Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe, Analysis Finds

Garson007 said:
There is absolutely no logical reason why GMO would be more risky than the normal stuff you plant in the garden.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can say that with 100% certainty. We test new medicines before putting them on the market, i don't see why foods should be any different. I certainly don't trust big corporations to remain honest when there is so much money involved either.
 
LazyLion said:
Did you even read the article in the OP?
That study is referred to - and is now replaced by this new study by the WHO.
Click to expand...
It isn't replaced, it is complemented.

The first one basically said glyphosate is possibly carcinogenic.

The second one showed that the impact is negligible

C4Cat said:
Yes, very convenient
Click to expand...
Take a look at some of the other substances that are the same, if not more carcinogenic:

Known carcinogens:
Alcoholic beverages
Processed meat (consumption of)
Estrogens, steroidal
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined)

Probable carcinogens:
Frying, emissions from high-temperature
Glyphosate<-
Red meat (consumption of)
Progesterone

Carcinogens do not cause cancer in every case, all the time. Substances labeled as carcinogens may have different levels of cancer-causing potential. Some may cause cancer only after prolonged, high levels of exposure. And for any particular person, the risk of developing cancer depends on many factors, including how they are exposed to a carcinogen, the length and intensity of the exposure, and the person's genetic makeup.
Click to expand...
Known and Probable Human Carcinogens


No one is going out and saying that oral contraceptives cause cancer now do they, nor do you see the craft beer of the greenpeace hippies getting branded with a "this substances causes cancer" sticker.

The UN report simply says that at the levels that people would be exposed to glycophosphate, it doesn't present a meaningful risk. And the benefits that GMOs bring outweigh that small risk.
 
LazyLion said:
Did you even read the article in the OP?
That study is referred to - and is now replaced by this new study by the WHO.
Click to expand...
It isn't replaced, it is complemented.

The first one basically said glyphosate is possibly carcinogenic.

The second one showed that the impact is negligible

C4Cat said:
Yes, very convenient
Click to expand...
Take a look at some of the other substances that are the same, if not more carcinogenic:

Known carcinogens:
Alcoholic beverages
Processed meat (consumption of)
Estrogens, steroidal
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined)

Probable carcinogens:
Frying, emissions from high-temperature
Glyphosate<-
Red meat (consumption of)
Progesterone

Carcinogens do not cause cancer in every case, all the time. Substances labeled as carcinogens may have different levels of cancer-causing potential. Some may cause cancer only after prolonged, high levels of exposure. And for any particular person, the risk of developing cancer depends on many factors, including how they are exposed to a carcinogen, the length and intensity of the exposure, and the person's genetic makeup.
Click to expand...
Known and Probable Human Carcinogens


No one is going out and saying that oral contraceptives cause cancer now do they, nor do you see the craft beer of the greenpeace hippies getting branded with a "this substances causes cancer" sticker.

The UN report simply says that at the levels that people would be exposed to glycophosphate, it doesn't present a meaningful risk. And the benefits that GMOs bring outweigh that small risk.
 
Dastrix said:
Oh man, I love how these things bring out food creationists.

*A large concise study once again confirms/denies X

-> LOOK A YOOTOOBE VIDEO THAT SAYS IT ALL WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
Click to expand...
Yeah, ignore the mountain of links which show that glyphosate has a clear negative impact on human health in a way that has nothing to do with cancer.

You're welcome to answer the questions I posed to konfab in post #29 if you think the conclusion of the video itself is not valid. Glyphosate's mechanism of operation is to interrupt amino acid production in a way that kills plants and bacteria. It would be unreasonable to assume that glyphosate consumed by humans does not affect the kilograms of bacteria that live in your intestines in exactly the same way.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

The New York Times reported that in 1996, "Dennis C. Vacco, the Attorney General of New York, ordered the company Monsanto to pull ads that said Roundup was "safer than table salt" and "practically nontoxic" to mammals, birds and fish. The company withdrew the spots, but also said that the phrase in question was permissible under E.P.A. guidelines.
Click to expand...

If you think it is safe drink some of their roundup. Let it stand in the sun for it's half life and lets see what will happen? :whistle:
 
Amazing how many people in this thread don't mind someone else having a total monopoly over their food supply.

GMO-Monsanto.jpg
 
Xarog said:
Yeah, ignore the mountain of links
Click to expand...

OMG you have LINKS too!
How can the overwhelming scientific consensus possibly compete against LINKS and YOUTUBE?

Do you even science bro?
 
Dastrix said:
OMG you have LINKS too!
How can the overwhelming scientific consensus possibly compete against LINKS and YOUTUBE?
Click to expand...
Yeah, links to reasoned arguments and evidence which supports those arguements. Problem?

Do you even science bro?
Click to expand...
Do you? How about you address the argument on its scientific merits instead of engaging in ad-hominems?
 
Xarog said:
Yeah, links to reasoned arguments and evidence which supports those arguements. Problem?


Do you? How about you address the argument on its scientific merits instead of engaging in ad-hominems?
Click to expand...


Largely because the "arguments" are already handled by the scientific community, my ego is not such that I think LINKS and YOOTUBE in FORUMS somehow counter the consensus of people more qualified to asses this.

Also, the world isn't 6000 years old
 
Dastrix said:
Largely because the "arguments" are already handled by the scientific community,
Click to expand...
Show where.

my ego is not such that I think LINKS and YOOTUBE in FORUMS somehow counter the consensus of people more qualified to asses this.
Click to expand...
No, your ego is such that you think you can claim that there is proof to the contrary without even providing it. That level of hubris is an order of magnitude greater than what you describe.

Also, the world isn't 6000 years old
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Xarog said:
Show where.:
Click to expand...

You actually read the OP right?

Xarog said:
No, your ego is such that you think you can claim that there is proof to the contrary without even providing it. That level of hubris is an order of magnitude greater than what you describe.
Click to expand...

You actually read the OP right?

Man. It's cute when you guys play science.
 
Dastrix said:
You actually read the OP right?
Click to expand...
That speaks about cancer risks. You actually read my posts and realised they don't speak about cancer risks, right?

You actually read the OP right?

Man. It's cute when you guys play science.
Click to expand...
"You guys"? You think I actually follow an organised religion? Lol.
 
Monsanto please drink a cup of your Roundup. We will discuss the effects later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X