2
18

[–] COUSCOUS [S] 2 points 18 points (+20|-2) ago 

Now we wait for the pro GMO crowd to arrive. Beach chairs and popcorn guys. ;P

0
7

[–] destinthegreat 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I like how many of pro-GMO supporters often skip over GMO's effect on plants found in nature. Seeds from GMO plants will eventually reach non-GMO plants and if they have an pesticide in them that could mean deaths of vulnerable species of insects

1
4

[–] COUSCOUS [S] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Exactly correct. This I do believe is already happening purely because that is what evolution does. Some of the weeds are becoming resistant to herbicides which entails increased usage and contamination of crops. The idea of GMO cross fertilization is also a clear and present danger, with huge potential consequences.

I personally love how pro GMO lackey's try and say that labeling is irrelevant / expensive / uninformative / unfair etc ad nauseam.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
8

[–] COUSCOUS [S] 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

I completely agree. All foods should be labeled. It doesn't cost any more, and if people want GMO foods, then they should be allowed to consume them. I like yourself, do not want GMO foods and would like all products labeled. Solves the problem.

0
5

[–] toobaditworks 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

The plus side to this is that non-gmo foods are proud of labeling their foods non-gmo so in the end it works out the same.

0
2

[–] dkyuss 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

^THIS^ If all non GMO companies simply labeled their products as GMO free, then the end result is the same. Only buy GMO free labeled food!

5
6

[–] compbioguy 5 points 6 points (+11|-5) ago  (edited ago)

OK, I'll bite. 1, 2 and 10 aren't proof of anything including harm or can harm (italicized). They forgot '11. GMOs found in the stomachs of those who eat them.' 5, 6 and 7 focus on glyphosate (roundup) and presumably roundup ready crops (italics). Remember these crops don't contain glyphosate, they are simply immune to them, so glyphosate should be compared to other pesticides and herbicides that are similarly sprayed on crops, for human harm/benefit, etc. Anyway, point 6 is bullshit and is cited as such, referring to another scare story on frog development inhibition. Unclear what paper they are referring to, maybe this one (http://nfuontario.ca/upload/files/userfiles/12542-lab-study-establishes-glyphosate-link-to-birth-defects.pdf) in the journal ISIS (heh)? Another, more scientifically rigorous study showed no affect on organ morphogenesis in xenopus (frog), while other pesticides did (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1001074209602540, came out same time). 5 is a single study in Thailand and aims to show that glyphosate is an estrogen mimetic, looking at google scholar citations of that article (it only has 45) shows that this is the poster child for this community but has no replication and few if any other studies in cancer. For 7, the paper cited is interesting and discusses suppression of Cytochrome P450 response, but has little to do with neurodegenerative diseases. P450's are associated with everything. There is a hypothesis that obviously comes out of this and that is that Glyphosate would change the PK drug response profile in any organism that takes them. Has anyone tested this, it's a simple experiment? (I'm guessing no or yes and no effect) 8 is bunk because these writers can't tell the difference between cause and effect. I study chronically sick humans and most everything we look at is out of whack. 9 is another interesting study, but it links a mixture of different GMOs to the pigs, not a single GMO. Not at all clear what the cause is, whether it is GMO or something else, and no replication in other animals (pigs or otherwise) is cited. Measuring global phenotypes and associating with them is filled with bad associations, replication is required by a different study, we learned that in humans a long time ago.

Overall this a poorly written scare piece with little to no scientific merit or basis. In my opinion only two papers cited here are mildly interesting (the cyp p450 suppression - although there is no link to any human disease and pig effects to eating mixtures of different GMOs).

1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood 2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them 3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans 4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors 5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors 6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects 7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s 8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans 9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs 10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.

edit: I ignored the gluten one because all of my hippie relatives are gluten free and if anything GMOs are anticorrelated with gluten disorders because they don't eat them either.

4
6

[–] COUSCOUS [S] 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago  (edited ago)

OK, I'll bite. 1, 2 and 10 aren't proof of anything including harm or can harm

Point 1/ Article:

The study used blood samples from thirty pregnant women and thirty non-pregnant women. The study also pointed out that the fetus is considered to be highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substance found within an organism that is not naturally produced.) This is why the study emphasizes that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.

This is not bad?

From the reference study,

  1. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to highlight the presence of pesticides-associated genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and nonpregnant women’s blood. 3-MPPA and Cry1Ab toxin are clearly detectable and appear to cross the placenta to the fetus.

So GMO is ok for fetus's?

Point 2/ Article

In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.(2)

From reference Study:

The analysis of all the publicly available circulating cell-free DNA sequencing data of over 1000 human subjects confirms our hypothesis that the presence of foreign DNA in human plasma is not unusual.

Point 10/ Article:

Deficiencies have been revealed numerous times with regards to testing GM foods.

From reference:

"...we have described the U.S. regulatory system for GE foods, and with specific examples, pointed out serious deficiencies in both regulatory oversight and corporate testing procedures."

So what do you fail to understand here?

you say,

They forgot '11

wut?

5, 6 and 7 focus on glyphosate (roundup) and presumably roundup ready crops (italics).

yes?

Remember these crops don't contain glyphosate, they are simply immune to them,

wrong. They do contain Glysophates. That is why they have been made immune to them......

Anyway, point 6 is bullshit

Your uneducated opinion is noted.

5 is a single study in Thailand and aims to show that glyphosate is an estrogen mimetic, looking at google scholar citations of that article (it only has 45)

So we should ignore Thai studies and how many citations are needed?

For 7, the paper cited is interesting....... (I'm guessing no or yes and no effect)

No guessing allowed.

8 is bunk because these writers can't tell the difference between cause and effect. I study chronically sick humans and most everything we look at is out of whack.

ANd you can tell the difference? What is wrong with this? (from reference study)

Furthermore, chronically ill humans showed significantly higher glyphosate residues in urine than healthy population.

Secondly, You cannot prove that you study chronically sick humans, so it is stupid to use it. I am a G.P., but I cannot use that. (maybe you should write to the authors of the study and challenge their findings. I would love to read the response.)

9 is another interesting study, but it links a mixture of different GMOs to the pigs, not a single GMO.

No, but it does list all types used and in quantities. These are what is normally fed to the animals.

Not at all clear what the cause is, whether it is GMO or something else,

Well, if you cannot follow a simple study with graphs, then you obviously do not study sick humans, and this would explain why you are wasting time here.

Overall this a poorly written scare piece with little to no scientific merit or basis. In my opinion only two papers cited here are mildly interesting

Yes, it is just your opinion. Limited as it is, you are allowed it.

there is no link to any human disease and pig effects to eating mixtures of different GMOs)

Well, yes there is, it was point 9 in the article. But full marks for trying to divert attention.

Hey, how about we just label everything? You can eat your roundup soaked GMO products, and I will eat my non manufactured GMO organic products. Or would this simple solution hurt your employment?

4
4

[–] compbioguy 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Look - there is no question that GMOs could theoretically harm people. Again, hypothetically, someone could engineer some plant to produce the botulism toxin protein -- probably bad for humans. There is a great story that could be written about the potential of GMOs to harm. Unfortunately, every single piece of data in this paper is written in such a biased way to be useless, and not one single line in your reply or the paper or those studies, including yours, shows any direct link of harm to humans. It was written by someone who is not very educated, and unfortunately you fell for it.

The appropriate solution for GMOs is not useless labels on product packaging because it has no value, it would be ignored because it would be everywhere. The appropriate solution, in my professional opinion (I'm not a agro scientist, however) is that GMOs should be registered and made available for testing much like NDAs are in the pharmaceutical industry. Then harmful GMOs can be identified.

0
5

[–] BloodPool 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

So...you're saying I'm part man, part mutant-hybrid plant? This is interesting.

1
5

[–] COUSCOUS [S] 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Sure, why not. Enjoy your new super powers.

0
7

[–] errihu 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Cancer and obesity are such shitty superpowers. So many people already have them. I want something original like making bugs that bite me die horribly so that they regret their decision.

0
3

[–] toobaditworks 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You are what you eat. Moo. Oink.