6 ms·

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 usin

by viggity 11y 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 11y 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.
gregd 11y ago
Here are 10 of them: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/ http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific...
- baldfat 11y ago
  Poor article with poor statements. Round Up does not equal GMO. There are GMO that are Round Up tolerant BUT 8 out of 10 were all Round Up related and 1 was just another argument about risk of potential dangers. 1 was plant DNA in human blood system but showed no harm and also didn't show why a GMO would be doing that more than if you ate Soy or other plants that are not GMO. 1) identified the presence of pesticides (GMO uses less pesticides than non GMO) 2) Quote "This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells" 3) Gluten is due to Roundup aka GMO use less pestised and herbisides. "Most GMOs are engineered to tolerate a weed killer called glyphosate (Roundup®). They contain high levels of this toxin at harvest. Corn and cotton varieties are also engineered to produce a n insecticide called Bt toxin. 4) Peer Review is not some magical fool proof system. It actually has been causing harm (Looking at the false claim that Vaccines causing Autism was peer reviewed) "This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process." The report focuses primarily on the effects of these two toxins. 5) & 6) & 7) & 8) & 9) Once again a Round Up issue not really a GMO issue. "Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies" "The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields" "Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease." "A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine." "Herbicide tolerant crops are engineered to produce one or more proteins that allow the crop to survive being sprayed with a given herbicide." 10) Flat out the same nothing harmful BUT the RISK. "The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic."

by viggity 11y ago

balabaster 11y 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.

gregd 11y ago

Here are 10 of them: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/ http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific...

baldfat 11y ago
Poor article with poor statements. Round Up does not equal GMO. There are GMO that are Round Up tolerant BUT 8 out of 10 were all Round Up related and 1 was just another argument about risk of potential dangers. 1 was plant DNA in human blood system but showed no harm and also didn't show why a GMO would be doing that more than if you ate Soy or other plants that are not GMO. 1) identified the presence of pesticides (GMO uses less pesticides than non GMO) 2) Quote "This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells" 3) Gluten is due to Roundup aka GMO use less pestised and herbisides. "Most GMOs are engineered to tolerate a weed killer called glyphosate (Roundup®). They contain high levels of this toxin at harvest. Corn and cotton varieties are also engineered to produce a n insecticide called Bt toxin. 4) Peer Review is not some magical fool proof system. It actually has been causing harm (Looking at the false claim that Vaccines causing Autism was peer reviewed) "This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process." The report focuses primarily on the effects of these two toxins. 5) & 6) & 7) & 8) & 9) Once again a Round Up issue not really a GMO issue. "Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies" "The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields" "Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease." "A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine." "Herbicide tolerant crops are engineered to produce one or more proteins that allow the crop to survive being sprayed with a given herbicide." 10) Flat out the same nothing harmful BUT the RISK. "The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic."