Gmo petition

Ok, I might have to reconsider my position...

 

Dosent matter, we will all be eatiny Soylent Green soon anyway..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IKVj4l5GU4

It's people!

 

Hell to the yeah.

And you're scaring Wayne, all at the same time.

'Impacting the Coast for That'

 

Don't be silly. H2O2 is only a few molecules off from H2O, yet they are completely different. FYI, I spent the last 3 years working for a chemical company. I have had these types of conversations with PhD chemists. I even knew someone who once worked for the "evil" Monsanto.

 

I didn't say you couldn't find non-GMO organic. I said you can't buy organic and be guaranteed it is not GMO.

 

Hi troll.

Sound like you're talking about the three men you admire the most. That is of course if we are talking about mr mclean's song.

I picture you more like the apple pie kinda guy.

 

Indeed.....Bow down before your idols, Clemmy: Gnome & Chuck-A-Boo-Boo!

 

Let's just stay on topic here, this topic, right here, shall we?

 

You know it's been a flat September when we are threading about GMO's. I don't intend to criticize folks for non-surf related banter on here but I have to point it out. I am a biology teacher and I am 100% against any genetically modified organism, especially in the foods we eat. They are probably not unhealthy to us, in my opinion, (although there are some cases that don't look good for human health) but are seriously unhealthy to an ecosystem not prepared for the onslaught of GMO pollen from plants that will kill biodiversity in some cases to a really scary point, at least to us bio nerds. This combined with the scary loss of bees (look it up, it's far more serious a problem than our lack of swell) makes for some less than optimal conditions for our food chain. Those f***wads at Monsanto should be shot.

 

Got it.

Nonsense+nonsense=Yankee

 

They definitely are.

 

Pleases show us your data to prove that.

 

The French have some data... http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/...ce-europe-ban-after-french-study-links-cancer

EDIT: Here is a link showing how the study may not be so valid.. http://boingboing.net/2012/09/21/of-gm-corn-and-rat-tumors-why.html

 

You basically wrote my reply before I could. This is why it is important to have multiple peer reviewed and re-reviewed studies:
"Looking at the data, it appears that the study authors never tested their results to see if the numbers they turned up could have occurred by random chance, said David Tribe, a microbiologist at the University of Melbourne in Australia. And given the small numbers of animals used in the study, that's a real possibility."

"Notably, the authors of the paper never responded to Sohn's request for an interview."

Not all scientists are good at the scientific method. One example could be the new natural food trend of drinking/consuming aloe plant pulp. Some people were claiming that it was bad to consume and could cause tumor growth. However, they didn't really read the studies and understand this:
"Components of Aloe have shown the possibility of inhibiting tumor growth in animal studies, but these effects have not been demonstrated clinically in humans."

 

I still feel that it supports the fight for labeling. The bottom line is that we do not know 100% what happens when these foods are consumed. There are mixed reviews from both sides. But we do know that the GM foods are banned or at least labeled in many other countries, so why not America? We do know the harmfulness the plants may have on a biological scale, so why continue to plant them?

I think this fits in here quite nicely http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw

 

.

 

Not always true, I know a lot of people who have a lot of "knowledge" but they are complete muppets. There's a lot of educated nit wits in the world.

 

.

 

Here's something to ponder ...