The Gmo Deception

Discussion in 'Pandora's Box' started by Xenzin, Aug 31, 2014.

  1.  
    Sorry, the double negative is confusing. He doesn't distinguish the two clearly enough. What we can do in the laboratory with genetic modification is more advanced than just selective breeding alone (introducing genes from other species which could never introduced by traditional means). What he says is correct, but I wish he would still explain that there are inherent differences between the two processes. Then again, I should be fair and mention that the video is only two minutes and I'm sure if the question was focused on the differences between selective breeding and genetic engineering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering) that he would have established they are two separate practices.

     
  2. Question...
     
    Does anyone here actually think we should not be pursuing GMOs at all even if it would help feed starving people in third world countries? 
     
  3. We could possibly take the money invested in the GMO rsearch and what not, and put it into hydrophonics facilities for food. youd have some jobs n shit. the food could be grown precisely in a controlled envrionemtn and you dont have to alter the genetics for it to survive etc...
     
    idk.
    was off the top of my head hahaha
     
  4.  
    Find me an article from the CDC where they confirmed that it's appearing in heavy vaccination areas.. cause from everything I've seen, the bigger outbreaks occur in places that are heavy anti-vacciners. There's 2 things going for this whooping cough outbreak. First, the switched up the vaccine. They went from using the whole cell to using pieces. It was more than likely an attempt to meet vaccine deniers halfway.. but the new vaccine doesn't last as long, more like half the amount of time. Coupled with the trend of denying the vaccine, of course it's going to start popping back up. That's what happens when you reduce the herd immunity. You can thank celebrities like Jenny McCarthy for correlating vaccines to autism.. celebrities that don't know shit.
     
     
    Let's try something you can understand then.. a stooge. A tool. Sadly, this is what I've thought of you from seeing other posts made by you before you even started this thread.
     
     
    No, you're fearful of what you don't understand. You've consistently proven how much you don't understand.. and because you don't understand it, you're scared of it. Can't really expect much less from one of the herd..
     
     
    Nah kid, you're blind as fuck.. evident from this thread. :laughing:
     
     
    Kind of sad that you're not fluent in your own language.. :(  but since it needs to be spelled out for you.. all people are doing is correlating issues with GMOs and blaming them, using a scapegoat so they don't have to admit that it's more than likely them and their lifestyle choices. Kind of like when they correlated autism to vaccines.. Parents want to eat shit, do drugs, and rather "hug" their friends through the internet and social media preventing them from building an emotional core to pass on to their children and then wonder why they popped out fucked up. It's easy to blame anything that's not yourself.
     
     
    The only thing you've done was reaffirm that the masses of sheeple are easily swayed by fear of what they don't know.. Also, didn't you relate GMOs to weed? Which is funny cause it's true, like back in the 60's and 70's when lies were spread and made the people fearful. The same thing that happened to weed is happening to GMOs, fear over nothing. Sassafras got hit with the fear stick along with weed too, but not many people cared enough to combat it.. because sassafras is what an unmentionable is made of. Now people think it gives you cancer.
     
    This is going to be my last post in here.. cause frankly it makes me sad for humanity. I love humanity, not a fan of humans.. This is the time old tradition of fear for the masses. Y2K, terrorism, vaccines, GMOs.. all classic cases of the masses of people getting worked up over nothing. Humans are a herd species.. they follow one another even though they like to pretend they're unique. Put 100 people in a theater and tell them that in case of an emergency, the door on the left is the only one that'll lead to safety. The door on the right will lead to death.. then fake an emergency and have people in on it run to the door on the right.. several people who aren't in on it will follow them, even after what you told them! I always thought that the people who fabricated Christianity knew better than to believe their shit and added a lil humor in there with Jesus and his flock as an ongoing, inside joke. This was known for generations.. humans herd.
     
    This day and age, autism is on the rise. 2 reasons.. first, overall conditions of society are creating changes that are leading to an actual rate increase. Second, they keep changing the definitions of what is autism and it's including more and more. There isn't just one cause, it's a plethora of causes. Even if vaccines and GMOs are a cause, it's but a drop in the bucket. Since there isn't just one cause to be pinpointed, you could correlate just about anything to it. It happened with vaccines, it happened with gluten, it happened with GMO foods.. It's people being scared and finding something, anything to blame so they can attempt to make some sort of sense out of it.
     
    Science tests everything and anything. It's trying to find the answers and yes, science will look at the pros and cons of GMOs.. but people jump the gun. A group of scientists thinks GMOs cause a problem so they test it, and more than likely won't even actually be able to prove or disprove it because it's a correlation. Some dick on the news gets wind of it and blows it up, before any concrete data can be found and spreads it to the masses. Why? Fuck if I know, humans are dumb like that.. Just watching the news in a week, you'll probably hear about 10 different things that could kill you. "Coming up, how your airbag will kill you.. followed by 'Sprees, you'll probably die eating this candy'". It's all about fear, get them to fear information you provide so they keep coming back for more information..
     
    I don't really agree with the idea of making GMOs that can support more pesticide, cause I am not a fan pesticide to begin with.. but there isn't any evidence that GMOs actually cause health problems, it only correlations. The bullshit with the bt toxin.. if you spend a day out in nature, there's a good chance that you've come into contact with the bacteria they extracted those genes from. If you eat anything raw in nature, you probably ingested the bacteria. As for the possible risk to the environment, everyday.. at least one species on Earth invades an environment that it's not usually part of. Nature doesn't wig out and die, it evolves. Same thing that'd happen if a GMO species goes wild. I love nature, but I am not worried for it in terms of GMOs getting out. If you are, you don't fully understand nature. You might appreciate it, but sure as shit don't understand it. I also think it's pathetically hilarious when people say "they need to do more testing on GMOs because we don't know what will happen!" and later on say something like "there were numerous tests that show their side effects.." It's like mother fucker, you just said they're not tested enough.. but when it confirms your bias that they're bad, they've been tested enough. I agree that they should be labeled, cause why not? I think the labeling of food needs a ton of work to begin with.. one example is the 50 different labels for sugar.
     
    That being said, it's good to question everything and anything.. but most people only stop half way. They reach an answer that makes them feel at ease in their (lack of) understanding.. but don't question that answer. It's a mixture of being part of the flock, not understanding, being fearful, and confirmation bias.
     
  5.  
     
    We could, sure, but why wouldn't we put the money into the method best able to feed starving people in third world countries? Hydroponics is nice and all but it just doesn't seem nearly as feasible or cost effective. 
     
  6. But it is imo. from my observations.
     
    We could train people over there to do something theyve been doing essentially for centuries. Healthier food. more controlled environment for the food. its quite possible to make it cost effective. The upkeep is the main thing. but in those countries it would be more of a community thing ya know?
     
    stop sending them weapons and send them hydro setups instead  :confused_2:
    hahahaha
     
    idk
     
    to me? changing something on a genetic level just doesnt sound right, no matter what your statistics and facts are to back it up. idk
     
    i feel the alternatives would prove wiser in the long run.
     
  7. Question:
     
    Does anybody believe the starving nations are starving because they don't have GMOs?
     
    How will proprietary seed/food tecnology help the under developed world?
     
    Two questions, I guess.
     
  8. they are starving because they have entirely opposite priorities besides feeding eachother properly hahahaha
     
    honestly, trying to help them with anything would just prove difficult and probably not succesful as we would like to imagine.
     
    pretty sure weve tried before anyway...
     
  9. #49 *guest, Sep 3, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2014
    So I asked my husband his stance on this because I know we tend to differ on these sort of things. He's against GMO's. We had a long talk about why. 
     
    His stance is basically that by genetically modifying crops we could create invasive plants, and that the things we're genetically modifying these crops to be resistant to are already evolving to become even more vicious. Sort of like antibiotics. You throw too many antibiotics at something and suddenly you have an antibiotic resistant strain. His stance is that by creating crops that are resistant to these molds/diseases/bugs/whatever, we could also be helping these molds/diseases/bugs/whatever evolve to attack even more crops. 
     
    Curious about everyone's thoughts on this? 
     
  10. #50 *ColtClassic*, Sep 3, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2014
    The greater risk here is food/genetics monopolization.
     
    It raises a red flag when people claim they are a savior, when in reality they are aiming to consolidate food production into fewer controlling parties.
     
    The ethics of GMO's aside, we must analyze all possible unintended consequences.
     
    If an entity can control over fifty percent of a continents food supply, it can essentially control the people and weaponize food. This posses a great risk, just as our power grid or telecommunications infrastructure are exploitable in many ways. 
     
     
    “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”
    -Henry Kissinger
     
    http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_kissinger_food.html
     
    http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf
     
    So essentially - Yes, let's help starving countries, but at the same time lets not monopolize food control to the point where we are creating a potentially massive exploit/vulnerability.
     
     
     
     
    I would agree with your husband on this.  We also must be wary of creating dependence upon pesticides among resistant crops and consolidating control of the food supply. All of these are legitimate concerns.
     
  11. I'm glad you asked, the good thing about reading is that unlike you I am always prepared.
    I have provided substance for everything I've said in this thread thus far, whilst you and others continue quibbling and flailing your arms about.
    \tStatement: No scientific consensus on GMO safetyAs scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),[1] we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety[2] [3] [4] and that the debate on this topic is “over”.[5]
    We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.
    Science and society do not proceed on the basis of a constructed consensus, as current knowledge is always open to well-founded challenge and disagreement. We endorse the need for further independent scientific inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety and urge GM proponents to do the same.
    Some of our objections to the claim of scientific consensus are listed below.
     
    1. There is no consensus on GM food safety
    Regarding the safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health, a comprehensive review of animal feeding studies of GM crops found “An equilibrium in the number [of] research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns”. The review also found that most studies concluding that GM foods were as safe and nutritious as those obtained by conventional breeding were “performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible [for] commercializing these GM plants”.[6]
    A separate review of animal feeding studies that is often cited as showing that GM foods are safe included studies that found significant differences in the GM-fed animals. While the review authors dismissed these findings as not biologically significant,[7] the interpretation of these differences is the subject of continuing scientific debate[8] [9] [10] [11] and no consensus exists on the topic.
    Rigorous studies investigating the safety of GM crops and foods would normally involve animal feeding studies in which one group of animals is fed GM food and another group is fed an equivalent non-GM diet. Independent studies of this type are rare, but when such studies have been performed, some have revealed toxic effects or signs of toxicity in the GM-fed animals.[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] The concerns raised by these studies have not been followed up by targeted research that could confirm or refute the initial findings.
    The lack of scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods and crops is underlined by the recent research calls of the European Union and the French government to investigate the long-term health impacts of GM food consumption in the light of uncertainties raised by animal feeding studies.[18] [19] These official calls imply recognition of the inadequacy of the relevant existing scientific research protocols. They call into question the claim that existing research can be deemed conclusive and the scientific debate on biosafety closed.
     
    2. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health
    It is often claimed that “trillions of GM meals” have been eaten in the US with no ill effects. However, no epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any health effects associated with GM food consumption. As GM foods are not labelled in North America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it is scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of consumption and their impacts. Therefore, claims that GM foods are safe for human health based on the experience of North American populations have no scientific basis.
     
    3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or inaccurate
    Claims that there is a consensus among scientific and governmental bodies that GM foods are safe, or that they are no more risky than non-GM foods,[20] [21] are false.
    For instance, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada issued a report that was highly critical of the regulatory system for GM foods and crops in that country. The report declared that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe without rigorous scientific testing and that the “default prediction” for every GM food should be that the introduction of a new gene will cause “unanticipated changes” in the expression of other genes, the pattern of proteins produced, and/or metabolic activities. Possible outcomes of these changes identified in the report included the presence of new or unexpected allergens.[22] 
    A report by the British Medical Association concluded that with regard to the long-term effects of GM foods on human health and the environment, “many unanswered questions remain” and that “safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available”. The report called for more research, especially on potential impacts on human health and the environment.[23]
    Moreover, the positions taken by other organizations have frequently been highly qualified, acknowledging data gaps and potential risks, as well as potential benefits, of GM technology. For example, a statement by the American Medical Association's Council on Science and Public Health acknowledged “a small potential for adverse events … due mainly to horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity” and recommended that the current voluntary notification procedure practised in the US prior to market release of GM crops be made mandatory.[24] It should be noted that even a “small potential for adverse events” may turn out to be significant, given the widespread exposure of human and animal populations to GM crops.
    A statement by the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) affirming the safety of GM crops and opposing labelling[25] cannot be assumed to represent the view of AAAS members as a whole and was challenged in an open letter by a group of 21 scientists, including many long-standing members of the AAAS.[26] This episode underlined the lack of consensus among scientists about GMO safety.
     
    4. EU research project does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety
    An EU research project[27] has been cited internationally as providing evidence for GM crop and food safety. However, the report based on this project, “A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research”, presents no data that could provide such evidence, from long-term feeding studies in animals.
    Indeed, the project was not designed to test the safety of any single GM food, but to focus on “the development of safety assessment approaches”.[28] Only five published animal feeding studies are referenced in the SAFOTEST section of the report, which is dedicated to GM food safety.[29] None of these studies tested a commercialised GM food; none tested the GM food for long-term effects beyond the subchronic period of 90 days; all found differences in the GM-fed animals, which in some cases were statistically significant; and none concluded on the safety of the GM food tested, let alone on the safety of GM foods in general. Therefore the EU research project provides no evidence for sweeping claims about the safety of any single GM food or of GM crops in general.
     
    5. List of several hundred studies does not show GM food safety
    A frequently cited claim published on an Internet website that several hundred studies “document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds”[30] is misleading. Examination of the studies listed reveals that many do not provide evidence of GM food safety and, in fact, some provide evidence of a lack of safety. For example:
    • Many of the studies are not toxicological animal feeding studies of the type that can provide useful information about health effects of GM food consumption. The list includes animal production studies that examine parameters of interest to the food and agriculture industry, such as milk yield and weight gain;[31] [32] studies on environmental effects of GM crops; and analytical studies of the composition or genetic makeup of the crop.
    • Among the animal feeding studies and reviews of such studies in the list, a substantial number found toxic effects and signs of toxicity in GM-fed animals compared with controls.[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Concerns raised by these studies have not been satisfactorily addressed and the claim that the body of research shows a consensus over the safety of GM crops and foods is false and irresponsible.
    • Many of the studies were conducted over short periods compared with the animal's total lifespan and cannot detect long-term health effects.[39] [40]
    We conclude that these studies, taken as a whole, are misrepresented on the Internet website as they do not “document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds”. Rather, some of the studies give serious cause for concern and should be followed up by more detailed investigations over an extended period of time.
     
    6. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops
    Environmental risks posed by GM crops include the effects of Bt insecticidal crops on non-target organisms and effects of the herbicides used in tandem with herbicide-tolerant GM crops.
    As with GM food safety, no scientific consensus exists regarding the environmental risks of GM crops. A review of environmental risk assessment approaches for GM crops identified shortcomings in the procedures used and found “no consensus” globally on the methodologies that should be applied, let alone on standardized testing procedures.[41]
    Some reviews of the published data on Bt crops have found that they can have adverse effects on non-target and beneficial organisms[42] [43] [44] [45] – effects that are widely neglected in regulatory assessments and by some scientific commentators. Resistance to Bt toxins has emerged in target pests,[46] and problems with secondary (non-target) pests have been noted, for example, in Bt cotton in China.[47] [48]
    Herbicide-tolerant GM crops have proved equally controversial. Some reviews and individual studies have associated them with increased herbicide use,[49] [50] the rapid spread of herbicide-resistant weeds,[51] and adverse health effects in human and animal populations exposed to Roundup, the herbicide used on the majority of GM crops.[52] [53] [54]
    As with GM food safety, disagreement among scientists on the environmental risks of GM crops may be correlated with funding sources. A peer-reviewed survey of the views of 62 life scientists on the environmental risks of GM crops found that funding and disciplinary training had a significant effect on attitudes. Scientists with industry funding and/or those trained in molecular biology were very likely to have a positive attitude to GM crops and to hold that they do not represent any unique risks, while publicly-funded scientists working independently of GM crop developer companies and/or those trained in ecology were more likely to hold a “moderately negative” attitude to GM crop safety and to emphasize the uncertainty and ignorance involved. The review authors concluded, “The strong effects of training and funding might justify certain institutional changes concerning how we organize science and how we make public decisions when new technologies are to be evaluated.”[55]
     
    7. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GM foods and crops
    The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was negotiated over many years and implemented in 2003. The Cartagena Protocol is an international agreement ratified by 166 governments worldwide that seeks to protect biological diversity from the risks posed by GM technology. It embodies the Precautionary Principle in that it allows signatory states to take precautionary measures to protect themselves against threats of damage from GM crops and foods, even in case of a lack of scientific certainty.[56]
    Another international body, the UN's Codex Alimentarius, worked with scientific experts for seven years to develop international guidelines for the assessment of GM foods and crops, because of concerns about the risks they pose. These guidelines were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, of which over 160 nations are members, including major GM crop producers such as the United States.[57]
    The Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GM crops and foods, in that they agree that genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GM organisms are used in food or released into the environment.
    These agreements would never have been negotiated, and the implementation processes elaborating how such safety assessments should be conducted would not currently be happening, without widespread international recognition of the risks posed by GM crops and foods and the unresolved state of existing scientific understanding.
    Concerns about risks are well-founded, as has been demonstrated by studies on some GM crops and foods that have shown adverse effects on animal health and non-target organisms, indicated above. Many of these studies have, in fact, fed into the negotiation and/or implementation processes of the Cartagena Protocol and Codex. We support the application of the Precautionary Principle with regard to the release and transboundary movement of GM crops and foods.
     
    Conclusion
    In the scope of this document, we can only highlight a few examples to illustrate that the totality of scientific research outcomes in the field of GM crop safety is nuanced, complex, often contradictory or inconclusive, confounded by researchers' choices, assumptions, and funding sources, and in general, has raised more questions than it has currently answered.
    Whether to continue and expand the introduction of GM crops and foods into the human food and animal feed supply, and whether the identified risks are acceptable or not, are decisions that involve socioeconomic considerations beyond the scope of a narrow scientific debate and the currently unresolved biosafety research agendas. These decisions must therefore involve the broader society. They should, however, be supported by strong scientific evidence on the long-term safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health and the environment, obtained in a manner that is honest, ethical, rigorous, independent, transparent, and sufficiently diversified to compensate for bias.
    Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims that a “scientific consensus” exists on GMO safety.
    Source.
     
    Yes, I see what you mean. :laughing:
     
  12. Imo, I concur with your husbands hypothesis. In another thread I posted this article.
     
    The document also chides Monsanto for setting the threshold of root damage too high before an investigation is triggered, and thus missing possible early-stage resistance outbreaks that can later break out into large ones.
     
    Perhaps most devastatingly of all, EPA reveals that Monsanto has been receiving reports of possible resistance since 2004-the year after the product's release-when it got 21 such complaints nationwide. The number of reports ballooned to 94 in 2006 and has been hovering at around 100 per year since. And guess what? "Monsanto reported that none of their follow-up investigations resulted…in finding resistant populations [of rootworms]."
     
    In other words, to hear Monsanto tell it, resistance isn't a problem at all! And since Monsanto is responsible for monitoring it, the public would not know about the problem if an independent scientist, Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann, hadn't published a paper documenting four cases of it in Iowa in August, prompting a major story in the Wall Street Journal.  
     
    Monsanto responded to Grossman's findings with brazen denial: "We don't have any demonstrated field resistance," a Monsanto official insisted to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch when asked about the study. As recently as last week, in the wake of the EPA document's release, Monsanto officials continued to assert that there had been no scientific confirmation of resistance to its Bt corn, Bloomberg reported. The response calls to mind the old Groucho Marx joke about the man pleading with his wife after being caught in flagrante with another woman: "Who are you going to believe: me, or your lying eyes?"
     
    Source.

    </blockquote>What's your take on this Jane?
     
  13. Since no one has yet debunked the following assertions, we are currently at the consensus that GMO's:
    1. Are breeding herbicidal resistant weeds and pesticide resistant bugs.
    2. Do not generate greater yields, only taking credit for generations of natural breeding.
    3. Are not in any way cheaper than organics, including the costs of additional herbicides and pesticides.
    4. Are not feeding the world.
     
    Feel free to quote the articles if you have any substantial evidence to contradict these allegations. Hearsay and pandering will continue to be swiftly demolished.
     
  14. IMHO, the video was only created to become a pro-GM meme, to be posted by pseudo-intellectuals that allow alleged authorities to decide what is good and what is bad without any individual thought in-between. The fact that Neil purposely misconstrues and minimizes the inherent differences between Genetic engineering and Natural breeding is evidence enough.
     
  15.  
    Well for example, genetically modifying a crop could shorten it's growing season enough that farmers could get two crops a year instead of only one, which could result in a dramatically larger yield which would lessen costs of food and prevent things like famine, which the underdeveloped world is particularly susceptible to.  
     
    Just one example.
     
  16. "I need more attention.. so Ima pointlessly bump my thread.."
     
  17. And actually, there is quite a broad consensus by many respected scientific institutions across the globe that eating GM crops is no more risky to human health than traditional crops.
     
    There is a widespread perception that eating food from genetically modified crops is more risky than eating food from conventionally farmed crops. However, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from such crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.
     
    Sources include my previously cited EU review, the WHO, The American Medical Association, The American Academy of Sciences, and many others.
     
    No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food, according to the American Medical Association, the US Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.
     
    And another concern is that there are substantial differences between genetic modification techniques like transgenesis and traditional breeding techniques, but I quote
     
    A survey of publications describing comparisons between the intrinsic qualities of modified and non-modified reference crop lines (comparing genomes, proteomes, and metabolomes of the plants themselves, not the plants' effects on an organism eating them) indicates that transgenic modification of crops has less impact on gene expression or on protein and metabolite levels than the variability generated by conventional breeding
    And
    In a 2013 review published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Rod A. Herman (Dow AgroSciences) and William D. Price (retired from FDA) argue that transgenesis is less disruptive of composition compared with traditional breeding techniques which routinely involve genetic mutations, deletions, insertions, and rearrangements. The FDA found all of the 148 transgenic events that they evaluated to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, as have the Japanese regulators for 189 submissions including combined-trait products.
     
    This equivalence is confirmed by more than 80 peer-reviewed publications. Hence, the authors argue, compositional equivalence studies uniquely required for genetically modified crops may no longer be justified on the basis of scientific uncertainty.
     
    So there's substantial evidence that modern genetic modification techniques are actually more precise and pose less of a risk of harmful variation than traditional techniques do, which makes sense, as they are more advanced.
     
    And overall, there is in fact a broad scientific consensus that current GM crops do not pose a substantial risk to human health. So yes, the science is with me on this, or rather, I am with the science on this one.
     
  18.  
    I don't think this was NT's intention, but it has ended up being used for this purpose.
     
  19. Ok you know who is stupid, the ones who are posting up scientific evidence, as if that is going to change anyones mind in this thread.
     
  20. I've never heard of any study concluding that GMOs are bad for human consumption, but I have a feeling that it may be a culprit in the "Colony Collapse" or the unexplained disappearance of the bees. 
     

Share This Page