Do you avoid GMO-free food to avoid supporting anti-science?

Do you avoid GMO-free food to avoid supporting anti-science?

Other urls found in this thread:

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064879
jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/6/290.full
geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/680.full
annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685
jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/185/Supplement_1/S25
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No I just eat whatever as long as it's not clearly bad for me. I'm not gonna miss out on tasty food just because it's GMO-free.

I've heard GMOs can cause long term health problems, especially inflammation. They say that because you're altering the nucleus of the cell, your body doesn't recognize it.
Is there a shred of evidence for this claim?
I've heard about some pig experiment where showed pigs who eat GMO foods correlated to an increase inflammation.

Pls Veeky Forums, is this just a meme?

>They say that because you're altering the nucleus of the cell, your body doesn't recognize it.
Christ I hear a lot of anti-GMO bullshit, but that takes the cake. Personally I think GMO food should be labeled because I believe in the consumer's right to make informed decisions, but I would purposely buy GMOs over non-GMOs.

All those buzzwords. I have no doubt it sounds convincing to certain demographics, but I would expect anyone on this board to conduct their own research (read some papers) rather than listening to Facebook-tier bullshit.

It's very well documented that they cause ulcers, inflammations and lots of other long term health risks.

But I've never for once seen a shred of evidence for GMO safety anywhere.

The type of GMO plays a huge role.

Round Up (glyphosate) ready GMO crops are basically crops that have been modified so that they don't require the use of the shikimate pathway (Wikipedia it). Glyphosate inhibits this pathway so when it is sprayed on crops, the crops live but the weeds die (as they are not Round Up ready).

Monsanto assures us that glyphosate is not harmful to humans because human cells don't use the shikimate pathway. The problem, however, is that there are many organisms in your body that do use this pathway: largely, many of the microorganisms in your gut. Gut microorganisms outnumber your human cells. The glyphostate can hurt these cells.

TL;DR: Round Up fucks up your gut microrganisms which are essential to proper health.

As a consumer, you should have the right to know how your food was prepared. This is especially true for anyone with stomach ailments. As discussed above, Round Up ready crops can hurt your gut microbiome. GMO labeling is a matter of public health.

I used to live right by that Goodwill. Fun times.

I agree. Stay away from ingesting roundup ever. I think most GMOs are misunderstood because they are assocaited with the effects of roundup, even though some GMOs still needs to be examined for long-term safety while others are okay to eat and we have been eating them for a long time now.

I've done research. I've only found studies that show correlations to inflammation, blood pressure etc.
Care to share

Is there really no evidence for GMO safety ?
Fuck me that explains why it's banned everywhere. Nobody needs a cancerous garbage like that in their homes.

One thing I've noticed is that GMO fruits and vegetables don't rot as easily as others, which I know is what their engineers intended.

Still, it's disconcerting to find that, for example, store-bought lemons have only started to break down in a worm-filled compost heap after many months when lemons grown on the tree can decompose completely in a week or two.

I like how your sentence has four negatives, yet is the best way to say it.

Fabrications. There is zero evidence for anything deleterious from GMOs. The couple scientific studies purporting to show negative effects were subsequently discredited.

>Still it's disconcerting that salted meat rots slower than non-salted meat.

A fake plastic flower will never die either.

Funny how that only applies to traits environmentalists are opposed to, and not mutagenesis or hybridization.

Cyanide also looks just like water...

But smells like almonds

So why don't you drink it and spare us your existence

Because I don't like cancerous deadly garbage, You're the one desperately trying to shill your mutated dogshit.

You also have a right to know who planted the crops

But cyanide is GMO-free

Oh, what a surprise, the environmentalist can't come up with evidence or reason for his views, so he resorts to calling everyone else shills.

But Cyanide and GMOs are hugely misunderstood. There is absolutely zero evidence for either of them being unhealthy at all. So don't listen to the government and researchers, just take a shot of cyanide ;)

Yep. We don't have any evidence for the safety of GMOs.

>we
Exactly. The rest of us that aren't living in a bubble do. Now take that cyanide pill.

How do I separate cyanide ions? I bet you're one of thoses fag in lab who go to the stockroom and ask for a bottle of H3O+

Yeah except for all of that scientific evidence.

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064879

This is where you claim it's all a big conspiracy, post something from Seneff or Seralini, or claim that the real issue isn't really safety but actually economics.

B-b-but it's just an estimate? How do you know it's true?

> don't post the research that show obvious dangerous effects of GMOs
AHAHAHAHAHAHA, you BTFO'd yourself already by simply rejecting the well established evidence that goes against your lies.

when will GMOtard shills ever gonna learn ?

>This is where you claim it's all a big conspiracy

Damn right there is a conspiracy. The governments don't want people to eat healthy GMO food so thats why they ban their imports and production. All the governments and researchers conspired against GMOs to stop reaching people because they are actually good for you.

Wake up people !!

>gets evidence proving claim
>ahahhahha there is evidence proving otherwise but I'm not going to post it

Uh oh, turns out that when environmentalists do studies they have obvious design flaws (since the point of the study is to reach the conclusion they've already decided on):

jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/6/290.full

Better call me a shill some more, so that the environmentalists on Veeky Forums will rally behind you.

>they ended up with results that goes against my mutated garbage
>better call them biased
just pathetic...

>environmentalists
You're being way too generous. He's just a poltard. Being 12 years old they can't help but fight the """establishment""".

I unironically do this. I try not to buy non-GMO foods.

Organic has no benefits and is less efficient.

All the studies show that glyphosate in the doses that we eat have no measureable effect.

Stop fear mongering. Glyphosate is fine.

lmao the GMOtards still try selling their garbage on Veeky Forums ? How many times are they gonna get BTFOd already ?

>study uses too few rats per test group to get a statistically significant result
>therefore everyone except morons reject that study

Also you are aware that transgenics and mutagenesis are different things, right? I know that since you're an environmentalist you aren't very knowledgeable about science, but this kind of distinction should be easy even for you.

lmao the RoundEarthtards still try selling their garbage on Veeky Forums ? How many times are they gonna get BTFOd already ?

It is though. Don't listen to the people telling you otherwise, Roundup is just as safe as Cyanide.

If there is no evidence for GMO being "unsafe", that is evidence for it being "safe"

Actually it's safer than table salt, except for the ~~~mystery microbiome effect~~~ that is apparently invisible to science, and can only be perceived as received wisdom during a Bernie Sanders rally.

This. The evidence showing the dangerous long-term effects are just a part of the conspiracy. The government just doesn't want you to get GMOs because they are actually safe. They want to give you the dangerous natural food instead. Don't buy into the government conspiracy.

I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

(You)

Don't bother with him. He's just trying to manipulate people into eating natural food. He's probably being paid by treehugging naturalists, environmentalists, farmers and Putin.

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

Nice copypasta m8

Nice ! That will stop these libtards from shilling their natural food. Beating the global anti-gmo conspiracy one step at a time brother !

Your body doesn't really need to recognize cell structures of the food you're eating. By the time the stuff you eat gets into your bloodstream your digestive system has broken the cells apart into separate molecules.

Why did you two not bother answering to his question at all?

Do these documents happen to include any rational reason for why is this the case? Human digestive system is pretty straightforward business and we'd be easily able to detect if there are some odd substances that require further inspection within the GMO food. Even then, if we find something, we should focus on the weird substance and consider whether we should try to create another GMO plant that doesn't produce it, not blame GMO industry as a whole.

Do you normally shitpost to avoid supporting good threads?

Just how detached from reality are you? Why is accusing your opponent of precisely what you're guilty of such a popular trope in your movement?

The consensus is a solid one geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/
(links to the meta-review and summary of papers at the end)

The organic food industry and those who sell non-GMO labeled foods have a financial incentive to lead consumers to believe their food is healthier, much as this is strongly contradicted by the evidence.
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/680.full
annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685
The conventional agriculture industry has a financial incentive to convince consumers that organic produce is less healthy or substantially similar, and transgenic seed companies have one to convince consumers that their crops carry no unique or heightened risks. They also have one to not create unsafe crops in the first place. The backlash, both legally and in consumer perception, would be immense should any GE crop actually, verifiably hurt anyone. Business doesn't like to carry around needless risk Accepted risk necessarily implies the change for greater payout.

ALL conflicts of interest must be kept in mind when curating the evidence. Independent studies, which the meta-review goes to lengths to include, are important.

>I believe in the consumer's right to make informed decisions
So do I. It's too bad a "GMO" label doesn't do anything whatsoever towards that end.

>Round Up fucks up your gut microrganisms
Despite the rather charged language, there is something to this jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/185/Supplement_1/S25
However, as says, there is no evidence of harmful effects at the levels we are exposed to, which aren't at all high through RR crops.

>posts cherrpypicked journals
I'm not even sure if I should read the rest of your desperate drivel.

...

>cherrpypicked journals
Literally what?
The 1750 papers in my meta-review are "cherry-picked"?

>lolololol i trol u
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

He's probably part of the conspiracy being paid by naturalists.

Speaking of which, does anyone know what it's called when you don't scrutinize frivolous claims as long as they confirm your preexisting biases? It's not confirmation bias, that's something else.

laziness

Meta-reviews aren't real science. Only my feelings are legitimate evidence for my position.

This post was sponsored by Monsanto and big pharma, btw. I'm legally obliged to disclose that.

neo-naturalist propaganda

It feels like a special case of the genetic fallacy desu

stop

You can't stop us ! We will bring down the naturalist regime and make sure every house have our mutated foods >:)

弊店ガラガラガラ

People, the big issue with GMO's isn't so much whatever it is healthy for you or not. Look at it from a broader systematic perspective.

We are already losing crop diversity and it seems that GMOs are accelerating this. Why is this bad? One disease can wipe everything out, just like the potato famine in Ireland. If I am wrong please point out.

The arms race with diseases, plague insects and so forth is really scary. Not to mention all that pesticide, insecticide etc. that is needed.

Chemicals exist in nature, sure, but it seems not in the concentration that is used.

Please do rebute my claims if wrong.

>trying to fearmonger so hard.
Stores literally throw away half the foods and vegatables they ship in because it passes their expiration and nobody buys them. There is no shortage of anything as you're lying about.
Farmers already have well established methods for getting rid of pesticide and anything else and they have been doing it for centuries without monsanto or any other shit. You really have no excuse to insert your dogshit in here by fearmongering with hilarious drivel like that. Also the huge roundup scandal is something you just can't ignore and people just don't wanna ingest this cancerous garbage, no matter how many times these desperate threads are spammed here.

You're just repeating standard talking points. If you were actually interested in finding counterarguments, you'd find them with ease.

One immediate improvement you can make (from a rhetorical standpoint), is your use of the word 'chemicals'. Sure, it's a powerful agent to the uninitiated, but we are initiated, aren't we user? We know that to say that chemicals exist in nature in some amount or other is exceptionally silly. As a general rule, avoid using words whose meaning you're not entirely sure about.

So if they throw away half of the food what do we need GMOs for? And I did not mean to fearmonger.

You sound kinda triggered.

I don't have a biochemcial background you cannot expect me to know everything. I just read that a lot of plants and shit have natural insectices and so forth.

>u sound triggered lelelele XDD
is this really the extent of GMOtards capacity for defending their mutated garbage ?

I didn't assume you're educated at all (I mean, obviously, right?). It was just a small helpful tip to make your arguments slightly more respectable. Just avoid the word chemicals.

Kek you are a wicked smart one. You found out all about my personal life story. I will avoid the word chemicals.

Why don't I ever see people feel the need for posting threads about how safe the natural food is but the GMOtards feel entitled to flood this board with their irrelevant shilling using constant denials, shitposts and ad-hominems ?

Why won't they just fuck off back to their home boards ?

>insert your dogshit in here
>this cancerous garbage
Are you going to provide actual arguments that it is "dogshit" or that this breeding method has anything to do with cancer?
>Stores literally throw away half the foods and vegatables they ship in because it passes their expiration and nobody buys them.
If so, they reduce what they bring in from distro, and the quantity purchased, you ass. I've managed in logistics before. Waste cuts into the bottom line. Always, whether you pay for a more generous chargeback arrangement or eat the loss directly. The margins are razor-thin as it is.
What, should we ship expired produce to the third world by refrigerated next-day air? Waste and production are overlapping problems, and a solution to world hunger is best found by preparing responses to both. You shouldn't deny yourself a useful tool.
>they have been doing it for centuries without monsanto or any other shit
We have existed for centuries without modern medicine
We have existed for centuries without AIDS drugs
We have existed for centuries without cancer treatments
We have existed for centuries without science-based medicine in general
We have existed for centuries without the internet
We have existed for centuries without television and radio
We have existed for centuries without automobiles
We have existed for centuries without civilization
We have existed for centuries without agriculture

>I just read that a lot of plants and shit have natural insectices and so forth.
This is true. Think of natural selection. Plants that produce certain chemical defenses against being eaten, justified by the energy cost, are more likely to reproduce. Caffeine and capsaiscin are the most notable. >99.5% of pesticides in the human diet are made by the plants themselves, and we have the genetic arms race and modern agriculture (replanting the least harmful crops) to thank for the fact that we don't get killer hangovers or serious complications after every dinner.

>selling mutated garbage to people for profit is the same as curing cancer
kek, I didn't know your GMO dogshit cured cancer. Judging by the fallout in argentina, it gave people around 4 times more cancer who have lived near the roundup sprayed GMO crop sites.
I don't understand how deluded GMOtards are that they think they can fool people to buy their garbage.

>doesn't respond to any of my points

>self-studies funded
>not biased

High sodium diets are considered unhealthy, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Check these dubs

>the shill gambit
>literally relies on ad hom while making an accusation of ad hom
>ignores central importance of critiquing methodology and rigor. the only reason someone doesn't treat every last paper that has ever been peer reviewed (the bare minimum) as gospel must obviously be that they've never read it and are serving an evil agenda
>this somehow doesn't apply to any of the 1750 papers in
>accuses opponents of stalling discussion when they try to make sure both sides use technical terminology precisely, carefully and consistently
>also accuses them at the same time of using terminology imprecisely, carelessly and inconsistently, because fuck it, why not?
>vague unsubstantiated assertions Monsanto will come after you and delete your posts
>universal ban-happiness of every anti-gmo page against any and all dissent, while Monsanto, GMO SF and other pro- pages leave dissent in place and respond constructively and with evidence is not evidence against this
>every single bad argument against GMOs everywhere was made by Monsanto plants trying to discredit us
>uh, except of course for the arguments I don't realize are bad, including my own

>mfw some people actually post this without realizing it's satire

Yes