If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   If you thought Alex Jones and his kin are crazy, you should see some HuffPo comments that would make him look like Einstein   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 110
    More: Obvious, gmos, Monsanto, HuffPost, Einstein, genetically modified food, Grants Pass, CLERMONT, crop yields  
•       •       •

3330 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 May 2013 at 8:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-27 01:51:38 AM  
FTFA:
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying group that represents Monsanto, DuPont & Co. and other makers of genetically modified seeds, has said that it supports voluntary labeling for people who seek out such products. But it says that mandatory labeling would only mislead or confuse consumers into thinking the products aren't safe, even though the FDA has said there's no difference between GMO and organic, non-GMO foods.

Yes, there is no difference between these different things.
 
2013-05-27 01:55:46 AM  

Frederick: FTFA:
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying group that represents Monsanto, DuPont & Co. and other makers of genetically modified seeds, has said that it supports voluntary labeling for people who seek out such products. But it says that mandatory labeling would only mislead or confuse consumers into thinking the products aren't safe, even though the FDA has said there's no difference between GMO and organic, non-GMO foods.

Yes, there is no difference between these different things.


I know your partisan ass will never admit the truth, but really, please stop basing how you view science off of your politics.

GMOs are safe. Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.
 
2013-05-27 02:15:15 AM  

cman: GMOs are safe. Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.


Why do you hate consumer information? Despite any politics or any scientific information, why is hiding information from the public good?

Remember Olestra? A Fat free oil? Which was 'safe'--until people started pooping their guts out?
Remember when Nutritionists in the 70's said we should stop eating butter...and switch lovely Whipped Butter Substitutes and big media ads (it's not nice to fool mother nature, and Parkay, etc) and then it turned out the whipped butter subs full of trans fats where probably the worst things you put in your body and eating real butter was much better for you? And Eggs where bad, and now their good, and salt was bad, but now it's good again.
So, go one with the idea of "safe" food that's only been created in the past few years as 'safe' the past hasn't proven that in the long term. It's more like how many times a consumer can be 'fooled' before their suspicious of the authority.
 
2013-05-27 02:22:31 AM  

optikeye: cman: GMOs are safe. Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.

Why do you hate consumer information? Despite any politics or any scientific information, why is hiding information from the public good?

Remember Olestra? A Fat free oil? Which was 'safe'--until people started pooping their guts out?
Remember when Nutritionists in the 70's said we should stop eating butter...and switch lovely Whipped Butter Substitutes and big media ads (it's not nice to fool mother nature, and Parkay, etc) and then it turned out the whipped butter subs full of trans fats where probably the worst things you put in your body and eating real butter was much better for you? And Eggs where bad, and now their good, and salt was bad, but now it's good again.
So, go one with the idea of "safe" food that's only been created in the past few years as 'safe' the past hasn't proven that in the long term. It's more like how many times a consumer can be 'fooled' before their suspicious of the authority.


We have been using GMOs for 15 some odd years in mainstream food. You think by now if there were very bad side effects that it would be taken off the market quickly. Olestra isnt used much at all because of its side effects. It was first thought as completely safe, but subsequent studies shewn that it wasnt. Thing is is that Olestra was pretty quickly found out that it had some bad side effects. GMOs have no side effects like Olestra. 15 years of healthy eating pretty much solidly puts it in the safe camp.
 
2013-05-27 02:24:59 AM  

cman: optikeye: cman: GMOs are safe. Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.

Why do you hate consumer information? Despite any politics or any scientific information, why is hiding information from the public good?

Remember Olestra? A Fat free oil? Which was 'safe'--until people started pooping their guts out?
Remember when Nutritionists in the 70's said we should stop eating butter...and switch lovely Whipped Butter Substitutes and big media ads (it's not nice to fool mother nature, and Parkay, etc) and then it turned out the whipped butter subs full of trans fats where probably the worst things you put in your body and eating real butter was much better for you? And Eggs where bad, and now their good, and salt was bad, but now it's good again.
So, go one with the idea of "safe" food that's only been created in the past few years as 'safe' the past hasn't proven that in the long term. It's more like how many times a consumer can be 'fooled' before their suspicious of the authority.

We have been using GMOs for 15 some odd years in mainstream food. You think by now if there were very bad side effects that it would be taken off the market quickly. Olestra isnt used much at all because of its side effects. It was first thought as completely safe, but subsequent studies shewn that it wasnt. Thing is is that Olestra was pretty quickly found out that it had some bad side effects. GMOs have no side effects like Olestra. 15 years of healthy eating pretty much solidly puts it in the safe camp.


To elaborate, the Wikipedia article said that the scientific consensus is that GMO food is safe. Are the scientists right about climate change but totally wrong about GMOs?
 
2013-05-27 02:52:48 AM  

cman: I know your partisan ass will never admit the truth, but really, please stop basing how you view science off of your politics.


What are you talking about?  Do you even know me?

cman: GMOs are safe.


I made no counter claim to GMO safety.

cman: Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.


So farking what?  Thats GMO's problem.  What kind of logic prevails in limiting consumer information?

What is your stake in this issue to be so emotional regarding it?
 
2013-05-27 03:10:24 AM  

Frederick: cman: I know your partisan ass will never admit the truth, but really, please stop basing how you view science off of your politics.

What are you talking about?  Do you even know me?

cman: GMOs are safe.

I made no counter claim to GMO safety.

cman: Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.

So farking what?  Thats GMO's problem.  What kind of logic prevails in limiting consumer information?

What is your stake in this issue to be so emotional regarding it?


It is true that I made assumptions that I shouldn't have made. I saw what I wanted to see you post and not what you posted.

I am just sick and tired of partisanship encroaching upon science to a fault.
 
2013-05-27 03:27:49 AM  

optikeye: Remember Olestra? A Fat free oil? Which was 'safe'--until people started pooping their guts out?
Remember when Nutritionists in the 70's said we should stop eating butter...and switch lovely Whipped Butter Substitutes and big media ads (it's not nice to fool mother nature, and Parkay, etc) and then it turned out the whipped butter subs full of trans fats where probably the worst things you put in your body and eating real butter was much better for you? And Eggs where bad, and now their good, and salt was bad, but now it's good again.
So, go one with the idea of "safe" food that's only been created in the past few years as 'safe' the past hasn't proven that in the long term. It's more like how many times a consumer can be 'fooled' before their suspicious of the authority.


Olestra is still in use and only caused people to "poop their guts out" when they excessively ate food containing Olestra.

The rest of your post is nothing but a summary of media fear mongering, not the actual science behind those stories. as an example you mentioned, salt. science has never said "salt is bad", but studies have shown that excessive salt intake is bad. the media then report this as "scientists say salt is bad for you!" people believe what they are told. then companies start labeling their products as "salt free" or "low sodium". later another study concludes that not enough salt is bad for you.  the media then report this as "scientists say salt is GOOD for you!" etc.. etc..
 
2013-05-27 03:32:02 AM  

cman: To elaborate, the Wikipedia article said that the scientific consensus is that GMO food is safe. Are the scientists right about climate change but totally wrong about GMOs?


GMO falls into a big umbrella. Humans have have been manipulating gene stock for foods (and even pets) for thousands of years.

While the tweeking of making corn stock 'round up ready' and pesticide Resistance crops that can withstand chemical attack from "Agent Orange/Round Up" chemicals that kill weeds is a noble and good thing thing to feed people---but when corporations put those genes into seeds and they cross pollinate----farmers are forever having to pay a fee to the corporation for uses the seed stock from the previous year. FOOD shouldn't have a Enduser License...if you plant a Avocado Seed in the back yard and grow a tree, or a farmer saves his some of seed corn from each year to replant next year.
And then there's "Promise" from Monsantao to never use it's developed 'terminator' gene in seed---which would make future seeds and food sterile---they "promise" that. It's already been proven that their seed stock cross polinatates with other nearby crops..and they sue the farmers.

But Think the farken profit they could make----releasing a cross poliation gene into the food supply..and be the only suppler of 'pure stock' of seeds..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/465222.stm
 
2013-05-27 03:42:57 AM  

log_jammin: as an example you mentioned, salt. science has never said "salt is bad", but studies have shown that excessive salt intake is bad.


Look, things change in science and even popular media, However I'm sure everyone from media to nutritionists can say that the trans-fat whipped butter fad of the 70's to move away from butter fat was a bad thing for the public.
 
2013-05-27 03:54:20 AM  

optikeye: Look, things change in science and even popular media, However I'm sure everyone from media to nutritionists can say that the trans-fat whipped butter fad of the 70's to move away from butter fat was a bad thing for the public.


fun fact. before WWII, people used lard the same way we use butter today. Imagine a nice hot fresh from the oven biscuit with an oozing melted swath of lard on top. Or a chunk of lard on you potatoes and corn on the cob.

yum-oh!
 
2013-05-27 04:02:16 AM  

log_jammin: fun fact. before WWII, people used lard the same way we use butter today. Imagine a nice hot fresh from the oven biscuit with an oozing melted swath of lard on top. Or a chunk of lard on you potatoes and corn on the cob.


A bit wrong there...Lard was always in biscuits..and frying chicken. and in gravy. etc.


Oleo was a whipped fat vegetable oil, created in WWII and before to sub for butter---by law it wasn't allowed to be yellow in color..so they included a dye capsule for the use to whip it into so to make it 'butter colored'.
It was basically created because all the milk was used for war effort (powered, canned or shipped) and left the USA for use for the troops.
 
2013-05-27 04:12:28 AM  

log_jammin: yum-oh!


Yeah, it's late, but I think you're confusing lard with Oleo and whipped veggie fat...which was cheap in the depression age. I remember my mother; a child of the great depression---talking about Oleo and using that instead of butter. And then we had Crisco and other whipped veggie oils to use instead of lard for frying chicken etc.
 
2013-05-27 04:13:58 AM  

optikeye: A bit wrong there...Lard was always in biscuits..and frying chicken. and in gravy. etc.


yes I know. I didn't say "in". I said on.

optikeye: Oleo was a whipped fat vegetable oil, created in WWII and before to sub for butter---by law it wasn't allowed to be yellow in color..so they included a dye capsule for the use to whip it into so to make it 'butter colored'.
It was basically created because all the milk was used for war effort (powered, canned or shipped) and left the USA for use for the troops.


and IIRC in some places(canada? or maybe certain states) it's illegal for margarine to be "butter colored".
 
2013-05-27 04:16:54 AM  

optikeye: Yeah, it's late, but I think you're confusing lard with Oleo and whipped veggie fat...which was cheap in the depression age. I remember my mother; a child of the great depression---talking about Oleo and using that instead of butter. And then we had Crisco and other whipped veggie oils to use instead of lard for frying chicken etc.


I may have my time frame of slightly but I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

but who cares.  Monsanto should have to label their stuff.
 
2013-05-27 04:27:09 AM  

log_jammin: optikeye: A bit wrong there...Lard was always in biscuits..and frying chicken. and in gravy. etc.

yes I know. I didn't say "in". I said on.

optikeye: Oleo was a whipped fat vegetable oil, created in WWII and before to sub for butter---by law it wasn't allowed to be yellow in color..so they included a dye capsule for the use to whip it into so to make it 'butter colored'.
It was basically created because all the milk was used for war effort (powered, canned or shipped) and left the USA for use for the troops.

and IIRC in some places(canada? or maybe certain states) it's illegal for margarine to be "butter colored".


Cool..and I'm seriously not arguing with you here...just talking.

But I think you might be thinking about 1940's laws about butter subs..Oleo...which had the dye cap there in the lid..to mix in (the consumer did that) because it was illegal to sell fake 'butter' in the mid twen centurty in the US.
 
2013-05-27 04:33:16 AM  

optikeye: not arguing with you here...just talking.


I wish I could say I have strong opinions on butter and butter substitutes....but I don't. So no worries.

optikeye: But I think you might be thinking about 1940's laws about butter subs..Oleo...which had the dye cap there in the lid..to mix in (the consumer did that) because it was illegal to sell fake 'butter' in the mid twen centurty in the US.


maybe. I can't remember where i got my info from. It was just one of those things that stuck with me. but I could easily be wrong.
 
2013-05-27 08:08:01 AM  

log_jammin: fun fact. before WWII, people used lard the same way we use butter today.


Lubricating Mythbusters' experiments?
 
2013-05-27 08:11:36 AM  
The real danger of GMO food is genetic homogeneity in our food supply.
 
2013-05-27 08:15:30 AM  
Never got too worked up about gmo food but their business practices stink to high heaven.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
 
2013-05-27 08:18:24 AM  

cman: Are the scientists right about climate change but totally wrong about GMOs?


I don't have much of a dog in this fight, but this is one of the dumbest comments I've seen in a while. "Scientists", as a profession, encompasses such a wide variety of disciplines, foci, and lines of research that to use the consensus in one field to defend a view in another, completely unrelated field is beyond stupid.
 
2013-05-27 08:26:16 AM  

cman: Frederick: FTFA:
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying group that represents Monsanto, DuPont & Co. and other makers of genetically modified seeds, has said that it supports voluntary labeling for people who seek out such products. But it says that mandatory labeling would only mislead or confuse consumers into thinking the products aren't safe, even though the FDA has said there's no difference between GMO and organic, non-GMO foods.

Yes, there is no difference between these different things.

I know your partisan ass will never admit the truth, but really, please stop basing how you view science off of your politics.

GMOs are safe. Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.


Aren't you a big proponent of the free market in action?  If no one buys products with a GMO label it means the market does not want these products.  The market has spoken, why do you hate Capitalism?
 
2013-05-27 08:26:21 AM  

cman: I know your partisan ass will never admit the truth, but really, please stop basing how you view science off of your politics.

GMOs are safe. Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.


I don't know what his specific concerns are, but I doubt that there are too many people who think that GM foods are unsafe for human consumption (and if they do, they're pretty fringe).  The legitimate question, I think, is the effect that GMOs could have on their wider environment---these are almost new species that are being introduced to the wild.  And there are plenty of examples of what happens when humans (intentionally or otherwise) introduce new species.  And frankly, I don't trust Monsanto to do its due diligence with regard to wider ecological effects of its products.

If there is some level of scientific oversight to ensure against that kind of wider ecological issue, then modify away as far as I'm concerned.  I'm not scared of eating the stuff, just concerned about wider environmental consequences.
 
2013-05-27 08:30:25 AM  
Good food or not, all people should be concerned about one company having so much control over our food supply.
 
2013-05-27 08:30:45 AM  
Whenever I read "Alex Jones" I immediately think of the following Alex Jones and everything is fine once again:

i4.mirror.co.uk
 
2013-05-27 08:31:19 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: And frankly, I don't trust Monsanto to do its due diligence with regard to wider ecological effects of its products.


pretty much this.

monsanto wouldn't be an issue if they weren't on the way to (if not already there) being Mega-Food-Co and the origin of entire swaths of our food chain. they have one interest, and one bottom line that they pay due diligence to and it isn't long term ecological effects - or really anything beyond profit.

the grains are becoming monocultured, and so is the seed source - they've ran everybody else out of business.

that isn't, and never will be, good ju-ju, no matter what is written on the packaging.
 
2013-05-27 08:35:27 AM  

cman: GMOs are safe. Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.


This is pure nanny-statism - "we can't trust people to make intelligent choices, so we'll just decide for them."

If you're right, you should trust that being right is enough to win out over time without having to resort to such tactics. It's the same reason Holocaust denial laws in places like Israel and Austria are a bad thing. The Holocaust happened. The evidence falls overwhelmingly on that side so you don't have to make martyrs out of the dipshiats that say otherwise. Trying to hide GMO food by actively opposing labels just gives ammunition to the anti-GMO protestors.
 
2013-05-27 08:38:03 AM  

cman: GMOs are safe. Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.


The choice should be mine to make. Do you not think so?
 
2013-05-27 08:38:13 AM  

cman: Frederick: FTFA:
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying group that represents Monsanto, DuPont & Co. and other makers of genetically modified seeds, has said that it supports voluntary labeling for people who seek out such products. But it says that mandatory labeling would only mislead or confuse consumers into thinking the products aren't safe, even though the FDA has said there's no difference between GMO and organic, non-GMO foods.

Yes, there is no difference between these different things.

I know your partisan ass will never admit the truth, but really, please stop basing how you view science off of your politics.

GMOs are safe. Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.


I wouldn't mind labeling. GMO food prices would fall for us and the rubes would cause organic prices to skyrocket. Let the Free Market sort it out.
 
2013-05-27 08:40:41 AM  
No, that's okay. I've known for a long time that people who read HuffPo are complete morons as well. It's not an either/or proposition.

They're also the sorts of idiots who are likely to oppose various common sense medical procedures like vaccination.... or going to a real doctor.
 
2013-05-27 08:43:16 AM  

phenn: The choice should be mine to make. Do you not think so?


Do you also think that the exact soil composition should be on the label? That the number of times the farmer washed his hands is listed? His age?

There are a ton of stupid things you could put on the label that serve no useful purpose. I'd rather not increase the cost of packaging and, therefore, my end cost, because you don't understand basic biology.
 
2013-05-27 08:47:02 AM  
FOOD FIGHT!
 
2013-05-27 08:49:03 AM  

skozlaw: No, that's okay. I've known for a long time that people who read HuffPo are complete morons as well. It's not an either/or proposition.


yah, but.....the supermassive singularity of stupidity we could quote mine from a single politics thread here is staggering.  it takes the big-guns of stupidity (yahoo, youtube, freeptown) to surpass us.

i contribute to this site's stupidity, and i won't have it not given proper recognition, is the general gist.
 
2013-05-27 08:49:51 AM  

skozlaw: Do you also think that the exact soil composition should be on the label?


see?

you bring the stupid, don't sell fark short.
 
2013-05-27 08:50:39 AM  

cman: Frederick: cman: I know your partisan ass will never admit the truth, but really, please stop basing how you view science off of your politics.

What are you talking about?  Do you even know me?

cman: GMOs are safe.

I made no counter claim to GMO safety.

cman: Because of people like you who spread false information, labeling foods as GMO would ensure that people wont buy them.

So farking what?  Thats GMO's problem.  What kind of logic prevails in limiting consumer information?

What is your stake in this issue to be so emotional regarding it?

It is true that I made assumptions that I shouldn't have made. I saw what I wanted to see you post and not what you posted.

I am just sick and tired of partisanship encroaching upon science to a fault.


Bullshait,

You want science?
Then why not allow the general populace to know what is in their food?

What you are advocating is in fact anti scientific, by limiting the option for groups (outside of Monsanto) to study whether or not any of these foods may be toxic to the human body.

When information is limited over what we eat, how do you suppose we're going to solve any health problems that may be a result of GMO's?

You cannot.

So therefore it is YOU that is promoting an anti science agenda.

Walking through life questioning nothing whilst limiting discovery, is anti evolutionary to the essence of life itself.

Wake up man.

It's time this stuff gets labeled so we can all know what we're eating.
If you really want to solve health problems and be PRO scientific.
 
2013-05-27 08:54:24 AM  

skozlaw: phenn: The choice should be mine to make. Do you not think so?

Do you also think that the exact soil composition should be on the label? That the number of times the farmer washed his hands is listed? His age?

There are a ton of stupid things you could put on the label that serve no useful purpose. I'd rather not increase the cost of packaging and, therefore, my end cost, because you don't understand basic biology.


You're going to great lengths and showing amazing asshurt to defend a positively EVIL corporation.

Not interested.
 
2013-05-27 08:55:42 AM  

cman: We have been using GMOs for 15 some odd years in mainstream food. You think by now if there were very bad side effects that it would be taken off the market quickly. Olestra isnt used much at all because of its side effects. It was first thought as completely safe, but subsequent studies shewn that it wasnt. Thing is is that Olestra was pretty quickly found out that it had some bad side effects. GMOs have no side effects like Olestra. 15 years of healthy eating pretty much solidly puts it in the safe camp.


We also have the a very unhealthy population, especially when you consider the fact that we outspend the rest of the world for health care at the same time.
 
2013-05-27 09:05:50 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: cman: We have been using GMOs for 15 some odd years in mainstream food. You think by now if there were very bad side effects that it would be taken off the market quickly. Olestra isnt used much at all because of its side effects. It was first thought as completely safe, but subsequent studies shewn that it wasnt. Thing is is that Olestra was pretty quickly found out that it had some bad side effects. GMOs have no side effects like Olestra. 15 years of healthy eating pretty much solidly puts it in the safe camp.

We also have the a very unhealthy population, especially when you consider the fact that we outspend the rest of the world for health care at the same time.


Somebody post a graph that plots the increase in GMOs with the increase in Autism and peanut allergies and really freak people out.
 
2013-05-27 09:12:42 AM  

skozlaw: No, that's okay. I've known for a long time that people who read HuffPo are complete morons as well. It's not an either/or proposition.

They're also the sorts of idiots who are likely to oppose various common sense medical procedures like vaccination.... or going to a real doctor.


You left out "get excited about side boobs."
 
2013-05-27 09:13:02 AM  
Uranus Is Huge!:
Somebody post a graph that plots the increase in GMOs with the increase in Autism and peanut allergies and really freak people out.
3.bp.blogspot.com
Is this close enough?
 
2013-05-27 09:15:45 AM  
I don't know the science, but I do know that any corporation as large and powerful as Monsanto very rarely keeps itself from doing great evil.
 
2013-05-27 09:20:47 AM  

OrangeSnapper: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x260]
Is this close enough?


Odd, you'd think that driving lemons would lead to more accidents.
 
2013-05-27 09:22:54 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Somebody post a graph that plots the increase in GMOs with the increase in Autism and peanut allergies and really freak people out.


I just GISed "bad correlation examples" and stumbled across this:
1.bp.blogspot.com
(From which we can safely conclude that, prior to the Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions, every single person in the world was autistic.)
 
2013-05-27 09:23:58 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: BraveNewCheneyWorld: cman: We have been using GMOs for 15 some odd years in mainstream food. You think by now if there were very bad side effects that it would be taken off the market quickly. Olestra isnt used much at all because of its side effects. It was first thought as completely safe, but subsequent studies shewn that it wasnt. Thing is is that Olestra was pretty quickly found out that it had some bad side effects. GMOs have no side effects like Olestra. 15 years of healthy eating pretty much solidly puts it in the safe camp.

We also have the a very unhealthy population, especially when you consider the fact that we outspend the rest of the world for health care at the same time.

Somebody post a graph that plots the increase in GMOs with the increase in Autism and peanut allergies and really freak people out.


Really?  We consume more GMOs than any other country, while having the worst health per dollar spent on health care and it's asinine to even suggest that there might be a link?  What's your logic behind that?  The two are quite a bit more closely linked than pirates and global warming, or do you disagree that unhealthy things lead to higher health care spending?
 
2013-05-27 09:24:28 AM  
FACT: Increased use of GMOs leads causes the president to be black.
 
2013-05-27 09:25:24 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uranus Is Huge!: BraveNewCheneyWorld: cman: We have been using GMOs for 15 some odd years in mainstream food. You think by now if there were very bad side effects that it would be taken off the market quickly. Olestra isnt used much at all because of its side effects. It was first thought as completely safe, but subsequent studies shewn that it wasnt. Thing is is that Olestra was pretty quickly found out that it had some bad side effects. GMOs have no side effects like Olestra. 15 years of healthy eating pretty much solidly puts it in the safe camp.

We also have the a very unhealthy population, especially when you consider the fact that we outspend the rest of the world for health care at the same time.

Somebody post a graph that plots the increase in GMOs with the increase in Autism and peanut allergies and really freak people out.

Really?  We consume more GMOs than any other country, while having the worst health per dollar spent on health care and it's asinine to even suggest that there might be a link?  What's your logic behind that?  The two are quite a bit more closely linked than pirates and global warming, or do you disagree that unhealthy things lead to higher health care spending?


That's the point. There isn't any logic in this "debate."
 
2013-05-27 09:28:04 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: We consume more GMOs than any other country, while having the worst health per dollar spent on health care and it's asinine to even suggest that there might be a link?


Yes.
 
2013-05-27 09:28:51 AM  

I Ate Shergar: Uranus Is Huge!: Somebody post a graph that plots the increase in GMOs with the increase in Autism and peanut allergies and really freak people out.

I just GISed "bad correlation examples" and stumbled across this:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 661x465]
(From which we can safely conclude that, prior to the Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions, every single person in the world was autistic.)


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-27 09:35:16 AM  

Captain Dan: BraveNewCheneyWorld: We consume more GMOs than any other country, while having the worst health per dollar spent on health care and it's asinine to even suggest that there might be a link?

Yes.


Why?  Please be detailed.  Also explain if this also mean that we can similarly dismiss anyone who claims that the increased number of guns in the U.S. leads to gun crime?

You do realize that GMOs aren't merely different from regular foods because of a difference in DNA, right?  If that was the only difference, then I would agree with you.  You know that DNA is responsible for the building of other chemicals within the organism, which aren't necessarily listed in food, and not necessarily inherent in an unmodified organism, right?
 
2013-05-27 09:36:05 AM  
The view that GM crops can, somehow, cause changes in our genome is retarded. Nevertheless, opposing Monsanto's use of intellectual property and their other unethical business practices isn't crazy. The labeling issue only addresses the health aspect of the food for consumers. Laws regarding genetic patenting is what's needed.
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report