Don't do this, man. It's irrelevant to the conversation.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Chipotle Is Now 100% GMO-Free
- Thread starter ShadowKingpin
- Start date
- Status
Yes.. and potatoes as well. As you mentioned, concentration matters, but still worth knowing what we're eating/putting in our bodies.
I don't ignore concentrations of anything; If anything I'm asking why are there trace amounts of poison in something that is used to promote health? (speaking specifically to toothpaste). I'm also not advocating that we eat multiple tubes of toothpaste in a day but still, why the warning label?
Because "Science" and "Things" right? You people think I'm anti-science when I'm a big fan of the things we've discovered, I just err on the side of not wanting certain things-- ergo the choice of what products have certain non-poisionous elements.
great... obviously you missed my /s
see above.
right....
I am not motivated by fear at all, I happen to more particular on what things I ingest and in turn what things my kids ingest as well. Also, I'm sick of basically the equated notion that anti-GMO people are "dumb hippie mother fuckers who don't understand science or progress" bullshit that seems to be so pervasive on this board. I've been around long enough to understand that if you want respect (apparently) in the eyes of a NeoGAF poster, you must prove out your theory on why you believe what you believe and if you don't, the person is apparently spouting bullshit or misinformation. This of course could turn into a full time job but for once, I'll humor the notion.
Link: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roundup_Ready_Corn Basically it states what we already know about RUR corn:
Why am I harping on Corn so much (you must be asking at this point) is because Corn is the largest base ingredient in so much of the food we consume. I will also point out that many organic farms who do use pesticides to kill bugs and protect their crops do so in a manner that tries to be as neutral as possible. (At least here in Oregon.)
As to the poison (aka Round Up) leaking into the food, there are numerous studies that show Round Up lasting up to a week in the soil and causing longer term issues with plants whether for local ingestion or simply for exterior curb appeal.
Link:http://www.gardenguides.com/130007-soil-toxicity-roundup.html
Yes, I mispoke earlier as I was posting from my phone. As I stated above, RUR implies that they are resistant to Round Up but the fact remains that Round Up by default will still leech into the ground and eventually the food source by the nature of the chemical.
Do you care to explain why GMO's are outlawed in several European countries? Just because the US does it doesn't make it right. For once, I agree with our European friends that GMO's are bad for business (and the land).
Climate change is a crap shoot; You can find 50 articles supporting your position of man man warming and I can find 50 articles showing natures cooling trend. I'm spacing the theory name but if alarmists rule out the Earth being resilient then I can't have a serious conversation with that person. We as humans haven't done a great deal to aid in the recovery but to call this a 100% man made event is a ludicrous claim.
sweet.
You've got a sweet tooth I take it?
yes my comment was for mainly the American crowd.
CornBurrito
Member
Poison doesn't exist in chemicals. It isn't like you can have poison H20 and non-poison H20. The chemical compound itself is what makes something poison or not. Of course, concentration matters. Almonds can contain small amounts of cyanide, but you can eat a huge bag of them and be fine. Similar to fluoride in water.
And also the amount of fluoride in toothpaste is
1. In a higher concentration than in water.
2. You'd actually have to eat like a whole tube and you still wouldn't die.
But arguing that fluoride in water is dangerous because of toothpaste warnings is basically like arguing that vaccines are dangerous because the live virus would kill you, or that almonds are dangerous because higher concentrations of cyanide will kill you.
Fracking isn't what specifically causes earthquakes; rather, it's the disposal of wastewater that is a byproduct of the fracking process.
read above, I'm not re-treading this especially since it doesn't get back to the OP of the topic at hand.
CornBurrito
Member
Because chemicals aren't divided into "purely good" or "purely poison."
Fluoride in water has many benefits to it.
heliosRAzi
Banned
You didn't have a /s
CornBurrito
Member
It was a GMO /s spliced into a different letter.
right. I'm glad you know me personally to be able to tell that.
CornBurrito
Member
No. What is more likely to happen is that someone finds 50 peer reviewed scientific articles supporting the current theory for anthropogenic global warming, and you find 50 trash blog posts without any credible citations or sources.
theepicoftyler
Member
Yes. For the same reasons, go find the recent thread on fracking and earthquakes to understand why. I am a geologist, and I go into detail there.
A population that does not have the education or expertise in a subject, but having a loud voice, thanks to social media and the internet in general (and the decimation of educated science specific writers in newsrooms across the world) has given people the false sense of empowerment. It's great that people are interested in these things, but there are thousands of scientists that spend a lot of time and money (the people's money in fact) to study these things, and they are largely ignored or deemed untrustworthy because they are a branch of the government.
heliosRAzi
Banned
No, you did not post "/s" in your post. Besides, I knew you were joking. It was just so ignorant. Concentration matters when it comes to toxicity and you just go straight to the other end of joking about drinking cleaning chemicals as if that was what is happening now when you eat an apple.
I sent you a fucking link to them being used and saving lives in India. I never once mentioned Africa myself.
But fair enough, the point is we have solutions readily available. Arguing that they don't really work is a strange point. They aren't proven to be dangerous, nor is the side-effect of their use proven to be dangerous.
I posted before about the issue with Bangladesh and a crop being pulled from use despite farmers advocating for them. It's a serious issue.
hockeypuck
Member
Do you want to read it? Because if you actually did, you would realize that no research was performed for the entire article you just linked. It is a rambling of observations of A->B, B->C, C->D, D->E, therefore A->E. The two authors performed no experiments, no statistical analyses, and have contributed nothing to your position. If that is the best you can come up with, then you have clearly demonstrated to the readers of this thread that you have not a single clue on how to read scientific papers or perform research.
Edit: I'll give you one clue, as a freebie. When a 48 page "paper" has a single table, and this is their table:
Then you should realize that no scientific study was actually performed.
AbsolutBro
Member
"Bad for business" is right. The EU's decision is based on commercial protectionism, nothing more. They are keeping cheaper alternatives out of their markets purely to protect their own nation's interests, not out of any sense of public safety.
It was actually a bit of a scandal, because the former EU science advisor was actually fired because she pointed out that GM crops are safe.
So yeah, great company to keep there.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
This sort of thing used to be a selling point for me but because so much of the hate comes from a place of ignorance, I've cooled or rather become very cynical of the GMO controversy.
heliosRAzi
Banned
This is a blog with no citations whatsoever. Meanwhile, I can go over to the EPA and show that bounded glyphosate becomes inactive in the soil and unbounded glyphosate is broken down by bacteria in the soil.
AbsolutBro
Member
Let's be 100% clear on what the link you provided actually said.
The lack of nutrition isn't because the GM foods are somehow less scarcer for nutrients than their non GM alternatives. The lack of nutrients is because poor people try to get as much bang for their buck as possible and buy the cheapest foods. This tends to NOT be things like leafy greens, which have notoriously bad shelf lives, don't ship well, and are hard to grow in dry environments like Africa.
So to be clear: your link never once states or proves that GM foods have less nutrients than their non GM alternatives. Simple that a diet consisting of mainly one food type will be devoid of nutrients not found in that food type. (Duh.) That's not really the GM foods fault, since you're talking about extremely poor people trying to stretch their extremely limited food budget as far as possible.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
When I treat them like adults and reference to statistics and studies, they say "Well, but I've heard about THIS report that says otherwise".
"...That "report" is by a blogger..."
AbsolutBro
Member
This is extremely obvious to anyone that actually grows vegetables, by the way. I used Roundup to kill the weeds in my vegetable beds. They were literally overrun with clover and crab grass. A week later, I can plant my seedlings (or at least I could if the weather would stop cold spiking) and they will grow just fine. And these are heirloom seeds from as far back as the 1700s, so you can't even use the RUR excuse.
When you'll understand that it's basically a political issue you'll know why your tactic is counterproductive and even damaging to your side.
There is perfectly valid political reason to forbid Monsanto from entering the EU market, regardless of the science behind GMOs.
Also this was my meal yesterday.
As far as Mexican food goes it's probably one of the few I can stomach.
When you'll understand that it's basically a political issue you'll know why your tactic is counterproductive and even damaging to your side.
There is perfectly valid political reason to forbid Monsanto from entering the EU market, regardless of the science behind GMOs.
Also this was my meal yesterday.
As far as Mexican food goes it's probably one of the few I can stomach.
I will assume you have source for them all, so please post a list of point for the political reasons against GMOs. I can't imagine them myself at the moment.
I never said that about nutrients, I just said, that GMO is not feeding the planet and neither will it solve Africas problems.
Feeding the planet is a strawman of the GMO industry. You will not earn that much, if the planet is feed.
It is a political reason for the same reason immigration is a political issue instead of simple supply issue.
If you can't convince people that GMOs are not only harmless but also beneficial you'll encounter resistance to its very concept, let alone commercialisation.
Heck even on WHO's site they pretty much admitted that there was not really much in it for the customer.
Again if you're not able to spur demand the offer is worthless.
Also true.
On the EU side, surplus are not sent to Africa anyway so that argument for making GMOs in the EU is really worthless.
Even worse it's counterproductive.
ShadowKingpin
Member
Wasn't your point that they were bad? Not that they don't singlehandedly solve world hunger.
If we find a way to splice whatever makes Cacti live without much water and somehow can bear fruit regardless of climate, that will be an amazing GMO and all this anti-GMO agenda is doing is stopping the research from being seen as ethical. The purpose is to increase crop in LEDCs that can't grow their OWN natural crop.
AbsolutBro
Member
I also love the argument that the pushback against GMO in the EU is protectionism at its finest.
If it is true you're not going to have anyone claiming that's a problem considering that protectionism is widely used when it comes to food regulations.
Heck the US pretty much used this as retailiation against France for the Iraq war for example.
Considering the HUGE anti-corporation sentiment in the general population, pointing that out only serves as bolstering the anti-GMO movement.
On a basic psychological level it's like the perfect storm.
If it is true you're not going to have anyone claiming that's a problem considering that protectionism is widely used when it comes to food regulations.
Heck the US pretty much used this as retailiation against France for the Iraq war for example.
Considering the HUGE anti-corporation sentiment in the general population, pointing that out only serves as bolstering the anti-GMO movement.
On a basic psychological level it's like the perfect storm.
AbsolutBro
Member
I think that's referring to my post, which was only meant to show that the EU's stance against GMOs had nothing to do with their safety, as the person I quoted was purporting it did.
That changes absolutely nothing, at this point the problem with GMO is only partly about health issues.
If labelling your stuffs hamper your competitivity in the market maybe there's a perception problem or the message is simply not one that the market want to hear.
If your production process is making you more efficient but at the same time is making people stear clear of your product, the problem is with your production process more than with the people not buying your stuffs.
I Stalk Alone
Member
Now we take the gene we want from completely other species of plants animals or whatever and just add them to the plants themselves this would never occur naturally though, so ecologically it might need further testing. That's The magic of gmo. Pink bananas, meloms with pink nipples that let you know when they become ripe. As long as the crops dont suddenly destroy the natural variety we have already then i am all for it With proper testing. If we sudddenly go from having 48 kinds of potatoes to only a dozen then i will probably want heads on platters. If it suddenly leads 480 varieties of potatoes, then keep them coming.
I cant wait until we start doing them to animals then people. Then pokemans.
AbsolutBro
Member
Not quite nipples, but there is an heirloom (i.e., not GMO) watermelon with a built in ripeness indicator! (it's rind turns bright yellow when ripe)
heliosRAzi
Banned
Don't be dense, you know perfectly well what people means by GMOs.
In the same way when people talk about animals in opposition to humans you don't need to put a disclaimer that humans are animals too every single time.
heliosRAzi
Banned
The reason I do that is to take away the stigma of GMOs. Once you realize that we exist due to genetic modification and that everything we eat has already been modified, the insertion of a gene is just a small step towards acceptance of it.
I get that, the issue is that it is patronizing and turn people off.
Let's look it this way :
You have 2 sides :
- One for that is talking to people like 5yo and basically insulting their intelligence in the process
- the other side that is pretty much telling them something while not telling them that they're ignoramus that need to be taught like children.
It may seems like basic PR or marketing but it's really the issue.
As long as you have one side thinking that the other is beneath them you won't convince anyone.
Again half truths... but you know, whatever. The fact is that while most of you view this as a political/unscientific revolt, it simply is a trend toward things being more natural which in turn is less technological. It's not like I don't eat GMO's, I know I do, but for certain things, IMO, it is better to be without them.
heliosRAzi
Banned
I don't think I am patronizing; I'm just stating the facts. I want people to be like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Total Recall when he had his mind read, because if they don't, they'd turn into Benny from Total Recall.
Hardly anyone here is thinking that the other side is beneath us. We think that you're ignorant and misinformed, but not beneath us.
What's your reasoning behind this?
Literally every single ingredient of everything could be called a "poison" in high enough concentrations so using the term poison is meaningless.
The warning label is there because little kids are likely to like the flavor of toothpaste and subsequently eat a large amount of it.
Yes, a 3 or 4 year old eating a whole tube of tooth paste is dangerous, but any thing that promotes health is dangerous if over consumed. That's why there are warning labels on every single type of medicine and why some types of medicine aren't supposed to be given to kids.
AbsolutBro
Member
What is "half true" about the article I linked?
And there is nothing about our food that trends towards "more natural" (whatever that even means), not since we first decided to cook over fire or plow the earth to plant crops.
here we go, NBC article on it:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37825376/ns/us_news-environment/#.VT_QlpMsNpl
I spelled that out fairly clearly stated that more natural = less technology in between food to table.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Really don't see anything wrong with commercial protectionism when it means protecting your own domestic industries and propping up local farming operations when the alternative means they all need to "go big or go home" with monoculture GMO crops in order to compete with the ultra-cheap (yay taxpayer subsidies) American products that will surely begin being shipped from halfway across the world to flood the market and drive down prices.
heliosRAzi
Banned
The only instance of soil mentioned in that article was the same thing that I posted from the EPA. That article is dealing more with weeds that become glyphosate resistant, which is an issue. Which is why farmers are supposed to switch out their -cides periodically to prevent that.
Necromanti
Member
That article is not relevant to your argument.
Who puts rice in a sandwich?
"You're not morons, you're idiots".
If you don't understand my point at least put it clearly.
Again there's nothing to gain from an end customer PoV and it raises concern that is handwaved in the most patronizing manner by the pro crowd.
Don't assume that the only knowledge people have of genetic is from Metal Gear Solid, genetic is part of the curriculum after all.
There's more than health issues that makes GMOs undesirable anyway.
The fact that there's really no gain for the customers put the burden of convincing on the pro crowd, kinda like with the xbone simply saying that it's the future and you should deal with it is missing the point by the size of the Atlantic ocean.
You see that is a position that doesn't go against science. Saying they are being disallowed because they are inherently unsafe is.
- Status