9
   

Monsanto name to become Bayer

 
 
Glennn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:43 am
@maporsche,
From the Report contained within your link:

This report indicates where there are uncertainties about the economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other impacts of GE crops and food, and makes recommendations to fill gaps in safety assessments, increase regulatory clarity, and improve innovations in and access to GE technology.
______________________________________________________

Why don't you interpret that for us.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:49 am
@Glennn,
After you interpret the following from the same report.

page 236 - "the research that has been conducted in studies with animals and on chemical composition of GE foods reveals no differences that would implicate a higher risk to human health from eating GE foods than from eating their non-GE counterpart"

page 236 - "The committee could not find persuasive evidence of adverse health effects directly attributable to consumption of GE foods."

maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:51 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

From the Report contained within your link:

This report indicates where there are uncertainties about the economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other impacts of GE crops and food, and makes recommendations to fill gaps in safety assessments, increase regulatory clarity, and improve innovations in and access to GE technology.
______________________________________________________

Why don't you interpret that for us.


Also, I'm looking at the 600+ page report right now and a search of these phrase you quoted cannot be found in the document. Maybe you could point me to where you got this.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:52 am
@maporsche,
Good. Now if you can direct me to the safety studies that were conducted, who conducted them, and where they were conducted, that would be great.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:56 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
Maybe you could point me to where you got this.

Sure. The first paragraph in the link you provided contains a link to the report. I'm surprised you didn't look at it.
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2016/05/gmo-safety-debate-is-over/

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 09:59 am
@Glennn,
They think it's enough to provide a link. They don't really believe they could be wrong, so they only read a header or something.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:04 am
@Glennn,
I clicked the link to the 600+ page report and began reading there; I didn't read the summary from whomever the Alliance for Science is.

You said the phrase was from the actual report. It's not there (at least not in that specific text).

Have a page number?
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:11 am
@maporsche,
I see now, you just copied/pasted from the description of the report. You didn't actually take the time to open the report and review any actual, cited, documented, information.

The information you seek is in that report. If you're at all interested, you can find what you're pretending to look for.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:11 am
@maporsche,
Go to the link you put up. Then click on the Report in the first paragraph. On the right hand side of the page you will see a Download the report here. Scroll down to "description" and then click on "read full description." And there it is.
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:14 am
@Glennn,
On that page, see where is says "Download Free PDF"

There is the information you pretend to seek.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:14 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
The information you seek is in that report

So you can't actually direct me to the safety studies that were conducted, who conducted them, and where they were conducted. Okay, that'll do.
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:19 am
@Glennn,
No, I CAN do that. I just refuse to play the game where you demand to see a specific link to information (then another, then another) under the false pretense that by reading that information you may change your mind or admit that you could be wrong about something.

There are many links in the document I posted. Start there.

See, it's common for people to ask others to waste their time just for fun, knowing full well that no matter how many links I find from reputable sources and post and assuming you'd actually read any of them you and I both know full well that you're dogmatic and rigid in your ideology and will not change your belief here.

When you know the game is rigged, it's smarter to not play the game.
Glennn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:22 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
When you know the game is rigged, it's smarter to not play the game.

Rigged? All that's happened is you've been asked to support your claim that tests have been conducted which proves the safety of GMOs. So far, the best you can do is tell me it's in a Report.
Quote:
No, I CAN do that.

Well, no you can't . . .
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:28 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

Quote:
When you know the game is rigged, it's smarter to not play the game.

Rigged? All that's happened is you've been asked to support your claim that tests have been conducted which proves the safety of GMOs. So far, the best you can do is tell me it's in a Report.
Quote:
No, I CAN do that.

Well, no you can't . . .


You are taking my quotes out of context, thereby creating a straw man argument that you can more easily knock down.

The preceding paragraph to this one in my post is the "rigged game" that I'm referring to.



Quote:
So far, the best you can do is tell me it's in a Report.


That's not the best I can do. It's all I'm willing to do. There is a distinct difference.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:36 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
That's not the best I can do.

Yes it is.
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:39 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
Quote:
That's not the best I can do.

Yes it is.


Time for me to stop playing your game Glenn.

You win, for whatever it's worth to you.
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:41 am
@maporsche,
No, I didn't win. I didn't get those safety studies I was looking for. And neither did you. So we both lose.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:44 am
@maporsche,
Hahaha!! This is perfect.

“The game” Elitist Mahporsche refuses to play is providing evidence for his claim.

smh!
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:50 am
@Glennn,
You have over 600 pages of analysis and citations of those studies (in complete and proper citation formatting as outlined in formal writing style guides) from respectable science organizations around the globe.

Citations such as
Quote:
USDA–APHIS (U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service).
2014c. Determinations of Nonregulated Status: J.R. Simplot Co.; Potato Genetically
Engineered for Low Acrylamide Potential and Reduced Black Spot Bruise. Available
at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0067-0384. Accessed
December 22, 2015.


You. Have. The. Studies.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2018 10:54 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
You. Have. The. Studies.

Are you telling me that you can't cite even one test study that proves the safety of GMOs?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 04:43:47