Seeing your subpar interpretation of what transpired here; I hope you're not insulted if I don't believe you understand what rhetoric is. Nor do I believe you read anything about the book, just jumping on the pro gmo bandwagon, ignorantly. That's just the first company on your list. I don't wish to make a mastodonic post so I'll leave it here. How did you reach the conclusion that we think all GMO's are bad, IMHO, GMO's have many benefits, nothing else really as useful as the drought resistant crops, but these companies are trying too hard to make us believe they're some kind of miracle descending from heaven to bless us with their expensive ass food that's allegedly feeding the world. Farmers around the world are in disagreement with you. These negatives are too big to be ignored any longer, no matter how belligerently you disagree on these forums, 20 states in the U.S.A. are currently trying to either ban or label GMO's, all it takes is 1, just like we did with MJ. The rest will simply fall in line once the truth becomes evident. Now we're all entitled to our own opinions, for example you think only GMO's can save the world when these "climate changed" occur, yet they occur every day, and the impact grows larger due to humans wrecking havoc on the natural order of things. Something way worse than you jamming your thumbs up your ass.
Lol.. from you fuckers.. Notice the title of this thread, notice how you talk shit on GMOs (not the shitty business practices behind a few companies), notice how people assume all GMO are bad, notice how people believe there isn't a single decent GMO company out there.. It's like "I am talking shit on GMOs in general, but I have no clue how you could think I think all GMOs are bad.. herpa derp."
You replied a bit late, but for the sake of answering you, I'm replying. I'm not pro-anything. You misunderstood my point entirely; never did I say anything about GMO -- not once (aside from now). I'm speaking solely about how people (notice in my OR that I didn't even mention YOU specifically) spread information and ideas. Believe me, I know what rhetoric is. You're using it, I'm using it, everyone in this thread is using it. Furthermore, I don't think we need to insult anyone's knowledge over a word here on the internet, where one can simply Google the definition. Either way, this reply was meant only to explain things to you from my P.O.V. Reply in however fashion you wish, but as I said before, I'll leave you to your thread.
Lots of EU countries have GMO bans or restrictions in place, and yet a review of 10 years worth of EU research concluded there was no greater risk to human health from GM crops when compared to traditional crops. It's pretty dangerous to assume political decisions are based on any kind of reality They are based on the majority perception.
We have genetically modified almost everything we consume. We've been doing it tens of thousands of years. http://youtube.com/watch?v=1ecT2CaL7NA
I notice how you pull everything you say straight outta your ass, if you can't provide some substance to what you say I cannot help you. These are forums, I can answer next year If I wish to. If you had a point, you've very much demonstrated it wasn't a very good one nor remotely relevant. Trying to save face only looks desperate. If you actually read said report you would have seen the disclaimer that says: Swing and miss, try again.
Dude, you're sitting there talking shit on GMOs as a whole like a shill. You've been blinded by your fear bud.. and that's what can't be helped. People who are fearful of what they don't understand typically won't take the time to understand it to not be fearful of it.. All this GMO debate bullshit is correlation, not the cause. Again, it's the same bullshit fear that lead to people being paranoid of vaccines and look what happened.. You could provide articles all day long, I could provide articles all day long.. because all these problems people associate with GMOs aren't from GMOs, but they're an easy thing to blame, just like when vaccines got blamed. Correlation =/= cause.. yet you hopped right on up on that bandwagon, joining the flock.
I don't get it, why does a standard legal disclaimer discredit the findings of that review? Could it be that you're reaching sir?
You obviously haven't even the slightest clue as to what a shill even is, it's as if you just string random buzzwords together in a poor attempt to appear intelligent. I haven't once demonstrated fear, but you have consistently proven how far your head is up your ass. I can see through your elaborate yet eloquent posts how very educated you are on the subject. Can you re-write this in English? I'm afraid I'm not fluent in dumbass. Again with you and your straw-man, It's like you and BG aren't content with beating a dead horse until there is nothing left but a pink mess. The only problem is that I'm the only one who's provided any substance, unless you count sitting there flailing your arms like a toddler providing articles. I know you probably can't be bothered to provide an example, or perhaps a shred of substance in the sea of hearsay that are your posts. But it would certainly make what you say some what credible. I simply made a thread about a book, It's not my fault every Tom, Dick and Harry got butt-hurt over it. I know reading isn't your forte so I'll spell it out for you. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION REFUSES TO SUPPORT ANYTHING SAID IN YOUR STUDY. Tell you what BG, I'll do you one better. The European Council made an important step by reaching political agreement on 12 June 2014 towards allowing Member States to restrict or ban GMO cultivation in their territory. Source. Reaching for what? It matters not what you or any of your buddies have to say on this thread. As I have already said, regardless of what you post the ANTI-GMO movement is already too big to be stopped, soon it won't matter how many billions Monsanto and it's subsidiaries throw at the scientific community or wall street. GMO's will be stopped and there is nothing you can do or say to prevent it. Good night ladies.
Do you know what a GMO is? Any organism who's genetic makeup has been engineered in some way. This includes selective breeding. So beagles fall under the GMO category. So do 100% of farm animals. Do you really think those are going away?
Fyi it has been confirmed by the CDC, recent whooping cough outbreaks were induced by communities who heavily vaccinate - not by the unvaccinated as you mistakenly or dishonestly imply. Part of the problem is that the vaccinated were unknowingly shedding the virus for several weeks after receiving the shot. Also, of those who fell ill and sought hospitalization, the vast majority were already vaccinated. You're entitled to your opinion however what you are implying as factual, is anything but. Attacking others for legitimate concern over hazards to health or the environment, when glaring risks are seen in anecdotal observation and also scientific study, is not a way to persuade others to see the light in your beliefs. Sort of like arguing over efficacy of the flu shot. Even the package insert explains that no controlled trials have demonstrated effectiveness, efficacy is assumed based of laboratory tested immune response. Safety has also not been established for infants and pregnant or nursing mothers. So while proponents of mandatory vaccination may label others "anti science" for opposing , in this example the flu shot, it is quite ironic. Pregnant women are beingpressured into vaxxing themselves and their soon to be infant. The irony is that the cautionary are labeled as anti science or other rhetoric, while the science clearly states that we should be cautionary here. This applies to many aspects of topics like GMO/vaccination. According to the available science, we should be extremely cautionary here. Especially considering that the pay out from the federal claims vaccine court (who absolved legal responsibility from pharmaceuticals of vaccine dangers) has totaled nearly 3 billion dollars since only 1989.
I'm not going to quote that huge post again to reply, but that legal disclaimer is just for liability reasons. They said it does not NECESSARILY reflect the views of the European Commission, not that it doesn't. They're just absolving themselves of all legal liability in supporting the study's conclusions. It doesn't mean that the review's conclusions are in any way invalid, even if the EU was actually condemning the results, which they were not. The European Commission is a political body, not a scientific one. You are grasping at straws Wow do you actually believe Monsanto has spent billions corrupting the scientific community? I really don't know why I still waste my time in threads like these. I only got involved originally because there is a surprising amount of anti-GMO sentiment on GC.
There is an inherent difference between Genetic Engineering and Natural breeding. In no way or fashion can natural breeding ever become as precise (nor as dangerous) as Genetic Engineering, shocked you don't know this much Trav. As to answer your question. No, once we started changing the genome of living creatures like the GM Salmon for example, thousands have escaped into the wild, they can swim longer and faster than indigenous Salmon, once they mated with the indigenous Salmon there is nothing we can do. What we can do is not propagate this madness by turning a blind eye. Ok, lemme spoon feed you the answer you apparently cannot grasp. The reason the European Commission does not want to support your study is because of the incongruities in the same. Even Forbes Magazine had to retract making Monsanto their company of the year because how rampantly evident the lies are becoming. Feeding the world huh? Due to discrepancies like the aforementioned 93% of Americans want GMO's labeled so they can avoid purchasing them. You're fighting a losing battle BG.
Would like to add this now that I am not on my mobile: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323187 "Study: Whooping cough outbreak linked to vaccinated children" More on the story: http://truthstreammedia.com/study-proves-vaccines-not-vaccine-refusers-are-behind-whooping-cough-outbreaks/ Although this is regarding vaccination, this story applies to the topic of GMOs in relevance to questioning what is presented to us. The biotech industry maintains that GMO safety is a settled science; and industry aligned scientists produce studies supporting the dogma. The supporters go as far as making personal insults or threats to any who question the validity of their claims; whether GM delivers as promised, whether there are safety risks, danger to the environment, etc. The persecution is akin to the original Church of England, who irrationally labelled all who questioned their "settled science" as heretics, in defense of their sacred belief system. Those who raise cautionary flags are, ironically, labeled as "anti-science" or lumped together with "anti-vax" campaigners. However, many independent researchers and scientists are raising the same cautionary flags. Rightly so. In actuality there is NO scientific consensus that GMO crops are safe - it is a highly divided topic with, coincidentally, industry-aligned scientists being the loudest "ITS SAFE!" crowd while independents are finding very dangerous scenarios. But rather than labeling them as "anti-science" or "anti-vax" it may be more accurate to label as "PRO-vax-safety" or "PRO-GMO-safety. As if it were a bad thing to question, and deeply investigate, whether these methods pose risk to us. I question the ulterior motive of any man who insists that you should inject live or dead virus cells, toxic adjuvants (aluminum, forms of mercury, formaldehyde) directly into the bloodstream, bypassing your mucosal immune system, without first questioning WHAT and WHY. Likewise regarding GMO crops - no person should be verbally abused because they QUESTION whether integrating this genetic tech into our global food supply may cause unwanted, long term, dangerous changes to our food, the environment, or us. Rather than attacking and defending individual bias, this should be focused on the science. Both social and biological science. But let science settle the matter. As it stands, GMO crops (and associated pesticide use) DO pose substantial, real threats to the genetics of our foods and to our health. This absolutely needs to be further investigated and anyone who maintains that "The science is settled" is frankly, not telling the truth. GMO crops have NOT increased yields as promised, in comparison to natural, sustainable methods. GMO crops have NOT decreased pesticide use - but vastly increased by hundreds of tons! GMO crops typically bar the practice of re-seeding via patent infringement policy. A single tomato bears 30+ viable seed, to be planted will create 30 new tomato plants. Each new plant easily bears 30 new tomatoes, bearing 30 new seeds each; allowing for 900 new tomato plants. The next jump in proliferation grows exponentially (900 new plants x 30 new seeds ea. tomato) into 27,000 new tomato plants. All "owned" collectively by the inhabitants of the Earth. Each strain can be proliferated as much as needed, to feed as many as needed. All the people need is access to the land and water; from there a single, FREE tomato seed can be spawned into 27,000+ new tomatoes over the course of time. That is the true vision of sustainability. GM crops, at the conceptual basis squash this sustainability. Because the genetics itself are now owned by the biotech company, each tomato, each new seed, are forever owned by them as well. It seems like small potatoes (or tomatoes?) until you factor in the chart of magnitude. Each seed of those 27,000+ new plants has a royalty over it. You cannot farm it freely, you must seek consent and abide by their rules. You cannot save seeds - which is a violation of the intimate connection with man and nature in farming - and exponentially increases the cost to farming, globally, many times over. When contemplating the potential dangers of allowing 6 chemical companies (many who made their bones doing very unsavory things to people, and the environment during WW2/Vietnam) to attempt patenting (owning) the global food supply - clearly, we should be VERY skeptical and quite investigative. Likewise in regards to vaccines. Regardless of whether the ideology and practice itself is flawed, there are very real elements deserving rightful investigation. Especially regarding the flu shot which is increasing forced onto the average citizen - even certain employers harass their staff into accepting it. Even pregnant women are being pressured! Mothers pressured to get flu shots for their young children! But what about the lack of safety testing for pregnant women and children, clearly printed on the package insert? What about the alarming rise of autism (or "autism like conditions") within populations that heavily vaccinate, while those that do not - like the Amish - show incredibly lower rates of autism? Even the CDC acknowledges that brain inflammation is a clear potential side effect of vaccines. And it is still technically unknown why certain individuals appear to have a higher risk of adverse reactions than others. Wouldn't the responsible, ethical position, based on scientific study of these facts, be to investigate them? Perhaps refrain from pressuring EVERYONE to get vaxxed until it is actually established that: a.) they 100% DO benefit you more than not vaccinating will b.) they ARE 100% safe The internet provides the common man with access to plenty of inconvenient truths. Like public access to the Federal Claims Court of vaccine injury payouts, totaling nearly 3 BILLION total comp since 1989: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7 TOTAL payout chart itemized by year : http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html The first case linked at the top of the list (uscfc.uscourts.gov link above) regards a woman who had been compensated due to vaccination causing her Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Are we to believe that payouts like this occur, because the courts simply feel sorry for them? Or is it perhaps because the science is anything but settled, and there are VERY REAL RISKS that are hurting people?! Note that Guillan-Barre Syndrome is an autoimmune condition... there is a clear pattern between vaccines, autoimmune/inflammatory disorders as adverse effects. How can ANYONE charged with protecting the public health, NOT wish to investigate this further? When it comes to 2+2=4, the science is very settled. When it comes to GMO crops and indirectly, wide-scale vaccination programs, the science is quite unsettled. In fact, you can learn a lot about a man by watching how they approach this equation and how they insist it be viewed by others. When viable, life-changing risks (to us & environment) are being swept under the rug in protection of corporate profiteering, or the protection of subjective beliefs, we should question the integrity of these people and their motives. More on vaccines and the flu shot: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/11/27/a-shot-never-worth-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/ http://nutritioncare.net/unvaccinated-kids-stay-healthy-spoiler-kid-vaccinated/#.VAYMR2P9yah
What incongruities? List them specifically. Like I said though, I really don't care about their opinion regardless, I listen to science, and the science is with me.
I'm not trying to discredit or even address the validity or science of GMO's, but NT doesn't address that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding are two different things. That seems pretty intellectually dishonest. I really like the guy, a lot, but that seems like a pretty fundamental difference to jump over/set aside.
I'm sure the fact he identified them by different names is enough to say that they are obviously different processes. You should not feel that gmos and selective breeding are not 2 different things after seeing that video.