61–70 of 112 posts
One of the most rage inducing wikipedia articles you will ever read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice . People who block this stuff are nothing less than murderers in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is safe or not Most of the major scientific and medical organizations have issued a statement that GMO food is safe (in the sense of being as safe as non-GMO food). This is just an image, but in most cases you can verify the statements back to the organizations' websites by googling. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9gJwulXnO_o/Ue8hgkh4YkI/AAAAAAABCT... You can of course choose the same road as climate change deniers,…
Ah yes, science says it's safe and who wants to be a climate change denier? Case closed! Here in Germany rabbits are dying a gruesome death by overeating genetically modified rape. Supposedy the bitter taste that told them to "stop" was removed and now they eat until the die. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13522441.html (Article in German) So the food is of course "safe" as in you can eat it without any direct…
As far as counter-examples go, that doesn't seem particularly strong.
EDIT: Actually, the "new" seed they are talking about is 00 rapeseed (AKA Canola), which is not a GMO, since it was bred naturally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola
The GMO versions of Canola only appeared years after that event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For the time being, I plan to do my best to avoid the stuff. How do you actually go on about avoiding glyphosate? If you buy organic, your food crop may have been treated with e.g. rotenone, which is a notably nastier poison than anyone has claimed glyphosate to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone
> If you buy organic Where I come from, organic crops means no pesticides / insecticides except natural ones. What would make food grown with pesticides "organic"?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogss...
The point I think needs making about GMOs is that they aren't really a category. That is, there aren't any true, important statements one can make about all GMOs, except for the obvious one that they are produced by genetic manipulation. But as far as their benefits and their dangers, they have to be evaluated individually. So on the one hand I'm very concerned about Roundup Ready crops, not specifically because they…
> what could be dangerous about removing an enzyme?
Tons of things - you don't necessarily know that there's not some other cell process that depends on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, science says it's safe and who wants to be a climate change denier? Case closed! Here in Germany rabbits are dying a gruesome death by overeating genetically modified rape. Supposedy the bitter taste that told them to "stop" was removed and now they eat until the die. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13522441.html (Article in German) So the food is of course "safe" as in you can eat it without any direct…
You posted a link to a 30-year-old event, and for which there was an hypothesis that it could be linked to the genetic modifications of a rapeseed. As far as counter-examples go, that doesn't seem particularly strong. EDIT: Actually, the "new" seed they are talking about is 00 rapeseed (AKA Canola), which is not a GMO, since it was bred naturally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola The GMO versions of Canola only ap…
Overbred fruit are still crap though.
To me, it seems that there are two sides to the GMO coin. On one, we have a technology and a science that can clearly benefit everyone, especially helping combat malnutrition and disease in developing countries. On the other, we have 3 or 4 major companies controlling the distribution, creation, and production of GMO's both physically and legally. If we want GMO's to be effective with their intended purpose, we have…
There is an Open Source Seed Initiative[1][2]
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/seed-monopol...
I'm always amazed how many people who would balk at a single corporation controlling their operating systems are amazingly complacent when it comes to corporations copyrighting and controlling their food supply.
The problem is there are two separate issues related to GMOs.
One is that the companies who are behind them are mostly evil from a business practice/IP sense (yes, I am talking primarily of Monsanto). The other is that there are a lot of people who think GMOs are inherently "toxins" that are going to give us all cancer or whatever.
It tends to be difficult to have a rational conversation with people on GMOs when you take the (IMO rational) views that yes, Monsanto is kinda evil, but no, GMO foods are not inherently evil or bad for you and are, in fact, the best way forward in feeding all these people we have.
This NY Times piece is rightfully on the side of GMOs as a safe food source. All the terrible patent-related stuff is a wholly different issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You posted a link to a 30-year-old event, and for which there was an hypothesis that it could be linked to the genetic modifications of a rapeseed. As far as counter-examples go, that doesn't seem particularly strong. EDIT: Actually, the "new" seed they are talking about is 00 rapeseed (AKA Canola), which is not a GMO, since it was bred naturally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola The GMO versions of Canola only ap…
Oops, heard that story last week so I assumed that was more recent. I'll reconsider my concern about any imminent risks. Overbred fruit are still crap though.
"The wild banana is filled with seeds and cannot be eaten."
http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/bananas-are-clones-from-the-st...
The single issue is whether it is safe or not. Articles telling me how great it would be for poor, despserate farmers in third world countries as a last resort choice is really a fringe issue that is - I suspect - cloaking the point on purpose.
If that's all you're concerned with and think articles/opinions discussing other aspects are "cloaking the point" you should know the scientific consensus on GMOs is that they're safe.
There was a Forbes article[1] last year that linked to quite a number of studies. If you're looking for a less journalistic take and want to poke around with the data/studies yourself check out GENERA[2] (a database of peer reviewed GMO studies). FiveThirtyEight did a piece on the gap between "what the public thinks and what scientists know" and saw the widest margin in the subject of GMO safety[3].
"Politicians in the EU are generally not friendly to GMOs" and spent over 200 million Euros on a decade of research[4] and the "main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[5]
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-...
[2] http://genera.biofortified.org/
[3] http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/theres-a-gap-between-what...
[4] http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/industry-funded-gmo-stud...
[5] http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-f... (pdf)