Science vs Politics: The Scientific consensus on GM foods.

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The labeling increases cost.

Any company now has the ability to label their products as gmo free, and some do. I don't care, and companies producing economically priced goods may or may not track whether the corn oil is gm or not.

The people who want labeling and the companies that serve them should pay for labeling. Those of us who don't care should get the lower prices.

If more money is being made by using GM corn, don't you think it would be worthwhile to go ahead and analyze and report on the differences between the GM corn and non-GM corn so that people can know what exactly was changed and how it influences the crop.

If GM is used to resist spoilage, for example, people should know why/how decomposition is resisted, Digestion is basically a process of food decomposing within the digestive tract, so foods that resist decomposition may also resist digestion; but to know for sure, we would have to know the specifics of what decomposers are thwarted by a given gene modification and how that translates to resisting gut biome decomposers.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

When Friends of the Earth support GM foods I'll change my mind.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

- The scientists say "yes".
- The liberal political groups say "no"

You go with the liberal political groups.

I go with the science. When the scientists agree with the liberal political groups, I go with the science. When the scientists agree with the big corporate interests, I go with the science.

1 Reply

I go with human behavior, which sometimes follows true science, but these days more often goes with dollar signs.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Scientists work for Friends of the Earth too. It's an environmental group that has got **** all to do with the Liberal party.

The only people who want this **** are the execs at Monsanto and lickspittles like you.

You're a serf, someone who is told what they can eat.

And in 50 years time we'll be able to see what the effect is on America.

And if this was 50 years ago you'd be banging on about how scientists have said smoking is OK.

The only science you believe is that paid for by big business. I prefer science that isn't driven by profit.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Every major scientific organization in the world, including the National Acadamy of Sciences, the European Food Safety Authority and many other organizations have concluded that the process of genetic engineering is no more risky than conventional breeding. In fact genetic engineering has been used for 40 years-- it's been used in cheeses and medicine and in crops. And, there hasn't been a single case of harm to human health or the environment.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Sez you. We don't want it, you Americans will just have to eat it all yourselves. That shouldn't be a problem as you say it's so safe.

Otto Sump had to come from somewhere.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/wG1RLn2ZredBPAsOCzRDbvhZT2B11t4NoEKKpuifqpEHqiAHNMQnDZn0K68plylEXYYX2NIr7FW5DTtk-EZ0NNfpTXsPJf_eMec

I'm not interested in your shitty videos either.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I have no problem with that. The US can get the benefits of more food produced on less land with a lower need for pesticides. The UK makes it's own decisions.

This is another way that the UK is shooting itself in the foot. I feel a little bad, but it literally isn't my problem.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Sez you. We don't want it, you Americans will just have to eat it all yourselves. That shouldn't be a problem as you say it's so safe.

What about all the poor people in the world who would not be able to afford food if GM-modified foods weren't grown to boost the food supply to include them?

Do you want them to go hungry?

If not, how do you propose to produce enough food for them without GM? Reducing food waste? Feeding less grains and legumes to animals so that they can be consumed by humans instead?

What sacrifices are you willing to make with your food supply to compensate for reducing GM-produced food? Are you willing to eat less meat? Stop utilizing prepared-food services that cause more food waste as part of their business model for providing a variety of ready-to-eat foods that don't require customers to wait?

And furthermore, non-GM foods are more labor intensive to produce and process, so where does the extra labor and processing equipment come from for everyone to enjoy the luxury you have in affording to reject GM? Are YOU personally going to join the growing labor pool of agricultural and other food supply-chain workers needed to produce and distribute enough non-GM foods so everyone in the world can avoid GM?

Plus if you did go to work in agriculture or food-handling, you realize you would have to sacrifice many luxuries, including but not limited to free time and retirement - because how are you going to afford expensive organic food on agricultural/food-worker wages while also saving up money for the future?

0 Replies

This is Max's World, one where parents have to forensically examine ingredients so they don't give their children cancer.

We don't have that **** over here. We don't want it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Stereotypical Indian Mom: "would sooner pour the polluted river of the Ganges down their gullet then give them this carton of cow cancer you call 'milk'"

I don't think Izzy understands this clip. It is hilarious, and it makes its point (in a slightly racist way).

It would be nice if it were true that no one died of cancer in the UK.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

People also get murdered over here despite not having guns, but our homicide rate is much lower.

The difference is you're trying to impose your lifestyle and ideology on us. We're not trying to force **** down your throats.

It's how fascism starts, with cultural imperialism.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

We saved your ass from fascism.

And... I also find it a little funny for a Brit to lecture an American (or anyone else) on imperialism.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

People also get murdered over here despite not having guns, but our homicide rate is much lower.

The difference is you're trying to impose your lifestyle and ideology on us. We're not trying to force **** down your throats.

It's how fascism starts, with cultural imperialism.

Didn't it actually start with economic imperialism?

And do you think economic imperialism has ended? Don't you think global investing has an effect on the kinds of business that go on in various places?

Do you think that when investment money goes from one country to another, it just quietly accepts whatever people they are investing in want to do with it?

What's more, do you think that business behaves independently when deciding what to produce and sell and how? E.g. do you think they say, "let's produce non-GM food even though all our global investment partners will abandon us if we do?"

Is that how you think it works?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Well that didn't take long, you can't address the points made so you bang on about WW2.

You started this thread in a vain attempt to show how smart you are, but all you've done is prove you're an idiot incapable of holding a coherent argument.

You gave us Fascism, the genocide of the native Americans was the inspiration for the Third Reich, and Henry Ford gave them a **** ton of money.

Stalingrad was the turning point in WW2, Stalingrad and El Alamein, no American boots on the ground in either of those.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Well that didn't take long, you can't address the points made so you bang on about WW2.

You started this thread in a vain attempt to show how smart you are, but all you've done is prove you're an idiot incapable of holding a coherent argument.

You gave us Fascism, the genocide of the native Americans was the inspiration for the Third Reich, and Henry Ford gave them a **** ton of money.

Stalingrad was the turning point in WW2, Stalingrad and El Alamein, no American boots on the ground in either of those.

Do you think it would have been any different if the US hadn't declared independence from GB?

If so, how and why?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

The genocide of the Native Americans was started by the English long before the British colonies in North America won their independence.

It was the English that gave Native American tribes blankets contaminated by smallpox. This happened when the White people in North America still pledged allegiance to the British throne.

The British Empire committed some of the worst atrocities known in the history of mankind, from the slave trade to the genocide of Native Americans. Sadly the American colonists continued the British tradition of White Supremacy long after gaining their independence from British Empire.

White Supremacy and genocide were developed in England, and then brought to North America by English colonizers.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Lava, I am just toying with Izzy. Let me have my fun Wink

!

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

White Supremacy and genocide were developed in England, and then brought to North America by English colonizers.

Aren't you forgetting about ancient Rome and other ancient societies?

And why do you assume that no other Europeans were involved in colonialism besides English? There were lots of different trading companies and various languages used during European expansion and colonialism.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Again.. Lava. This isn't a serious discussion. This is me toying with Izzy.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Again.. Lava. This isn't a serious discussion. This is me toying with Izzy.

Discussion is discussion. Words have meanings. You both have made some interesting comments, and then proceeded to ignore my responses to them, which would make for interesting discussion.

I guess you don't really want interesting discussion, though; only banter.

0 Replies

Science vs Politics: The Scientific consensus on GM foods.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know