32
33

Sprinkles to Be Banned by FDA (moonbattery.com)

ThePoliticalHat が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]RogerGoiano -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Good, now ban GMO.

[–]chabanaisSi vis pacem, para bellum. 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Why?

[–]RogerGoiano -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Various reasons. Bad business for farmers and studies shows it is not very healthy for us.

[–]chabanaisSi vis pacem, para bellum. 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Source?

[–]Trackoverxc -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Do you find GMO to be of great assistance to our health instead?

[–]chabanaisSi vis pacem, para bellum. 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Explain to me how drought-resistant crops, rice fortified with Vitamin A, and crops with higher iron content to fight anemia are bad.

Will the tangelo lead to the end of mankind?

And where is the source that GMOs are hurting us?

[–]Trackoverxc -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

No, you are correct in that there is little publicized science against GMOs, just as there is little explicitly, scientifical evidence proving it no worse in all consequential regards.

I suppose my view point is derived mainly from that point; in that we do not have the science to say it is perfectly safe yet, so why leave the decision to the people who's motivations are bigger paychecks entirely over health and safety?

Adding supplements to food is not necessarily desirable, and can lead people into thinking they are doing 'enough' for their diet when they should be doing otherwise when they are able to. Or even the risks that can accompany it "A review of many clinical studies found slightly increased mortality (i.e., more people died during studies) associated with the use of supplements containing beta-carotene and possibly vitamin E and higher doses of vitamin A.". The point being, we shouldn't be looking to supplement foods when we can be focusing on getting nutrients from the sources they are meant to instead.

Stay with me for a moment as I understand this example is extreme, but consider the public opinion of smoking. "Evidence of the ill effects of smoking accumulated during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s." during such a time, smoking policy was controlled by public opinion, which took decades to sway into the majority against smoking, similarly is the case with GMO now. Let's try to be cautious before being fine with jumping all in. Look at the issues presented on soy beans, which are 90% genetically modified and sprayed with the lovely Roundup which leaves residue of inflammatory chemicals on foods it is sprayed upon. Anyway, the soybeans have been able to be mass produced due to this genetic modification, and the risks of this are documented: One study revealed that soybeans raised levels of Thyroid Stimulating hormone (TSH), a marker of impaired thyroid function.

I will put the time into finding such sources to show it may be involved in poor health, but that is for another day.

Good evening.

[–]quellian 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, we do have the science. We've been using GMOs for 40 years now. You would be hard pressed to find a crop that has not been modified for one resistance or another. The only evidence you've been able to find relates to soybeans, which naturally contain certain proteins that interfere with our body functions if not thoroughly cooked or processed. Also, roundup inhibits the Shikimic acid pathway in plants, which we do not have. It's LDL is so high, table salt would kill you in smaller quantities than roundup. Your soybean article is also laughable. Here is the study:

Hypometabolic symptoms (malaise, constipation, sleepiness) and goiters appeared in half the subjects in groups 2 and 3 after taking soybeans for 3 months, but they disappeared 1 month after the cessation of soybean ingestion. These findings suggested that excessive soybean ingestion for a certain duration might suppress thyroid function and cause goiters in healthy people, especially elderly subjects.

In other words, if you eat A LOT of soybeans for a LONG period of time, it may not be very good for you. What a surprise, right? Did you know if you did the same thing with carrots, you'd turn orange? True story.

[–]Trackoverxc 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Simply doing something profitable for many years doesn't correlate to it being a healthy decision. Do you believe genetically modifying chickens to the point they cannot support themselves standing up is the best thing to do as well? The point is, the companies care not for what the science says, and will only do what is right heath wise when there are specific laws requiring them too. Leaving it up to them is not the way to go, I feel.

You're right that glyphosate (Roundup) works to kill plants by blocking a pathway not present in animals, but it is present in bacteria, which outnumber our 'animal' cells 10 to 1 in our own bodies. "Glyphosate causes extreme disruption of the microbe’s function and lifecycle... glyphosate preferentially affects beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow and take over. At that point, your body also has to contend with the toxins produced by the pathogens." I am by no means holding a doctorate in a biological field, but there are folks out there that do and have published many articles on the harmful effects of glyphosate (Roundup). It is worth looking at for at least a small portion of time. We eat much more table salt than Roundup I am hoping as well.

May I ask how you do quotes with the blue line next to it as well? Thanks.

[–]chabanaisSi vis pacem, para bellum. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

in that we do not have the science to say it is perfectly safe yet, so why leave the decision to the people who's motivations are bigger paychecks entirely over health and safety?

Absence of evidence is not evidence and Paralysis of Analysis (since all data is never in, no legitimate decision can ever be made).

[–]Trackoverxc -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I entirely agree with the portion on the absence of evidence, as I feel the same with religious talks. Do you mean by the paralysis that we can never obtain all the necessary data?

Like I said before, my concern arises from the fact that the results are inconclusive so far, so I do not wish to wait to hear in the future if they are in fact negative impacts on our health. Genetically modifying plants to be more resistant to pesticides is not what I look forward to. These indirect effects of GMO techniques can be problematic, in my opinion.

If a majority of Americans find they have no problem with the genetically modified ingredients, then that's fine. But what do they have to lose from a simple label being put on the food's so that those who disagree can make that choice? It seems like a logical step until such a time as the science is firmly in place on one side or another.

[–]chabanaisSi vis pacem, para bellum. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

So you want a label on certain types of food even though there is no evidence they are harmful in the belief that one day, somehow, a definitive answer will be known?

Sounds silly to me.

[–]TempestofChaos 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

There have in fact, been NO studies that have conclusive evidence on the matter.

[–]RogerGoiano -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Maybe in this country, the land of Monsanto... But many others are banning it.

[–]DranoshSoCon, FinCon, antistatist, anti"equality" 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You know what is also "genetically modifying"? Cross-breeding plants with other plants

[–]Trackoverxc 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you want to provide semantics on the definition of the words, yes, that would be included. I hope you understand that is not what I argue against, however.