Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-07-2014, 12:39 PM   #1 (permalink)
be excellent 2 each other
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 32,650
Default GMOs

Couldn't find a thread on the subject without an incredibly biased OP in either direction so I made a new one.

What's your position on GMOs? Good? Bad? Evil? Great? Super evil? Like really super evil? Really good?

Your thoughts, post em.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 01:01 PM   #2 (permalink)
Toasted Poster
 
Chula Vista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 11,010
Default

I'd rather talk about GTOs.

__________________
General Rules:
• While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks, trolling, purposeless inflammatory posts or members deliberately provoking another member into committing any of these acts. - Mods exempt.
Chula Vista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 01:57 PM   #3 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,888
Default

Giant Tranny Orgies? Sounds awesome.

On topic: I'm not very knowledgeable about the topic, but from what little I do know I'm against it. With a quick google search I found this: Institute for Responsible Technology - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

I can't speak for it's accuracy but if those are facts and not biased propaganda, I only need a couple things out of that list to make my decision pretty easy.

Edit: I don't have a problem with the concept of genetic modification, but those side effects on that list are just not worth it to me.
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
I'd vote for Trump

Last edited by DwnWthVwls; 12-07-2014 at 02:11 PM.
DwnWthVwls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 02:29 PM   #4 (permalink)
be excellent 2 each other
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 32,650
Default

I'm thinking it's leaning towards propaganda. It's posted by an organization that is led by this man: Jeffrey Smith | Academics Review.

I'm not going to run through every point on the list, but for the first one, it suggests that health risks have increased with use of GMOs, when in reality that's confounded by new definitions of things like autism widening the umbrella for more things that it covers. So that number isn't actually increasing, the diagnoses are since they're being more inclusive. From what I've read, there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed study of GMOs showing that they have any negative health effects. Each GMO is studied intensively and has to pass through rigorous FDA regulations to even make it to the market. If there was any significant link between a GMO and cancer/autism/whatever, the FDA wouldn't approve it and it would be pretty stupid for the company to continue to distribute it.

Another one on there saying that mixing genes from different animals is a load of hooey too. Every living creature is made of the same DNA, and taking DNA from bacteria and putting it into corn isn't going to confuse the corn's genes in the same way that if you copy and paste the word "and" from Mein Kampf in an essay on religious tolerance in a word processor.

I'd really like to see their sources on their information, because some of them are outright lies like the government oversight being lax.

If you haven't noticed yet I'm pretty pro-GMO. I think the anti-GMO movement is really just based in fear-mongering and naturalist bias (i.e. chemicals and science=evil, so chow down on that hemlock, it's all natural). Because of things like strict regulations on the GMOs, it really only allows large corporations to be able to afford to put their products on the market, so there's the factor of disdain towards corporations in the anti-GMO field (Monsanto comes to mind). Really, we've been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years through artificial selection. Without genetic modification, that fruit you're eating would be bitter and full of seeds, your puppy wouldn't be so goddamned adorable, and you'd be chewing on grass when you eat corn with your steak. Science has just come up with ways to speed up the process without the arduous process of continuing to select for ideal traits in artificial selection (and natural selection to a degree, but that doesn't really apply to agriculture).

Here's a good article from an accredited source: Core Truths: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked | Popular Science
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 04:35 PM   #5 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
William_the_Bloody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sunnydale Cemetary
Posts: 2,093
Default

Unfortunately I work too much these days to educate myself on political issues, so I guess it depends upon the credible evidence surrounding the health & legal consequences of GMO's and the corporations that produce them.

I assumed that there was a definite connection between GMO's and cancer? (ie the study that came out of France with mice that were fed genetically modified grain, and developed tumours as a result) Was this debunked?

If there is even a probable link, I think that products that have GMO's in them should be labeled in the supermarket here in North America as they are in Europe. I have a right to know what I am putting into my body. (So many foods have GMO ingrediants from Kit Kat & Diary Milk bars to Ruffles potato chips, ect ect)

On the other hand, if there is no direct link between cancer and GMO's than it is a great way to bring down food costs globally, which is great for us, our pocketbooks, and retirement savings.

Finally there is the issue of GMO seeds spreading to local farms & taking over or damaging their crops. If your corn seed pollinates on my soil I shouldn't be sued for harvesting them under intellectual property rights.

In the end, I believe that the science should determine the politics of GMO's, not corporate profit, or environmental ideologues, I know this is a lot to ask though.
William_the_Bloody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 05:33 PM   #6 (permalink)
be excellent 2 each other
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 32,650
Default

That rat cancer paper has been retracted after it didn't stand up to peer review. As for the cross pollination, it doesn't really affect neighbouring farms. There hasn't been a single case where a farmer has been sued due to cross pollination. Any cross pollination that would occur would be so miniscule that it would be difficult to notice. The case of Schmeiser, the famous intellectual property rights case with Monsanto, was not the product of cross pollinating. 95 percent of his crops had the anti-herbicide gene, which makes cross pollination out of the question as it can affect up to 5% of crops and that's being generous.

This post is sponsored by Monsanto Company.

There are swaths of misinformation about GMOs out there. I live in California so I get to see the worst of the ignorance.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.


Last edited by Frownland; 12-07-2014 at 05:44 PM.
Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 06:03 PM   #7 (permalink)
not really
 
Sparky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,218
Default

you have the whole wheat gluten debacle

I read recently that sucralose causes lymphonia in rats at extremely high doses.

The way they test GMO's does not adequately reflect the effects of long term consumption. GMO's may not produce any negative effects in clinical trials but I don't know if that necessarily translates to long-term.

We're the same nation that previously thought cigarette smoking, high alcohol consumption and fast food were okay.
Sparky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 06:18 PM   #8 (permalink)
be excellent 2 each other
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 32,650
Default

^That last line is hardly an equivalent to the GMO field. Also

http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsr...-food-studies/
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 06:31 PM   #9 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 5,888
Default

That's hardly long term... Also, just wanted to point out that plenty of things have been deemed safe initially and then years later pulled because of effects that were not previously recognized.

We'll just have to wait and see the effects 10-20 years from now. I don't see GMOs going away any time soon.
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
I'd vote for Trump
DwnWthVwls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 06:32 PM   #10 (permalink)
be excellent 2 each other
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 32,650
Default

They've been around for thirty years though.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2020 Advameg, Inc.