Did anyone say he was?

The scientific concesus is that GMO's are not harmful. Do you disagree with that? If so, I would advise searching Google as it will probably save us both time here. Not trying to be condescending or a dick but as the author said, the science is emphatic.

Did anyone say he was?

The scientific concesus is that GMO's are not harmful. Do you disagree with that? If so, I would advise searching Google as it will probably save us both time here. Not trying to be condescending or a dick but as the author said, the science is emphatic.

1) Well, I know a little about it.

2) I'm saying the author is full of shit. He doesn't give a shit about people in Africa. It's a childish argument he's using. I know he doesn't give a shit because I know what the guy has voted for. Bad faith. He does not come across as very trustworthy or as expert.

Because we all know that we can't trust the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine

https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/ ... ebate-over

You know, they also are strongly in favor of moving off of fossil fuels, but I guess the checks from Exxon haven't cleared, despite their revenue being 10x Monsanto's.

Don’t confuse non gmo with organic. There are plenty of conventional crops grown that are non gmo that are non organic as well. And most grow well within yield trials when it comes to grains. For that matter, mistvorganic farnets I know yield very well. If you want to help stRving people in Africa and India I’m not so sure GMO or even the Soy/corn nutrition complex is the right answer.

1.) You have yet to display that knowledge in anything resembling a counter argument to the article. Ogie and I have been waiting and requesting a counterargument.

2.) The message is invalid because I don't like the messenger. Got it.

We'll have to disagree about 1), but 2) is something that has been established in the West since classical Greece. I'm not saying I don't like the messenger, either. I'm saying he has no credibility.

I just read the article. I wouldn’t know Mitch Daniels from Mitch (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky if they both passed me on the street. If you take issue with Daniels then just go with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine source Ogie linked to. Or another one of the countless sources from academica that support GMOs.

So why start the thread with that hack's piece?

In sharp contrast to public views about GMOs, 89% of scientists believe genetically modified foods are safe.

That’s the most eye-opening finding in a Pew Research Center study on science literacy, undertaken in cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and released on January 29.

The overwhelming scientific consensus exceeds the percentage of scientists, 88%, who think humans are mostly responsible for climate change.

The GMO debate is over — again. Last week, the prestigious National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine issued what is probably the most far-reaching report ever produced by the scientific community on genetically engineered food and crops. The conclusion was unambiguous: Having examined hundreds of scientific papers written on the subject, sat through hours of live testimony from activists and considered hundreds more comments from the general public, the scientists wrote that they "found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops."

Europeans seem really against GMOs. I'm not really sure what their arguments are.

If your against GMO then you might as well not vaccinate your kids and start teaching them the Earth is flat.

Aside from their food looking and tasting different/better, I don't either.

If your against GMO then you might as well not vaccinate your kids and start teaching them the Earth is flat.

"It's cold outside today. Global warming doesn't exist".


You just said that my man.

I don't think that anyone here has come out against gmos per se, just still with a healthy skepticism of their biggest and most zealous corporate proponents.

Aside from their food looking and tasting different/better, I don't either.

If that's what I said, Monsanto has your hearing aids.

Can't claim a "healthy" skepticism when the skepticism has amounted to "Who's bribing the scientists?" and "I've been to Europe once. Food tastes better there. GMOs = bad"

Europeans seem really against GMOs. I'm not really sure what their arguments are.

Europeans seem really against GMOs. I'm not really sure what their arguments are.

I never realized how bad FF is at summarizing his opponent's arguments.

He has, at long last, lost his cool.

Ima pray for ya.

I betcha FF would have been telling me agent orange was harmless 50 years ago.