GMO foods a good thing or bad?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by river, Nov 27, 2012.

  1. typical animal Registered Member

    My god there are a lot of idiots here.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    I ask again , what is your authority ?

    Who are you that gives the comments that you do ?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yep. Some days seems like everyone is an idiot except you.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Lady Elizabeth Registered Member

    Us Brits simply adore GM food, even our 100% beef burgers contain 90% horse.
  8. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    You have answered by repeating claims, not by explaining or substantiating them. You've said over and over that changing our food is bad, but you haven't said how or when we will see negative consequences or exactly what they will be, just that it is obvious to you. Well I'm sorry to break it to you, but you are in a small minority. The vast majority of people eat GM food and the vast majority of scientists think they are a good thing. You and iceaura apparently think all of these people are idiots and you are the smart ones, but you can't even articulate what you think is wrong and iceaura is actually posting evidence against his point and saying it agrees with him! Here's a small sample of your claims:
    Frankly, to me this just sounds like fear of the unknown. You don't know what is happening so you are afraid that it will be bad even though you have no reason to believe it. That's the same reason people are afraid of flying! You assume change is bad, but you don't know why, which is why you haven't articulated it, you're just repeating this vague claim over ad over again.

    The best explanation I see is this:
    The problems with this are:
    1. The changes aren't random.
    2. Yes, the consequences are known. They are tested!

    And in any case, you aren't saying explicitly what you think those consequences are. Just saying "integrity" is not an explanation.

    What you have here is just fear of the unknown (to you). You don't have any evidence and you are treating your lack of evidence as evidence. We don't know all possible consequences (which is true), therefore you believe that those consequences will be bad (which does not follow logically).
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2013
  9. river

    Now russ the consequences are NOT known , and they have NOT been tested

    This is disingenuous on your part
  10. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    They have been, are being and will continue to be tested.

    You've misinterpreted my post by thinking it is binary. Common problem here. Typical animal said we have "little clue", which is wrong. We have a lot of clue. We know an awful lot about the consequences. But I also said explicitly that "we don't know all possible consequences". Just most of them (for GM foods that have been invented, of course). Even though you quoted that, you apparently didn't see it.
  11. typical animal Registered Member

    river, if you know a word like disingenuous, I think you should also be aware of words like "integrity" and look them up if you see a person using them in ways you're not familiar with. For example today I learned what "curmudgeonly" meant.... I was vaguely familiar with it before but did not know. I have no choice but to flip out if I can't even use words like that and other people fallaciously trying to "correct" it, and honestly, it's not at all in any way an unusual meaning for the word "integrity".
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Such yields cannot be ascribed to the genetic engineering. If they could be ascribed to the GM we would not know if they were long term or reliable. If they had been ascribed to the GM and shown to be reliable long term we would not know they were worth the price in ecological damage, medical risk, economic dependency, and political exclusion from power. And so forth.

    That's not possible. We don't even know yet what all to test for - the situation is too new, and we have too little experience with anything like this stuff.

    To the extent we can foresee problems and evaluate risks, such as pest resistance to Bt making that valuable insecticide worthless and the farmer's newmade dependence on multinational agribusiness a liability, our tests show that trouble is brewing on schedule.

    To the extent that we have some idea of the depth of our ignorance, such as the ecological ramifications of this code being packaged for easier transfer and broadcast in huge quantities via monocultures, we are getting nervous.

    The most obvious factor is that there hasn't been enough time for the kind of conservative, careful approach ten thousand years of experience has taught us is appropriate for wholesale changes in our community food supply. There hasn't even been enough time for ordinary research if it were in progress and in public as it should be.

    There is no safety in ignorance. Ecologically, we are launching radical innovations of unknown consequence that are self-replicating and self spreading and irreversible. Economically we are creating nation-scale food dependency on a handful of multinational agribusiness concerns and fossil fuel suppliers, while engaged in destroying any possibility of fallback technology and emergency agricultural resource bases. Medically we are introducing several different new factors into essentially everyone's diet, with less than half a generation of consumption experience for any of them. And so forth.

Share This Page