271–280 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a farmer. I vehemently disagree.
I personally interpreted the GP and grand-GP commenter's statement as "there is nothing wrong from a health perspective about consuming GMO products", not "there is nothing wrong with the utterly bonkers legal convolutions surrounding GMO seed control".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other have also commented, but this is mostly a marketing ploy. Non-GMO is not a regulated term and most things we eat have do not have a 'GMO' alternative.
>Non-GMO is not a regulated term and most things we eat have do not have a 'GMO' alternative. Source? A search turns up: https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/09/21/new-allowances-in...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a biochemist, and I’d feed GMOs to my kids all day if I had any. Or to my mom. They’re totally fine.
The problem with GMOs isn't the GMO itself - it is the practices that surround them. Patents, pesticides, and the resulting monoculture in large agricultural operations.
Unfortunately, regulation of this sort of thing, at least in Canada and the US, is a complete joke and a confusing mess that doesn't serve anyone's best interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody has used a plow in 30 years because they are such an environmental disaster. Chemicals are the answer. Some CO2 is used for chemicals, but not nearly as much as a plow would use, and that is before we look at the other disasters of the plow. Dust from harvest causes allergies, but don't blame it on chemicals. Well other than everything is a chemical.
This is probably something I can google, but could you point me to some info about why the plow is a disaster? It seems like one of those things that made it possible for a huge increase in the number of people not starving before it became a disaster. I imagine it has something to do with erosion, but I'd like to know more, and you seem to have a position on the topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a biochemist, and I’d feed GMOs to my kids all day if I had any. Or to my mom. They’re totally fine.
Are you commenting on the safety of GMO DNA structure, and long-term biology? Or are you approving the chemicals that are sprayed on GMOs because they can survive them?
I think being opposed to the spraying of fields by whatever herbicide or pesticide is a legitimate position, but it's a distinct problem. Yes, I realize that they often come together, but that is not necessarily the case.
You can easily have a GMO that has nothing to do with pesticide or herbicide resistance, in fact there are plenty of those, and they unfortunately all get lumped into the same category in public discourse.
And even in the worst case, where a GMO's purpose is to be used alongside a herbicide such as glyphosate... It's not clear that the alternative is any better. In fact most other categories of herbicides are way more hazardous (note that I am not a herbicide expert, but I do know a thing or two about them). I don't want to defend any bad companies, and I don't know what the solution is, but one thing I know for sure: feeding everyone is actually super complicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe a logical implication of your 'argument' is that you think vegans don't exist. Is that really the case?
I believe vegan diets are detrimental to health, I consider being healthy necessary for human life. I realize vegans like to imply the opposite but not only has the evidence been unconvincing, but I frankly have never met a healthy looking vegan in real life. Not that any actual evidence or true rational argument has been provided by such parties in this comment chain. Appealing to emotion and agressively stating wha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a biochemist, and I’d feed GMOs to my kids all day if I had any. Or to my mom. They’re totally fine.
Everything is totally fine until it bites hard enough to beat the marketing and legal campaigns run to promote and protect it. "Totally fine" is simply the orthodox professional position towards new potentially lucrative practices. Because it is a burden on the career opportunities to those who think otherwise. Putting cattle remains in cattle feed was fine until CJD was discovered, mass producing CFCs was fine until…
So yeah, for what it's worth, zero potential conflict of interest whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You disagree with every major nutritional and dietetic institute around the world. Google it.
No, provide me the sources if you want to use them as a part of your argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do want to argue that you should be vegan. The meat industry is very cruel to animals, and it is nearly impossible to source truly "cruelty free" meat despite marketing saying otherwise. Dairy is far worse, with cows kept in small cages, constantly impregnated to keep producing milk, their calves pulled away from them and slaughtered for veal. Eggs are also horrible, with egg chickens living miserable lives, even "…
The happiest times in my life and the healthiest I’ve ever been are always when I eat mostly meat and very little of anything else. I don’t care about the emotions of animals at all, and never will. I purposely show my daughter videos of how to slaughter farm animals to try to make sure she has a full understanding of what’s happening so she doesn’t one day realize what “pork” or “beef” means and becomes vegan. Her f…
This comes across as proudly sociopathic. The line between the human animal and any other is arbitrary and blurry and about to get much more so. I think it’s healthy to understand your own body and recognize the importance meat has in your diet, and if that comes at the cost of the suffering of animals, that might be a price you’re willing to pay. But to lump all animal suffering together as ignorable is really a red flag for an empathy deficit that is worth examining.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty poor form of argument. You can't just make blanket statements like this without evidence. What evidence do you have that our understanding of CRISPR and genetic modification today is on par of our understanding of CFCs and CJD in the 20th century? It's like saying that we shouldn't release any new drugs because of the thalidomide catastrophe.
I did reply to a blanket statement based on a bare claim of professional expertise - and with examples to plentiful historical evidence of premature confidences in technological understanding. There is no evidence that this fallibility has not carried into this century. My argument was not like saying "we should never do anything like this because of past grave accidents in comparable novel products and practices" It…
Which is totally fine, but unfortunately that position is neither informed by any specific evidence, nor informed by a principled understanding of the technology in question (which is where deferral to expertise can come in handy).
You should note that there's a difference between an appeal to authority fallacy, and deferral to expertise, and while the former is fatal to any logical argument, the latter is an entirely appropriate and useful heuristic: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-...