|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the insidious GMO threat (and it affects HFCS two ways ... ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
I think the solution is simple. non-GMO foods just need to label them so.
Problem solved.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
Tempe 12ft writes:
...what they don't mention is that there are herbicides and insecticides used in organic agriculture and these are sometimes more toxic than those used by transgenic crops. This may be true - which goes against the intent of producing organic crops. Natural predators are the preferred way to go. Oh wait - "natural" doesn't mean anything anymore. Grow you own!! Meet your farmer, get to know her or him.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I think the solution is simple. non-GMO foods just need to label them so. Problem solved. Its not that simple. From Message 12 quote: And further, from Message 19:
quote: ABE:
Grow you own!! Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
RAZD writes: Because the toxins are built into the crop rather than sprayed on (where they can be washed off). Because they are internal they cannot be washed off, and you are stuck with consuming them ... or not eating that product. Curiously, I choose the latter course as better for my health and welfare. Enjoy But, you are ignoring the science of how these insecticides function. First off, by purchasing Organic products you are not avoiding Bt Endotoxin. This is an approved pesticide for organic agriculture and it is sprayed on and occasionally injected directly into the plant to control pests by organic farmers. First off, according to the University of Tennessee:
Univ of Tenn writes: Benefits of this technology include high specificity and potency, reduction in chemical pesticide applications, and increased crop yield. It is the specificity that we really need to concern ourselves with in regards to non-target pests, ourselves, and our gut microbiome.
Univ of Tenn writes: The toxin core travels across the peritrophic matrix and binds to specific receptors called cadherins on the brush border membrane of the gut cells[...]Accumulation of toxin oligomers results in toxin insertion in the membrane, pore formation, osmotic cell shock, and ultimately insect death. Resource The toxin is designed to bind to a specific receptor that exists in the insect gut. How about the mammalian gut, shouldn't it affect us the same way? Well, no because we lack the same receptors that react to this toxin. Plus, the protein breaks up in the digestive system of mammals:
Mendelsohn, Kough, Vaituzis, and Matthews writes: Thein vitro digestibility test confirms that the protein is unstable in the presence of digestive fluids and that it is not unusually persistent in the digestive system. This is especially important since you are speaking of damage to our gut microbiome. If the digestive fluids quickly denature the protein, how is causing any damage to the bacteria in our gut. You need to specify a mechanism that can explain this function occurring while the protein is unstable in stomach acid. How quickly, exactly, does the human digestive process denature this protein? They continue:
Each of the currently registered Bt proteins were tested and all were degraded in gastric fluid in 0—7 minutes How about the process of heat application to the product, does this have any effect on the stability of the pesticide to cause damage to mammalian. Well, after the heat stability test, the researchers determined:
The Cry1Ab protein in one corn product and the Cry1Ac protein were demonstrated to be inactive in processed corn. How about the results of the acute toxicity tests performed in lab mice to verify if ingestion of the proteins could cause harm.
Mendelsohn, Kough, Vaituzis, and Matthews continue writes: None of the tests performed to date have shown any significant treatment-related effects on the test animals The conclusions they have drawn from this information, in regards to the risk of consuming Bt Endotoxins is that there is no inherent risk to mammals from the consumption of Bt
The mammalian toxicity data gathered by the EPA currently are sufficient to support the Bt plant-incorporated protectant registrations. None of the products registered at this time, all of which have tolerance exemptions for food use, show any characteristics of toxins or food allergens. Resource So, really can they start growing in our gut and take over for other bacteria? Are Bacillus Thuringiensis living inside of us now? No, is the simple answer. First off, we've already discussed that these same Bt Endotoxins are located on organic crops and have been used for a long time. If they were colonizing our gut microbiome, it would have been found in the literature. Is it really present in Organic foods?
Atte von Wright writes: In a recent study (Frederiksen and others 2006) both natural and bioinsecticide-derived B. thuringiensis bacteria were regularly detected from fresh fruits and vegetables in retail market[...]Since this exposure, with the highest potential of the intestinal spread of the Bt-gene and which predates both the biopesticide use of B. thuringiensis and the arrival of Bt-crops, did not make our intestinal bacteria to churn out Bt-toxin, then the risk posed by transgenic plants transferring a gene to gut bacteria and creating Bt factories in the intestines is minimal The researchers continue:
It should be remembered that gene transfer from a bacterium to another (even belonging to a different species) is a regular and natural phenomenon while the transfer of DNA from plant cells to bacteria would be highly exceptional. Resource Finally, RAZD, you are quoting videos from Jeffrey Smith, a premiere snake-oil salesman and practitioner of Yogic flying.
Jeffrey Smith Jeffrey Smith - Academics Review individuals His thoughts on this matter have been analyzed by scientists and found very wanting. Perhaps you should check out the Academics Review of his seminal work, Genetic Roulette, where actual peer-reviewed research rips into every statement he attempts to claim.
Genetic Roulette Academics Review I'm sorry, but on this topic there could be some debate about the safety of future crops, but the scientific consensus shows that the current crops are safe for human and animal consumption. No medical issues have ever been assigned to having a GMO as the cause, and if you think otherwise, I challenge you to find peer-reviewed literature that shows this. An oddity in the medical community would definitely be written about in the medical journals. There can be some debate about the role that corporations play (although they are the only ones who can afford to play that role since GE crops take ten years and a 120 million dollars to pass regulations) as well. However, the scientific consensus is that these crops are as safe for consumption as their conventional counterparts. Let's check that consensus, shall we?
American Medical Association writes: There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. American Association for the Advancement of Science writes: The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. World Health Organization writes: No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. The Royal Society of Medicine writes: Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA. American Council on Science and Health writes: [W]ith the continuing accumulation of evidence of safety and efficiency, and the complete absence of any evidence of harm to the public or the environment, more and more consumers are becoming as comfortable with agricultural biotechnology as they are with medical biotechnology. American Society for Cell Biology writes: Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants. International Seed Federation writes: The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment. Crop Science Society of America writes: The Crop Science Society of America supports education and research in all aspects of crop production, including the judicious application of biotechnology. Consensus Document on GMOs Safety writes: (14 Italian scientific societies): GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption. Society of Toxicology writes: Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods. French Academy of Sciences writes: All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations writes: Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants — mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape — without any observed adverse effects (ICSU). Source And I did not even list all of them from that page, much less the total number of scientific bodies that support the introduction of GM crops. I think I will throw my trust in these guys rather than a Yogic flyer with his job history in swing dance instruction and who also peddles his own all natural products. The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
I wish I had more time to spend discussing this issue, but I just don't right now. But I will offer a small piece of input.
First, I understand your concern, especially considering your health situation. And I say, by all means, if you are experiencing health benefits (whether real or perceived) then continue on. Personally, my major concern with GMO foods is the relatively few companies who will soon have a virtual monopoly on our food supplies. The power and influence these companies have in Washington is tremendous to say the least. They are every bit as powerful and influential as Big Pharm. That simply makes me uncomfortable. However, to the issue of GMO's themselves, you must consider them on a case-by-case basis. To make a sweeping generalization that somehow any food crop that is genetically modified is inherently bad is not a fair or logical position. If you want to talk about how consuming corn that has been modified to express the BT toxin that is legit. But to say that is the same situation as Round-Up Ready crops or Golden Rice is not an accurate way to approach it. So for Round-Up Ready crops, is it the fact that they have been genetically modified that is the problem or is it the fact that they retain glyposhate in the plant tissue that is the problem. I would think the latter is the concern, not so much the former. So to make a sweeping generalization about GMOs is problematic. We need to consider the technology on an event by event basis. Another issue that give me pause is that the companies involved in genetic modification seem to think they are above the laws of nature and the reality of evolution. When Monsanto released Round-Up ready crops they stated that weeds would never (yes, they said never) be able to evolve resistance because they had 100's of their most brilliant scientists that spend over 10 years and 100 million dollars to develop these crops and the weeds would not be able to figure it out. How extremely foolish of them! We cannot allow these companies to approach this technology as if they are God and they can outsmart nature. As far as GMOs transferring DNA to gut bacteria and that somehow happens differently than it would happen with other organisms (bacteria are already known to have the ability to take up bits of free DNA), I would be curious as to what this mechanism is. How does a genetically modified organism enhance or facilitate horizontal transfer? HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
Xongsmith writes: I think the solution is simple. non-GMO foods just need to label them so. Problem solved. Why? What other processes of food creation require mandatory labeling? Kosher is a voluntary label that allows marketers to target a specific demographic. Your request is akin to requesting that all food that is not Kosher be labeled Non-kosher, at the expense of all consumers. Let's look at it this way. How is the current system failing on allowing people to make a choice and avoid GMO crops? There are voluntary label choices that companies can sue to market the demographic that wants these products, including Organic and Project GMO-Free. If a company wants to target the demographic, they can go through the process to get this certification and sell their product at a higher value because people are choosing an aesthetic difference that has nothing to do with nutrition or health. And companies are willing to do that, this is already seen by the increase in these voluntary labels recently. Forceful labeling based on no nutritional differences, no increased risks, and no new allergens present (The crops are tested on all of these areas, as well as environmental impacts) will increase the cost for every consumer, which will actually drive the poor to purchase less fresh foods and more processed foods at a cheaper cost. It's like the organic company scaring the new mother about the fruits and vegetables she feeds her child. Now, she will waste more money on organic produce, reducing the total amount of produce that she purchases for her child. The poor should not suffer for choice that is solely based on feeling more natural. Check out this research that was conducted on New York State that shows that labeling would lead to an added cost for all New Yorkers of 429 million - 1.7 billion, with a midpoint at 1.1 billion dollars per year. This works out to an extra over $200 dollars per year for a family of four. Sure, a lot of people could afford that, but those who can't were already living on the margin...why should we push them over the edge so we can feel natural and happy?
Resource Finally, I am not against organic and if people want to feel more natural and in tune with Earth, whatever, but when you are making your dinner choices based on feeling good about yourself, the rest of us should not be forced to pay for your feelings. I think all of the tools we have gained through different agricultural practices will be necessary to prepare to feed the future 9 billion people that will occupy this Earth, especially with hopefully less poverty stricken people. Using rotational planting from organic, planting barrier crops, using beneficial insects and systemic (low toxicity) pesticides, reducing broad spectrum sprays and rotating weed control chemicals to avoid continuing to create herbicide resistant weeds. Of all that, Xong, the thing I would most like an answer to is "How is the current system not allowing people to easily avoid GMOs?"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
RAZD writes: This is the standard line from the GMO companies ... but it is not correct: WE did not modify those organisms, we only selected the mutations that produce better crops for our particular taste\use. The goal was improved food value.
Genetic modification is defined by injecting or shooting bits of DNA to actively cause mutations with the hope that one will be "useful" (while additional effects are ignored). Most of them have centered on making the crops toxic to pests or resistant to herbicides (which the GMO companies also make, so more could be used on unintended plant growth - weeds). This affects the ecosystem of the farmland in ways that are not good. Very little is done to improve the food value, it is only "useful" to corporate profits. Enjoy. Portion I am discussing is bolded. I take it that you have heard of Radiation mutagenesis, correct? This is the process of using chemicals or radiation to force mutations in plants and hopefully generate useful mutations. Guess what, this is an organically certified practice and does not require a label, but it is far more scattershot than the concept of trangenics where the company must analyze where the genetic change was placed on the genome of the plant. Mutagenesis also does not require safety testing, even though the process randomly changes thousands of genes in the plant to find the one phenotypic change we liked. Transgenics, on the other hand, change anywhere from 1-8 genes in the plant. Why should one be labeled and the other not?The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
herebedragon writes: Personally, my major concern with GMO foods is the relatively few companies who will soon have a virtual monopoly on our food supplies. The power and influence these companies have in Washington is tremendous to say the least. They are every bit as powerful and influential as Big Pharm. That simply makes me uncomfortable. Forget the companies and look at the scientific literature. And before you say, well the company buys the scientific consensus (You can see a small portion of that consensus in my reply to RAZD), what you cannot say is how with the amount of money Big Ag makes (approximately 60 billion a year for all of the Big 6 combined) they can control scientific consensus, but Big Oil, with profits in the hundreds of billions has been completely unable to stop the march of the scientific consensus on climate change. Also, you do realize that the companies fighting for labeling (Organic companies) are also a 40+ billion dollar a year industry, right? Last year, Monsanto made approximately 14 billion in profits and Whole Foods made 12 billion. Why is one corporation evil and the other has our best interests at heart because they claim to be natural? I agree it was full conceit that Monsanto thought weeds would not find resistance to Round-up. It was their fault for not realizing that Farmers would go overboard sometimes and not follow exact spraying amounts or would continually plant the same crop instead of rotating Round-up Ready out each growing season. However, the introduction of 2-4D from DuPont will allow herbicide use from two different mechanisms making resistance much more difficult to come by for weeds.
herebedragons writes: So for Round-Up Ready crops, is it the fact that they have been genetically modified that is the problem or is it the fact that they retain glyposhate in the plant tissue that is the problem. I would think the latter is the concern, not so much the former. Could you post evidence of the retention of glyphosate in the plant leaves and edible parts of the plant? Also, do you know that the median lethal dose of Round-up is higher than the median lethal dose of both Caffeine and Table Salt? Look up the LD50 numbers for these products and you will be quite surprised how remarkably non-toxic Round-up is. The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
Cat Sci writes: What are we talking here, 1 out of 2? Or 1 out of 1000? If there are 2 farmers out there that separate, and thousands that don't, then creating separate storage and packaging lines is still an issue. There is something like 2-3 million farmers in the United States alone. Organic crops account for approximately 14% of the market. Not trying for super detailed, but just a reasonable estimate. We will go with 2 million farmers. 2 million farmers * .86 (86%) = 1,720,000 farmers growing conventional or GMO crops. Now, only certain amounts of these crops have a GMO counterpart (eight to be exact), but they are huge cash crops, such as corn, sugarbeets, canola and soy. But again, going on low estimate, lets cut the number in half... ...That means there are 860,000 farmers producing crops that were not required to be separated that now need additional infrastructure at every stage from seed delivery to final delivery to the manufacturer, not to mention the additional segregation that manufacturers will require to ensure that there is no cross contamination. Again, these are just estimated numbers, but I am sure I could get you the actual counts if you would like me to. The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
So, in those links RAZD shared form Jeffrey Smith, there was this interesting claim:
American Academy of Environmental Medicine writes: However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. Well, I am shocked by this phrase, especially with the recent release of a study that reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health results. The results were exactly the opposite of what AAEM is claiming.
Jon Entine Forbes article: writes: There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact. This study gathered the data spanning 29 years and covered 100 billion animals fed GM feed for a total of 1 trillion meals. Entine continues:
Studies have been conducted with a variety of food-producing animals including sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, quail, cattle, water buffalo, rabbits and fish fed different GE crop varieties. The results have consistently revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals were comparable with those fed near isogenic non-GE lines and commercial varieties. Source Study Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Forgot the sourceThe theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
but I am sure I could get you the actual counts if you would like me to. Nah, thanks for what you did provide. I can't believe they think they can just hand-wave this one away. I think its one of the better arguments against GMO labeling in that it is actual and true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And I did not even list all of them from that page, much less the total number of scientific bodies that support the introduction of GM crops. I think I will throw my trust in these guys rather than a Yogic flyer with his job history in swing dance instruction and who also peddles his own all natural products. Nice ad hominem argument ... Show me how taking people off GMO food makes their digestive dysfunction clear up is not caused to removing GMOs from the diet and you might have an argument. Good luck with that. When the only variable is GMO corn or non-GMO corn, for example, I have a problem with studies claiming there is no cause for concern. That's the bottom line for me: clear direct line evidence of harm, solved by switching from GMO to non-GMO. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Show me how taking people off GMO food makes their digestive dysfunction clear up is not caused to removing GMOs from the diet and you might have an argument. Good luck with that. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Show me how taking people off GMO food makes their digestive dysfunction clear up is not caused to removing GMOs from the diet and you might have an argument. Good luck with that. Post hoc ergo propter hoc People eating GMO corn have digestive problems.They change to non-GMO corn the problems go away. They return to GMO corn and have digestive problems return. They go off and they go away. Curiously I call that a clean direct line of causation with only one variable -- or are you saying that the information is lies? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
They change to non-GMO corn the problems go away. Peer-reviewed source for this study, please.
They go off and they go away. See above.
Curiously I call that a clean direct line of causation with only one variable -- or are you saying that the information is lies? So what statistical tests were used to determine if the results were statistically significant? Note that any ole' article pulled from the web isn't the greatest source for these claims, so I await the peer-reviewed studies you are armed with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024