Link to actual study. Without that, the words above mean nothing. There are a few studies out there that supposedly show harm. Almost all have been retracted or removed due to insufficient data or poor methodology. Edit: here are 10 studies that are usually quoted by anti-GMO groups... http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...ving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/
There are many doctors that believe the increase in cancer rates is closely related to improved abilities in screening. You know more about that than I do, I am sure.
google NonGMOproject Myths and facts #2 is the book I'm referring to. They list the studies they refer to. Like I said I can't verify at this point since I haven't had time to read the 300 + pages. Just thought it might be a different perspective. Actually written by people with experience in biotech field.
Good post. I never said it was the cause. It's just alarming how many more people have cancer these days. It definitiley makes sense that we are better at diagnosing it now though. Thing do come out after years of exposure especially in building products. There are certain building supply companies I won't deal with simply because they kept putting out products which caused cancer even after the evidence was there. They were sued but are still operational.
That actually makes theoretical sense and was pretty much what I figured. So how does that system of logic deal with the following situation, perhaps where data to substantiate the effects of GMO's on humans is lacking: "Until proven that GMO's are safe, these things aren't safe" "Until proven that GMOs are harmful, these things aren't harmful" It seems like that system of logic could take the same input (lack of data) and produce dissimilar results.
I don't like to get caught up in this non-sense, but man, that's some crap. Yeah, chemicals don't do any harm... I'm pretty sure our bodies weren't made to ingest this crap. I'm not trying to back anything up here with fact and stuff, it's just logic. We don't need that crap.
In a nutshell, this topic is divided by the 2 usual separate camps. Camp #1: "Technology will save mankind." Camp #2: "Technology will be the end of mankind."
I don't even know where to start... im just going to throw stuff out there.. some relevant to the OP...some not.. Hybridization is a form of "GMO" but not on the level that is done today. It's not gene splicing and that noise.. it's something that could happen naturally "Correlation doesn't equal causation" ... yea we know, but that doesn't dismiss the issue at hand either. We don't have any real data over long periods of time because they never labeled the GMOs in the first place to see who was eating it and what was happening. Thanks BigAg. Most GMO is corn and soy... to feed cattle and make sugary beverages. Let's look at the real problems- factory farming and crappy American diets. Livestock take up and destroy a lot of land, fart out green house gasses and drink a lot of fresh water. Sure- people do the same, but not as bad as cows and pigs. GMOs do not limit the use of pesticides and other "chemicals". The whole idea of "roundUp ready" crops is that you can spray them as much as you want and the crop wont die- but everything else will. Not so great for soil and wild life... which effects us eventually....because we all live on this spaceship Earth and everything is connected and in a closed loop. The science behind modern GMO practice is awesome. It's a step in the right direction towards saving humanity from our illnesses. I don't like how things are going as far as our food production.. but you cant not like the science behind it. We are becoming "god like" and are taking matters into our own hands. We might even be GMOs ourselves... some neanderthals that got spliced up with alien DNA... who knows. At the end of the day.. be conscious of what you eat.. be grateful for what you have... try to make a positive changes and always continue to keep an open mind about everything. Bush did 9/11.
Yes, you are correct--I used the word "diagnosis" instead of screening, similar, but different. Screening has made a world of difference in survival rates as well.
I know I'm made up of chemicals. We're pretty amazing things, but I'm pretty sure that synthetically producing chemicals made to kill other living organisms isn't in my chemical composition. Hey, if they can make products that can survive harsh climates so people in desolate parts of the world can survive, great. I just don't think they need to be making stuff that is pinker, greener, bigger, bug resistant, and unnatural for us to ingest. I'm ok with my veggies having blemishes. No need to spray it with every chemical you can throw at it so it looks pretty. That's not a phobia, it's common sense, something that science looks down on because it can't be proven why I think that way.
Every chemical is toxic at some level. You are displaying an irrational fear of chemicals, just because they are man made. That isn't common sense.
That is what the Catholic Church has said for centuries regarding "center of the universe", evolution, etc, etc.....
