34 Comments

  1. blank Skeptologist says:

    Genetic engineering is a device to address food shortage, among other things. It’s ridiculous to through away a device simply because it isn’t 100% successful. That’d be like saying ‘I don’t wear a seatbelt because it doesn’t save 100% of people in car accidents, so why bother?”.

    Yes, reducing meat consumption, food waste and the use of food crops for biofuel are all good ideas. But there is no rational reason to reject useful technologies like genetic engineering. The reasons people like Christina Sarich present are not based in reason but rather in ignorance and prejudice.

    1. That’s some fine reasoning, Skeptologist. Hopefully soon they’ll be able to modify the rest of the world’s crops to withstand heavier loads of toxic chemicals, since the ongoing contamination of our bodies, the air, the water, the soil, other lifeforms, etc is obviously a great idea. Who cares if GMOs aren’t sustainable, destroying the soil and creating super-bugs and weeds. Who cares if virtually every health-educated person out there has cut GMOs out of their diet and claims to look and feel better. Who cares if GMOs are an OBVIOUSLY stupid idea, since stupid is good when highly paid industry scientists and lobbyists say it is, and when it makes their bosses incredibly wealthy.

      Since you seem to be a rebel against good sense and skeptical of the obvious, I’d best point out that I was being sarcastic.

      1. I have done my research, thanks. Putting aside the issue gene manipulation, plenty of scientific studies point out the fact that it’s not a good idea to consume poison in the form of glyphosate and the like in any amount, and that research certainly makes the most sense to me along with a growing percentage of the population. But you strike me as an industry shill, so you’re probably aware of all that.

        1. blank Skeptologist says:

          Glyphosate is not a GMO. I agree that glyphosate likely presents a health risk. But criticizing GMOs because of glyphosate makes me think you don’t understand this issue as well as you think you do.

          1. I didn’t say glyphosate was a GMO; I was clearly speaking of it in relation to “Roundup-ready” crops. Your attempts to obscure my arguments rather than address them is another mark of an industry-paid shill. I won’t waste any more of my time trying to keep you on topic.

          2. blank Skeptologist says:

            Righting off people you disagree with as shills is exceptionally intellectually lazy. It’s not my fault you didn’t clarify what you were talking about.

          3. (Ok, I guess I’ll waste a little more of my time.)

            I didn’t think clarification was needed when the very purpose of most GMO crops (soy, corn, conola, etc) is to withstand glyphosate, and when I all but spelled this out in my very first post. The two go hand in hand. Speaking of being intellectually lazy, I find it impossible to believe you didn’t deduce this from what I said, so hopefully you’ll forgive my having concluded that you’re being paid to argue with people. Allow me to be abundantly clear this time:

            Since you concede that glyphosate ‘likely’ presents a health risk, and given that the vast majority of GMO crops were engineered to withstand a shower of glyphosate, it follows that eating GMO crops ‘likely’ presents a health risk. That’s by your own reasoning. Am I missing something?

          4. blank Skeptologist says:

            Sure, for the sake of moving on I’m willing to say I could have just assumed you were talking about RoundUp Ready crops. I don’t like making assumptions though, but for the sake of argument I should have made one in this case.

            it follows that eating GMO crops ‘likely’ presents a health risk.

            No, it does not. For the same reason that drinking a glass of water doesn’t automatically put you at risk of dilutional hyponatremia. What matters is the amount of a substance a person consumes, not that it’s being consumed. While I accept that there are levels at which glyphosate presents a health risk, I am also willing to accept that there may be levels at which glyphosate poses no risk. However, let me be very clear, I do not know if this is true or what these levels would be. I am simply saying that it does not automatically follow that any crop treated with glyphosate is inherently dangerous. I have not seen evidence to convince me that that line of reasoning is sound.

          5. “I am also willing to accept that there may be levels at which glyphosate poses no risk. However, let me be very clear, I do not know if this is true or what these levels would be.”

            If you don’t know, why are you so defensive? There is an increasing body of research which strongly suggests glyphosate is measurably harmful at typical exposure levels. Erring on the side of toxicity rather than avoidance is an essential difference between the approach of someone who is not truly conscious of their health, and someone who is.

          6. blank Skeptologist says:

            I’m not defensive. I’m just used to scientific language where you must be careful in stating exactly the what you know with confidence and what you are unsure about. I can see why it may seem defensive. I agree that the exposure levels agricultural workers may experience present a risk, but I am not convinced that residues consumers may be exposed to pose a significant risk.

          7. blank JOHN BISCIT says:

            “but I am not convinced that residues consumers may be exposed to pose a significant risk.”
            No of course not because you are biased from working for Monsanto.
            And you don’t care if the environment or humans is being affected becauase you are in favour of profits over health.

          8. blank JOHN BISCIT says:

            If I had a dime for every time I could have said that about your posts I would be rich!

          9. blank JOHN BISCIT says:

            “is exceptionally intellectually lazy”
            See what I mean. He has a very high brow attitude and thinks he is in the elite crowd so everyone else is beneath him.

          10. blank JOHN BISCIT says:

            Let’s not mince words here. These two toxins are inextricably linked. One begets the other.

          11. blank Skeptologist says:

            “GMO” is not a toxin. Your comment is really quite ignorant.

          12. blank JOHN BISCIT says:

            Gmo is a toxin
            Your comment is without substance

          13. blank Skeptologist says:

            That is a completely nonsensical statement. You’re ignorant, lying or playing games. Regardless of which it is, I don’t have any more time to waste with someone as immature and closed minded as yourself.

        2. blank JOHN BISCIT says:

          ” (but if you were this knowledgeable, I doubt we’d be having this conversation).”
          This is the tone this guy normally takes. If you don’t agree with his position he will insult you.

    2. blank JOHN BISCIT says:

      “Genetic engineering is a device to address food shortage”
      No, incorrect

      It is a means to make larger profits for large AG corporations

      ” It’s ridiculous to through away a device simply because it isn’t 100% successful.”
      It’s not successful, it’s not necessary, it’s not safe and it’s not sustainable.

      1. blank Skeptologist says:

        You don’t know what you’re talking about. But then, that’s painfully obvious to anyone who has suffered through a few of your inane comments.

        1. blank JOHN BISCIT says:

          Sticks and stones………

  2. Not that I’m ‘pro-GMO’ or anything but… ….don’t the ‘animals’ in the ‘animals & cars’ then go on to feed the people? Like, aren’t animals usually ‘grown’ for food?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *