2000 reasons why GMO foods are safe

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

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?

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!

Right!?!? I think mother nature knows best and we should leave it up to her!!!

This content has been removed.

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

If you won't listen to me why don't you take a look at this wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Read the second and third paragraphs under "Usage." Now we can all be friends again, yes?

Nothing better than a GMO tomato which is made with fish genes - yum! I buy organic for foods labeled organic cannot contain GMOs.

Do you even know the reason why they spliced fish genes into the tomatoes? Frost protection.

I'm afraid of the bones . . .

Got to be careful, don't want to choke!

I'm pretty sure this is going to lead to "The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" type scenario

Regardless, they were never commercialized..

There is absolutely no health risks associated with GMO foods, and anyone who thinks there is are simply misinformed.

Right!?!? I think mother nature knows best and we should leave it up to her!!!

I think 'mother nature' is a made up concept and that I am loathe to leave matters such as food up to something that doesn't actually exist. I'd rather my food supply had an intelligent guiding hand involved.

I'm oddly pro-humanity like that I guess

It DID.

Right!?!? I think mother nature knows best and we should leave it up to her!!!

I think 'mother nature' is a made up concept and that I am loathe to leave matters such as food up to something that doesn't actually exist. I'd rather my food supply had an intelligent guiding hand involved.

I'm oddly pro-humanity like that I guess

It DID.

Disagree.

GM foods are safe and predictable. The alternative breeding method is to wait for random mutations to improve food, and then you have no idea what you are getting. With GM you know exactly what you have added and what, if any, safety concerns might be present.

I think you´re right.

Radiation and strong chemicals are used to make these random mutations. And they really are random, so we really don´t know what else mutations than - lets say - grain size or count has changed. Chemical composition that increases digestion problems? Or cholesterol rise? Or hormone imbalance?

With GM it´s just that very specific thing that has been changed.

We now have the technology to tell us exactly what change has occurred, even if it was radiation or strong chemical methods used to induce mutations. Genome sequencing is now so advanced it can be done in a matter of days now, or less. So while the changes are random with these methods, what is put out to the consumer would not be, trust me. This technology has changed so rapidly that it is hard to keep up with how to teach it to my students.

I am not saying this is the way I would go. I am saying we are at the point where we know what changes have occurred.

To say that GMO's are safe and predictable and specific is making an assumption based on hypothesis--not fact.The plain truth is that there are many unknowns when it comes to GMO's in our food chain. For anyone who might actually be interested in reading further information and not hype from either side of this debate:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/

Happy reading!

Well since some of you sau they are safe then maybe you should help pass the GMO labeling laws. That way you can make sure your food is genetically modified before you buy it.

lulz

Paranoia is fun to watch in action

This thread blew up while I was eating cauliflower.

Coincidence? I think NOT!

I hope that was cauliflower pizza with cauliflower ice cream for dessert.

Okay, no I don't . . .

This thread blew up while I was eating cauliflower.

Coincidence? I think NOT!

I hope that was cauliflower pizza with cauliflower ice cream for dessert.

Okay, no I don't . . .

I use cauliflower as it was genetically designed to be used. nom nom nom

So boiled or baked and covered with cheese?