Occasional reminder: GMOs are good for you.


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, Godless said:

Interestingly, pseudo-science camps like the anti-GMO movement and anti-vax movement seem to be pretty bipartisan. 

I see more anti-GMO thought from the left because they don't like corporations in general. The anti-vax sentiment certainly comes from both sides. The right tends to see vaccines as a government conspiracy. 

 

11 minutes ago, Godless said:

. I know people all over the political spectrum who have fallen into those misguided causes.

For sure. 100% agree. 

11 minutes ago, Godless said:

It's also worth noting that some of the more vocal (and very liberal) "celebrity" scientists like Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson have made their thoughts against GMO pretty clear. 

The focus so much on evolution that it deludes them into thinking that every right winger is a creationist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm amazed at the ability of marketing campaigns to implant notions in our heads.  Case in point: The billion-dollar mega-corporations in the organic food industry, implanting false notions that GMO food is "bad" and organic food is "better" (healthier, better for the environment, more sustainable, etc).  They're so good at it, organizations like Greenpeace have been assimilated into the collective. 

So, just as a friendly reminder from someone who doesn't really care what you eat, but does care about people not believing lies:  Foods that have been genetically modified in one or more of a wide range of ways, are not bad for you.  They do not destroy the environment.  They do not cause cancer.  They are a large part of the reason this planet can feed 7+ billion humans. 

Forbes Magazine: Nobel Laureate Sir Richard Roberts To Ask Religious And Government Leaders To Support GMOs

 

The problem with the vast majority of the "studies" proving that GMO's are "good for you" are funded by the companies who create the GMO's and/or they are funded by the USDA - another group that is funded by big agriculture.  I would not consider these reliable sources for the studies.  Here is an interesting article on the damage GMO corn does to rats.  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-on-genetically-modified-corn-herbicide-and-tumors-reignites-controversy/  There also were studies conducted on what the corn does to animals.  It isn't pretty.  Another group of studies show that GMO high fructose corn syrup causes irritable bowl syndrome, crohn's disease, and other problems.  This brings back to mind one scripture:

Quote

Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

(Doctrine and Covenants 89:4)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

(Doctrine and Covenants 89:4)

There are a great many things that this statement applies to.  I hope you are not saying this scripture was in reference to GMO's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

The problem with the vast majority of the "studies" proving that GMO's are "good for you" are funded by the companies who create the GMO's and/or they are funded by the USDA - another group that is funded by big agriculture.  I would not consider these reliable sources for the studies. 

 

Okay, this is really what bothers me with these people... gmo studies are funded by big-agri, vax studies are funded by big-pharma, etc., so they can't be reliable.  It's like they just automatically bunch all scientists as greedy, self-serving immoral people who can't be trusted because they happened to run a scientific study funded by big-something.  So, basically you're saying 9 out of 10 AAS scientists are greedy, self-serving, immoral people who has no problem fixing studies that could mean an entire population of cancerous people. 

Yet these same people declare global warming as good science.

And your handful of anti-gmo scientists can be trusted because they are funded by the little organic farm guy...

Give me a break.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, this is really what bothers me with these people... gmo studies are funded by big-agri, vax studies are funded by big-pharma, etc., so they can't be reliable.  It's like they just automatically bunch all scientists as greedy, self-serving immoral people who can't be trusted because they happened to run a scientific study funded by big-something.  So, basically you're saying 9 out of 10 AAS scientists are greedy, self-serving, immoral people who has no problem fixing studies that could mean an entire population of cancerous people. 

Yet these same people declare global warming as good science.

And your handful of anti-gmo scientists can be trusted because they are funded by the little organic farm guy...

Give me a break.

 

Exactly.

The only people left that support GMO foods are ironically in the pocket of big organic! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

The problem with the vast majority of the "studies" proving that GMO's are "good for you" are funded by the companies who create the GMO's and/or they are funded by the USDA - another group that is funded by big agriculture.

Ok Jojo, I believe your claim is incorrect.  Where are you getting your info?  I'd like a link to a source for the claim that the "vast majority" of pro-GMO studies are "funded by the companies who create the GMO's and/or they are funded by the USDA".  Because when I look, I find groups like this:

Institute of Food Research - is one of eight UK institutes that receive strategic funding from the Biotechnology and the Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).

The AllergenOnline database - out of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, independently managed by a panel of internationally recognized allergy experts who review and vote on allergen inclusion.

Sometimes, when some org publishes against GMO, interested parties will respond.  Like The CEO of the Celiac Disease Foundation, publicly calling out the "Institute for Responsible Technology"'s report linking GMOs to Celiac disease.  Maybe you'd like to claim the Celiac Disease Foundation is a paid shill for big agriculture?

Not to mention, of course, the (to date) 113 Nobel Laureates who have signed up in my main link.  Jojo, can you explain how this voluntary organization is funded by biased companies or big ag?

The USDA, of course, is a government entity, no, it isn't 'funded by big agriculture'.  Maybe lobbied, maybe politicized, maybe not as pure as we'd hope, but your claim that it's funded by big ag is patently false on it's face.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, this is really what bothers me with these people... gmo studies are funded by big-agri, vax studies are funded by big-pharma, etc., so they can't be reliable.  It's like they just automatically bunch all scientists as greedy, self-serving immoral people who can't be trusted because they happened to run a scientific study funded by big-something.  So, basically you're saying 9 out of 10 AAS scientists are greedy, self-serving, immoral people who has no problem fixing studies that could mean an entire population of cancerous people. 

Yet these same people declare global warming as good science.

And your handful of anti-gmo scientists can be trusted because they are funded by the little organic farm guy...

Give me a break.

Global warming is a fraud.  It's made up science just like the studies saying GMO's are good for you are made up.  Years ago, there were studies that said that smoking tobacco was good for you.  Those studies were funded by the tobacco companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jojo Bags said:

Global warming is a fraud.  It's made up science just like the studies saying GMO's are good for you are made up.  Years ago, there were studies that said that smoking tobacco was good for you.  Those studies were funded by the tobacco companies.

And guess what... after several years of study, scientists found out tobacco was bad for you... a majority of them.  Who funded them?  Big organic?

The fact remains, we can only judge from what we know.  That's why I told NT - just because we haven't found a link between GMO and cancer doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.  But, it doesn't mean it exists either.  Therefore, with TODAY's science, GMOs are generally safe.  And that judgment is not based on big-something lining up scientists' pockets.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And guess what... after several years of study, scientists found out tobacco was bad for you... a majority of them.  Who funded them?  Big organic?

The fact remains, we can only judge from what we know.  That's why I told NT - just because we haven't found a link between GMO and cancer doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.  But, it doesn't mean it exists either.  Therefore, with TODAY's science, GMOs are generally safe.  And that judgment is not based on big-something lining up scientists' pockets.

True, but on Jojo's side of the argument, real unbiased science is hard to come by these days.  When tobacco was found to be bad, we still had real scientists to set things straight.  Today, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And guess what... after several years of study, scientists found out tobacco was bad for you... a majority of them.  Who funded them?  Big organic?

The fact remains, we can only judge from what we know.  That's why I told NT - just because we haven't found a link between GMO and cancer doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.  But, it doesn't mean it exists either.  Therefore, with TODAY's science, GMOs are generally safe.  And that judgment is not based on big-something lining up scientists' pockets.

You think they are safe?  You sound like a rep from Monsanto.  Take a good look at the following photos.  These are rats and the stomachs from pigs fed on GMO.  Still think they are safe?

rats-ogm-mosanto-610x350.jpg

StudyFindsGeneticallyModifiedCornCausesTumorsinRats.jpg

gmo-pig-stomach.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

  Therefore, with TODAY's science, GMOs are generally safe.  

Correct. They could also cure world famine, but that's another thread all together, I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

You think they are safe?  You sound like a rep from Monsanto.  Take a good look at the following photos.  These are rats and the stomachs from pigs fed on GMO.  Still think they are safe?

rats-ogm-mosanto-610x350.jpg

StudyFindsGeneticallyModifiedCornCausesTumorsinRats.jpg

gmo-pig-stomach.jpg

See, things like these makes your case worse than better.

What GMOs?  What method?  What product?  What is the feed ratio?

After all... you drink a boatload of water in a day, you will die.  Doesn't mean water is bad for you.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

True, but on Jojo's side of the argument, real unbiased science is hard to come by these days.  When tobacco was found to be bad, we still had real scientists to set things straight.  Today, not so much.

9 times out of 10 @Carborendum if a majority of scientists come to a conclusion that you personally disagree with, you are the one who is wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

True, but on Jojo's side of the argument, real unbiased science is hard to come by these days.  When tobacco was found to be bad, we still had real scientists to set things straight.  Today, not so much.

I don't believe we've come to that point.  More so that people want to believe what they believe and so they reject science that doesn't align with their intended narrative... because there is always another one that will.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And guess what... after several years of study, scientists found out tobacco was bad for you... a majority of them.  Who funded them?  Big organic?

The fact remains, we can only judge from what we know.  That's why I told NT - just because we haven't found a link between GMO and cancer doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.  But, it doesn't mean it exists either.  Therefore, with TODAY's science, GMOs are generally safe.  And that judgment is not based on big-something lining up scientists' pockets.

Something else to consider.  I've lived in three other countries.  I recently moved back from Australia after living there for 4 1/2 years.  One thing that is common to every single person I've talked to who visited the U.S. and that is they get sick when eating and/or drinking the food.  Primarily, they get sick from drinking American sodas.  Why?  Because of the GMO high fructose corn syrup.  Ever since I got back I cannot drink the stuff.  I become nauseated and have bowel problems.  My son spent an year in Oz and his irritable bowl syndrome cleared up.  He came back to the U.S., started drinking the garbage called soda and his IBS promptly flared back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, how does that sway your opinion on global warming?

Good question. 

It could be the 10th case (like I said, 9 times out of 10) or it could be that maybe the scientists are onto something. The world is getting warmer. Now, that doesn't mean that I believe everything in the  global warming bible. I think the effects won't happen for thousands of years from now. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

Something else to consider.  I've lived in three other countries.  I recently moved back from Australia after living there for 4 1/2 years.  One thing that is common to every single person I've talked to who visited the U.S. and that is they get sick when eating and/or drinking the food.  Primarily, they get sick from drinking American sodas.  Why?  Because of the GMO high fructose corn syrup.  Ever since I got back I cannot drink the stuff.  I become nauseated and have bowel problems.  My son spent an year in Oz and his irritable bowl syndrome cleared up.  He came back to the U.S., started drinking the garbage called soda and his IBS promptly flared back up.

Hello.... I grew up in the Philippines.

My mother wouldn't let me go to the US because I was 5'0" 88lbs.  She said I have to be at least 95lbs to pass for healthy.  It took me 2 years to get from 88lbs to 92lbs with protein supplements.  I landed in America in September, by December I was 100lbs.

No, this is not because of GMO.  This is because American food is high in sugar and chemical preservatives.  It doesn't matter if it is GMO or non-GMO, you load yourself up with sugar, you will become sick.  High fructose corn syrup is just another form of sugar.  You can replace it with cane sugar (you'll have to put a lot more cane sugar to get the same level of sweetness as HFCS - that's why Filipino coke is not as sickly sweet as American coke) and it would still be bad for you.  HCFS is very cheap.  Therefore, tons of American products - including plain old ketchup - has it.  You go to the Philippines, sugar is not as cheap.  So, you don't find much of it in ketchup.  The American child's taste bud is tuned to the level of sweetness that has been made common by HFCS.  The result is an obesity epidemic.

Like I said, you drink a boatload of water, you will die.  Doesn't mean water is bad for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

You think they are safe?  You sound like a rep from Monsanto.  Take a good look at the following photos.  These are rats and the stomachs from pigs fed on GMO.  Still think they are safe?

This study was found to be tilted.  They don't suspect it was intentional.  But their methodology leaned it toward this outcome.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/journal-retracts-genetically-modified-corn-tumor-rats-study/

Of course, if it was Obama who pardoned Monsanto, then I am automatically suspicious.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

9 times out of 10 @Carborendum if a majority of scientists come to a conclusion that you personally disagree with, you are the one who is wrong. 

A few years ago, the majority of scientists thought that Galileo was nuts when he said the earth was round.  He was sent to the Inquisition for his heresy.  Currently, almost all scientists think the LDS Church is a fraud for claiming that some of the ancestors of native Americans were from Jerusalem and the Middle East, yet there is DNA proof of the BofM coming to light.  A growing majority of so-called scientists now say that homosexuality is normal.  For the last 60 years, saturated animal fats, whole milk, and things like palm and coconut oil have been demonized, but new evidence is coming out that shows this is simply not true.  It is things like margarine and shortening that are very bad for you.  It is things like refined carbs, especially sugar that is causing heart disease.  Big Ag says that soy products are safe, yet soy is included in the USDA dangerous plant database.  Monsanto says that Roundup is safe, yet studies now show it causes cancer.   There are over 250 studies that show the dangers of soy, yet they are routinely ignored.  Research shows that aluminum contributes to Alzheimer's, but Alcoa says it has conducted studies and says aluminum is safe.  All of this is lovingly touted by the lamestream media.  Sorry, but I do not trust anything the lamestream media says.  All the lamestream media says Hillary Clinton walks on water, but she is a lying, thieving, cheating, politician; the most corrupt politician who ever ran for the office of president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

For the last 60 years, saturated animal fats, whole milk, and things like palm and coconut oil have been demonized, but new evidence is coming out that shows this is simply not true. 

It is things like margarine and shortening that are very bad for you. 

It is things like refined carbs, especially sugar that is causing heart disease. 

Big Ag says that soy products are safe, yet soy is included in the USDA dangerous plant database. 

Monsanto says that Roundup is safe, yet studies now show it causes cancer.  

There are over 250 studies that show the dangers of soy, yet they are routinely ignored. 

Research shows that aluminum contributes to Alzheimer's, but Alcoa says it has conducted studies and says aluminum is safe.

https://agresearchmag.ars.usda.gov/2004/jan/soy

Now, why would the USDA write such a glowing research paper and then list is as a dangerous plant?  Oh yeah.  They didn't.  It's not listed as a dangerous plant.  Where is your link to the USDA about that "dangerous plant" statement?

http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp

So, I guess the Alzheimers Association was paid off by ALCOA.

I showed you how your statement about Monsanto was false.  Would you like me to continue digging into ALL of those claims?  Have you actually looked at the studies themselves to see if these claims are founded on real evidence, not slanted research?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

A few years ago, the majority of scientists thought that Galileo was nuts when he said the earth was round.  He was sent to the Inquisition for his heresy.  Currently, almost all scientists think the LDS Church is a fraud for claiming that some of the ancestors of native Americans were from Jerusalem and the Middle East, yet there is DNA proof of the BofM coming to light.  A growing majority of so-called scientists now say that homosexuality is normal.  For the last 60 years, saturated animal fats, whole milk, and things like palm and coconut oil have been demonized, but new evidence is coming out that shows this is simply not true.  It is things like margarine and shortening that are very bad for you.  It is things like refined carbs, especially sugar that is causing heart disease.  Big Ag says that soy products are safe, yet soy is included in the USDA dangerous plant database.  Monsanto says that Roundup is safe, yet studies now show it causes cancer.   There are over 250 studies that show the dangers of soy, yet they are routinely ignored.  Research shows that aluminum contributes to Alzheimer's, but Alcoa says it has conducted studies and says aluminum is safe.  All of this is lovingly touted by the lamestream media.  Sorry, but I do not trust anything the lamestream media says.  All the lamestream media says Hillary Clinton walks on water, but she is a lying, thieving, cheating, politician; the most corrupt politician who ever ran for the office of president.

Galileo is completely irrelevant to this discussion.  Galileo was ostracized by the Catholic Church (while Darwin's evolutionary theory was not) because it went against the teachings of the magisterium at the time.  There was no "scientific objection" to Galileo's discoveries.  Rather, it was a religious objection to a scientific discovery.

This is not what we are talking about with GMO.  We are simply pitting one scientific conclusion against another scientific conclusion.  The answer, of course, can only be derived by more science.  When it comes to scientific discoveries, the body always defers to reliable and peer-reviewed scientific majority.  There's a process to this. 

The person who accepts one science and rejects another without scientific basis is nothing more than a person who wants to believe what they want to believe and is already dead set in his beliefs.

In today's world, the vast majority who do not find evidence of harm in GMO products far outweights those who find harm in GMO products.  Now, this is, of course, a neutral negative...not a conclusive negative.  Meaning, that we haven't found the harm of it YET.  We may in the future or we may never find it.  But to conclude that it is harmful even if we haven't found any evidence of such is a scientific lie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share