Mit gmo

who cares. our kids will be slaves to the Google Artificial Intelligence machines

 

It is actually old news in the scientific world. She is a computer scientist, not a microbiologist, toxicologist, etc...
Correlation not causation, and all that jazz.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/31/oh-no-gmos-are-going-to-make-everyone-autistic/
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...orn-autistic-if-i-eat-gmos-a-scientists-view/
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/04/30/is_glyphosate_poisoning_everyone.php

By the way, a couple of the people in the above links actually do have a scientific background related to the topic.

 

Not sure if it's linked to autism but my family stays away from GMO. You can get local timeshares of real organic food from local farms. Whey ingest things that could cause severe harm (cancer, autism) even if there is a slight chance. I"m not willing to take that risk. Roundup in some nasty ****. Kills everything. It's definitely not safe to ingest but we eat food soaked in it. We don't see people drinking anti-freeze. I would rather not roll the dice with gmos and roundup. But my grass! Oh No!

 

Because, until proven to cause harm, these things don't cause harm. Your organic food is soaked in pesticide. In fact, it often contains more pesticide than GMO foods. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
There is a reason we have people like toxicologists that study this stuff in detail, and devote their lives to understanding the side effects. The problem is that the public is being fooled by people that want to profit off of fear. The general public doesn't even understand simple basic chemistry concepts like "the dose makes the poison". We are all made up of chemicals. Natural, man-made, it doesn't matter. All chemicals. Chemophobia is out of control in the social media world.

 

What kind of logic is that? I'm not knowledgable enough about GMO to have in informed opinion, but i'm pretty sure that lack of proof about something (causes harm) doesnt support the opposite conclusion (these things dont cause harm).

 

BTW, that last article has probably the most well-put statement I have heard from any author on the subject:
"As far as I'm concerned, the biggest myth when it comes to organic farming is that you have to choose sides. Guess what? You don't. You can appreciate the upsides of rotating crops and how GMOs might improve output and nutrition. You, the wise and intelligent consumer, don't have to buy into either side's propaganda and polarize to one end or another. You can, instead, be somewhere along the spectrum, and encourage both ends to listen up and work together to improve our global food resources and act sustainably."

Pretty much where I stand. I buy organic sometimes, and also buy conventionally farmed products. I appreciate both for what they are, and don't buy into the bullsh1t. We really do need both sides to work together in this, because it is highly unlikely man kind will survive on either one alone.

 

It is pure logic. The essence of logic. You can't prove something that doesn't exist. If these products cause harm, it will be proven one day. The lack of evidence that they do cause harm only means that, as far as what we know, they are harmless. There will never be a study that says "Irrefutable proof that GMO's can't and won't harm you". They will just post multiple studies showing no link between consumption and specific diseases. That doesn't mean a different study in the future won't show some other kind of harm. This is true with everything you consume, organic included (though one could say organic pesticides don't get studied quite as much).

 

^-This. Correlation is not necessarily causation. The article talks about possible effects to the bacteria in our gut-flora, but in no way produces a "smoking gun", i.e., causation that could be applied to the rise in autism (which is a disturbing problem -- many of us likely know someone who has been affected by autism). The article then goes on to say "Other studies suggest ...", which is language we've seen before for hypotheses that were later discarded.

I'm not ruling out that it could be plausible that roundup could possibly be the cause of some ills, but not based on this particular article (or should I say the main ill cited by this article). I am with Brew on this one. People often get too worked up about "more probable than not" and even weaker theories/conclusions when the evidence is spotty and inconclusive, and alternative explanations could exist.

 

I will NOT consume GMO products--they cause cancer. Oh, wait....I need to go buy my second pack of Marlboros for the day.......

 

Because 4 out of 5 doctors recommended them?

 

Maybe we're debating semantics here. You said "until proven to cause harm, these things don't cause harm"

Then you said "If these products cause harm, it will be proven one day"

Until that "one day" comes when the harm has been proven, i dont see why you would prematurely conclude "these things don't cause harm"

am i nuts?

 

She's not just a computer scientist: http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ She seems kinda credible to me.

When I was young, we were told that margarine (trans fat, hydrogenated oils) was better for you than butter. Decades later, we're told that trans fat is bad, go back to eating butter. Probably decades from now, there will be enough research to prove that eating Roundup enriched food is bad for you. It seems like commonsense that drenching the food supply with products designed to kill weeds and bugs just might have an adverse effect on human health.

But , since humanity continues to breed like cockroaches (population has doubled since 1970), I guess we need GMOs to feed the masses.

 

Yup, and, regrettably, once again double the population. Imagine the crowds surfing then. You will all be able to walk out to your favorite peak, stepping from board to board on others boards........I'll be done surfing by then, probably even pushing up daisies somewhere......or feeding the fishes, if my instructions are carried out.

 

There isn't strong evidence that GMO crops produce consistently larger yields.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

This is what I am talking about. It is a philosophical idea that science is based around (and why many scientists don't believe in things like a god). It doesn't mean it can't exist, it just means from what we know and can prove at this time, it doesn't exist. You are not nuts, you are just looking at things from a different view point.

 

You didn't read the articles. No, she isn't "just a computer scientist", as she has other degrees. However, she isn't a toxicologist. She didn't show physical evidence that this causes autism, she showed a correlation (correlation that many people who actually work in toxicology believe to be flawed due to lack of data). She is working as a computer scientist for this study, as she was modeling based on data input.
Your logic is flawed, as you believe we should avoid something because you think it could be bad. Again, organic crops are doused in chemicals, just like GMO crops. If you read the articles, you would see where a certain organic pesticide was found to cause harm, and mostly removed from commercial use. The anti-GMO movement is founded on the basis that there are many people that don't understand chemistry and toxicology. Big organic stand to make money here, just like big agriculture. If you think one is any better than the other, than you are living in a dream world. That is why I let the scientist do the talking.

This is the positive side of GMO (moving away from the the simple subject of weed killer): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/fewer-pesticides-farming-with-gmos/

If the two industries worked together, they could use GMO plants that require less pesticide, then employ some of the organic farming techniques to cut down on artificial manufactured chemicals.

 

of course they are. All food has been genetically modified in some fashion over the years. Weed too. GMO is just the current nebulous boogieman