"If GM crops are bad, show us the evidence"- UK 'Independent'

Originally posted by RothchildRancor

Originally posted by OOOOOO


'If GM crops are bad, show us the evidence'

To me this would seem to be a very stupid question. I will explain, it seems so simple, if you take and pour poison on a plant, it would be easy to accept the fact that, the plant will adsorb some of the poison, just by association of being in the same place at the same time, the poison was applied.
From there it is also very easy to realize, that if this food product, which has poison with-in it cell structure, upon being ingested by a human or animal, they will also receive a dose of the poison. With what ever, varying end results.
I am not a expert, so I am not aware of what type poison we are dealing with or what is required to neutralize this type of poison.
If I were to look further into the poison being used I could give a better answer to this part of the problem, which I'm sure has been looked into and there is not neutralization of the poison occurring in the process of being absorbed by plant.

Genetic Modification and poison are two WAY different things, buddy!


What are you trying to insult my ignorance, Buddy?

What you say is true, but you can throw that whole statement, out the window. I'm sure you are aware that Monsanto is making both, or downing both. I was only trying to make a point, the fact is Monsanto is doing GM of Plant's so that they are immune to the poison that Monsanto make's, ( Roundup ) to be specific.

It does not matter if the plant is GM or Heritage, if they spay poison on plant and you eat it, you are getting dose of poison. If the Poisson is round-up good luck. This is why the organic farmers use pesticide's and other method's that are not harmful to human's.

I would say that with the lack of informed foresight, it is not a good ideal to be doing this GM of plant's or anything else as at this time, no one is even really sure what they are doing other than playing with, Dynamite.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RothchildRancor

 

From there it is also very easy to realize, that if this food product, which has poison with-in it cell structure, upon being ingested by a human or animal, they will also receive a dose of the poison. With what ever, varying end results.

You may find this interesting reading:
www.fortfreedom.org...
www.hort.purdue.edu...
www.botgard.ucla.edu...
www.amnh.org...

Thanks for the links. It seems not much delving needed to prove the danger of GM foods!

I am going to start growing my own food once I have the money to.

reply to post by RothchildRancor

Thanks for the links. It seems not much delving needed to prove the danger of GM foods!

Those articles are not about GM foods.
They are about the fact that all plants contain their own pesticides. Even the ones you grow yourself.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


How long did it take for them to prove smoking was bad for you. There are certainly smoking guns indicating the GM food is not good for you.. Ifn my opinions if it is damaging animals you can be sure it is damaging us..

Busted: Biotech Leader ‘Syngenta’ Charged Over Covering Up Animal Deaths from GM Corn
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scientist that discovered GMO health hazards immediately fired, team dismantled
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM Corn
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate GM Soy
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by purplemer
How long did it take for them to prove smoking was bad for you.

Depends on how you define "prove". There's probably a lot of people in the tobacco industry who would say it still hasnt been proven.

But right from the start it was clear that tobacco smoking was harmful.
10 seconds on wikipedia shows that King James VI of Scotland and I of England said 1604 that smoking was dangerous to the lungs.
Stories of health problems are continuous from that point.

Pretty much all media is getting behind this now, showing how sold out they are. Endless propaganda of how GMO is safe and even better for us than millions of years of evolution until the majority of folks simply accept what comes. Works much like how they sold the Iraq war (invasion).

God help the UK and Euro governments as GMO companies (having already lobbied our 'politicians' sufficiently) seeks to spread their technology further.

reply to post by Wonderer2012

Endless propaganda of how GMO is safe and even better for us than millions of years of evolution until the majority of folks simply accept what comes.

Evolution did not produce corn we ate before GMO
Evolution did not produce the wheat we ate before GMO.
Evolution did not produce the rice we ate before GMO.
Evolution did not produce most of the plants we ate before GMO.

reply to post by Phage

Evolution did not produce corn we ate before GMO Evolution did not produce the wheat we ate before GMO. Evolution did not produce the rice we ate before GMO. Evolution did not produce most of the plants we ate before GMO.

How is that making any sense. Evolution did produce the above food sources. We through selective breading have changed and modified them. That is nothing like genetic modification to create new organisms. That is what this thread is about.

reply to post by purplemer

How is that making any sense. Evolution did produce the above food sources. We through selective breading have changed and modified them.

No. Evolution did not produce them. Yes, humans modified existing plants to suit their purposes. Corn cannot survive without human intervention. Evolution does not produce something like that.

That is nothing like genetic modification to create new organisms.

That's the claim. But corn was a "new organism".

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Endless propaganda of how GMO is safe and even better for us than millions of years of evolution until the majority of folks simply accept what comes.

Evolution did not produce corn we ate before GMO
Evolution did not produce the wheat we ate before GMO.
Evolution did not produce the rice we ate before GMO.
Evolution did not produce most of the plants we ate before GMO.

Just curious.. If evolution didn't produce those crops before we ate GMO, what did?

reply to post by Philippines

None of those plants existed as they do now.
Corn cannot exist without human intervention, it did not evolve that way.
Wheat is a hybridization of different species of grass.

Originally posted by Philippines
Just curious.. If evolution didn't produce those crops before we ate GMO, what did?

Even took me a couple of reads through Phage's post before I got it.

What he's trying to say is that the crops we used to eat before GMO (that is, the crops of the 1980's) did not arise by Evolution.
The 1980's crop types are very artificial indeed.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines

 

None of those plants existed as they do now.
Corn cannot exist without human intervention, it did not evolve that way.
Wheat is a hybridization of different species of grass.

Yes, I know about agriculture and hybridization. I agree with you that modern food, over many years, has evolved by selective breeding. The difference with transgenic GMO food is that it skips the selective breeding of plants, and breeds plants with other species that could never happen in the wild. Transgenic crops could NEVER exist through selective crossbreeding, correct?

When you look at modern wheat, most of it is nowadays some form of high-yield dwarf wheat (for monocropping) thanks to Norman Borlaug. This modern wheat has been criticized as being nutrient deficient, and cause gluten issues for many people leading to celiac disease, just an fyi on my understanding so far.

Originally posted by Philippines
The difference with transgenic GMO food is that it skips the selective breeding of plants, and breeds plants with other species that could never happen in the wild.

While that may be true, in and of itself it isnt actually an argument about harm (or lack of) of the food to the consumer. All you've said here is "its not natural".

Originally posted by Philippines
Transgenic crops could NEVER exist through selective crossbreeding, correct?

Incorrect.
There are many cases, naturally occuring, where a gene from one creature has moved to a completely different creature.
Horizontal Gene Transfer

It is entirely possible that in the billions of parallel universes, a Bt insecticide gene has completely naturally found its way into corn, just to pick one hypothetical example.
In this universe it didnt happen, but its also entirely possible that it could happen naturally if we just sit back and wait.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Philippines
The difference with transgenic GMO food is that it skips the selective breeding of plants, and breeds plants with other species that could never happen in the wild.

While that may be true, in and of itself it isnt actually an argument about harm (or lack of) of the food to the consumer. All you've said here is "its not natural".

Originally posted by Philippines
Transgenic crops could NEVER exist through selective crossbreeding, correct?

Incorrect.
There are many cases, naturally occuring, where a gene from one creature has moved to a completely different creature.
Horizontal Gene Transfer

It is entirely possible that in the billions of parallel universes, a Bt insecticide gene has completely naturally found its way into corn, just to pick one hypothetical example.
In this universe it didnt happen, but its also entirely possible that it could happen naturally if we just sit back and wait.

Nice response, thanks for the info, especially on Horizontal Gene Transfer. Once again, this seems like the science is not certain with so many unknowns.

By this same logic above, is there a risk for horizontal gene transfer to affect humans from eating transgenic GMO crops?

reply to post by luciddream


Hi Luciddream,

The "burden" of proof always rests - or burdens - those who make the claims requiring the proof, which in this case is the news outlet producing the headliner.And your example sounds magnificent...thats a lot of fortunate people - although the "burden was not with you in this case of anecdotal evidence - though may we infer that in all likelihood the people would have been saved with the consumption of regular, i.e. natural rice..?
Either way, its unethical, the suggestion that its long term effects be determined though its long term consumption among the populace, as that somewhat defeats the purpose of testing in the first place...which works to the benefit of some obviously.
Finally, "what the heck is this" is an inconsequential contention as many oppose it because they do know whats in it...anyway, when did Americans (because we are the ones knee deep in the issue) ever need an explanation for opposing something...much less, a sensible one...but if one does not want it, there should be reasonable options otherwise!!
LOVE

Originally posted by Philippines
By this same logic above, is there a risk for horizontal gene transfer to affect humans from eating transgenic GMO crops?

Thats too narrow a focus, its like asking if there is a danger for pedestrians, of cars that are blue.

The same is "yes, but for all."
Everything you eat.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Philippines
By this same logic above, is there a risk for horizontal gene transfer to affect humans from eating transgenic GMO crops?

Thats too narrow a focus, its like asking if there is a danger for pedestrians, of cars that are blue.

The same is "yes, but for all."
Everything you eat.

Not really the same imo. Blue cars and pedestrians does not involve horizontal gene transfer does it?

The same is "what" , but for all? I'm trying to understand. Ok, there is a risk of horizontal gene transfer for what?

If there is a risk of horizontal gene transfer for transgenic plants affecting humans, where are the long term studies. Let's start with links to the corporate studies sent to regulatory agencies for approval of human/animal consumption and go from there. I welcome links to those studies

Originally posted by totallackey
Is there a scientific study conclusively demonstrating GMO food is bad? I have not found one. Everything I have read contains the words, "possibly," "could," "potentially." I could potentially break a toe if I buy a certain type of shoe...

The appropriate way to handle GMO Foods would be to test them in an enclosed environment for 50 years because long-term consequences are unknown. But its too late for that.

reply to post by Skyfloating

The appropriate way to handle GMO Foods would be to test them in an enclosed environment for 50 years because long-term consequences are unknown.

Test what for 50 years?
What do you think should be tested in an enclosed environment? What is it that you think might be harmful about GMOs? What is it that implies there may be something inherently dangerous about GMOs?