iceaura,
I'm looking at what you posted and will reply ASAP. I've gotten more and more interested in the open articles reporting on studies etc so I'm kind of like a kid in a candy store right now. I never bothered to read this stuff before because my own training informs me that the anti-GM claims are largely frivolous. So stand by, I'll be back shortly.
Let me take a stab at it: There is a big difference between GM foodstuffs and those derived from traditionally bred crops
This is false.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=42
Google it!
That's a fabricated claim.
In assessing the public health aspects of genetically engineered foods, it is the proteins that are expressed that are of interest. Three possible modes of adverse health effects have been hypothesized: toxicity, impaired nutrition, and food allergy. Modifications of expression of proteins in foods occur with all kinds of plant breeding, and those theoretical concerns are not unique to genetically engineered foods.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241560/pdf/ehp0111-001114.pdf
So that leaves open the possibility that GM corn is "toxic": Here at least this is not a bald claim. It comes from a news story which alleged
but then the next clause of that sentence was
http://www.newscientist.com/article...d-maize-toxicity-claims-roundly-rebuffed.html
Therefore you have been the victim of the oldest trick in the liar's book, which is to deliberately alter statements found through quote mining -- clipping off words in order to alter the meaning.
And here is some more of the backstory about the "rebuffing" part of that claim:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
So it turns out to be a bald claim after all, only masquerading as a fabrication built on a deliberate omission of the fact that the report was discredited in the first place.
Before I can respond to this I need to know the following:
(1) what proposed text goes on the label?
(2) is it to be voluntary, or required under law like tobacco?
(3) what is the goal of the labeling (what need does it fulfill)
That's too general. You seem to intend to attack specific companies, but you have not said which ones and why. And what does this have to do with GM crops?
With what? Explain. I can't answer vague generalizations.
False, as seen from the above cite:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
I'm looking at what you posted and will reply ASAP. I've gotten more and more interested in the open articles reporting on studies etc so I'm kind of like a kid in a candy store right now. I never bothered to read this stuff before because my own training informs me that the anti-GM claims are largely frivolous. So stand by, I'll be back shortly.
All of the ones I can understand are false claims. The rest need clarification. What I was telling you is that if you try to read some of the literature, instead of lies and propaganda being spread by pseudoscience sites, then you will understand that none of their claims are "as they seem". OK, here I will respond to them item by item:locust said:Which of 9 points from OP its not as it seems?!
That is incorrectly cast. There is a big difference between raising potatoes and raising wheat. There is a big difference between stud breeding and artificial insemination. Fix the question, and we can resolve your concern.1. There is a big difference between genetic engineering and traditional breeding techniques.
Let me take a stab at it: There is a big difference between GM foodstuffs and those derived from traditionally bred crops
This is false.
The GE varieties currently approved and on the market are of the same composition as other foods. Corn oil, for example, is chemically identical regardless of the breeding method used to develop the corn variety.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=42
2. GMO doesnt increase yields.
Google it!
Genetic engineering can be used to increase crop yield and reduce crop loss by making plants tolerant to pests, weeds, herbicides, viruses, insects, salinity, pH, temperature, frost, drought, and weather.
http://cib.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/estudos_alimentares06.pdfyields grew by 24% per acre between 2002 and 2008, owing to reduced losses from pest attacks. Farmers’ profits rose by an average of 50% over the same period, owing mainly to yield gains
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-hard-look-at-3-myths-about-genetically-modified-crops/That's disproven in the above cites.3. GMO doesnt reduce use of pesticides.
I don't know what this means. The farmers in the above cited example increased their profits, so this is at least moot if it turns out to be true, once you explain what you mean.4. Money-farmers needs to invest more money and depends on Corporations.
5. GMO reduce fertility, birth defects, it effects immune system and cause cancer. Also GMO corn was found to be toxic.
That's a fabricated claim.
In assessing the public health aspects of genetically engineered foods, it is the proteins that are expressed that are of interest. Three possible modes of adverse health effects have been hypothesized: toxicity, impaired nutrition, and food allergy. Modifications of expression of proteins in foods occur with all kinds of plant breeding, and those theoretical concerns are not unique to genetically engineered foods.
So that leaves open the possibility that GM corn is "toxic": Here at least this is not a bald claim. It comes from a news story which alleged
An external analysis of the data claims it shows that eating the maize could result in damage to the liver and kidneys
but then the next clause of that sentence was
but this has been dismissed as unsupportable by a government agency and independent toxicologists.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...d-maize-toxicity-claims-roundly-rebuffed.html
Therefore you have been the victim of the oldest trick in the liar's book, which is to deliberately alter statements found through quote mining -- clipping off words in order to alter the meaning.
And here is some more of the backstory about the "rebuffing" part of that claim:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
So it turns out to be a bald claim after all, only masquerading as a fabrication built on a deliberate omission of the fact that the report was discredited in the first place.
6. There is no reason why shouldnt we label GMO food.
Before I can respond to this I need to know the following:
(1) what proposed text goes on the label?
(2) is it to be voluntary, or required under law like tobacco?
(3) what is the goal of the labeling (what need does it fulfill)
7. There is huge conflict of interests in agriculture industry.
That's too general. You seem to intend to attack specific companies, but you have not said which ones and why. And what does this have to do with GM crops?
8. GMO contaminate environment
With what? Explain. I can't answer vague generalizations.
9. There is no scientific consensus on GMO safety.
False, as seen from the above cite:
Bowing to scientists' near-universal scorn, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology today fulfilled its threat to retract a controversial paper claiming that a genetically modified (GM) maize causes serious disease in rats . . .
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/