Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
Wanting a label to warn against something that has been shown to be dangerous = rational.
Wanting a label to warn against something that has been shown to be safe = irrational.
You want it on the label, first prove it's dangerous. You have a mountain of data against you.
"Anti-science? Claiming that the issue is settled, not keeping an open mind[...]"
That is *exactly* what some of the anti-GM crowd are doing (see previous posts). Science never discourages research.
Cat, I agree with you on personal responsibility! I hope you are also against labels based on fear instead of facts.
Posts: 1,168
Threads: 39
Joined: Jun 2005
Paul, thanks for responding in a civil way, you come across as much more intelligent.
That said, I can't help but think that you are just as irrational as the people you're labeling irrational. In your case, your irrational thinking compels you to stereotype anyone who disagrees with you. Unless, of course, you would like to retract your blanket statement that all people who are skeptical of GMO and support Ron Paul are remote-healing, conspiracy-theory fanatics?
You also have proclaimed the GMO issue "settled." Skepticism is without a doubt an important ingredient of scientific thought. Not only skepticism of religion and superstition (we are on the same page on this one), but also skepticism of drawing premature conclusions based on short-term studies. As much as you would like it to be so, you can't have it both ways.
For the record, I'm not a supporter of GMO labeling. (And I don't agree with liskir on many points, but would never insult him/her just because we disagree.) I agree with the logic that so much today is GMO, that we should assume it's GMO unless otherwise stated. It makes perfect sense for folks who sell non-GMO food to label their products, if for no other reason than to "market their brand" by setting it apart from what has become the norm.
Thank you again for your civil post. I knew you could do it!
Tim
A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions--Confucius
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
punafish, I am always civil. I did not insult anyone. Some people insult me, repeatedly, but they have no other option. I understand.
I never said anything was "settled". In science, even the most widely-accepted theories can be overthrown tomorrow by a definitive counter-example. That is one of its strengths, as I'm sure you know.
I am a card-carrying Skeptic. I do not draw conclusions based on short-term studies, that is exactly what the anti-GM mob do.
One very doubtful result in France and they are crowing from the rooftops. GM has been around for a long time and it has proven itself as safe as any other foodstuff. Does this mean GM is safe? No. It means we have no reason to think it isn't.
I'm glad to hear you're against GM labeling. It will be interesting to see what happens in California.
Posts: 319
Threads: 27
Joined: Jun 2011
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
I'm glad to hear you're against GM labeling. It will be interesting to see what happens in California.
Paul, would you mind outlining your argument/s why you're against labeling our food. Why no full disclosure and transparency here similar to the drug industry?
Edited to include reference to PaulW in the quote.
Posts: 806
Threads: 50
Joined: May 2006
Here's an upcoming, public, year long study by the Russians.
From Russia Today via whatreallyhappened.com
<http://rt.com/news/gmo-experiment-online-rats-240/>
Rat reality show: Russian scientists to broadcast GMO experiment
"..After a French study suggested that rats fed on Monsanto GMO corn suffered tumors, Russian researches plan their own, this time public, experiment. The unique reality show with rats is expected to prove or deny GMO’s health-threatening influence.
The Russian scientists, who oppose genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food, expect that their year-long experiment will show whether the controversial cultivation process has effects as dangerous as French revelations claimed on September 19.
Scientists from France's University of Caen made public the results of their classified study, publishing the images of rats with tumors after they were fed a diet of genetically modified (GM) maize produced by American chemical giant Monsanto.
The revelation stirred fear across Europe and in Russia, where authorities temporarily suspended the import and sale of Monsanto’s genetically modified corn.
Russian researches from the National Association for Genetic Safety (NAGS) believe such experiments should be conducted publicly, so that people can see the process with their own eyes, and thus trust, or not, the study..."
Lee Eisenstein
http://members.cruzio.com/~lionel/event
"Be kinder than necessary, as everyone you meet is engaged in some kind of strudel."
Posts: 4,533
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
quote:
Originally posted by beejee
quote:
I'm glad to hear you're against GM labeling. It will be interesting to see what happens in California.
Paul, would you mind outlining your argument/s why you're against labeling our food. Why no full disclosure and transparency here similar to the drug industry?
**Please note: the following is only in the most respectful way, even if scoffing involved.**
Drug Industry? Transparency? hahahahahahahahaha Can those even be used in the same sentence. Chantix? Avandia? and about a dozen more I can think of off the top of my head.
That said, California does tend to go way way way overboard with anything they try to do that is somewhat good. I say that non-GMO producers should label theirs as such for an awesome marketing tool just like the "organic" label.
And yes, even without the 10 yr testing done yet, I believe GMO has issues. My friends in the medical field are seeing some weird things that at this time are still just anecdotal.
Posts: 603
Threads: 60
Joined: Mar 2008
You did claim it was settled, PaulW. A few pages back. And it is not settled. And until it is settled, how did this stuff get into 90% of Americas food supply? And why do you suppose most of Europe is banning GMOs? I consider American's guinea pigs on this front in a very big way.
I don't understand the logic of, "Let's allow something that is controversial from the start, out into the public's daily food supply and keep it there unless/until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be dangerous". If a company wants to corner the market of grown food by modifying the genes of plants through radiation and implementation of genes from other species, doesn't it seem more logical to demand that THEY prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is safe? And not just for 5 - 10 years, but over a long term study with independent backing?
The logic of "safe until proven dangerous" has been proven to be a dangerously greedy model. Think DDT. Toxic flame retardants on things like pillows (!!!), pills in the 70s that caused mass birth defects but were marketed to help pregnant mothers with morning sickness. GMOs have not been proven to be safe, far from it. The research done by the perpetrators is equivalent to a millisecond in the timeline of their inception and their release to the public, and effects are proving to be quite long lasting.
Why keep ignoring the evidences brought to attention? Massive tumor growths, research on ill effects on bee populations (or Monsanto BUYING the bee research leaders OUTRIGHT?!?). Cross populating of super strains that are working toward elimination of important biodiversity. Stirring evidence has been and continues to be presented, but people who don't want to believe are just going to continue to stick their fingers in their ears and say, "lalalalalalaaaaa, not happening.... I can't hear you..."
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Posts: 603
Threads: 60
Joined: Mar 2008
Now, how much more do we pay when something is stamped 'ORGANIC'? A LOT. So if non GMOs are the ones who are made to label, we can pretty much expect those prices to skyrocket because that is simple marketing logic.
No sense. GMOs should be labeled. It sets a good precedence. When they start adding Napalm or the equivalent to our food, do we really want to be at the point where we are requiring natural food to have written on it all the toxic crap it 'DOESN'T' have in it?
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Posts: 75
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2010
I figure GMOs in the food supply will eventually be self limiting. People who eat them (and feed them to their kids) will leave fewer offspring.....
Posts: 370
Threads: 37
Joined: Aug 2011
"When they start adding Napalm or the equivalent to our food"
They already have. The next Roundup is Agent Orange 2,4-D pesticide, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Monsanto and Dow corp. with the blessing of the EPA, our govt. at its best.
http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2012...e-midwest/
http://rt.com/usa/news/epa-pesticide-24-d-petition-831/
"EPA approves 'Agent Orange' pesticide"
"An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped" Dr. Ron Paul 2012
|
