• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are GMOs good or bad [W:104]

Are GMO foods good or bad?


  • Total voters
    35
Haha. I get it. You're trolling. Any reason you're being abnormally obtuse and combative?

You're the one who is being obtuse: on the one hand you admit that GMOs are safe per se yet on the other you are nursing irrational fears about imaginary dangers of genetic modification. So you know there is no rational basis to fear GMOs yet you fear them and view them with undue skepticism. That is, by definition, irrational.

And I am being "combative" because the anti-GMO element is a scourge that must be treated with contempt. The irrational opposition to GMOs deserves no respect.
 
Okay...call me when you're back to normal.

Tellingly, you fail to address the substance of my argument and resort to ad hominem attack to attempt to save face. But that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and promoting dangerous ideas.

Take a look at who you're siding with. Anti-GMO people are right up there with the anti-vaccine kooks.

Side with science.:thumbs:
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's just focus on the topic here and stop with the personal comments directed towards each other. Thanks.
 
Anybody who oppose GMOs in even the slightest way does so based on irrational fears and ignorance. But as I said earlier, the pro-labelling crowd is not merely ignorant, but dangerous. It is a disgusting thing to allow irrational prejudices and fears take hold to the extent that they actively do harm to an emerging scientific field that can do so much good for so many people who are in need.

It is far beyond mere ignorance, it is despicable, monstrous, horrible to support a labeling requirement.

Ok, let's pretend that GMO foods are completely safe, though the longer duration of any study the more bad effects are uncovered, but for the sake of argument let's ignore those studies (which the pro-GMO crowd does anyway).

Do you really think its prudent to create a situation where a company could have a monopoly over food??

Really?? So, wanting a label to know if your food was created in a lab is akin to eating babies (or something equally horrible)?

Btw, there's a distinct difference between using selective breeding to enhance certain traits compared to adding genetic instructions (or gene sequences from other animals) into another plant or animal.

With one you are using natural processes where the changes are made with all the "knowledge" obtained through hundreds of millions of years of evolution compared to the decade or two of obtained knowledge and technology to manipulate genetics. Even if the scientists have the best intentions, and with good understanding of genetics, the understanding of the entire genetic process of reproduction hasn't been fully understood, in that the inserted code might, several generations recombine into something less safe, also the artificial genetics "infects" non GMO plants as well. (which Monsanto has used as evidence of "intellectual property theft" in lawsuits against farmers)

GMO promised food freedom, but it's turning into food enslavement. That's without even getting into the controversies concerning their safety studies.
 
So you know of every plant that does exist or will ever exist as a result of natural processes?

GMO's have been studied and approved. That people cannot differentiate between temporal correlation and actual causation is no reason to disrupt the food supply. This isn't a war for health--it is a war against corporate farming. Here is a clue--the insulin used by diabetics is **gasp** genetically modified. Those people clearly would be better off if there were no GMO's :slapme:
Well, then, that settles it. The government... that which is utterly free from corporate and lobbying influence, and is as honest and pure as the day is long... has deemed them worthy. I feel much better now. :neutral:

:lamo
 
An ingredient label would list soybeans, but according to some in this thread, people have no right to know that said soybean may also have been modified to do them harm.

Wow. Just... wow.
Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans

The New England Journal of Medicine: Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans

"...an allergen from a food known to be allergenic can be transferred into another food by genetic engineering."

On any food product that contains these soybeans, should the ingredient list say "soybeans", or should it say "soybeans and brazil nuts"?
 
Last edited:
The anti labeling crowd is making GMO's look awful. They don't even realize labeling do nothing except increase consumer knowledge.

Increase consumer knowledge about what?

As I said earlier, I believe every single reputable study has concluded that GMO food is perfectly safe.
 
Ok, let's pretend that GMO foods are completely safe, though the longer duration of any study the more bad effects are uncovered, but for the sake of argument let's ignore those studies (which the pro-GMO crowd does anyway).

Look, that's just bull****. GMOs are completely safe, we don't have to assume anything. So, it's not the pro-GMO crowd, it's the pro-science crowd.

Do you really think its prudent to create a situation where a company could have a monopoly over food??

That sounds like a IP issue, not a GMO safety issue.

Really?? So, wanting a label to know if your food was created in a lab is akin to eating babies (or something equally horrible)?

Yup. It's irrelevant information. Only an ignorant fool would care to know it. No reason to make a law forcing manufacturers to put labels with irrelevant information on them.

What you are asking for is the coercive labeling of irrelevant information that only matters to prejudiced fools. You are basically saying that if some idiot wants to know the race of the person who grew the tomatoes, it should be forcibly labeled. Well, tough **** if that matters to you because you don't have a right to know irrelevant information like that. It makes no rational difference, and businesspeople don't need to kowtow to ignorant bigots like racists and anti-GMO kooks.
 
Look, that's just bull****. GMOs are completely safe, we don't have to assume anything. So, it's not the pro-GMO crowd, it's the pro-science crowd.


Ya, all studies (even the studies that showed negative side-effects) had no significant effect on the first generation of animals studied... But, you could buy the same line that "it still looks like a potato, and potatoes are safe, therefore GMO potatoes are safe."

Are you aware that typical safety studies are 90 days, with a few "long-term" studies of around 2 years. Generational studies are where the negative effects start popping up, and we are into the second generation of humans since GMO's have been produced and released open air.

That sounds like a IP issue, not a GMO safety issue.

Actually, it's both... Because its intellectual property, the company involved gets a say in how any studies are performed.

You imply that monopolies are good, would you care to clarify how a monopoly on food production is prudent?

Yup. It's irrelevant information. Only an ignorant fool would care to know it. No reason to make a law forcing manufacturers to put labels with irrelevant information on them.

We "force" manufacturers to declare what's in everything, hell, bought a wood piece of furniture that even declared the part of the world and conditions concerning how the wood was obtained and how it was treated.

Making your point moot, we already enforce quite stringent labeling requirements.

What you are asking for is the coercive labeling of irrelevant information that only matters to prejudiced fools.

We do much more for lesser reasoning...


You are basically saying that if some idiot wants to know the race of the person who grew the tomatoes, it should be forcibly labeled.

No, it's saying "this food was made in a lab".

Well, tough **** if that matters to you because you don't have a right to know irrelevant information like that.

Don't have a right... Because it is THAT SAFE!?

It makes no rational difference, and businesspeople don't need to kowtow to ignorant bigots like racists and anti-GMO kooks.

No, they just sell to their idiot apologists to act like tyrants while defending it for free.

Btw, Adding "(genetically modified)" next to relevant ingredients is "coercive"?? Please explain.
 
No. There is no obligation to put a label on a perfectly safe product to satisfy an irrational prejudice.

But you know that given the choice; NOBODY would buy it...

Why are you against providing information on food sourcing... We include that for many additives that are equally regarded as "safe".
 
But you know that given the choice; NOBODY would buy it...

Why are you against providing information on food sourcing... We include that for many additives that are equally regarded as "safe".

Many people would buy it. I don't care if its labeled but I do care when people make crazy claims about GMOs like it cause a third arm to grow.
 
But you know that given the choice; NOBODY would buy it...

There are a lot of idiots in the world. Widespread stupidity is no reason to penalize the manufacturers of genetically modified food.
 
Back
Top Bottom