GMO Crops Don’t Harm Human Health, Report Says

[ShoulderRoll]

See highlighted part.....

Why Do they made a GMO that is resistant to PESTICIDES?. why not resistant to PEST!.

Because the company that makes several GMOs also makes the herbicide Round Up. They want to be paid for the Frankenstein seeds they sell and also for the weed killer that gets dumped on the fields where those seeds grow.

On top of that they designed GMO seeds to not be reusable because they want to get paid for seeds every planting season.

It's a smart business model I guess. As long as you don't see a problem with having farmers and our food supply becoming utterly dependent on Monsanto.

[Amazinger]

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.

Haven't you seen all them Basketball players an football players. they were created in the cotton field in the south.....

J/K

[Amazinger]

Because the company that makes several GMOs also makes the herbicide Round Up. They want to be paid for the Frankenstein seeds they sell and also for the weed killer that gets dumped on the fields where those seeds grow.

On top of that they designed GMO seeds to not be reusable because they want to get paid for seeds every planting season.

It's a smart business model I guess. As long as you don't see a problem with having farmers and our food supply becoming utterly dependent on Monsanto.

Too bad Monsanto rejected Bayers offer to buy them.
They could have created a tomato that can treat your headache.....

[New England]

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.

fdude the guy who says dogs are GMO is the one grasping for straws. you don't get to parse words and then accuse me of it. i am us9ing hte regularly used nomenclature. you are not. a GMO is a genetically modified organism. this is the creation of a new organism through genetic engineering. dog breeds doe.


i really don't care enough to explain any further. yu don't even know what a GMO is [evidenced bty the claim that people have been making GMO for years,]

[Amazinger]

fdude the guy who says dogs are GMO is the one grasping for straws. you don't get to parse words and then accuse me of it. i am us9ing hte regularly used nomenclature. you are not. a GMO is a genetically modified organism. this is the creation of a new organism through genetic engineering. dog breeds doe.


i really don't care enough to explain any further. yu don't even know what a GMO is [evidenced bty the claim that people have been making GMO for years,]

Someone is about to be pwned....

[krazyn8tive]

Genetically engineered crops pose no additional risks to humans and the environment when compared to conventional crops, according to a new report.

The research, published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, is the result of a sweeping review of nearly 900 publications on the effects of genetically modified crops on human health and the environment. Genetic engineering has helped agricultural producers in the U.S., including small farmers thrive, according to the report.

But genetic modification is not all good news, the report suggests. Widespread use of genetically modified crops, which are often engineered to resist the effects of pesticides, has contributed to concerning levels of pesticide resistance in weeds and insects. Pests improve in their ability to resist pesticides every time the chemicals are sprayed, creating a vicious cycle of increased spraying and more resistance.

“There have been claims that [genetically engineered] crops have had adverse effects on human health,” the report says. “Sweeping statements about crops are problematic because issues related to them are multidimensional.”

Researchers behind the report called for a process that evaluates potential health and environmental concerns about new type of crops regardless of whether they are genetically engineered.

The report comes as public health and environmental advocates continue to push for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food. The results of the National Academy report suggest that such measures may not be necessary. Report committee member Michael Rodemeyer said at a press conference that without evidence of health effects from GMO crops, the Food and Drug Administration does not even have the authority to mandate such labels.

But the report is unlikely to stop calls for labeling that have already succeeded in some states, such as Vermont, and led some food manufacturers like Whole Foods to promise to curtail their use of genetically modified ingredients. Report authors acknowledged that their report would not—and should not—settle the debate over GMOs.

“We’re hoping that our report is not this big tome but something that starts a conversation,” North Carolina State University professor Fred Gould, who chaired the committee behind the report. He also hoped the findings would help fuel an evidence-based discussion rather than a heated back and forth between. “It would nice not to have a debate, but maybe an eight-hour discussion,” Gould added.

http://time.com/4338702/gmo-human-he...odified-crops/

Yeah I want to know who financed this study. If Monsanto or DuPont financed it, you know what's up.

[New England]

Someone is about to be pwned....

you guys genuinely have no idea what you're talking about, which is fine. continue to think that GMOs are created with a punnett square, and not with biotechnology.


i'm the one parsing words doe

[ShoulderRoll]

Haven't you seen all them Basketball players an football players. they were created in the cotton field in the south.....

J/K

Lol

Bringer must think that the descendents of slaves qualify as genetically modified humans.

[krazyn8tive]

Genetically engineered crops pose no additional risks to humans and the environment when compared to conventional crops, according to a new report.

The research, published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, is the result of a sweeping review of nearly 900 publications on the effects of genetically modified crops on human health and the environment. Genetic engineering has helped agricultural producers in the U.S., including small farmers thrive, according to the report.

But genetic modification is not all good news, the report suggests. Widespread use of genetically modified crops, which are often engineered to resist the effects of pesticides, has contributed to concerning levels of pesticide resistance in weeds and insects. Pests improve in their ability to resist pesticides every time the chemicals are sprayed, creating a vicious cycle of increased spraying and more resistance.

“There have been claims that [genetically engineered] crops have had adverse effects on human health,” the report says. “Sweeping statements about crops are problematic because issues related to them are multidimensional.”

Researchers behind the report called for a process that evaluates potential health and environmental concerns about new type of crops regardless of whether they are genetically engineered.

The report comes as public health and environmental advocates continue to push for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food. The results of the National Academy report suggest that such measures may not be necessary. Report committee member Michael Rodemeyer said at a press conference that without evidence of health effects from GMO crops, the Food and Drug Administration does not even have the authority to mandate such labels.

But the report is unlikely to stop calls for labeling that have already succeeded in some states, such as Vermont, and led some food manufacturers like Whole Foods to promise to curtail their use of genetically modified ingredients. Report authors acknowledged that their report would not—and should not—settle the debate over GMOs.

“We’re hoping that our report is not this big tome but something that starts a conversation,” North Carolina State University professor Fred Gould, who chaired the committee behind the report. He also hoped the findings would help fuel an evidence-based discussion rather than a heated back and forth between. “It would nice not to have a debate, but maybe an eight-hour discussion,” Gould added.

http://time.com/4338702/gmo-human-he...odified-crops/

New England be like

"I've wikipedia'd extensively. Have you?"

[Tago Nang Tago]

wow, looking back at this thread i think bringer's ownage of new england went totally unnoticed. those were some devastating bombs right to the chin. fully loaded power shots. particularly in the last 3 pages.