Bill Nye loves him some Monsanto and GMOs

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by HIWB:





Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

So, it's suspected that glyphosate kills the beneficial gut bacteria in a bee, potentially causing starvation in the abundance of food. So does glyphosate affect the gut bacteria of a human? It might make sense. In fact, Dr. Seneff came out with this idea before Dr. Huber did with the bees.

Seneff also seems to think that glyphosate has it's hand in the autism problem. As I stated before in a previous thread she says 1/2 of all children will have autism by 2025 if we continue our current path. The good thing about this to me is we shouldn't have to wait 10 years to see if she's at least close to being right. If she's right, we should be able to see some real movement in incidence in a relatively short period of time if the increase rate is anywhere close to being linear. Well, as long as our tracking can give us some somewhat real-time data. We're at 1/68 now. 1/10 in 2 yrs, 1/4 in 5.

HIWB, we've already hashed out several times Seneff's background and we all know a good portion of it is in computer science. It is what it is. So my question is, does the wise man who cares about his and his family's health wait and take his chances to see what happens? Does he buy into the Monsanto tobacco science telling him they are safe, completely ignoring everything that says they probably aren't? Does he drag his feet waiting for numbers to come out before he starts removing him and his family from the potentials, or does he remove himself from the potentials first?

Seneff may be wrong. I hope for our and our children's sake she is, but there's a certain something in me in the survival department that takes information like this and tells me if I am able, I should probably try to stay away from it.

http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/26/mit-states-that-half-of-all-children-may-be-autistic-by-2025/

This post was edited on 3/14 9:38 AM by naturalbornhawk

The wise man looks at evidence and determines if it is valid. The information you've referenced in this thread isn't based on experiments and validation - it's based on assumption. Huber decides to ignore all previous evidence and call for more study, and then you extrapolate that to "glyphosate may be responsible for CCD". Seneff used spurious logic and assumptions to write her book report that this graph does, and you extrapolate that to "glyphosate has it's hand in autism".

If we can agree that the above graph is absolutely ridiculous, then you'll agree that Seneff's conclusions are equally ridiculous. You can continue to keep referencing her book report, but I'm not going to entertain any more conversation about it. It's absolutely a waste of time.

No one is ignoring studies that say GMO/glyphosate isn't safe. The studies are peer reviewed and then determined to be valid - the same process applies to both sides. Does it not strike you as strange that these "studies" aren't published in reputable journals? Why hasn't Seneff landed a spot on ABC news to shout her findings from the mountaintop? When do we expect the EFSA, WHO, EPA, EU, AAAS, AMA, FDA, etc. to revise their positions on this subject due to her "findings"?

There's that chart again. It's so full of nonsense I can hardly waste my time typing about it. It's a smokescreen and proves no worthwhile points. That's why I just let it go in the other posts. The point you try to make with it is about as irrelevant as the chart itself.

There is a problem. The problem is new. Organic = closer to the way things used to be = not the problem. GMO is new. It's backed by terrible government oversight, a terrible political system, and corporate administered tobacco science with it's well being riding on the results. The media for covering this stuff is just as bought as the politicians. Seneff found her mountaintop and though it's not the ABC news, her info is out there relatively easy to find for those willing to listen. Tobacco science, margarine science, whatever - all had good, sound, and settled science telling us they were good for us. We kick the can down the street to stretch out sales as much as possible at the cost of human health. Heck the entire "science" based food pyramid was wrong and probably still is wrong.

The alternatives being offered for autism (like people are having kids later in life) don't make sense because they don't cover the scope of the problem. If you're going to take away my most suspected culprits to the problem(s), then at least offer some believable alternatives.

As far as your problems with Seneff, have you even listened to her to try to figure out how she comes to her conclusions regarding autism? She does tell you why she connects those dots and does explain why she thinks glyphosate and autism are connected if you're willing to listen to her, it's relatively easy to find.

How can you say Huber is ignoring all previous evidence? Please post the studies that you feel he is ignoring that speak against his theory.

You tell me I shouldn't extrapolate this: "glyphosate may be responsible for CCD". Please let me know what the foul is by my saying that. Of course it's a possibility. Are you willing to tell me that it's not a possibility? If you're not, then why even respond with this nonsense because that's all I'm saying. The theory seems very logical and he explains very clearly why he thinks it could be an issue.

Then you said that I extrapolated "glyphosate has it's hand in autism" when I was actually indicating what Seneff was saying. Then you whipped out that terrible chart....again....because of my speculation on the possible.

It almost seems like you're purposefully kicking up dust at this point, something I don't really have a whole lot of time for.


This post was edited on 3/14 11:28 PM by naturalbornhawk

 

[naturalbornhawk]

If there are folks here still wondering if it is dangerous to consume gmo in its current state, this video does a pretty good job of explaining what's happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU9LmFLaC18

Sounds like the IRT wants to set up a debate. Since Neil seems to be balking, maybe they could get Nye interested, doubt it though. I think it's pretty easy to see why Neil's been balking. In the debate format I suspect they'd get their butts handed to them, just my suspicion.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

"If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It's a one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia; once it's made, it can't be reversed." - Roger Levett

So if the above statement is true, (I challenge anyone to prove that it's not) and there actually are serious health problems with these GM foods, then I challenge anyone's reasoning on why this is not an issue where people should not have their "hair on fire".

So let's say we have much better, cleaner GE technology somewhere in the future, we'll still be stuck with this old technology that is (probably) harmful to human health.

It's about like being required have that first room-sized ISU computer hooked onto everyone's smart phone.

All because people at the top want to make money off it. We've got to be smarter than this.

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

If there are folks here still wondering if it is dangerous to consume gmo in its current state, this video does a pretty good job of explaining what's happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU9LmFLaC18

Sounds like the IRT wants to set up a debate. Since Neil seems to be balking, maybe they could get Nye interested, doubt it though. I think it's pretty easy to see why Neil's been balking. In the debate format I suspect they'd get their butts handed to them, just my suspicion.

Or, you can watch a debate that already occurred that isn't an obscure YouTube call out from a flying yoga instructor and involves people that are directly related to the issues at hand. The results speak for themselves.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/1161-genetically-modify-food

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by HIWB:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

If there are folks here still wondering if it is dangerous to consume gmo in its current state, this video does a pretty good job of explaining what's happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU9LmFLaC18

Sounds like the IRT wants to set up a debate. Since Neil seems to be balking, maybe they could get Nye interested, doubt it though. I think it's pretty easy to see why Neil's been balking. In the debate format I suspect they'd get their butts handed to them, just my suspicion.

Or, you can watch a debate that already occurred that isn't an obscure YouTube call out from a flying yoga instructor and involves people that are directly related to the issues at hand. The results speak for themselves.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/1161-genetically-modify-food

Thanks for posing the debate. Here's the deal. This debate failed and I'll tell you why. Both sides talked a little about the studies indicating whether gmos are safe. Neither side agreed with each other. They tried to go back to it later and the moderator stopped the discussion from going back to it. Which is fine, it's the moderator's call, but the bottom line on gmos is this: You can have all the yeild increases (they don't), decreased pesticide use (they don't), less energy input, etc. you want, but the minute you find out you're putting out a product that may be causing signivicant problems in human health, it's all garbage. Every single last bit of it. So gmo backers are putting out "studies" that show that their own product is safe. Is there a conflict of interest? Of course there is. Is there enough oversight? Of course there's not. I challenge anyone to tell me different about these 2 statements. Now, back to the last vid I posted. Jeffrey Smith ounlined a sizeable list of potential significant problems (suspicions) associated with gmos that have never been studied. The human population IS the test population. We've seen chronic diseases rise since the introduction of gmos. There's your results. Not difinitive results, because yes there's way too many variables, but you can blame the poor design of that study on the folks that couldn't wait to get their product to market because they have to get their return on their investment.

The debate HIWB posted had 2 sides on strong full disagreement on whether enough studies have been done to indicate they are healthy. This issue was then curbed in this debate with many questions left unanswered about their health. The majority of the people who were on the fence despite this fact inexplicably turned pro-gmo after the debate. Wow. That's really, really, dumb. Iff you are indeed putting out a product that is causing sizeable health problems, then it's all junk. More good, long term studies out of the hands of those who stand to profit from the results need to be done. That's why I posted the Jeffrey Smith vid.

HIWB my advice to you would be to next time concentrate more on what is being said rather than the looks/mannerisms of the presenter. Maybe you could come back with the content of his message and tell me why I shouldn't be buying into it rather than just his looks.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

[@ HIWB] Thanks for posing the debate. Here's the deal. This debate failed and I'll tell you why. Both sides talked a little about the studies indicating whether gmos are safe. Neither side agreed with each other. They tried to go back to it later and the moderator stopped the discussion from going back to it. Which is fine, it's the moderator's call, but the bottom line on gmos is this: You can have all the yeild increases (they don't), decreased pesticide use (they don't), less energy input, etc. you want, but the minute you find out you're putting out a product that may be causing signivicant problems in human health, it's all garbage. Every single last bit of it. So gmo backers are putting out "studies" that show that their own product is safe. Is there a conflict of interest? Of course there is. Is there enough oversight? Of course there's not. I challenge anyone to tell me different about these 2 statements. Now, back to the last vid I posted. Jeffrey Smith ounlined a sizeable list of potential significant problems (suspicions) associated with gmos that have never been studied. The human population IS the test population. We've seen chronic diseases rise since the introduction of gmos. There's your results. Not difinitive results, because yes there's way too many variables, but you can blame the poor design of that study on the folks that couldn't wait to get their product to market because they have to get their return on their investment.

Two thoughts.

1) It isn't just humans and human health that are the guinea pigs. It's multiple species of flora and fauna that humans depend upon.

2) If the outcomes are bad, it isn't always the case that we will just be able to stop doing what ever it was that we did and everything will go back to normal.

So we really don't have the luxury of saying "let the market figure it out." We need clear evidence of safety to do many of these things, not merely the absence of proof that they are harmful.

Sure, we don't want an archaic, foot-dragging bureaucracy to deny the benefits of genetic engineering to the world. But the answer to that isn't all that hard. We need to set modern regulations and make sure the regulating organizations are properly equipped, staffed and trained to grease the wheels for the good products while making sure the dangerous ones never get loose.

Thinking that way may be hard for those who have been told for decades that the government is always the problem and that all regulations are bad. But those are memes for stupid people and they need to get slapped down before they are responsible for even more disasters.

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:
Thanks for posing the debate. Here's the deal. This debate failed and I'll tell you why. Both sides talked a little about the studies indicating whether gmos are safe. Neither side agreed with each other. They tried to go back to it later and the moderator stopped the discussion from going back to it. Which is fine, it's the moderator's call, but the bottom line on gmos is this: You can have all the yeild increases (they don't), decreased pesticide use (they don't), less energy input, etc. you want, but the minute you find out you're putting out a product that may be causing signivicant problems in human health, it's all garbage. Every single last bit of it. So gmo backers are putting out "studies" that show that their own product is safe. Is there a conflict of interest? Of course there is. Is there enough oversight? Of course there's not. I challenge anyone to tell me different about these 2 statements. Now, back to the last vid I posted. Jeffrey Smith ounlined a sizeable list of potential significant problems (suspicions) associated with gmos that have never been studied. The human population IS the test population. We've seen chronic diseases rise since the introduction of gmos. There's your results. Not difinitive results, because yes there's way too many variables, but you can blame the poor design of that study on the folks that couldn't wait to get their product to market because they have to get their return on their investment.

The debate HIWB posted had 2 sides on strong full disagreement on whether enough studies have been done to indicate they are healthy. This issue was then curbed in this debate with many questions left unanswered about their health. The majority of the people who were on the fence despite this fact inexplicably turned pro-gmo after the debate. Wow. That's really, really, dumb. Iff you are indeed putting out a product that is causing sizeable health problems, then it's all junk. More good, long term studies out of the hands of those who stand to profit from the results need to be done. That's why I posted the Jeffrey Smith vid.

HIWB my advice to you would be to next time concentrate more on what is being said rather than the looks/mannerisms of the presenter. Maybe you could come back with the content of his message and tell me why I shouldn't be buying into it rather than just his looks.

Sigh. You can disagree with the results of debates, studies, and all of the above any time you'd like. At the end of the day, I've presented quite a bit of data, an anecdotal debate, and logical explanations why your sources aren't just wrong, they're dangerous (to put it in WWJDs terms when describing global climate change deniers). Choose to do with it what you'd like. I don't mind that folks use the precautionary principle. However, even in Europe where the precautionary principle is the law of the land, they're relaxing their restrictions on GE crops and trending towards more cultivation of them, not the opposite. Food for thought continues below.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
A majority of the general public (57%) says that genetically modified (GM) foods are generally unsafe to eat, while 37% says such foods are safe; by contrast, 88% of AAAS scientists say GM foods are generally safe. The gap between citizens and scientists in seeing GM foods as safe is 51 percentage points. This is the largest opinion difference between the public and scientists.

In response to your claims in the first paragraph:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24637726
The adoption of the technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 503 million kg (-8.8%) and, as a result, decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on these crops (as measured by the indicator the Environmental Impact Quotient [EIQ]) by 18.7%. The technology has also facilitated a significant reduction in the release of greenhouse gas emissions from this cropping area, which, in 2012, was equivalent to removing 11.88 million cars from the roads.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25365303
On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.
[/I]
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1424195/eib124_summary.pdf

Pesticide use on the 21 crops analyzed in this report rose rapidly from 196 million pounds of active
ingredient (a.i.) in 1960 to 632 million pounds in 1981, largely because of the increased share of
planted acres treated with herbicides to control weeds. In addition, the total planted acreage of corn,
wheat, and, in particular, soybeans increased from the early 1960s to early 1980s, which further
increased herbicide use. Most acres planted with major crops (particularly corn and soybeans)
were already being treated with herbicides by 1980, so total pesticide use has since trended slightly
downward driven by other factors, to 516 million pounds in 2008 (the most recent year for which
we have enough complete data).

In response to your claims that the only research is industry funded:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf

This new publication presents the results of 50 projects, involving more than 400 research groups and representing European research grants of some EUR 200 million. This figure brings the total Commission funding of research on GMO safety to more than EUR 300 million since its inception in 1982 in the Biomolecular Engineering programme.


…The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.

http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=11038
The review, led by UC Davis animal scientist Alison Van Eenennaam, examined nearly 30 years of livestock-feeding studies that represent more than 100 billion animals.
...Studies have continually shown that the milk, meat and eggs derived from animals that have consumed GE feed are indistinguishable from the products derived from animals fed a non-GE diet

http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/industry-funded-gmo-studies/
When you shout 'Conflict of Interest' before evaluating the evidence and analysis, it becomes an excuse for discounting inconvenient evidence. Asking about conflicts of interest should be a safeguard against getting snookered by weak evidence. Instead, it becomes an excuse for dismissing good evidence. Examining the soundness of the evidence must come first. Then you can decide whether questions of funding and loyalties are relevant. This is how you maintain a firm footing on solid ground. Use awareness of conflicts of interest to avoid motivated reasoning. Otherwise you are only fueling the fire of your own biases.

At the end of the day, you might be right - anyone that can fly could be trusted to give us advice on biochemistry and agriculture. But I'm skeptical.

TL;DR - Science rules. Levitation =/= knowledge.

This post was edited on 3/17 5:25 PM by HIWB

 

[naturalbornhawk]

http://www.startribune.com/nation/297050421.html

WHO now says glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. Of course Monsanto is in full disagreement and Bill Nye after paying them a visit wants to tell the world he's in love.

 

[SalAunese]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/297050421.html

WHO now says glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. Of course Monsanto is in full disagreement and Bill Nye after paying them a visit wants to tell the world he's in love.

That study has already been debunked by the scientific community. It wasn't even based on any real research. You may have to consider the origin of this French group to get an idea of how the study was conducted, but you don't seem to understand how to vet sources.

 

[fredjr82]

Came across this link yesterday. I don't have enough knowledge to debate the subject unfortunately.

Livestock who were fed GMOs showed no evidence of negative effects over 19 years of follow up.

It's TL;DR for me but I thought some may find it interesting

GMO Livestock Study

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by SalAunese:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/297050421.html

WHO now says glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. Of course Monsanto is in full disagreement and Bill Nye after paying them a visit wants to tell the world he's in love.

That study has already been debunked by the scientific community. It wasn't even based on any real research. You may have to consider the origin of this French group to get an idea of how the study was conducted, but you don't seem to understand how to vet sources.

I was reporting a statement from the WHO, and backed it up with a link. In fact, many, many different news outlets are repoting the exact same thing. I don't need to cite a study for the claim I made.

You say "It has already been debunked by the scientific community". What scientific community? All of the scientific community? What an absurd overstatement. This is a new statement, from part of the "scientific community".

You said "It wasn't even based on any real research" You keep throwing out the fact that I'm too stupid to cite credible sources, right? So let's see if you yourself can back this up. Maybe you should explain to us exactly why the the well respected International Agency for Research on Cancer is so far off base and should not have made these claims. What research were they looking at, why did they come to this conclusion, where did they go wrong, and why?

Monsanto says they're cherry picking data and they had an agenda driven bias. Read that sentence again. Why do those claims make me laugh Sal?

In the past we'd be having this same discussion about lead, tobacco, margarine, etc. As a consumer that cares about my health and my family's health, I know better that it takes time to get the junk out of the system. Just add this to the pile.

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:
I was reporting a statement from the WHO, and backed it up with a link. In fact, many, many different news outlets are repoting the exact same thing. I don't need to cite a study for the claim I made.

You say "It has already been debunked by the scientific community". What scientific community? All of the scientific community? What an absurd overstatement. This is a new statement, from part of the "scientific community".

You said "It wasn't even based on any real research" You keep throwing out the fact that I'm too stupid to cite credible sources, right? So let's see if you yourself can back this up. Maybe you should explain to us exactly why the the well respected International Agency for Research on Cancer is so far off base and should not have made these claims. What research were they looking at, why did they come to this conclusion, where did they go wrong, and why?

Monsanto says they're cherry picking data and they had an agenda driven bias. Read that sentence again. Why do those claims make me laugh Sal?

In the past we'd be having this same discussion about lead, tobacco, margarine, etc. As a consumer that cares about my health and my family's health, I know better that it takes time to get the junk out of the system. Just add this to the pile.

This is interesting. Are you saying that you agree with the WHO now? Because here's what they say about GMOs.

Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for conventional foods. Hence there currently exists a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.
...GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

Sal's point is that a team of people sat in a room for a few days and cherry picked a handful of studies (19 if I remember correctly), ignoring decades of other research (both industry and independently funded) that demonstrates the safety of glyphosate and then made this dubious decision.
In contrast, a German team (read NOT INDUSTRY FUNDED) just completed an much more extensive review that supports previous evaluations of glyphosate:

The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment ( BfR) has already completed the draft re-assessment report on health risk assessment. For this purpose, more than 150 new toxicological studies were evaluated for the first time and are described in detail in the draft report by BfR. In addition, all available toxicological studies (nearly 300) were re-assessed from the point of view of compliance with actual quality standards in study conduction and confirmation of interpreted results. Furthermore, about 900 publications from scientific journals have been considered in the draft report and more than 200 publications were reviewed in detail. In conclusion of this re-evaluation process of the active substance glyphosate by BfR the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals.
http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/the_bfr_has_finalised_its_draft_report_for_the_re_evaluation_of_glyphosate-188632.html

For some perspective, glyphosate is in the same IARC category as caffeine, frying at high temperature, and working the graveyard shift. I assume Godfathers Pizza is in the same category, too.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by HIWB:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

I was reporting a statement from the WHO, and backed it up with a link. In fact, many, many different news outlets are repoting the exact same thing. I don't need to cite a study for the claim I made.

You say "It has already been debunked by the scientific community". What scientific community? All of the scientific community? What an absurd overstatement. This is a new statement, from part of the "scientific community".

You said "It wasn't even based on any real research" You keep throwing out the fact that I'm too stupid to cite credible sources, right? So let's see if you yourself can back this up. Maybe you should explain to us exactly why the the well respected International Agency for Research on Cancer is so far off base and should not have made these claims. What research were they looking at, why did they come to this conclusion, where did they go wrong, and why?

Monsanto says they're cherry picking data and they had an agenda driven bias. Read that sentence again. Why do those claims make me laugh Sal?

In the past we'd be having this same discussion about lead, tobacco, margarine, etc. As a consumer that cares about my health and my family's health, I know better that it takes time to get the junk out of the system. Just add this to the pile.

This is interesting. Are you saying that you agree with the WHO now? Because here's what they say about GMOs.

Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for conventional foods. Hence there currently exists a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.
...GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

Sal's point is that a team of people sat in a room for a few days and cherry picked a handful of studies (19 if I remember correctly), ignoring decades of other research (both industry and independently funded) that demonstrates the safety of glyphosate and then made this dubious decision.
In contrast, a German team (read NOT INDUSTRY FUNDED) just completed an much more extensive review that supports previous evaluations of glyphosate:

The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment ( BfR) has already completed the draft re-assessment report on health risk assessment. For this purpose, more than 150 new toxicological studies were evaluated for the first time and are described in detail in the draft report by BfR. In addition, all available toxicological studies (nearly 300) were re-assessed from the point of view of compliance with actual quality standards in study conduction and confirmation of interpreted results. Furthermore, about 900 publications from scientific journals have been considered in the draft report and more than 200 publications were reviewed in detail. In conclusion of this re-evaluation process of the active substance glyphosate by BfR the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals.
http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/the_bfr_has_finalised_its_draft_report_for_the_re_evaluation_of_glyphosate-188632.html

For some perspective, glyphosate is in the same IARC category as caffeine, frying at high temperature, and working the graveyard shift. I assume Godfathers Pizza is in the same category, too.

Should I pick some group like the WHO and just agree with everything they say? That's what you're implying with your first sentence, which is absurd.

It's as simple as this. Not everyone in the scientific community is in agreement. In fact a big enough portion of the scientific community suspects significant problems. Cancer and other chronic diseases suck. I don't want that for me or my family. Science has been wrong before, many times. That's enough for me to stay away from this stuff until the dust settles. That's the reality with this stuff whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Just for fun:

http://www.healthnutnews.com/monsanto-lobbyistdoctor-says-glyphosate-safe-to-drink-in-interview-what-happens-next-is-priceless/

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by SalAunese:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/297050421.html

WHO now says glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. Of course Monsanto is in full disagreement and Bill Nye after paying them a visit wants to tell the world he's in love.

That study has already been debunked by the scientific community. It wasn't even based on any real research. You may have to consider the origin of this French group to get an idea of how the study was conducted, but you don't seem to understand how to vet sources.

Monsanto's "Discredit Bureau" is on the case. LOL

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/27/1373484/-Monsanto-s-Discredit-Bureau-Swings-into-Action#

I seriously feel bad for people who still think there's no way this stuff is harmful.

It seriously has to be just the people with a vested interest ensuring the safety of this stuff at this point.

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Should I pick some group like the WHO and just agree with everything they say? That's what you're implying with your first sentence, which is absurd.

It's as simple as this. Not everyone in the scientific community is in agreement. In fact a big enough portion of the scientific community suspects significant problems. Cancer and other chronic diseases suck. I don't want that for me or my family. Science has been wrong before, many times. That's enough for me to stay away from this stuff until the dust settles. That's the reality with this stuff whether you want to admit it or not.

The WHO isn't just "some group". They're the directing authority for heath in the United Nations. It isn't absurd to believe what they say. Though it is refreshing that you've finally admitted you believe only what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence or the source. That's fine and a perfectly reasonable explanation why every rebuttal to you is a waste of time on this subject. I've learned my lesson.
The IARC arm of the WHO is telling you Roundup is a class 2A probable carcinogen - a topic you introduced to this resurrected convo, btw. The WHO is also telling you the dust on GMOs is settled (along with every reputable scientific organization on the planet). That's the reality with this stuff whether you want to admit it or not.
Science isn't right or wrong. Science is just science whether it's hair spray, cyanide, the Earth being round, GMOs, vaccines, or cigarettes (which scientists, real ones, said were unsafe back in the 60s). "Science" performed with dubious intent, that can't be repeated, or that uses poor methods isn't science. Your description of science, even if unintentional, is exactly why you fail to understand so much of this.

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Just for fun:

http://www.healthnutnews.com/monsanto-lobbyistdoctor-says-glyphosate-safe-to-drink-in-interview-what-happens-next-is-priceless/[/QUOTE]This video is awesome, but not for the reasons you think it is. It highlights a real problem with anti-science zealots that don't understand science at all and love to run around with their hair on fire. The dude was there to talk about Golden Rice, something that in this very thread has been mentioned to be one of the many benefits of GMOs, and the interviewer was used the opportunity to trap him.

1) this guy isn't a Monsanto lobbyist. Monsanto put out a press release about him. He's actually a former member of Greenpeace and an ecology pHd, although a pretty quirky one and he absolutely chose his words very poorly. It's a fun meme for the antis that aren't really concerned with telling the whole truth, though.
2) Would you drink something that a stranger offered with blatant negative intent? Would you let your kids drink it?
3) Would you drink a glass of shampoo or dishwasher detergent if someone asked you? How about a tube of toothpaste, or maybe a few gallons of water? How about a glass of clove oil approved as an organic pesticide? How about pizza 5 nights a week? Do you consider any of these things harmful?
4) Bellyaches and heartburn aside, do you have any idea why "a doctor" drinking a known pesticide regardless of how harmful it is on video is a bad thing?

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:
I seriously feel bad for people who still think there's no way this stuff is harmful.

It seriously has to be just the people with a vested interest ensuring the safety of this stuff at this point.
[/QUOTE]No one is saying "there's no way this stuff is harmful". We review evidence, and the dose makes the poison.
I feel bad for people who reject science based on ideology and don't recognize significant benefits to humanity. Speaking of Golden Rice and your "lobbyist"...Vitamin A deficiency is estimated to kill more than 600,000 children under the age of 5 every year. Golden rice 2 was announced in 2005 (btw, Monsanto gave FREE license for countries to use their technology to develop it starting in 2000). It's been tested, proven safe, and even blessed by Pope Francis. But It's grossly under distributed and planted because anti-science zealots can't bring themselves to admit that GMOs can be a good thing. People are burning fields of it because anti-science zealots love to spread misinformation, fear, and silly memes that say GMOs are bad, without thinking for a second about the implications of the next person to read it.
You frequently mention your kids in this debate...600,000 times 10 years is a lot of kids in the ground. (it pains me to write that sentence, because it's ridiculous correlation based on a whole lot of assumption, but you seem to drool over Seneff's similar tactics, so maybe it will sink in. Unfortunately, I'm sure I'm still just wasting my time.)

Finally...here we have it...the last resort of the overmatched debater - the shill gambit. Thousands upon thousands of scientists, and dozens upon dozens of reputable scientific organizations support the science of GMOs, but apparently Monsanto has enough money to pay them all well enough to keep them on their side.
Trust the scientific method and experts in the field of biotechnology instead of flying yoga instructors or computer scientists that write book reports? You must be paid!
Seriously.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by HIWB:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Should I pick some group like the WHO and just agree with everything they say? That's what you're implying with your first sentence, which is absurd.

It's as simple as this. Not everyone in the scientific community is in agreement. In fact a big enough portion of the scientific community suspects significant problems. Cancer and other chronic diseases suck. I don't want that for me or my family. Science has been wrong before, many times. That's enough for me to stay away from this stuff until the dust settles. That's the reality with this stuff whether you want to admit it or not.

The WHO isn't just "some group". They're the directing authority for heath in the United Nations. It isn't absurd to believe what they say. Though it is refreshing that you've finally admitted you believe only what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence or the source. That's fine and a perfectly reasonable explanation why every rebuttal to you is a waste of time on this subject. I've learned my lesson.
The IARC arm of the WHO is telling you Roundup is a class 2A probable carcinogen - a topic you introduced to this resurrected convo, btw. The WHO is also telling you the dust on GMOs is settled (along with every reputable scientific organization on the planet). That's the reality with this stuff whether you want to admit it or not.
Science isn't right or wrong. Science is just science whether it's hair spray, cyanide, the Earth being round, GMOs, vaccines, or cigarettes (which scientists, real ones, said were unsafe back in the 60s). "Science" performed with dubious intent, that can't be repeated, or that uses poor methods isn't science. Your description of science, even if unintentional, is exactly why you fail to understand so much of this.

Since the WHO is now saying glyphosate is likely carcinogen, gmo or no gmo if any product is sprayed with glyphosate it is now seen by them as a danger.



Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Just for fun:

http://www.healthnutnews.com/monsanto-lobbyistdoctor-says-glyphosate-safe-to-drink-in-interview-what-happens-next-is-priceless/

This video is awesome, but not for the reasons you think it is. It highlights a real problem with anti-science zealots that don't understand science at all and love to run around with their hair on fire. The dude was there to talk about Golden Rice, something that in this very thread has been mentioned to be one of the many benefits of GMOs, and the interviewer was used the opportunity to trap him.

1) this guy isn't a Monsanto lobbyist. Monsanto put out a press release about him. He's actually a former member of Greenpeace and an ecology pHd, although a pretty quirky one and he absolutely chose his words very poorly. It's a fun meme for the antis that aren't really concerned with telling the whole truth, though.
2) Would you drink something that a stranger offered with blatant negative intent? Would you let your kids drink it?
3) Would you drink a glass of shampoo or dishwasher detergent if someone asked you? How about a tube of toothpaste, or maybe a few gallons of water? How about a glass of clove oil approved as an organic pesticide? How about pizza 5 nights a week? Do you consider any of these things harmful?
4) Bellyaches and heartburn aside, do you have any idea why "a doctor" drinking a known pesticide regardless of how harmful it is on video is a bad thing?




Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:
I seriously feel bad for people who still think there's no way this stuff is harmful.

It seriously has to be just the people with a vested interest ensuring the safety of this stuff at this point.


[/QUOTE]No one is saying "there's no way this stuff is harmful". We review evidence, and the dose makes the poison.
I feel bad for people who reject science based on ideology and don't recognize significant benefits to humanity. Speaking of Golden Rice and your "lobbyist"...Vitamin A deficiency is estimated to kill more than 600,000 children under the age of 5 every year. Golden rice 2 was announced in 2005 (btw, Monsanto gave FREE license for countries to use their technology to develop it starting in 2000). It's been tested, proven safe, and even blessed by Pope Francis. But It's grossly under distributed and planted because anti-science zealots can't bring themselves to admit that GMOs can be a good thing. People are burning fields of it because anti-science zealots love to spread misinformation, fear, and silly memes that say GMOs are bad, without thinking for a second about the implications of the next person to read it.
You frequently mention your kids in this debate...600,000 times 10 years is a lot of kids in the ground. (it pains me to write that sentence, because it's ridiculous correlation based on a whole lot of assumption, but you seem to drool over Seneff's similar tactics, so maybe it will sink in. Unfortunately, I'm sure I'm still just wasting my time.)

Finally...here we have it...the last resort of the overmatched debater - the shill gambit. Thousands upon thousands of scientists, and dozens upon dozens of reputable scientific organizations support the science of GMOs, but apparently Monsanto has enough money to pay them all well enough to keep them on their side.
Trust the scientific method and experts in the field of biotechnology instead of flying yoga instructors or computer scientists that write book reports? You must be paid!
Seriously.

Wait, when you have a legit concern, there is no shill. I have many legit concerns all spelled out for you in the video I provided. To my knowledge, none of those specifically have been addressed by you. Until those concerns are addressed, there's still a problem.

I have no financial interest in this at all. No, I don't work for Mercola, if I did I would have probably put forth a much better argument. My interest is purely health concern for me, my family, grandkids, etc.

[/QUOTE]