Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dangers of GM
Comments
-
Markcheese wrote: »"Then it's clear you're nowhere near the ground level of research that's going on in GMOs and are feeding off unsubstantiated and non-peer-reviewed nonsense and have very little practical knowledge of how these things work."
You do realize how childish and immature an argument that comes across as ??
When somebody grounds their understanding on non-scientific or approved evidence and sources, makes claims, but refuses to back up said claims and tells others to do their work for them, well then, that person is not worth the time and energy needed when it comes to level-headed discussion.0 -
I'm pretty sure that's not what happened. :rolleyes:0
-
What's "a few"? Four? Five? Six? Ten?paleoperson wrote: »Ever heard of a gene? I am talking about all nucleotide patterns greater than a few nucleotides, it's really not a difficult concept.
And what's your basis for that completely arbitrary number?
I really don't understand how cultivating a GMO has the potential to "irreversibly change everything forever", but cultivating a "wild type" does not? Either way, farming has a massive environmental impact.paleoperson wrote: »The fact that they can crosspollinate and irreversibly change everything forever...0 -
What's "a few"? Four? Five? Six? Ten?
And what's your basis for that completely arbitrary number?
The number I'm referring to there is based on what patterns come up in genomes, which I termed "fundamental building blocks". I don't believe I'm saying anything controversial there. I take it you agree that there are patterns in genomes, that it's not all just random?I really don't understand how cultivating a GMO has the potential to "irreversibly change everything forever", but cultivating a "wild type" does not? Either way, farming has a massive environmental impact.
I agree that farming has a massive environmental impact. I am certainly against modern farming practices. However let's take an analogy of clearing the way for human activities like building houses or planting crops the conventional modern way: using standard equipment, and building them in a newly invented way which means anyone could move or prepare any land mass on the planet instantly. Which type do you think would be more dangerous in the short term and require more attention? There are practical limits with the first kind, and at least with the second kind you could put it back while with GMOs, there's a limited amount you could do to contain it.0 -
Even if what you said was true your argument is against Monsanto, 'super' weeds and the GMO-lobby. You still haven't given any reason for anyone to believe that GMOs are unhealthy.
There's a religious forum that embraces claims without any evidence, maybe that would be a better place for your posts.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ok GMO's aren't unhealthy , but then neither are guns, bullets or even nuclear weapons... It's their use or misuse that's unhealthy (and even then only for some :-) )
I'm sure there's a pedants corner somewhere (probably near the religious forum ) ....Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
Markcheese wrote: »Ok GMO's aren't unhealthy , but then neither are guns, bullets or even nuclear weapons... It's their use or misuse that's unhealthy (and even then only for some :-) )
I'm sure there's a pedants corner somewhere (probably near the religious forum ) ....
Misuse of water is unhealthy.
Just like water you have to decide if GMOs are of positive or negative net benefit.
GMOs (artificially modified or otherwise) are of net benefit. There have been no arguments to suggest otherwise on this thread.
There are plenty of apologists over at the religious forum too.0 -
Just heard Leo Enright on newstalk there, he says there's a survey on Irish peoples' views on GM foods going up later today. I'm just posting it here in case I forget. Maybe someone could link it if they happen to come across it.0
-
My question is how long does one of these "patterns" have to be before you'll allow scientists to manipulate it?paleoperson wrote: »The number I'm referring to there is based on what patterns come up in genomes, which I termed "fundamental building blocks". I don't believe I'm saying anything controversial there. I take it you agree that there are patterns in genomes, that it's not all just random?
I don't really understand your construction analogy or what it has to do with GMOs. I also still don't understand how cultivating GMOs irreparably changes the universe, but cultivating a "wild type" or selectively bred crop does not.paleoperson wrote: »I agree that farming has a massive environmental impact. I am certainly against modern farming practices. However let's take an analogy of clearing the way for human activities like building houses or planting crops the conventional modern way: using standard equipment, and building them in a newly invented way which means anyone could move or prepare any land mass on the planet instantly. Which type do you think would be more dangerous in the short term and require more attention? There are practical limits with the first kind, and at least with the second kind you could put it back while with GMOs, there's a limited amount you could do to contain it.0 -
I heard some of Leo enright on newstalk,
He did say about the intellectual property issue , didn't really mention monoculture issues...
He gave out to Ivan Yates (probably rightly) for using the term frankenfoods, but then said about there being a market for "good wholesome food " as opposed to GM...Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
Advertisement
-
Markcheese wrote: »I heard some of Leo enright on newstalk,
He did say about the intellectual property issue , didn't really mention monoculture issues...
He gave out to Ivan Yates (probably rightly) for using the term frankenfoods, but then said about there being a market for "good wholesome food " as opposed to GM...
Did he actually imply that the two were mutually exclusive?0 -
-
Markcheese wrote: »I heard some of Leo enright on newstalk,
He did say about the intellectual property issue , didn't really mention monoculture issues...
He gave out to Ivan Yates (probably rightly) for using the term frankenfoods, but then said about there being a market for "good wholesome food " as opposed to GM...
Yeah, he pointed out that the Irish blight resistant potatoes would not be under the control of large companies.
Monoculture is not exclusive to GM crops. The vast majority of Irish agriculture is based on monoculture. I'm in no way saying that's a good thing but it's the case. Every dairy farmer in the country strives to have a pasture of exclusively perennial ryegrass.
GM does not mean monoculture.0 -
Did he actually imply that the two were mutually exclusive?
I think he knows that certain parts of society want organic, 'green', natural, low input, GM free, new age crystal, energetic food. And other parts want cheap healthy food. He's not going to alienate the large part of society that are going to pay way over the top for meaningless labels. That's where the highest price per unit is, gullible rich people.0 -
generic2012 wrote: »I think he knows that certain parts of society want organic, 'green', natural, low input, GM free, new age crystal, energetic food. And other parts want cheap healthy food. He's not going to alienate the large part of society that are going to pay way over the top for meaningless labels. That's where the highest price per unit is, gullible rich people.
In your opinion ....
Pork is pork is pork ... But I pay extra to buy freerange... Cos it tastes of something ... In my opinion....Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
Markcheese wrote: »In your opinion ....
Pork is pork is pork ... But I pay extra to buy freerange... Cos it tastes of something ... In my opinion....
Well if you can taste the movements of a pig, good for you. I generally stay away from pork altogether.0 -
generic2012 wrote: »Just heard Leo Enright on newstalk there, he says there's a survey on Irish peoples' views on GM foods going up later today. I'm just posting it here in case I forget. Maybe someone could link it if they happen to come across it.
Link here: http://www.newstalk.ie/player/podcasts/Breakfast/Highlights_from_Newstalk_Breakfast/64269/2/GM_Foods:__Saviour_or_Satan0 -
generic2012 wrote: »I think he knows that certain parts of society want organic, 'green', natural, low input, GM free, new age crystal, energetic food. And other parts want cheap healthy food. He's not going to alienate the large part of society that are going to pay way over the top for meaningless labels. That's where the highest price per unit is, gullible rich people.
Indeed. I've now listened to the interview and it doesn't sound like Leo intended to say that non-GM food are more wholesome or healthier.0 -
generic2012 wrote: »Well if you can taste the movements of a pig, good for you. I generally stay away from pork altogether.
??? , no wonder you stay away from pork if that's what you'd eat... But who am I to judge ...Slava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
Markcheese wrote: »??? , no wonder you stay away from pork if that's what you'd eat... But who am I to judge ...
No-one I suppose0 -
Advertisement
-
generic2012 I buy organic for several reasons.
1) The peer-reviewed science has both 1) statistics showing pesticides in normal doses cause a tiny increase in the incidence of cancer (that some dispute) and 2) theoretical mechanisms of how it could happen, that pesticides in levels on conventional food cause cancer. If you're concerned, look it up yourself. I'm pointing you in the direction, I am not interested in providing links for this right now since it would be a bit off topic. You are free to handwave it away all you like. However I'd just like to put the question as to how much of it is based on reality and how much is just what you would really like to be the case.
Okay here's one link: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/cancercontroversies/pesticides/pesticides-and-cancer
Now that's a super conventional and medically conservative mainstream cancer site.
We do know that chronically ingesting huge amounts of these chemicals induces cancer. The question is whether ingesting trace amounts of them could increase the risk of cancer by an extremely tiny percentage. This is how things typically work. Medical x-ray imaging is known to induce cancer in a tiny percentage of cases (now accepted by the mainstream), so all signs point to the idea that the choice is whether or not to accept an extremely tiny chance of a horrible death due to cancer from that one product or buy organic. It may be about as likely that your brakes will fail on the way home and you'll die that way, but it's about choice and reason.
It's a 0/0 choice, there is no "bad" choice. Usually I have to choose conventional. However to say that oh it's throwing away money is false. It's intellectually lazy. Please see 3 below as well where I state why I in particular need to be vigilant.
It's a very serious and terrible thing to try and glaze over people who are anti-risk as being somehow superstitious and religious or something like that. There are very clear differences. Now you might not accept the philosophy or the policy, but it's very important that you do not somehow make yourself disbelieve there is any risk to what you're doing or any reason to avoid pesticides.
Every time I come to make a choice at a grocery store, I'm faced with:
__1) Increase my risk of dying a horrible death by cancer by a tiny amount or
__2) Spend significantly more and buy organic.
2) The organic bananas I get taste vastly better than the conventional types, the same with organic apples. Maybe it has nothing to do with them being organic (sometimes non-organic apples taste about as good, never bananas though), maybe it's because they're premium. I don't care, they taste much better. If I'm eating raw vegetables, I very often find a funny taste of pesticide off the non-organic ones, it burns my tongue a bit. Other than this, I don't find a taste difference, however even though I love the organic bananas and buy them every time I go shopping I am very hesitant to get the other ones because I know depending on the season they might taste like ****.
3) There is a tolerable limit of the pesticides that are considered okay to eat. There's a lot of pressure and money involved in raising them. The foolish people (with some exceptions) are the ones who simply trust the government on an issue like this.
I eat very differently to most people. Almost all the food I take is fruit or vegetables. I think nothing of eating 1.5kg of grapes a day, or 20 appples a different day. So because of how I eat, I could be going way over the actual limit of certain pesticides you should be eating some day. Whenever you're markedly different in some way, you have to recheck everything that's been put in place for you regarding regulations. This is part of why regulations apart from a completely ban suck and don't work and why it's terrible to support the 99.9% of people that can tolerate it. If 99.99999% of people can tolerate a drug, and it kills the rest, then they say to hell with the tiny percentage of people that die from it and I find there to be something really wrong with that.
4) Organic is much better for... you know... the environment? The organic ones are also in my experience a lot more likely to be "fair trade". If you're genuinely interested in helping to protect the environment and the planet then maybe you should start thinking about these things a bit more.0 -
I'm preparing myself for a fairly substantial presentation in the next coming weeks. I'm sure everyone will be sound with me telling them this is how it is, and for proof and references just shrugging my shoulders saying "shur, look it up yerself, like".
That will only go swimmingly, surely.0 -
Did you even read what it says?paleoperson wrote: »Okay here's one link: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/cancercontroversies/pesticides/pesticides-and-cancer
Now that's a super conventional and medically conservative mainstream cancer site.Cancer Research UK wrote:But for now, the evidence is not strong enough to show a definite link.0 -
paleoperson wrote: »generic2012 I buy organic for several reasons.
1) The peer-reviewed science has both 1) statistics showing pesticides in normal doses cause a tiny increase in the incidence of cancer (that some dispute) and 2) theoretical mechanisms of how it could happen, that pesticides in levels on conventional food cause cancer. If you're concerned, look it up yourself. I'm pointing you in the direction, I am not interested in providing links for this right now since it would be a bit off topic. You are free to handwave it away all you like. However I'd just like to put the question as to how much of it is based on reality and how much is just what you would really like to be the case.
If you do base your views on peer reviewed work then that's good but I think you're interpreting the results wrong. Thanks for chuckle, but don't worry I won't 'handwave' it away, unlike your brushing off of all questions/responses put to you.paleoperson wrote: »We do know that chronically ingesting huge amounts of these chemicals induces cancer. The question is whether ingesting trace amounts of them could increase the risk of cancer by an extremely tiny percentage. This is how things typically work. Medical x-ray imaging is known to induce cancer in a tiny percentage of cases (now accepted by the mainstream), so all signs point to the idea that the choice is whether or not to accept an extremely tiny chance of a horrible death due to cancer from that one product or buy organic. It may be about as likely that your brakes will fail on the way home and you'll die that way, but it's about choice and reason.
Chronically ingesting huge amounts? Do you know what that means? Eating large amounts over large periods of time. Who does that? 'Pesticides' is a ridiculously encompassing term, as is the term 'chemicals'. Of course certain pesticides and chemicals can contribute to cancer, you're going to have to at least mention some specifics if you want a proper discussion, otherwise we could be unwittingly arguing about different things. An exmaple of dangerous pesticides and chemicals include copper solutions to treat fungal diseases, which is not biodegradable and remains toxic in soil forever. The insecticide Rotenone can cause Parkinson's disease, and is highly neurotoxic to humans in general. Both of these chemicals/pesticides are used in organic farming.paleoperson wrote: »It's a very serious and terrible thing to try and glaze over people who are anti-risk as being somehow superstitious and religious or something like that. There are very clear differences. Now you might not accept the philosophy or the policy, but it's very important that you do not somehow make yourself disbelieve there is any risk to what you're doing or any reason to avoid pesticides.
I have no problem with people who are 'anti-risk', I do, however, have a problem with people who make up risks to be 'anti' towards. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that people who eat organic and “natural” foods are 8 times more likely to be attacked by a new strain of E. coli 0157: H7. TIt affects tens of thousands of people annually. It causes permanent liver and kidney damage in many of its victims. It causes at least 250 deaths per year in the United States alone. This is all because people don't want their food washed with chlorinated water but at the same time want it fertilisered with faeces, becuase it's 'natural'. It's beyond non-sensical.paleoperson wrote: »2) The organic bananas I get taste vastly better than the conventional types, the same with organic apples. Maybe it has nothing to do with them being organic (sometimes non-organic apples taste about as good, never bananas though), maybe it's because they're premium. I don't care, they taste much better. If I'm eating raw vegetables, I very often find a funny taste of pesticide off the non-organic ones, it burns my tongue a bit. Other than this, I don't find a taste difference, however even though I love the organic bananas and buy them every time I go shopping I am very hesitant to get the other ones because I know depending on the season they might taste like ****.
If that is the case it's more likely that they taste better because it takes them longer to grow, they're grown in season and in an area more suited to their growth. Not because they're organic.paleoperson wrote: »3) There is a tolerable limit of the pesticides that are considered okay to eat. There's a lot of pressure and money involved in raising them. The foolish people (with some exceptions) are the ones who simply trust the government on an issue like this.
Conspiracies are fun but once it gets to the point of governments trying to make their own people sick or dead, and then have to pay for their care or lose tax because they're dead it gets pretty silly. It's not the government tricking people, it's the organic farmers, they have loyal followers, who by their nature, don't value evidence.paleoperson wrote: »I eat very differently to most people. Almost all the food I take is fruit or vegetables. I think nothing of eating 1.5kg of grapes a day, or 20 appples a different day. So because of how I eat, I could be going way over the actual limit of certain pesticides you should be eating some day. Whenever you're markedly different in some way, you have to recheck everything that's been put in place for you regarding regulations. This is part of why regulations apart from a completely ban suck and don't work and why it's terrible to support the 99.9% of people that can tolerate it. If 99.99999% of people can tolerate a drug, and it kills the rest, then they say to hell with the tiny percentage of people that die from it and I find there to be something really wrong with that.
Since you're so fond of 'research', I'd do a bit on a high fructose consumption and its effects on health, it would be time better spent than on bad maths and imaginary regulatory systems.paleoperson wrote: »4) Organic is much better for... you know... the environment? The organic ones are also in my experience a lot more likely to be "fair trade". If you're genuinely interested in helping to protect the environment and the planet then maybe you should start thinking about these things a bit more.
It's not. At all. I'll just use Irish examples but a hectare (any unit of land) used to grow potatoes conventionally will produce 250% more potatoes than if it was used for organic. Organic milk needs 80% more land, has 20% higher global warming potential, 60% more nutrient run-off to water sources, and a 70% higher contribution to acid rain than conventional milk.
Spend your money on organic food, fight against GM. But you should know that not only is stupid, it is highly unethical when developing countries are considered. If everyone bought like you did, there would be less land available for farming and more plant and animal disease also less money, food and health for everyone involved- because of pure stupidity. It would also be disastrous in terms of pollution, extinctions and average global temperatures.
It might be cool and make you feel fluffy inside to think that you know more than everyone else or whatever, but don't go spouting unethical non-sense. And please use some numbers in some of your arguments, 'huge', 'large' and other subjective measurements mean nothing.0 -
generic2012 wrote: »Since you're so fond of 'research', I'd do a bit on a high fructose consumption and its effects on health, it would be time better spent than on bad maths and imaginary regulatory systems.
Okay first of all don't tell me to research anything, I'm not your student. Let's not comment on each others alleged lack of knowledge or say anything regarding each other in future okay? As an experiment and see how it goes?
The anti-fructose pronouncements were based on early test-tube nonsense that was never reproduced in animals. It had fructose creating AGE or advanced glycation endproducts, as being the cause of everything from heart disease to aging, much of it based on the fact that fructose uses the liver so it must be bad. That "theory" is finished among all except a small but loud minority like Dr. Lustig, who has even admitted that there is nothing wrong with fruit and vegetables.generic2012 wrote: »It's not. At all. I'll just use Irish examples but a hectare (any unit of land) used to grow potatoes conventionally will produce 250% more potatoes than if it was used for organic. Organic milk needs 80% more land, has 20% higher global warming potential, 60% more nutrient run-off to water sources, and a 70% higher contribution to acid rain than conventional milk.
In my view the plant that uses more land is much better for the environment. Industrial agriculture is the practice of fitting as much food into as tiny a space as possible, thereby allowing other space to be used for human/industrial processes. This is very bad. The fact that it produces more food also means that there will be more overpopulation leading to further problems and more extreme starving in future. The correct plants for humans to eat is fruit, and if anything should be grown it should be fruit trees. Instead there are just grains and animals nearly everywhere. Humans are the problem. Efficient farming is the problem.generic2012 wrote: »Spend your money on organic food, fight against GM. But you should know that not only is stupid, it is highly unethical when developing countries are considered. If everyone bought like you did, there would be less land available for farming and more plant and animal disease also less money, food and health for everyone involved- because of pure stupidity. It would also be disastrous in terms of pollution, extinctions and average global temperatures.
It might be cool and make you feel fluffy inside to think that you know more than everyone else or whatever, but don't go spouting unethical non-sense. And please use some numbers in some of your arguments, 'huge', 'large' and other subjective measurements mean nothing.
This is all garbage that seems to derive from the obligatory "defence" of conventional crop makers. They have to come up with something, these faddish "backwards is forwards" claims are widely regarded as nonsense probably even by the spokespeople who say them.
Again, don't talk about me. Don't talk about what I feel, don't talk about my knowledge, don't talk about my motivations, etc. I find it difficult to discuss science with someone who insists on doing this. And to be honest I'm getting tired of this discussion anyway and can't guarantee I'll reply back.0 -
paleoperson wrote: »Okay first of all don't tell me to research anything, I'm not your student. Let's not comment on each others alleged lack of knowledge or say anything regarding each other in future okay? As an experiment and see how it goes?
I never told you to do any research, I wouldn't dream of putting you under such strain.paleoperson wrote: »The anti-fructose pronouncements were based on early test-tube nonsense that was never reproduced in animals. It had fructose creating AGE or advanced glycation endproducts, as being the cause of everything from heart disease to aging, much of it based on the fact that fructose uses the liver so it must be bad. That "theory" is finished among all except a small but loud minority like Dr. Lustig, who has even admitted that there is nothing wrong with fruit and vegetables.
You're latching on to the wrong parts of the argument but anyway, I never said that there is anything wrong with fruit and vegetables, just suggesting that your fructose intake could do with a revaluation. And there are plenty of meta-analysis available on fructose intake, I never gave any direct reference to any study so I'd appreciate if you didn't suggest that my views are based on one study.paleoperson wrote: »In my view the plant that uses more land is much better for the environment. Industrial agriculture is the practice of fitting as much food into as tiny a space as possible, thereby allowing other space to be used for human/industrial processes. This is very bad. The fact that it produces more food also means that there will be more overpopulation leading to further problems and more extreme starving in future. The correct plants for humans to eat is fruit, and if anything should be grown it should be fruit trees. Instead there are just grains and animals nearly everywhere. Humans are the problem. Efficient farming is the problem.
You're entitled to your views, no matter how misguided, uninformed and unfounded in reality they are, but when in a public place it's not nice to spew them without evidence or at least logic. If you think humans are the problem and you want to reduce their health and numbers, go for your anti GM and pro organic stance, but don't say GM is unhealthy and organic is healthy.paleoperson wrote: »This is all garbage that seems to derive from the obligatory "defence" of conventional crop makers. They have to come up with something, these faddish "backwards is forwards" claims are widely regarded as nonsense probably even by the spokespeople who say them.
I haven't defended crop 'makers' anywhere in this thread. Well I'd contend that going organic and stopping the advancement of technology is going backwards, not the other way around.paleoperson wrote: »Again, don't talk about me. Don't talk about what I feel, don't talk about my knowledge, don't talk about my motivations, etc. I find it difficult to discuss science with someone who insists on doing this. And to be honest I'm getting tired of this discussion anyway and can't guarantee I'll reply back.
I haven't talked about your knowledge at all, and I know you find discussing science difficult but you should at least try it, you're in a science forum after all. I won't worry if you don't write back, you still haven't touched on any of the questions you were directly asked. So any response is unlikely to be about the health effects of GM but rather, to use your own word, a 'handwave'.0 -
generic2012 wrote: »You're latching on to the wrong parts of the argument but anyway, I never said that there is anything wrong with fruit and vegetables, just suggesting that your fructose intake could do with a revaluation. And there are plenty of meta-analysis available on fructose intake, I never gave any direct reference to any study so I'd appreciate if you didn't suggest that my views are based on one study.
Why could it do with a reevaluation though? I'm spending years and years eating this way and suddenly someone says something on a message board and I could do with suddenly reevaluating the whole thing?
I don't mean to be rude, just wondering why you think my eating "could do with a reevaluation" and do not believe that to be the case.0 -
You’re happy enough to use inconclusive science when it suits your own argument. You just tried to link pesticides with cancer, even though there is little evidence, if any, to support such a link.paleoperson wrote: »The anti-fructose pronouncements were based on early test-tube nonsense that was never reproduced in animals. It had fructose creating AGE or advanced glycation endproducts, as being the cause of everything from heart disease to aging, much of it based on the fact that fructose uses the liver so it must be bad. That "theory" is finished among all except a small but loud minority like Dr. Lustig, who has even admitted that there is nothing wrong with fruit and vegetables.
Or the preservation of natural habitats?paleoperson wrote: »In my view the plant that uses more land is much better for the environment. Industrial agriculture is the practice of fitting as much food into as tiny a space as possible, thereby allowing other space to be used for human/industrial processes.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
So we should use all available land for organic farming, just in case somebody uses it for something else?paleoperson wrote: »That rarely turns out to be the case. People who are pro-industrialization always tend to be way too optimistic about how it will be actually used.
Poor argument.0
Advertisement