Meats Declared Too Dangerous for Human Consumption!

[noob555]

I have to disagree. Some GMO's are fine, but not all. As well, long term studies have never been subjugated for human clinical trials.

As for proof of harmful effects, here is a study with sources and references within: ScienceDirec*****m - Food and Chemical Toxicology - Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

I don't agree with the way OP is presenting his evidence, though I do agree that GMO's are in no way completely healthy and fool proof. Monsanto's newest strain of BT products has been shown highly toxic. There's a resin some countries have banned GMO's.

lol when the proper guidelines are followed, GMO's are completely fine. There are literally no solid studies showing the negative effects which GMO's may cause. On a logical level there shouldn't be any problems with GMO's either. If you have competent scientist/corporations making them. Monsanto is obviously incompetent. Countries ban GMOs because of the ecological damage which it can cause, not because of tumors spawning out of people.

And to counter the study you've posted.
‘All data cannot be shown in one report and the most relevant are described here’ – this is a quote from the paper.
•Small sample size
•Maize was minimum 11% of the diet – not balanced
•No non-maize control?
•No results given for non-gm maize
•For nearly 20 years, billions of animals in the EU have been fed soy products produced from genetically modified soybean, mainly from Latin America. No problems have been reported by the hundreds of thousands of farmers, officials, vets and so on.
•The same journal publishes a paper showing no adverse health effects in rats of consuming gm maize (though this is a shorter 90-day study)
•Statistical significance vs relative frequencies.
•We also have to ask why the rats were kept alive for so long – for humane reasons this study would not have been given approval in the UK.
•In Fig.2, I assume the bars with a zero is for the non-maize control. Those bars don’t looks significantly different from the bars indicating 11, 22, and 33% of GM maize in the diet? Have the authors done stats on their data?"

[Lehsyrus]

I think we have learned from Sucralose and Aspartame that we can not completely trust Genetically Modified foods. I think that there is te ability for safety and enhancement, though it's not always the firsthand perspective of the company to utilize these factors in production.

---------- Post added at 08:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:56 PM ----------

lol when the proper guidelines are followed, GMO's are completely fine. There are literally no solid studies showing the negative effects which GMO's may cause. On a logical level there shouldn't be any problems with GMO's either. If you have competent scientist/corporations making them. Monsanto is obviously incompetent. Countries ban GMOs because of the ecological damage which it can cause, not because of tumors spawning out of people.

And to counter the study you've posted.
‘All data cannot be shown in one report and the most relevant are described here’ – this is a quote from the paper.
•Small sample size
•Maize was minimum 11% of the diet – not balanced
•No non-maize control?
•No results given for non-gm maize
•For nearly 20 years, billions of animals in the EU have been fed soy products produced from genetically modified soybean, mainly from Latin America. No problems have been reported by the hundreds of thousands of farmers, officials, vets and so on.
•The same journal publishes a paper showing no adverse health effects in rats of consuming gm maize (though this is a shorter 90-day study)
•Statistical significance vs relative frequencies.
•We also have to ask why the rats were kept alive for so long – for humane reasons this study would not have been given approval in the UK.
•In Fig.2, I assume the bars with a zero is for the non-maize control. Those bars don’t looks significantly different from the bars indicating 11, 22, and 33% of GM maize in the diet? Have the authors done stats on their data?"

The original study is from Food and Chenical Toxicology paper, though I can't find the original online. As I said I am in NO WAY advocating that ALL GMO's are bad, just certain ones. Japan banned GMO's after plants began producing a new BCAA from a protein shake that was recalled due to causing mental defects. It goes to show that one minor mistake can corrupt thousands of crops.

If they performed multiple long term studies on the GMO's before releasing them, I wouldn't have any issues with them, I see a great area for improvement, but the issue remains that there is far too much uncertainty on the long term effects as they continue to change what they are modifying and releasing.

[noob555]

I think we have learned from Sucralose and Aspartame that we can not completely trust Genetically Modified foods. I think that there is te ability for safety and enhancement, though it's not always the firsthand perspective of the company to utilize these factors in production.

---------- Post added at 08:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:56 PM ----------



The original study is from Food and Chenical Toxicology paper, though I can't find the original online. As I said I am in NO WAY advocating that ALL GMO's are bad, just certain ones. Japan banned GMO's after plants began producing a new BCAA from a protein shake that was recalled due to causing mental defects. It goes to show that one minor mistake can corrupt thousands of crops.

If they performed multiple long term studies on the GMO's before releasing them, I wouldn't have any issues with them, I see a great area for improvement, but the issue remains that there is far too much uncertainty on the long term effects as they continue to change what they are modifying and releasing.

Regarding the first portion of your post, that's why we have a government. To keep us safe.

GMO's can either be good or bad, depending on the producers competence. Human error will always occur, and the Japanese government did a pretty good job keeping a lid on it.
The uncertainty argument is faulty at best. GMOs allow us to produce foods at a minimal cost and make food production safer dramatically. Change isn't always bad, and its probably for the better. And you do realize that there's a larger chance organic foods will hurt you in the long run since mutations aren't controlled or monitored as tightly.
why_not_agnosticism comments on GMO's? Science on the subject rather than the BS from both sides.

[Lehsyrus]

Regarding the first portion of your post, that's why we have a government. To keep us safe.

GMO's can either be good or bad, depending on the producers competence. Human error will always occur, and the Japanese government did a pretty good job keeping a lid on it.
The uncertainty argument is faulty at best. GMOs allow us to produce foods at a minimal cost and make food production safer dramatically. Change isn't always bad, and its probably for the better. And you do realize that there's a larger chance organic foods will hurt you in the long run since mutations aren't controlled or monitored as tightly.
why_not_agnosticism comments on GMO's? Science on the subject rather than the BS from both sides.

On your comment that the government is ere to keep us safe, my previous post in this thread links multiple people from Monsanto in hogh ranking positions of the FDA at some point or currently. Also your link seemed very bias against anti-GMO advocates in te way it was presented. I have one that feels much more neutral on the entire matter, as well as giving very good points for both sides of the board: The Good, the Bad, and the Transgenic: GMOs | No Baloney

[Distraught]

If they performed multiple long term studies on the GMO's before releasing them, I wouldn't have any issues with them, I see a great area for improvement, but the issue remains that there is far too much uncertainty on the long term effects as they continue to change what they are modifying and releasing.

Kudos. I agree with this statement although my experience relies in a different field. I blast butane through Marijuana trim to make Wax for clinics in California. My case being that the butane settles within the wax and then when smoked... well you get it, ingesting butane can't be good. We've had people die from butane overdoses around here due to the high demand and rush to get these concentrates into dispensaries. Not a lot of vendors spend the time purging the butane out.

But overall, testing for an extended period of time would benefit in the long run. Anything dealing with someone's health isn't really a trial and error operation. It's a get it done right type of thing.

[noob555]

On your comment that the government is ere to keep us safe, my previous post in this thread links multiple people from Monsanto in hogh ranking positions of the FDA at some point or currently. Also your link seemed very bias against anti-GMO advocates in te way it was presented. I have one that feels much more neutral on the entire matter, as well as giving very good points for both sides of the board: The Good, the Bad, and the Transgenic: GMOs | No Baloney

Well I mean it is on /r/science.
The general consensus in the scientific community is that GMOs done properly are safe. All the studies done that show negative effects have been disproved so far.
And to address the cons from your site
Gene flow: the possibility of GMOs passing on genes to wild species and interrupting natural processes
Pest resistance: use of GMOs leading to natural selection for pesticide- and herbicide-resistant insects and weeds
^
The majority of the scientific community agrees with.

Health: limited evidence to support long-term safety of eating GMOs
^ Disproven at every turn so far.

Ownership over life: in essence, corporations like Monsanto own these specific life forms and have pursued litigation to protect their property
Corporations are possibly the biggest problems in the creation of GMOs. Imo I think governments should be the only ones making them.

[Kevin]

It's not like they have to put chemicals in our food to make them look full of color. And it's not just about cancer and meats. They're genetically modifying certain foods and keeping us from knowing which ones they are. Wouldn't you want to know what you were eating really was? What about if it if was linked to sterility? There are studies linking GMOs and sterility: Genetically Modified Foods Could Cause Long-term Sterility

That shit makes rats sterile. What do you think that stuff is doing to us?

Did you know the government is trying to make it illegal to grow your own food and have your own live stock? Why are they putting fluoride and Prozac in our water supply? Oh, and for people who don't believe what I'm saying, look it up

Shop at whole foods?

[Lehsyrus]

Well I mean it is on /r/science.
The general consensus in the scientific community is that GMOs done properly are safe. All the studies done that show negative effects have been disproved so far.
And to address the cons from your site
Gene flow: the possibility of GMOs passing on genes to wild species and interrupting natural processes
Pest resistance: use of GMOs leading to natural selection for pesticide- and herbicide-resistant insects and weeds
^
The majority of the scientific community agrees with.

Health: limited evidence to support long-term safety of eating GMOs
^ Disproven at every turn so far.

Ownership over life: in essence, corporations like Monsanto own these specific life forms and have pursued litigation to protect their property
Corporations are possibly the biggest problems in the creation of GMOs. Imo I think governments should be the only ones making them.

I am not seeing how the log term health studies have been disproven if no long term studies have been performed.

As I said I do believe they can be beneficial, but companies like Monsanto are exploiting this or profit. If it were complete controlled by the Government it would need another association with not a single person in relation or having contact with anyone of the facility producing them to keep issue like the members of Monsanto also working for the FDA. It would be more beneficial if it was run by a proper Government facility though.

And the reason I do not agree with the potential for cross pollination being beneficial has to do with the way Monsanto pushes out its GMO's. Cross pollination CAN be good, or devastating. They do many short term tests and pass them right through, but what if one of the bacterium is shown to mutate in long term subjugation to attack human cells? By then it will be too late, hence why I want long term studies rather than short 90 day to 4 month studies. When it comes to the entire populations health, the studies should be in trials in the same way as new medical products, in the tier system running over the period of five years minimum.

[darkajapan]

This is about processed meat. And yes, running on the treadmill will keep you from developing leukemia, becoming anemic and sterile, and all of the other great things that come with GMOs

fuck yeaaa

[Woodhouse]

that's why we have a government. To keep us safe.

Uh. lol. What did I just read? (Regarding health)

[Distraught]

Uh. lol. What did I just read? (Regarding health)

What did I just read in general. Government keeping me safe? From what? Their lies?

[Woodhouse]

What did I just read in general. Government keeping me safe? From what? Their lies?

Oh on, definitely. I just didn't want to get in a whole other debate so I tried keeping it somewhat relevant to what we're talking about.

The government is keeping us safe alright...By putting fluoride and Prozac in our water because it does wonders for the human body.

[Distraught]

Oh on, definitely. I just didn't want to get in a whole other debate so I tried keeping it somewhat relevant to what we're talking about.

The government is keeping us safe alright...By putting fluoride and Prozac in our water because it does wonders for the human body.

Ya no need to start a new discussion. Debate Fort for that

[noob555]

I am not seeing how the log term health studies have been disproven if no long term studies have been performed.

As I said I do believe they can be beneficial, but companies like Monsanto are exploiting this or profit. If it were complete controlled by the Government it would need another association with not a single person in relation or having contact with anyone of the facility producing them to keep issue like the members of Monsanto also working for the FDA. It would be more beneficial if it was run by a proper Government facility though.

And the reason I do not agree with the potential for cross pollination being beneficial has to do with the way Monsanto pushes out its GMO's. Cross pollination CAN be good, or devastating. They do many short term tests and pass them right through, but what if one of the bacterium is shown to mutate in long term subjugation to attack human cells? By then it will be too late, hence why I want long term studies rather than short 90 day to 4 month studies. When it comes to the entire populations health, the studies should be in trials in the same way as new medical products, in the tier system running over the period of five years minimum.

On a theoretical level, in the long run GMO's shouldn't be a problem. And yea I agree with more legitimate studies being done.
But the point is all the fear mongering happening at the moment against GMOs is simply ridiculous. I spent 2 periods arguing with my health teacher and explaining how the liver functions and why proteins like cry proteins don't affect us. Fucking ridiculous.

---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 PM ----------

Uh. lol. What did I just read? (Regarding health)

Completely separate topic but

power
People--------> Government
Government---------->Equality
l----------> Security

That's generally how all governments work lol

---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 PM ----------

Oh on, definitely. I just didn't want to get in a whole other debate so I tried keeping it somewhat relevant to what we're talking about.

The government is keeping us safe alright...By putting fluoride and Prozac in our water because it does wonders for the human body.

Dosage isn't even close to affecting us on a small scale lol

[Lehsyrus]

On a theoretical level, in the long run GMO's shouldn't be a problem. And yea I agree with more legitimate studies being done.
But the point is all the fear mongering happening at the moment against GMOs is simply ridiculous. I spent 2 periods arguing with my health teacher and explaining how the liver functions and why proteins like cry proteins don't affect us. Fucking ridiculous.

Now THAT'S ridiculous. I'm a paranoid motherfucker, even when I know something is safe I take the overcautious route (well, except for drugs and nootropics).