Bush wants EU to eat gen-modified food

[SurlyPIG]

Oh puh-LEASE! The post you were replying to didn't say a freakin' thing about GM! I was addressing a mistruth by inquiring timenn as to exactly how DDT was making people suffer because of lack of caution in the past.

[Egeides]

ACE, look correctly and you will see I wrote "in this thread". Recall a few posts before, you'll remember that a post sciptum I had put already was talking about this.

So stop being emphatic and taking me as a lyar/idiot with "PUH-lease" (I don't do this to you, please do same): just don't write as if it was an evidence if your sources do not consider scientific litterature. Just add "from my knowledge" or something... "Believing" is not "knowing", exactly as I try (may not succeed) to not show myself as certain when I think I miss a part of the sources.

[Phage]

If only these persons would be against GMOs, well I wonder if you believe there's alot of scientifics in this category, cuz I saw alot of dissent about this in the scientific community.

I know there are, but I believe that their arguments are more based on ideology then science. Even scientists are succeptible to ideological bias, especially on issues they are not experts in.

Note I'm not saying this makes their arguments wrong , perhaps suspect to the point where I, from my position am slower to take them at face value but that's it.

My arguments do not rely on Greenpeace's stability

There's not only Greenpeace into this!! Do not only name the radicals, there's ALOT of other people, like there is often in debates.

Perhaps it was an extreme example, but for me it illustrates the ad hoc methods of such opponents more explicitly then normal.

Nuclear is more tested, and it doesn't mean it's safer.

That is equivocation, you are using the word tested in a different sense then I hear. Obviously when I say the FDA tests GM crops I don't mean it in the sense of testing a nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs are not tested and banned for purposes of safety, food products are tested for safety and banned accordingly.

About leading scientists, well there are some against, some for it... The scientific community is divided, as I said. I'm basing myself on scientific magazines.

The scientific community is divided but the experts on the subject are not nearly as divided. Like I said scientists are just as open to cultural influence as anyone else, especially in fields they are not experts in.

All this isn't based on Greenpeace: they aren't even the bulk of the anti-GMOs, just the most active they always are.

They are an example I used merely to illustrate my ad hoc point concerning ideological motives. They are also a major player on this matter.

Not obvious at all when we see the scientific community instead of looking Greenpeace.

You mean not obvious to those who look only for scientists that say it's harmful, regardless of their field and ignore all the leading scientists/experts who say it is not.

You can't say this when it's on the market since only a few decades and used widely since only little time. It's not what is said by everyone at all.

It is said by Richard Dawkins and leading evolutionary theorists since the time if Darwin. The argument is more an inductive one then a deductive one anyways. It doesn't matter how long the plants have been in the market. And what do you mean a "few decades" anyways? Electricity has only been wide-spread a few decades, that mean I suspect my stereo of being dangerous?

Not if an error is made (this technology is brand new and results are still not sure) or if the diversity goes down.

Diversity is not the issue here. I confronted that point later.

And if an error is made it is far more likely to do something irrelevant then something harder. Far more likely by a great magnitude, just like a normal mutation. The only way this would be harmful is likely to be by intention.

[qupte] Until now, they never EVER made anything I know about that ADDED diversity. Some crops, even without a normalisation to what is considered good already are too much the same (like bananas). Diversity is to be improved.

Yes and by GM. Artificial selection, the traditional means will be unbearably slow at this. However this still nullifies the point that GM would destroy a great degree of diversity, when in reality diversity is so small now as to be negligible and there is more hope in simply making more versatile crops.

Easy, they sell crops each year. Did I understood your sentence right?

Nope, my question was "How do they themselves get the crops to sell?"

And it's not up to you to decide if I'm gonna take the risk or not. My choice.

Its up to you to decide within reason. As you are simply deciding food but whether a company should be forced to put on a label. I may like to decide that a lot of things need more labels, that doesn't give me the right to force others to do then by itself though. I may for example want to know which fruits are not GM in big stickers, so I can boycott those, or which farmer the crops came from and a redneck may want to know which country it came from so he or she buys "all american". Or whether they used farming machines or electricity or holy water or how much they pay their workers. None of this however warrants enough merit for a court order. Or whether the farmer used pesticides.

Currently many courts and experts have decided that the GM foods are safe, and that a label is unecessary. That the claim for a "right to decide" is unreasonable. And the fact that there has been no incident over a "few decades" confirms this point.

[Egeides]

In scientific magazines, I saw ZERO arguments based on culture and religion. And when I was refering on scientists' opinions, I of course was refering to those who made the researches, not to physicians or nutritionists :D

I agree that scientists can see some elements before because of cultural/ideological bias, but this is true for both sides so we can't help it...

About ad hoc methods, I agree we see this sometimes, but I saw this on both sides. The best (worst) exemple I saw was from politicians who often show only one side: politics are ruled by Machiavelli's principles. For exemple, did W.Bush ever even countered the arguments given by the anti-GMO (except ad hominem)? And Chirac?

About tests did by the FDA, I do not how are made these tests or what they are testing, nor do I know the limit that they consider "ok". But I know that the world community of scientists doesn't seem all on this side at all; and it's not surprising for a young technology that is THIS wide in term of impacts, implied fields of studies, or else. As nutrition, that still gets new stuff every month and always has active debates (effect of something else than calories on weight, omega 3, anti-oxydants...) :P

About Greenpeace, of course they are a POLITICAL major players since they are incredibly active. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they misevaluated and got alarmist. But anti-GMOs scientists aren't mostly from Greenpeace at all. Greenpeace is certainly a money provider to researches, but we see this from some who have monetary interests in these matters too (seems even worst)...

You mean not obvious to those who look only for scientists that say it's harmful, regardless of their field and ignore all the leading scientists/experts who say it is not.

Perhaps some are looking only at anti-GMOs articles, but like I said, I read from both sides and saw conclusions from different studies often going opposite sides on different points.

It is said by Richard Dawkins and leading evolutionary theorists since the time if Darwin. The argument is more an inductive one then a deductive one anyways. It doesn't matter how long the plants have been in the market. And what do you mean a "few decades" anyways? Electricity has only been wide-spread a few decades, that mean I suspect my stereo of being dangerous?

Dawkin is ONE scientist. With the quantity of scientists on both sides (all specialists on their field), you'll find well-known figures everywhere. Who cares. The Lancet, which is something like the most prestigious scientific publication, was showing things from both sides from what I remember (about 2 years ago). About any scientist that publishes in The Lancet is the elite of his specialty...

Diversity is not the issue here. I confronted that point later.

And if an error is made it is far more likely to do something irrelevant then something harder. Far more likely by a great magnitude, just like a normal mutation. The only way this would be harmful is likely to be by intention.

Well of course the worst consequence would be by intention, like the Terminator gene, done by Monsanto. About mutations, it would do like any other mutation but applied to many many many identical plants which makes diversity a problem. About how are crops NOW, they of course lack a certain diversity, but GMOs would be alot worst since it cumulates interventions on genes and identical genes (or close, if not). A case of this would be the present breed of banana, which is all the same type (unfertiled, so always replanted): this year, the scientific community specialized in bananas (bananists ;D) were panicked because of a sickness that destroyed everything on its path in Africa. Finally, it didn't passed in the Antilles islands so ok. But it's a problem, and until now only on bananas.

Nope, my question was "How do they themselves get the crops to sell?"

They test the genes and all this (R&D) they want to sell, and then they cultivate enough of it to sell the recolts' grains. Also, they have a patent and copyright on everything with royalties that can be claimed yearly.

Its up to you to decide within reason. As you are simply deciding food but whether a company should be forced to put on a label. I may like to decide that a lot of things need more labels, that doesn't give me the right to force others to do then by itself though. I may for example want to know which fruits are not GM in big stickers, so I can boycott those, or which farmer the crops came from and a redneck may want to know which country it came from so he or she buys "all american". Or whether they used farming machines or electricity or holy water or how much they pay their workers. None of this however warrants enough merit for a court order. Or whether the farmer used pesticides.

There is not "right to not say what is the product" in the industry. That's why you legally are obliged to put the ingredients, how much calories there are, etc. Up to each one to decide what he buys.

Currently many courts and experts have decided that the GM foods are safe, and that a label is unecessary. That the claim for a "right to decide" is unreasonable. And the fact that there has been no incident over a "few decades" confirms this point.

The courts are following the LAWS, and the laws are made by a GOVERNMENT (with lobbies and so on). About "few incident", well as I said scientists (specialists) are extremely divided on this point. The confiance into sciences' capacity to be well regulated by corporations alone was also put in doubt with other technologies that were used since quite some time: mad cow scandal, etc. When a field in science is still not developed that much, it's like chemistry at its beginning: parallel unpredicted effect could happen and sometimes explode.

PS: This reminds me... In the 19th century, I heard that they knew that man could fly in baloons with hydrogen or hot air. A guy once tryed to mix both techniques to pass from France to Britain... he made his way without the baloon.

[Acriku]

He swam? Get it...hydrogen (H) - air, (O2)? Ok not exactly.

[Egeides]

Hydrogen + Oxygen in the air + Energy (like heat) = BOOOOOM ;D

[Phage]

In scientific magazines, I saw ZERO arguments based on culture and religion. And when I was refering on scientists' opinions, I of course was refering to those who made the researches, not to physicians or nutritionists

Perhaps you can actually link me to some of these magazines and scientists instead of simply giving hearsay. It does help when you give links to sources.

I agree that scientists can see some elements before because of cultural/ideological bias, but this is true for both sides so we can't help it...

Yes but the vast majority of biotech institutions and major scientists have concluded GM foods are safe.

About ad hoc methods, I agree we see this sometimes, but I saw this on both sides. The best (worst) exemple I saw was from politicians who often show only one side: politics are ruled by Machiavelli's principles. For exemple, did W.Bush ever even countered the arguments given by the anti-GMO (except ad hominem)? And Chirac?

Ok so for you this issue is combined with a political philosophy, that they are all ruled by Machiavelli principles. Interesting but not prove, nor scientifically based.

Bush is no genius, I'll give you that. But I have already given the names of two geniuses on the subject, one a a Nobel Prize winning expert/father of the green revolution, the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/100_bio.html

and the council for biotechnology information.

Whereas almost all opponents of GM crops consist of some sort of ideological or religious group: green peace, organic foodists, "progress.org", etc.

About tests did by the FDA, I do not how are made these tests or what they are testing, nor do I know the limit that they consider "ok". But I know that the world community of scientists doesn't seem all on this side at all; and it's not surprising for a young technology that is THIS wide in term of impacts, implied fields of studies, or else. As nutrition, that still gets new stuff every month and always has active debates (effect of something else than calories on weight, omega 3, anti-oxydants...)

What world community of scientists? Major institutions have so far stated GM foods are safe.

The fact FDA does test the plant, demanding further testing at this point to prove GM foods "are safe" is unreasonable.

About Greenpeace, of course they are a POLITICAL major players since they are incredibly active. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they misevaluated and got alarmist. But anti-GMOs scientists aren't mostly from Greenpeace at all. Greenpeace is certainly a money provider to researches, but we see this from some who have monetary interests in these matters too (seems even worst)...

Actially a lot of supporters do seem to affiliate and get their evidence from geen peace. Which is why they have not made so few scientific arguments to date, if they have made many show me where.

Perhaps some are looking only at anti-GMOs articles, but like I said, I read from both sides and saw conclusions from different studies often going opposite sides on different points.

I've seen studies on both sides between creation "scientists" and evolutionary biologists. Just because two sides make a point, one of which sounds scientific, doesn't mean they are on equal footing.

Dawkin is ONE scientist. With the quantity of scientists on both sides (all specialists on their field), you'll find well-known figures everywhere. Who cares. The Lancet, which is something like the most prestigious scientific publication, was showing things from both sides from what I remember (about 2 years ago). About any scientist that publishes in The Lancet is the elite of his specialty...

Dawkins is one of the foremost evolutionary thinkers on earth. I don't think saying "some scientists disagree" equates to an adequate refutation of an argument derived from a well known evolutionary fact. (It is well known beneficial saltations are very rare). The argument is hence proof surrogate.

Well of course the worst consequence would be by intention, like the Terminator gene, done by Monsanto.

Which is why the FDA tests them. At this point however your problem is with GM abuse,not use. People can likewise abuse electricity, killing many with electrical weapons or by sabotaging products/power plants intentionally. That isn't a good argument against electricity though.

About mutations, it would do like any other mutation but applied to many many many identical plants which makes diversity a problem. About how are crops NOW, they of course lack a certain diversity, but GMOs would be alot worst since it cumulates interventions on genes and identical genes (or close, if not).

According to this argument then it is merely worse by definition. The above is question begging.

A case of this would be the present breed of banana, which is all the same type (unfertiled, so always replanted): this year, the scientific community specialized in bananas (bananists ) were panicked because of a sickness that destroyed everything on its path in Africa. Finally, it didn't passed in the Antilles islands so ok. But it's a problem, and until now only on bananas.

A link please?

They test the genes and all this (R&D) they want to sell, and then they cultivate enough of it to sell the recolts' grains. Also, they have a patent and copyright on everything with royalties that can be claimed yearly.

Yes but what then prevents the natives from growing the plants....patents? They are donating the plants and I doubt patents extend to raising the crops. Such a thing would be impossible to uphold.

There is not "right to not say what is the product" in the industry. That's why you legally are obliged to put the ingredients, how much calories there are, etc. Up to each one to decide what he buys.

Yes and you know the ingredients, corn. This only goes so far, there is no right to find out the molecular or genetic origins of the ingredients. When I buy a corn plant I don't have to know which plant it was artificially selected from. There are certain rights that fall within reason, like knowing ingredients to cereal, not to knowing if the cereal came from corns sprayed with pesticides.

Again you invoke equivocation, you know the ingredients law does not apply to GM vs none GM products or every aspect of the product. Yet you use a bait and switch tactice to make it seem as if it does.

The courts are following the LAWS, and the laws are made by a GOVERNMENT (with lobbies and so on). About "few incident", well as I said scientists (specialists) are extremely divided on this point. The confiance into sciences' capacity to be well regulated by corporations alone was also put in doubt with other technologies that were used since quite some time: mad cow scandal, etc. When a field in science is still not developed that much, it's like chemistry at its beginning: parallel unpredicted effect could happen and sometimes explode.

Well then now all we have it red herrings, yeah I know courts follow LAWS.....how does that prove GM foods are dangerous?

And superfluous assumptions, GM foods *Might* have *hidden*, *undetected* dangers after decades of use with no recorded incident.

Lastly a link to the National Academy of Sciences concerning how GM foods are safe:

http://search.nap.edu/nap-cgi/napsearch.cgi?term=Genetically+Modified+food+safety&submit=Search

From scientific american:

Advocates note, too, that every genetically engineered food crop has been thoroughly tested for possible health effects. Relatively few independent studies have been published, but manufacturers have conducted extensive analyses, because they are legally required to ensure that the foods they sell meet federal safety standards. In the past, the companies have submitted test results to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voluntarily in advance of sale. But an FDA rule proposed in January should make such review mandatory.

The manufacturers' studies typically begin by comparing the GM version under consideration with conventionally bred plants of the same variety, to see whether the addition of a foreign gene significantly alters the GM plant's chemical makeup and nutritional value. If the proteins made from the inserted genes are the only discernible differences, those proteins are checked for toxicity by feeding them to animals in quantities thousands of times higher than humans would ever consume. If the genetic modification leads to more extensive changes, toxicity testers may feed the complete GM food to lab animals.

To assess the allergy-inducing potential, scientists check the chemical makeup of each novel protein produced by the genetically altered plant against those of 500 or so known allergens; having a similar chemistry would raise a red flag. Proteins are also treated with acid to mimic the environment they will encounter in the stomach; most known allergens are quite stable and survive such treatment unscathed. Finally, investigators consider the original source of the protein. "There is no way that a peanut gene will ever be allowed into a strawberry," observes T. J. Higgins of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia: too many people are allergic to proteins in peanuts.

Arguably, the testing system has worked well so far. It showed that the protein in StarLink corn might be allergenic (hence the animal-feed-only approval) and led other products--such as soybeans that contained a protein from Brazil nuts--to be abandoned before they had a chance to hit grocery shelves. "I don't know of any evidence that any product on the market is unsafe," says Peter Day, director of the Institute of Biomolecular Research at Rutgers University.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0001A6D9-1FB2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21&pageNumber=2&catID=2

You will note in the article it does note some arguments against GM foods, but they are all based on unwarranted "what ifs" superfluous statements, perfectionist fallacies and generally the ad hoc reasoning I've been talking about.

The safety tests are not necessarily foolproof, though.

What test is?

Beyond the acute safety considerations, some critics fear that GM foods will do harm more insidiously, by hastening the spread of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing bacteria. When food designers genetically alter a plant, they couple the selected genetic material with a "marker" gene that reveals which plants have taken up foreign genes. Often the marker genes render plant cells resistant to antibiotics that typically kill them. At issue is the possibility that resistance genes might somehow jump from GM foods to bacteria in a consumer's gut, thereby aggravating the already troubling rise of antibiotic resistance among disease-causing bacteria.

The chances of such transfer are reportedly remote--"less likely than winning a national lottery three times in a row," notes Hans G

[Timenn]

I used DDT as an example for that something what can look good in the beginning, might turn out differently in the future.

People know so little of DNA, when you modify it, you can't have an idea what is going to happen.

And about the birds, birds are eaten by other animals you might eat. And if only birds die, it is a bad thing too.

Sure is if it then helps save or feed humans. Would you let youself or one of your loved ones starve to death to save a few birds? If not why demand others have to?

If I had to choose between a friend and an unknown animal, I chose my friend.

However, if I had to choose between my pet and a stranger, I would go for my pet.

If I had to choose between a unknown animal and a stranger, I wouldn't know what to choose...

[Ice_Cube]

Caid not everything the US does is right.

Little the US does is right.

DDT was banned for a reason ACE. It was killing off species and destroying the wildlife as a whole. Timmen is right, who knows what will happen if we mess around with the genes of plants. Has anyone read the dook "the triffids"?

[Warlord Ripskar]

I think he meant environmentalists, another word for naturists.

No, Naturalist is another word for environmentalists, Naturists is another word for nudists!

[SurlyPIG]

DDT was banned for a reason ACE. It was killing off species and destroying the wildlife as a whole. Timmen is right, who knows what will happen if we mess around with the genes of plants.

Destroying wildlife as a whole? Killing off species? LOL. I'll admit the the peregrine falcon was in some danger of disappearing from the California area, but destroying wildlife as a whole? Bwahaha. Where are you getting that from? That's pure crap!

As to your second point, why you're absolutely right! Who knows what'll happen if we mess around with the genetic structure of plant life? Thats stupid. Just like those Vikings that went sailing and found North America. Boy were they stupid. They didn't know what they were messing with! They couldn't have known what would happen. Same with scientists and researchers. Boy are they idiots. Trying to find cures for cancer and all, they don't know what damage they could do! Chemotherapy could end up killing us all! ::)

I swear, if some people had their way we'd still be clubbing deer to death and living in caves...

[Phage]

Timmen is right, who knows what will happen if we mess around with the genes of plants. Has anyone read the dook "the triffids"?

Fiction man. I've read scary sci-fi stories too. About aliens coming from outer space and machines taking over the world. Does that mean we cancel NASA, Seti and electricity?

[Phage]

I used DDT as an example for that something what can look good in the beginning, might turn out differently in the future.

People know so little of DNA, when you modify it, you can't have an idea what is going to happen.

Yeah and something that does seem good may also be good. And it probably is.

Listen, anything can be said to look good and possibly be bad. Literally damn near anything. But you don't base decision on mere possibilities but probabilities. And probability indicates GM foods are good. *Could* that be wrong? Yes. Just as it is possible my stove can blow up when I light it, or a vaccine can get me terminally ill/have an alergic reaction, or that anti-bodies can create newer, deadlier viruses. Lots of scary scenerios are possible, perhaps even plausible when you get down to it. But based on current evidence they are very, very improbable. And probability may not be perfect but it is the best thing we have.

[Acriku]

I think he meant environmentalists, another word for naturists.

No, Naturalist is another word for environmentalists, Naturists is another word for nudists!

A naturalist is one who says all things can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. Quite different than an environmentalist.

[Ice_Cube]

DDT was banned for a reason ACE. It was killing off species and destroying the wildlife as a whole. Timmen is right, who knows what will happen if we mess around with the genes of plants.

Destroying wildlife as a whole? Killing off species? LOL. I'll admit the the peregrine falcon was in some danger of disappearing from the California area, but destroying wildlife as a whole? Bwahaha. Where are you getting that from? That's pure crap!

If it was allowed to carry on it could of destroyed a whole food web in a local area.

As a reply to your second point, you are right! I mean, it was great when african bees were mixed with normal ones and it was immensely clever when they meddled with the water supply to the Aral sea. ::)

[nemafakei]

Um, is it just me or wasn't half the problem with DDT that it killed the predators, and so the next year, there were twice as many mozzies?

[SurlyPIG]

It reduces their numbers, but birds of prey are not the only predators.

Ice Cube, I agree. Lets stop trying to make any advancements at all. ::)

[Egeides]

Pre scriptum: This is not exaustive, and I have no intention to study GMOs 10 hours. But you can be sure I'm a bit bored to hear again and again "the scientists say" when I know well enough that scientists (the specialists) as a whole do not say so but are divided. So I think it'll be my last long answer on this not incredibly interesting subject :D

Anyway, here would be a good source to start from:

http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/GEFood.html

(interesting quote: "many people in the world are suffering from malnutrition and hunger because they cannot afford to buy food, not because it is unavailable")

But based on current evidence they are very, very improbable. And probability may not be perfect but it is the best thing we have.

Based on current evidence, world specialists are mixed between two sides.

Source:

Everything I read since the last 4 years (including almost all issues from 1999 to 2001) from:

Scientific American --> www.sciam.com

Quebec Science (Canadian) --> www.cybersciences.com

La Recherche (French) --> www.larecherche.fr

Science et Vie (French) --> www.science-et-vie.com

and a 1-2 others, not including also non-scientific publications that were still discussing it seriously (sorry if most are in French, but the articles are coming from all over the world: from Australia to USA or Germany).

This is a scientific community. Not the FDA, not a research done by a tobacco company (they proved well what their research was worth trusting. They still add stuff that brings dependance) or Monsanto: a scientific community which comes mostly from universities and aren't in bad position if the results doesn't go on a side (companies always have the results they wanted: why is that?... look at tobacco companies).

And not only scientists disagree with your sources, apparently many countries agree that these anti-GMOs scientists are right. And farmers (http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/15973/newsDate/16-May-2002/story.htm).

Since we're at it, let's talk about Monsanto. They did the Agent Ortange (that killed crops in Vietnam... and also babies, brang deformations...) (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/agentorange032102.cfm) and promoted DDT (until it was impossible) by making a parody of a non-DDT world. Anyway, Monsanto also did alot of stuff, you can get a a bit everywhere...

To see how much their research are reliable:

http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.com/dirtysecrets/annistonindepth/wildlife.asp

This resumes nicely Monsanto's bad history, but sadly they do not give their sources (but other websites say same with sources):

http://www.seizetheday.org/monsanto/main.htm

Now I hope I answered to your last long post too Phage... I do not say GMOs are NECESSARILY bad or only bad, but I say that evidences are not there to show it's ok. Not more than human cloning, like all new field of researches.

Now, about politics being under Machiavelli's rules, well The Prince (Machiavel's book) is teached in universities' classes. Being machiavellic doesn't always mean to be evil, but it means that whattever your goal, all efficient means are good in politics for the one who wants to succeed. So politics is the realm of Machiavel's Prince, and of those who are mastering what is in this book...

Some sources built by consumers (with arguments coming from the scientific community, not simply the scientifics Bush showed) or else:

www.thecampaign.org

Or if you wish an ultra-organized scholar/journalists response (generally they are excellent, and you'll get sources....):

http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/GEFood.html

About Greenpeace, they generally seemed to have a mix arguments that are pushed too far and also arguments that are okay... so I have no idea about them since I didn't studied the subject exhaustively.

PS: If you want to say that companies are accepting negative results, well I know a guy who worked for them... apparently you wontstay if it's not good. A guy was sued because he had published what he had found while making his researches. Which field? History: the history of the company wasn't nice enough... I heard the same from scientists AND scholars which are asked researches (political subventions, corporations, etc.).

PPS: Don't blame me for having pro-consumer links and stuff like that. Government and companies do not make websites about bad companies. Only individuals do and when they form a group, they are called pro-X or anti-Y.

[Egeides]

It reduces their numbers, but birds of prey are not the only predators.

Ice Cube, I agree. Lets stop trying to make any advancements at all. ::)

ACE, you brang ZERO sources and each time you talk on scientific ground, not all researches were on your side at all.

If it's so evident, counter arguments in http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/GEFood.html or http://www.psrast.org/indexeng.htm (first case are scholars/journalists, second are scientists).

[Phage]

Egeides you have actually proved my point beyond a reasonable doubt.

Most of your "links" were ideological in nature. The first is from a political group sympathetic to anarchism, another was about a farmer who's obviously prejudice on the issue.

An example is "sieze the day.org" which opens up with "Famine Plague Despair".

And makes this extraordinary claim about Bovine growth hormone which the FDA has stated is safe.

Bovine Growth Hormone: B.S.T. - BOVINE SOMATOTROPIN

[dollar sign]

BST or BGH is a genetically engineered hormone to make cows produce more milk. It also makes them produce more pus and gives them mastitis, sores and abortions.

Because of evidence that BST milk causes Breast cancer, Colon cancer and Prostate cancer in humans.

It is banned in Europe. Monsanto is trying to overturn the ban.

While the FDA has stated otherwise:

FDA has evaluated all aspects of BST's safety for human food, including

the effect of very high doses of BST on the content of BST in milk and the

effect of BST on the concentration of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1),

a protein hormone, in milk. Numerous studies, including the data on BST

evaluated by FDA, have have been published in scientific journals.

After a thorough review of these studies, FDA concluded that milk

derived from cows treated with BST is safe for human consumption.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00397.html

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/cpetup.html

As does the american council for science and health:

http://www.acsh.org/press/releases/rBGH.html

Like I said the issue has been tested scientifically and GM foods have passed the tests. Just like BST.

However for groups with an idealogical and political issue, the tests are of course not good enough. It's not our job to prove the tests are "working" or tested themselves. Shifting the burden of proof. Such requests can go on forever and certainly are not reasonable.

What links to science you did give were vague and non-specific. Meaning they could be evidence, but they could also be what skeptics call "wild goose chases". In short they are proof surrogate.

I mean it was a link to the home page to scientific american, not an article or anything. Just the homepage with info on the current issue. Anyone can just link me there and say "now find the proof."

As for the issue on DDT, I never said it wasn't harmful. In fact I'm guessing it is though I'm not well informed on the subject. Basically your argument can then be seen is guilt by very, very vague association and false analogy.

Proving DDT is harmful is a long way from proving GM foods are harmful.

The same with your tobacco argument that was over a long time ago. ANd can you ever prove the FDA ever failed to test tobacco or subvert the truth on the tobacco issue within their capabilities?

Ultimately your arguments, especially those latter ones concerning the prince are primarily based on a cultural/political viewpoint, not a scientific one. Just like I am saying about the anti-GMO lobby.

It is for that reason that even though GM crops have been proven safe by leading scientific institutions and deductive argument, that they will still campaign against GMOs. Stating that the tests are "insufficient" or "untrustworthy". Stuff they could say about anything.

But in the end which source is more credible, the FDA and council of biotechnology or some political activists?

I personally will trust the FDA, over some site which couches its political agenda as science.

[Egeides]

You're saying me that citizens with a strong position are biased while you are presenting me governmental studies coming from lobbied governments!! Look at arguments themselves, not at what you expect from this or that type of author...

About the "anarchist" zmag.... well they are known for having every position imaginable. I don't se why someone having anarchist political ideas would all of a sudden be wrong neither. To have access to truth, is it required to be smithian or something?

And what about those scientists?! Hey, it's the whole scientific community! They are saying "FDA and US government has a pro-GMO agenda"...

Saying that someoen is an activist doesn't make him wrong. Thomas Jefferson was an activist (he manifested, was asking changes, and so on). Thus he is wrong. Activists are wrong because they are activists? Ad hominem.

Are you saying that your argumentations is based on what you expect from some people instead of being based on the arguments themselves?

???

PS: When they say the tests are not ok, they have reasons so say so... go the scientific site if you want complete reasons.

[Ice_Cube]

It reduces their numbers, but birds of prey are not the only predators.

Ice Cube, I agree. Lets stop trying to make any advancements at all. ::)

pahh lease. That was not my point, we should be trying to make advancements but in the right places and in areas that we can fully understand. Are you saying that advancements in bombs is good? We have no idea what GM foods could do.

By Karen Hopkin

A farmworker crouches in the hot Texas sun, harvesting celery for market. That evening, painful red blisters erupt across his forearms. The celery-a newly developed variety prized for its resistance to disease-unexpectedly produces a chemical able to trigger severe skin reactions. Traditional breeding methods generated this noxious vegetable. But opponents of genetically modified foods worry that splicing foreign genes (often from bacteria) into food plants through recombinantDNA technology could lead to even nastier health surprises.

an example. GM foods could cause the biggest alergic disaster ever. In an extreme scenario, it could even render a whole area uninhabitable. Lets try and research more safe and worth while things, like medical cures.

[Timenn]

It looks like there are many supporters of gen-modified food, and alot of people against that.

Shouldn't it be better then to let everyone choose what they want to eat.

That's 2 happy sides then

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Yeah, we know Timenn. But I suppose we are the goverment's 'property'

The cattle must eat what the farmer serves. ::)

I'm not eating what the farmer serves, that's for sure.

Even if Gen-food is more healthier and more safe to eat, so what?

And I hate those Greenpeace jerks, they aren't doing anything.

If they want to help nature, they must buy rifles and kill those jerks that kills innocent animals just to get their hands on their pelts and skins.

Instead, they just spend the money on god you who know what.

Making commercials on television.

Typisch Politiek.

[nemafakei]

Half these pages seem to be about trying to prove one way or the other what the 'scientific community' thinks about GM.

Let's get back to arguing the reasons, not just pulling up a page of links and statistics. Examples and analogies are all very well, but they're useless without the logic and reason behind it, which seems at present to be rather diluted in shape.