What do you think about GMOs? - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 30Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 08-24-2014, 04:17 PM
Newbie
 
Edumcg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Guatemala :)
Posts: 35
Smile What do you think about GMOs?

Hello, I don't know if this has been asked before but I wanted to know what are your thoughts on GMOs? Do you think they are good, bad, don't care? Are there any misconceptions about this food or should we avoid them?
I've read some articles that say they are bad and some that say they are harmless. I will be grateful if you could provide a source link

Have a good day everyone!
Edumcg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 08-24-2014, 09:39 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
The problems I have with GMOs relate to economics and intellectual property. I don't believe a seed or a species of plant should be anyone's intellectual property. Not just philosophically, but also because it hurts farmers and it's just another thing widening the gap between the wealthiest and the poor.

As for health.. According to wiki, which I usually find pretty reliable:

Quote:
there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from such crops poses no greater risk than conventional food
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic...versies#Health

They provide eight sources for that statement, which I have not followed, but they also elaborate on it in the text of the article, mentioning organizations such as American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Medical Association, National Academies of the Sciences, Royal Society of Medicine and the European Commission. Of course there could be unforseen risks, but personally I'm perfectly comfortable eating GMOs as far as health concerns go.
Move of Ten is offline  
#3 Old 08-25-2014, 10:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 208
I'd say don't eat them, there isn't enough information yet to show if they are healthy or not. They are pretty new and studies take time.

Why risk it?
Diesel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 08-25-2014, 10:23 PM
 
seedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 160
I don't pay attention to what organizations have to say. They are funded and chaired by big business honchos. It's not that anyone is specifically out to get us. It's just that business and profits come first.

It's hard to get real facts from reading journalistic articles and such. There are way too many biased and slanted opinions on both sides of the fence. There's also too much incomplete data being touted as cut and dried fact.

If you want to make a truly informed opinion, read the research data firsthand, not what someone tells you the data says, then read the professional peer reviews from both sides. This allows you to see where there are flaws and holes in the research methods and interpretations.

Two people might read the same data and come up with two entirely different opinions on acceptable risks, but at least it's well formed on concrete facts.

As far as I'm concerned, there's enough evidence of risks to keep me from eating GMOs. I know others that feel certain benefits outweigh the risks. But the risks are definitely there despite what some people tell you. It's just up to you to decide if you want to take that risk.
scwendy, Edumcg and Diesel like this.
seedgirl is offline  
#5 Old 08-25-2014, 11:11 PM
Super Moderator
 
danakscully64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 34,591
I'm a believer in science, I am not afraid of GMO food.



danakscully64 is offline  
#6 Old 08-25-2014, 11:29 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel
I'd say don't eat them, there isn't enough information yet to show if they are healthy or not. They are pretty new and studies take time.

Why risk it?
Relatively new I guess, but they've been in the marketplace since the 90s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seedgirl View Post
I don't pay attention to what organizations have to say. They are funded and chaired by big business honchos. It's not that anyone is specifically out to get us. It's just that business and profits come first.
If you look at the positions of scientific organizations and the conclusions of government funded commissions on global warming, they virtually all conclude that it's happening and that it's being caused by co2 emissions, despite these conclusions being against the interests of the fossil fuels industry. Seven of the ten biggest companies in the world (by revenue) are oil and gas companies. So I don't believe that these scientific and medical organizations are reaching conclusions designed to benefit businesses, especially when there is a broad consensus. Issues such as pollution and tobacco have shown this not to be the case.

Quote:
It's hard to get real facts from reading journalistic articles and such. There are way too many biased and slanted opinions on both sides of the fence. There's also too much incomplete data being touted as cut and dried fact.

If you want to make a truly informed opinion, read the research data firsthand, not what someone tells you the data says, then read the professional peer reviews from both sides. This allows you to see where there are flaws and holes in the research methods and interpretations.
I agree, the best way to reach an informed opinion would be to study the research firsthand. It also helps to have some basic knowledge of statistics and research methods. However, a lot of people aren't going to have the willingness to put in that much time/effort. It would be impractical to do this for every potential health issue. For me, it's enough that reputable scientific and medical organizations across different countries have looked at the data and found no compelling evidence of harm. But I respect those who are willing to delve into the science and actually read the relevant studies. I also respect the views of those who don't wish to consume GMOs. I have no problem with things being labelled so people can decide for themselves.

Last edited by Move of Ten; 08-25-2014 at 11:32 PM.
Move of Ten is offline  
#7 Old 08-25-2014, 11:30 PM
 
seedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 160
What do pro GMO people think of ingesting pesticides? GMO soy and corn were found to have extremely high levels of the pesticides they were created to resist. What do you think that does to our bodies and our health?

Also, what about the environmental concerns of pesticides massively killing off the honey bee population. Guess how many crops aren't going to be pollinated when we no longer have the bees.
The Mighty D likes this.
seedgirl is offline  
#8 Old 08-25-2014, 11:52 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
If you look at the positions of scientific organizations and the conclusions of government funded commissions on global warming, they virtually all conclude that it's happening and that it's being caused by co2 emissions, despite these conclusions being against the interests of the fossil fuels industry. Seven of the ten biggest companies in the world (by revenue) are oil and gas companies. So I don't believe that these scientific and medical organizations are reaching conclusions designed to benefit businesses, especially when there is a broad consensus. Issues such as pollution and tobacco have shown this not to be the case.
They don't have to. Most everybody thinks global warming is bad... But oil prices continue to rise and people keep buying gas. Why would they care?

And just because it doesn't happen in one instance doesn't mean it can't in others... Look at the US political system. Lobbyism. It is basically legal bribery to get laws passed for the highest bidder.

Goldman Sachs gets a 10 Billion dollar govt bailout... then outsources 1,000 american jobs to singapore. So much for American companies helping out America... Right?
Then GM gets around 50 Billion, then says they will not be able to pay back the money. And they aren't in trouble for it?

Corporate corruption is a real thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post
I'm a believer in science, I am not afraid of GMO food.
And like seedgirl said, alot of big businesses are on the GMO profit train. Ever heard of Monsanto? They are pure evil when it comes to corporate corruption. Also the biggest player in the GMO scene. Whats to stop them from slipping a few million to a scientific study to sway the results?

But looking at the world in rose colored glasses... Lets say a company like Monsanto is completely honest and doesn't care if scientific studies say GMOs are bad...

Science isn't always right. Until last year, we used to think that the speed of light was the fastest speed possible. Not anymore.
So it isn't wise to just accept current science as 100% true facts all the time.

Go with nature, GMO isn't natural. Doesn't really benefit my health, it only makes more $ for big bizz.. Why risk it?

Good enough reasons for me...
The Mighty D likes this.

Last edited by Diesel; 08-26-2014 at 12:02 AM.
Diesel is offline  
#9 Old 08-26-2014, 12:05 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 208
BTW, Monsanto was the same company that said Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe.

Now they say GMOs are safe.

Nuff said.
The Mighty D likes this.
Diesel is offline  
#10 Old 08-26-2014, 05:48 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel View Post
They don't have to. Most everybody thinks global warming is bad...
No, they don't. A large percentage of the public thinks that man made global warming is not real or that the science isn't settled. This is mainly due to bad journalism and politicization of the issue.

Quote:
But oil prices continue to rise and people keep buying gas. Why would they care?
They do care. There was a leaked memo by a major oil company revealing plans to try to raise doubts about the issue in the minds of the public. Whether it was by their designs or not, this is what happened. And the government has tended to side with big business on the issue too, although not 100%. The point is, the scientific consensus and the positions of reputable scientific organizations have still gone contrary to the wishes of the oil and gas industry.

Quote:
And just because it doesn't happen in one instance doesn't mean it can't in others... Look at the US political system. Lobbyism. It is basically legal bribery to get laws passed for the highest bidder.

Goldman Sachs gets a 10 Billion dollar govt bailout... then outsources 1,000 american jobs to singapore. So much for American companies helping out America... Right?
Then GM gets around 50 Billion, then says they will not be able to pay back the money. And they aren't in trouble for it?

Corporate corruption is a real thing.
This is government you're talking about. I'm talking about science.

Quote:
And like seedgirl said, alot of big businesses are on the GMO profit train. Ever heard of Monsanto? They are pure evil when it comes to corporate corruption. Also the biggest player in the GMO scene. Whats to stop them from slipping a few million to a scientific study to sway the results?
For one thing, it would be extremely risky. There's a good chance something like that would leak. For another thing, changing the results of a single study wouldn't help them that much. If other studies contradicted that study then it would be thrown into doubt. So they would have to bribe numerous labs across numerous countries and hope they didn't get caught. An unlikely proposition and not something the tobacco or oil and gas companies dared to try. This despite oil and gas being a considerably more powerful industry than agriculture.

Quote:
But looking at the world in rose colored glasses... Lets say a company like Monsanto is completely honest and doesn't care if scientific studies say GMOs are bad...
Who said anything like that?

Quote:
Science isn't always right. Until last year, we used to think that the speed of light was the fastest speed possible. Not anymore.
No, it's still considered the fasted speed possible. If you're referring to the OPERA experiment, they had flaws with their equipment set-up.

Quote:
So it isn't wise to just accept current science as 100% true facts all the time.
Nothing can be known for certain. However, science is a much better gauge of truth than pure speculation.

Quote:
Go with nature, GMO isn't natural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Quote:
Doesn't really benefit my health, it only makes more $ for big bizz.. Why risk it?

Good enough reasons for me...
Well that's fine. I'm not saying you personally should consume GMOs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel View Post
BTW, Monsanto was the same company that said Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe.

Now they say GMOs are safe.

Nuff said.
That's faulty reasoning. If Monsanto said oxygen was safe would you stop breathing air?
danakscully64 likes this.
Move of Ten is offline  
#11 Old 08-26-2014, 06:06 PM
 
frrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 66
We need GMOs to bioengineer crops to feed starving people in parts of the world where it's impossible to grow food, in part thanks to a climate ruined by over-industrialized countries like the US. A vicious cycle. Rich people whine about stuff like GMOs and free range meat while the third world cries out for a survivable strain of rice or corn.

However, given that most of the crops in the US go to feeding livestock, going vegan and buying organic is one way to do your part to avoid supporting a shadowy conglomerate like Monsanto. But in general, some scientists are attempting to do good and important things with GMOs.
frrt is offline  
#12 Old 08-26-2014, 06:33 PM
Newbie
 
Edumcg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Guatemala :)
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
The problems I have with GMOs relate to economics and intellectual property. I don't believe a seed or a species of plant should be anyone's intellectual property. Not just philosophically, but also because it hurts farmers and it's just another thing widening the gap between the wealthiest and the poor.
Yeah that's what worries me. Here where I live the goverment just approved a law that can send people to jail from 4 to 10 years if they found that person was planting GMOs in their garden. Also they can send farmers to prision if they don't plant GMOs. This allows companies like Monsanto to take over our agriculture system. They said they approved this law because of the free trade agreement we have with the US. So it's generating a lot of conflict between people and the goverment, even though they said they were going to recheck this law. Nothing has been done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seedgirl View Post
I don't pay attention to what organizations have to say. They are funded and chaired by big business honchos. It's not that anyone is specifically out to get us. It's just that business and profits come first.

It's hard to get real facts from reading journalistic articles and such. There are way too many biased and slanted opinions on both sides of the fence. There's also too much incomplete data being touted as cut and dried fact.
I never thought of that, you have a good point
Quote:
Originally Posted by danakscully64 View Post
I'm a believer in science, I am not afraid of GMO food.
Thank you for your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frrt View Post
We need GMOs to bioengineer crops to feed starving people in parts of the world where it's impossible to grow food, in part thanks to a climate ruined by over-industrialized countries like the US. A vicious cycle. Rich people whine about stuff like GMOs and free range meat while the third world cries out for a survivable strain of rice or corn.

However, given that most of the crops in the US go to feeding livestock, going vegan and buying organic is one way to do your part to avoid supporting a shadowy conglomerate like Monsanto. But in general, some scientists are attempting to do good and important things with GMOs.
You're impartial, I like that. We could feed everyone in the world if we could limit the amount of meat they consume but because that's not happening I think GMOs are good if they are going to feed poor people.... I just wish they could stop forcing us to plant them.
Diesel likes this.
Edumcg is offline  
#13 Old 09-01-2014, 01:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 208
Two can play at this game...


Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
No, they don't. A large percentage of the public thinks that man made global warming is not real or that the science isn't settled. This is mainly due to bad journalism and politicization of the issue.
Regardless, even people who think global warming isn't a lie still buy and use oil products like the rest of us.
Oil isn't going anywhere and oil companies know it. GMOs on the other hand.....

Quote:
They do care. There was a leaked memo by a major oil company revealing plans to try to raise doubts about the issue in the minds of the public. Whether it was by their designs or not, this is what happened. And the government has tended to side with big business on the issue too, although not 100%. The point is, the scientific consensus and the positions of reputable scientific organizations have still gone contrary to the wishes of the oil and gas industry.
Who cares?
People care? I doubt they even know. Was there a big news piece on this? Nope.
Govt cares? Why did they side with big business?
So a few organizations are not siding with oil and gas industries. The rest are bought out and paid for.
What effect does this have when somebody researches and finds two opposing viewpoints? Both "reputable" sources?

Quote:
This is government you're talking about. I'm talking about science.
"Science" isn't some infallible force that is unable to be manipulated.
An organization can easily give false information out and people will believe it in the name of science.

If big business has the government in their pockets, how does some scientific organization stand a chance? Where do you think they get their funding?

Quote:
For one thing, it would be extremely risky. There's a good chance something like that would leak. For another thing, changing the results of a single study wouldn't help them that much. If other studies contradicted that study then it would be thrown into doubt. So they would have to bribe numerous labs across numerous countries and hope they didn't get caught. An unlikely proposition and not something the tobacco or oil and gas companies dared to try. This despite oil and gas being a considerably more powerful industry than agriculture.
Risky? Hah, Not even.
The docs on Monsanto corruption are already leaked on websites like wikileaks. What does it change? Who cares? Nothing and nobody.

I'm sorry, but you have this notion that if big organizations do something bad... and get caught.. They will be in trouble and pay the consequences. Oh how I wish the world operated like this...

Quote:
No, it's still considered the fasted speed possible. If you're referring to the OPERA experiment, they had flaws with their equipment set-up.
Ok.
The point was that just because science says something is, doesn't mean it is so.
I could easily go find another example of a widely accepted theory that was recently disproven. If you want to argue, argue against my point.

Quote:
Nothing can be known for certain. However, science is a much better gauge of truth than pure speculation.
And I would say a bit of skepticism is a far safer way of thinking than just believing whatever people tell you. How do you know the results you hear are true and not altered for certain agendas?

If somebody has alot to gain from certain information being true... It is best to play it safe.

Oh please. I'd trust nature over MONSANTO any day.

Quote:
Well that's fine. I'm not saying you personally should consume GMOs.
Ok great? Why not argue against my points instead of cherry picking inconsequential things to respond to?
Its like me responding to your OPERA experiment with just "Fastest*". Does that create meaningful discussion or just me trying to shoot down your posts as efficiently as possible?

Quote:
That's faulty reasoning. If Monsanto said oxygen was safe would you stop breathing air?
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/Red...d-Absurdum.htm
Also:
Not faulty at all. I was establishing Monsanto as being an unreliable source, that has a record of saying dangerous things are safe. There is really no way to refute that (besides logical fallacies ).






Heres some stuff for you:
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/
http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-prot...vision-1156079
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizab...b_3921968.html

Proof:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c113kE11X8::

TL;DR: Speaking about a bill that "effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future."

Correct thought process:
  • This bill does not seem to have the best interests of the people in mind. In what possible way does preventing courts from stopping something harmful.. Benefit anybody?? Wait a second.. Yeah, doesn't take a genius to figure this one out.
  • If GMOs are so safe... Why would a bill like this even be passed? What are they worried about? Do they know something we don't?
  • If the GMO lobby has this kind of power... I'd have to be really naive to think my little scientific journals are free from corruption .

Last edited by Diesel; 09-01-2014 at 02:21 AM.
Diesel is offline  
#14 Old 09-01-2014, 06:04 PM
Bracing for snow
 
ilikekale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 489
I'm not getting into the fray, but I'll just say I'm not going to knowingly eat GMOs. Period.

Ken
leedsveg, scwendy and The Mighty D like this.
ilikekale is offline  
#15 Old 09-02-2014, 01:26 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikekale View Post
I'm not getting into the fray, but I'll just say I'm not going to knowingly eat GMOs. Period.

Ken
Same with me Ken.

Lv
leedsveg is offline  
#16 Old 09-07-2014, 04:09 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel View Post
"Science" isn't some infallible force that is unable to be manipulated.
An organization can easily give false information out and people will believe it in the name of science.
For example?

Quote:
If big business has the government in their pockets, how does some scientific organization stand a chance? Where do you think they get their funding?
I've already given some reasons why I don't think corruption is a big issue in science.

Quote:
Risky? Hah, Not even.
The docs on Monsanto corruption are already leaked on websites like wikileaks. What does it change? Who cares? Nothing and nobody.
The docs that revealed what exactly...?

Quote:
Ok great? Why not argue against my points instead of cherry picking inconsequential things to respond to?
Tell me which point/s you want me to respond to that I haven't and I'll do so.

Quote:
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/Red...d-Absurdum.htm
Also:
Not faulty at all. I was establishing Monsanto as being an unreliable source, that has a record of saying dangerous things are safe. There is really no way to refute that (besides logical fallacies ).
Whoever said that Monsanto is a reliable source? My source was scientific organizations and commissions from around the world, not Monsanto.

Quote:
Heres some stuff for you:
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/
http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-prot...vision-1156079
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizab...b_3921968.html

Proof:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c113kE11X8::

TL;DR: Speaking about a bill that "effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future."

Correct thought process:
  • This bill does not seem to have the best interests of the people in mind. In what possible way does preventing courts from stopping something harmful.. Benefit anybody?? Wait a second.. Yeah, doesn't take a genius to figure this one out.
  • If GMOs are so safe... Why would a bill like this even be passed? What are they worried about? Do they know something we don't?
My best guess would be that they just want to play it safe.

Quote:
  • If the GMO lobby has this kind of power... I'd have to be really naive to think my little scientific journals are free from corruption .
The power of industries to influence bills is nothing new and there is plenty of precedent for it. The power of industries to change international scientific consensus is not something that I'm aware of a precedent for, even though there have been situations in the past where it would have benefited them.
Move of Ten is offline  
#17 Old 09-14-2014, 12:55 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 208
Wait, what? Did you understand what the bill says?

How are they "playing it safe" if they make it illegal to ban GMOs, even if they are proven to be dangerous in the future?
For what reason would you want to make something unbannable no matter how bad it gets?
This bill is literally to just protect GMOs no matter what, to make the corporate interests more profits, even after news of their dangers leak out. Period.

If big corp/industries can influence The United States of America like this, what makes you think some scientific papers stand a chance to be incorruptible? I can't make it any more simple than that. Nothing is incorruptible, don't be naive.

But I'm done talking about GMOs, eat them if you want.. Support them if you want. Don't care at this point anymore.

But just blindly believing something because some people say so is foolish.
And eating GMOs is an unwise decision.

Last edited by Diesel; 09-14-2014 at 03:03 PM.
Diesel is offline  
#18 Old 09-14-2014, 03:48 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel View Post
Wait, what? Did you understand what the bill says?

How are they "playing it safe" if they make it illegal to ban GMOs, even if they are proven to be dangerous in the future?
For what reason would you want to make something unbannable no matter how bad it gets?
This bill is literally to just protect GMOs no matter what, to make the corporate interests more profits, even after news of their dangers leak out. Period.
By "playing it safe" I meant protecting their financial interests in the case that any health issues actually do turn out to be associated with GMOs.

Quote:
If big corp/industries can influence The United States of America like this, what makes you think some scientific papers stand a chance to be incorruptible? I can't make it any more simple than that. Nothing is incorruptible, don't be naive.
I think I've already explained my reasoning on this. I'm not saying scientific consensus is absolutely 100% incorruptible, I'm saying I consider it unlikely.

Quote:
But just blindly believing something because some people say so is foolish.
If by "some people" you mean general scientific consensus then I do form many of my beliefs this way. You can call it "blind", but pretty much all our beliefs about the world other than those we can directly confirm for ourselves are because "some people say so".
Move of Ten is offline  
#19 Old 09-14-2014, 03:58 PM
Bracing for snow
 
ilikekale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 489
Interesting thing I was reading recently. Turns out "most" of the issues with GMOs may actually not be that they are modified, but what we do to them (can do to them) because they are. Things like spraying them with roundup because they will survive it and the weeds (until recently) would not. Working theory is it's the glycophosphate in the foods, not the foods themselves that is the issue. Recent studies have looked at this in wheat. Rather than being sensitive to gluten, it's entirely possible that it's the roundup causing all the problems.

Non issue for me. GMO or poison sprays, I'm not eating them.

Ken
seedgirl likes this.
ilikekale is offline  
#20 Old 09-15-2014, 01:32 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
By "playing it safe" I meant protecting their financial interests in the case that any health issues actually do turn out to be associated with GMOs.
You say they are playing it safe, I say they probably know it is bad.
The problem is that they don't care that it is bad, and will use any underhand method to make people buy it. That includes scientific studies... I mean hey, it worked on you... right?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
I think I've already explained my reasoning on this. I'm not saying scientific consensus is absolutely 100% incorruptible, I'm saying I consider it unlikely.
Why do you consider it unlikely?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
If by "some people" you mean general scientific consensus then I do form many of my beliefs this way. You can call it "blind", but pretty much all our beliefs about the world other than those we can directly confirm for ourselves are because "some people say so".
Yeah I do call it blind, following general consensus, "scientific" or not is herd mentality.

I'm an individual. I don't believe anything until I think about it myself.

If more people did this, the world would be a much better place. Countries wouldn't go on senseless wars because "everybody" says they should, people wouldn't be self conscious because they don't fit in everywhere they go, and people would be against all the messed up stuff that goes on in our world. They wouldn't turn the blind eye and follow the herd. None of these are "Scientific"? Okay fine, just have a guy in a white coat say it and its scientific.

If we were to follow the general consensus we'd most likely all be eating meat, overdosing on protein, and drinking gallons of milk because it "gives you strong bones".

Scientific studies take a very long time to do. Until I see real, multiple large scale studies spanning decades proving that GMOs aren't bad... I'm not believing a thing. There is no reason to support or eat GMOs. The odds are they are probably unhealthy, not healthy. Like I said earlier, why take the risk? Because some human beings in lab coats say so?

Last edited by Diesel; 09-15-2014 at 01:42 AM.
Diesel is offline  
#21 Old 09-15-2014, 03:51 AM
 
seedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikekale View Post
Interesting thing I was reading recently. Turns out "most" of the issues with GMOs may actually not be that they are modified, but what we do to them (can do to them) because they are. Things like spraying them with roundup because they will survive it and the weeds (until recently) would not. Working theory is it's the glycophosphate in the foods, not the foods themselves that is the issue. Recent studies have looked at this in wheat. Rather than being sensitive to gluten, it's entirely possible that it's the roundup causing all the problems.

Non issue for me. GMO or poison sprays, I'm not eating them.

Ken

I agree with this to a certain extent. However, today's wheat has a lot more gluten than the original einkorn and emmer wheats did. While today's wheat might not technically be GMO, it was bred to have bigger berries that could feed more people. The top became so heavy that the stalk couldn't hold the weight and would fall over. Then they had to keep breeding it until they created a dwarf wheat that could stand under the weight. This wheat is less nutritious than einkorn and emmer while causing more and more problems for people.

So, it seems that intentionally cross-breeding plants, even without labratory genetic modification can be a problem, too. My general opinion is that nature knows best and we should leave well enough alone.
ilikekale likes this.
seedgirl is offline  
#22 Old 09-15-2014, 03:59 AM
Bracing for snow
 
ilikekale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by seedgirl View Post
My general opinion is that nature knows best and we should leave well enough alone.
I 100% agree!

Ken
ilikekale is offline  
#23 Old 09-16-2014, 03:49 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 208
GMOs are a form of playing God with food.

Frankly, human beings are not smart enough to mess with things they barely understand.

Sure, we see some nice short term benefits and write studies on said observations.. have people in lab coats write papers on the miracles of GMOs. But our knowledge of the human body is extremely limited. How do we know the effects they will have on us?

Most of our medical operations involve just cutting out things that don't work. Most of our drugs "fix"(or mask) one problem while bringing other nasty side effects.

The people pushing GMOs do not have the best intentions for the environment or mankind in mind. No matter what they keep claiming. The only thing they care about is profits. This makes them untrustworthy, and it is foolish to support or consume GMOs imo.
ilikekale and seedgirl like this.
Diesel is offline  
#24 Old 09-17-2014, 09:46 AM
 
SoulTofood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 179
I think the GMO argument is b.s.

I have told people before my background in college. My area of research was Big Business Food Industry and Big Business Agriculture. What people don't seem to realize is that we have been genetically modifying food for centuries now.

A wild carrot is not the same as your grocery store carrot. Or how about those potatoes?

We have been modifying the properties of plants since before scientist were doing it. The only reason people have a problem with GMOs is because science is scary and not absolute. We have been trained as humans to fear science. I understand science isn't exact, I understand science isn't always right, nor is it always wrong.
danakscully64 likes this.
SoulTofood is offline  
#25 Old 09-17-2014, 10:55 AM
Bracing for snow
 
ilikekale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 489
I think most people understand (to some degree) that plants have been bred for certain traits since the beginning of agriculture. Maybe fewer understand that these original plants were WAY more nutritious than today's bigger, sweeter varieties.

But, there's a difference (in my mind) between cross breeding and gene splicing.

You're right, there is a general distrust of "science" based on all the history. (Cigarettes are perfectly safe. Etc) That doesn't make "science" inherently wrong, but it does raise a level of caution in a lot of folks.

Ken
scwendy and seedgirl like this.
ilikekale is offline  
#26 Old 09-17-2014, 11:21 AM
 
SoulTofood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikekale View Post
I think most people understand (to some degree) that plants have been bred for certain traits since the beginning of agriculture. Maybe fewer understand that these original plants were WAY more nutritious than today's bigger, sweeter varieties.

But, there's a difference (in my mind) between cross breeding and gene splicing.

You're right, there is a general distrust of "science" based on all the history. (Cigarettes are perfectly safe. Etc) That doesn't make "science" inherently wrong, but it does raise a level of caution in a lot of folks.

Ken
Yes, but it goes back further than that. Look at our media for example.

Scientist bad.

Soldier good.

Soldier defeats evil scientist.

Scientist are always portrayed as evil people who want to destroy the world.
SoulTofood is offline  
#27 Old 09-17-2014, 11:29 AM
Bracing for snow
 
ilikekale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 489
Not necessarily want to. More will, through unintended - unforeseen consequences.

Ken
ilikekale is offline  
#28 Old 09-17-2014, 11:37 AM
 
SoulTofood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikekale View Post
Not necessarily want to. More will, through unintended - unforeseen consequences.

Ken
It doesn't matter. We're condition as children, through cartoons, through movies, and throughout our lives to see scientist as bad. Either directly or indirectly. It's always the scare of science gone wrong.
SoulTofood is offline  
#29 Old 09-17-2014, 12:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel View Post
You say they are playing it safe, I say they probably know it is bad.
The problem is that they don't care that it is bad, and will use any underhand method to make people buy it. That includes scientific studies... I mean hey, it worked on you... right?
Assuming they've corrupted the science then it worked on me, yes.

Quote:
Why do you consider it unlikely?
I've already given reasons why, as I noted a couple times now, so think I would just wind up repeating myself.

Quote:
Yeah I do call it blind, following general consensus, "scientific" or not is herd mentality.
So do you not believe anything you've learned in science classes then? It wouldn't be realistic to attempt to verify everything we believe about the world for ourselves. Without what you call "herd mentality", for example, most of us would have no idea what a map of the world looks like, what the shape of the earth is, what the structure of the solar system is, etc.

Quote:
If more people did this, the world would be a much better place. Countries wouldn't go on senseless wars because "everybody" says they should, people wouldn't be self conscious because they don't fit in everywhere they go, and people would be against all the messed up stuff that goes on in our world. They wouldn't turn the blind eye and follow the herd. None of these are "Scientific"? Okay fine, just have a guy in a white coat say it and its scientific.
No, that wouldn't make something scientific.

Quote:
If we were to follow the general consensus we'd most likely all be eating meat, overdosing on protein, and drinking gallons of milk because it "gives you strong bones".
I'm not talking about following the general consensus, I'm talking about using the scientific consensus to draw likely conclusions about the world.
Move of Ten is offline  
#30 Old 09-17-2014, 05:58 PM
Beginner
 
NightOwl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
The problems I have with GMOs relate to economics and intellectual property. I don't believe a seed or a species of plant should be anyone's intellectual property. Not just philosophically, but also because it hurts farmers and it's just another thing widening the gap between the wealthiest and the poor.

As for health.. According to wiki, which I usually find pretty reliable:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic...versies#Health

They provide eight sources for that statement, which I have not followed, but they also elaborate on it in the text of the article, mentioning organizations such as American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Medical Association, National Academies of the Sciences, Royal Society of Medicine and the European Commission. Of course there could be unforseen risks, but personally I'm perfectly comfortable eating GMOs as far as health concerns go.
Why do you think so many people are having problems with Gluten
NightOwl is offline  
Reply

Tags
food , gmo , opinions

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off