GMO Crops Don’t Harm Human Health, Report Says

[New England]

Says the guy who still refuses to admit that dogs are genetically modified from wolves.

I remember when you used to brag about your dad dropping a ****load of money for your education and how smart that made you.

dogs aren't GMO, if that's what you're arguing. genetically modified organism is what the acronym stands for. this is what a GMO is, and not in my words:
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques (i.e., a genetically engineered organism). GMOs are the source of medicines and genetically modified foods and are widely used in scientific research and to produce other goods.


you're just arguing semantics if you want to say that a dog has "modified genes." a dog breed is not a GMO in the nomenclature of anybody but you.

somebody caught some feelings because he didn't know what a GMO was i grew up poor and fatherless so i'm better doe. we've been making GMO dogs for thousands of years doe.

[ßringer]

dogs aren't GMO, if that's what you're arguing. genetically modified organism is what the acronym stands for. this is what a GMO is, and not in my words:
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques (i.e., a genetically engineered organism). GMOs are the source of medicines and genetically modified foods and are widely used in scientific research and to produce other goods.


you're just arguing semantics if you want to say that a dog has "modified genes." a dog breed is not a GMO in the nomenclature of anybody but you.

somebody caught some feelings because he didn't know what a GMO was i grew up poor and fatherless so i'm better doe. we've been making GMO dogs for thousands of years doe.

Dogs. Were. Genetically. Modified.

They might not be GMOs in the modern definition that GMOs are talked about today (being defined as almost exclusively bio-engineered food items), but they fall under the larger umbrella of genetically modified organisms alongside bananas, papayas, milk, corn on the cob, and the domesticated house cat.

I'd advise you to stop grasping for straws, but given your arms infamous shortcomings I don't think you'd be successful in such attempts anyway.

[baya]

They said the same thing about a lot of things that later were determined unsafe. Not me, I'm not falling for that again.

this so fukn much.

lemme know how that works out, tago.

[ßringer]

Yup, Dogs & Cats are genetically modified organisms. So are practically all foods we eat — 10,000 years of agriculture.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) January 25, 2014

Let's not listen to an actual scientist, though.

Instead, I propose we listen to a cantankerous chubby skiing enthusiast on a boxing website who routinely brags about his physical fitness and the amount of money his parents paid for his education while he ended up working a job canning vegetables.

[Amazinger]

Yup, Dogs & Cats are genetically modified organisms. So are practically all foods we eat — 10,000 years of agriculture.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) January 25, 2014

Let's not listen to an actual scientist, though.

Instead, I propose we listen to a cantankerous chubby skiing enthusiast on a boxing website who routinely brags about his physical fitness and the amount of money his parents paid for his education while he ended up working a job canning vegetables.

Would you say we as humans can be classified as GMO's due to Darwin's law of natural selection/ survival of the fittest thingy?.....

[ßringer]

Would you say we as humans can be classified as GMO's due to Darwin's law of natural selection/ survival of the fittest thingy?.....

No.

Because as far as I'm aware there has never been a substantial enough population (if any) of human beings that specifically engaged in the kind of rigid breeding behaviors that are required in order for one to fall under the genetically modified umbrella.

I wouldn't be opposed to genetically modified humans, though. Particularly if it meant that we could see an end to things like children born with mental and physical handicaps.

There's actually a lot of promising developments in the field of human genetic sequencing, but it's impossible to get anywhere with it in this country due to the populace being largely comprised of emotional kneejerk reactionaries.

[SouthPawHitman]

New England gets his ass beat on the Internet more than anyone.

[Furn]

Gene splicing is actually a very natural process.

[jaded]

Interesting article about another Monsato product that was banned for being linked to cancer...DDT.

The Truth About DDT and Silent Spring

I'll just post a part of it but it's worth reading all of it.

DDT had just about eradicated Malaria and Bed Bugs which since it's ban have made a substantial comeback. There really doesn't exist an effective alternative to DDT for many insect problems. Here in Vancouver you really need to do an internet Bed Bug search on an apartment you are considering renting even if it appears to 1st class.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/public...-silent-spring

Claim #1: DDT Causes Cancer in Humans. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the average American could be expected to ingest DDT in food and drink at levels of around 30 micrograms per day.[28] (Note: 1 gram = 1,000 milligrams = 1,000,000 micrograms.) Numerous studies of workers with intense exposure to DDT in the workplace, sometimes by factors of thousands more than the average dose — either in factories or in the field using DDT to combat malaria — have failed to show any “convincing evidence of patterns of associations between DDT and cancer incidence or mortality,” according to the World Health Organization.[29] The thousands of individuals in these studies were regularly exposed to hundreds or perhaps thousands of times the amount of DDT that the average American would have been exposed to, but cancer rates seem not to have been elevated.[30] A great many studies of specific cancers — breast cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer, liver cancer, prostate cancer, and more — over many decades have failed to show significant evidence of cancer as a result of exposure to DDT.[31]

There is scientific evidence that ingesting DDT or its byproduct DDE can cause mice to develop tumors, but only if they are fed at least ten times the amount per day (by body weight) that a person would normally expect to ingest.[32] Cancer studies of other mammals have been less conclusive.[33] In other studies of the effects of DDT on mammals, rats fed with large doses of the substance were found to have their reproductive lifespans increased by 65 percent (from 8.91 months to 14.55 months).[34] Heavily dosed dogs also experienced no ill effects, and in fact were found to be healthier than the control group, as DDT freed them of infestation by roundworms.[35]

Summarizing all of the relevant research, the U.S. government reported in 2002 that “there is no clear evidence that exposure to DDT/DDE causes cancer in humans.”[36] That assessment is a vindication of the legal conclusion of Judge Edmund Sweeney’s 1972 report on DDT for the EPA: “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.”[37]

[ßringer]

Interesting article about another Monsato product that was banned for being linked to cancer...DDT.

The Truth About DDT and Silent Spring

I'll just post a part of it but it's worth reading all of it.

DDT had just about eradicated Malaria and Bed Bugs which since it's ban have made a substantial comeback. There really doesn't exist an effective alternative to DDT for many insect problems. Here in Vancouver you really need to do an internet Bed Bug search on an apartment you are considering renting even if it appears to 1st class.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/public...-silent-spring

Claim #1: DDT Causes Cancer in Humans. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the average American could be expected to ingest DDT in food and drink at levels of around 30 micrograms per day.[28] (Note: 1 gram = 1,000 milligrams = 1,000,000 micrograms.) Numerous studies of workers with intense exposure to DDT in the workplace, sometimes by factors of thousands more than the average dose — either in factories or in the field using DDT to combat malaria — have failed to show any “convincing evidence of patterns of associations between DDT and cancer incidence or mortality,” according to the World Health Organization.[29] The thousands of individuals in these studies were regularly exposed to hundreds or perhaps thousands of times the amount of DDT that the average American would have been exposed to, but cancer rates seem not to have been elevated.[30] A great many studies of specific cancers — breast cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer, liver cancer, prostate cancer, and more — over many decades have failed to show significant evidence of cancer as a result of exposure to DDT.[31]

There is scientific evidence that ingesting DDT or its byproduct DDE can cause mice to develop tumors, but only if they are fed at least ten times the amount per day (by body weight) that a person would normally expect to ingest.[32] Cancer studies of other mammals have been less conclusive.[33] In other studies of the effects of DDT on mammals, rats fed with large doses of the substance were found to have their reproductive lifespans increased by 65 percent (from 8.91 months to 14.55 months).[34] Heavily dosed dogs also experienced no ill effects, and in fact were found to be healthier than the control group, as DDT freed them of infestation by roundworms.[35]

Summarizing all of the relevant research, the U.S. government reported in 2002 that “there is no clear evidence that exposure to DDT/DDE causes cancer in humans.”[36] That assessment is a vindication of the legal conclusion of Judge Edmund Sweeney’s 1972 report on DDT for the EPA: “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.”[37]

Good read that scientifically concluded that DDT didn't cause cancer in multiple studies.