Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Who's Afraid Of Gmo?


  • Please log in to reply
195 replies to this topic

#188 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    409.44 ppm

  • Members
  • 960 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 12:13 AM

JmJones, almost :-). My first point does not assume inadequate testing, it assumes that theory of the testing is a good as it gets but that "time pressure" risks to make those making the tests to be sloppy and hence the test risks to give wrong results. And this is not specific to US's food safety tests.

Wrt to point 2 and your last comment to it, I went to read up a bit more and found an interesting thing from (https://en.wikipedia.../Plant_breeding):

 

From the same link, my point is valid, at least if backcrossing is done. GMO is 1 generation, breeding is many.

 

Point 1: We're so close that it hurts to still disagree.  I think you and I can agree that no adverse affects of consumption of GMOs by humans have been shown to exist.  I think we can also agree that testing for safety should take place prior to allowing a GMO to be sold for human consumption.  Where it seems to me that we disagree is in the amount of testing required.  I am not sure that I know what you would like to be tested but is not tested.  Is it simply a matter of time, and if so, why?  What are we (in the US) not testing when we declare a GMO safe for human consumption that we should be testing for?

 

Point 2: The link you provided discussing plant breeding is an excellent example of what I have been arguing all along.  I am not afraid of GMOs.  I am afraid of unregulated industrial agriculture.  Targeted changes of a plant's genome is but one of many different ways to change a plants genome, but it is the only one that carries the stigma of frankenfoods.  Instead, rather than focusing on the technology, I'd like to focus on the utility of the product.  In fact, this is precisely why I have been trying to get you or anyone else to weigh in on the Arctic Apple, as it is a GMO that contains a naturally mutated gene from grapes that already exists in the food stream but because this gene was directly placed in an apple, years of testing are required that were not required when this mutation arose in the grape.

 

I don't particularly like unquantifiable restraints such as "slow changes".  I also don't like unfounded fanatical revulsion to useful technologies.  If you want to argue that we should adequately test new cultivars, then I won't disagree with you in the least.  if you are arguing that we aren't adequately testing GMOs specifically, then I would counter that we test GMOs far more than we test any other new cultivar derived from "conventional" means.  However, in the same breathe, I don't know of any conventionally derived cultivar that proved to be harmful after it was placed on the market.

 

I do not claim to be an expert here.  I do require more from you than the argument that GMO is "icky" therefore I don't approve of GMO.

 

 

 

I alredy hear you say, that this is playing on fear and that tests for safety are reliable. Most likely they are I do agree, but if they miss something with GMOs we get the full-scale consequences, with interbreeding we don't.

This is where, I think, we fundamentally disagree.  I think it is because you have some fictionalized notion that all new non-GMO cultivars are just plants that farmers happen to find in their fields.  The fact is that quite a few cultivars of plants are derived from neither direct genetic modification nor from interbreeding.  Instead, plant hormones, chemicals, and radiation exposure is commonly used to initiate random mutations that, if beneficial, are selected to produce new strains.  I can not fathom how this is "more safe" than GMO, even while I recognize that even these methods have not been shown to produce "unsafe" cultivars, though they are decades and in some cases centuries old.


Edited by JMJones0424, 22 April 2017 - 12:21 AM.


#189 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    409.44 ppm

  • Members
  • 960 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 12:30 AM

Incorrect.

The genome is relevant to what food you eat.

Your statement is ridiculous.

If I eat a mushroom, is not the genome of the mushroom relevant? Most mushrooms are toxic. Thus knowing the genome is important.

 

Instant negative effects is the key word.

It is only possible to judge the effects after studying them in a controlled setting for many years.

And if you want to talk about ethics...first of all I don't believe in sending criminals to prison. But if they are in prison, you might as well make them useful for something. If GMO's are as safe as you believe then why not test it on them.

Of course if you eat a toxic mushroom then the genome is important.  We are talking about cultivars that have been approved for human consumption and therefore, by definition, are not toxic mushrooms.  I'd appreciate it if you at least attempted to stay on topic.  There is no functional difference to you if you consume wheat rather than Round-Up ready wheat.

 

If there were instant negative effects, then the GMO crop would be instantly refused.  GMOs are studied in a controlled setting for many years.  I don't give a **** about your idea of ethics.  You seem to be advocating for biochemical testing on inmates, and I find this to be extremely inhumane.  I know GMOs are safe, as I haven't been shown evidence that they are unsafe, but I wouldn't dream of testing unknown substances on inmates simply because they are inmates.  You do realize that what you are advocating is not only inhumane but criminal, right?

 

Forget 'who's afraid of GMO's.  I'm afraid of you or people like you taking control of our food safety testing.


Edited by JMJones0424, 22 April 2017 - 12:33 AM.


#190 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 12:09 PM

Of course if you eat a toxic mushroom then the genome is important.  We are talking about cultivars that have been approved for human consumption and therefore, by definition, are not toxic mushrooms.  I'd appreciate it if you at least attempted to stay on topic.  There is no functional difference to you if you consume wheat rather than Round-Up ready wheat.

 

If there were instant negative effects, then the GMO crop would be instantly refused.  GMOs are studied in a controlled setting for many years.  I don't give a **** about your idea of ethics.  You seem to be advocating for biochemical testing on inmates, and I find this to be extremely inhumane.  I know GMOs are safe, as I haven't been shown evidence that they are unsafe, but I wouldn't dream of testing unknown substances on inmates simply because they are inmates.  You do realize that what you are advocating is not only inhumane but criminal, right?

 

Forget 'who's afraid of GMO's.  I'm afraid of you or people like you taking control of our food safety testing.

You seem to be getting emotional and heated and seem to be getting distant from logic, closer to fallacy.

 

Go back to Point 1. I made.

Point 1 is, all you are doing is saying "Hey, this gene is safe, this other gene is safe. So if we combine them, it should be safe."

That is what you are doing, everybody knows it's what you are doing, so admit that is what you are doing.

 

My second point is, I hear talk of putting genes of pig guts in oranges. Is this true or false? Because if it's true, thats a far cry from your harmless Ready wheat argument.

 

If there were instant negative effects, then the GMO crop would be instantly refused

 

Duh...which is what I said already and thus has no bearing on my argument.

Evidence of absence...you know the rest.

 

GMOs are studied in a controlled setting for many years.

 

But apparently not on humans. Why?

Social norms.
 

 

.  You do realize that what you are advocating is not only inhumane but criminal, right?

 

No, I don't. Because you seem to be emotionally whining as well as committing a fallacy.

You claim that giving inmates GMO's is criminal, but giving the entire population GMO's is not criminal and ok.

You aren't making any coherent sense.

Prison is inhumane to begin with. So saying testing prisoners is ignoring the elephant of the room.

 

 

 I'm afraid of you or people like you taking control of our food safety testing.

 

Why is this exactly? Back in the day I was the one saying Partially Hydrogenated Oils were toxic. And your beloved FDA did nothing for the matter. And you give the sacred staff to them to instead of me? Ok. No respect for all I did these past years...it literally amounts to nothing.



#191 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    409.44 ppm

  • Members
  • 960 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 03:08 AM

quickquestion- I am nothing but emotional when people spout nonsense as fact.  If you wish to address anything in my response to sanctus, you will not be committing a fallacy, just as I did not.

 

Of course what I am doing is saying that a gene that arose from random mutation and exists in a non-GMO product that is approved for human consumption is safe when placed in another species.  Everybody knows that's what I'm doing because it is the argument I am making.  What everyone doesn't know, though, is why this is a reason to "fear GMOs"?

 

i don't know of any talk of "putting genes of pig guts in oranges".  What I do know is that you lied about having consumed GMO oranges and you have yet to address either your previous lie or this new fabrication.  What I also do not know is why ""putting genes of pig guts in oranges", if those genes were already approved for human consumption, should be a problem.  What I certainly do know is that you have provided absolutely no evidence at all to support your claims, and are in fact spreading FUD.

 

If you maintain that GMOs are unsafe, for whatever reason, and advocate testing for their safety on inmates, then you are a criminal.  I am afraid of inhumane people like you because you are advocating for testing of what you believe to be unsafe or questionably safe substances on people that do not have the ability to refuse the testing.  The FDA can be wrong, and they have been shown to be wrong in the past.  Science is not infallible.  What you are proposing, though, is simply illegal and inhumane.  The US has a history of testing substances on unwitting people.  It was criminal and inhumane then, and it is inhumane and should be criminal now.

 

Absence of evidence, as proclaimed by a famous US war criminal, is not evidence of absence.  However, if you wish to claim that GMOs are unsafe, you do need to provide evidence for this claim.  It is utterly impossible to show that any new cultivar is "safe", as no one is omniscient.  All we can do is show that something is unsafe.  You have failed to show that any GMO approved for human consumption is unsafe.


Edited by JMJones0424, 24 April 2017 - 03:38 AM.


#192 billvon

billvon

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 164 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 11:39 AM

My second point is, I hear talk of putting genes of pig guts in oranges. Is this true or false? Because if it's true, thats a far cry from your harmless Ready wheat argument.

Is it true that you "hear talk?"  I have no idea what you hear.

 

Is it true that scientists are currently planning to put pig guts in oranges?  Of course not.

You claim that giving inmates GMO's is criminal, but giving the entire population GMO's is not criminal and ok.

 

Neither is criminal.  Both are OK.



#193 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 12:26 PM

quickquestion- I am nothing but emotional when people spout nonsense as fact.  If you wish to address anything in my response to sanctus, you will not be committing a fallacy, just as I did not.

 

Of course what I am doing is saying that a gene that arose from random mutation and exists in a non-GMO product that is approved for human consumption is safe when placed in another species.  Everybody knows that's what I'm doing because it is the argument I am making.  What everyone doesn't know, though, is why this is a reason to "fear GMOs"?

 

i don't know of any talk of "putting genes of pig guts in oranges".  What I do know is that you lied about having consumed GMO oranges and you have yet to address either your previous lie or this new fabrication.  What I also do not know is why ""putting genes of pig guts in oranges", if those genes were already approved for human consumption, should be a problem.  What I certainly do know is that you have provided absolutely no evidence at all to support your claims, and are in fact spreading FUD.

 

If you maintain that GMOs are unsafe, for whatever reason, and advocate testing for their safety on inmates, then you are a criminal.  I am afraid of inhumane people like you because you are advocating for testing of what you believe to be unsafe or questionably safe substances on people that do not have the ability to refuse the testing.  The FDA can be wrong, and they have been shown to be wrong in the past.  Science is not infallible.  What you are proposing, though, is simply illegal and inhumane.  The US has a history of testing substances on unwitting people.  It was criminal and inhumane then, and it is inhumane and should be criminal now.

 

Absence of evidence, as proclaimed by a famous US war criminal, is not evidence of absence.  However, if you wish to claim that GMOs are unsafe, you do need to provide evidence for this claim.  It is utterly impossible to show that any new cultivar is "safe", as no one is omniscient.  All we can do is show that something is unsafe.  You have failed to show that any GMO approved for human consumption is unsafe.

First of all, I already admitted uncertainty on the GMO orange thing, so it is you who are spreading FUD.

 

Second, I could care less what your species arbitrarily defines as criminal. I believe putting criminals in prison in the first place is inhumane and should be criminal. So what do you have to say of that? Loudest voice wins.

The entire social system is ridiculous...they can give prisoners lethal injection against their consent but giving them unsafe product is crossing the line...Ok. Come back to me when your species evolves.

 

And I read on natural news they were putting pig guts in oranges. Natural news is an iffy source, so I didn't put it to a certainty.

 

 

The genome will not make you sick.  No one cares whether the genome starts with ACTG instead of ATTG.  What IS important is the phenotype - what proteins and structures are expressed in the organism as a RESULT of the genome.

 

That is an important distinction.  You could put the entire genome of Clostridium botulinum (i.e. the organism that creates botulinum toxin) in a carrot's DNA, and as long as the key sequences in the C. Botulinum were not expressed, it would be no more dangerous than any other carrot.

 

People have been eating GMO's since 1994.  We have seen no effects in over 20 years.

It has been tested on them (and many others) for over 20 years now.

It is imposibble to see any iffy effects. Because its not a controlled experiment. America is an unhealthy nation. So how can you tell if the effects are from GMO or fatness and car exhaust? It's like throwing a penny in a black hole and trying to measure it.

 

Random mutations have been tested over the years through natural selection. For instance, poison ivy and mushrooms, we know to be toxic because of long term generational experiments. Random mutations have never been tested without the long term process of generational natural selections. It is one of the inconvenient things of the world.



#194 billvon

billvon

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 164 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 10:54 PM


And I read on natural news they were putting pig guts in oranges. Natural news is an iffy source, so I didn't put it to a certainty.

Cool; now you know better.

 

It is imposibble to see any iffy effects. Because its not a controlled experiment. America is an unhealthy nation. So how can you tell if the effects are from GMO or fatness and car exhaust? It's like throwing a penny in a black hole and trying to measure it.

 

Random mutations have been tested over the years through natural selection. For instance, poison ivy and mushrooms, we know to be toxic because of long term generational experiments. Random mutations have never been tested without the long term process of generational natural selections. It is one of the inconvenient things of the world.

 

So it's impossible to test foods without a controlled experiment.  But random mutations have been tested without it being a controlled experiment because they have been around for a long time.

 

GMO's have been around at least 20 years.  They, like artificial hybrids, have stood the test of time - and with every year that passes with no demonstrable problems, that demonstration of safety becomes stronger.



#195 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:46 AM

Cool; now you know better.

So it's impossible to test foods without a controlled experiment.  But random mutations have been tested without it being a controlled experiment because they have been around for a long time.

 

GMO's have been around at least 20 years.  They, like artificial hybrids, have stood the test of time - and with every year that passes with no demonstrable problems, that demonstration of safety becomes stronger.

Again, I will repeat my same argument.

Other random mutations have been tested upon generations upon generations.

 

Also, it is not possible for GMO's to exhibit any demonstratable problems in the way you test it. You just fling them out into society, and society is so sick and unhealthy to begin with, you can't tell whether GMO's made them sicker, or did not make them sicker. There is no way to tell.



#196 billvon

billvon

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 164 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:09 PM

Other random mutations have been tested upon generations upon generations.

 

Also, it is not possible for GMO's to exhibit any demonstratable problems in the way you test it. You just fling them out into society, and society is so sick and unhealthy to begin with, you can't tell whether GMO's made them sicker, or did not make them sicker. There is no way to tell.

You keep saying two different things.

 

1) If you wait long enough food becomes tested because it's been eaten for generations and we would have seen the problems.

2) There's no possible way to test food by just eating it for generations because we couldn't see the problems.

 

And how do you know that random mutations aren't bad?  Maybe all the pancreatic cancer we've ever seen is caused by the random mutations in organic lettuce.  We just fling lettuce out into society, and society is so sick and unhealthy to begin with, you can't tell whether lettuce gave them pancreatic cancer, or did not give them cancer. There is no way to tell.