Clearly, I was answering Tom's question about why they don't just eat unpolished rice.
GMOs Don't Hurt Anyone, But Opposing Them Does
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Clearly, I was answering Tom's question about why they don't just eat unpolished rice.
Side effects from some meds remained unknown until a generation of children were born with birth defects.
As I said, it is too soon to tell, and yes you really are basing your comments on faith, not science, and no, it is not comparable to the atheist argument, even remotely.
Furthermore, harmful effects from organic methods? Laughable, especially to me, having been raised on an organic farm.
Your argument is based on faith and naturalistic fallacies.
Organic farming has drawbacks. 53 dead in just this one instance...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/10/e-coli-bean-sprouts-blamed
tekkychick
New member
GMO is a tough issue, as this thread shows. If we could keep kids from dying of Vitamin A deficiency - great! But if it causes other problems? Bad!
We don't trust Monsanto, but the anti-GMO forces can be a bit overbearing as well.
We've been GMO'ing plants and animals for thousands of years. But it's been slower in the past. Now we have a lot of power; and we just don't trust people with that power.
GMO foods will end up in our food supply; we need some kind of ethical protocol around what should be done and what shouldn't be done.
Tie farmers to having to buy seed every year -many of us think that is bad.
Putting genes from plants into fish so the fish will glow - I get very nervous with that kind of transfer for no good reason. After all, the most deadly flu viruses move through pigs, chickens, and humans (to oversimplify) which makes them so bad.
Maybe we need some kind of international commission to review which GMO stuff to accept. But guess that starts the black helicopter and agenda 21 talk...
We don't trust Monsanto, but the anti-GMO forces can be a bit overbearing as well.
We've been GMO'ing plants and animals for thousands of years. But it's been slower in the past. Now we have a lot of power; and we just don't trust people with that power.
GMO foods will end up in our food supply; we need some kind of ethical protocol around what should be done and what shouldn't be done.
Tie farmers to having to buy seed every year -many of us think that is bad.
Putting genes from plants into fish so the fish will glow - I get very nervous with that kind of transfer for no good reason. After all, the most deadly flu viruses move through pigs, chickens, and humans (to oversimplify) which makes them so bad.
Maybe we need some kind of international commission to review which GMO stuff to accept. But guess that starts the black helicopter and agenda 21 talk...
The anti-science forces argument is that this must be tested for multiple generations to ensure safety and then those who have borne the cost of that and devoted their lives to bringing it to those in need should give it away for nothing. They don't understand science or economics.
What are the problems of Golden Rice? The anti-science forces know that it might lead to greater acceptance of GMO foods and that's what they are fighting. They should be mostly ignored like the religious wackos and other deniers of science that they borrow tactics from. We should be careful not to write-off all caution as being associated with these nuts, but when all they have is vague fears and hysteria they can be easily spotted.
tekkychick
New member
Well, the article Tom linked to says it has problems; don't know how good the source it.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/rice.php
This paragraph seems telling
If we have ways to get Vitamin A without GMO'ing the rice and without enriching corporations - why not? We should go for the simplest solution, not just go with a complicated one for the sake of it.
Having said that, no, I am not an expert on golden rice; and this is why I wish we had an international commission that could look at these things honestly, openly, without bias.
None that don't come with drawbacks and costs. That's the flaw in everyone of your debates. You don't understand the widely accepted economic principle of opportunity costs, which by the way was brought to you by an Austrian economist.
Yeah, they can eat rancid tasting rice, vitamin capsules (vitamin A is the major focus of the charity I link in my signature) or possibly start farming other vegetables that produce vitamin A. But everyone of those solutions has a drawback which is why they have not yet provided workable solutions.
Apparently, 18 million dead children are not enough for some to consider giving up their irrational fears and naturalistic fallacies. Maybe, Grind is ahead of the game.
Last edited:
Tom's source is laughable. According to them we should be able to solve the problem with large vats of water that had a carrot dunked in them once.
Because the reputable scientists and the science says so. But I am not bothering to try to stop you from getting on the short bus with the global warming deniers, homeopathic wackos and idiots talking about cat kind.
Eating sprouts was the problem, not organics. This type of tactic is beneath you Professor
That were grown organically.
Organic farms fell under suspicion in the investigation because they do not use chemical fertilisers and put crops at greater risk of contamination from bacteria in manure.
evince
Truthmatters
please present your evidence that is the safest way to get these people the nutrition they lack.
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.krcu.org/post/scientist-alex-berezow-anti-scientific-left
talk about poltical science?
they are right wing bullshit masters
talk about poltical science?
they are right wing bullshit masters