Rats Fed Lifetime of GM Corn Grow Horrifying Tumors, new study.

steddyeddy · 25-09-2012 11:53PM

Dr.Poca wrote: »

I don't see why not though. There's a point when you run out of nice ways to say something. I don't see a problem in someone who know's better telling me I'm wrong.
I recently finished my own degree in genetics/cell biology. Obviously I'm not an expert, but I think it's fair to say anyone with a background in the field would have a better idea of what they're talking about.

Indeed thats true to an extent but It would be an unscientific arguement to simply flash qualifications. I prefer to argue facts about genetics, proteins and mutation. Congrats on your degree by the way!

Somnus · 25-09-2012 11:55PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed thats true to an extent but It would be an unscientific arguement to simply flash qualifications. I prefer to argue facts about genetics, proteins and mutation. Congrats on your degree by the way!

I know. I just get frustrated after a while

And thanks! Might pursue a post-grad next year

Run_to_da_hills · 25-09-2012 11:55PM

Dr.Poca wrote: »

This thread has gone out of control!

Not really,

May I add the following,

The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's GMO corn

My mum use to tell us that you would get more nourishment from eating the box that Kellogg's corn flakes came in rather then the flakes inside, I guess its now safer to eat the box.

AtomicHorror · 25-09-2012 11:57PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness I am pro gm (not pro monsanto) but I dont think there is much need for anyone saying "Im a scientist everything I say is right and no one else has an opinion". People can look at this scientifically withouth being a scientist.

Of course, but it helps to try and get familiar with the basic principles. They're not that complex, but the two main anti-GM posters on this thread have revealed that they haven't done their homework. Thing is, I'm highly dubious about the GM industry and I do worry about the risks associated with the technology or the real need for it, but I'm not going to sit back and let misinformation and hysteria dictate the argument. It's like trying to have a serious discussion about the risk of influenza pandemics and getting interrupted by two guys who keeps talking about miasmas and imbalances of the humors.

steddyeddy · 25-09-2012 11:57PM

Dr.Poca wrote: »

I know. I just get frustrated after a while

And thanks! Might pursue a post-grad next year

See you in my department maybe! Im the mad one by the way ha ha

AtomicHorror · 26-09-2012 12:00AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not really,

May I add the following,

The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's GMO corn

My mum use to tell us that you would get more nourishment from eating the box that Kellogg's corn flakes came in rather then the flakes inside, I guess its now safer to eat the box.

You remind me of a certain creationist poster. Your arguments get refuted, so you ignore them and keep throwing out links.

Run_to_da_hills · 26-09-2012 12:17AM

Dr.Poca wrote: »

If you read it, it says the company that stocks the canteen is Sutcliffe Catering, not really Monsanto's choice what a different company decides to include or not include in their meals. Not much of a story.

I also notice how you have no response to Sarky now that he's quite rightly shown he knows what he's talking about. All though that doesn't particularly surprise me.

And why would Sutcliffe Catering get the tender to supply food to Monsanto?

Reason is obvious, it can provide non GM food products which would be in the safest interest of the companies employees.

Capt'n Midnight · 26-09-2012 01:19AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness I am pro gm (not pro monsanto) but I dont think there is much need for anyone saying "Im a scientist everything I say is right and no one else has an opinion". People can look at this scientifically withouth being a scientist.

Actually it's more a case of "I'm a scientist and what I say is probably right, but if anyone can show reproducible data that says otherwise then I have to retract what I said."

Capt'n Midnight · 26-09-2012 01:24AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not really,

May I add the following,

The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's GMO corn

My mum use to tell us that you would get more nourishment from eating the box that Kellogg's corn flakes came in rather then the flakes inside, I guess its now safer to eat the box.

Why are you showing us speculation about US cereal boxes ?

The rules are different here.

In the US of A if the ingredients says cellulose then there is a good chance you are eating wood flour ( sawdust )

Yes the cornflakes thing was true, back in the 1950's. But since then by law they have had to add vitamins. Corn is pretty nutrition free at the best of times anyway.

TheChizler · 26-09-2012 02:26AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Dr.Poca wrote: »

If you read it, it says the company that stocks the canteen is Sutcliffe Catering, not really Monsanto's choice what a different company decides to include or not include in their meals. Not much of a story.

I also notice how you have no response to Sarky now that he's quite rightly shown he knows what he's talking about. All though that doesn't particularly surprise me.

And why would Sutcliffe Catering get the tender to supply food to Monsanto?

Reason is obvious, it can provide non GM food products which would be in the safest interest of the companies employees.

Because they're the only catering company able to source unmodified produce?

Run_to_da_hills · 26-09-2012 09:56AM

The European Food Safety Authority orders review in to the research, conducted at a French university

Russia's decision could be followed by other nations

Both the GM corn and Roundup are the creation of US biotech company Monsanto

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208452/Russia-suspends-import-use-American-GM-corn-study-revealed-cancer-risk.html#ixzz27XKOqnue

GalwayGuy2 · 26-09-2012 11:30AM

Yup, Russia has always been an unbiased source of reason.

Ziphius · 26-09-2012 01:51PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness sarky went about that in the wrong way. Im in a similar position to him (biochemistry not micro) and my argument would never consist of telling a person they didnt know what they were talking about.

I think it was justified. The fact is he didn't know what he was talking about. He could parrot the argot but his posts were inane -- they made no sense. People don't need to be experts on science to discuss them but reading 6 books (and pamphlet) doesn't give you a right to aggressively shout down professional scientists (or anyone for that matter).

NewVision · 25-10-2012 04:51PM

Hunger & Food Security

"Do we really need industrial agriculture to feed the world?"

SuperInfinity · 25-10-2012 07:34PM

I would rather everyone I know die of starvation, including myself, than these GMOs be released into the environment and crossbreeding with natural plants, ruining them forever.

Life is so short and transitory, how can anyone justify loading this onto their future descendants, destroying natural food forever. Really disgusting and unforgiveable.

steddyeddy · 25-10-2012 07:47PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I would rather everyone I know die of starvation, including myself, than these GMOs be released into the environment and crossbreeding with natural plants, ruining them forever.

Life is so short and transitory, how can anyone justify loading this onto their future descendants, destroying natural food forever. Really disgusting and unforgiveable.

Then I wouldnt eat Cabbage or any other genetically modified food if I were you.

SuperInfinity · 25-10-2012 07:51PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Then I wouldnt eat Cabbage or any other genetically modified food if I were you.

I try my best not to.

Are you saying that cabbage we buy in stores is already genetically modified? (I would find that surprising).

Sarky · 25-10-2012 08:25PM

Still going?

Heh, shine on, you crazy diamonds.

Run_to_da_hills · 25-10-2012 08:40PM

Time to give up Weetabix, Shreddies and all those other corporate produced supermarket junk cereals.

Australian scientists are expressing grave concerns over a new type of genetically engineered wheat that may cause major health problems for people that consume it.

University of Canterbury Professor Jack Heinemann announced the results of his genetic research into the wheat, a type developed by Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), at a press conference last month.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI7n_caiTvE

Source and further reading on the topic.

GM Wheat May Permanently Alter Human Genome, Spark Early Death

GM Wheat May Damage Human Genetics Permanently

Sarky · 25-10-2012 08:48PM

Got any non-crazy sources?

steddyeddy · 25-10-2012 08:49PM

Right run to the hills I looked at that. What they are suggesting is that DNA we ingest can get incorperated into our DNA and then expressed. It doesnt happen like that. It just doesnt unless you can show me evidence otherwise?

Run_to_da_hills · 25-10-2012 08:52PM

Sarky wrote: »

Got any non-crazy sources?

You are hardly going to find this sort of stuff on FOX, CNN or the BBC.

The genetically modified Rat situation was quickly shoved under the carpet by the main stream media and government officials.

force eleven · 25-10-2012 08:52PM

Big Pharma and GM Companies. Lovely, kind, well meaning organisations.

Sarky · 25-10-2012 08:54PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You are hardly going to find this sort of stuff on FOX, CNN or the BBC.

The genetically modified Rat situation was quickly shoved under the carpet by the main stream media and government officials.

So... Got any non-crazy sources?

fly_agaric · 25-10-2012 08:59PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

3) Evolution is evidence that GM foods are bad for you. There is something like a 1/100,000 chance for a mutation to be good for an organism, a corollary to that is surely that there is something like a 1/100,000 chance for a mutation of a food to be good for the organism consuming it (agree? disagree?).

I'd assume that the geneticists and other scientists doing this work are smart. Their efforts should be more directed than cosmic rays/mutagenic chemicals etc.

Run_to_da_hills · 25-10-2012 09:07PM

Sarky wrote: »

So... Got any non-crazy sources?

That conference video report by the Australian Safe Food Foundation: Post # 290

SuperInfinity · 25-10-2012 09:51PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That conference video report by the Australian Safe Food Foundation: Post # 290

I think "sarky the sexy voice of reason" is a bit of a joke and a bit of a troll, I'm ignoring what that person says. If we're going to be arguing with posters who just make stupid comments like that we're never going to getting anything done.

It's just a pity that some things in this world are not democratic, because one deranged and ignorant person or group of individuals, usually motivated by greed, can ruin things for everyone, such as with genetic engineering. Even if the scientists who originally make it easy have good intentions and safeguards in mind, once the methods are available, it could end up with anyone using them. The idea that this may be in any way okay is absolute nonsense, everything could be contaminated extremely quickly.

poeticseraphim · 26-10-2012 12:17AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The same scientific community that is telling us that drinking fluorinated water is good for our health. :rolleyes:

It is.

Sarky · 26-10-2012 02:37AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That conference video report by the Australian Safe Food Foundation: Post # 290

I'm not sure you quite understand the question. I'll try a third time: Have you got any non-crazy sources?

Run_to_da_hills · 26-10-2012 03:50AM

Sarky wrote: »

I'm not sure you quite understand the question. I'll try a third time: Have you got any non-crazy sources?

A non-crazy sources to you is probably MSM, I am hardly going to find it in that. :rolleyes:

Rats Fed Lifetime of GM Corn Grow Horrifying Tumors, new study.

Comments