Tolerance of GM food is based on ignorance and fear mongering

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Marshal, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is the problem with it being "require[d] labeling by law". See, some people would start to get the impression that there is a substantial difference between GMO and non-GMO food.

    Source

    I assume that puts to bed any concerns regarding the matter, right? I mean, there is no chance that you're going to make some absurd claim like saying that the AAAS is not to be trusted (as, by logical extension, neither would the FDA, WHO, AMA, NAS, or BRS among other scientific organizations that have weighed in on the matter). Surely the concern is genuine, and with it now properly addressed, I assume your positions will change, so as not to be wrong again, on the same matter in the future.
     
  2. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    In other words...(*)(*)(*)(*) off! You want to know if you're eating GMO's? Well..TOUGH. We won't let you. So....obviously, the next move is to simply purchase none of the salmon now sold in the US now GMO'd (because they refuse to tell us which is and which isn't.

    Boycott Salmon altogether. Assume it's all cancer laden and toxic, and DON'T BUY IT.
    Find something else to eat that isn't afraid to label what it is they're selling us for our consumption. Let's put the salmon growers out of business since we have no way of telling which is which.

    NO SALMON. It'll kill you.
     
  3. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope. In other words:

    It doesn't cause cancer.
    It won't kill you.
    It's not toxic.
    It is the effectively the same as cisgenic crops.
    The FDA has no authority to require labeling.

    The issue isn't optional labeling. It's forced labeling. If transgenic crops were toxic, or even substantially different from the related cisgenic crops, the labeling would be required.

    Your irrational, ignorant screed notwithstanding, there is really no scientifically sound basis for mandated labeling of transgenic crops.
     
  4. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you like methyl-mercury, eat natural fish. Mercury occurs naturally in ocean sediment. Small organisms break it down into methyl-mercury. However it's best to eat non-predatory fish because of their short life spans. Mercury is cumulative.
     
  5. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't approach it from a money making perspective, but a voluntary perspective ;)

    If I'm selling my car which has an oil leak it's up to the buyer's mechanic to find that. I am under no obligation to inform him of this fact (in my area at least), and if the car breaks down as a result it's on him, not I. The same can be said for GM foods in my opinion.

    What level of specificity? Taking it to an extreme you'd have to disclose the precise location of every molecule in the tomato. It's arbitrary where we draw the line, except where a trait of the product contradicts the advertised characteristics. This is false advertising and basically fraud.

    I'd be fine with my hypothetical kids eating GM foods, although I'd prefer and can afford organic stuff. I'd probably buy organic vegetables, but have no problem with them eating vegetables elsewhere (ie: subway, etc) which are GM. In any case, this is a pretty emotionally based argument. It's of no concern what I'd like my kids to experience (one always wants the best for their kids, regardless the cost), but what should be the case for all people in all industries for all products.

    Thanks :)
     
  6. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Perfectly safe but we can't tell you what's in it...yes, I've heard the investor's logic before. No basis???? How about transparency? How bout morality, decency? I mean, if you don't have to tell me what I'm eating, you COULD sell me anything that could be toxic. Since I don't know what I'm eating, then I have to assume it's ALL toxic.

    Boycott Salmon! It'll KILL you.
     
  7. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will repeat again, as I've now said this in 3 places in this thread, what is in transgenic crops. Perhaps I didn't draw enough attention to it.

    Contents of transgenic crops: The same as the contents of cisgenic crops.

    This is the reason there is no labeling. They are the same thing. If there were one protein of difference, it would have to be explicitly shown to be non-toxic and non-allergenic. What you're eating in a transgenic crop has the EXACT same chance of being toxic as if you were eating a cisgenic organism. You know what you're eating, when you get a transgenic organism. The same thing you're eating when you get a cisgenic organism.

    Why did I say it three different ways? Because I assume if I keep saying it, you'll read it by accident one of those times.

    Here's a relevant question: If you don't trust the AAAS, FDA, WHO, AMA, etc... then what good do you think labeling would do? More importantly, why are you trusting their inspections of anything at all? By your reasoning, you might as well say:

     
  8. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0



    I trust no one Sir...I most especially don't trust hybrid salmon profiteers that refuse to tell me if it's gmo or non gmo. Seems to me if this mutant salmon were any good, they'd be bragging about it on the label. Stands to reason they don't because it isn't anything to brag about.

    KILLER Salmon....don't buy it...at all! You could actually be eating a salmon cross bred with a rat, or a bowl of maggots. We'll never know so, stay away!!
     
  9. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you actually read anything people say to you, or do you just use them as launching points for more ignorant screeds?
     
  10. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me get this straight, because I want to be sure I understand your position.

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science is Satan, and you want the FDA to mandate labeling of GMO crops.

    Is that about the size of it?
     
  11. Marshal

    Marshal New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You couldn't have picked a more biased organization to underly your point. The very name invokes bias.

    <<< MODERATOR EDIT: FLAMEBAIT >>>

    They've moved into modifying Animals for human consumption if you haven't noticed! (Link).
     
  12. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure I could have.

    In fact, I listed a whole bunch of them.

    WHO, FDA, AAAS, AMA, NAS, BRS

    One of which is the very group you want to have mandating the labeling.

    But I agree with your ultimate point. Every major scientific organization in the world is conspiring together to not tell you which crops have undergone genetic manipulation via selective crossbreeding and controlled mutation, and which crops have undergone genetic manipulation by retroviral insertion.

    They're a shrewd bunch.
     
  13. Marshal

    Marshal New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Give them samples in a laboratory and the first thing they will ask for are labels so they know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) they are looking at! Labels are necessary for an intelligent system.

    It shouldn't be THEIR decision on OUR labels!!
     
  14. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ummm... no.

    I could list all the ways in which that is wrong (including not addressing any of the actual things that were said), but I'll settle for pointing out that you don't understand how experiments work. They specifically remove the knowledge of which samples are which, so their pre-conceptions won't alter the results. It's called a double-blind study.

    I know you personally couldn't relate to your findings being influenced by pre-conceptions, but try to imagine it for a moment.
     
  15. tomfoo13ry

    tomfoo13ry Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,962
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, their name does tell you that they have a bias. A bias towards science. How dare they!

    Perhaps you'd prefer to take the position of the American Association for the Advancement of Ignorance and Unfounded Information?
     
  16. Marshal

    Marshal New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People should not be fed science experiments.

    In fact nearly every science experiment fed to the US people has gone horribly wrong.

    If the condition of the Americsn people was not what it is, you would have a modicum of decency, but as it is: You are horribly (shockingly awfully) in the wrong!
     
  17. tomfoo13ry

    tomfoo13ry Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,962
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Got it. Science bad. Histrionics good.
     
  18. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No...mystery hybrid experiments sold as food that purposefully withhold their content is bad. Transparency is good.

    Once more..deceptive practices are bad. Telling people what it is you're selling them to consume.....good.
     
  19. tomfoo13ry

    tomfoo13ry Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,962
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Deceptive practices like telling people that GM foods will kill them without a shred of evidence to back it up? Those kinds of deceptive practices? Doctor, heal thyself.
     
  20. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0



    I'll say it once more. They're hybrid lab experiments created for profit over safety. We know it isn't safe because they not only refuse to tell us which is which in the profit place, but they spend enormous amounts of cash to actively fight to keep the differences a secret.
     
  21. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Huh. Let's see. 25 years, hundreds of experiments, and every major scientific organization in the world say they're safe. Nutcase on a forum says they aren't, with no substantiation, or understanding of science at all.

    Advantage: RtWngaFraud, clearly.
     
  22. FrankCapua

    FrankCapua Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    3,906
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Marshall, why don't you just eat Russian salmon and stop complaining.
     
  23. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Clearly, mutant fish aren't safe. That's why they refuse to reveal their origins in the marketplace. Enjoy your cancer.
     
  24. Marshal

    Marshal New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you realize how many American practices have been outlawed over the years because scientific idiots thought they were safe and were wrong? Numerous. You idiots had your way molesting the American public into ignorantly eating your filth and all we ask is for a (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LABEL.
     
  25. tomfoo13ry

    tomfoo13ry Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,962
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Stop eating salmon out of a can. Problem solved. Your palate will thank you for it.
     

Share This Page