3 ms·

I don’t think labeling GMOs is going to help anything. There’s strong evidence that GMOs are safe: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.12798 ht

I don’t think labeling GMOs is going to help anything. There’s strong evidence that GMOs are safe: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.12798 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.12798 I think there’s a much stronger case to be made for getting rid of high fructose corn syrup subsidies. Added sugar is the real enemy.

sigmaprimus 7y ago
Sure GMOs might be safe? Golden Rice? Yes that one is probably good for humanity, increased protein levels means you can feed more people. But lets get real, the majority of GMOs being used in agriculture are produced by Monsanto or Bayer, and what is the improvement that modifying their genes has made? Oh thats right now you can spray pesticides on them and they won't die!! Sorry but Roundup ready GMOs might be safe if grown without drenching them in poison but if the only reason they are "GMO'd" is to allow this, I would prefer products made with GMO to be labeled.
- postpawl 7y ago
  There’s a study about that too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394230/ “Although GE crops have been previously implicated in increasing herbicide use, herbicide increases were more rapid in non-GE crops.”
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - sigmaprimus 7y ago
    Isn't it sad that herbicide use was increased in both, regardless of the rapidity?
redis_mlc 7y ago
It turns out that most nutrition and tobacco studies were paid for. So linking to a study just makes you a tool. > Added sugar is the real enemy. Ironically, there was a paid study that said fat was the enemy and sugar was good for you.
- postpawl 7y ago
  Not sure I follow this logic. Tobacco and fat studies were paid for, therefore the study I linked must be paid for? That study is meta study and talks about lots of studies. My point is there’s good evidence that GMOs are safe and there are more consequential things to worry about in the American diet (like added sugar).
  - sigmaprimus 7y ago
    I follow the logic of the comment this way, there is many studies that favor both sides of the argument. In this age of information abundance you can find a study for anything. I would not agree that posting links to studies is a bad thing, and I actually appreciate it as it brings value to the discussion, and all information has benifits. All information has benifits which aligns with my argument that labeling GMOs has benifits.

sigmaprimus 7y ago

Sure GMOs might be safe? Golden Rice? Yes that one is probably good for humanity, increased protein levels means you can feed more people. But lets get real, the majority of GMOs being used in agriculture are produced by Monsanto or Bayer, and what is the improvement that modifying their genes has made? Oh thats right now you can spray pesticides on them and they won't die!! Sorry but Roundup ready GMOs might be safe if grown without drenching them in poison but if the only reason they are "GMO'd" is to allow this, I would prefer products made with GMO to be labeled.

postpawl 7y ago
There’s a study about that too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394230/ “Although GE crops have been previously implicated in increasing herbicide use, herbicide increases were more rapid in non-GE crops.”
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sigmaprimus 7y ago
  Isn't it sad that herbicide use was increased in both, regardless of the rapidity?

redis_mlc 7y ago

It turns out that most nutrition and tobacco studies were paid for. So linking to a study just makes you a tool. > Added sugar is the real enemy. Ironically, there was a paid study that said fat was the enemy and sugar was good for you.

postpawl 7y ago
Not sure I follow this logic. Tobacco and fat studies were paid for, therefore the study I linked must be paid for? That study is meta study and talks about lots of studies. My point is there’s good evidence that GMOs are safe and there are more consequential things to worry about in the American diet (like added sugar).
- sigmaprimus 7y ago
  I follow the logic of the comment this way, there is many studies that favor both sides of the argument. In this age of information abundance you can find a study for anything. I would not agree that posting links to studies is a bad thing, and I actually appreciate it as it brings value to the discussion, and all information has benifits. All information has benifits which aligns with my argument that labeling GMOs has benifits.