Greenpeace


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:

You can't show that statins are safe and then show that beta blockers are safe and then claim that no drugs are tested and that all drugs are too dangerous to be on the market, either. So what you do is come up with a reasonable standard of testing for safety, show if and why it's not being met, and try and get other people to agree to it. That's how you get people to join your cause. For example, if you feel that the FDA should be required to conduct all GMO testing, as opposed to reviewing the tests done by manufacturers and independent groups, lobby the FDA to take over that particular job. If you feel the producers' tests are not transparent enough or are somehow not reproducible, and that independent testing is not covering the gap, cite specific instances of that. If you feel the tests themselves are methodologically flawed, propose improvements. Don't just go on with vague forebodings about the sky falling.

This obviously won't work if one side insists that no standard can ever be good enough, though. At some point, demands for "more testing!" become de facto bans on any new products, if all are heeded regardless of the need. So make sure whatever standard you propose ensures adequate safety, but not at the expense of being an impassible barrier.

"GMO #542 uses a gene that's been linked to cancer susceptibility, and hasn't been tested at all," will get people like me to sit up and pay attention.
"Evil frankenfoods are never tested and will likely kill us all!" will get people like me to ignore you.

GMO soy is unable to adequately respond to stress and accumulates formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.


Interestingly, this seems to be an example of our ability to theoretically predict problems without actually seeing them -- at first reading, this appears to have been all simulation, with no actual living plants tested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pink Dragon wrote:
Here are some other comments on GMOs.

I read 1/2 of that article and saw zero comments about GMO's. I only saw comments about GMO supporters.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caineach wrote:


That type of engineering is what I'm calling haphazard and reckless.
Why? Its being done in a controlled environment with lots of precautions taken.

Once the product is used out in the wild,any notions of a "controlled environment" go out the window.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Here are some other comments on GMOs.
I read 1/2 of that article and saw zero comments about GMO's. I only saw comments about GMO supporters.

Yeah, that was just straightforward mudslinging rather than real arguments. It looked like there were some links to studies, but he was too busy throwing insults to quote the relevant facts from them.

Liberty's Edge

Well, it WAS from Counterpunch, the weird left's version of the Blaze.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Here are some other comments on GMOs.
I read 1/2 of that article and saw zero comments about GMO's. I only saw comments about GMO supporters.
Yeah, that was just straightforward mudslinging rather than real arguments. It looked like there were some links to studies, but he was too busy throwing insults to quote the relevant facts from them.

So far the majority of this thread has been mudslinging and the few actual arguments made about GMOs were not backed up by any factual citations with quotes of the relevant facts from them. At least the mudslinging in the column I linked had quite a number of links to actual scientific reports about GMOs, which would be evident to those who read through the whole column, and which any body could read if they were interested.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Then why not just provide the links without the mudslinging?


Because his article had a dual purpose. One was to point out the hypocrisy of the pro-GMO crowd in their attempts to marginalize anti-GMO crowd through shaming, and the other to point out that the scientific basis for the anti-GMOs arguments.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I don't think you accomplished your goals.


My goal was simply to provide an alternative perspective for those who wanted to read about such. The links are there for those who want to follow them and the article itself highlights the vitriol in the debate.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Which still doesn't change the fact that the corp is going to have a very hard time dealing with it. It isn't going to be about securities fraud there.

Quite so. If EvilAgricorp released a product which caused widespread health damage then they would be facing massive product liability issues. They created the stuff. They certified that it was safe. They insisted it not be labelled differently than other foodstuffs. If anything, they'd have less defence than the tobacco companies did.

P.S. Sissyl and I are agreeing in a 'political' thread. End of world nigh. :]


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pink Dragon wrote:
My goal was simply to provide an alternative perspective for those who wanted to read about such. The links are there for those who want to follow them and the article itself highlights the vitriol in the debate.

I'm interested in scientific information about GMOs. I am not interested in people bickering back and forth, using GMOs as a pretext, but not actually talking about GMOs. Your article was the latter.

I think most of us understand pretty well that there's a lot of vitriol online. I don't think any conversation about a topic is aided by pointing us towards the vitriol. All it does is make me think you have a vested interest in the vitriol. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though, that you don't.


Irontruth wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
My goal was simply to provide an alternative perspective for those who wanted to read about such. The links are there for those who want to follow them and the article itself highlights the vitriol in the debate.

I'm interested in scientific information about GMOs. I am not interested in people bickering back and forth, using GMOs as a pretext, but not actually talking about GMOs. Your article was the latter.

I think most of us understand pretty well that there's a lot of vitriol online. I don't think any conversation about a topic is aided by pointing us towards the vitriol. All it does is make me think you have a vested interest in the vitriol. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though, that you don't.

Then dig into the scientific links and ignore the rest, because the article provided those links.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:

So far in this thread, food allergies are the only actual danger that's been presented. The rest as been hyperbole, hand-wringing, and outright fantasy (dissolving tomatoes decimating our food supply, for example). So, of all these other deadly dangers we should be cognizant of, please be so good as to enumerate a few of them.

You'll find me to be easy to convince by presenting actual evidence, but not at all by calling names and hurling accusations.

If food allergies were the only concern. (they're not has shown previously), that would be enough. Food Allergies can KILL.


Krensky wrote:
Well, it WAS from Counterpunch, the weird left's version of the Blaze.

Counterpunch is awesome.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Well, it WAS from Counterpunch, the weird left's version of the Blaze.
Counterpunch is awesome.

I rest my case. ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Indeed.


Well, I can't say much about that piece, other than it was published today, but it did lead to interesting google search results about Indian peasants being driven to destitution and suicide by Green Revolution Big Agribusiness, which indicate that some India's previous anti-GMO position before Modi was elected might have been based in old-school Luddism and not just in its latter day anti-technology incarnation.

No, GMOs Didn't Create India's Farmer Suicide Problem, But… sez Mother Jones.

Beats me.

I haven't yet google searched his claim about the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, but it looks juicy:

"The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) last year released a fully referenced report that concluded hunger is caused by poverty and inequality and that we already produce enough food to feed the world’s population and did so even at the peak of the world food crisis in 2008."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pink Dragon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
My goal was simply to provide an alternative perspective for those who wanted to read about such. The links are there for those who want to follow them and the article itself highlights the vitriol in the debate.

I'm interested in scientific information about GMOs. I am not interested in people bickering back and forth, using GMOs as a pretext, but not actually talking about GMOs. Your article was the latter.

I think most of us understand pretty well that there's a lot of vitriol online. I don't think any conversation about a topic is aided by pointing us towards the vitriol. All it does is make me think you have a vested interest in the vitriol. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though, that you don't.

Then dig into the scientific links and ignore the rest, because the article provided those links.

Digging through that article would mean reading it again. I have no interest in THAT article. If you want to provide scientific links, I'll read them. But don't link bad articles and then insist we dig through them. I'm really not interested.

While I often sympathize with writers on CounterPunch, their writing is atrocious. It's often so bad, I don't want to read anything from them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


No, GMOs Didn't Create India's Farmer Suicide Problem, But… sez Mother Jones.

It sounds like the suicides are economic related, not cause by GMOs directly. Ie, it's not some chemical released by the cotton that causes depression, rather it's the cost of the seeds that puts economic pressure on them, forcing them to go broke, which leads to suicide.

The answer there is to lead a revolt of the people against Monsanto and release the seeds for free to all farmers who want them.


LazarX wrote:
If food allergies were the only concern. (they're not has shown previously), that would be enough. Food Allergies can KILL.

Water can also kill, if you drink too much of it.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
At the risk of sounding callous, if little Bobby looks at anything that was ever in the same county as a peanut and suddenly dies from it, his genes seem like more of a risk to humanity than the peanut's, so he's not a good poster boy for your crusade.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


No, GMOs Didn't Create India's Farmer Suicide Problem, But… sez Mother Jones.

It sounds like the suicides are economic related, not cause by GMOs directly. Ie, it's not some chemical released by the cotton that causes depression, rather it's the cost of the seeds that puts economic pressure on them, forcing them to go broke, which leads to suicide.

The answer there is to lead a revolt of the people against Monsanto and release the seeds for free to all farmers who want them.

Or that small, rain watered farms shouldn't use seed and processes developed with large, irrigated farming in mind.

Much like how you don't put a fully populated Catalyst 6500 in your home office.

It's not the really the farmer's fault though, as the article points out.


Irontruth wrote:
It sounds like the suicides are economic related, not cause by GMOs directly. Ie, it's not some chemical released by the cotton that causes depression, rather it's the cost of the seeds that puts economic pressure on them, forcing them to go broke, which leads to suicide.

Yes. It appears that India's previous anti-GMO position was informed more by the economics of industrial agriculture and its effects on the peasants (hence my comments about old-school Luddism) rather than GMOs-are-Frankenstein's-monsters-in-waiting fears. Which is a whole interesting set of non-scientific considerations to consider.

The whole part about Green Revolution hybrid seeds creating larger cotton yields that attract heretofore unproblematic pests who you now need a special GMO seed to combat strikes me as the kind of irony the anti-GMO crowd can really savor.

And it also makes me wonder: if, as our un-google searched CBAN friends claim, most vitamin A deficiencies in the world are created by poverty and income inequality, does it matter if vitamin A enriched rice is introduced if most of the vitamin A deficiency-sufferers are unable to purchase vitamin A enriched rice?

But I'm always in favor of a people's revolt.

Liberty's Edge

The license for Golden Rice (that it's licensed is a completely separate issue) is free for up to $10k in profits and seeds are reusable.


I'm guessing that means it's free to the farmer. Who is then going to, what? Give his crop away to hungry people?


LazarX wrote:
One might remember that a lack of biodiversity was the direct cause of the Irish potato famine.

I do tend to fall into that school which assigns direct responsibility for the Famine to the English and their associates.

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.

For anyone talking about GMOs potentially introducing new food allergies, that's a major part of the R&D process in developing them prior to any discussion of market authorization. Any gene that's being introduced has its sequence compared to that of known allergens and additionally we look at structural homology of the inserted gene compared to expressed proteins that tend to provoke IgE and other responses. Anything that falls afoul of that testing is rejected. Conventional hybrids do not receive this level of scrutiny whatsoever. The testing during development for GMOs is orders of magnitude greater than that for conventionally bred plants.

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:

GMO soy is unable to adequately respond to stress and accumulates formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.

V.A. Shiva Ayyrdurai is not a biologist. Him publishing on the topic of GMOs is like me as a biologist publishing a paper calling gravity into question with no or flawed data and expecting physicists to take me seriously.

Additionally, his research was published because he paid a low-tier journal to publish it. Calling it peer reviewed is a farce and honestly, he and his work isn't taken seriously by scientists in the biological sciences.

This article looks at his work, him, and the problems with both when it comes to the science: Ayyadurai’s formaldehyde-in-GMOs claim challenged, engineer refuses verification offer

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Todd Stewart wrote:
V.A. Shiva Ayyrdurai is not a biologist. Him publishing on the topic of GMOs is like me as a biologist publishing a paper calling gravity into question with no or flawed data and expecting physicists to take me seriously.

Just as with global warming (or evolution)... you can always find a few scientists, especially outside the field, who will take a contrary position when there are political passions involved.

However, also like those other 'controversies', the majority of scientists, and nearly all who study the matter closely, agree on GMOs... there is no great accidental risk associated with them.

That said, a more 'clever' (amongst other adjectives) opponent of the technology could deliberately cook up something harmful and release it into the wild. It isn't that you CAN'T create something harmful, but rather that it is highly unlikely that such would happen accidentally OR that it wouldn't be caught in testing if it somehow did happen.


Like the scorpion-tailed tomatoes I just released. Damn, they gonna wreak havoc!!! It's gonna be like ZZZZIK DIE FROM POISON, FROG! ZZZZAP DIE FROM POISON, TODDLER!!! YEAH!!!


Coriat wrote:
LazarX wrote:
One might remember that a lack of biodiversity was the direct cause of the Irish potato famine.
I do tend to fall into that school which assigns direct responsibility for the Famine to the English and their associates.

But that wouldn't include the drive for profit that led to the monoculture of potatoes?


Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


No, GMOs Didn't Create India's Farmer Suicide Problem, But… sez Mother Jones.

It sounds like the suicides are economic related, not cause by GMOs directly. Ie, it's not some chemical released by the cotton that causes depression, rather it's the cost of the seeds that puts economic pressure on them, forcing them to go broke, which leads to suicide.

The answer there is to lead a revolt of the people against Monsanto and release the seeds for free to all farmers who want them.

It's not just the cost of the seeds, but the extra irrigation and fertilizers they need.

But yes, the seeds themselves do precisely what they're intended to do. That just has unforeseen consequences economically.

At least in this case, the GMO product is just another step that amplifies both the problems and the benefits of industrial "Green Revolution" agriculture.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm guessing that means it's free to the farmer. Who is then going to, what? Give his crop away to hungry people?

That's up to the farmer, I suppose, but this is mostly about subsistence farmers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds great, but if more subsistence farmers and small peasants are driven off of their lands because of increased concentration of industrial agribusiness...

I don't know. Sounds more and more like a situation comparable to the original Luddites.

But, whatever. God knows I ingest enough toxic shiznit on a daily basis, what do I care?

Bring on the Frankenfoods!


Anyway, I'm glad Citizen Dragon linked that CounterPunch piece. Led to interesting reading about the Indian countryside.

Thank you, Citizen Dragon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Todd Stewart wrote:
The testing during development for GMOs is orders of magnitude greater than that for conventionally bred plants.

Gee, this sort of contradicts everyone who's assuring us that GMOs aren't tested, doesn't it?

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Sounds great, but if more subsistence farmers and small peasants are driven off of their lands because of increased concentration of industrial agribusiness...

I don't know. Sounds more and more like a situation comparable to the original Luddites.

But, whatever. God knows I ingest enough toxic shiznit on a daily basis, what do I care?

Bring on the Frankenfoods!

While GMO crops can be a part of that, it was happening before they were even thought of and isn't really related to the Golden Rice issue at all.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Todd Stewart wrote:
The testing during development for GMOs is orders of magnitude greater than that for conventionally bred plants.
Gee, this sort of contradicts everyone who's assuring us that GMOs aren't tested, doesn't it?

Near as I can tell, impartial testing isn't required, at least in the US. Companies do significant testing on their own, as part of the development cycle. They are required to present the results of their tests, but not all the data, to the FDA.

To me it seems evident that more testing should be required than for conventionally bred plants, since the potential changes are far greater.

If you're willing to just trust that basic commercial pressures will keep companies from producing anything harmful with these techniques or from slanting the results presented, then we should be fine. OTOH, the same argument would apply to nearly any form of regulation - no need for FDA testing/approval of drug safety, since it would be in the companies best interest to avoid such problems.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Sounds great, but if more subsistence farmers and small peasants are driven off of their lands because of increased concentration of industrial agribusiness...

I don't know. Sounds more and more like a situation comparable to the original Luddites.

But, whatever. God knows I ingest enough toxic shiznit on a daily basis, what do I care?

Bring on the Frankenfoods!

Yup. And the solution isn't banning GMOs, it's a workers revolution that includes farmers.


One concern I've heard about is aggressive tactics used by GMO creators in order to defend their patents and ensure they get paid. To be sure, it's unlikely that they're ever going to demand that people pay huge royalties if trace amounts of GMOs get into a field - heck, there was even a case where a farmer planted stuff from Monsanto and I don't think he ended up owing them anything (despite what was ruled to be an intentional - or at least a "you SHOULD have known better" - violation of Monsanto's patent).

I can't dismiss the desire of companies to protect intellectual property and their overall profits - that's normal. On the other hand, when companies seem overly aggressive on a regular - perhaps deliberate - basis, there may be cause for concern.

The same goes for organizations like Greenpeace, and all other advocacy groups. Advocacy is fine, but if you go too far, a lot of people don't want to listen to you. There are ways to get attention without hurting others.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Sounds great, but if more subsistence farmers and small peasants are driven off of their lands because of increased concentration of industrial agribusiness...

I don't know. Sounds more and more like a situation comparable to the original Luddites.

But, whatever. God knows I ingest enough toxic shiznit on a daily basis, what do I care?

Bring on the Frankenfoods!

Yup. And the solution isn't banning GMOs, it's a workers revolution that includes farmers.

Oh come on IT, that's Anklebiter's solution to EVERYTHING.

Income equality? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Inflation? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Political corruption? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Pizza late? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

He ran out of doobie? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Pet stains on the carpet? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Writing stealing your soul? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
OTOH, the same argument would apply to nearly any form of regulation - no need for FDA testing/approval of drug safety, since it would be in the companies best interest to avoid such problems.

My understanding is that the FDA itself said, basically, "we don't need to do the tests ourselves, but they need to be done, and we need free rein to review them." So it's not that we're relying entirely on the producers' self-interest in the quality of their product (which I agree would be naively foolish) -- if that fails, we still have review of the testing by the FDA. That said, a lot of people, realizing the FDA is a bunch of overworked government employees, probably very rightly question whether their review of the tests is at all adequate.

In any number of cases, independent testing has been done as well -- in some cases by people anxious to show the harm of these products (Erin Brokovitch complex), in some cases by people who just think it's cool to look at genetic stuff and maybe had a grant so they could write a thesis on it. In all of those instances, no lurking harmfulness has been detected (or, once detected -- like the potential for the peanut thing -- subsequently corrected).

On top of all that, we have the fact that the scientific understanding of what we're doing is a long shot past the random, blind tinkering we're often told is going on.

When we put these things together... overall, I tend to conclude that there are other, more immediate problems that probably require much more of my attention than crusading against GMOs.

Again, if any part of the above is egregiously wrong, and factual evidence is produced to indicate such, I'm very happy to review it and re-evaluate my entire stance. Until then, I'm pretty comfortable ignoring people like Orfamay who (on this topic) presents only the most bizarre, contrived excuses for logic, but more rely on emotional scare tactics, repeatedly telling me I'm "wrong, dangerous, and stupid," and ordering me to "STFU." (Let me also hasten to add that I don't hold it against him -- we, all of us, have some topics that strike a nerve to where we're unable to think clearly about them. Don't get me started about Wal-Mart, for example -- I've recognized that, where they're concerned, I'm unable to separate emotion from logic.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Sounds great, but if more subsistence farmers and small peasants are driven off of their lands because of increased concentration of industrial agribusiness...

I don't know. Sounds more and more like a situation comparable to the original Luddites.

But, whatever. God knows I ingest enough toxic shiznit on a daily basis, what do I care?

Bring on the Frankenfoods!

Yup. And the solution isn't banning GMOs, it's a workers revolution that includes farmers.

Oh come on IT, that's Anklebiter's solution to EVERYTHING.

Income equality? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Inflation? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Political corruption? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Pizza late? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

He ran out of doobie? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Pet stains on the carpet? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Writing stealing your soul? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

No, sometimes his solution is to have sex with it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Sounds great, but if more subsistence farmers and small peasants are driven off of their lands because of increased concentration of industrial agribusiness...

I don't know. Sounds more and more like a situation comparable to the original Luddites.

But, whatever. God knows I ingest enough toxic shiznit on a daily basis, what do I care?

Bring on the Frankenfoods!

Yup. And the solution isn't banning GMOs, it's a workers revolution that includes farmers.

Oh come on IT, that's Anklebiter's solution to EVERYTHING.

Income equality? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Inflation? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Political corruption? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Pizza late? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

He ran out of doobie? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Pet stains on the carpet? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

Writing stealing your soul? International Socialist Worker's Revolution.

No, sometimes his solution is to have sex with it.

In the street!

Ok, going back to fake ignore.


Please, more people keep quoting Irontruth's last post so I can keep "favoriting" it.


It's "international proletarian socialist revolution."

Although I did once read a conversation on Facebook between La Principessa* and some other comrades on how ridiculous it was that it was cheaper for her to buy a new carpet than get the old one cleaned.

Anyway, I have no opinion one way or the other about using or banning GMOs. I do have doubts about the claims that golden rice or any other GMO is going to help wipe out global hunger or malnutrition when, according to some, this planet already produces enough food to feed the world. If that's the case, I'm not exactly sure what difference GMOs are going to make.

Parenthetically, I also read, on wikipedia, that there's some NGO running around out there called Vitamin Angels that has committed itself to wiping out Vitamin A deficiency on the planet by 2020 through "providing antiparastics and one high dose vitamin A capsule to children under five twice yearly. Their cost to provide vitamin A and antiparasitcs, including shipping and administrative costs, is 25 cents per child, per year." I wonder how much progress they've made.
---
*Who is also the reason that "have sex with it" has dropped off in my list of solutions of late.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


*Who is also the reason that "have sex with it" has dropped off in my list of solutions of late.

Well, it just makes the list of things for which it's a viable solution smaller.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Anyway, I have no opinion one way or the other about using or banning GMOs. I do have doubts about the claims that golden rice or any other GMO is going to help wipe out global hunger or malnutrition when, according to some, this planet already produces enough food to feed the world. If that's the case, I'm not exactly sure what difference GMOs are going to make.

Wipe out malnutrition? Unlikely, since even a best case scenario for Golden Rice wouldn't help anything other than Vitamin A issues. Still, I think it's something that would be a big help and would certainly make things easier.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
My goal was simply to provide an alternative perspective for those who wanted to read about such. The links are there for those who want to follow them and the article itself highlights the vitriol in the debate.

I'm interested in scientific information about GMOs. I am not interested in people bickering back and forth, using GMOs as a pretext, but not actually talking about GMOs. Your article was the latter.

I think most of us understand pretty well that there's a lot of vitriol online. I don't think any conversation about a topic is aided by pointing us towards the vitriol. All it does is make me think you have a vested interest in the vitriol. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though, that you don't.

Then dig into the scientific links and ignore the rest, because the article provided those links.

Digging through that article would mean reading it again. I have no interest in THAT article. If you want to provide scientific links, I'll read them. But don't link bad articles and then insist we dig through them. I'm really not interested.

While I often sympathize with writers on CounterPunch, their writing is atrocious. It's often so bad, I don't want to read anything from them.

http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

This is a link to GENERA, the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas, it is a collection of hundreds of studies including a summary of the type of article, the organism involved, and the country of origin. It is a useful resource.

151 to 200 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Greenpeace All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.