Boycott the poison

Its too early say absolutely either way, however i do think its prudent to be aware of potential problems rather than simply wash them away while you concentrate on what the powers that be parrot fed you about crop yields etc etc.

@l34052: You know they bananas are a GMO right? And so is everything that humans have selectively bred since the dawn of agriculture? It isn't the government telling us GMO are safe, it's scientists who work in these fields to SAVE LIVES from starvation.

It truly amazes me how someone can even think a GMO isn't safe because it's "not natural". Well, welcome to the world of agriculture. Almost everything we grow has been modified in some way over the millennia. Even something as basic as wheat and rice. GMO is nothing new, it's just become a lot nor complicated over the last several decades, which makes it harder for people to understand.

Genetically Modified agriculture is going to ensure that the planet is fed.

can you stop posting decades old news articles

Genetically modified organisms have been around since the 70's and commercial GMO crops have been approved since the 90's

@thegerg: Where is the source of this information?

@bforrester420: Fed with poison by Monsanto criminals.

"Advanced paternal age combined with maternal age significantly influences the incidence of Down syndrome." "Children with Down syndrome have a tenfold to twentyfold increased risk of leukemia compared with children without Down syndrome."

@seahorse123: as a guy who's lifted bodybuild style for a decade, i laugh at popmedia and the fools who listen.

@udubdawgz1: We need to awaken these fools to the real world, and yes they will laugh at you at the start because they are scared of the big bad world. There will be some people like thegerg who can't be reasoned with and they should be just left to it.

I haven't and never will. >_>

Sorry I was on my phone, somehow it did not show the text highlighted. This is down syndrome linked to cancer by parental age, not an increased risk in cancer on its own, I did not ask why do down syndrome children get cancer more and more? I said why are children healthy children getting cancer more and more? Instead I get information that is about down syndrome leaves children more likely to get cancer and parents are having children later which makes their chances of getting down syndrome more likely. Not all children who get cancer have down syndrome.

There's no way he's not trolling. In my opinion, only lunatics actually believe the few articles/studies that show slight contradiction to the vast amount of data collected showing they are safe.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=gmos%20linked%20to

Why are people trying to say selectively bred organisms are GMOs?

Personally i'd pay more attention to the "potential" problems if it wasn't for the fact that the evidence for it largely comes for very questionable studies. Most of the apparent facts on GMOs are perpetuated online from articles that have been retracted years before. I don't know about you but i haven't boycotted TVs and electrical appliances because of weak studies saying they can harm you so i'm not going to do it with food.

If anything you should be pro-GMO as it can reduce pesticide use which has been strongly linked to a whole host of health problems and ecological damage.

However the companies like Monsanto are completely crooked, now there's a reason to boycott them.

Ironically genetic modification is used in brewing to give more productive strains of yeast yet no one seems to care then.

Seriously guys? This guy is either or a troll or a fucking lunatic. Want to improve gamespot? Ban people like this.

I can link to google as well....

@AmazonTreeBoa: Also I should have worded my initial post better. I think it's crazy to preach about it in the manner he is, and he's going pretty extremist with the majority of his posts. There is potential they could be bad, but to throw the claims out like he is just makes him sound crazy. It's as if he has a secret study that proves without any doubt that GMO's will kill you within a year of eating them...

I agree, TC is acting extremely stupid with it.

I found this in your link.

"The problem with concluding that GMOs are safe is that the argument for their safety rests solely on animal studies. These studies are offered as evidence that the debate over GMOs is over. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Animal studies have value in that if something demonstrates harm in animals, it will also likely cause harm in humans. Although some animal studies have found harm from a GMO diet, these hotly debated studies are not the point of this article. The point is, if an animal study does not find harm with a particular substance, it could still cause harm in humans. A good example of this is what's happened with artificial sweeteners. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved artificial sweeteners for use using animal toxicology studies. Once these sweeteners were added to the food supply -- and labeled as such -- scientists were able to do epidemiological studies (also called observational studies) in humans. Several of these studies found that artificial sweeteners are linked with negative health effects."

So your line of thought is : Study finds increased rate of cancer... ?????... Must be GMO's! You do realize the radical changes we have had in the last 50 years is not just medicine (in being able to detect and properly diagnose cancer) but numerous changes including a aging population.. While having a steady increase in GMO's in every ones diet, our life expectancy is higher than it has ever been, if it is clearly "poison" we should be dropping dead left and right.. When we aren't, in fact the greatest health risk right now is obesity.. Meanwhile there is a crushing consensus of the Science community that has shown GMO's have no increased health risks over the alternative.. It has been studied so much in fact that if you doubt this, why the fvck are you in front of a computer? Because chances are the emissions given off by electronics and cell phones for instance have been studied far less in being "safe" as GMO crops currently.. Making you, a hypocrite.

First world problems right here.

GMOs are a good thing.

I did, a few years ago. People ask me why I don't look like I'm aging.

If you don't think GMO's are bad for you the first step is to clean your system and get your pallet balanced so you can taste things properly. Then all you need to do is taste an organic product and it's GMO counterpart and the large majority of the time the difference in nutrition is detectable by taste, sometimes it's not like that but it's rare. Spinach is the best example, organic spinach versus other stuff you get crisp dark green versus floppy, soggy light green spinach, doesn't take a genius to figure out which is healthier to eat.

You know, I've always despised the bat shit crazy right wingers who deny climate change/evolution, however these folks protesting against GMO foods, vaccines, and yammering on and on about the health benefits of organic food are starting to inch closer and closer for me.

There is nothing wrong with GMO food, there is nothing special about organic food, and if you don't vaccinate your children you're an idiot.

sounds like it's all in your head

now try your argument with an objective argument based on logic and not a rhetorical personal attack, I bet you can't

Um, I'm basing it on your statement, "then all you need to do is taste an organic product and it's GMO counterpart and the large majority of the time the difference in nutrition is detectable by taste"

Sure, I guess I should have said that it's "quite possibly just in your head"

I mean seriously? you're claiming to be able to determine differences in nutritional value based on taste. Or that you can some how tell the difference between a GMO product and an organic product. Not to mention your final comparison: Just pick better spinach.

As far as I know they don't have a decent sense for why the bee population is currently in trouble. That being said I have never heard of GMO crops ever being brought up as a possible reason why until you said it in this thread.

I actually echo the sentiment that GMO's have been shown to increase crop yield and better feed the planet.

yes you can notice a difference in nutrition from taste, showing ignorance shows a huge lack of knowledge on cooking and nutrition. A good chef will get his ingredients with the most nutrition as they are most often the most flavorful, I would know, I've worked in a dozen large restaurants and have experience working with professional chefs. Nutrition is directly proportional to taste in the large majority of foods. Most people have such imbalanced pallets they are unaware of the fact, such as yourself. A healthy person with a balanced pallet can taste nutrition in food.

Prove it

Generally you hear about chefs talking about fresh foods when it comes to taste. I don't think I've ever heard someone talking about tasting the nutrition in their food.

What would that be like anyway? "Mmmm, I can sure taste those vitamins in this spinach vs. that spinach over there".

@StrifeDelivery: generally raw foods have features of color, texture and ripeness that are indicative of its overall quality. The lettuce you get at subway is nearly white with very little green, is often soft and isn't fresh at all and as a result the taste is very mild. If you go into a garden and eat a leaf of lettuce and the taste will be drastically different because of the nutrient value, the distinct taste of the vegetable is it's nutritional quality. It's a self evident truth that anyone with an acute enough sensory system can detect. Most people don't know this because their digestive system is adapted to prefer less nutritious salty and cheesy food because of the enzymes and metabolic processes that change to suit a north american lifestyle.

I don't have that issue with the Subway I eat at. I would complain if that was what they tried to give me and would tell them to get a fresh batch of green lettuce or cancel my order (that they have already started making).

Well there is some truth to that, I think you are confusing multiple different concepts. For instance, If you cut out a lot of refined sugar and sugar substitutes form your diet then your palette will change and you will start to notice the natural sugar in many vegetables. That part I agree with. I also agree that fresh food often tastes better. And that food like fruits and vegetables retain more nutritional value if they are fresher. Pretty sure almost everyone would agree up to this point.

Where you confuse the point is conflating the foregoing with somehow being related to the difference in organic vs 'regular' store bought or vs GM equivalents. Part of the difference is in how fresh the product is which is not inherent to the style of farming. Organic is not better because it is organic, but it may be better if it is locally grown and therefore fresher compared to something that takes an extra 3 or 5 days to arrive in the grocery store. Another factor is soil conditions, such as acidity, which can effect taste, time to ripeness etc. All things being the same, such as soil and time to market, I don't believe you can differentiate.

In any case, you correctly point out the essential importance of enzymes which are produced by your pancreas to break down food which allows your body to access the nutrition. Think about that for a moment. Your body cannot access the nutrients without enzymes breaking the food down, which occurs far after your taste buds. I would suggest to you that this by definition means that you cannot taste all the nutritional value. What you can taste are things like natural sugars which are then broken down, but this is not the same as saying you can taste the nutritional value nor does it imply that you could differentiate organic from GM, all other things being equal as discussed above.

Finally, one of the aims and potential benefits of GM is to produce food strains that are more easily digestible. Of course, the result would be less stress on the body, particularly the pancreas, and better health. On a macro scale, it would also imply less food required to feed the same number of people.

Why are any of you still entertaining this guy? He's a troll or an absolute nut case. Watch out for the lizard people!

@StrifeDelivery:

Regardless of whether or not freshness equals more nutrients we need to figure out how to store food for even longer periods of time. Increasing crop yields may be one thing we can do to combat hunger, but currently we throw away around 50% of our food. We need to find ways to bring that number way down.

These soft kill methods are scary. They take about 80-90 years to kill someone, but OMG nobody seems aware of it.

@seahorse123: While I don't believe GMO food is entirely bad, it does seem to have it's issues such as lack of labeling which is because of total lobbying and market manipulation which is quite stupid. It should definitely be labeled just as organic food is labeled. The problem is there are plenty of risky chemicals in organic food. Such as carrageenan in dairy products such as organic chocolate milk. Carrageenan is considered a potentially cancerous chemical. Another problem is that the label of organic no longer applies to products that are completely devoid of harmful pesticides or genetic modification, but rather only partially which removes credibility from the label and creates an entirely new slippery slope. It's definitely a good thing to be aware of major government corruption in the so called "nonprofit regulation sectors" so you can at least not be completely gullible because at least a little bit of cynicism helps one be a lot more inquisitive.

However there are also certain things that shouldn't be automatically considered facts despite lack of evidence. Some foods seem to cause tumors on mice and other animals but we forget that animal anatomy is not the same as humans. For example, chocolate in quantity while harm a dog and even potentially kill it because of it's components and the damage it causes to the digestive system of the dog but it is perfectly safe for the most us humans to consume chocolate unless we are allergic to it.

You seem to be confused. We are talking to each other now, not to TC. TC and his extreme views have become irrelevant in this thread.

So, the increase can't be explained by advancement in that field of medicine? You know, like methods of finding the cancer in question or classification? I am sure that medical science made no progress between 1973 and 1991.

Listen you can laugh in your realm of ignorance or you can wake up to the real world I know some of you don't want to know the facts, fair enough but for the people who want to know the truth to the questions no one is asking I am here. For the people who say "oh he is crazy, lizard people, tin foil hats" good for you I hope your like your ignorance, because you are doing just what they want you to do.

maybe they can make a vaccine for the gmo folks.

oh wait, they wouldn't take it because of some other fear they have backed up with no evidence.

@Riverwolf007: It wouldn't work anyway. There has to be something wrong with GMOs for a vaccine to have any effect.

Keep eating your GMOs, love that ignorant sheeple attitude. It comforts me to know you will have many health problems in later life if you live that long.