Russian scientists urge 10-year ban on genetically modified products - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233749]a lot of land isn't optimal for growing crops but is acceptable for grazing animals. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] the downside is that they are created by corporations that are known for bribing the usda and fda so any potential dangers of a particular genetic engineering technique won't be noticed until [i]after[/i] people are hurt by it.[/QUOTE] So this isn't you being against GMOs which can save millions of lives. This is you being against corporations? Sorry, but please show me where GMOs have fucked us.

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43233773]Oh yeah, its also safe. Please show me where GMOs have been killing people.[/QUOTE] Bullshit like that doesn't fly in the real world. Proving something is safe is required in at least medicines, and if it's not the case in foods, then it should be. Even if most of the people trying to ban GMOs are idiots who hate progress, that doesn't mean you should do exactly the opposite of what they want.

[QUOTE=Greenen72;43233766]I can't help but notice your argument doesn't contain "is safe"[/QUOTE] biologically, most if not all GMOs on the market are grown for two things. 1) they are modified to have an enzyme of x shape instead of the normal y shape, which allows us to use roundup which is an enzyme that kills plants with y enzyme 2) they are modified to contain more nutrients or concentrate specific vitamines in the useful parts of the grain so as to make it more healthy the first is questionably safe, as far as we know the roundup enzyme does not react with our digestive system and just passes straight through, even something as simple as cooking the crop can destroy the questionable enzyme for good, the second bit is completely safe, and basically is just a modern take on the very successful classic wonder bread which virtually eliminated malnourishment in the U.S. when they introduced fortified flour to the bread.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233596]if we lower demand for meat consumption then it means less farms wasting land on animals instead of people.[/QUOTE] If you want to go talk about wasting farm space go no further than ethanol subsidies.

banning GMOs is basically as bad as banning vaccines, there is a very good reason why both exist and its not for profit or corporate greed, its to ultimately help people

[QUOTE=sgman91;43233827]If you want to go talk about wasting farm space go no further than ethanol subsidies.[/QUOTE] I agree, Ethanol is fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=Greenen72;43233806]Bullshit like that doesn't fly in the real world. Proving something is safe is required in at least medicines, and if it's not the case in foods, then it should be. Even if most of the people trying to ban GMOs are idiots who hate progress, that doesn't mean you should do exactly the opposite of what they want.[/QUOTE] Sure it does Fuck those dudes who would turn away food for starving masses while they eat and live comfortable I'd rather have the off chance of growing a tumor (if that were even true, which it [b]isn't[/b]) than have MILLIONS of people suffering from a lack of food.

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43233767]You know, thats kinda why we have technology today. We can make a lot of unuse-able areas, use-able. And again, its still easier to produce the food to feed the animals, rather than give them the gigantic fucking space required to free-range.[/QUOTE] that's less efficient and takes its own resources to do. but ya, if that is a better usage of land then do that instead and let's not farm meat at all. [QUOTE=sgman91;43233827]If you want to go talk about wasting farm space go no further than ethanol subsidies.[/QUOTE] the ethanol thing is sorta dumb because, like you said, it's sorta a waste. we could be feeding people with corn instead of creating biodiesal with it.

[QUOTE=Greenen72;43233806]Bullshit like that doesn't fly in the real world. Proving something is safe is required in at least medicines, and if it's not the case in foods, then it should be. Even if most of the people trying to ban GMOs are idiots who hate progress, that doesn't mean you should do exactly the opposite of what they want.[/QUOTE] I'd like you to prove that GMOs are unsafe. You're the one stating so therefor I believe the burden of proof lies on you.

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43233890]I'd like you to prove that GMOs are unsafe. You're the one stating so therefor I believe the burden of proof lies on you.[/QUOTE] no not really. the burden of proof is on the person making the claim(gmos are safe to eat). the default state is to not eat gmo, it is up to you to convince us that taking new action is safe.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233873]that's less efficient and takes its own resources to do. but ya, if that is a better usage of land then do that instead and let's not farm meat at all. the ethanol thing is sorta dumb because, like you said, it's sorta a waste. we could be feeding people with corn instead of creating biodiesal with it.[/QUOTE] I agree with you that ethanol is stupid as hell, we waste a shit ton with that. However, the ways with which we use to produce meat are cheap as fuck. Look up how we produce so many fucking chickens.

Why not allow GMO in the market and study them at the same time.

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43233915]However, the ways with which we use to produce meat are cheap as fuck. Look up how we produce so many fucking chickens.[/QUOTE] we shouldn't be doing it that way anyways because it's immoral. [editline]19th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;43233923]Why not allow GMO in the market and study them at the same time.[/QUOTE] why not let this new medicine in the market and study it at the same time?

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43233890]I'd like you to prove that GMOs are unsafe. You're the one stating so therefor I believe the burden of proof lies on you.[/QUOTE] The burden of proof of safety is first to prove it is safe, then to prove it is unsafe. (I personally think GMOs are safe enough, but we only know that because everyone's eating them and not dying) However, you don't seem to have a grasp on what the scientific process is, nor how much of a moral fuck up it is to distribute untested products for regular consumption

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233932]we shouldn't be doing it that way anyways because it's immoral. [/QUOTE] That may be so, but given our current population, and that it keeps growing. What will we do to feed ourselves?

No GMO's? More like no corn and wheat

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233903]no not really. the burden of proof is on the person making the claim(gmos are safe to eat). the default state is to not eat gmo, it is up to you to convince us that taking new action is safe.[/QUOTE] "Burden of proof" Aqua Bounty Salmon took 11 years to pass a simple FDA process, and it is still receiving shit from people for being "unnatural"

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233903]no not really. the burden of proof is on the person making the claim(gmos are safe to eat). the default state is to not eat gmo, it is up to you to convince us that taking new action is safe.[/QUOTE] You are claiming that they are unsafe to eat. They are feeding millions Burden of proof = you

[QUOTE=Greenen72;43233959]The burden of proof of safety is first to prove it is safe, then to prove it is unsafe. (I personally think GMOs are safe enough, but we only know that because everyone's eating them and not dying) However, you don't seem to have a grasp on what the scientific process is, nor how badly a moral fuck up it is to distribute untested products for regular consumption[/QUOTE] I haven't once said that we should just throw out random GMOs and see what happens. I'm just saying that they are not as bad as everyone is lead to believe. Lead is neat, its like multiple words but one.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233932] why not let this new medicine in the market and study it at the same time?[/QUOTE] We already do that. As long as it passes the whole, "It wont kill you automatically" it goes through.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233932]we shouldn't be doing it that way anyways because it's immoral. [/QUOTE] Ok, so let's take out the factory farms because they're immoral, take out regular farms so we can grow more vegetables, but oh no wait I mean we should have free range animals with all this space we ha- oh wait no, factory farms are smaller than free range farms. Oops. No, we really should grow more food because people are starving, but wait no not that food that's designed to be more nutritious and grow faster, because it's [B][I][U]EVIL[/U][/I][/B]

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43233964]That may be so, but given our current population, and that it keeps growing. What will we do to feed ourselves?[/QUOTE] we can start with proper food distribution, for one. i.e. no more price control measures on grain or corn. if that is done in india it could save millions from malnourishment. we can also end the "free trade" agreements that exploit the agricultural sectors of "third world" nations in order to provide cheap shit to the united states. if we return the natural resources of a country to its inhabitants, maybe those people would be able to feed themselves(that's just a crazy thought, though). [QUOTE=katbug;43233972]You are claiming that they are unsafe to eat. They are feeding millions Burden of proof = you[/QUOTE] "no burden of proof is on you" "no actually burden of proof is on you" what a lame argument lol

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233932]why not let this new medicine in the market and study it at the same time?[/QUOTE] I don't even see how this is even slightly close

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43233767]You know, thats kinda why we have technology today. We can make a lot of unuse-able areas, use-able. And again, its still easier to produce the food to feed the animals, rather than give them the gigantic fucking space required to free-range.[/QUOTE] By heavily fertilizing with chemicals that are about to run out within the next 20 years and making our water acidic(because most of the shit gets washed away) gee great.

Didnt some science journal retract the entire "Anti GMO" "research" paper? edit [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-ha/antigmo-study-discredited_b_4379191.html[/url] Yup

Russians are good at being not so good.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43233999]we can start with proper food distribution, for one. i.e. no more price control measures on grain or corn. if that is done in india it could save millions from malnourishment. we can also end the "free trade" agreements that exploit the agricultural sectors of "third world" nations in order to provide cheap shit to the united states. if we return the natural resources of a country to its inhabitants, maybe those people would be able to feed themselves(that's just a crazy thought, though). "no burden of proof is on you" "no actually burden of proof is on you" what a lame argument lol[/QUOTE] No, that's what you argument is. My argument is that GMO's are being eaten, have been eaten, and will continue to be eaten. If they are withdrawn, people WILL die. If they are not, people will be saved. GMO's have been proven to be more than beneficial. It's your job to prove that they're not.

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;43233915]I agree with you that ethanol is stupid as hell, we waste a shit ton with that. However, the ways with which we use to produce meat are cheap as fuck. Look up how we produce so many fucking chickens.[/QUOTE] By importing feed from 3rd world countries that have been driven into economic and financial dependency by post-imperial market rules.

[QUOTE=katbug;43234052]No, that's what you argument is. My argument is that GMO's are being eaten, have been eaten, and will continue to be eaten. If they are withdrawn, people WILL die. If they are not, people will be saved. GMO's have been proven to be more than beneficial. It's your job to prove that they're not.[/QUOTE] logic101: if you are able to take action extra fast you no longer have to justify that action

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43234074]logic101: if you are able to take action extra fast you no longer have to justify that action[/QUOTE] What.