Monsanto - The Most Slandered Company in World History

[GHook93]

4 Potential Health Risks of Eating GMO Foods - Care2 Healthy Living | Care2 Healthy Living

The majority of GM crops in cultivation are engineered to contain a gene for pesticide resistance.

When your source doesn't know the difference between pesticides and herbicides, it's safe to ignore the rest of their "proof".

When you can't see the proof in front of your face, it's safe to ignore you and your non-existent proof that GMOs are safe.

So let's dissect it a little claim by claim in the article

Claim 1 - Allergies: GMO causes allergies

Are GMOs causing an increase in allergies? | Genetic Literacy Project
According to a recent national survey, the potential that GMOs might cause allergies is a prime concern of consumers. The survey was conducted by GMO Answers, an initiative of the Council of Biotechnology Information, an industry trade group. Scientists and experts provide answers but are not paid to do so. The answer to that question is “no”, writes Lisa D. Katic, a food policy consultant:

No commercially available crops contain allergens that have been created by genetically engineering a seed/plant. And the rigorous testing process ensures that will never happen.

Claim 2 - Antibiotic Resistance

This is the hysterical attack on GMOs. So called DNA gene transfer makes us less resistant to antibiotics. First, people have been consuming GMO food for decades and antibiotics work better than they have ever worked. That should be proof in itself. Then it's not a proven science that gene transfer takes place and it beyond skeptical that so called gene transfer makes us resistant to antibiotics. It's an unfounded fear that moves the masses in the direction you want them to go

Can GM food cause immunity to antibiotics? | Mail Online
It also raises the possibility that millions of people may already have GM bacteria from food they have eaten.

The study, carried out at the University of Newcastle, consisted of feeding seven volunteers GM soya.

Researchers found that three of them had evidence of DNA gene transfer in the bacteria that occurs naturally in their digestive systems.

This is the first time this transfer has been identified in humans. Research leader Professor Harry Gilbert played down the dangers, but confirmed that 'surprising' levels of GM DNA transfer were found.

He said: 'There is some evidence of gene transfer, but it is at an extremely low rate and therefore it probably does not represent a significant risk to human health.'

The research report suggested that this transfer may have 'reflected previous exposure of the subjects to genetically modified plants.

Claim 3 - Pesticide Exposure

First the author starts with pesticides and then moves to herbicides. That leads one to the conclusion that the author doesn't know the difference btw the two. Pesticide kill pest and Herbicides kill weeds. That pretty much dooms this argument.

That is a valid concern, how herbicides and pesticides are used on non-GMO crops also. In fact they were used before GMOs. What GMOs do is allows the herbicides to kill only the weeds and the pesticides to kill only the pests, while the crops survive and increase yields so the world doesn't go hungry. You would think people would applaud such and amazing treatment, but the left always has a way to be a Debbie Downer!

We have been consumer crops (both GMO and non-GMO) that have been exposed to herb and pesticides since the beginning of the 20th century and people are living longer now than ever! I would say that well debunks the herb and pesticide kills us myth. You know what isn't a myth that kills us - LACK OF FOOD!!!

Claim 4 - Unpredictability and the Unknown

When all essence fails stated the unknown boogie man theory. This is kind of like playing the race card! We don't know, so it has to be bad. I can't think of anything else so what if has to be bad. I am surprised they didn't just go with it causes cancer!

 

[BillyP]

Feel free to post that proof you see.

Part of the proof is that GMOs haven't been tested long term, we're the guinea pigs. Can you deny that?

Can you prove aspirin is safe ?? It's not really.. Neither is heavy cream.. Even the FDA doesn't require "long term testing".. WHY? Because we have scientific methods to determine safety that don't take generations to get results.

What you are asking for is a zero risk life. And the term for your fearful demands for PROOF of safety is called the Precautionary Principle. A CORNERSTONE of eco-left dogma that would STOP progress and innovation in it's tracks.

What SHOULD make you feel safe is the fact that corporations answer for their deeds in many ways. They have to answer to stockholders, to customer perceptions and to the law. If THEY screw up -- There are heavy costs and regulatory penalties are the least of their concerns. In contrast if the FDA screws up, there are usually promotions and budget increases..

I don't take aspirin and I don't eat heavy cream. So you lose, guinea pig for food terrorists and massive polluters.

 

[GHook93]

When you can't see the proof in front of your face, it's safe to ignore you and your non-existent proof that GMOs are safe.

Feel free to post that proof you see.

Part of the proof is that GMOs haven't been tested long term, we're the guinea pigs. Can you deny that?

They were in use since 1994 and YES they have been tested to a great degree! Liberals would love to make it a requirement that all new products get tested for a decade before it goes into circulation, but in reality that doesn't work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you can't see the proof in front of your face, it's safe to ignore you and your non-existent proof that GMOs are safe.

Feel free to post that proof you see.

Part of the proof is that GMOs haven't been tested long term, we're the guinea pigs. Can you deny that?

I cannot deny that you've shown no proof that GMOs are dangerous.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yeesh.

RWs defending Monsanto.

I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Feel free to post that proof you see.

Part of the proof is that GMOs haven't been tested long term, we're the guinea pigs. Can you deny that?

I cannot deny that you've shown no proof that GMOs are dangerous.

Then there's no reason why products should not be labeled.

C'mon, even ignorant RWs cant be against factual labeling of our food.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeesh.

RWs defending Monsanto.

I can't say I'm surprised.

Mostly mocking left wingers who never got past 4th grade science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Part of the proof is that GMOs haven't been tested long term, we're the guinea pigs. Can you deny that?

I cannot deny that you've shown no proof that GMOs are dangerous.

Then there's no reason why products should not be labeled.

C'mon, even ignorant RWs cant be against factual labeling of our food.

Then there's no reason why products should not be labeled.

Labeled why?

Yes, I'm against ignorant left wingers and their anti-science whining.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I cannot deny that you've shown no proof that GMOs are dangerous.

Then there's no reason why products should not be labeled.

C'mon, even ignorant RWs cant be against factual labeling of our food.

Then there's no reason why products should not be labeled.

Labeled why?

Yes, I'm against ignorant left wingers and their anti-science whining.

Labeled because we all have the right to now what we're buying and what we're eating.

How can you be against that?

You wouldn't have to actually read it yourself, you know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then there's no reason why products should not be labeled.

C'mon, even ignorant RWs cant be against factual labeling of our food.

Then there's no reason why products should not be labeled.

Labeled why?

Yes, I'm against ignorant left wingers and their anti-science whining.

Labeled because we all have the right to now what we're buying and what we're eating.

How can you be against that?

You wouldn't have to actually read it yourself, you know.

Labeled because we all have the right to now what we're buying and what we're eating.

Ingredients are already on the label.

How can you be against that?

I'm against all sorts of idiotic liberal regulations that cost money and solve no problems.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Then there's no reason why products should not be labeled.

Labeled why?

Yes, I'm against ignorant left wingers and their anti-science whining.

Labeled because we all have the right to now what we're buying and what we're eating.

How can you be against that?

You wouldn't have to actually read it yourself, you know.

Labeled because we all have the right to now what we're buying and what we're eating.

Ingredients are already on the label.

How can you be against that?

I'm against all sorts of idiotic liberal regulations that cost money and solve no problems.

No they are not.

Ignorant RWs were against ingredients being on the label and you were overruled. That saved a lot of lives.

You don't have the right to decide what I should know about the food I eat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Labeled because we all have the right to now what we're buying and what we're eating.

How can you be against that?

You wouldn't have to actually read it yourself, you know.

Labeled because we all have the right to now what we're buying and what we're eating.

Ingredients are already on the label.

How can you be against that?

I'm against all sorts of idiotic liberal regulations that cost money and solve no problems.

No they are not.

Yes, ingredients are on the label.

You want GMO ingredients labeled?

You need a reason beyond your ignorance of science.

 

[GHook93]

Then there's no reason why products should not be labeled.

C'mon, even ignorant RWs cant be against factual labeling of our food.

Then there's no reason why products should not be labeled.

Labeled why?

Yes, I'm against ignorant left wingers and their anti-science whining.

Labeled because we all have the right to now what we're buying and what we're eating.

How can you be against that?

You wouldn't have to actually read it yourself, you know.

I have no issue with labeling. Strike one of the liberal cause!

Funny thing is if they ever getting labeling it's not going to effect the outcome. Most people will still prefer the cheaper GMO products. But again Strike One for the Liberal Clause!

Liberal has it's advantages - since after all IGNORANCE IS BLISS

 

[BillyP]

Labeled because we all have the right to now what we're buying and what we're eating.

Ingredients are already on the label.

How can you be against that?

I'm against all sorts of idiotic liberal regulations that cost money and solve no problems.

No they are not.

Yes, ingredients are on the label.

You want GMO ingredients labeled?

You need a reason beyond your ignorance of science.

If you think GMOs are so great then you can't object to labelling them as such. It should benefit GMOers, no?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No they are not.

Yes, ingredients are on the label.

You want GMO ingredients labeled?

You need a reason beyond your ignorance of science.

If you think GMOs are so great then you can't object to labelling them as such. It should benefit GMOers, no?

Yes, I can object to labeling them.

 

[BillyP]

Yes, ingredients are on the label.

You want GMO ingredients labeled?

You need a reason beyond your ignorance of science.

If you think GMOs are so great then you can't object to labelling them as such. It should benefit GMOers, no?

Yes, I can object to labeling them.

Why? Afraid of people finding out the food has GMOs in them?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you think GMOs are so great then you can't object to labelling them as such. It should benefit GMOers, no?

Yes, I can object to labeling them.

Why? Afraid of people finding out the food has GMOs in them?

All the food you eat has been modified. So what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

4 Potential Health Risks of Eating GMO Foods - Care2 Healthy Living | Care2 Healthy Living

The majority of GM crops in cultivation are engineered to contain a gene for pesticide resistance.

When your source doesn't know the difference between pesticides and herbicides, it's safe to ignore the rest of their "proof".

When you can't see the proof in front of your face, it's safe to ignore you and your non-existent proof that GMOs are safe.

Non existent?

With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science | Genetic Literacy Project

What proof do you have again? Conspiracy theories and lies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeesh.

RWs defending Monsanto.

I can't say I'm surprised.

Quite funny, considering that your side has presented absolutely no evidence that GMOs are unsafe, while I presented 2000 studies that show they are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Part of the proof is that GMOs haven't been tested long term, we're the guinea pigs. Can you deny that?

I cannot deny that you've shown no proof that GMOs are dangerous.

Then there's no reason why products should not be labeled.

C'mon, even ignorant RWs cant be against factual labeling of our food.

There actually is, it will increase the cost of all foods across the board due to extra regulations that require tracking and separate storage for non GMO foods. But fee free to pretend that increasing the cost of food so poor people cannot afford to eat is a good thing.