Chipotle Becomes the First to label GMO's

[ClosedCaption]

I've already explained it. If you chose not to read or are incapable of understanding what I've written, I can't help you. Some of us received education connected to the relevant science beyond watching Star Trek reruns.

Your explantions aren't proof skippy. Want to start providing proof now or should I just take your word for it?

 

[krych3k]

So the truth doesn't exist unless an editor at Slate.com agrees states it in a published article? It's not complicated, GMO techniques alter the DNA of organisms. Our digestive systems don't care about the sequencing of the four amino acids. There is no direct impact on human health. Your ignorance of the relevant science is on display for all to see.

Keep up the flat-earth anti-science leftist fear-mongering, your message will resonate with unshowered, tattooed, pierced-face communists who want to be protected from imaginary phantoms via the leviathan. Maybe they can join you at a protest in front of Whole Foods.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Just like I thought. Still no proof but plenty of deflection

Thx

 

[krych3k]

I guess if a tree falls in the woods and ClosedCaption doesn't hear it, it doesn't make a sound.

 

[Wake]

The more informed the populace is, the better. GMO's are a worthy topic to discuss; people would benefit from learning more about them.

 

[krych3k]

The more informed the populace is, the better. GMO's are a worthy topic to discuss; people would benefit from learning more about them.

I agree. But it's very important for the discussion to be fact-based and honest, and not managed by flat-earth anti-science Al Gore calibre leftists.

 

[Wake]

The more informed the populace is, the better. GMO's are a worthy topic to discuss; people would benefit from learning more about them.

I agree. But it's very important for the discussion to be fact-based and honest, and not managed by flat-earth anti-science Al Gore calibre leftists.

How do you mean? Unrefutable facts and honesty are important, but it is not just one side that ought not manage the conversation. It is the other extreme, as well.

Balance. How does one find it? Clinical case studies with their respective citations help. Sources such as Men's Health magazine and educational books on nutrition help. I am biased, though. I believe organic food is healthier food. Did you know that the common chicken breasts we eat are "plumped"? As in being injected with sodium? Those chickens are also fed antibiotics and other additives for a more meaty, profitable product. Many of the fruits and vegetables we eat are also tampered with in some ways or another.

It may be dangerous. They may affect our very physical makeup, from within.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The more informed the populace is, the better. GMO's are a worthy topic to discuss; people would benefit from learning more about them.

I agree. But it's very important for the discussion to be fact-based and honest, and not managed by flat-earth anti-science Al Gore calibre leftists.

How do you mean? Unrefutable facts and honesty are important, but it is not just one side that ought not manage the conversation. It is the other extreme, as well.

Balance. How does one find it? Clinical case studies with their respective citations help. Sources such as Men's Health magazine and educational books on nutrition help. I am biased, though. I believe organic food is healthier food. Did you know that the common chicken breasts we eat are "plumped"? As in being injected with sodium? Those chickens are also fed antibiotics and other additives for a more meaty, profitable product. Many of the fruits and vegetables we eat are also tampered with in some ways or another.

It may be dangerous. They may affect our very physical makeup, from within.

That's what I'm telling Kyrch but he believes the only proof he needs is his ability to form sentences. He has not and is almost fighting against proving what he says

It's like talking to a broken record

 

[Wake]

I agree. But it's very important for the discussion to be fact-based and honest, and not managed by flat-earth anti-science Al Gore calibre leftists.

How do you mean? Unrefutable facts and honesty are important, but it is not just one side that ought not manage the conversation. It is the other extreme, as well.

Balance. How does one find it? Clinical case studies with their respective citations help. Sources such as Men's Health magazine and educational books on nutrition help. I am biased, though. I believe organic food is healthier food. Did you know that the common chicken breasts we eat are "plumped"? As in being injected with sodium? Those chickens are also fed antibiotics and other additives for a more meaty, profitable product. Many of the fruits and vegetables we eat are also tampered with in some ways or another.

It may be dangerous. They may affect our very physical makeup, from within.

That's what I'm telling Kyrch but he believes the only proof he needs is his ability to form sentences. He has not and is almost fighting against proving what he says

It's like talking to a broken record

CC, all of us should strive to discuss this issue calmly and peacefully. As they say, cooler heads prevail.

If you have evidence that you believe is unrefutable, please provide it for all to see. This applies to everyone. Evidence is diffcult to take seriously when it can be perceived to be able to be refuted, or when it seems like it is tainted with some political bias.

What we all want to know is whether or not genetically modified organisms are safe. In order to have a meaningful discussion we ought to treat each other as brothers, and try to keep an open mind (not too open) and work together to uncover the truth. There do exist people who, one way or another, are convinced that their belief is right. It is difficult for them to fairly consider new evidence which could lead to changing minds.

My bias is that organic food is better food, because humans for thousands of years have survived on what nature has provided. When we start tampering with it, creating things that would otherwise not exist... there manifests a fertile ground where terrible mistakes and atrocities could take root. Natural cultivation is alright, but creating bio-abberations through science in the name of fighting hunger opens the door where nex complications could arise.

 

[konradv]

The more informed the populace is, the better. GMO's are a worthy topic to discuss; people would benefit from learning more about them.

I agree. But it's very important for the discussion to be fact-based and honest, and not managed by flat-earth anti-science Al Gore calibre leftists.

Bringing up Al gore is a sign of the truly desperate. Those that know science, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore. That's usually the case in the AGW debate, but I guess Al's a convenient right wing whipping boy whenever they don't have something intelligent to say.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Circumstantial ok?

Are GMOs safe?
In 30 other countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GMOs, because they are not considered proven safe. In the U.S. on the other hand, the FDA approved commercial production of GMOs based on studies conducted by the companies who created them and profit from their sale. Many health-conscious shoppers find the lack of rigorous, independent, scientific examination on the impact of consuming GM foods to be cause for concern.

 

[krych3k]

The more informed the populace is, the better. GMO's are a worthy topic to discuss; people would benefit from learning more about them.

I agree. But it's very important for the discussion to be fact-based and honest, and not managed by flat-earth anti-science Al Gore calibre leftists.

How do you mean? Unrefutable facts and honesty are important, but it is not just one side that ought not manage the conversation. It is the other extreme, as well.

Balance. How does one find it? Clinical case studies with their respective citations help. Sources such as Men's Health magazine and educational books on nutrition help. I am biased, though. I believe organic food is healthier food. Did you know that the common chicken breasts we eat are "plumped"? As in being injected with sodium? Those chickens are also fed antibiotics and other additives for a more meaty, profitable product. Many of the fruits and vegetables we eat are also tampered with in some ways or another.

It may be dangerous. They may affect our very physical makeup, from within.

Do you need a clinical case study to know that over consumption of calories or underutilisation of those calories leads to weight gain via fat storage? No. When you understand the metabolic process and how GMO techniques simply realign the amino acids in the DNA of foods we eat, you realise that the anti-science flat-earth anti-GMO left has no case in its crusade against GMO foods. Our bodies break down the DNA of foods we eat into the individual amino acids and either reassembles them to build proteins or excretes them if they're not needed.

Beyond factual information in the conversation, you also need an audience that comprehends the relevant science about GMO. In this thread, nobody except myself does. That puts you and everyone at a disadvantage in participating in this conversation. It's almost as if we're not speaking the same language.

Lastly, the addition of sodium isn't relevant to a conversation about GMO processes, and illustrates your lack of comprehension with respect to the relevant subject matter.

 

[krych3k]

Circumstantial ok?

Are GMOs safe?
In 30 other countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GMOs, because they are not considered proven safe. In the U.S. on the other hand, the FDA approved commercial production of GMOs based on studies conducted by the companies who created them and profit from their sale. Many health-conscious shoppers find the lack of rigorous, independent, scientific examination on the impact of consuming GM foods to be cause for concern.

All that does (and it isn't news to me) is prove that the flat-earth anti-science left has been very effective in its absurd campaign against GMO foods. Like I said, the earliest days of agriculture (read Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel") in the Middle East about ten thousand years ago involved the earliest forms of GMO techniques.

 

[krych3k]

It's rich listening to a bunch of people who couldn't pass a grade nine biology or chemistry exam pontificate about "clinical research" or "peer-reviewed scientific articles".

 

[konradv]

I agree. But it's very important for the discussion to be fact-based and honest, and not managed by flat-earth anti-science Al Gore calibre leftists.

How do you mean? Unrefutable facts and honesty are important, but it is not just one side that ought not manage the conversation. It is the other extreme, as well.

Balance. How does one find it? Clinical case studies with their respective citations help. Sources such as Men's Health magazine and educational books on nutrition help. I am biased, though. I believe organic food is healthier food. Did you know that the common chicken breasts we eat are "plumped"? As in being injected with sodium? Those chickens are also fed antibiotics and other additives for a more meaty, profitable product. Many of the fruits and vegetables we eat are also tampered with in some ways or another.

It may be dangerous. They may affect our very physical makeup, from within.

Do you need a clinical case study to know that over consumption of calories or underutilisation of those calories leads to weight gain via fat storage? No. When you understand the metabolic process and how GMO techniques simply realign the amino acids in the DNA of foods we eat, you realise that the anti-science flat-earth anti-GMO left has no case in its crusade against GMO foods. Our bodies break down the DNA of foods we eat into the individual amino acids and either reassembles them to build proteins or excretes them if they're not needed.

Beyond factual information in the conversation, you also need an audience that comprehends the relevant science about GMO. In this thread, nobody except myself does. That puts you and everyone at a disadvantage in participating in this conversation. It's almost as if we're not speaking the same language.

Lastly, the addition of sodium isn't relevant to a conversation about GMO processes, and illustrates your lack of comprehension with respect to the relevant subject matter.

LOL!!! You've just proven that you don't have clue with regard to this subject. DNA doesn't have amino acids!!!

 

[krych3k]

My bias is that organic food is better food, because humans for thousands of years have survived on what nature has provided. When we start tampering with it, creating things that would otherwise not exist... there manifests a fertile ground where terrible mistakes and atrocities could take root. Natural cultivation is alright, but creating bio-abberations through science in the name of fighting hunger opens the door where nex complications could arise.

No. humanity manipulated what nature provided over ten thousand of years ago via agriculture and the domestication of animals.

 

[konradv]

My bias is that organic food is better food, because humans for thousands of years have survived on what nature has provided. When we start tampering with it, creating things that would otherwise not exist... there manifests a fertile ground where terrible mistakes and atrocities could take root. Natural cultivation is alright, but creating bio-abberations through science in the name of fighting hunger opens the door where nex complications could arise.

No. humanity manipulated what nature provided over ten thousand of years ago via agriculture and the domestication of animals.

It's not the same thing. That was all natural. GMO isn't and we may not know for generations what the real effects are.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Potential harms to human health have been identified by the World Health Organization as including direct health effects (toxicity), tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), specific components with toxic properties, the stability of the inserted gene, nutritional impact and any unintended effects that could result from genetic modification.

Harm to the environment has already been documented with the development of "superweeds" that are resistant to the herbicides embedded in the GM crops. Several incidents involving contamination of non-GM crops have also occurred, which were further exacerbated by the fact that these GM seeds are not labeled or segregated in the food supply chain.

Until Proven Otherwise, GMOs Aren't Safe | Debate Club | US News Opinion

 

[krych3k]

LOL!!! You've just proven that you don't have clue with regard to this subject. DNA doesn't have amino acids!!!

My mistake, I meant to type nucleobase. My mind slipped.

 

[krych3k]

My bias is that organic food is better food, because humans for thousands of years have survived on what nature has provided. When we start tampering with it, creating things that would otherwise not exist... there manifests a fertile ground where terrible mistakes and atrocities could take root. Natural cultivation is alright, but creating bio-abberations through science in the name of fighting hunger opens the door where nex complications could arise.

No. humanity manipulated what nature provided over ten thousand of years ago via agriculture and the domestication of animals.

It's not the same thing. That was all natural. GMO isn't and we may not know for generations what the real effects are.

It was not "natural", it involved direct interference via humanity. We interfered with natural selection. Now we simply do it much more precisely. You must be another flat-earth anti-science leftist who believes in AGW.