It is currently Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43972
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 6209b85837

This guy gets it.

Quote:
Avoiding GMOs isn’t just anti-science. It’s immoral.
By Mitch Daniels December 27 at 7:18 PM

Of the several claims of “anti-science” that clutter our national debates these days, none can be more flagrantly clear than the campaign against modern agricultural technology, most specifically the use of molecular techniques to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Here, there are no credibly conflicting studies, no arguments about the validity of computer models, no disruption of an ecosystem nor any adverse human health or even digestive problems, after 5 billion acres have been cultivated cumulatively and trillions of meals consumed.

And yet a concerted, deep-pockets campaign, as relentless as it is baseless, has persuaded a high percentage of Americans and Europeans to avoid GMO products, and to pay premium prices for “non-GMO” or “organic” foods that may in some cases be less safe and less nutritious. Thank goodness the toothpaste makers of the past weren’t cowed so easily; the tubes would have said “No fluoride inside!” and we’d all have many more cavities.


While Greenpeace and other organizations oppose genetically engineered food, more than 100 Nobel laureates are taking a stand on the side of GMOs. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

This is the kind of foolishness that rich societies can afford to indulge. But when they attempt to inflict their superstitions on the poor and hungry peoples of the planet, the cost shifts from affordable to dangerous and the debate from scientific to moral.


From campus to Congress, it’s common these days to speak in terms of “grand challenges.” No challenge is grander than feeding the 9 billion or more people with whom we will share the Earth in a few decades.

Of course, those people weren’t supposed to exist. Just a few decades back, “experts” were winning “genius” prizes for pontificating that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over” and forecasting that hundreds of millions were going to die and that there was nothing anyone could do about it. (Q: If that’s genius, what does ignorance look like? Aren’t the prize givers entitled to a refund?)

Instead of mass starvation and depopulation, the intervening years saw the most explosive improvements in living standards, food security, poverty reduction and life expectancy in human history. Credit Deng Xiaoping’s unshackling of the capitalist spirit in China for much of the gain, but it was the likes of the plant pathologist Norman Borlaug and wheat breeder Orville Vogel, whose Green Revolution, powered by modern plant science, saved the most lives and set the stage for the next grand challenge.


Today, their scientific successors are giving birth to a new set of miracles in plant production and animal husbandry that cannot only feed the world’s growing billions but do so in far more sustainable, environmentally friendly ways. And though the new technologies are awe-inspiring, they are just refinements of cruder techniques that have been used for centuries.

Given the emphatic or, as some like to say, “settled” nature of the science, one would expect a united effort to spread these life-saving, planet-sparing technologies as fast as possible to the poorer nations who will need them so urgently. Instead, we hear demands that developing countries forgo the products that offer them the best hope of joining the well-fed, affluent world. In the words of a gullible former Zambian president, “We would rather starve than get something toxic.” Marie Antoinette couldn’t have said it better.

It’s not that the legitimate scientific community doesn’t understand the seriousness of the problem or the distortions of the naysayers. But too many keep what they know to themselves or, when they engage, observe the Marquis of Queensbury rules in what is essentially a street brawl. One can understand their reticence, facing an aggressive, often self-interested anti-GMO lobby that is indifferent to the facts and quick with ad hominem attacks.

If you’re an academic, you can tell yourself that, sooner or later, the science will prevail. If you’re from the world of commerce, you justify your silence (or complicity) by saying that you aren’t in business to argue with customers. If you’re a regulatory bureaucrat, you worry that you will be drawn and quartered for any mistake, whereas no one is ever held accountable for the miracle that never makes it to the marketplace.


It’s time to move the argument to a new plane. For the rich and well-fed to deny Africans, Asians or South Americans the benefits of modern technology is not merely anti-scientific. It’s cruel, it’s heartless, it’s inhumane — and it ought to be confronted on moral grounds that ordinary citizens, including those who have been conned into preferring non-GMO Cheerios, can understand.

Travel to Africa with any of Purdue University’s three recent World Food Prize winners, and you won’t find the conversation dominated by anti-GMO protesters. There, where more than half of the coming population increase will occur, consumers and farmers alike are eager to share in the life-saving and life-enhancing advances that modern science alone can bring. Efforts to persuade them otherwise, or simply block their access to the next round of breakthroughs, are worse than anti-scientific. They’re immoral.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 14338
Location: "Across 110th Street"
A $500 an hour spokesman for Monsanto wearing a $3000 suit couldn't have defended the party line any better.

_________________
"Law cannot change hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." MLKing, 12/7/64, London, England.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43972
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Regular Reader wrote:
A $500 an hour spokesman for Monsanto wearing a $3000 suit couldn't have defended the party line any better.

:lol:

Oh man you couldn't be more on the "wrong side of history" if you tried.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 15472
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
Just one question FF, Do you think Monsanto is trustworthy? Yes or no

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43972
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
312player wrote:
Just one question FF, Do you think Monsanto is trustworthy? Yes or no

No. Their business practices are abhorrent.

Those that conflate Monsanto with GMOs in general are the biggest part of the problem, IMO.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
A $500 an hour spokesman for Monsanto wearing a $3000 suit couldn't have defended the party line any better.

:lol:

Oh man you couldn't be more on the "wrong side of history" if you tried.

On top of this, the fraudulent "organic" food industry has higher revenues than all of Monsanto, but Monsanto is the bad guy :lol:

The science is settled, organic is bullshit, is bad for the planet, and will lead to worldwide starvation and famine.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 34265
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
FavreFan wrote:
312player wrote:
Just one question FF, Do you think Monsanto is trustworthy? Yes or no

No. Their business practices are abhorrent.

Those that conflate Monsanto with GMOs in general are the biggest part of the problem, IMO.

Works for me.

_________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been ... nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.
- Isaac Asimov


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 14338
Location: "Across 110th Street"
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
A $500 an hour spokesman for Monsanto wearing a $3000 suit couldn't have defended the party line any better.

:lol:

Oh man you couldn't be more on the "wrong side of history" if you tried.


45 years ago using your logic, you'd have been defending leased gasoline and old aerosol cans.

And for the record I don't waste money on "organics". Or trust multinational food processors.

_________________
"Law cannot change hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." MLKing, 12/7/64, London, England.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43972
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Regular Reader wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
A $500 an hour spokesman for Monsanto wearing a $3000 suit couldn't have defended the party line any better.

:lol:

Oh man you couldn't be more on the "wrong side of history" if you tried.


45 years ago using your logic, you'd have been defending leased gasoline and old aerosol cans.

You really fucked this analogy up a little, my friend. It doesn't work at all.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
A $500 an hour spokesman for Monsanto wearing a $3000 suit couldn't have defended the party line any better.

:lol:

Oh man you couldn't be more on the "wrong side of history" if you tried.


45 years ago using your logic, you'd have been defending leased gasoline and old aerosol cans.

You really fucked this analogy up a little, my friend. It doesn't work at all.

I mean the oil companies with combined revenues over a trillion can't buy off climate scientists to tell us that fossil fuels don't cause global warming (thus the 97% consensus), yet somehow Monsanto (with less than 5% of their combined revenue) is able to buy off every scientist on every university laboratory to tell us GMO's are safe.

Reader, are you seeing the problem with your analogy?

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
also when you break it down, GMO's are really the same fruit, vegetable, etc. you have always eaten. They have just been selectively bred with certain genes selected to give them a longer shelf life, make them more resilient to environmental factors, and provide a higher crop yield for a given plant.

It's the same thing farmers had been doing for years when they haphazardly cross-bred plants hoping certain genes would carry through. Now we've taken the random chance out of it and simply been able to directly choose the more favorable genes in our plants. It's really as simple as that.

If you don't believe me, go take a look at what corn looked like 400 years ago before we tried cross-breeding it into what it has turned into today. I doubt you would want to touch "natural organic" corn.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 14338
Location: "Across 110th Street"
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

_________________
"Law cannot change hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." MLKing, 12/7/64, London, England.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43972
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

All true, if you want to know where the truth is, go to the scientists at the hundreds of public institutions across this country who are working in Ag related fields. They are not getting paid by any of these companies and are simply testing hypothesis and drawing conclusions based upon the data and the scientific method. The unanimous verdict is in from them, GMO's are 100% safe and it would be better for the planet and our food supply if we moved to GMO's instead of organic.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

literally all of the anti-GMO assholes out there are people like Food Babe who are trying to sell you shit from their affiliate links. Now tell me who is really in it for the money and being paid off to push some bullshit? Pretty much all of the anti-GMO sites on the web are just affiliate marketing sites to push organic food, none of them are run by reputable scientists who have spent time in labs testing them.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43972
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

literally all of the anti-GMO assholes out there are people like Food Babe who are trying to sell you shit from their affiliate links. Now tell me who is really in it for the money and being paid off to push some bullshit? Pretty much all of the anti-GMO sites on the web are just affiliate marketing sites to push organic food, none of them are run by reputable scientists who have spent time in labs testing them.

:lol:

Food Babe is one of the worst internet creations this side of rotten.com.

But I don't think all anti-GMO people are like her. The majority of them just hear "chemicals in food" and agree they are against it. It's ignorance, but understandable IMO. That's why I think we need more of these articles calling out that bullshit for the bullshit it is.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
FavreFan wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

literally all of the anti-GMO assholes out there are people like Food Babe who are trying to sell you shit from their affiliate links. Now tell me who is really in it for the money and being paid off to push some bullshit? Pretty much all of the anti-GMO sites on the web are just affiliate marketing sites to push organic food, none of them are run by reputable scientists who have spent time in labs testing them.

:lol:

Food Babe is one of the worst internet creations this side of rotten.com.

But I don't think all anti-GMO people are like her. The majority of them just hear "chemicals in food" and agree they are against it. It's ignorance, but understandable IMO. That's why I think we need more of these articles calling out that bullshit for the bullshit it is.
notice how the anti-GMO movement online almost always then posts anti-vaccine stuff as well. Check their sites about 6-12 months later and they are moving onto chemtrails

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 1785
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

do they hurt the environment and biodiversity? i have always heard they do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43972
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

do they hurt the environment and biodiversity? i have always heard they do.

Not my field of expertise so all I can say is the experts I have read would say the answer would be no.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
FavreFan wrote:
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

do they hurt the environment and biodiversity? i have always heard they do.

Not my field of expertise so all I can say is the experts I have read would say the answer would be no.

It becomes better for the environment as you get a higher yield with a lower usage of resources such as water.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 45517
Location: Darkside Estates
Yeah feeding more people with less land is a real shitty deal.
Ever seen the Penn and Teller Bullshit about organics?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43972
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Darkside wrote:
Yeah feeding more people with less land is a real shitty deal.
Ever seen the Penn and Teller Bullshit about organics?

I have not, but I see the whole episode is on youtube. Probably will check it out after these nba games.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 1785
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

All true, if you want to know where the truth is, go to the scientists at the hundreds of public institutions across this country who are working in Ag related fields. They are not getting paid by any of these companies and are simply testing hypothesis and drawing conclusions based upon the data and the scientific method. The unanimous verdict is in from them, GMO's are 100% safe and it would be better for the planet and our food supply if we moved to GMO's instead of organic.

Who's paying them?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 14338
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

do they hurt the environment and biodiversity? i have always heard they do.

Not my field of expertise so all I can say is the experts I have read would say the answer would be no.

It becomes better for the environment as you get a higher yield with a lower usage of resources such as water.


And then you get grains affected by Round Up and all varieties of pesticides according to some.

And I'm sorry but Mitch Daniels isn't exactly someone I'm looking to for an unbiased piece.

_________________
"Law cannot change hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." MLKing, 12/7/64, London, England.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 14338
Location: "Across 110th Street"
tommy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

All true, if you want to know where the truth is, go to the scientists at the hundreds of public institutions across this country who are working in Ag related fields. They are not getting paid by any of these companies and are simply testing hypothesis and drawing conclusions based upon the data and the scientific method. The unanimous verdict is in from them, GMO's are 100% safe and it would be better for the planet and our food supply if we moved to GMO's instead of organic.

Who's paying them?


Exactly

_________________
"Law cannot change hearts, but it can restrain the heartless." MLKing, 12/7/64, London, England.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43972
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

do they hurt the environment and biodiversity? i have always heard they do.

Not my field of expertise so all I can say is the experts I have read would say the answer would be no.

It becomes better for the environment as you get a higher yield with a lower usage of resources such as water.


And then you get grains affected by Round Up and all varieties of pesticides according to some.

And I'm sorry but Mitch Daniels isn't exactly someone I'm looking to for an unbiased piece.

100 Nobel laureates still not unbiased enough? If not, what would be?

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
Regular Reader wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
tommy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

do they hurt the environment and biodiversity? i have always heard they do.

Not my field of expertise so all I can say is the experts I have read would say the answer would be no.

It becomes better for the environment as you get a higher yield with a lower usage of resources such as water.


And then you get grains affected by Round Up and all varieties of pesticides according to some.

And I'm sorry but Mitch Daniels isn't exactly someone I'm looking to for an unbiased piece.

the dirty little secret is even organic crops typically have pesticides used, and even more in fact as the plants are not naturally resilient to pests as a GMO plant can be bred to be.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sc ... riculture/

Myth #1 here explores pesticides

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 4620
pizza_Place: Pequods
Regular Reader wrote:
tommy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

All true, if you want to know where the truth is, go to the scientists at the hundreds of public institutions across this country who are working in Ag related fields. They are not getting paid by any of these companies and are simply testing hypothesis and drawing conclusions based upon the data and the scientific method. The unanimous verdict is in from them, GMO's are 100% safe and it would be better for the planet and our food supply if we moved to GMO's instead of organic.

Who's paying them?


Exactly

Universities are paying them. These are professors in their school's respective College of Agriculture who teach students and then perform lab work during most of their time, as most profs (especially in scientific fields) spend very little time on actual instruction and instead spend most of their time in a laboratory with doctoral students.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 1785
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.


What do you think about the "you're immoral" argument?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMO Opponents
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 43972
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Regular Reader wrote:
tommy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
30 years ago big processors were convincing the masses that margarine was a healthy alternative or that pork was the other white meat (& therefore not bad for you).

Analogies aside, I trust large scale food processors as little as I do Big Pharma.

That's fine but what you should realize is that the paid lobbyists are AGAINST GMOs. Scientists with no agenda have almost unilaterally confirmed that GMOs pose no health or digestive issues.

All true, if you want to know where the truth is, go to the scientists at the hundreds of public institutions across this country who are working in Ag related fields. They are not getting paid by any of these companies and are simply testing hypothesis and drawing conclusions based upon the data and the scientific method. The unanimous verdict is in from them, GMO's are 100% safe and it would be better for the planet and our food supply if we moved to GMO's instead of organic.

Who's paying them?


Exactly

:lol:

Anytime you want to assert an actual counterpoint, it might help move along any discussion.

_________________
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group