5 ms·

That comes down to one question: Do you want to eat food that someone has tampered with genetically, or do you want to eat food that humans have been eating for

That comes down to one question: Do you want to eat food that someone has tampered with genetically, or do you want to eat food that humans have been eating for thousands of years with no recorded negative side effects? The fact is GMO food may be generally regarded as safe - according to... the studies funded by the companies that promote these GMOs [conflict of interest much?] but I've got thousands of years of human consumption with no recorded negative side effects on the side of non-GMOs and you've got a couple of scientific studies that cover a laughably small "cross section" (if you can call it that) of society with no ability to do any long term studies because you only started down this path in very recent human history. Add to this the fact that when you pump your crops full of herbicides and pesticides there appears to be an alarming degree of correlation between the uptick in food allergies and autism. This is huge cause for concern. Whether this is the actual cause, the jury is out, but there is anecdotal evidence from a number of places including celebrities which suggests that removal of those foods from the diets of their autistic children has brought them back. If someone can do an actual independent study on GMOs that isn't funded by pharma or agribusiness, doesn't suffer from a conflict of interest and compares in scale to the thousands of years of human history, I'd say the studies don't compare. Even as valid as they may appear on the surface, those of us on the outside have little confidence in them. Especially with information being leaked from inside these studies to suggest corruption and cover-ups to promote the corporate agenda all the way to the highest level to increase profits at all costs - up to and including the collateral damage of a few thousand deaths per million. Deaths that can easily be swept under the rug using underhanded tactics such as smear campaigns, sewing tactical doubt, lied about, gagged by payouts or flat out covered up. There are a number of reports of the FDA aiding and abetting in this behaviour. The F.D.A! If you can't trust the very Government office that is funded with the goal of looking after your best interests as the consumer, then who can you trust? Nature has nothing to prove. Agri-business and Big-Pharma are run by people. People are fallible and when bound to their responsibility to investor profits, corrupt. Who would you rather trust? It's no wonder people don't want to eat GMO. It might be the safest thing on earth, but when you add human fallibility and corruption into the equation, which way do you turn?

viggity 12y ago
I've worked in R&D for <big ag> for 4 years. We've been crossing different plants for ever and the amount of genetic change introduced by doing that dwarfs using BT to inject a single gene into corn/beans. These aren't just crap shoots, either, big-ag spends billions on R&D making sure it does just what it says. The FDA has some onerous requirements, flow charts that take up an 8'x10' wall. And usually foreign governments are even more restrictive. One GMO trait on the market kills corn borer. You know where we found the gene that kills corn borer? From a bacteria that already flourishes in the human digestive track. Can you point to a single, documented, peer-reviewed case where a GMO crop has caused any adverse effect in humans? Dwarf wheat has saved a billion lives. Golden Rice can do the same but only if the anti-GMO crowd gets out of the way.
- balabaster 12y ago
  The problem you're up against is that every piece of evidence that displays that big-ag and big-pharma profits are more important than human life, and every piece of evidence that shows a conflict of interest, corruption or even just incompetence undermines any real credibility. To get there you have to not only be whiter than white, you've got to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are whiter than white. I'm not saying GMOs are bad, I'm not advocating against them. I choose not to eat them because for all the evidence that suggests they're useful and good there is too much smoke for there not to be something amiss. Just like I don't believe in God. I'm not saying there is no God, I'm just saying that evidence hasn't yet convinced me there is one, equally it's not yet convinced me there isn't one. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't negate divine intervention. You've found there is bacteria in the human digestive track that kills corn borer. Awesome. You're somehow convinced that genetically engineering this into corn is good. Fantastic. Your studies have shown no negative side effects... yet. When were these studies enacted and who were they paid for by? Who were they carried out by? Whi were they carried out on? Is there any conflict of interest there? Can you prove that your genetic modification to this corn or the Golden Rice will have no longer term health effects, either for the positive or negative? Not so much. There are many mutations and genetic defects that don't become evident for one or more generations further down the gene pool. I'm not saying your argument is false, I'm not saying that Big-Ag and Big-Pharma are necessarily bad. The problem is that you're playing God and you're asking for evidence where it's documented and peer reviewed that it has caused adverse effect in humans... that cannot be swept under the rug, paid off, gagged or covered up. There is no evidence, because it appears that any such evidence has been er... removed from circulation. Again, not to say it has been removed from circulation, but appearance of underhandedness is usually accompanied by some level of actual underhandedness. When Big-Ag and Big-Pharma start acting completely transparently and putting all their cards on the table, presenting all their findings fairly and without bias, with actual independent studies that show both positive and negative and letting the public make a truly informed decision, you're going to be up against the anti-GMO crowd. These people want answers, they want transparency and they want honesty. They don't want to have to dig and find flawed evidence, complacency, corruption, misdirection and conflicts of interest every time they dig a bit further. Prove your honesty and prove your transparency and people will be more receptive to any evidence you have to present. Until then, people are going to remain skeptical and there's not an awful lot you're going to be able to do about that - except with a well engineered media campaign to brainwash the masses like you've been doing remarkably successfully with everything else.

viggity 12y ago

I've worked in R&D for <big ag> for 4 years. We've been crossing different plants for ever and the amount of genetic change introduced by doing that dwarfs using BT to inject a single gene into corn/beans. These aren't just crap shoots, either, big-ag spends billions on R&D making sure it does just what it says. The FDA has some onerous requirements, flow charts that take up an 8'x10' wall. And usually foreign governments are even more restrictive. One GMO trait on the market kills corn borer. You know where we found the gene that kills corn borer? From a bacteria that already flourishes in the human digestive track. Can you point to a single, documented, peer-reviewed case where a GMO crop has caused any adverse effect in humans? Dwarf wheat has saved a billion lives. Golden Rice can do the same but only if the anti-GMO crowd gets out of the way.

balabaster 12y ago
The problem you're up against is that every piece of evidence that displays that big-ag and big-pharma profits are more important than human life, and every piece of evidence that shows a conflict of interest, corruption or even just incompetence undermines any real credibility. To get there you have to not only be whiter than white, you've got to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are whiter than white. I'm not saying GMOs are bad, I'm not advocating against them. I choose not to eat them because for all the evidence that suggests they're useful and good there is too much smoke for there not to be something amiss. Just like I don't believe in God. I'm not saying there is no God, I'm just saying that evidence hasn't yet convinced me there is one, equally it's not yet convinced me there isn't one. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't negate divine intervention. You've found there is bacteria in the human digestive track that kills corn borer. Awesome. You're somehow convinced that genetically engineering this into corn is good. Fantastic. Your studies have shown no negative side effects... yet. When were these studies enacted and who were they paid for by? Who were they carried out by? Whi were they carried out on? Is there any conflict of interest there? Can you prove that your genetic modification to this corn or the Golden Rice will have no longer term health effects, either for the positive or negative? Not so much. There are many mutations and genetic defects that don't become evident for one or more generations further down the gene pool. I'm not saying your argument is false, I'm not saying that Big-Ag and Big-Pharma are necessarily bad. The problem is that you're playing God and you're asking for evidence where it's documented and peer reviewed that it has caused adverse effect in humans... that cannot be swept under the rug, paid off, gagged or covered up. There is no evidence, because it appears that any such evidence has been er... removed from circulation. Again, not to say it has been removed from circulation, but appearance of underhandedness is usually accompanied by some level of actual underhandedness. When Big-Ag and Big-Pharma start acting completely transparently and putting all their cards on the table, presenting all their findings fairly and without bias, with actual independent studies that show both positive and negative and letting the public make a truly informed decision, you're going to be up against the anti-GMO crowd. These people want answers, they want transparency and they want honesty. They don't want to have to dig and find flawed evidence, complacency, corruption, misdirection and conflicts of interest every time they dig a bit further. Prove your honesty and prove your transparency and people will be more receptive to any evidence you have to present. Until then, people are going to remain skeptical and there's not an awful lot you're going to be able to do about that - except with a well engineered media campaign to brainwash the masses like you've been doing remarkably successfully with everything else.