• 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!

Most Exhaustive Compilation of GMO Studies Concludes... Safe... Duh

Present evidence that any of this is true.

I'm not doing lectures. Feel free to investigate if you want to have an informed opinion.
 
Monsanto didn't "have to get" that. They wanted it, because what company wouldn't want liability protection for free?

Simply by getting / seeking out liability protection MEANS AT THE VERY LEAST that they are uncertain about the actual risks.
 
Simply by getting / seeking out liability protection MEANS AT THE VERY LEAST that they are uncertain about the actual risks.

Nothing is 100% certain. I mean, asbestos was around for ages before we figured out it was deadly. Long-term effects require long-term study. Which they'll be doing. But if we'd required a lifetime's worth of study for anything that could theoretically affect one's health, we'd still be in the bronze age. We have enough data to suggest that there's no magical inherent danger to gene splicing in a lab versus hybridization versus selective breeding. Changed genes are changed genes. I mean, what you and I know to be "bananas" is not a natural product. It never existed in nature until we created it via a primitive version of genetic manipulation.

That said, I would say that such liability protection is ****ing bull****.
 
Another aspect to consider is that 99% of these studies are short term safety studies (90 days) and the few studies that were longer-term / generational studies are the ones that started showing negative effects... But those studies are quickly hit by the debunker train (often within HOURS of publishing).

I'm glad you pointed that fact out. One of the problems is the issue of carcinogens. You shouldn't expect to find a short term problem because the doses are so small but, like smoking, ingesting even a small amount of carcinogens on a regular basis over a long period of time is a recipe for cancer. You won't see those results at only 90 days, but 20? 30? 40 years? Maybe.
 
I'm more interested in whether or not "monsters" have come up in GMO development.

Like nuclear power, I'm not against GMOs out of hand, but we've seen known bad products make it to the shelves out of greed. And that would be BAD if it happened with a non-sterile GMO.

I've always wondered why companies that want to sell "suicide seeds" make their GMO crops fertile. Seems unnecessarily risky to me.
 
The joke is that we have been genetically modifying or crops since the beginning of agriculture. That's what hybridizing is. The idea that a new method of making hybrids is inherently dangerous to our heath is pretty foolish. Genetically engineered biological WEAPONS is another story entirely.
The development of rice that produces vitamin A has the potential of eliminating deficiency caused blindness in millions of 3rd world children. It is not a biological weapon.

We have severely damaged things already though. One disease can erase an entire crop due to poor biodiversity or some plants become more susceptible to other danger like drought, flooding, etc. It also raises dependence on one type of seed and basically enslave entire people and if that crop fails everyone is broke and hungry.
 
Why would GMO's lead to the degradation of soil, the local ecology, or farm independence for that matter? I'm not saying you are doing this but I a lot of people conflate modern industrial agriculture with GMO's. While I support both whole heartily there is a massive difference between the two. If anything GMO's reduce the use of pesticides which I think would be a tick mark in the 'pro' column for what you seem concerned about.

gmos dont reduce the use of pesticide,they increase it.

yu also agued in a different post about hybridizing has been going on since the beginning of agriculture.


problem is that when an organism is genetically modified,it tends to lose all its natural resistances,as do hybrids in many cases.over 100 years ago,pesticide use was almost non existent,because people would grow plants in more natural environments,even hybrids then often existed for a long time allowing them to gain resistance to pests and disease,and many were grew where they were native.


since the 50's,hybrids have gotten so hybridized that they have practically no resistance to anything natural,and require extensive use of pesticide and much planning to prevent disease.also with bigger and bigger crop yields with hybrids,more nutrience is needed from the soil,depleting it heavily.thats the reason corn farmers need crop rotations,because modern hybrid corn depletes the soil after a single cycle and usually needs one to two cycles of soybean crops to restore its nutrients.further as an example of crop resistance,we had a fruit fly epidemic decades ago that destroyed crops,our fruit wasnt resistant to it,but crops where those flies oriinated were mostly resistant.everytime a plant is hybridized to increase yields the natural resistance is destroyed.


with genetic modification,it is to a much greater effect.even worse you risk something like making a plant that may act as a weed to other existing plants.what would happen if you geneically modified corn and it accidentally became a weed that leeched off pine trees,destroying entire pine forests and ecosystems???
 
I'm curious to see the exhaustive studies of ties between GMO's and our epidemic beehive colony collapse problem.
 
Can we finally discard this completely artificial phobia?

Nope. That would violate the rock-solid Cyrylek's Law of Conservation of Idiocy in Public Discourse.

Which states that whenever the "Right" comes up with something utterly ludicrous and anti-scientific (like the latter-day creationist fantasies, for example), the "Left" will always respond with some equally irrational - and usually more harmful - set of ludicrous and anti-scientific notions.
 
We have severely damaged things already though. One disease can erase an entire crop due to poor biodiversity or some plants become more susceptible to other danger like drought, flooding, etc. It also raises dependence on one type of seed and basically enslave entire people and if that crop fails everyone is broke and hungry.

GMO's have been around for almost 20 years now. Why hasn't this happened? I also would like to point out that one of the canards that some like to trot out like genetic use restriction technology (GURT) otherwise hysterically known as 'terminator genes' were in part developed to tackle that theoretical problem. By forcing the second generation of seeds to become sterile you virtually eliminate the threat of transgenes escaping into the environment and limit the radius of disease to the single generation of the affected crop strain.
 
You would THINK that GMO's would reduce pesticides / herbicides. However, because these chemicals will not harm the crops, farmers become much more liberal in the use of these chemicals.

Also, since these chemicals become absorbed by the plants, they can no longer simply be washed off.

Another aspect to consider is that 99% of these studies are short term safety studies (90 days) and the few studies that were longer-term / generational studies are the ones that started showing negative effects... But those studies are quickly hit by the debunker train (often within HOURS of publishing).

Consider, if GMO's are really that safe, why is it that Monsanto had to get liability protection for a case where GMO foods could be proven to have caused damages??

1. Do you really think that the length and breadth of literally thousands of scientific studies (not regulatory reviews) is only concerned with "90 day safety studies"? It's nonsense. Moreover what you're saying isn't even true! The only studies to show 'damage' (all of which have been discredited) like the infamous Seralini study were short term experiments. The scientific consensus on this topic is overwhelming, trying to claim that thousands of scientists haven't really done their due diligence is just lazy. .

2. I'm 90% confident your source on pesticide use is the now discredited Benbrook study from WSU. So I'll just post this: Scientists, Journalists Challenge Claim That GM Crops Harm The Environment - Forbes & GMOs May Feed the World Using Fewer Pesticides — NOVA Next | PBS

3. They do not have liability protection. This is an anti-GMO myth. The clause in question has to do with the USDA issuing temporary non-regulated status to already planted crops to prevent an entire crop being wiped out by a regulatory hurdle. Nothing at all to do with liability protection.
 
1. Do you really think that the length and breadth of literally thousands of scientific studies (not regulatory reviews) is only concerned with "90 day safety studies"? It's nonsense. Moreover what you're saying isn't even true! The only studies to show 'damage' (all of which have been discredited) like the infamous Seralini study were short term experiments. The scientific consensus on this topic is overwhelming, trying to claim that thousands of scientists haven't really done their due diligence is just lazy. .

2. I'm 90% confident your source on pesticide use is the now discredited Benbrook study from WSU. So I'll just post this: Scientists, Journalists Challenge Claim That GM Crops Harm The Environment - Forbes & GMOs May Feed the World Using Fewer Pesticides — NOVA Next | PBS

3. They do not have liability protection. This is an anti-GMO myth. The clause in question has to do with the USDA issuing temporary non-regulated status to already planted crops to prevent an entire crop being wiped out by a regulatory hurdle. Nothing at all to do with liability protection.

Exactly my points...
 
I'm more interested in whether or not "monsters" have come up in GMO development.

Like nuclear power, I'm not against GMOs out of hand, but we've seen known bad products make it to the shelves out of greed. And that would be BAD if it happened with a non-sterile GMO.

I've always wondered why companies that want to sell "suicide seeds" make their GMO crops fertile. Seems unnecessarily risky to me.

Genetic use restriction technology (GURT) otherwise hysterically known as 'terminator genes' were in part developed to tackle the theoretical problem of environmental contamination and agricultural disease. By forcing the second generation of seeds to become sterile you virtually eliminate the threat of transgenes escaping into the environment and limit the radius of disease to the single generation of the affected crop strain. There are also a host of associated benefits in industrial agriculture such as by reducing the efficiency lost to volunteer plants.
 
Genetic use restriction technology (GURT) otherwise hysterically known as 'terminator genes' were in part developed to tackle the theoretical problem of environmental contamination and agricultural disease. By forcing the second generation of seeds to become sterile you virtually eliminate the threat of transgenes escaping into the environment and limit the radius of disease to the single generation of the affected crop strain. There are also a host of associated benefits in industrial agriculture such as by reducing the efficiency lost to volunteer plants.

At least some GMO crops are fertile. Hence that guy who was successfully sued for copyright infringement when his organic farm got contaminated by an adjacent GMO field. And the more recent wheat incident.
 
At least some GMO crops are fertile. Hence that guy who was successfully sued for copyright infringement when his organic farm got contaminated by an adjacent GMO field. And the more recent wheat incident.

I'm not sure what you mean. At present all commercially available GMO crops can reproduce. Also the case in question was obviously not simple transgenic contamination. They were successful in their suit because he palpably stole the crop and replanted it.
 
That was a refutation not an agreement.

Your refutation was addresses before you made it... The seralini study had GMO lobbies refuting the paper within HOURS of it being published, for example.

You were partly right about the liability protection though... It allows the GMO seeds to be grown even if it's not found to be safe... Until it is found to be safe.

Funny thing about open air experimentation like this; once they are planted in fields the pandoras box is open regardless of what it contains... And frankly, monsanto owns about 80% of food grown in north America as it is, so that box has already been opened.

Beyond that, I'm not going into a GMO history lesson and the corruption circuitous way that these products were found to be safe in the first place.
 
At least some GMO crops are fertile. Hence that guy who was successfully sued for copyright infringement when his organic farm got contaminated by an adjacent GMO field. And the more recent wheat incident.

This happened ALOT... I have family whose farm was nearly shut down because of this process.
 
Your refutation was addresses before you made it... The seralini study had GMO lobbies refuting the paper within HOURS of it being published, for example.

You were partly right about the liability protection though... It allows the GMO seeds to be grown even if it's not found to be safe... Until it is found to be safe.

Funny thing about open air experimentation like this; once they are planted in fields the pandoras box is open regardless of what it contains... And frankly, monsanto owns about 80% of food grown in north America as it is, so that box has already been opened.

Beyond that, I'm not going into a GMO history lesson and the corruption circuitous way that these products were found to be safe in the first place.

Absolutely none of the things you just said are true. You are doing the same thing you did when you posited scientific evidence for the soul and parapsychology.
 
I'm not sure what you mean. At present all commercially available GMO crops can reproduce. Also the case in question was obviously not simple transgenic contamination. They were successful in their suit because he palpably stole the crop and replanted it.

No, that's not the case... They would go around, trespass, take samples, and then sue for the theft.

Farmers aren't typically scientists and so lacked the knowledge to form a proper defense.
 
The thing that bothers me about GMOs is that unlike hybrids, which are similar and created for better taste, better shape, color, whatever, it is intended to improve the basic item with traits.... GMOs seem to be altered in order to be sprayed with chemicals without dying. So my issue is the chemicals it permits rather than the genetic alteration itself.
 
No it doesn't. That isn't true on so many levels.

Not only are GMO infringement cases incredibly rare they are never for trace amounts of material.

NPR.org » Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted

Moreover there is a binding injunction against such lawsuits.

Court To Monsanto: You Said You Won't Sue, So You Can't : The Salt : NPR

Lol... If I was so inclined I could call the family for the court case specifics.

I'm not going to call you a liar here, but you have clearly been misinformed... Honestly, the more you go on, the more you sound like a Monsanto spokesperson.
 
Lol... If I was so inclined I could call the family for the court case specifics.

I'm not going to call you a liar here, but you have clearly been misinformed... Honestly, the more you go on, the more you sound like a Monsanto spokesperson.

You are a fraud. You do this in every thread you ever involve yourself in. You spin up a personal anecdote and when confronted with evidence you throw out irrelevant nonsense.
 
You are a fraud. You do this in every thread you ever involve yourself in. You spin up a personal anecdote and when confronted with evidence you throw out irrelevant nonsense.

Ya, I have far more passion for topics that have / do hit close to home.

Some stupid NPR article written by someone who gets money directly or indirectly from Monsanto claiming that they are the good guys in all this doesn't change the fact that pollen blows in the wind and lands where it lands "infecting" areas with their "intellectual property".

The fact is that they have a strong armed approach against small farms... But they also got billions of dollars to spend on all sorts of advertisement to keep their image clean for people who have never seen farm equipment except in pictures.

When I got more time I'll go and dig up a few more cases of this happening, of course it will never be enough because the people that brought you agent orange could never do anything wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom