General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

72. You should probably go look at post 7.

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 05:19 PM

Aug 2014

Monsanto can only prevent scientists from buying seeds from Monsanto. Those scientists can go pick seeds from a farmer's field. And Monsanto also can not block publication of any paper that Monsanto did not fund the research of.

Which is why post #7 in this thread is a list that contains 200 independent studies....which you are claiming can not exist.

But "Monsanto blocks research" is a fantastic talking point when you have no mechanism for harm and want people to buy your book or pay your speaking fees. It's a convenient excuse for why you can't prove any harm.

Some allergens are labeled. But not ones that are the result of introducing DNA proteins into foods that didn't include them before.

Nope, you add peanut genes to a cauliflower, and you get to add "peanuts" to the ingredient list.

We can't feed everyone. Irrational fear will kill billions. We should not do that. (There was an ETA to the post above with more detail)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

92 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

GMO's are they safe? There is no way to be sure yet...there are no absolutes in young science... [View all] Drew Richards Aug 2014 OP

You reflect my feelings very well. immoderate Aug 2014 #1

Thanks hope some see it before it gets buried Drew Richards Aug 2014 #2

Evolution is not infinite. jeff47 Aug 2014 #18

I understand that not every combination will come to exist. immoderate Aug 2014 #59

And your suspecting comes from assuming (virtually) every combination has been tried jeff47 Aug 2014 #62

Not really. I know the possibilities involved. Many orders of magnitude. immoderate Aug 2014 #65

Yes, actually. jeff47 Aug 2014 #67

The only assumption I made was that genes evolved from a common ancestor. immoderate Aug 2014 #80

If that were true, you wouldn't ask the question. jeff47 Aug 2014 #81

Common ancestor <> close relatives immoderate Aug 2014 #83

Wow, your understanding is even more abysmal. jeff47 Aug 2014 #86

I'm wondering why you keep reading the opposite of what I'm saying. immoderate Aug 2014 #92

Just label them already. Ruby the Liberal Aug 2014 #3

Here is a pretty good series that addresses quite a few of your points. Eko Aug 2014 #4

I watched your vid here is what i got... Drew Richards Aug 2014 #10

Thanks Eko Aug 2014 #12

You argue your position very well Bjorn Against Aug 2014 #5

How many times do you like explaining to people that women should be paid the same as men? jeff47 Aug 2014 #6

There isn't universal agreement among reputable scientists on this matter. pnwmom Aug 2014 #34

Mechanism. Your example still needs one. jeff47 Aug 2014 #57

Why should the FDA require the mechanism by which a GMO might produce danger? pnwmom Aug 2014 #60

It does to pull a drug. jeff47 Aug 2014 #61

I'm not suggesting we pull GMO's. I'm saying they should be labeled. pnwmom Aug 2014 #69

You're saying we should fear science. jeff47 Aug 2014 #70

No, I'm not. The GMO producers are. They're clearly terrified of the results independent pnwmom Aug 2014 #71

You should probably go look at post 7. jeff47 Aug 2014 #72

Just because the funding is independent doesn't mean the research wasn't restricted pnwmom Aug 2014 #74

Actually, it does. jeff47 Aug 2014 #76

Scientists can't purchase the seeds except through Monsanto, pnwmom Aug 2014 #77

How many times do you want to make the same error? jeff47 Aug 2014 #82

And in Europe they have decided, based on the evidence that you reject, to strictly regulate GMO's. pnwmom Aug 2014 #84

No, they decided based on irrational fear jeff47 Aug 2014 #85

Oh right. Because all those European scientists are suffering from irrational fear. pnwmom Aug 2014 #87

Ande here is a site that lists Eko Aug 2014 #7

Oh, I'm sure the OP has read every single one of those citations, Eko MrMickeysMom Aug 2014 #9

no but to be fair im willing to take a look...only thing that bothers me is the whois lookup Drew Richards Aug 2014 #14

Which is why you read the journal articles instead of trusting the web site. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2014 #15

How very subjective to start that way... MrMickeysMom Aug 2014 #17

We don't think they're "safe" in Hawai'i and are fighting to keep them at bay Cha Aug 2014 #8

Huh, I would like to see Eko Aug 2014 #11

There isn't any. jeff47 Aug 2014 #19

The study in that article Eko Aug 2014 #27

Yes, the author now uses pay-to-publish journals. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2014 #58

We are the lab Rats bahrbearian Aug 2014 #13

We have always been the lab rats Eko Aug 2014 #16

We were lab rats for Monsanto's DDT that's for sure gyroscope Aug 2014 #24

Yeah, Eko Aug 2014 #25

You know the old saying? gyroscope Aug 2014 #26

Well the US govt thought is was safe also. Eko Aug 2014 #28

Do you believe everything the govt tells you? gyroscope Aug 2014 #29

I think you fail to see my point. Eko Aug 2014 #31

Actually gyroscope Aug 2014 #33

So we Eko Aug 2014 #36

as a matter of fact Eko Aug 2014 #37

Monsanto knew for years DDT was dangerous gyroscope Aug 2014 #40

I dont believe any food Eko Aug 2014 #49

You can eat all the GMO you want gyroscope Aug 2014 #38

Because there are a bunch of people out there Eko Aug 2014 #39

What are you talking about? gyroscope Aug 2014 #41

ok then Eko Aug 2014 #43

and Eko Aug 2014 #44

and Eko Aug 2014 #45

Still doesn't say anything gyroscope Aug 2014 #50

from the wired site Eko Aug 2014 #53

on this site Eko Aug 2014 #51

Here is the link Eko Aug 2014 #52

What the heck is www.belch.com? gyroscope Aug 2014 #46

yeah, pro GMO Eko Aug 2014 #48

Not organic. From your link above... Luminous Animal Aug 2014 #68

And here are some organic mangos that were recalled for the same thing. Eko Aug 2014 #47

You think that a transglobal corporate monster like Monsanto should be allowed Peace Patriot Aug 2014 #56

I will give you this Eko Aug 2014 #54

out for the night Eko Aug 2014 #55

Corporate trolls don't care how valid and logical our arguments are, their Zorra Aug 2014 #20

Suing farmers for saving seeds? gyroscope Aug 2014 #21

If you watch the video I posted Eko Aug 2014 #23

Who are you claiming Eko Aug 2014 #22

Isn't it obvious? nt Zorra Aug 2014 #30

Do you often do that? Eko Aug 2014 #32

Post removed Post removed Aug 2014 #42

Thanks for the post, Drew Richards. n/t pnwmom Aug 2014 #35

Well done, and thanks. nt LWolf Aug 2014 #63

Biology isn't a young science n/t Motown_Johnny Aug 2014 #64

I am not talking about the biological cross breeding through biological invito or standard Drew Richards Aug 2014 #66

Which relies on all the old stuff to work. jeff47 Aug 2014 #73

... Zorra Aug 2014 #88

Basic math. Learn some. jeff47 Aug 2014 #89

How about this ~ stop rendering food producing areas infertile, and improve the waste factor? Zorra Aug 2014 #91

Nor is genetics. HuckleB Aug 2014 #90

Is nuclear energy safe? It is a somewhat new science. So to speak. Rex Aug 2014 #75

I agree completely I just hope we proceed with caution and transparency as you say... Drew Richards Aug 2014 #78

Must have both, otherwise we can lose objectivity imo. Rex Aug 2014 #79