Sign up FAST! Login

Are GMOs safe? Yes. The case against them is full of fraud, lies, and errors.


Stashed in: Beezzzzzz, Illusion of Choice, Ecology, Food Industry

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

Are knives safe?

Yes, unless you cut yourself. 

There's a video of Gordon Ramsay on the Ellen Show where he's talking about safely cutting vegetables but still manages to hurt himself. 

It depends on how you use them, right?

Pretty much like GMOs, they are not safe or unsafe, nor good or bad, it all depends on what you do with that technologie.

The question still is in my head: Are genetically modified foods safe to eat?

I'm thinking, in general, yes they are. Do you agree?

I have no idea. I don't think anybody knows. We don't have enough data yet.

I feel like both sides of this issue deliberately confuse the debate and make data scarce. 

But I note that both Neil Tyson and Bill Nye are pro-GMO, and they are trustworthy. 

There is a lot of propaganda out there trying to convince people that GMO's are safe.  Inevitably they attack the straw man of people who think all kinds of genetic manipulation/GMO's are wrong, but in reality what people are concerned about it modifying mother nature in a grand, unchecked experiment, so that our food produces pesticides inside of it.  Those who want to conduct such a massive ecological/human experiment should face an extremely high burden of proof, and demonstrate they can keep modified organisms contained.  This is the opposite direction we are moving in, unfortunately.

The same kinds of people who tell you GMO's are all safe will tell you colony collapse disorder in bees isn't caused by pesticides, and that we need pesticides to feed the world, etc.  Yet it isn't hard to find videos of bees drinking a single drop of the guttation (dew-like emission), from a plant whose seeds were exposed to a small amount of neonicotinoids, dying on the spot.  YouTube used to have videos of an Italian scientist that did this in lab-controlled conditions, I can't find them any more, but here is:

-- A Bee's Slow Painful Death

-- Death of A Honey Bee--Neonicotinoid Pesticides Probable Cause

This is a case where people can see with their own eyes -- or -- accept the "mainstream" industry propaganda that tells them it's OK... toxin's aren't toxins.  There are significant studies showing problems with the pesticides (e.g. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6843/20140511/honeybee-killer-neonicotinoids-caused-colony-collapse-disorder-harvard-study.htm) and yet for "some reason" there are always more guys in suits to tell you it's OK.  If you haven't looked into the science to your own satisfaction, you're just choosing a priest.

With GMO's things are more subtle, but the situation is much the same. We can't see videos of the human guinea pigs who choose to try out the novel idea of engineering our foods to secrete pesticides internally dying right off. Just like there is a debate about whether eating organic foods is "worth it.  We do know that many diseases of modernity are rampant, where they barely existed or were much less problematic historically, and that they are on the rise  Do you think this is because we are moving closer to or further away from, nature?

I don't think it is hard to understand why intentionally adding pesticides to the insides of plants, where they have no hope of being washed off, is something thinking people might be leery of.  The Slate article cites industry-funded experts who want to paint such a view as anti-science, while ignoring some very troubling and well-done science that casts doubt. Although the burden of proof shouldn't even be on the side of skeptics, I have reviewed some very reputable papers on the critical side.  A pop media attempt to discredit hand-picked straw men *is* what constitutes pseudo-science.

The article admits there are valid concerns about the concept of what most GMO products do... secreting extra pesticides for you to eat.  Then it winds around sophistic articles, focuses NPR style on two particular embarrassments, and cherry picks data meant to that organics aren't any better, etc.  None of which satisfactorily explains why the concerns about increasing toxin consumption should be dismissed.  There is an established history of many native cultures doing all they can to counteract or minimize even *naturally* occurring toxins in plants (e.g. see the Weston A. Price Foundation).  An article meant to ridicule the notion is a shameful thing; pointing out "some related errors" on your opponents side is not the same things as showing that an approach is wise. 

Most people would think a society where people can choose a variety of kinds of foods to eat, and have it labelled clearly.  But Monstanto and the other champions of licensed designer crops as the predominant model actually hate this vision. That isn't very hard to tell.

Three Pipe, good to hear from you about this. 

You're right that there's so much propaganda on both sides that it's hard to tell what's true. 

I think no one would cry if Monsanto ceased to exist. 

I think it's likely most genetically modified foods aren't bad for us, but some are bad for us, for reasons you describe. 

And losing the bees is a potentially big problem. I'm in favor of doing what we can to save the bees. 

You May Also Like: