2000 reasons why GMO foods are safe

Options
1234568

Replies

  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    Options
    No they're not labeled out here in the United States. And Monsanto has been spending millions of dollars making sure that labeling is not enforced. I'm thinking of moving to Europe for that reason.

    Adios
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,276 Member
    Options
    Please note once again---BT is an naturally occuring bacterial organism. By itself as it occurs naturally in soil? Not registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Why? It biodegrades (washes off), and is highly selective in how it effects living organisms (bugs).

    BT Corn? Is an entirely new species(GMO) not found in nature. It is registered as a pesticide with the EPA. Why? When the BT gene is inserted into the corn ( called insertion event)~they do not know how to control selectivity of the dose of BT created--the technology isn't there to do so. This makes the resulting level of BT produced by the corn unpredictable and unstable. Hence, grounds for the EPA to say it is enough to register BT Corn as a pesticide. It doesn't wash off because it is in the very DNA of the entire plant.

    I think I see where our disconnect is.

    You seem to think that because it is registered with the FDA as a pesticide, it is therefore a harmful pesticide by the time we get to eat it. That we could grind up some corn and use it to bug proof our houses.

    I see the fact that it is registered with the FDA as a pesticide a way for an agency - given that this corn is, as you say, pretty new - to actually oversee the levels of this protein in food.

    In fact, you assume the Bt sprayed on your organic veggies gets washed off. The FDA measures the amount of Bt in roundup ready corn. See a difference there?
  • bio_fit
    bio_fit Posts: 307 Member
    Options
    BT Corn? Is an entirely new species(GMO) not found in nature.

    It's the same species of corn (Zea mays), just a different variant :drinker:
  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    Options
    Oh I agree. I'm certainly not "for" Monsanto! But GMO does not automatically mean bad.

    :flowerforyou: I knew you guys were out there! :drinker:
  • Gholmar
    Gholmar Posts: 37
    Options
    You go ahead and eat them then. I don't want to eat them!

    Agreed. Go ahead and eat them because I don't want any. Thanks for keeping us medical folks in business! I love the pay ;)

    How many GMO induced illnesses do you deal with in the average week? Out of interest.

    Literally 100% of them. Since most everyone eats GMOs, I can contribute any disease I feel like to GMOs! I even saw one patient the other day that got the flue from GMOs. They were eating a GMO apple after not getting a flu shot, sitting outside in the cold for an hour, then going to a middle school and nursing home. Clearly the GMO was the cause there.

    LOL yes this! Because as we all know...correlation implies causation!

    Correlation does imply causation. It doesn't entail it, but of course it implies it.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    p2245Cm.jpg

    I trust that you realize that this is a hoax?
  • Gholmar
    Gholmar Posts: 37
    Options
    You go ahead and eat them then. I don't want to eat them!

    Agreed. Go ahead and eat them because I don't want any. Thanks for keeping us medical folks in business! I love the pay ;)

    How many GMO induced illnesses do you deal with in the average week? Out of interest.

    Literally 100% of them. Since most everyone eats GMOs, I can contribute any disease I feel like to GMOs! I even saw one patient the other day that got the flue from GMOs. They were eating a GMO apple after not getting a flu shot, sitting outside in the cold for an hour, then going to a middle school and nursing home. Clearly the GMO was the cause there.

    LOL yes this! Because as we all know...correlation implies causation!

    Correlation does imply causation. It doesn't entail it, but of course it implies it.

    Uhhh....correlation does not imply causation

    Uh-huh. Define "imply" in a way that's not inconsistent with how you'd use that word in any other context, and we'll see.
  • Gholmar
    Gholmar Posts: 37
    Options
    You go ahead and eat them then. I don't want to eat them!

    Agreed. Go ahead and eat them because I don't want any. Thanks for keeping us medical folks in business! I love the pay ;)

    How many GMO induced illnesses do you deal with in the average week? Out of interest.

    Literally 100% of them. Since most everyone eats GMOs, I can contribute any disease I feel like to GMOs! I even saw one patient the other day that got the flue from GMOs. They were eating a GMO apple after not getting a flu shot, sitting outside in the cold for an hour, then going to a middle school and nursing home. Clearly the GMO was the cause there.

    LOL yes this! Because as we all know...correlation implies causation!

    Correlation does imply causation. It doesn't entail it, but of course it implies it.

    Uhhh....correlation does not imply causation

    Uh-huh. Define "imply" in a way that's not inconsistent with how you'd use that word in any other context, and we'll see.

    As ice cream sales increase, shark attacks increase. Therefore, shark attacks are caused by higher ice cream sales.

    Oh wait.

    Dude, if you don't want to talk about this, we don't have to. But if you do, then please offer your definition of "imply."

    If you think your previous post fits the definition of "imply," then you use that word differently than the rest of us do every day.
  • Gholmar
    Gholmar Posts: 37
    Options
    Imply: "(of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence"

    Exactly. Correlation does suggest causation. No, it doesn't prove it, and your shark example shows that. But it does suggest/imply it, and then we look deeper into the data (often in the form of our experiences) to infer actual causes.

    I mean, from what do we infer causation, if not correlation?

    But I'm home from work now, so I'm less grumpy. And as this is off-topic and probably not fun for anyone but me, I'll just leave us with this: http://xkcd.com/552/
  • HappyStack
    HappyStack Posts: 802 Member
    Options
    The pedantism that comes from the usage of language on these forums is maddening.

    Two variables occurring at the same time does not prove cause and effect, though if you wish to you can extrapolate cause and effect from their correlation.

    It doesn't imply causation, it allows you to infer it if you want to.
  • Gholmar
    Gholmar Posts: 37
    Options
    Imply: "(of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence"

    Exactly. Correlation does suggest causation. No, it doesn't prove it, and your shark example shows that. But it does suggest/imply it, and then we look deeper into the data (often in the form of our experiences) to infer actual causes.

    I mean, from what do we infer causation, if not correlation?

    But I'm home from work now, so I'm less grumpy. And as this is off-topic and probably not fun for anyone but me, I'll just leave us with this: http://xkcd.com/552/

    So are you just going to ignore this, then and rather pick and choose my points?

    "In the context of one variable implying another variable, "imply" means "causes". Correlation does not imply causation because there could be other variables that play a role."

    Except the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" doesn't have variables. It has two concepts, or two phenomena. You're conflating example with definition.

    Also, if you're going to post contradictory things, then I'm sort of forced to pick and choose, right?
  • conniedj
    conniedj Posts: 470 Member
    Options


    I think I see where our disconnect is.

    You seem to think that because it is registered with the FDA as a pesticide, it is therefore a harmful pesticide by the time we get to eat it. That we could grind up some corn and use it to bug proof our houses.

    What do you mean "by the time we eat it"? The BT doesn't degrade in the corn, it's part of the plants DNA. And BT Corn became available straight from the farm to the table via. sweet corn. I think that it is unprecedented to have a Food item that is grown listed with the EPA (not FDA btw....) as a pesticide. We have never seen this happen in the history of food--for good reason: Food is Food---pesticides are pesticides. It would be logical to think that studies showing the BT Toxin in the blood pregnant women a fetuses would be cause for concern, as the earlier "safety studies" proved the BT Toxin was broken down in the stomach during the course of normal digestion--which is, apparently, not the case.
    I see the fact that it is registered with the FDA as a pesticide a way for an agency - given that this corn is, as you say, pretty new - to actually oversee the levels of this protein in food.

    You would be wrong. 1) Registered with the EPA...not FDA ( I am sure that was just a typo on your part....darn acronyms!) 2) FDA doesn't monitor protein levels in food ( btw it is the toxin portion of the bacteria--not a protein per se.). It monitors safety. GMO's have passed into our food system based on one thing only: Substantial equivalence: essentially the same as their conventional counterpart, therefore no safety testing is required. This is a quote taken from the FAQ page of monsanto:
    http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx#q2

    "As long as the introduced gene protein is determined safe (note from me* determined NOT proven*) (an initial step in the safety assessment) and the GM and non-GM crops are alike in all respects, the GM crop is said to be substantially equivalent, or “equal to,” their conventional counterparts and are not expected to pose any health risks. Experts in the field of food safety are satisfied that this approach is sufficient and reliable to assure the GM crops are as safe their conventional counterparts. This expert community does not see a need and thus does not recommend long-term tests in humans in order to establish food safety."

    So....experts in the field say they are safe, it must be true? Without establishing food safety studies? Yet--different enough to be approved for patents.....very interesting, right? This is the fact that really got me to sit up and take notice.
    In fact, you assume the Bt sprayed on your organic veggies gets washed off. The FDA measures the amount of Bt in roundup ready corn. See a difference there?

    I don't assume anything. BT sprays used in organic gardening are biodegradable. When water is applied--it degrades back into the soil.

    The EPA can't measure the amount of BT Toxin found in corn--because the amount produced is an unknown factor. Based on this unpredictable trait...and the possibility of higher than acceptable amounts produced....is why it is registered with the EPA.

    And let me say one last thing, if you please! I remember when I first read about Biotech Ag in the late 80's/early 90's. I was so excited about the prospect of technology being able to end hunger in the world. I am absolutely for technology creating a better world. I am absolutely opposed with profit margins to board members being prioritized over safety studies. When technology is trumped and manipulated by politics? Disaster will probably ensue. But that is just my personal opinion. Thanks for reading!
  • Gholmar
    Gholmar Posts: 37
    Options
    Imply: "(of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence"

    Exactly. Correlation does suggest causation. No, it doesn't prove it, and your shark example shows that. But it does suggest/imply it, and then we look deeper into the data (often in the form of our experiences) to infer actual causes.

    I mean, from what do we infer causation, if not correlation?

    But I'm home from work now, so I'm less grumpy. And as this is off-topic and probably not fun for anyone but me, I'll just leave us with this: http://xkcd.com/552/

    So are you just going to ignore this, then and rather pick and choose my points?

    "In the context of one variable implying another variable, "imply" means "causes". Correlation does not imply causation because there could be other variables that play a role."

    Except the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" doesn't have variables. It has two concepts, or two phenomena. You're conflating example with definition.

    Also, if you're going to post contradictory things, then I'm sort of forced to pick and choose, right?

    Correlation does not imply causation is saying exactly that - that there are other variables in play

    No, "correlation does not PROVE causation" would say exactly that.

    "If there is causation, there is correlation. If there is no causation, there might be aberrant correlation. If there is observed correlation, there might be causation. If there is no correlation, there is no causation. Correlation implies, but does not prove, causation." --http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6319
  • 1healthyerin
    1healthyerin Posts: 10
    Options
    Right!?!? I think mother nature knows best and we should leave it up to her!!!
  • Gholmar
    Gholmar Posts: 37
    Options
    Right!?!? I think mother nature knows best and we should leave it up to her!!!

    Good idea.

    *throws computer out window*
    *throws pants in garbage*
    *goes to live in woods*
    *is mauled by bear*
    *sues Mother Nature for child endangerment*

Categories