The "frankenfood" myth

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Activists and regulators have successfully removed food from the tables of the hungry and malnourished. Did you know that? It's appalling, isn't it? Simply by spreading lies, rumors and bad science (sounds like "global warming" doesn't it?) perfectly good, healthy, non-dangerous food has been literally taken foods off the table, out of the mouths of those who would choose it and those who desperately need it. Regardless of their motives, these anti-biotech zealots have caused tragic results, and they now threaten what could be the next Green Revolution.

Here's the part that is going to make two tin-foil-hat airheads on this board go ballistic: Limiting the growth and production of genetically modified (GM) or, as I prefer, genetically engineered (GE) foods might be merited if they proved dangerous according to scientifically defensible standards of risk. But that is not the case. Genetically modified foods are actually safer than their "natural" counterparts.

To modify an organism predictably, whether plant or paramecium, one has to first have a sense of what genes are there and how they work together. Attempting modifications blindly -- randomly crossing strains of wheat or rice to produce a high-yield line -- tends to result in wastage and unpleasant surprises. Sounds inefficient, unreasonably expensive, and rather naïve, doesn't it?

Welcome to reality. Farmers and agribiologists have been trying blind modifications since before the time of Christ. It’s called traditional agriculture.

Before the two airheads jump all over me, let me say, I am an old farm boy and just as concerned that the crops produced in this country and worldwide are safe and effective. A review of several studies done worldwide was published by Peggy G. Lemaux, a professor in the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology at Cal-Berkley -- let's face it, not one of the more conservative and "corporatist" universities in the U.S. (to anticipate Airhead #1's criticism) -- shows the absurdity of condemning genetically engineered crops simply because they are genetically engineered. Fear of the unknown and irrational statements such as "we don't know enough" are what all the arguments boil down to, even among scientists who oppose GE crop production. They can't offer any valid scientific basis to oppose production, they just don't like it because they "don't know enough about it." They don't know enough about it because they don't study the results! They're willfully ignorant! They should read the research Dr. Lemaux read for her synopsis published in Annual Reviews: A Nonprofit Scientific Publisher: Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues, leading to her conclusion.

The use of genetic engineering opens the door to improving agricultural crops in ways not previously possible. But with this capacity comes the responsibility to proceed with caution, investigating possible outcomes carefully. Conversely, there is also a responsibility to utilize the technology where it can provide improvements to human health and the environment and make farmers’ efforts more productive. On the basis of the intensive look at the data in the peer-reviewed literature cited in Parts I and II of this review, it appears that the development of GE crops to date has been responsible and regulatory agencies have, in general, proceeded with caution in releasing GE varieties in the United States.

Although no human activity can be guaranteed 100% safe, the commercial GE crops and products available today are at least as safe as those produced by conventional methods. Particularly with regard to environmental safety, we must stay vigilant in our evaluation of GE crops and their impacts to ensure long-term utility, just as with those created using classical methods. Although we should exercise caution, we should not hold GE crops and products to standards not required for food and feed products produced by other technologies. With the proper balance of caution and scrutiny, we can take advantage of the power of this technology without compromising the health of humans, animals, or the environment.

Get it? Caution combined with common sense, not outright rejection based on what amounts to the equivalent of superstition as demonstrated by the Old Worlders who wouldn't sail west because they thought they'd fall off the edge of the Earth.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Great post tnd! I have been arguing this for years. Whenever we are out and someone starts to describe food as “all natural” or my favorite, “organic” my wife gets nervous because she knows I am about to give them a lecture on how modern agriculture is feeding the world.

Every time some snobby American pays twice as much for his “organic” luxury food items he is taking food away from a starving family in a foreign land.

When our food prices in the US go up 20 or 30% due to banned fertilizer and pesticides or diverting food into ethanol production, we just shrug and pay it. That is not an option in a great part of the world. When their food prices go up the same amount they have to figure out which child to give away or let starve.

 

[InTheLight]

... what all the arguments boil down to, even among scientists who oppose GE crop production, is "we don't know enough". They can't offer any valid scientific basis to oppose production, they just don't like it because they "don't know enough about it."

Or to quote another poster:

"I do not have the resources to conduct independent studies on how poisons poison you and why they're bad. I'm not stupid I just know that they do."

This should be an interesting thread.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

"I do not have the resources to conduct independent studies on how poisons poison you and why they're bad. I'm not stupid I just know that they do."

Translation:

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Every time some snobby American pays twice as much for his “organic” luxury food items he is taking food away from a starving family in a foreign land.

Wouldn't a better alternative be to introduce them to agriculture and teach them to produce their own food?

When our food prices in the US go up 20 or 30% due to banned fertilizer and pesticides or diverting food into ethanol production, we just shrug and pay it.

Out of curiosity, do you know why the Dustbowl occurred?

That is not an option in a great part of the world. When their food prices go up the same amount they have to figure out which child to give away or let starve.

So, my family should ingest chemicals and poison because somebody else in another country can't grow their own food?

You don't think that's been done? How do you suppose they feed themselves now?

Are you saying that his claim is moot?

I do. Do you? There were four waves of droughts, one right after another: 1930–31, 1934, 1936, and 1939-1940. It felt like one drought, because the affected regions could not recover before the next one hit. In 1932 fourteen dust storms were reported, with 48 the next year. The last drought didn't end until late fall of 1939.

Thank you, Wikipedia.

The Dustbowl occurred because of irresponsible farming practices, like the ones that are occurring now on the large factory farms you're defending.

Farmers had not rotated crops, they over-cultivated, and there was no backup irrigation in the Great Plains states for those times when the rains didn't come. Those are the only reasons.

And nothing to do with soil erosion? I thought you said you knew why it happened.

Straw man argument, logical fallacy, invalid statement. There is no proof GE foods are "poison" -- in fact, they are identical to naturally grown foods, just more hardy and better prepared to face drought and disease -- and there are no chemicals involved.

If there are no chemicals involved, then why did he say "banned fertilizer and pesticides"? Are you calling him a liar?

So find something else to complain about regarding GE foods, because this argument is just like the Dust Bowl: No water.

I'm not complaining at all. I'm just asking a question.

Sounds like you're the one who's just like the Dust Bowl: No foundation.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Wouldn't a better alternative be to introduce them to agriculture and teach them to produce their own food?

You don't think that's been done? How do you suppose they feed themselves now? You think every third- and fourth-world country gets fed entirely off the back of U.N. food trucks?

Out of curiosity, do you know why the Dustbowl occurred?

I do. Do you? There were four waves of droughts, one right after another: 1930–31, 1934, 1936, and 1939-1940. It felt like one drought, because the affected regions could not recover before the next one hit. In 1932 fourteen dust storms were reported, with 48 the next year. The last drought didn't end until late fall of 1939. Farmers had not rotated crops, they over-cultivated, and there was no backup irrigation in the Great Plains states for those times when the rains didn't come. Those are the only reasons. Not pesticides or other chemicals -- very few were used then -- and certainly not "genetic engineering" nor any other nonsense enviro-nut explanation.

So, my family should ingest chemicals and poison because somebody else in another country can't grow their own food?

Straw man argument, logical fallacy, invalid statement. There is no proof GE foods are "poison" -- in fact, they are identical to naturally grown foods, just more hardy and better prepared to face drought and disease -- and there are no chemicals involved. So find something else to complain about regarding GE foods, because this argument is just like the Dust Bowl: No water.

 

[Gina B]

Activists and regulators have successfully removed food from the tables of the hungry and malnourished. Did you know that? It's appalling, isn't it? Simply by spreading lies, rumors and bad science (sounds like "global warming" doesn't it?) perfectly good, healthy, non-dangerous food has been literally taken foods off the table, out of the mouths of those who would choose it and those who desperately need it. Regardless of their motives, these anti-biotech zealots have caused tragic results, and they now threaten what could be the next Green Revolution.

Here's the part that is going to make two tin-foil-hat airheads on this board go ballistic: Limiting the growth and production of genetically modified (GM) or, as I prefer, genetically engineered (GE) foods might be merited if they proved dangerous according to scientifically defensible standards of risk. But that is not the case. Genetically modified foods are actually safer than their "natural" counterparts. [SNIP]

/QUOTE]

I snipped it at the part that needs to be snipped. Let's look at what you wrote in the last sentence.

You wrote this: "Genetically modified foods are actually safer than their "natural" counterparts. "

Nothing else really needs to be said. Again, as you did when talking about drugs vs herbs, you claim human superiority over what our Father created.

Now you are claiming genetically modified foods are more safe than the original.

My only point in responding is to point that out to others and for those that read and do not post, let them know that there are those of us out there that are vehemently opposed to this garbage and still respect and appreciate natural (no quotes needed for the word, odd that a believer would use them in that context?) things.

 

[poncho]

Activists and regulators have successfully removed food from the tables of the hungry and malnourished. Did you know that? It's appalling, isn't it? Simply by spreading lies, rumors and bad science (sounds like "global warming" doesn't it?) perfectly good, healthy, non-dangerous food has been literally taken foods off the table, out of the mouths of those who would choose it and those who desperately need it. Regardless of their motives, these anti-biotech zealots have caused tragic results, and they now threaten what could be the next Green Revolution.

Here's the part that is going to make two tin-foil-hat airheads on this board go ballistic: Limiting the growth and production of genetically modified (GM) or, as I prefer, genetically engineered (GE) foods might be merited if they proved dangerous according to scientifically defensible standards of risk. But that is not the case. Genetically modified foods are actually safer than their "natural" counterparts.

To modify an organism predictably, whether plant or paramecium, one has to first have a sense of what genes are there and how they work together. Attempting modifications blindly -- randomly crossing strains of wheat or rice to produce a high-yield line -- tends to result in wastage and unpleasant surprises. Sounds inefficient, unreasonably expensive, and rather naïve, doesn't it?

Welcome to reality. Farmers and agribiologists have been trying blind modifications since before the time of Christ. It’s called traditional agriculture.

Before the two airheads jump all over me, let me say, I am an old farm boy and just as concerned that the crops produced in this country and worldwide are safe and effective. A review of several studies done worldwide was published by Peggy G. Lemaux, a professor in the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology at Cal-Berkley -- let's face it, not one of the more conservative and "corporatist" universities in the U.S. (to anticipate Airhead #1's criticism) -- shows the absurdity of condemning genetically engineered crops simply because they are genetically engineered. Fear of the unknown and irrational statements such as "we don't know enough" are what all the arguments boil down to, even among scientists who oppose GE crop production. They can't offer any valid scientific basis to oppose production, they just don't like it because they "don't know enough about it." They don't know enough about it because they don't study the results! They're willfully ignorant! They should read the research Dr. Lemaux read for her synopsis published in Annual Reviews: A Nonprofit Scientific Publisher: Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues, leading to her conclusion.Get it? Caution combined with common sense, not outright rejection based on what amounts to the equivalent of superstition as demonstrated by the Old Worlders who wouldn't sail west because they thought they'd fall off the edge of the Earth.

Charges are flying. Here are some facts.

As we have reported many times, GMO foods are not safe. Remember those rats fed GMO corn whose offspring were fine but whose grandchildren were sterile? Is this uncontrolled experiment on human beings a good idea?

The California Right to Know 2012 Ballot Initiative, if enacted in November, would require GMO food—that is, all food containing genetically engineered ingredients—to be so labeled in the state. Consumers all over the US are in favor of this by wide margins. It is very important because, with the full power of the US government behind GMO, and huge amounts of money flowing back to Washington from GMO producers, the only way to stop the GMO juggernaut is to tell consumers what they are buying.

The usual suspects are mounting a huge disinformation campaign against the initiative. A leading coalition is StopCostlyFoodLabeling.com, the funding for which comes in part from the Council for Biotechnology Information—whose members include Monsanto, Dow, and other GMO companies.

Peggy Lemaux, an extension specialist in the Department of Environmental Science at UC Berkeley, was recently quoted in a National Public Radio piece as opposing the initiative. She has credentials, but keep in mind that she’s a member of an agricultural science council that includes all the major biotech companies, and was recently the recipient of a financial award provided by Monsanto.

http://buzz.naturalnews.com/000328-GMO_labeling-Monsanto-California.html

I'd like to see you site a pro GMO scientist that doesn't have a conflict of interest with a big biotech company.

Can you do that? Preferably without the usual slew of insults. I doubt it.

Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research

Biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry’s genetically modified crops, according to an unusual complaint issued by a group of those scientists.

“No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions,” the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=0

Then there's this study, also by ACES researchers, which purports to show that soy protein "alleviates symptoms of fatty liver disease." It's brought to you by grants from the agribiz-aligned Illinois Soybean Association and Solae, a joint project of agrichemical giants DuPont and Bunge that calls itself "the world leader in developing innovative soy technologies and ingredients for food, meat and nutritional products."

The most remarkable thing about all of this is that it isn't remarkable at all. A few weeks ago, I pointed to a great Chronicle of Higher Education article documenting how university animal-health research has become dominated by the pharmaceutical industry—and how the products that emerge from that process are much more about pharmaceutical industry profits than animal health. Now there's this eye-opening new report from Food & Water Watch (FWW) that documents in painstaking detail how the food and agrichemical industries have transformed our national public agricultural research infrastructure into essentially an R&D and marketing apparatus for their industry. (Similar trends hold for other areas of science research, most prominently medicine.)


http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/05/how-agribusiness-dominates-public-ag-research

If all these giant biotech companies are so confident that their GM food products are so safe why will they not allow independent research?

Why would any company fight so hard and spend so much money to defeat any attempted labeling law? If their products are as great as they claim why don't they want their customers knowing they are consuming them? Even if GMOs are as safe as the big biotech companies claim, don't we have a right to know what we are eating?

Back when the debate started about the government's illegal warrantless spying on American's phone calls and emails all the authoritarians here kept saying this over and over . . ."If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

Will those same people who kept repeating this phrase over and over to squash concerns that American citizens had about the possible abuse of power by their government now apply it equally to the producers of GM foods?

"If the big biotech companies have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear". Right? Repeat after me TND . . . "if the big biotech companies have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear". "if the big biotech companies have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear". "if the big biotech companies have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear".

So why are they trying so hard and spending so much money to keep their products from being included on the labels of food products?

Now undoubtly the the pro GMO crowd will come out with this . . . Study Linking Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors Is Retracted and claim victory. The debate is over they'll say.

Well just wait a minute. Who did the retraction? (Hint: It wasn't Seralini.)

What is their connection to the big biotech companies? Funding? Grants? Awards? Fear of being ostracized?

What's wrong with their "argument". Seralini's study didn't use enough rats? Monsanto used the same number of rats in their 90 day study. Well, okay but the rats were prone to tumors. "The Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat is the standard for Monsanto's 90-day tests on GMOs."

 

[Revmitchell]

People in third world countries are starving in large because the all knowing liberals in the UN have, in their infinite wisdom, decide they do not want them to industrialize or farm because it hurts the planet. So they look for ways to tax rich countries to keep sending small amounts of food over to them and leave them in the dark.

Liberal logic always leaves people starving, unborn children slaughtered, and people with no means to support themselves. They are all evil.

 

[Gina B]

People in third world countries are starving in large because the all knowing liberals in the UN have, in their infinite wisdom, decide they do not want them to industrialize or farm because it hurts the planet. So they look for ways to tax rich countries to keep sending small amounts of food over to them and leave them in the dark.

Liberal logic always leaves people starving, unborn children slaughtered, and people with no means to support themselves. They are all evil.

Your information is false. Go study the issue. There is plenty of food to go around. Corrupt government and political motivation is the most common reason for hunger in third world countries.

There is no reason that, in a modern world where we know what is going on, an industrialized nation couldn't lend a hand in times of a true crisis in a third world country, such as flooding or other disasters that would truly leave a shortage of food. Absent that, your real reason for people going hungry is not "liberals saying farming hurts the planet."

 

[Revmitchell]

Your information is false. Go study the issue. There is plenty of food to go around. Corrupt government and political motivation is the most common reason for hunger in third world countries.

I didn't say anything about there not being enough food to go around. You might want to go back and reread my post.

 

[poncho]

I didn't say anything about there not being enough food to go around. You might want to go back and reread my post.

Those in the UN to whom you are referring are not liberals Rev. They are globalists using environmentalism and "sustainability" to control the populations of third world countries to keep them poor and hungry. Third world countries have resources first world corporatized countries covet. Poor hungry peasants are easier to exploit than well fed prosperous citizens.

The last thing they want is a well fed prosperous nation exerting sovereignty over their own land and resources.

It's got nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. It's all about exploitation and greed. Period. You've been on this earth and witnessed human suffering this long and you haven't figured out what causes most of it yet???

You really need to climb out of the false left vs right paradigm and have an impartial look at how this mean old world really works.

 

[poncho]

Fox News kills Monsanto story

The extraordinary story of the suppression by Fox News executives of an investigative news report on a genetically engineered hormone. The story was killed after pressure from the corporation that developed it - Monsanto, which is affiliated with top Fox advertisers. The station first asked the journalists to change the story and when they refused, Fox then offered to pay the reporters to keep quiet, before finally firing them and refusing to air their report. (Time 9:59)

http://gmwatch.org/index.php/videos/must-see-videos/14848-fox-news-kills-monsanto-story

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You wrote this: "Genetically modified foods are actually safer than their "natural" counterparts. "

Nothing else really needs to be said. Again, as you did when talking about drugs vs herbs, you claim human superiority over what our Father created.

You want to take me to task for saying that genetically altered crops are actually safer than their natural counterparts, when you regularly advocate for freedom to inhale poison and immorally call it "medicine" to assuage a guilty conscience (even if you haven't used it illegally). You want to do away with the laws that prevent you from insulting God by doing intentional damage to your body smoking that stuff, and then claim I do a greater insult by making the statement I made.

Well listen up, sister: You're ill-informed, and willfully so. You live in both denial and sin by insisting that a Schedule I drug is wrongfully placed on the list of illegal and dangerous drugs. The simple fact is, you haven't a clue what you're talking about, or worse, you do and deliberately distort not only the truth, but God's intent in creation.

I've repeatedly shown you multiple valid studies indicating your beliefs about marijuana being safe and "God given" are not only erroneous, but could be deadly erroneous, as well as an affront to God. He made poppies, coca plants and peyote, too, but I don't see you defending those for usage. As I said, hugely hypocritical.

As for GE crops, every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies -- in some cases numbering in the hundreds -- in coming to the consensus conclusion that GE crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods. But until now, the magnitude of the research on crop biotechnology has never been cataloged. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists summarized 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded. This is incredibly significant because Europe has been even less accepting and more unhinged and alarmist about GE crops than the barking moonbats in the U.S.

Now you are claiming genetically modified foods are more safe than the original.

If you read any of those links -- not that I reasonably expect you will, due to the fact you don't want your willful ignorance challenged -- you will see that among other benefits of GE crops, the traits that cause allergic reactions are also filtered out, meaning kids could eat peanuts or soy without going into anaphylactic shock. But because you won't believe the research, you'd rather the risk continue instead of being able to provide an alternative to parents who want to provide a healthy diet for the kids, or for third-world families that need cheap alternatives for protein and fiber.

Additionally, if you're going to complain about man "improving" the food sources God gave us, then ...

• Don't eat beef -- it has been improved through selective breeding to the point that the beef cattle of today are much leaner and provide more protein than the cattle of even 60 years ago.
• Don't eat soybean products -- they've been selective bred to provide more nutrition and less natural acids than the crops did two generations ago.
• Don't drink milk -- it has been improved through intentional dietary changes for dairy cattle during the last 50 years so it provides more calcium, more iron and more Vitamin D.
• Don't eat wheat products -- selective pollination and cross-breeding have greatly improved the nutritional value, bran content, and newer strains reduce gluten.
• Don't eat rice -- development of new strains have tripled the nutritional values of the grain across the board, making it one of the best third-world food sources there is.

You're being hypocritically disingenuous, in other words..

My only point in responding is to point that out to others and for those that read and do not post, let them know that there are those of us out there that are vehemently opposed to this garbage and still respect and appreciate natural (no quotes needed for the word, odd that a believer would use them in that context?) things.

"Vehemently opposed" to a technology you consider dangerous only because you consider it dangerous, with no evidence, no data, no peer-reviewed studies that would give you any valid reason to be opposed. You call it "garbage" without reason, knowledge, or intellect. You would deny hungry people the ability to eat.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

You're the biggest hypocrite on this board, except perhaps for Poncho...

...Well listen up, sister: You're ill-informed, and willfully so. You live in both denial and sin by insisting that a Schedule I drug is wrongfully placed on the list of illegal and dangerous drugs. The simple fact is, you haven't a clue what you're talking about, or worse, you do and deliberately distort not only the truth, but God's intent in creation...

...As for GE crops, every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies -- in some cases numbering in the hundreds...

...You're being selectively stupid...

...In short, you're one of the barking moonbats.

SaturnNeptune, is that you?

...As for GE crops, every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies -- in some cases numbering in the hundreds...

Isn't that the same claim the global warming folks keep making?

 

[poncho]

You're the biggest hypocrite on this board, except perhaps for Poncho. You want to take me to task for saying that genetically altered crops are actually safer than their natural counterparts, when you regularly advocate for freedom to inhale poison and immorally call it "medicine" to assuage a guilty conscience (even if you haven't used it illegally). You want to do away with the laws that prevent you from insulting God by doing intentional damage to your body smoking that stuff, and then claim I do a greater insult by making the statement I made.

Well listen up, sister: You're ill-informed, and willfully so. You live in both denial and sin by insisting that a Schedule I drug is wrongfully placed on the list of illegal and dangerous drugs. The simple fact is, you haven't a clue what you're talking about, or worse, you do and deliberately distort not only the truth, but God's intent in creation.

I've repeatedly shown you multiple valid studies indicating your beliefs about marijuana being safe and "God given" are not only erroneous, but could be deadly erroneous, as well as an affront to God. He made poppies, coca plants and peyote, too, but I don't see you defending those for usage. As I said, hugely hypocritical.

As for GE crops, every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies -- in some cases numbering in the hundreds -- in coming to the consensus conclusion that GE crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods. But until now, the magnitude of the research on crop biotechnology has never been cataloged. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists summarized 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded. This is incredibly significant because Europe has been even less accepting and more unhinged and alarmist about GE crops that the barking moonbats in the U.S.If you read any of those links -- not that I reasonably expect you will, due to the fact you don't want your willful ignorance challenged -- you will see that among other benefits of GE crops, the traits that cause allergic reactions are also filtered out, meaning kids could eat peanuts or soy without going into anaphylactic shock. But because you won't believe the research, you'd rather the risk continue instead of being able to provide an alternative to parents who want to provide a healthy diet for the kids, or for third-world families that need cheap alternatives for protein and fiber.

Additionally, if you're going to complain about man "improving" the food sources God gave us, then ...

• Don't eat beef -- it has been improved through selective breeding to the point that the beef cattle of today are much leaner and provide more protein than the cattle of even 60 years ago.
• Don't eat soybean products -- they've been selective bred to provide more nutrition and less natural acids than the crops did two generations ago.
• Don't drink milk -- it has been improved through intentional dietary changes for dairy cattle during the last 50 years so it provides more calcium, more iron and more Vitamin D.
• Don't eat wheat products -- selective pollination and cross-breeding have greatly improved the nutritional value, bran content, and newer strains reduce gluten.
• Don't eat rice -- development of new strains have tripled the nutritional values of the grain across the board, making it one of the best third-world food sources there is.

You're being selectively stupid, in other words. Then again, for you, that's nothing new."Vehemently opposed" to a technology you consider dangerous only because you consider it dangerous, with no evidence, no data, no peer-reviewed studies that would give you any valid reason to be opposed. You call it "garbage" without reason, knowledge, or intellect. You would deny hungry people the ability to eat.

In short, you're one of the barking moonbats. You readily subscribe to the Moonbat Mantra:



Reading your posts is like reading Mother Jones, NORML newsletters, or "UFOs are real" websites. Amusing, but tragic for the lack of reason, intellect, or even thought.

What a wonderful post.

Definition of Ad Hominem

Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.

There are cases where consciously or unconsciously people start to question the opponent or his personal association rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the argument that he presents. These types of arguments are usually mistaken for personal insults but they are somehow different in nature and the distinction is very subtle.

Arguers who are not familiar with the principles of making logical arguments commonly end up saying something that would draw the audience’s attention to the distasteful characteristics of the individual. Such people use this fallacy as a tool to deceive their audience. Making such a blatant personal comment against somebody makes it hard for people to believe it isn’t true. Typically, even the arguer himself believes that such personal traits or circumstances are not enough to dispose of an individual’s opinion or argument. However, if looked at rationally, such arguments even if true never provide a valid reason to disregard someone’s criticism.

http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

 

[Gina B]

TND, I wasn't going to listen to anything you said, but your 50th oversized, colorful picture, meant to portray the depth of your emotion, did such a good job at conveying your inner angst that I just cannot reject you.

Come here, my child. I think you need a group hug from my fellow moon batters! :1_grouphug: There there. Sit down and have some tea now. It'll be okay. We're not taking away your GMO corn. You can eat it all you want. We just don't want it, okay? There's still enough for you. Don't worry. Look up - there's even a pink cloud floating by. Very pretty. Pollution makes for very nice, relaxing skies and beautifully colored clouds. We admit that. It'll be alright. Breathe. You're getting overworked again.

 

[poncho]

GM Myth Makers

As for GE crops, every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies -- in some cases numbering in the hundreds -- in coming to the consensus conclusion that GE crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods. But until now, the magnitude of the research on crop biotechnology has never been cataloged. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists summarized 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods.

Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research

Biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry’s genetically modified crops, according to an unusual complaint issued by a group of those scientists.

“No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions,” the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=0

Then there's this study, also by ACES researchers, which purports to show that soy protein "alleviates symptoms of fatty liver disease." It's brought to you by grants from the agribiz-aligned Illinois Soybean Association and Solae, a joint project of agrichemical giants DuPont and Bunge that calls itself "the world leader in developing innovative soy technologies and ingredients for food, meat and nutritional products."

The most remarkable thing about all of this is that it isn't remarkable at all. A few weeks ago, I pointed to a great Chronicle of Higher Education article documenting how university animal-health research has become dominated by the pharmaceutical industry—and how the products that emerge from that process are much more about pharmaceutical industry profits than animal health. Now there's this eye-opening new report from Food & Water Watch (FWW) that documents in painstaking detail how the food and agrichemical industries have transformed our national public agricultural research infrastructure into essentially an R&D and marketing apparatus for their industry. (Similar trends hold for other areas of science research, most prominently medicine.)


http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/05/how-agribusiness-dominates-public-ag-research

If all these giant biotech companies are so confident that their GM food products are so safe why will they not allow independent research?

How is it you can claim 'every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies" when the giant biotech companies will not allow researchers to conduct independent studies?

An A-Z of the people and groups behind the push for GM. It includes links to the web portal GMWatch SpinProfiles - our in-depth guide to the networks of power, lobbying and deceptive PR around the GM issue.

http://gmwatch.org/index.php/articles/gm-myth-makers

A rather lengthy list.

TND, I wasn't going to listen to anything you said, but your 50th oversized, colorful picture, meant to portray the depth of your emotion, did such a good job at conveying your inner angst that I just cannot reject you.

Come here, my child. I think you need a group hug from my fellow moon batters! :1_grouphug: There there. Sit down and have some tea now. It'll be okay. We're not taking away your GMO corn. You can eat it all you want. We just don't want it, okay? There's still enough for you. Don't worry. Look up - there's even a pink cloud floating by. Very pretty. Pollution makes for very nice, relaxing skies and beautifully colored clouds. We admit that. It'll be alright. Breathe. You're getting overworked again.

I may have contributed to his angst somewhat by posting the video about his favorite news network conspiring with one of it's biggest advertisers (Monsanto) to keep the American public in the dark about the dangers of the bovine growth hormone. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[InTheLight]

You're being selectively stupid, in other words. Then again, for you, that's nothing new.

Up until this sentence TND's post was devastating, then it got needlessly personal.

I noticed that neither Gina or Poncho have a rebuttal to the facts and substance of TND's main points.

 

[Gina B]

There's nothing to rebut, ITL. In his initial post, he started out by saying GMO's are better than natural foods.
When you start out by saying that altering what G-d created makes it better, there's nothing to rebut. It's wrong. He didn't make a mistake in creation. He made it and pronounced it good. TND then came along and pronounced the genetic manipulation of it better.
Common sense. The only data, the only fact needed, is right here:

Genesis 1:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


....




29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.