+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Maui GMO protest (/showthread.php?tid=13484)
RE: Maui GMO protest - Wao nahele kane - 04-21-2014
Labeled as in commonly already existing food label requirements... http://www.100daysofrealfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/050_dressing_label_zoom.jpg
USA example: http://www.personalchefapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Why-you-need-to-read-ingredients-on-labels.jpg
RE: Maui GMO protest - Wao nahele kane - 04-21-2014
quote:
Originally posted by geochem
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
In-fact - faith is not part of my life. Be it in religion or science because in the end, it's merely a faith based on what some blow hard tells you is factual from his or her LIMITED perspective of which may or may not be completely thought through and more likely not completely thought through. Blind faith is for fools IMO and I don't give a crap what label you put on the faith.
In fact, Not. Science is based on independently replicable evidence whereas religion is based on a belief in the absence of evidence... Not unlike the distinction between those of us who accept the scientific evidence produced by thousands of studies that show GMO poses minimal risk as opposed to the anti-GMO mob who (want to) believe GMO products are dangerous in the absence of any credible evidence that they are.
Although you claim not to be religious, you clearly are - of the tech paranoia sect, methinks.
Looks like this needs to be dissected for you to realize what I meant. Though you may "believe" science is not fallible because of what you've cited with regard to replicated experimentation and the independent peer review process. There are two particular readily apparent things you've not cited that do indeed occur in science that invalidate your infallible theory of science and it's wayward notion of separation between common dogmas and reality.
There are those who "believe" that science is infallible and always on cue. Being the pragmatic individual I am, let's examine that "belief" on a couple points.
Experiments are first and foremost no more informative than their constructs allow them to be. Limited experiment produce limited results and so on. Results are naturally independent to themselves dictated by the ultimate boundaries of physics and the said experimental conditions.
Results fall prey to human interpretation and interpretation is of the individuals expression and perspective application.
A basic example is the word "safe". How one utilizes the word safe can be applied from differing perspectives. Applied through any given perspective a result may be interpreted as safe and through another perspective it may be considered unsafe. Each observing the same results through confirmed replication yet exacting similar results derive different conclusions.
Case in point: Seralini's replication of the Monsanto experiment. Each produced the same results. Because Seralinis interpretations of the results differed from Monsanto's, it created an uproar in the scientific community based on "beliefs"/personal opinions. Science was tossed out the window and Seralini ostracized but then later vindicated in a court of law and where later slander suites where in favor of Seralini. It's important to note that Seralini's replication was only possible because of a judiciary order to reveal the Monsanto experiment. In the United States such experimental information and product is not available for independent replication, nor independent peer review. Seralini concluded further testing was necessary for the product. Simple.
There were citations that Seralini used the wrong rats for cancer testing. Bottom line, he used the same rats that Monsanto used as it was an independent replication of the Monsanto experiment. All arguments were based on the assumption that it was Seralini's experiment, it wasn't his experiment, it was Monsanto's experiment replicated by Seralini.
So science brings us opinions everyday that are indeed not agreed upon and the fighting that is created is as bad as that seen during the inquisition. We see the same thing occurring around the climate topic. Piss poor science is the name of the game these days, seize the dollar and squash those who disagree. Stop fooling yourself otherwise.
RE: Maui GMO protest - Steve W - 04-21-2014
I agree with oneself, just the tactics used by Monsanto should show us as Americans we should not be forced into anything, seems the passive mind they are creating with the FDA is working well?
RE: Maui GMO protest - Delta9r - 04-21-2014
The FDA has a sketchy track record if one takes the time to do some research.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/Recalls/
They approve stuff, and then after people are adversely affected, rescind approval.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/06/06/what-the-fdas-avandia-decision-means-for-the-future/
The latest one the ambulance chasers are clamoring over is Risperdal, which is responsible for causing gynecomastia in pubescent boys.
Then there are the drugs advertised on TV which list "Death" as a side effect... Come on! Death? Death is acceptable to the FDA?
They'll raid a dairy that sells unpasteurized milk, but let the big pharma corps get away with actual murder!
Alcohol kills a hell of a lot of people every year, but cannabis - used safely for thousands of years - is categorized as a "Schedule One" substance?
How can anyone sit back and make excuses for such shoddy regulation from our unelected government servants?
"Life is labor, and all that is good in life comes from that labor..."
RE: Maui GMO protest - David M - 04-21-2014
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
quote:
Originally posted by David M
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
"Natural??? Sounds like a form of human engineering to me. Natural would be you plant a lemon tree, a lime tree and then on it's own some combined product develops."
Natural simply means occurring in nature. Trees do naturally graft to one another under rare circumstances, it occurs more frequently amongst the branches of a single specimen but also occurs between dissimilar specimens. It sometimes occurs through abrasions (but not limited to) induced by winds amongst branches that fuse to one another at the abrasion points remaining in contact after the winds cease.
Grafting is a natural process of the combined specimens, the cuts/abrasions/compression maybe induced naturally or by human intervention.
If you've never observed natural grafts in nature, there are many photos available on-line. http://www.treknature.com/gallery/Oceania/New_Zealand/photo142562.htm
Thanks for making my point - nature, not human caused or assisted, even if a grandfather.
David
Ninole Resident
Please visit vacation.ninolehawaii.com
Evidently you missed the point if you think that made your point. If it occurs in nature, it's natural. Grafting is natural, period.
Nope, you are trying to redefine natural to include assist by man as opposed to natural occurring without intervention/assist by man. There's a whole culture on these islands that rally against things that happened or grown on these islands that hinge on involvement of humans. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Human assisted grafting is simply genetic modification in a different, more acceptable, form.
David
Ninole Resident
Please visit vacation.ninolehawaii.com
RE: Maui GMO protest - Wao nahele kane - 04-21-2014
[/quote]
Nope, you are trying to redefine natural to include assist by man as opposed to natural occurring without intervention/assist by man. There's a whole culture on these islands that rally against things that happened or grown on these islands that hinge on involvement of humans. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Human assisted grafting is simply genetic modification in a different, more acceptable, form.
David
Ninole Resident
Please visit vacation.ninolehawaii.com
[/quote]
Okay David, you made the claim... "Human assisted grafting is simply genetic modification in a different, more acceptable, form."
Now prove it to us. Cite a scientific study that proves grafting is a different form of genetic engineering.
I'll give you 24 hours to provide us all with a scientific study backing your claim.
RE: Maui GMO protest - Mtviewdude - 04-21-2014
quote:
So science brings us opinions everyday that are indeed not agreed upon and the fighting that is created is as bad as that seen during the inquisition. We see the same thing occurring around the climate topic. Piss poor science is the name of the game these days, seize the dollar and squash those who disagree. Stop fooling yourself otherwise.
What you are describing is not science, but people pushing their opinion and squashing those who disagree. Science welcomes (and often) encourages non-violet discouse. It's when business, government,or money come in and push a agenda were things fall down.
RE: Maui GMO protest - TomK - 04-21-2014
quote:Or else? Didn't realise there were time limits for posting here and that Wao nahele kane was in charge.
I'll give you 24 hours to provide us all with a scientific study backing your claim.
RE: Maui GMO protest - Wao nahele kane - 04-21-2014
TomK,
"Or else?" There's no "or else", that's your imagination sneaking up on you. He can take a damn year or 50 years for all I care. Why don't you give him a hand since you've got the ability to make things appear out of nowhere.
RE: Maui GMO protest - Wao nahele kane - 04-21-2014
Hey TomK,
What part of your education taught you the ability to create ex nihilo? Very impressive. Perhaps you can graft a pig and jelly fish for genetic modification too? Pretty please with sugar on top?