GMOs Scary or not?
Replies
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair
That study was retracted. The author of the study was someone who was advocating actively against GM at the time the study was conducted.
To answer your question pudding YES, the did use Sprague-Dawley rats.
For those of you who don't know Sprague-Dawley rats are a breed of rat that get tumors all over their body normally due to a genetic defect. If you fed a Sprague-Dawley rat nothing but broccoli chances are it would end up with tumors all over its body.0 -
Picture shows it....sorry its a long link....If small animals want organic over GMO, I think I want the right to know what I'm eating....scroll to see the corn experiment.....I just wish I could have my own farm! :P
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=Qieo01Kefp_H9M&tbnid=svEX3GtL0KgfzM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/stop-gmos-russian-scientists-urge-10-year-ban-on-genetically-modified-products/&ei=q1rDU4vVMMOLiwKI2YGgDQ&bvm=bv.70810081,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNE2IehKohneB20L4s0rmO0HIgTELQ&ust=1405398024474175
Where is the link to the study that this article is about? The assumptions in that article are horribly flawed. I see no viable link that the increase of diabetes or cancer was due to GM foods. Just because two events happen at the same time does not mean they are linked or caused by each other.0 -
Picture shows it....sorry its a long link....If small animals want organic over GMO, I think I want the right to know what I'm eating....scroll to see the corn experiment.....I just wish I could have my own farm! :P
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=Qieo01Kefp_H9M&tbnid=svEX3GtL0KgfzM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/stop-gmos-russian-scientists-urge-10-year-ban-on-genetically-modified-products/&ei=q1rDU4vVMMOLiwKI2YGgDQ&bvm=bv.70810081,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNE2IehKohneB20L4s0rmO0HIgTELQ&ust=1405398024474175
Where is the link to the study that this article is about? The assumptions in that article are horribly flawed. I see no viable link that the increase of diabetes or cancer was due to GM foods. Just because two events happen at the same time does not mean they are linked or caused by each other.
There is no link to the study because the study was retracted after review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair
Textbook example of fraud similar to the cold fusion debacle with Pons and Fleischmann0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-Éric_Séralini
That study was retracted.
To answer your question pudding YES, the did use Sprague-Dawley rats.
For those of you who don't know Sprague-Dawley rats are a breed of rat that get tumors all over their body normally due to a genetic defect. If you fed a Sprague-Dawley rat nothing but broccoli chances are it would end up with tumors all over its body.
Then why were Sprague-Dawley rats used in the short-term Monsanto funded study to begin with?
Why does anyone ever use these rats at all if they don't have similar cancer progression patterns to humans?0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-Éric_Séralini
That study was retracted.
To answer your question pudding YES, the did use Sprague-Dawley rats.
For those of you who don't know Sprague-Dawley rats are a breed of rat that get tumors all over their body normally due to a genetic defect. If you fed a Sprague-Dawley rat nothing but broccoli chances are it would end up with tumors all over its body.
Then why were Sprague-Dawley rats used in the short-term Monsanto funded study to begin with?
Why does anyone ever use these rats at all if they don't have similar cancer progression patterns to humans?
Good question for the author of the paper, probably one of the reasons the paper was retracted. Look up Sprague-Dawley rats if you don't believe me.
Here is a study of the spontaneous tumor formation in that particular breed:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
or another if you don't like that one:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194
Or you could just look at the info sheet for the company that produces SD rats:
file:///C:/Users/Aaron/Downloads/117b20f991764a5e98e32d366d83e876.pdf
or this article about the issue using that breed of rat in that study:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/gm-corn-tumor-study-120920.htm0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-Éric_Séralini
That study was retracted.
To answer your question pudding YES, the did use Sprague-Dawley rats.
For those of you who don't know Sprague-Dawley rats are a breed of rat that get tumors all over their body normally due to a genetic defect. If you fed a Sprague-Dawley rat nothing but broccoli chances are it would end up with tumors all over its body.
Then why were Sprague-Dawley rats used in the short-term Monsanto funded study to begin with?
Why does anyone ever use these rats at all if they don't have similar cancer progression patterns to humans?
Good question for the author of the paper, probably one of the reasons the paper was retracted. Look up Sprague-Dawley rats if you don't believe me.
Here is a study of the spontaneous tumor formation in that particular breed:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
I read that. Yet I've read nothing suggesting these rats are no longer used in other peer reviewed studies. And again, Monsanto also used these rats in their own, shorter studies. Which is why I find the assertion that these rats are unsuitable very suspicious.0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-Éric_Séralini
That study was retracted.
To answer your question pudding YES, the did use Sprague-Dawley rats.
For those of you who don't know Sprague-Dawley rats are a breed of rat that get tumors all over their body normally due to a genetic defect. If you fed a Sprague-Dawley rat nothing but broccoli chances are it would end up with tumors all over its body.
Then why were Sprague-Dawley rats used in the short-term Monsanto funded study to begin with?
Why does anyone ever use these rats at all if they don't have similar cancer progression patterns to humans?
Good question for the author of the paper, probably one of the reasons the paper was retracted. Look up Sprague-Dawley rats if you don't believe me.
Here is a study of the spontaneous tumor formation in that particular breed:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
I read that. Yet I've read nothing suggesting these rats are no longer used in other peer reviewed studies. And again, Monsanto also used these rats in their own, shorter studies. Which is why I find the assertion that these rats are unsuitable very suspicious.
They are used in peer reviewed studies, lots of peer reviewed studies. They are used to study cancer because most of the time they spontaneously get cancer. That is what they are for.
If however you have a paper about toxicology and you use sprague-dawley rats and hold up pictures of them having tumors (which they get) and go "zomg tumors" then yeah, that is questionable.0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-Éric_Séralini
That study was retracted.
To answer your question pudding YES, the did use Sprague-Dawley rats.
For those of you who don't know Sprague-Dawley rats are a breed of rat that get tumors all over their body normally due to a genetic defect. If you fed a Sprague-Dawley rat nothing but broccoli chances are it would end up with tumors all over its body.
Then why were Sprague-Dawley rats used in the short-term Monsanto funded study to begin with?
Why does anyone ever use these rats at all if they don't have similar cancer progression patterns to humans?
Good question for the author of the paper, probably one of the reasons the paper was retracted. Look up Sprague-Dawley rats if you don't believe me.
Here is a study of the spontaneous tumor formation in that particular breed:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
I read that. Yet I've read nothing suggesting these rats are no longer used in other peer reviewed studies. And again, Monsanto also used these rats in their own, shorter studies. Which is why I find the assertion that these rats are unsuitable very suspicious.
They are used in peer reviewed studies, lots of peer reviewed studies. They are used to study cancer because most of the time they spontaneously get cancer.
Don't humans also spontaneously get cancer? ('Spontaneously' perhaps deserves quotation marks, since it can also be a cancer with a cause unknown to researchers and medical professionals.)0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-Éric_Séralini
That study was retracted.
To answer your question pudding YES, the did use Sprague-Dawley rats.
For those of you who don't know Sprague-Dawley rats are a breed of rat that get tumors all over their body normally due to a genetic defect. If you fed a Sprague-Dawley rat nothing but broccoli chances are it would end up with tumors all over its body.
Then why were Sprague-Dawley rats used in the short-term Monsanto funded study to begin with?
Why does anyone ever use these rats at all if they don't have similar cancer progression patterns to humans?
Good question for the author of the paper, probably one of the reasons the paper was retracted. Look up Sprague-Dawley rats if you don't believe me.
Here is a study of the spontaneous tumor formation in that particular breed:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
I read that. Yet I've read nothing suggesting these rats are no longer used in other peer reviewed studies. And again, Monsanto also used these rats in their own, shorter studies. Which is why I find the assertion that these rats are unsuitable very suspicious.
They are used in peer reviewed studies, lots of peer reviewed studies. They are used to study cancer because most of the time they spontaneously get cancer.
Don't humans also spontaneously get cancer? ('Spontaneously' perhaps deserves quotation marks, since it can also be a cancer with a cause unknown to researchers and medical professionals.)
Yes. But not at a rate of 50%. 1:2 Sprague-Dawley rats get tumors all over there body which is the rate that that study reported. So basically they reported the background level that that breed has anyways. Notice that all of their groups got tumors. They didn't have a tumorless group.
This was pointed out, the paper was retracted...that was that.0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-Éric_Séralini
That study was retracted.
To answer your question pudding YES, the did use Sprague-Dawley rats.
For those of you who don't know Sprague-Dawley rats are a breed of rat that get tumors all over their body normally due to a genetic defect. If you fed a Sprague-Dawley rat nothing but broccoli chances are it would end up with tumors all over its body.
Then why were Sprague-Dawley rats used in the short-term Monsanto funded study to begin with?
Why does anyone ever use these rats at all if they don't have similar cancer progression patterns to humans?
Good question for the author of the paper, probably one of the reasons the paper was retracted. Look up Sprague-Dawley rats if you don't believe me.
Here is a study of the spontaneous tumor formation in that particular breed:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
I read that. Yet I've read nothing suggesting these rats are no longer used in other peer reviewed studies. And again, Monsanto also used these rats in their own, shorter studies. Which is why I find the assertion that these rats are unsuitable very suspicious.
They are used in peer reviewed studies, lots of peer reviewed studies. They are used to study cancer because most of the time they spontaneously get cancer.
Don't humans also spontaneously get cancer? ('Spontaneously' perhaps deserves quotation marks, since it can also be a cancer with a cause unknown to researchers and medical professionals.)
Yes. But not at a rate of 50%. 1:2 Sprague-Dawley rats get tumors all over there body which is the rate that that study reported. So basically they reported the background level that that breed has anyways. Notice that all of their groups got tumors. They didn't have a tumorless group.
This was pointed out, the paper was retracted...that was that.
Then these rats should never be and should never have been used in cancer research, including by Monsanto. As I said, the objection to the breed of rat is suspicious due to Monsanto's own use of these rats, as well as use by other cancer researchers. I'm sure you can see how that smells funny.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print through legislation, NOT the other way around.0
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-Éric_Séralini
That study was retracted.
To answer your question pudding YES, the did use Sprague-Dawley rats.
For those of you who don't know Sprague-Dawley rats are a breed of rat that get tumors all over their body normally due to a genetic defect. If you fed a Sprague-Dawley rat nothing but broccoli chances are it would end up with tumors all over its body.
Then why were Sprague-Dawley rats used in the short-term Monsanto funded study to begin with?
Why does anyone ever use these rats at all if they don't have similar cancer progression patterns to humans?
Good question for the author of the paper, probably one of the reasons the paper was retracted. Look up Sprague-Dawley rats if you don't believe me.
Here is a study of the spontaneous tumor formation in that particular breed:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
I read that. Yet I've read nothing suggesting these rats are no longer used in other peer reviewed studies. And again, Monsanto also used these rats in their own, shorter studies. Which is why I find the assertion that these rats are unsuitable very suspicious.
They are used in peer reviewed studies, lots of peer reviewed studies. They are used to study cancer because most of the time they spontaneously get cancer.
Don't humans also spontaneously get cancer? ('Spontaneously' perhaps deserves quotation marks, since it can also be a cancer with a cause unknown to researchers and medical professionals.)
Yes. But not at a rate of 50%. 1:2 Sprague-Dawley rats get tumors all over there body which is the rate that that study reported. So basically they reported the background level that that breed has anyways. Notice that all of their groups got tumors. They didn't have a tumorless group.
This was pointed out, the paper was retracted...that was that.
Then these rats should never be and should never have been used in cancer research, including by Monsanto. As I said, the objection to the breed of rat is suspicious due to Monsanto's own use of these rats, as well as use by other cancer researchers. I'm sure you can see how that smells funny.
What are you going on about. Of COURSE they should be used in cancer research. Hard to research cancer if only 1 in 10,000 of your test subjects get cancer. Much easier if 1 in 2 do. That was what they were bred for that is why they are used.
But go ahead and have a strong opinion about how cancer research is doing it wrong.
Also not sure why you are talking about Monsanto...Monstanto had nothing to do with conducting that study.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
Your not a child you are just not very informed about cancer biology (clearly) and yet still feel the need to voice strong opinons about how cancer researchers should conduct their research.
That makes you annoying.0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-Éric_Séralini
That study was retracted.
To answer your question pudding YES, the did use Sprague-Dawley rats.
For those of you who don't know Sprague-Dawley rats are a breed of rat that get tumors all over their body normally due to a genetic defect. If you fed a Sprague-Dawley rat nothing but broccoli chances are it would end up with tumors all over its body.
Then why were Sprague-Dawley rats used in the short-term Monsanto funded study to begin with?
Why does anyone ever use these rats at all if they don't have similar cancer progression patterns to humans?
Good question for the author of the paper, probably one of the reasons the paper was retracted. Look up Sprague-Dawley rats if you don't believe me.
Here is a study of the spontaneous tumor formation in that particular breed:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
I read that. Yet I've read nothing suggesting these rats are no longer used in other peer reviewed studies. And again, Monsanto also used these rats in their own, shorter studies. Which is why I find the assertion that these rats are unsuitable very suspicious.
They are used in peer reviewed studies, lots of peer reviewed studies. They are used to study cancer because most of the time they spontaneously get cancer.
Don't humans also spontaneously get cancer? ('Spontaneously' perhaps deserves quotation marks, since it can also be a cancer with a cause unknown to researchers and medical professionals.)
Yes. But not at a rate of 50%. 1:2 Sprague-Dawley rats get tumors all over there body which is the rate that that study reported. So basically they reported the background level that that breed has anyways. Notice that all of their groups got tumors. They didn't have a tumorless group.
This was pointed out, the paper was retracted...that was that.
Then these rats should never be and should never have been used in cancer research, including by Monsanto. As I said, the objection to the breed of rat is suspicious due to Monsanto's own use of these rats, as well as use by other cancer researchers. I'm sure you can see how that smells funny.
What are you going on about. Of COURSE they should be used in cancer research. Hard to research cancer if only 1 in 10,000 of your test subjects get cancer. Much easier if 1 in 2 do. That was what they were bred for that is why they are used.
But go ahead and have a strong opinion about how cancer research is doing it wrong.
Also not sure why you are talking about Monsanto...Monstanto had nothing to do with conducting that study.
Monsanto used the same rats in their own studies from what I've read. Which is why I bring them up.
When and if cancer is ever linked definitively to any GMO foods, you're going to see a public backlash against this technology that makes the anti-abortion stem-cell furor look like a playground squabble. I think you and I both want the same thing: GMO foods that are edible, safe, and beneficial to our species and our planet. But I think you fail to understand the consequences of a screw up by companies that have bought and paid for politicians that have in turn granted them immunity in our court system.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
Your not a child you are just not very informed about cancer biology (clearly) and yet still feel the need to voice strong opinons about how cancer researchers should conduct their research.
That makes you annoying.
I respected you until you decided to resort to personal attacks. Your education clearly didn't include logic and debate. Mine did.
Edit: And despite all my education, I still let you aggravate and derail me!
Make up your mind: Are the rats good in cancer research or not? And if so, why were they not suitable for this particular cancer research involving GMOs?0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
So let me get this straight: We're all ignorant consumers, so we should be kept ignorant about our food because we're too ignorant?0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
So let me get this straight: We're all ignorant consumers, so we should be kept ignorant about our food because we're too ignorant?
I don't know, do you need the label on the hairdryer that tells you not to take it in to the bathtub with you? I can see the possible benefit of that one, so what's the benefit of the contains GMO label? Burden of proof, why do we need the label? What important and vital information is being provided for the consumer and why is it important? You want the label, you explain why it's necessary.0 -
Also, instead of simply dismissing the study and forcing the researcher in question to withdraw it (which is what happened, he did not do so voluntarily and there is a Forbes article where he is quoted as threatening to sue the journal), why aren't there several independent laboratories doing their best to duplicate his study or, in failing to do so, prove it flawed?
It wouldn't take very long, the rats only live a couple of years.
If there have been any peer reviewed studies that do disprove Seralini's, I'd love to see them.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
So let me get this straight: We're all ignorant consumers, so we should be kept ignorant about our food because we're too ignorant?
I don't know, do you need the label on the hairdryer that tells you not to take it in to the bathtub with you? I can see the possible benefit of that one, so what's the benefit of the contains GMO label? Burden of proof, why do we need the label? What important and vital information is being provided for the consumer and why is it important? You want the label, you explain why it's necessary.
I favor letting the people decide if we want the label or not. And if most vote no, I'll shut up. But it shouldn't be up to politicians and the companies who buy them.
Edit and then I'm done for the night:
The funny thing is, there is massive amounts of money poured into convincing us that this is all safe and these companies aren't deceiving us and we're going to feed the world with this technology and blah blah. The fact that people are suspicious of these foods and companies despite the massive propaganda means something, somewhere, really stinks.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
So let me get this straight: We're all ignorant consumers, so we should be kept ignorant about our food because we're too ignorant?
I don't know, do you need the label on the hairdryer that tells you not to take it in to the bathtub with you? I can see the possible benefit of that one, so what's the benefit of the contains GMO label? Burden of proof, why do we need the label? What important and vital information is being provided for the consumer and why is it important? You want the label, you explain why it's necessary.
I favor letting the people decide if we want the label or not. And if most vote no, I'll shut up. But it shouldn't be up to politicians and the companies who buy them.
Edit and then I'm done for the night:
The funny thing is, there is massive amounts of money poured into convincing us that this is all safe and these companies aren't deceiving us and we're going to feed the world with this technology and blah blah. The fact that people are suspicious of these foods and companies despite the massive propaganda means something, somewhere, really stinks.
Yea, people vote for creationism in the classroom all the damn time, and the courts throw it out every. single. time. And that's where this argument is going to end up if the level of hysteria ever actually goes far enough to force through legislation. So then we're right back to burden of proof and evidence. There's a reason these rules for labeling GMOs aren't getting through legislation, and it has nothing to do with vague suspicions of conspiracy theories and money changing hands. It won't hold up in court. Period, end of statement, because if you want to force a company to place a label on their product that could potentially harm their sales, you'd better have DAMN good evidence for why it's necessary, and the anti GMO crowd doesn't have even a shred.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
So let me get this straight: We're all ignorant consumers, so we should be kept ignorant about our food because we're too ignorant?
I don't know, do you need the label on the hairdryer that tells you not to take it in to the bathtub with you? I can see the possible benefit of that one, so what's the benefit of the contains GMO label? Burden of proof, why do we need the label? What important and vital information is being provided for the consumer and why is it important? You want the label, you explain why it's necessary.
I favor letting the people decide if we want the label or not. And if most vote no, I'll shut up. But it shouldn't be up to politicians and the companies who buy them.
Edit and then I'm done for the night:
The funny thing is, there is massive amounts of money poured into convincing us that this is all safe and these companies aren't deceiving us and we're going to feed the world with this technology and blah blah. The fact that people are suspicious of these foods and companies despite the massive propaganda means something, somewhere, really stinks.
Yea, people vote for creationism in the classroom all the damn time, and the courts throw it out every. single. time. And that's where this argument is going to end up if the level of hysteria ever actually goes far enough to force through legislation. So then we're right back to burden of proof and evidence. There's a reason these rules for labeling GMOs aren't getting through legislation, and it has nothing to do with vague suspicions of conspiracy theories and money changing hands. It won't hold up in court. Period, end of statement, because if you want to force a company to place a label on their product that could potentially harm their sales, you'd better have DAMN good evidence for why it's necessary, and the anit GMO crowd doesn't have even a shred.
Bingo. The thing that stinks is the anti-science brigade's propaganda that is based in fear and not reality.0 -
A different perspective - not scary, but perverse. I don't think they will make me grow a third eye, or get massive tumours or something like that. But they present perverse incentives for damaging practices.
How perverse? Most GMOs (in economic terms) are modified so they can survive massive amounts of pesticides - specifically, Roundup, made by Monsanto.
So, increased production of GMOs resistant to pesticide increases the contaminant load in the environment AND reduces the biological diversity in the ecosystem. That is my main argument against them. The endgame is one single (sterile) type of corn, one single (sterile) varietal of wheat. All owned by a megacorp. That's not the problem. The problem is when that single strain gets devastated by a plague. See Gros Michel and Cavendish Banana problems.
In historical terms, its akin to monocultive systems: we exploit the land with a single crop until the nutrients required for that plant are depleted. Then we inject more nutrients, pesticides, etc. instead of improving our management systems. This is not an argument "ad natura", just my personal distaste towards waste and inefficient system. Using oil to produce fertilizers and pesticides is a waste of resources when good biodynamic practices can be used instead.
(for those in the person-criticizing book,I DO have a postgraduate degree in Environmental Science. And I'm willing to engage reasonable debate. This is far from a simple issue where you can simply disqualify the person and claim a "win")0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
What about a "Made in USA label"? Don't you have a right to know where your goods come from?
What about the fiber content on a shirt? It's a shirt.
What about the use of ethoxylated alcohols in cleaners? They are safe to use, but I'd rather not buy them because they present, in my opinion, an unnecessary risk - not to the user, but to those making the product. It's an ethical choice.
I buy, willingly, many GMO products. I still like to know I'm buying them. It simply should be a "right to know". It could be an ethical decision as well - I don't like Monsanto because of their lawsuits on small farmers due to natural propagation of GMO seeds which they have patented. So the issue is ideological, not scaremongering. There are few stronger votes than voting with your wallet.0 -
A different perspective - not scary, but perverse. I don't think they will make me grow a third eye, or get massive tumours or something like that. But they present perverse incentives for damaging practices.
How perverse? Most GMOs (in economic terms) are modified so they can survive massive amounts of pesticides - specifically, Roundup, made by Monsanto.
So, increased production of GMOs resistant to pesticide increases the contaminant load in the environment AND reduces the biological diversity in the ecosystem. That is my main argument against them. The endgame is one single (sterile) type of corn, one single (sterile) varietal of wheat. All owned by a megacorp. That's not the problem. The problem is when that single strain gets devastated by a plague. See Gros Michel and Cavendish Banana problems.
In historical terms, its akin to monocultive systems: we exploit the land with a single crop until the nutrients required for that plant are depleted. Then we inject more nutrients, pesticides, etc. instead of improving our management systems. This is not an argument "ad natura", just my personal distaste towards waste and inefficient system. Using oil to produce fertilizers and pesticides is a waste of resources when good biodynamic practices can be used instead.
(for those in the person-criticizing book,I DO have a postgraduate degree in Environmental Science. And I'm willing to engage reasonable debate. This is far from a simple issue where you can simply disqualify the person and claim a "win")
I agree with everything you have said 100%. What frustrates me about the GMO issue is not that I think every GMO product out their is the best thing ever and people are just attacking it for no good reason. My frustration is that the majority of people posting in threads like this have not one clue about the environmental issue and are so busy screaming about labeling so that they don't get cancer that they blast out people who work in environmental and ecological fields who have very legitimate concerns and drive away the educated consumers who might otherwise be willing to listen if the entire conversation wasn't being flooded by conspiracy theorists.0 -
A different perspective - not scary, but perverse. I don't think they will make me grow a third eye, or get massive tumours or something like that. But they present perverse incentives for damaging practices.
How perverse? Most GMOs (in economic terms) are modified so they can survive massive amounts of pesticides - specifically, Roundup, made by Monsanto.
So, increased production of GMOs resistant to pesticide increases the contaminant load in the environment AND reduces the biological diversity in the ecosystem. That is my main argument against them. The endgame is one single (sterile) type of corn, one single (sterile) varietal of wheat. All owned by a megacorp. That's not the problem. The problem is when that single strain gets devastated by a plague. See Gros Michel and Cavendish Banana problems.
In historical terms, its akin to monocultive systems: we exploit the land with a single crop until the nutrients required for that plant are depleted. Then we inject more nutrients, pesticides, etc. instead of improving our management systems. This is not an argument "ad natura", just my personal distaste towards waste and inefficient system. Using oil to produce fertilizers and pesticides is a waste of resources when good biodynamic practices can be used instead.
(for those in the person-criticizing book,I DO have a postgraduate degree in Environmental Science. And I'm willing to engage reasonable debate. This is far from a simple issue where you can simply disqualify the person and claim a "win")
That, I think, is a legitimate concern. My point continues to be that isn't a problem with GM, that is a problem with how some companies are using the technology. The backlash should be against the viewed misuse of the technology, not the technology itself.
That is what annoys me. People get upset with Monsanto's business practices but rather than going after Monsanto they want labels on things that say if GM was involved in their production. What? That is what I don't get. What does one have to do with the other.
GM is an incredibly useful tool and I think many people focus so much on this one use of it they remain completely blind to its many other uses.
Again. Insulin is fully a GM product. Most vaccines, also GM products. Being GM isn't the boogie-man here.
I think what is needed there is some sort of anti-monopoly enforcement on food that would prevent a particular company from monopolizing food itself which would be a horrible thing. I am against that of course, but that has nothing to do with GM. If it wasn't using GM it would be using some other approach or some other technique...GM isn't the bad guy here so I'd really appreciate it if people stopped referring to a particular aspect of Monsanto's business practices as being GMOs and acting like thats all that GMOs are.
I think the concerns you raise are genuine concerns, I think those genuine concerns are muddied by what appears to be the GMO witchhunt that most people seem to follow (not saying you do that personally).
I imagine QueenBish feels the same way given what her avatar says.
ETA: Yup, I hadn't seen her response until after I posted this.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
What about a "Made in USA label"? Don't you have a right to know where your goods come from?
What about the fiber content on a shirt? It's a shirt.
What about the use of ethoxylated alcohols in cleaners? They are safe to use, but I'd rather not buy them because they present, in my opinion, an unnecessary risk - not to the user, but to those making the product. It's an ethical choice.
I buy, willingly, many GMO products. I still like to know I'm buying them. It simply should be a "right to know". It could be an ethical decision as well - I don't like Monsanto because of their lawsuits on small farmers due to natural propagation of GMO seeds which they have patented. So the issue is ideological, not scaremongering. There are few stronger votes than voting with your wallet.
And as a consumer you are capable of finding that information and companies are free to label their products as not containing GMOs to attempt to attract customers interested in those issues, but forcing every single company to label their products containing GMOs is not the same thing, not by a long shot. If you have an issue with a corporations ethics or policies, address the issue directly, slapping blanket labels on things won't fix the issue, and as I've already pointed out, won't hold muster in court.0 -
Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print, NOT the other way around.
So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?
No.
I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.
It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?
What about a "Made in USA label"? Don't you have a right to know where your goods come from?
What about the fiber content on a shirt? It's a shirt.
What about the use of ethoxylated alcohols in cleaners? They are safe to use, but I'd rather not buy them because they present, in my opinion, an unnecessary risk - not to the user, but to those making the product. It's an ethical choice.
I buy, willingly, many GMO products. I still like to know I'm buying them. It simply should be a "right to know". It could be an ethical decision as well - I don't like Monsanto because of their lawsuits on small farmers due to natural propagation of GMO seeds which they have patented. So the issue is ideological, not scaremongering. There are few stronger votes than voting with your wallet.
The analogy here is flawed. A GMO label isn't like a company willingly putting a "Made in the USA" label on their product, it would be like forcing any company whose products weren't made in the USA to put a "NOT Made in the USA" label on their products. How legal do you think that would be? How well do you think that would go over?
There is nothing stopping someone from putting a label on their product that says "Contains no GMO" just like there is nothing stopping companies from putting "Made in the USA" on their products.0 -
I don't really like Monsanto either. What I really wish though is one day people manage to concieve of Monsanto and GM as being two wholly seperatable entitties and just because they don't like one doesn't really mean they should distrust the other.
I say this over and over I know but its true, GM is just a tool...like a hammer. If someone uses a hammer in a way you find irresponsbile do you get angry and go after the person misusing the hammer or do you get mad at hammers and demand all hammers be labeled.
I just don't get the focus on GMOs solely on the basis of Monsanto's actions. If your problem is with Monsanto....then go after Monsanto...that makes sense right?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions