After reading trough this comment thread. I'd like to add something. Everybody here at snapzu is allowed his her or her opinion and they are most certainly allowed to back this up with his or her sources and start a healthy discourse on the matter at hand however we do expect this discourse to progress in a respectful manner. Please try and remain civil about things.
Everybody here at snapzu is allowed his her or her opinion and they are most certainly allowed to back this up with his or her sources
Quite a lot of things are not matters of opinion. Whether GMOs are "bad" or not is one of them. They either do have harmful effects on humans or they don't.
Please try and remain civil about things.
I haven't even called him names. I have pointed out his dishonesty though, which I think is fair, considering he is dishonest (as I've shown).
It seems to me you're calling for Political Correctness. Don't you think that PC is counter-productive to figuring out the truth of whatever is being discussed?
False dichotomy. Some GMOs may have harmful effects, others might not.
Nope, there's no false dichotomy. What matters is the whole category of GMOs. I don't care if only some GMOs aren't harmful, because there's no way for me to know which ones aren't.
GMOs as a category either are harmful or they're not.
Wikipedia has a much more accurate definition, that differentiates between merely spreading information and doing so dishonestly and with an agenda:
Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.
For some highly mysterious reason, you didn't want to go with that. Oh, and it seems your claim that "the other definitions" say the same thing is obviously false, what with the most widely used source for definitions saying something different and all.
You say that right before posting a bunch of propaganda
By now it's obvious you're being intellectually dishonest, so you might want to take that claim back.
As with any controversial issue, there will be propaganda spread by both extreme viewpoints. The reality is most likely somewhere in between. The "suppressed study" you linked was suppressed because of faulty methods and the fact that it could not be replicated. This doesn't make it a conspiracy, its just bad science. Trust me, if there were serious issues with GMOs, the larger scientific community would be talking about it - and they're not.
The "suppressed study" you linked was suppressed because of faulty methods
Merely accusing them of "faulty methods" invalidates the results, right?
1) Claim: Genetic engineering is a radical technology.
Humans have been manipulating the genes of crops for millennia by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits. (A perfect example: the thousands of apple varieties.) Virtually all of our food crops have been genetically modified in some way. In that sense, GMOs are not radical at all.
Right off the bat, they're equating genetic modification with choosing good specimens, which is just plain dishonest.
The scientific consensus is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops.
In other words, the claim that there is a scientific consensus is a flat out lie. Does that speak well for GMOs?
Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That's why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing.
I havent read to all the links you posted so I wont comment on that. However, you do realise that any protein (and a number of other things) that is foreign can promote an immune response, right? That's the reason we get allergies after all. Sometimes it just happens that lymphocytes attack stuff they should not.
Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That's why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing.
I clarified that this happens all over the place and therefore is pretty much useless to determine wether GMOs are bad or not. It's just fearmongering. I could just as well go out and start blaming free range eggs for provoking allergies. The fact that a certain food is a GMO does not relate in any way to wether or not it's immunoactive.
Please stop spreading propaganda.
Yes they're bad. But Monsanto's profits are more important than our .. not-dying.
GMO Myths busted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptDd9ftNaq8
Genetic Fallacy: How Monsanto Silences Scientific Dissent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShJTcIlTna0
These rats were fed GMO's, and now they're full of tumours: http://i.imgur.com/K8O9tmn.png -- That study was quickly silenced: http://naturalsociety.com/hotly-debated-study-gmo-republished-1240-scientists-will-supressed/
After reading trough this comment thread. I'd like to add something. Everybody here at snapzu is allowed his her or her opinion and they are most certainly allowed to back this up with his or her sources and start a healthy discourse on the matter at hand however we do expect this discourse to progress in a respectful manner. Please try and remain civil about things.
Quite a lot of things are not matters of opinion. Whether GMOs are "bad" or not is one of them. They either do have harmful effects on humans or they don't.
I haven't even called him names. I have pointed out his dishonesty though, which I think is fair, considering he is dishonest (as I've shown).
It seems to me you're calling for Political Correctness. Don't you think that PC is counter-productive to figuring out the truth of whatever is being discussed?
It is very much a matter of opinion in this case depending who's camp you reside in . Also this is more a call for Civility then Political Correctness
People have opinions about it, but that doesn't mean that whether GMOs are harmful is a matter of opinion.
For example, I could have the opinion that 2 + 2 equals 5, but whether it actually does is not a matter of opinion.
I have been civil.
[This comment was removed]
You say that right before posting a bunch of propaganda.
[This comment was removed]
How is what I posted propaganda?
The other definitions say pretty much the same thing.
Wikipedia has a much more accurate definition, that differentiates between merely spreading information and doing so dishonestly and with an agenda:
For some highly mysterious reason, you didn't want to go with that. Oh, and it seems your claim that "the other definitions" say the same thing is obviously false, what with the most widely used source for definitions saying something different and all.
By now it's obvious you're being intellectually dishonest, so you might want to take that claim back.
[This comment was removed]
Sophistry has that effect on me (and any other honest person).
[This comment was removed]
Are you this strict with him too?
As with any controversial issue, there will be propaganda spread by both extreme viewpoints. The reality is most likely somewhere in between. The "suppressed study" you linked was suppressed because of faulty methods and the fact that it could not be replicated. This doesn't make it a conspiracy, its just bad science. Trust me, if there were serious issues with GMOs, the larger scientific community would be talking about it - and they're not.
Common GMO claims debunked
Merely accusing them of "faulty methods" invalidates the results, right?
Right off the bat, they're equating genetic modification with choosing good specimens, which is just plain dishonest.
.. Except for the suppressed Seralini study, for example. Or quite a lot of other scientists: http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/Statement#signed-by
In other words, the claim that there is a scientific consensus is a flat out lie. Does that speak well for GMOs?
But the FDA can't be trusted: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...nd_scientific_misconduct_are_hidden_from.html
Why would the FDA be looking out for our interests over Monsanto's, especially considering that a former Monsanto vice president is calling the shots there: http://politicalblindspot.com/former-monsanto-vice-president-running-fda/ .. ?
I'll stop here, because this should be enough for any intellectually honest person to conclude that at the very least GMOs can't be considered safe.
I havent read to all the links you posted so I wont comment on that. However, you do realise that any protein (and a number of other things) that is foreign can promote an immune response, right? That's the reason we get allergies after all. Sometimes it just happens that lymphocytes attack stuff they should not.
I'm not sure how that's related to the question of whether GMOs are bad.
Well, you quoted this
I clarified that this happens all over the place and therefore is pretty much useless to determine wether GMOs are bad or not. It's just fearmongering. I could just as well go out and start blaming free range eggs for provoking allergies. The fact that a certain food is a GMO does not relate in any way to wether or not it's immunoactive.
I've already done enough here.