The Pros and Cons of Genetically Engineered Food

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by S.A.M., Jun 13, 2008.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    I was assuming your were ignorant, just that you are.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Why should a naturally occurring substance in the body reduce concern over it?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    I noticed how you reworded what I said. See if you can go back and notice the change you made and as an exercise in critical thinking you can figure out how the change you made is an important one.

    Why does it being a substance that naturally occurs in the body reduce the range of concerns?

    Because the issue is toxic levels, not simply presence. It reduces the number of issues. I never said natural substances can do not harm or L tryp was OK because it was a natural substance, etc. Must feel good to make a strawman to be smug about than actually read the links that address some of your claims.

    One of the reasons so many doctors, for example, were shocked that L-tryp. got the blame was because the levels of this, yes, substance that naturally is present in the body were not that high. If it had been a substance that did not naturally occur in the body, you have a wider range of possible issues. With L-tryp. if the L-tryp. levels are not higher than normal, something else is the problem. Period. With benzene or plutonium, for example, mere presence is enough to consider it the root of a problem. And, as I made clear before I wanted readers who did not realize it was a naturally occuring substance to assume otherwise.


    And there is no need to call me ignorant. I am not and this is rather obvious. I notice nothing in your posts to back up your theories about the source of the problem in the L-tryp case. I notice a dearth of support for your side of things in general. No links. Just statements of opinion presented as facts. Then concerns that my links are biased, without any evidence that the points made in these links are incorrect.

    I have no idea if you have read any scientific papers, articles, biased or otherwise. You refuse to directly address the issues raised in the links and the use of emoticons and insults are hardly a substitute.

    The last link I provided above directly addresses concerned and objections you had earlier, but rather than reading it, you choose one small portion of what I wrote and try to get as much milage via ad hom as you can.

    You strike me as neither well read in the subject or particularly rational. You have a lot invested in this issue, though the reasons for that are not clear.

    I don't respect you and I am adding you to my ignore list. That way you can continue to play to the gallery, which seems to be all you are doing now. Then I don't have to pretend you actually have an open or rational take on the issue and waste energy responding to you.

    You also write with fairly poor grammar for someone calling other people ignorant.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Simon Anders,

    They never determined the dosage people got EMS had, if you notice many people ingested the product with out ill side effects. I have present evidence that the points made in the article are incorrect, you just simply ignore them.

    Many substance in the body occur naturally and even at their dosage they are bad for us.

    I don't care how you feel about me, that not the issue, you can feel what ever about me and I you. By the way, quality of writing means nothing about ignorance, just that I'm a poor writer and if you want to know my stakes on this I have made that clear in my profile.

    HAHA! I win! I consider it a victory on my part when someone ignores me, I would never ignore anyone.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Most offspring of rats fed Round Up REady Soy died within three weeks
    http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/120.pdf

    This was in a controlled study where other rats were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. This busts all the BS about gm foods being 'the same' somehow. Somehow the scientists making these life forms think that they can control the effects of splicing in genes, but causal dynamics at the genetic level are vastly more complicated than they can control.

    Does such a study mean that humans eating soy will give birth to dying children? Obviously not. But it clearly points out that genetic foods may be dangerous to mammals like us and including us in ways that are not easy to track AND MAY AFFECT SECOND GENERATIONS. Effects that will take much longer in humans.

    Genetically modified foods have entered the food market at extremely rapid rates, especially considering the lack of careful oversight.
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Dr Ermakovas runs contrary to other studies [http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...erid=10&md5=a043e2ac39763316e1f07e32a8bbdc3b] and as yet her results have not been replicated in other studies.

    I could make a study that claims cold fusion has been achieved, are you going to believe it or at least wait for the result to be replicated by another?

    I will accept your lack of a reply to me specifically as admission that I'm right

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2008
  9. ronan Only Consciousness Exists Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    433
    you again come back to this, I told you, for me everything is natural.

    What I say is that information should be there. I bet GMO would not be spread as it is spread now if people knew what it is. Same for some organic food as you mentioned or pesticide.
     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    I don't care what you believe, we are not arguing on the philosophical nature of natural, if we were I would point out again that your definition does not allow "synthetic" to exist, it like saying their is no dogs, coyotes and wolfs just Canis.

    the organic label has no informed people of the organic industry's use of pesticides, so I so no reason for simple labels.
     
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    this was a sales pitch by GM suppliers but as far as I know, no GM crops are actually high yield (if you have an evidence that they are, I would like to see it)
    not only developing countries
    I recall one incident of a (first world) non GM farmer who had GM crops carry through from a next door neighbors property and being taken to court by the company for violating patenting rights

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    we do know that given the choice between eating GM and non GM things, animals naturally prefer to go for the non GM
    also a few suggestions that herbicide forming grains can continue to produce herbicides in our intestine
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey12.htm
    actually its a brainchild of a monsanto think tank on how to secure the market


    more discussed here
    what's wrong with GMO's
     
  12. ronan Only Consciousness Exists Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    433
    Synthetic is what is made only by humans and their machines.
    It is a blur concept.

    Natural is often opposed to synthetic but it has also the meaning of being from nature as a whole.
    As such humans and human's constructions are also natural.

    Better than nothing but Iagree , as I said we should remove it, instead we should put on the product which peticide, which method of fertilization.. have been used.
     

Share This Page