Anti-GMO scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, and Jeffrey Smith withdraw from food biotech debate.
56 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ravenhurst;40848544]Bees are important as fuck and their population has been dropping ever since this shit went on the market. Their absence has the capacity to start the fucking apocalypse.[/QUOTE]
i am agreeing with you, silly goose.
I agree with the use of GMOs for things like making the plants more hardy, have increased bounty, and even quicker production cycle. What I absolutely despise is how Monsanto is abusing GMOs to exploit farmers. The research behind it is incredibly important, but it is being applied in an evil way.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;40847534]"Anti-GMO scientist"
I can't stop laughing[/QUOTE]
My parents are doctors.
Yet both of them are huge skeptics when it comes to the long-term safety of GMO food. There is a thing called being cautious y'know.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40852781]So, what damage do GMOs cause, and in what fields are your parents?[/QUOTE]
Let's see, one argument that stuck to me is that making a plant be resistant to bugs by producing its own natural pesticide may not be a stellar idea when people are gonna eat said plant afterwards. Of course, evidently it does not poison people just like that. But for example eating such stuff for decades...
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40852781]So, what damage do GMOs cause, and in what fields are your parents?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://foodmatters.tv/gm_tumors.jpg[/img]
Have fun defending more shit you know absolutely nothing about Sobotnik. You should get a medal for that, or something.
Also that rat later died of autism
[QUOTE=a203xi;40853757][img]OHFUCKNO[/img]
Have fun defending more shit you know absolutely nothing about Sobotnik. You should get a medal for that, or something.[/QUOTE]
Dude, [i]link that fucking shit.[/i]
[QUOTE=a203xi;40853757][img]really weirdo tumor on a mouse[/img]
Have fun defending more shit you know absolutely nothing about Sobotnik. You should get a medal for that, or something.[/QUOTE]
what exactly is this picture?
You're a baby if you can't handle seeing rats with tumors on them, peoples dog's get fatty tumors all the time.
Step 1: plants are resistant to pesticides
Step 2: liberally douse plants in said pesticides
step 3: pesticides run off into the ocean and fuck everything up (Including the fishing industry)
nah monsanto is harmless guys
Keep on laughing at these activists haha.. that is what they want you to do.
Meanwhile Monsanto are fucking up the ecosystem and literally takes a shit on that thing called free markets.
[QUOTE=Tengil;40855065]Keep on laughing at these activists haha.. that is what they want you to do.[/QUOTE]
Who is "they"? The zionists? The bankers? The masons? Some other group that's target of the month by conspiracy theorists?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40855194]Who is "they"? The zionists? The bankers? The masons? Some other group that's target of the month by conspiracy theorists?[/QUOTE]
It's pretty obvious from the context that he means Monsanto. And it is exactly what Monsanto would want you to do, even if it's probably not through their direct action.
I find it annoying that the scientific community widely accepts GMO's as safe, yet random people with no background in biology claim they know better. Many of the posts here are the same baseless myths you would hear Alex Jones preaching about.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40854399]This is actually the really badly conducted study that has been refuted far too many times.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825[/url]
Once again, good fucking luck trying to spread bullshit ignorance and outright pseudoscience about GMOs.
[editline]31st May 2013[/editline]
And where is your evidence?[/QUOTE]
Sigh.... Yeah lets attack the opposition by concentrating on the worst arguments, a form of strawmanning. Here let me give'r a go.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40797055]
You don't seem to take into consideration anything the other-side posts as proof/evidence.
Things you haven't addressed:
-Roundup infecting non GMO crops.
-The notion of a Multi-Billion Dollar corporation being able to pressure farmers into settlements.
-How GMOs, specifically Monsanto, is killing off the bee population
-How the pesticides create resistant super-weeds.
-How Allergenicity is increased
[quote="http://www.salmone.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/qaim-cotton.pdf"]
Almost all GM crop technologies were initiated by commercial firms
in the industrialized world, targeting the
needs of farmers who are able to pay for
them. Some varieties were transferred to the
commercial sectors of Latin America and
China, where agroecological conditions and
pesticide application rates are similar. In all
cases, yield effects have been low to medium,
although there have been sizeable gains from
pesticide substitution[/quote]
How yields are not increased in standard conditions.
[/QUOTE]
Furthermore (Fully cited):
[url]http://www.globalmagazine.info/sites/default/files/PDF/pusztai-gm-foods-risk-human-animal-health-2001.pdf[/url]
[quote]GM tomatoes: The first and only safety evaluation of a GM crop, the FLAVR
SAVRTM tomato, was commissioned by Calgene, as required by the FDA. This
GM tomato was produced by inserting kanr genes into a tomato by an
‘antisense’ GM method. The test has not been peer-reviewed or published but is
on the internet.8 The results claim there were no significant alterations in total
protein, vitamins and mineral contents and in toxic glycoalkaloids.9 Therefore,
the GM and parent tomatoes were deemed to be “substantially equivalent.”
In acute toxicity studies with male/female rats, which were tube-fed
homogenized GM tomatoes, toxic effects were claimed to be absent. In addition,
it was concluded that mean body and organ weights, weight gains, food
consumption and clinical chemistry or blood parameters were not significantly
different between GM-fed and control groups. However:
-The unacceptably wide range of rat starting weights (±18% to ±23%)
invalidated these findings.
-No histology on the intestines was done even though stomach sections
showed mild/moderate erosive/necrotic lesions in up to seven out of
twenty female rats but none in the controls. However, these were
considered to be of no importance, although in humans they could lead
to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use
aspirin to prevent thrombosis.
-Seven out of forty rats on GM tomatoes died within two weeks for
unstated reasons.
-These studies were poorly designed and therefore the conclusion that
FLAVR SAVRTM tomatoes were safe does not rest on good science,
questioning the validity of the FDA’s decision that no toxicological
testing of other GM foods will in future be required.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=zakedodead;40854815]Step 1: plants are resistant to pesticides
Step 2: liberally douse plants in said pesticides
step 3: pesticides run off into the ocean and fuck everything up (Including the fishing industry)
nah monsanto is harmless guys[/QUOTE]
pesticides aren't the only danger, either.
fertilizer that runs off into the ocean can cause an algal bloom.
when the algae die, most of the available oxygen is used up to decompose it. all of the organisms beneath the very surface suffocate, creating a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico_dead_zone"]dead-zone[/URL]. there's actually a fairly large one in the Gulf of Mexico, as a result of the many decades of farming in the Mississippi River's watershed.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40855194]Who is "they"? The zionists? The bankers? The masons? Some other group that's target of the month by conspiracy theorists?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40798591]Except, by admitting that due to the 1% owning 40% of the wealth, and admitting that the government is corrupt, you are also conceding to the point of view that you so eloquently tend to mock. Who do you think is being referred to when people talk about corrupt banksters and 'them'?[/quote]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40855194]Who is "they"? The zionists? The bankers? The masons? Some other group that's target of the month by conspiracy theorists?[/QUOTE]
I don't think you'd have a single post left if we didn't count all the posts where you directly misunderstand, or skew what the person you're replying to said while ignoring anything and everything else you can about their post.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40857243]I don't think you'd have a single post left if we didn't count all the posts where you directly misunderstand, or skew what the person you're replying to said while ignoring anything and everything else you can about their post.[/QUOTE]
Whoah, you are saying there is another way of arguing beside strawmanning what the other side says?
[QUOTE=joes33431;40856437]pesticides aren't the only danger, either.
fertilizer that runs off into the ocean can cause an algal bloom.
when the algae die, most of the available oxygen is used up to decompose it. all of the organisms beneath the very surface suffocate, creating a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico_dead_zone"]dead-zone[/URL]. there's actually a fairly large one in the Gulf of Mexico, as a result of the many decades of farming in the Mississippi River's watershed.[/QUOTE]
It's not just the farming to be fair. The gulf is a waste for a number of complex reasons. Farming is a major contributing factor, but things like the levis preventing the river from flooding also cause problems too. The amount of silt that gets poured into the gulf is ridiculous because moving water doesn't deposit it. If the river flooded, it would become slow moving and drop silt. Long story short, the water quality is going to be terrible just because the water is muddy as hell.
GMOs are not inherently bad, Monsanto is horrible.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;40857865]It's not just the farming to be fair. The gulf is a waste for a number of complex reasons. Farming is a major contributing factor, but things like the levis preventing the river from flooding also cause problems too. The amount of silt that gets poured into the gulf is ridiculous because moving water doesn't deposit it. If the river flooded, it would become slow moving and drop silt. Long story short, the water quality is going to be terrible just because the water is muddy as hell.[/QUOTE]
one of the proposed solutions is to scale back the levees so that the rivers can move along their natural meanders
but restoring wetlands would definitely abate the problem by absorbing the excess nutrients and filtering some of the wastes.
people really take for granted how awesome ecosystems can be for us, if we just let them be.
If you say GM is horrible and should be phased out entirely, you're an idiot. At the same time, if you think it should be allowed to continue on the path it is, thanks to Monsanto, with no care taken for future or even [i]present[/i] issues, and unregulated, then you're just as much of an idiot. Fortunately, most of Facepunch thinks moderately, which is good.
