Issues you kinda sorta side with the Conservatives on

[Motown_Johnny]

52. Yes, laughable.

I hope you understand that the use of hormones in cattle is not the same as a GMO. If not then you need to just start over. I am not going to fall for your "bait and switch" since we started talking about GMOs and are now talking about the use of hormones in cattle.

The truth is, I have more of a problem with hormones in cattle than I do with GMO crops or fish. There is a difference (IMO) since the hormones are something that can cause reactions within people/animals in the food chain. There is even some real evidence that this can cause problems, but since we have been consuming milk and beef that has had hormone injections for decades now, it would seem that the impact is minimal, or possibly less than minimal.

GMOs are different. Our bodies do not react to the DNA that we consume, unlike chemicals such as hormones. If we eat a lot of fish we do not grow gills. If we eat a lot of chicken we do not grow feathers. We simply do not break down the molecules that we consume in that way.



Now as for the laughable part.. here is just one:

The page you linked to has a link labeled "New study links GMO Food to Leukemia"


I clicked on this one first since a coworker/friend of mine has leukemia and I tend to read all I can about it. It isn't that I find Leukemia funny, I don't. The guy has been struggling for years and we can all tell when he isn't doing well. We also all see what he goes through after Chemotherapy. I just want to make clear that this is an issue I take seriously.. but this title is freaking hilarious.


Go to that page and you will find it talks about Roundup and crops sprayed with Roundup. Hell, I don't think anyone doubts that if you drink water with Roundup in it, or have rats do so, that the chances of cancers skyrocket. The same is true for food sprayed with Roundup. OK, fine.. we shouldn't consume Roundup. I get it.

This has nothing to do with so called "Frankenfood"! Even these sites can't come up with any evidence, or even any reasonable theory, linking altered DNA to health problems in humans.

This is Onion material.



Oh, and I consider the Union of Concerned Scientists article biased because of the one sided view it presents.


^snip^


Benefits of GE: Promise vs. Results


Supporters of GE in agriculture point to a multitude of potential benefits of engineered crops, including increased yield, tolerance of drought, reduced pesticide use, more efficient use of fertilizers, and ability to produce drugs or other useful chemicals. UCS analysis shows that actual benefits have often fallen far short of expectations.

Learn more:
Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops (2009)
No Sure Fix: Prospects for Reducing Nitrogen Fertilizer Pollution through Genetic Engineering (2009)
High and Dry: Why Genetic Engineering is Not Solving Agriculture's Drought Problem in a Thirsty World (2012)





WOW!!!! Look at all the benefits these "concerned scientists" found. None! They only say "that actual benefits have often fallen far short of expectation" but fail to explain just what those expectations were or who was expecting them. They even say often because even they must admit that some of the benefits have met expectations.

Now, can they spare a couple of lines to point out where GMOs have met expectations? I guess not. That would approach being fair and this article clearly will have none of that.