key2thecup Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Genetically modified food unsafe: Scientists Genetically engineered foods are not safe, have not been properly tested and pose a serious threat to human health and the environment, according to a new report by two genetic engineers. In GMO Myths and Truths, the scientists refute the claims made by companies that produce genetically modified crops and organisms (GMOs). "GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims - that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides and can help solve world hunger," said co-author Dr. Michael Antoniou of the King's College School of Medicine in London, U.K. But the research on them is incomplete, lack proper testing in humans or any long-term study, the report said. Regulatory agencies all over the world typically rely on information supplied by the for-profit companies producing GMO products, rather than any independent testing. Furthermore, the authors said, GMO crops have increased the use of toxic herbicides and pesticides that have been linked to cancer, birth defects and other medical issues. Calling the current method "crude" and "imprecise," co-author Dr. John Fagan said, "It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value." The report cites data from scientific literature as well as reports from doctors, government bodies, industry and media http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/05/genetically-modified-food-unsafe-scientists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Anderson Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Breathing the air is dangerous. Should I walk around with an air purifier attached to my face? Oh wait those are dangerous too. They use "toxic herbicides and pesticides" let alone all the hormones and such in pretty much all the foods we eat. Damn, even the shampoo people use causes cancer. If they can feed more people that need the food it is better then having people starve to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 If they can feed more people.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Sounds like all the herbicides and pesticides are the unsafe factors of crop production. Hmmm... Am i wrong here in saying that higher-yielding, genetically modified crops will require LESS herbicides and pesticides to produce, and will therefore actually be safer for us to eat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Wait a minute, they're using MORE pesticides and herbicides for those genetically modified crops?!? THEN WHAT IN THE HELL ARE THEY GENETICALLY MODIFYING THEM TO DO THEN? LOOK PRETTY?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arsenalian Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Wait a minute, they're using MORE pesticides and herbicides for those genetically modified crops?!? THEN WHAT IN THE HELL ARE THEY GENETICALLY MODIFYING THEM TO DO THEN? LOOK PRETTY?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Anderson Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 They're modified to increase yield, and grow larger vegetables, etc. More plants and crops = more pests, and therefore more pesticides Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YaK Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 The WHO plays 20 questions... http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/ You decide... Frankly I am all for responsible GM research. I see clear benefits. However, the risks must be considered as well and I am not a big fan of privately owned genes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arsenalian Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Well I know nothing about agriculture, but that's my uneducated guess I think some of the claims for genetically modifying plants is that they're more resistant to pests, so shouldn't need as many pesticides, etc. That doesn't seem to be the case though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I just assumed because of the Ron Paul poster you were pretty far right, and that liberal ideas like nutrition would be way over your head. I'm impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Well I know nothing about agriculture, but that's my uneducated guess I think some of the claims for genetically modifying plants is that they're more resistant to pests, so shouldn't need as many pesticides, etc. That doesn't seem to be the case though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 What a horribly sensationalist title followed by a pointless article. Looks like the media did its usual fear-mongering once it got a hold of a science piece. The gist of what the title actually should have been is "More research needed on GMOs. Herbicides and pesticides = bad for human consumption" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 I just assumed because of the Ron Paul poster you were pretty far right, and that liberal ideas like nutrition would be way over your head. I'm impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 What a horribly sensationalist title followed by a pointless article. Looks like the media did its usual fear-mongering once it got a hold of a science piece. The gist of what the title actually should have been is "More research needed on GMOs. Herbicides and pesticides = bad for human consumption" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Title- "They're unsafe to eat!" Jist of Article- "There needs to be more studies to determine if they are safe to eat." So in otherwords, shock value to make people read their story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 this aint joe nobody but two in-field scientists blowing the whistle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 The scientists didn't write the Toronto Star article, which I'm criticizing. They said nothing that would warrant such a sensationalist conclusion like "GMOs Unsafe" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 A sentence from the conclusion of the scientists pdf is that ''There is no scientific consensus that GM crops are safe'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I think his point was that the article makes the argument that there hasn't been enough testing to declare GMOs safe. That's different from the headline which uses the word "unsafe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverpig Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Wait a minute, they're using MORE pesticides and herbicides for those genetically modified crops?!? THEN WHAT IN THE HELL ARE THEY GENETICALLY MODIFYING THEM TO DO THEN? LOOK PRETTY?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.