us blindly believing anything. Also, what quack website has you believing the FDA conducts GMO research? For future reference, the FDA does not conduct research on GMO.For you to blindly believe that all the FDA studies you read are 100% legit is really telling.
What's really telling is that you blindly believe that all the pseudoscience and nonsense you read is 100% legit.
Gonna need some proof for this.The FDA is made up of ex-monsanto employees.
Fixed for you.I don't have a scientific website to back up this claim, so it's probably "slanderous" completely made up, but a number of psuedoscientific books, nonsense articles and quack documentaries have stated this, so I blindly believe its 100% legit.
4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Citation?finny11122 wrote: »Well on mammal tests the subjects got cancer
So I guess it's safe for pregnant women to take thalidomide because it's safe in pregnant rodents?And humans are mammals
Or we shouldn't eat chocolate because it can kill a dog?
Thalidomide is perfectly safe and good for morning sickness, so long as you get the correctly handed version. It's when you take the mirror image that things go south.
To me, thalidomide is a warning. It was approved for human use before we understood it properly. Our eagerness to say "this is safe" resulted in great human suffering. How do we know we aren't making the same kind of mistake now?
Thalidomide is a very poor example, given that the widespread havoc that this vaccine caused actually sparked the creation of the FDA and the stringent testing of drugs/vaccines that we currently have in place today.
Actually, not so much. After Thalidomide, women of childbearing age were not recommended to participate in early stage clinical trials at all. So they weren't included. The decision removed a huge portion of the population from testing and has resulted in a number of issues. The one that comes to mind immediately is Ambien. When first released, a number of women died because the acceptable safe dosage was based on male response to the drug and, in the doses specified, had adverse effects on women.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
That's not how it works. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. It's like me saying to you - prove there is no pink invisible teapot orbiting Mars. I would need to provide proof for my claim. Its an intellectually lazy way to avoid proving your claim by making us prove its false. Why is this so hard for you to understand?stevencloser wrote: »
Saying monsanto wrote studies themselves and just slapped a scientist's name on them is not an opinion, it's a lie. And probably slander.
Can you prove that it's not true then?
What emails are you talking about? Again, your claim, you need to provide the proof.Are you saying the emails that came out are made up/forged? Prove it with vetted sources.
Umm...no, not all like everyone else. We are doing the following:(You don't actually have to do this...just being like everyone else.
You make a ridiculous claim, we ask for proof - perfectly reasonable, not sure why you are getting all twisted up by it.
You are doing this and thinking its the same thing:
You make a ridiculous claim and ask us to prove its false - completely different.
Except all the data to date says they are safe and are not harmfulYou can't prove GMOS are safe just like I can't prove they are harmful.
0 -
I see you all have taken care of my response for me...no need to respond with any sources. There are plenty of websites that say gmo are harmful. A simple Google search will show that, but of course they are not scientific enough to satisfy your requirements so why bother....
A simple Google search proves nothing. I can do a Google search and find David "Avocado" Wolfe saying that gravity is a toxin and solar panels are bad for the environment because they suck the energy out of the sun and don't return it. I can find Food Babe, Mercola, Fung, Taubes, Lustig and plenty of other crackpots spouting all kinds of pseudoscientific woo to sell their books and products. I can find Freelee the Banana Girl saying that we should all eat nothing but hundreds of bananas every day. I can find people who, even in this day and age, still believe the Earth is flat. How does any of that prove anything? Knowing how to vet one's sources is an important skill when conducting "research" on the internet.
7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions