Latest Breaking News

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)

58. Hmm...it seems your assertions are, at best, incomplete, at worst, deceptive...

Thu May 19, 2016, 02:50 PM

May 2016

In the case of tobacco, slick and deceptive advertising campaigns gave the impression that medical authorities ruled them safe, when this isn't true:

https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/NN/p-nid/60

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/

It appears that asbestos-related illnesses were known by the medical profession since at least the 1920s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_and_the_law

As far as Thalidomide, its effects on fetuses weren't known, but once known and identified, a clear causal link means that they were able to identify thalidomide as a source, using science, and able to regulate and restrict its usage accordingly.

Here's a question, which GMOs are unsafe, what makes them unsafe, and what conditions/diseases are they associated with?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

GMO crops are safe, say scientists. Should they be labeled anyway? [View all] Zorro May 2016 OP

GMOs may or may not be safe insofar as the plants. no_hypocrisy May 2016 #1

The trick is to define away the issues. JackRiddler May 2016 #6

I agree completely but I also think they minimize the risks. denverbill May 2016 #7

Well said. GMOs have more going on than science and human health (nt) apnu May 2016 #16

That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be. Major Nikon May 2016 #17

you are so right, might as well drink herbicides and get it over with larkrake May 2016 #30

"Let's especially not talk about the business model..." KansDem May 2016 #52

Who paid for these "studies"? Pharaoh May 2016 #2

Probably because of propaganda Indydem May 2016 #10

I'd pretend that to be the case as well if I had nothing of substance to support my negative bias LanternWaste May 2016 #56

Because it's not just like that Major Nikon May 2016 #25

a hybrid Pharaoh May 2016 #26

Do you know what you get when you don't mess with a plant's genes? Major Nikon May 2016 #28

Hybridization is entirely messing with genes. NutmegYankee May 2016 #32

A hybrid plant is nothing like grafting. yellowcanine May 2016 #34

Here's the problem with labeling. Scootaloo May 2016 #27

That slippery slope has other pitfalls as well Major Nikon May 2016 #29

True of show dog breeds, changing genes bring unforseen problems larkrake May 2016 #31

If "changing genes bring unforseen problems"... Major Nikon May 2016 #33

Oh lord. Scootaloo May 2016 #35

Actually. Indydem May 2016 #57

Yes... 63splitwindow May 2016 #3

Its not so much that the gmo crop itself is bad for us madokie May 2016 #4

Clothing companies inform us what our t-shirt is made of. crim son May 2016 #5

You are if you read the ingredients label Major Nikon May 2016 #44

Only if the label is complete. n/t crim son May 2016 #47

It's complete by law Major Nikon May 2016 #48

Ridiculous! Equinox Moon May 2016 #8

Meh. Scientists said thalidomide was safe. And asbestos. And smoking during pregnancy. Squinch May 2016 #9

Dont forget vaccines!!! We all know they cause autism after all no matter what the science says!!! cstanleytech May 2016 #14

Some people value convenient lies more than inconvenient truths Major Nikon May 2016 #23

True but I wonder why those people (the anti science ones of course) dont switch to the cstanleytech May 2016 #24

Sounds quite a bit like right wing arguments against global warming Major Nikon May 2016 #18

No, actually it doesn't sound anything like that. It is a statement of the fact that scientists Squinch May 2016 #39

Did you even read the article? Major Nikon May 2016 #40

Hmm...it seems your assertions are, at best, incomplete, at worst, deceptive... Humanist_Activist May 2016 #58

All we need to do is look at two sources... Archae May 2016 #11

They used to be credible Geronimoe May 2016 #13

Actually that's not was reported Major Nikon May 2016 #19

"Most of the scientists are from agriculture." And your point is????? yellowcanine May 2016 #36

I demand we label products with DHMO content. NuclearDem May 2016 #12

If the DHMO was added to the product, they're already required to jmowreader May 2016 #15

DHMO killed Andy Warhol Major Nikon May 2016 #20

Schools give it to our children regularly, and it's used to spray crops. NuclearDem May 2016 #21

Does it matter if it is pure DHMO or refined DHMO? Thor_MN May 2016 #22

label the scientists with their income information reddread May 2016 #37

if anti-GMO was a religion, there wouldn't be any problem with labeling, right? 0rganism May 2016 #38

You're comparing a completely voluntary labeling system with a mandatory one? Major Nikon May 2016 #41

do you think they're completely incomparable? 0rganism May 2016 #42

I don't think they are in any way comparable Major Nikon May 2016 #43

even though both are/would be food labeling systems, they are not in any way comparable? 0rganism May 2016 #45

I supposed they could possibly use the same adhesive to stick them on Major Nikon May 2016 #46

adhesive? usually printed on the packaging itself 0rganism May 2016 #49

It sounds like your only comparison is that both situations are technically feasible Major Nikon May 2016 #50

not just technically feasible 0rganism May 2016 #53

Actually there's at least two efforts on the voluntary front Major Nikon May 2016 #54

i guess the concern is it's not applied evenly 0rganism May 2016 #55

Just came out, the part in the 800 pages, not released, they are harmful. ViseGrip May 2016 #51

How are they harmful? Was there anything specific that's a concern? Humanist_Activist May 2016 #59

By scientists on monsanto payroll... Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #60