FDA Barring Food Makers from Advertising Products as GMO-Free... Strictly Veggie Here On Out.

Osh Kosh Bosh said:
the size, fat content, how dossile they are, the physical make up of cows have all been artificially selected for.

there are no "natural" cows.
Click to expand...


The physical make up of cows are vastly different between ones that eat grass (their natural diet) than ones that eat grains (what they arent suppose to eat). Ones that eat grains are terribly destroying the environment.


EDIT: The ones that eat grains are theoretically "artificially selected" because they are forced to eat grains such as corn, ones that eat their natural diet arent naturally selected if they are eating what they are suppose to.


I understand what he is saying, and he is right to an extent. There isnt such thing as "natural" food, it's just a marketing term for people who eat stuff out packages and boxes. However, didnt fully explain how the evolution of GM foods out of a lab are pollinating themselves and killing off the bees. Without bee pollination, humans cant survive.
 
Last edited:
Yep, I've been picking plants and vegetables to grow that cater to bees.
700

700

Einstein gave humans 4 years to live on Earth after bees become extinct.

But don't worry, they're genetically modifying bees now too to withstand the pesticides and poison.
 
Last edited:
7thAve btn 31stN33rd St said:
The physical make up of cows are vastly different between ones that eat grass (their natural diet) than ones that eat grains (what they arent suppose to eat). Ones that eat grains are terribly destroying the environment.


I understand what he is saying, and he is right to an extent. There isnt such thing as "natural" food, it's just a marketing term for people who eat stuff out packages and boxes. However, didnt fully explain how the evolution of GM foods out of a lab are pollinating themselves and killing off the bees. Without bee pollination, humans cant survive.
Click to expand...

the physical make up isn't that different, its mostly a myth, there are some interns of fat but to act like one is "destroying our environment" and one is healthy is an oversimplification.
 
I don't understand why you possess a contrarian viewpoint on this matter, Osh, or anyone for that matter. Do you really want to be eating genetically modified food? I could care less what Neil Degrasse Tyson says on this matter, I want my stuff grown from non-gmo heirloom seeds.
 
JohnnyRedStorm said:
I don't understand why you possess a contrarian viewpoint on this matter, Osh, or anyone for that matter. Do you really want to be eating genetically modified food? I could care less what Neil Degrasse Tyson says on this matter, I want my stuff grown from non-gmo heirloom seeds.
Click to expand...

its giant a money grab, it grinds my gears that people buy this blindly.

ALL FOOD has been genetically modified, to Neil Degrasse Tyson's point the culture is becoming science illiterate, to me young earth creationists,m anti-vaxxers and Anti-GMO truthers are the same thing. It's a scurge on our society and it needs to be challenged.
 
JohnnyRedStorm said:
I don't understand why you possess a contrarian viewpoint on this matter, Osh, or anyone for that matter. Do you really want to be eating genetically modified food? I could care less what Neil Degrasse Tyson says on this matter, I want my stuff grown from non-gmo heirloom seeds.
Click to expand...
Probably because there's no legitimate evidence or conclusive peer-reviewed studies showing that GMOs are dangerous.

The anti-GMO movement is pushed forward by people with really good intentions but minimal scientific literacy and knowledge.
 
Osh Kosh Bosh said:
the physical make up isn't that different, its mostly a myth, there are some interns of fat but to act like one is "destroying our environment" and one is healthy is an oversimplification.
Click to expand...


This is untrue. The fact that grass fed/finished cows are lower in calorie and fat content compared to grain fed cows is very different.
 
One thing I'll agree with, it is a money play. It's bs that you have to pay more money for food that is clean that takes less money to produce than gmo's and non organic produce.

The problem with the studies is that Monsanto has the FDA in its pocket, and they have lobbyists keeping things in their favor. They bought one of the top research firms for bees a couple of years ago to repress the cause of bee colony collapse.
 
JohnnyRedStorm said:
One thing I'll agree with, it is a money play. It's bs that you have to pay more money for food that is clean that takes less money to produce than gmo's and non organic produce.

The problem with the studies is that Monsanto has the FDA in its pocket, and they have lobbyists keeping things in their favor. They bought one of the top research firms for bees a couple of years ago to repress the cause of bee colony collapse.
Click to expand...
...but even if that was true, that only speaks for studies conducted in America.

The most well-known, highly propagated study involving GMO safety is the French Rat study, and it's been debunked countless times.
 
Comparison Ford said:
Probably because there's no legitimate evidence or conclusive peer-reviewed studies showing that GMOs are dangerous.

The anti-GMO movement is pushed forward by people with really good intentions but minimal scientific literacy and knowledge.
Click to expand...


There are, GMOs are still relatively new though. The EU has done extensive research. There have been multiple peer-reviewed articles on the affects of glyphosate, a GMO used in herbicide.
 
7thAve btn 31stN33rd St said:
 
Comparison Ford said:
Probably because there's no legitimate evidence or conclusive peer-reviewed studies showing that GMOs are dangerous.

The anti-GMO movement is pushed forward by people with really good intentions but minimal scientific literacy and knowledge.
Click to expand...

There are, GMOs are still relatively new though. The EU has done extensive research. There have been multiple peer-reviewed articles on the affects of glyphosate, a GMO used in herbicide.
Click to expand...
Post them.
 
And I have said before Monstanto is as close to incorporated evil as it gets in America, opposing them is reasonable, blaketley opposing GMO's though?

Silly.

You don't even need studies. Common sense will do, we have been genetically modifying food since the advent of agriculture, there isn't any such thing as "natural" food.
 
7thAve btn 31stN33rd St said:
There are, GMOs are still relatively new though. The EU has done extensive research. There have been multiple peer-reviewed articles on the affects of glyphosate, a GMO used in herbicide.
Click to expand...

THEY AREN'T NEW.


:lol:

All food has been modified, there is no NATURALLY occurring food that you can buy today.

if you read about genes or the history of humans and farming its just crazy to make a distinction between "GMO" and supposedly "non-GMO" foods it doesn't make sense.


apples are a good example because of sort of recent domestication.


we wouldn't have apples in their current form without advances in technology, the only way to domesticate apple trees, to select for their positive gene is by a very difficult technique called grafting. no grafting no gigantic delicious sweet, tart, all manor of sizes and consistency without that advance.

thats a 2000 BC GMO.
 
Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749


Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans

PDF is here

http://omicsonline.org/open-access/...s-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Osh, I remember you posted probably in here about peach pits being modified to have less cyanide? Some cases, I could see a benefit, but the ones that are modified to further withstand the pesticides...

I don't like Monsanto, and I don't like having to read in between the lines to know what I'm eating. That's my beef in this matter. Plus the bees, since we need them to survive.
 
Last edited:
Osh Kosh Bosh said:
THEY AREN'T NEW.


:lol:

All food has been modified, there is no NATURALLY occurring food that you can buy today.

if you read about genes or the history of humans and farming its just crazy to make a distinction between "GMO" and supposedly "non-GMO" foods it doesn't make sense.


apples are a good example because of sort of recent domestication.


we wouldn't have apples in their current form without advances in technology, the only way to domesticate apple trees, to select for their positive gene is by a very difficult technique called grafting. no grafting no gigantic delicious sweet, tart, all manor of sizes and consistency without that advance.

thats a 2000 BC GMO.
Click to expand...


I'm referring to GMO engineering and DNA engineering in a lab is new.
 
JohnnyRedStorm said:
Osh, I remember you posted probably in here about peach pits being modified to have less cyanide? Some cases, I could see a benefit, but the ones that are modified to further withstand the pesticides...

I don't like Monsanto, and I don't like having to read in between the lines to know what I'm eating. That's my beef in this matter. Plus the bees, since we need them to survive.
Click to expand...

Collony collapse is a complex problem that isn't really related to GMO's.
 
7thAve btn 31stN33rd St said:
 
Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749


Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans

PDF is here

http://omicsonline.org/open-access/...s-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Oh word?

http://academicsreview.org/2014/04/...-health-risk-claims-about-glyphosate-roundup/
 
7thAve btn 31stN33rd St said:
 
Comparison Ford said:
Oh word?

http://academicsreview.org/2014/04/...-health-risk-claims-about-glyphosate-roundup/
Click to expand...

There are limitations in every study that has been written, so that doesn't necessarily mean that the findings are invalid.
Click to expand...
"extensive scientific literature indicates that glyphosate is specifically not genotoxic, is not a carcinogen or a teratogen, nor has any specific adverse health effect ever been demonstrated to have been caused by exposure to or low-level consumption of glyphosate"

When the first study you post indicates the teratogenic effects of glyphosate, I'm gonna find your links questionable.
 
Osh Kosh Bosh said:
JohnnyRedStorm said:
Osh, I remember you posted probably in here about peach pits being modified to have less cyanide? Some cases, I could see a benefit, but the ones that are modified to further withstand the pesticides...

I don't like Monsanto, and I don't like having to read in between the lines to know what I'm eating. That's my beef in this matter. Plus the bees, since we need them to survive.
Click to expand...

Collony collapse is a complex problem that isn't really related to GMO's.
Click to expand...
Pesticides issue more so, but they don't take kindly to GMO crops either. Humans, have done their fair share of damage too, but this process isn't helping them.
 
Comparison Ford said:
"extensive scientific literature indicates that glyphosate is specifically not genotoxic, is not a carcinogen or a teratogen, nor has any specific adverse health effect ever been demonstrated to have been caused by exposure to or low-level consumption of glyphosate"

When the first study you post indicates the teratogenic effects of glyphosate, I'm gonna find your links questionable.
Click to expand...


Where is the citation for that?


Also, not surprising, one of the founders worked for the FDA.
 
Last edited:
7thAve btn 31stN33rd St said:
 
Comparison Ford said:
"extensive scientific literature indicates that glyphosate is specifically not genotoxic, is not a carcinogen or a teratogen, nor has any specific adverse health effect ever been demonstrated to have been caused by exposure to or low-level consumption of glyphosate"

When the first study you post indicates the teratogenic effects of glyphosate, I'm gonna find your links questionable.
Click to expand...

Where is the citation for that?


Also, not surprising, one of the founders worked for the FDA.
Click to expand...
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html

CONSPIRACY.
 
JohnnyRedStorm said:
Yep, I've been picking plants and vegetables to grow that cater to bees.


Einstein gave humans 4 years to live on Earth after bees become extinct.

But don't worry, they're genetically modifying bees now too to withstand the pesticides and poison.
Click to expand...
Without getting too involved in this debate, I'll say: A. Einstein didn't know everything and, B. he lived 70 years ago. That 4 years number is a farce. Would it be bad, and would it be costly?

Obviously.

But human life dying off even in one generation without bees?

Chill.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom