Nobody replied to my comment with any sources on how GMOs are actually proven to be safe

Well, shouldn't you provide a source proving they aren't? I mean, I have no idea about GMOs (and don't give a damn whether or not they're safe) but usually you have to prove x before someone negates x.

but usually you have to prove x before someone negates x

Like proving GMOs are safe in the first place?

They've only been tested 2000 times. But sure, demand another.... maybe this one will convince you.

Thank you.

Except you can't actually prove something "safe". You can show that it does not have any harmful effects currently, but it's easier and more realistic to prove that something does have harmful effects.

And if the OP is making the claim that GMO's won't solve world hunger but eliminating poverty could, he should have some sources to back up his claim (I'm in the camp that both would be awesome).

Tell that to big tobacco and the asbestos industry 70 years ago.

Yeah, and look at them today.

Why would I care about what they did 70 years ago? The times have changed since then and everyone knows the harmful effects because people have proven them to be harmful.

Why would I care about what they did 70 years ago?

Because they are using a standard model of misinformation and doubt, just look at global warming 'skeptic' groups.

They used misinformation.

They can't and don't anymore because they have been proven to be incredibly harmful.

If you want to stop GMOs, prove they are harmful. Until then, they are considered safe.

adding arsenic to our food is safe? and if they are safe why are GMO corporations scared? it is because they are not safe.

Water is safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Not if you snort it.

Is it?

not when there is roundup runoff in it. LOL

no, so stop drinking it.

Not according to the zillions of people who refuse to drink tap water, so buy bottled water.

nah the water is fine. it's the fluoride they put in it that isn't.

two completely different compounds.

I don't think most people who drink only bottled water are doing it because they want to avoid fluoridation.

It's interesting that you don't think that.

Just an impression. Do you know of any data one way or the other ? I think most people say they don't like the taste or color of tap water, or think bottled is somehow purer or cleaner or something. Myself, I drink tap water.

While trying to find data, I found this: http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/exesum.asp

"According to government and industry estimates, about one fourth of bottled water is bottled tap water (and by some accounts, as much as 40 percent is derived from tap water) -- sometimes with additional treatment, sometimes not."

"Even when bottled waters are covered by FDA's specific bottled water standards, those rules are weaker in many ways than EPA rules that apply to big city tap water. ..."

[testing of more than 1,000 bottles of 103 brands of water:] "Four waters (4 percent) violated the generally weak federal bottled water standards (two for excessive fluoride and two for excessive coliform bacteria; neither of the two latter waters were found to be contaminated with coliform bacteria in our testing of a different lot of the same brand)."

"For purposes of comparison, we note that EPA recently reported that in 1996 about 1 in 10 community tap water systems (serving about one seventh of the U.S. population) violated EPA's tap water treatment or contaminant standards, and 28 percent of tap water systems violated significant water-monitoring or reporting requirements. In addition, the tap water of more than 32 million Americans (and perhaps more) exceeds 2 parts per billion (ppb) arsenic (the California Proposition 65 warning level, applicable to bottled water, is 5 ppb); and 80 to 100 million Americans drink tap water that contains very significant trihalomethane levels (over 40 ppb). Thus, while much tap water is supplied by systems that have violated EPA standards or that serve water containing substantial levels of risky contaminants, apparently the majority of the country's tap water passes EPA standards. Therefore, while much tap water is indeed risky, having compared available data we conclude that there is no assurance that bottled water is any safer than tap water."

Found this web page, although most of the links in it are useless: http://www.bottledwater.org/fluoride

But many of the brands listed on it ALSO appear in the "List of bottled water without fluoride" section of http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/salud_fluor35.htm

This web page gives fluoride levels for various bottled waters: http://fluoridealert.org/content/bottled-water/

Interesting that the Wikipedia article on bottled water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottled_water) says nothing about people choosing bottled water because they want to avoid fluoride. It says things such as "Bottled water is bought for many different reasons including taste, convenience, poor tap water quality and safety concerns, health concerns and as a substitute for sugary drinks." and "One American study showed that "even in areas with safe tap water, African American, Polish American and Latino parents were three times more likely to give their children mostly bottled water compared to non-Latino white children, because of their belief that bottled water is safer, cleaner, better tasting, or more convenient"." and "Many low-income families avoid drinking tap water because they fear it may cause sickness."

I'll have to drill down into the sources to see how much "health concerns" translates to "don't want fluoride". But it's interesting that the article never once mentions "don't want fluoride".

I can't get to most of the sources referenced by that Wikipedia article. But some other studies that reference those sources never mention fluoride as part of "health concerns" or "water safety concerns" by consumers.

And "Public perception of drinking water safety in South Africa 2002–2009: a repeated cross-sectional study" (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/556) never once mentions fluoride.

It's starting to look like I was right; avoiding fluoride is not a motivation for most people who drink bottled water.

[deleted]

No, actually you can't. To prove something "safe" you have to prove it has no negative effects. Since you can't prove a negative, you have to prove that there are harmful effects, "wally".

I was saying he should have had sources in his OP in the other thread.

Loving the insults though. It's pretty common when folks like you have no idea what they are talking about but hate to feel wrong you're first instinct is to insult. Keep it up, ol' chap.

actually, you can, you do a study, if it takes 20 years then so be it. So why not put what is in the food on a label? lol, because noone will buy a product that creates it's own poison to kill insects, but wonders of wonders will magically not harm us. LOL So yes, you can tell if a product is safe.

No, you can rule out a lot of things that would make it unsafe. You can't prove a negative. That's basic science.

After 20 years, you can assume it's generally safe in most situations. But, scientifically you can't say it is safe in all situations.

And I'm all for putting everything that is in food on a label.

cool, we agree then :) have an upvote. :) sorry if i called you amusing names.

Didn't even notice if you did ;)

edit: oh haha...earlier. no big deal.

Rule #10: No personal attacks on other users.

You probably should care if they are safe or not, considering 85%+ of all food you buy the grocery store is GMO. If you live in the states.

Voters overwhelmingly wanting GMO labeling is proof that the majorities want to stay away from the stuff, they have seen enough proof.

The majority of voters also thought re-electing G W Bush was a good idea.

I'm with that guy

The electronic machines, not the people, did that.

You're deluding yourself. Many, many, many people felt (and still feel) G W Bush was right, did the right things, etc. Sure, we've found our elections are accurate only to withing +/- 1 percent or so. But it was no conspiracy that put Bush in office twice, it was voters. Perhaps bad decisions by the courts helped, but voters put them in the position to make those bad decisions.

exactly. Voters want it, everyone I know wants it, so why don't the GMO crowd want it? because you can't sell something to eat that produces it's own poison.

Biotech companies are basically carrying out massive global experiments on the commercial food supply. Nobody knows what the long term effects will be. The argument is that if these (for profit) companies are allowed to do this, they should at the very least have to label the food as modified.

I mean, I have no idea about GMOs (and don't give a damn whether or not they're safe)

Obviously not everyone is concerned about health, but there are many millions that are. If you just absolutely don't care that's one thing, but besides that I can't understand why anyone would willingly take part in the experiment if they could help it.

Oh yeah, sure.

I'm just saying if he wants people to negate his argument with sources, he has to try prove his argument with sources.

I think the fact that at least everyone I know wants food labeling shows that people want labeling. and why not put labeling? something to hide?

By default GMO's are dangerous unless anyone can prove they are safe (which they haven't because they are not). Such a study would take hundreds of years of testing on 10's of thousands of people, there hasn't been time for this to happen, hence they are not known to be safe.

So, by your definition, everything we eat today aside from a few basic staples is dangerous.

Bottled water, twinkies, avocados, food produced via 'organic' farming.

We're going to need a lot of warning labels.

yes, lets have lots of food labels. that is what consumers want, yet corporations do not. lol. twat.

Hey man I'm on your side. I've been trying to get companies to label what pesticides are used on crops but none of the organic companies that fund the 'right no know' campaigns seem interested. Which is odd because they all seem really concerned about roundup even though it's got a lower ld50 than commonly used organic pesticides :( Don't they think consumers should know what they are spraying on our food?

I think we should have COMPLETE labeling on our food. upvote for you.

I dunno about complete, i don't want to know what kind if underwear the farmer is wearing, just information that's relevant to health imo.

hehe. I must concur.

Not at all, only crazy experimental things like GMO and Vaccines

Crazy and experimental. What an arbitrary and biased way to pick what you give an impossibly high burden of proof.

exactly, if it takes that long, then so be it. Soylent green for all/ I want food labeling on that though.

Philosophic burden of proof

When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".[10]

No, the initial claim was by GMO corporations. It is up to them to provide the data. Something that has been lacking. And if you know nothing, then you should say nothing as you look silly with your boot in your mouth.

Please provide a source that says GMOs are harmful. Not pesticides, not Monsanto, but the actual food itself. Our civilization has been selecting food traits inadvertently since the beginning of agriculture. GMOs is essentially a technology that speeds the process up.

They didn't say GMOs were harmful, they said it wasn't the solution to hunger. They were supportive of poor people around the world who don't have a voice here in stating that ACTUALLY striving to end poverty would end hunger. One is a band aid, the other is a real solution.

I didn't read the technology thread. I was merely replying to op's comment. I try to eat organic, but for different reasons. IMO anti GMO and vaccine rhetoric fosters an unhealthy attitude towards science in general. Most geneticists have good intentions, it's people like DARPA and big money Biotech companies you should be concerned about.

I agree wholeheartedly with you. Big money Biotech companies (naming institutions is weird for me after all they're rich racist/classist people) are the problem, yes. It's scary to see how they have control of well everything INCLUDING the strives for things like world hunger. The west, were we live, is really effed up and passively solving world issues while actively killing people around the world. I gotchu

Mo' money Mo' problems - Notorious B.I.G.

nice call.

"Irrigation is totally a bandaid made up by corporations to take money from farmers" -you when irrigation systems started.

"Crop rotation is totally a bandaid made up by corporate dirt to protect its nutrients" -you on drop rotation

It's pretty silly to call something that increases crop yield a "band aid" in regards to feeding the hungry.

Whoa whoa, irrigation and crop rotation is a corporate idea?? Have you read a book, these were cycles already adapted by people around the world. What is your point even, sorry that people (for example) in Mexico can't afford to have their own self-yielding crops of their staple crop because the US destabilized their entire socio-political-economic structures? Taking land, money, food, and resources away from people makes them poor, not the absence of corporations?

How is increasing yield per acre and per dollar not a solution? Is everything that helps to solve a complex problem just a bandaid? Do you think that problems are always solved with strictly one technology? Do the people who starve to death care that some will still starve, but fewer than would otherwise? Do you care about the people you condemn to death by depriving them of solutions that would help them?

Again, do you not look at the REASONS people are deprived of said resource?? There is a context to everything d'you agree?

You didn't answer any of my questions.

Yielding more crop per acre is a solution if there are too many people to feed or there is a shortage of food. Not, the case: there is a lack of access to food, particularly of poor countries of color. In the US, for example, there are plenty of poor people, some which are obese. Do they eat a lot, not necessarily. They only have access to Mcdonalds and toxic meat (which also comes from mal-treated animals, but who cares about animals right) It's not a shortage of food in the US either, it's the same system that makes a bottle of coke cheaper than a bottle of water.

One technology to solve problems? I never implied that: In fact my suggestion frees the possibilities up for more solutions. Heck, before Colonialism people around the world all had their own agricultural practices? If corporations (and let's not get into it about we can't live without corporations because we all know they don't have people's interests at heart) didn't take control of the lands from which poor contries and even self-sufficient people yielded food, then people could go back to those techniques. See Mexico example above, and take into account again, there is no shortage of food worldwide (don't say people who have food have a right to get mad if they should give up some food to feed the rest, that's a twisted and baseless argument)

Do I care about the people you say I condemn to death? Yes, in fact, I stated the various ways in which there are systems that make in innaccessible for certain people to get food and easier for the West to get food from around the world on cheap labor (labour, the one that exists in Capitalism which is the historical child of slavery) Again, GMOs IS a solutions IF it agrees to participate within the system which causes more harm than good, as I stated above. It would be an endless cycle which would eventually implode, but people still blame the poor people for "not being able to rely on themselves!" NO. They are systematically disenfranchised from... living. Thoughts now that the context is laid out to you?

Our civilization has been selecting food traits inadvertently since the beginning of agriculture. GMOs is essentially a technology that speeds the process up.

Selecting for traits in an organism is much different prospect than genetically modifying the organisms DNA through biotechnology. In the first case, certain organisms with desired traits were bred to select for those traits, but this used DNA already in the organism. Genetically engineering implies that exogenous DNA is being introduced to the organism artificially. While this can happen naturally by some viruses, intentionally modifying DNA is not natural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism#Production

This does not mean GMOs are inherently "bad", just that the argument that this it is safe because it's essentially the same as artificial selection in breeding is fallacious.

This is a new technology, and there are no long term longitudinal studies for them. Even if some GMO crops might be perfectly safe, one or more may well not be.

tl;dr The onus of proof is one the proponents of GMO, as this is an untested new technology.

modifying DNA is not natural.

Neither is a Granny Smith Apple or a dachshund. Thank you for your thoughtful response, but you're preaching to the choir. I am geneticist. To create a genetically modified organism you must introduce DNA into the germline, but this technology could be used to change a single base pair of a single gene, a change that could theoretically occur naturally. If the selective pressure and conditions were right it, a crop could gain such a beneficial mutation relatively quick. Man has done fucked up the planet though, so if we want to beat a super drought we might want to give mother nature a headstart. That or investment in SpaceX and get working on colonizing Mars.

You're a geneticist too? You are like the 4th different geneticist to post in this sub, and that's just within my own awareness here. It's too bad you guys post so rarely, my timing is indeed fortunate that I was able to catch you while you were posting.

How many base pairs and how many genes must be modified to make something "Roundup Ready"? How about long term independent studies on GMO physiological and environmental effects? Do you have any links to stuff you geneticists read? I would love to read through some of the source material you have.

Thanks in advance.

I would love to read it also, I love how all these morons keep asking us to prove our case when they are the ones that are making the first claim. Standard confusion tactic. Prove to me making corn produce toxins to kill insects will not hurt me. LOL they can't.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think there is great potential in GMO, I just feel every use is not necessarily safe. The combination of Roundup Ready crops and Roundup is not such a simple modification, and has not been adequately tested. Sadly, I feel this use of GM is hurting the the research of truly beneficial GMOs, such as crops modified to work in harmony with specific ecosystems instead of needing petrochemicals.

Vinegar has a lower LD50 than glyphosate.

Vinegar doesn't cause massive tumors and growths. It also doesn't destroy healthy gut bacteria.

Neither does glyphosate. If you're stupid enough to believe fucking Seralini's "studies", though, I don't know what to tell you.

Yes, I'd just rather trust the industry providing the product to also provide the selector studies that "prove" its safety. I've seen the exact same thing done by big tobacco and big asbestos. Some losers never learn. History always repeats.

The selector studies, huh?

Are they doing the same in big climate change and big germ theory these days?

tell you what, drink a pint for me and i will give you 100$ guaranteed.

seriously, i will up that to $1000 if you drink a pint of glysophate.

Those sound like emotional, unsupported feelings: "every use is not necessarily safe" and "has not been adequately tested". I doubt any amount of testing would satisfy most anti-GMO people. Nothing we eat has been proved safe. Most chemicals we use have not been tested, they were "generally recognized as safe" and grandfathered in when regulations were tightened in the 1976 (see http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/the-toxins-that-threaten-our-brains/284466/ ).

Nothing we eat has been proved safe. Most chemicals we use have not been tested, they were "generally recognized as safe" and grandfathered in when regulations were tightened in the 1976

That fact that we do not know if the chemicals we come in contact with are dangerous does not imply they are alright to use. We used leaded gasoline for decades without realizing how harmful it was. In the US where Monsanto fields are next to non GMO fields, the plants cross-breed, and the genetic information can spread. If a GM strain later proves to be harmful it could render inedible 70% of the US supply for a whole crop, like wheat or corn.

The prevalence of high-petrochemical monoculture agriculture is depleting the soil. Food grown on this soil lacks many vitamins and minerals that healthy soil has. My critique of GMOs are in the context of current Big Ag profit-maximizing practices; the incentive is to extract as much profit with the externality being the soil.

So, much of your opposition (monoculture, big Ag, profit) has nothing to do with GMOs.

The "don't know if they're all right to use" part is no different from the situation with non-GMO food and chemicals.

"The genetic information can spread" seems like a minor concern, since we have no evidence that the "spread" is rapid or wide, and the genes being added already exist in other plants.

My problem is with the GMOs born out of that system, meant to prolong that system. They are not designed with the health of the ecosystem or the consumer in mind, but created to maximize profit. Thus we don't know if they're safe to use, so high is the incentive to ignore or choose not to look for side effects.

My opposition is toward Big Ag practices. I am against GMOs if they further this system, I am for their cautioned research if they are designed to work with the surrounding ecosystem.

I don't know, isn't a GMO such as "golden rice" created to help people, not to make profit ?

I doubt most hybrid crops were created out of altruism instead of for profit.

If you're going to reject anything created by big corporations to make profit, you probably should stop using computers and cell-phones and cars and such.

A lot of crops where created out of altruism. Just ask The CSIRO in Australia.

CSIRO in Australia

Does "government science agency" qualify as "altruism" ? Maybe.

wow, i got a maybe out of you. Makes all this worthwhile.

then maybe we should test all chemicals. you know like we do in Australia.

I'll bet Australia doesn't test ALL chemicals in use. I'd guess they grandfathered in all the old chemicals and foods, as USA did. For example, see mention of "grandfathered chemicals" in http://greens.org.au/greens-concerned-over-chemical-registration-regime-amid-new-four-corners-report-0

So what are you saying? that we should keep using old unknown chemicals? What they found was chemicals that where thought to not be in use, that are being used. Now because we know about it, we can stop it. And we know they are old bad chemicals because they have been tested in the past for us to know they shouldn't be used. So the culprits here are the corporations that are illegally using known bad chemicals. We should cut out all chemicals.

I'm saying: don't hold GMOs to a standard that other food and chemicals are not held to. Most of our food and chemicals have not been "adequately tested", or "proven safe". That is not a reasonable standard.

If you "cut out all chemicals", you will die.

right, see standard textbook confubulation, semantics 101. i will happily resubmit my statement. Cut out all agri chemicals and food additives. Does that grab you better? or will we die if we stop taking roundup?

What's an "agri chemical" ? What's an "additive" ? If I use sugar in my cake recipe, is that an "agri chemical" AND an "additive" ?

Isn't Roundup less harmful than the alternatives that were used before it ?

seriously, you are going to try this? wow, you guys are clutching at straws. LOL, you guys are just getting desperate. hahaha, oh gods, our sides are bursting here, one of your other friends will not answer if Mercury or formaldehyde are poisonous or not. LOL, and now you.

Tell you what, feel free to put whatever you want on your cereal. I will be over here eating my organic, non GMO yummy food. Go crazy, spoon on some more Roundup, add sugar as much as you want. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

edit, if you need to be told thrice, there is a group of us here. TOP KEK!!

USA has been eating GMOs for about 20 years now. EU has approved about 44 GMOs so far, I think, for animal consumption, I think. Anyone who eats much of the food exported from the USA has been eating GMOs also. Studies have shown no harm. But each GMO should be evaluated separately; there's no such thing as "all GMOs good" or "all GMOs bad".

now now, don't go soft on me, I was just warming up. Sure, not all GMO's are bad. Make as many as you want. All I ask is for complete scientific transparency and complete package labeling. Then we are all happy. (you will probably find with transparency, the fear factor will dissipate, usually does the trick)

I used to think the same about labeling. But now I'm not sure. If most people hold an irrational belief about GMOs, labeling may result in manufacturers dropping them completely, for everyone. So I lose my choice as a result of your irrational belief. Society loses the benefits as a result of your irrational belief.

See for example http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea (although that article contains some misinformation, such as "The U.S. FDA has tested all the GMOs on the market ...").

See more about this at http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/GMOs.html#Labels

nonono, don't go to that line of argument, seriously, you where coming along so well. You can't call my desire to know what I am eating an irrational belief. By KROM! now go back and do it again.

nonono, try actually answering my argument, instead of going to ridicule. That just makes me think you can't refute the argument.

Actually no. As i have stated, I want free choice. you are proposing to withdraw that free choice. So no, i will happily ridicule you instead, Feel free to come to sydney and i will happily meet up and ridicule you to your face. no probs. But feel free to keep posting on this now empty thread, Every day Monsanto just loses more money. Loving it. That's all the proof we need. So, ridicule time. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH what you think this means anything? Maybe I will get angry and play your game? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA not a chance. I love being in a country where I know what I am eating. LOL< HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA but feel free to eat whatever you want.

That just makes me think

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, lol, here have some more ridicule, It's GMO free, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

here you are. how many more would you like? you pathetic shill. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/

Okay, I looked into disproving those, and found this:

http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/08/05/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/

I don't know man, I didn't bother reading this because I have enough fucks, but I glanced and it seems alright.

Edit: Yeah, just tell me if it's fucked up a bit and how, and I'll either do some research and try to defend it, or remove my link if you prove it inadequate.

yea, first point destroys that paper. A pregnant woman would have to eat several kilos to get that much poison. Well, several kilo's of corn is not much to eat. So i gotta tell you, any poison in food is bad. REALLY bad. Personally, i just want labeling on food. complete labeling. Then this argument would disappear, seriously, if people want to eat that, then go for it. But I don't. simple really. Anyway's my fucks are running out also, so, i didn't read more than that. could be good bits, but meh.

Nobody replied to my comment with any sources on how GMOs are actually proven to be safe.

That's because you've been eating GMOs your entire life and the proof you are asking for would be akin to somebody studying whether breathing normal air is safe . You don't need to be very well versed in science to understand that GMOs are safe and that breathing air is okay. EVERY piece of food you eat is modified on some level unless you are some crazy hermit guy living in the forest surviving on wild berries and shrooms.

Domestication is a form of genetic modification. Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification. Did you know wild almonds are poisonous? We bred that out of them, all almonds you eat are technically GMOs. Almonds aren't new, they've been around for hundreds of years. So not only are you eating GMOs, so did all your ancestors.

Here's another analogy. A backhoe and a shovel are obviously very different, but they are designed to do the same thing: move dirt. That's how I view the difference between selective breeding and bio-engineering. The scientist are doing the exact same thing farmers have been doing since we stopped being hunter-gatherers and started agriculture. The difference is that the scientists are using the latest and greatest backhoes conceived to date, whereas farmers are still using the shovel.

I mean, honestly, what would be your reaction to me if I stated that nobody has given me any proof that the sky is blue? Would you feel the need to provide me with proof for something that is rather obvious?

domestication or selective breeding are NOT genetic modification. Stop trying to combine the two different things for Your nefarious ends. An almond that is safe to eat has not had any GMO done to it, but slowly a strain that produces less toxins has been bred. It is still the same Almond. That is natural. When you add a protein to that Almond, there is no telling what could happen. Or more importantly, when. But I am always impressed by the sheer amount of organised vote brigading you guys do, and even how you introduce each other. Very well organised, Nice to know all that GMO profit is going to help the less fortunate.

They are the same thing. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. And no it isn't the same almond... do you know how genetics work?! I think you need to hit the books, pal.

Anything that results in the genetic modification of a species will fall in this category. I didn't decides this, biologists did.

And stop putting a 'attack of the killer tomatoes' twist on this. Scientists just don't go inserting genes willy nilly into plants and animals. And when they do do experiments it's in a controlled environment. I think hollywood has you scared of nothing.

Can you give me a link that states they are all the same thing? Because every dictionary classes them as different? Are we using different books?

Because the W.H.O. differs with you.

http://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/

Are you going to argue with W.H.O.?????????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA,

No "killer tomatoes"? here, read this,

http://www.wanttoknow.info/gmoinyourfood

your move.

never combine those two differentiation's, Crossbreeding and natural selection, are NOT and have no similarities to GMO. Nature kills bees? Natural corn gives us cancer? LOL

Look up Lenape potato

Actually they are. Again, not an opinion Marcus, this is a fact. You can scream shill all you want but we know shill is just code for 'I can't think of a legitimate argument so I'll just call him a shill!'

You are entitled to your own set of opinions, you are not entitled to your own set of facts. You can't change the established definitions of words, sorry.

so these three definitions are all the same?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Genetically%20modified?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crossbreeding?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural%20selection?s=t

And let me ask, if there is nothing to hide, why the resistance to labeling all food? Are you going to try to tell me it is confusing, expensive or some other stupidity? The three terms above are all different as they relate to different things. nickel a post cock cheese scoffers such as yourself, have merely tried to appropriate those terms to confuse.

You are entitled to your own set of opinions, you are not entitled to your own set of facts. You can't change the established definitions of words, sorry

yes i am, yes i am and i havn't changed the definitions. your move now .

these GMO corporations want to blur the line. In reality there is a very definite line between natural, crossbreeding and GMO.

Actually, it is what they are doing. The scale and speed are the only difference. I agree that they are different but I disagree that that distinction is significant in this particular context. (e.g. Micro vs. Macro argument against Evolution, Chuck Norris' Right Bicep vs His Left Bicep)

And what makes you think that traditional farming is any safer? Sure there are potential hazards with bio-engineering ANYTHING... but part of science is the whole laboratory setting which has to be controlled for you to be able to make any conclusions. I love the science-fiction trope of Man playing god and then his creation destroying him as much as the next nerd, but that's fiction. In reality, if an agricultural disaster is going to happen the most likely culprit will still be humans but it won't be because we were trying to make a weed-killer resistant strain of soy beans (which btw results in less pesticides so arguably better for the enviroment) it will probably be the result of a mono-culture disease like what happened in Ireland. (Did you know before the potayto famine Ireland had a population of around 800 million and today it's around like 450 million?)

Anyways I'm starting to ramble, I'll end with: GMO is an umbrella term and I agree that that is bad, but probably not for the same reasons. Labeling a food as a GMO implies to the ignorant (which includes most of us) that something is wrong or different about the food, which is false and makes people fear nothing. Any food that humans have altered over generations from it's original wild state is domesticated and without domestication agrarian societies that birthed the beginnings of our collective histories would not be possible. Jesus ate GMOs. The Pharoes of Egypt ate GMOs, fucking Caesar drank wine that was made from grapes that were GMOs. That's the definition of the word! This isn't even my opinion here!

it is also nice to see that the more shills that are employed, and the increase in suspect dodgy pro GMO "scientific" studies that abound, that the world is INCREASINGLY going anti GMO. LOL. love it.

There must be a million of us Shills then.

yup, there are a fair few, it is a reasonably stable job, pays the bills, though leaves one morally bankrupt.

here is an interesting article.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/gmoinyourfood

are you going to ARGUE with the W.H.O.???

http://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/

seriously, I thought that as you were brought out to battle with me, That you may live up to the term used for the more experienced shills, That is "hitman"LOL, romantic in a way. And I am honestly chuffed that you where brought out to battle, But here is the thing, Your cause is already lost. Seriously, GMO is getting smacked down all over the world, People are more aware of what corporate GMO stands for, And people are voting with their feet and wallets. That is why Monsanto has taken a massive bottom line hit, and even McChewAndSpew is hurting. People have realised food production is not a problem that was first claimed, if the yanks stopped eating so much, And that GMO production has actually been producing less per hectare than before. Not only that with the higher price for non GMO and organic, and without the oversight of the evil corporations, Farmers are changing back to more traditional techniques.

I love how you have now gone GMO "lite" LOL No, there are no known dangers from traditional farming. If you got a ref. let me at it. The CSIRO in Australia, has been mightily involved in natural selection of foods to fit the climate/terrain, and also in crossbreeding to enhance certain characteristics. In Australia's case, water consumption of plants. THIS is not GMO. Not only that, the testing is exhaustive and importantly open to inspection/transparent. This is not the case with private corporations. We do NOT need to insert toxins into our food, we only just got it out of the almonds, remember? And that is why GMO and not crossbreeding is bad. Seriously though, Noone can win these internet arguments, yet I have already won in real life. You see, I am about to sit down with my wife and daughter, knowing that in her future, there will be full renewable power, no petrol, and a lacking of evil petrodollar funded, military industrial complex protected GMO and big Pharm corporations such as Monsanto. I have won because the meal we are going to eat is completely GMO free and Organic. My daughter will grow up in a cleaner world, that I am trying to create. And there is nothing, NOTHING you can do about it.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/

It cites Seralini, how can we take that article seriously?

Those studies are great but don't prove that GMOs are unsafe. In the first one, they even admit in the conclusion that no problems occurred in the mother of the fetus... BUT THEY MIGHT!

The third link is about Gluten... /sigh That's also another great example of where people see a problem where there is none. There is no such thing as 'Gluten Sensitivity'. If you have Celiac Disease, then yeah don't touch Gluten, but if you don't have Celiacs then you are being stupid. Gluten is the MSG of today.

I'm not saying that all GMOs are completely safe 100%, but I am saying that the dangers that exist in GMOs exist in regular food too. Implying that GMOs are less safe then regular food is not backed up by any of those studies posted.

sure, that's a better response from you. So what is the problem with labeling product? You can eat that stuff, and i will eat organic GMO free. what is the problem?

Did you seriously just compare inserting glyphosate into the DNA of our food supply (which is what Monsanto is doing and part of how GMOs work) to plant hybridization and domestification? You are either incredibly misinformed or spreading lies on purpose. Please stop spreading your ignorance.

If Monsanto was simply cross breeding plants this wouldn't even be an issue. No amount of cross fertilizing will ever create a "round up ready" plant.

I think you are confused, buddy, glyphosate /is/ round-up.

I didn't compare inserting glyphosate into the DNA of our food supply with hybridization and domestication. I compared Bio-engineering to hybridization and domestication.

That's exactly what Monsanto is doing. So when you say that we have been eating GMOs our entire life it's extremely misleading. foods that have been modified in some manner are not the same as foods that have are a result of cross breeding.

You are comparing what Monsanto is doing to our food today to modifying food in any way. That's what is dangerous and misleading.

How and why is that misleading? I think your assertion is misleading so right now agree to disagree. Monsanto didn't make round up ready crops by inserting glyposate into their DNA. That's not how it works. I don't think I'm the one being misleading here.

Cross breeding/hybridization /artificial selection are all forms of genetic modification. This isn't something to debate it's the definition of the word. If you are disagreeing that it is generic modification then my next question is to ask you to give me your personal definition of the term because you aren't using the scientific one.

I think the only question that has to asked, is why is Monsanto and its lab rat associates scared about labeling food? What is their resistance to this rather simple idea? If there is nothing to hide, then print (it doesn't cost any extra) and the public will do what it wants. And the cost? well, generally here in Australia it is generally 5-25% more expensive. That is not much, and would decrease with increased production, as I would like to point out, it already is getting less expensive. Tell you what though, once you go organic, you don't go back to GMO. mmm, the taste! organic beef guys, organic chicken, organic tomatoes, mmmmm Am I right guys?

Organic means nothing as organic foods are also GMOs. Again, the distinction is insignificant.

We know that GMO labeling is bad because we've seen it's effects in Europe and that ultimately, if the goal of labeling GMOs is to give consumers choice, then labeling them as GMOs is a terrible idea because that will result in less choice not more.

Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods: Does it Really Provide Consumer Choice?

TL;DR=

Mandatory labeling provides food processors and retailers a choice, but it does not facilitate consumer choice. Because of rational food processor decisions, mandatory labeling acts as a market barrier, and GM products do not appear at the retail level. The mandatory labeling schemes in place today may be compared to a voting system with majority representation, where the winner takes all. Some consumers would probably buy GM products if they had the choice, but the mandatory labeling system does not give them any choice.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH what a load of crap. tell me whom comissioned that rather horrendous study? LOLOLOL Come to Oz man, people love the organic labelling we have here. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA less choice, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Read the study before mashing your fingers on the keyboard. It's clear you didn't read it as the person who commissioned it is at the very top. Have fun trolling.

LOL, and who funded that organisation? GMO corporations. LOL bias much? and lol, lack of choice, lolol. So why are organic and non GMO products selling like hotcakes? HAHA I can tell you why, think of the scenario, there is a shop, and it sells corn. two kinds, One kind is labeled Organic non GMO. The other kind is labeled GMO typeX that produces toxins to kill insects but apparently is harmless to humans. I can guarantee which product will sell. And that is why the GMO industry does not want labeling. Because I can guarantee that the only reason it reduces choice, is because there is only one choice. Eat the non GMO. In Australia, we have lots of non GMO / organic products for sale. And the choice of those products is increasing exponentially, so, that study would be at odds with reality. LOL

There are shills for that. Get used to it. I upvoted this at the 2 minute mark, you were already at 0 points with 50% upvoted.

Understood and agreed. What you can do is check the new posts more often and upvote what you like, quickly.

referring to someone "down voting" you as terrifying is a massive overstatement, this is a forum for discussion people not agreeing with you is not terrifying even if it is part of some manipulation, terror is something far greater than internet points. have a reality check.

When you consider that it is the unpopular subjects that don't get discussed, it can be scary. Nothing is terrifying anymore. We accomplished that mission! Ever go to /r/undeleted and snoop around? Sometimes its way better stuff than on here.

I am very uneasy with the government scouring the internet to squelch out free thinking...that's pretty scary.

vaccines

Here's an example:

http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/2s2ojv/when_im_arguing_with_an_antivaxxer/

obvious vaccine propaganda gets thousands of upvotes, read the comments... so pathetic

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

If it turns out that GMOs are unsafe then all the people accepting money/benefits to deny or obscure requests for the research are co-conspirators in mass murder.

Yeah, it is terrifying.

yup.

Terriffying??? Seriously? You should be happy. With Internet, people can communicate and get informed without relying on the TV so much.

If you ask me, it is the corporations and all those corrupt organisations we lovingly call "Government Officials" that are running scared.

Do not worry about the karma count, I will let you in on a well-kept secret: it has no value whatsoever. I tend to see it as a shill counter nowadays.

Before Internet, these corporations could fill us up with propaganda all they wanted. Heck, they managed to have the whole earth believing we went to the moon for a little while!!!!

I completely agree, that is why corporations and Govt;s (same same) are trying to control all aspects of the internet.

I may blush

lol

That's irony in the last paragraph, right?

I don't know how irony would fit in there but it is as written: TV / Corporate medias are whores for government and corporate agencies. Thus, not to be trusted ... especially when it comes to major events like cough cough the moon landing and vomit 9/11, for example.

Karma is ego centric. Thanks for reminding us that its not about the karma. Its about the truth.

this isn't a forum where the readers that actually pariticapte in the community let votes alter thier decernment of the material presented. So, atleast around here, don't fear the dreaded downvote so much, they kinda come with the territory if you're doing it right. =)

haha, yup, downvote me to hell, I love it, perswonnaly, i wonder if i can get negative karma? that would be brutal. well, off to ask more awkward questions to these morons that want me to eat and inject poison. :) peace man, catch you on the flipside. :P

Makes you wonder what else people will automatically downvote to suppress discussion.

It's probably not even people in some or even most cases. It's most likely bots programed to look for keywords in a post to auto-downvote (or upvote) it. I mean, how else are posts getting downvote-bombed mere minutes after being posted, without even a single response? Surely if the person were a paid shill and not just a bot they would try to post some nonsense to try and discredit the comment or poster.

Probably more like algorithims with keyphrases and such, but youre likely correct. Who knows anymore.

they have bots watching, which alert humans. these humies have multiple accounts. :)

Lots of things get downvoted by shills. Most of our history for example. Try and ask a shill to explain USS Liberty. watch them bolt.

The way they shill is frightening, using up to 10 user accounts variably, and going light from time to time. Even got a guy to admit to be ing a shill once and he private messaged me to stop calling him out cause he had kids to feed. ASACSchrader. He was being a tool earlier calling some kids art shit when it was actually good. I called him an asshat.

Yeah, bots are continuously scrapping reddit for comments and post, and down-voting ensures.Why do you think this happened, definitely not for posting OC

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

It's crazy, the GMO shills are strong even here in /r/conspiracy. They've got one of the strongest online presences out there. I just made a post on /r/TIL with several peer reviewed published scientific papers on the negative effects of GMOs, and initially got upvoted to 20 (Because the AVERAGE PERSON WANTS labelling on GMO products), and then 10 minutes later, downvoted to negative numbers, once the shills arrived. It's absurd. Why would any rational person vote down a post with links to scientific papers?

State any problems with GMOs, vaccines or Israel and you will be downvoted.

Bob Ross too. Down say anything bad about him or you go down!

What problems are there with GMOs and vaccines?

They are both loaded terms that can mean a multitude of things. There isba big difference between GMOS to bolster a plants natural drought resistance and GMOS that add human dna to tomatoes. There are vaccines that have helped millions and there are vaccines that have killed thousands.

A good example of this is you could go to any church and get a priests take on God and I can guarantee you it is different than the view most of the asses in those pews think, and many of those will be different. It comes down to semantics. GMO is a big fucking term.

A good example of this is you could go to any church and get a priests take on God and I can guarantee you it is different than the view most of the asses in those pews think

Except religion doesn't have hard evidence or peer-reviewed studies to back up anything they claim.

I really have to ask, for you to distrust the scientific establishment when it comes to GMOs, how much time have you spent learning about genetics in an academic setting? Because I'm going to guess that when you say

There isba big difference between GMOS to bolster a plants natural drought resistance and GMOS that add human dna to tomatoes.

you don't actually have a lucid explanation as to what these supposed differences might be, and if you do, no clear evidence as to support your claims. You won't like to hear this, and I'm sure you won't hesitate to call me either a shill or a dupe, but reality sticks. Believing that interspecies DNA transfer is intrinsically harmful or has any exceptional proclivity for creating harmful organisms (when performed by actual trained scientists) is simply a display of ignorance as to the realities of genetic engineering.

That said, I'm totally paid off by Monsanto, so don't listen to me. /s

lots, i have issues paying to put poisons from food and heavy metals from the flu vaccine in my body. Is that a problem for you?

No, I don't have any issues with you getting sick from not educating yourself.

so you don't see a problem with putting mercury in your body? every year? (not too mention a multitude of other poisonous chemicals)? How about eating healthy and exercise? works for me and my peers. I would like to point out though, the vaccines for children are a must. Well at least in Australia where our quality control is superb.

No, I don't have any issues with you getting sick from not educating yourself.

So why even be on this thread. Because unlike MURICA! we here in the land of Oz are rather well educated and have access to ALL the info, and we openly discuss medical research and progress. So peddle your deadly flu shots elsewhere.

Can you please provide sustainable evidence that your back up your claim?

I have read multiple reads books regarding the subject and have found no evidence that support these superstitious claims.

then get some better books. because, i don't have any issues with you getting sick from not educating yourself.

So you admit you have no evidence to support your claims?

oh, yes, i got lots.

Well go ahead and present them.

oh gods no, I am happy for you to die because you value your lack of education. Dude, that is what freedom is all about. And i fully support your stance to inject whatever you want into any or or all of your veins/cavities. I would not feel right in myself to try and change your obvious strict religious views. Heck, eat poison corn and snort roundup. You are basically free to be ignorant and take all the associated consequences. I mean, if you cannot even use google properly, then not much can be said for the education of wherever it is you chosen to inhabit. Good luck (i sincerely mean that) with whatever remains of your life. :)

While I appreciate your sarcasm, you made a claim which means you have the burden of proof, I've done many Google searches but I've found nothing but pseudoscientific claims.

You try to scare me with "poison corn, snorting roundup, and inject poison into my veins" luckily your scare tactics don't work on me.

Now go ahead and state your sources and evidence or flee, you clearly feel threatened because you realize that it's a belief and you don't have any evidence.

I don't know why you still bother man. This guy has his head shoved firmly somewhere, but it's not the rabbit hole.

he bothers because he cares man, he cares about my body, obviously just like you. Wow soo much love in the room. So tell me why should i put mercury in my body? Why should I eat corn that produces toxins? And more importantly, why can't we just label everything which will solve everything? Please show me your superior wisdom grasshopper.

lol, i told you, why would i give you citations? you haven't given me any. And more importantly, I am not here to change your mind. All i have stated is if you want to poison your body, go for it. It is your right. LOL What argument is there? you guys want me to put stuff in my body, then burden of proof is on you. Personnaly as I have said, destroy your body as much as you want. LOL.

I asked what there was wrong with vaccines and GMOs, you claimed they are poisonous therefore the burden of proof is on you.

hahahahahahahahahahahahah answer 1 simple question. is either mercury or formaldehyde poisonous?

Jesus Christ, I wanna smoke what you're smoking.

answer the question.

You're insane dude, take your previous comments into review and look at the gibberish you present.

answer the simple question. so very very simple. c'mon you know you wanna. C'mon live dangerously, answer the question. I promise not to tell your masters.

C.mon, we will have to do this with baby steps. answer the simple question

does bubba wanna lollie?

aaaww,, Can't answer a simple direct question? tutut, what will your paymasters say.

oh, deary, now because he has been put on the spot, it is pouting time. LOL, I can feel the rage from here.

His dad works for the CIA and would totally get fired if he showed them to you.

Apparently.

Please tell me that there isn't an army of Monsanto shills or bots out to downvote any comment of the sort. Thanks.

There is, there might be software bot in the lot though, you're welcome!

They have both.

Not every down vote is a schill for Monsanto or a not. I'd have down voted the comment too but I also would have replied. Sorry but I don't buy into the GMO fear stuff.

This comment will probably be down voted here just as your comment was down voted there. Context and location matter.

I'm all for a good conspiracy, bit I keep it in check as well. That's why I like this sub but rarely post here.

r/gmomyths is the barracks for Monsanto shills on Reddit. It's where they organize vote brigades on any GMO-related thread they can find. Take a look at some of the mods' histories there. They spend literally all day every day doing this - clearly they are getting paid.

If you say something massively stupid, I'll downvote you.

On "any sources on how GMOs are actually proven to be safe", this is a red herring. Nothing you eat has been "actually proven to be safe". Corn, wheat, milk, water, none of it.

My attempt to organize the debate about GMOs: http://www.billdietrich.me/Reason/GMOs.html

I had to delete my comment because it reached -50 downvotes.

u are confused. there is no rule stating a comment reaching 50 downvotes must be deleted.

i smell a reptilian zionist cover up

It is the same for vaccines.

You're anti-vaccine?

Who is asking?

Ron Burgundy?

Then, I love vaccines. I eat them for breakfast.

ROFL!!!!

Holy shit the shills are on full alert in this thread. Its insane to see one day a thread do so well against GMOs and vaccines and the the next have it full of people that 'dont buy into the fear'. Insane.

well, they do get paid to vote brigade.

The pro or anti GMO skills?

these companies - big ag, big oil, the military-industrial complex - they all use public relations firms to manage their online image, similar to how tobacco companies used their PR firms for years to deny cigarettes were addictive or carcinogenic. this is a well known, thoroughly documented practice and once you've been on reddit long enough the shills become fairly transparent. just read through the comments in this very thread.

I think the only question that has to asked, is why is Monsanto and its lab rat associates scared about labeling food? What is their resistance to this rather simple idea? If there is nothing to hide, then print and the public will do what it wants. Tell you what though, once you go organic, you don't go back to GMO. mmm, the taste! organic beef guys, organic chicken, organic tomatoes, mmmmm Am I right guys? By the gods I will have sexy organic food dream tonight!

unfortunately, we are not in a good world. And if someone doesn't want something labeled, then all I ask is why? Why won't you tell me what is in it? I think the easiest, best and fairest system is to declare and label all ingredients.

Man, it would be hilarious to see you do a blind taste test of GM versus non-GM foods.

ever tasted gmo corn vs natural? i have. and done it blind, even though obviously i cannot give you the proof you will ask for according to the script. GMO tastes like bland.

Yeah, only assholes expect proof of claims. Only youtube documentaries can truly be trusted.

exactly, you are an asshole. couldn't of put it better myself. But feel free to eat all the toxins you want. Heck i stand behind your right to treat your body in whatever way you desire. Why stand in my way of eating organic and non GMO? but then i suppose that is what assholes do. :) enjoy your toxins.

What a rational, well formulated and well evidenced argument!

I know right, so simple a moron can understand it.

What if that basically entailed labelling 90% of all food? What would be the point then?

And perhaps you haven't realised that organic foods typically cost considerably more than processed or GMO foods. Many people simply don't have the option of paying out the premium that big organic is charging for its products. What are they supposed to do in that case?

What if that basically entailed labelling 90% of all food? What would be the point then? ....... I think 100% of should be labeled.

why not? We do in Australia. doesn't cost any more, and everyone is happy. There are even some companies that tell you where and when and all the other info about the individual package you buy. What is the problem that you are trying to infer? ...

And perhaps you haven't realised that organic foods typically cost considerably more than processed or GMO foods.

No they don't where do you get your info? Come to Australia, Most non GMO / organic stuff is 5 - 25% more expensive than factory processed GMO. Where do you get your info? Come to Australia and check if you want. In some cases, it is even cheaper to eat organic here. Seriously, we are not fucked up like America where hot dogs are a food source.

And All I can say is that the masses did speak. How is Monsanto's bottom line these days? 34% drop? something like that? LOL. Try to peddle shit, and sooner than later you will run out of customers. Same is happening to Mc chew and spew. Great days!

here is an interesting article.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/gmoinyourfood

Welcome to reddit... its sad really.

It makes sense, i mean jesus! What is more likely? Millions of people are scared to eat 70% of the food because of extremist hippies OR Multibillion dollar corporations actually like to make insane amounts of profit and don't want people fucking that up.....

Eh. Theres a place for everything. Talking bad about gmos in one sub might get you downvoted, while in another sub you get upvoted. Such is reddit.

Btw, cure for hunger? Its a two step process. End gluttony and the waste produced by gluttony, and inact a system of farms that sustainably grow eafthworms, crickets, and other high protein organisms. These require little investment for the return you get. Maybe not the most tasty of options, but itll work. A small warehouse bay can produce quite a bit of earthworms... Plus you can grind them up after you dry them out and get a decent protein powder...

Best part is no gmos required...

We already produce more than enough food to feed everyone adequately in the world. It's simply a matter of devotion of resources/delivery method/money.

It's more a matter of politics and war and ignorance. Food isn't getting to people who need it in war zones, and in failed or malicious states (North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc). And as you said, in some places without adequate infrastructure and money.

I think that would work greatly. That and countries producing goods that sustain those in need of them, not over indulging in industry and over produced goods.

Something that truly concerns and is disheartening is how GMO crops and food will effect the future ecosystem at large.

Not sure on the studies about this, but it just worries me.

There is no problem with world hunger, stop the yanks and other fatties eating so much and stop dumping grain into the sea to keep the price high. And my father swears by crickets. He used to eat them in the Jap pow camps.

This isn't the kind of thing you can meaningfully cover up. If you really think glyphosate may kill bees, butterflies and worms, buy some at your local nursery, catch some insects, and test it yourself. Record the whole thing on your phone and post it to youtube. It's an afternoon's work, and you could be famous!

it kills everything. That is what poisons do.

Is that glyphosate thing related to gmos?

but now you're conflating two different issues. Most people on the anti-gmo side of the argument tend to make this mistake. Disentangling gmo from monsanto is the first step- for both sides.

The detergent in glyphosate formulations is literally more toxic than the herbicide.. unless you're a plant. Aside from "research" that's openly paid for by industry lobbyists and greenpeace, there's nothing out there to contradict the safety of glyphosate, and plenty to support it.

Overuse of any agrichem is bad, generally. But replacing bad chems with less harmful ones, and allowing more intelligent usage, is great progress.

always go organic. Say no to chemicals.

Hey, I get down voted for most of anything I say. Just say what you think and feel and move on.

I get downvoted anytime I say anything against what the majority in /r/conspiracy believes.

Should I believe there are shills here or just accept the fact that when I post in a sub where I know my comment will go against the majority I will be getting downvotes.

You guys are WAY too shill-happy.

I agree about the shills and useful idiots defending the entity that is actually destroying them

They probably didn't because the evidence is so easy to find...it has an overwhelming scientific consensus.

• Over 2000 studies have been conducted on the safety of GMOs
• Science says GMOs are safe
• 600+ safety assessments
• Even Bill Nye changed his minds on GMOs when he finally took the time to look at the science

Because anyone who disagrees is labelled shill without second thought - without even considering that maybe they just understand the science well enough to dismiss the anti-science stance that is anti-gmo.

And yes, there is also extensive testing on Glyphosate. And why do you assert that crops which have been engineered to resist roundup are not good to eat? Where is the evidence for that?

The dose makes the poison. (image version)

People who use X-ray machines wear lead vests. Does that mean x rays are dangerous?

You shouldn't drink glyphosate - it isn't made for that. But when applied to food, which is then grown, rained on/watered, blown by wind, picked, transported, probably washed, and ultimately sold (at which point you're free to wash it again), the amount of Glyphosate remaining on the food is negligable, and well below the quantity required to cause any concern.

This fact is well studied and known beyond doubt.

The difference between someone spraying concentrated glyphosate all day and someone eating food which was previously sprayed with it, is even bigger than the difference between technicians sitting besides xray machines all day, and people who get xrays once every 5 years.

• Glyphosate fact sheet
• Wikipedia on human toxicity of Glyphosate (with links to references...)

Honestly, the only way to know for sure whether you really could taste something or just thought you could, would be to double blind control your perception of eating a herbicided apple and a non-herbicided apple. A few hundred times :D

Ok, I'm going over there to echo your comment and see what happens.

Good luck!

Maybe because it was just a goofy comment to make. It would be like going into a fashion thread and saying "I think the tric to being better dressed is dressing better". I could be wrong, but since were weren't provided with a screenshot of the tone of your post we don't really know.

Please remember that reddit doesn't function well as a system for prioritizing pertinent arguments. People will downvote for whatever reason they feel like regardless of the contents of the post. People tend to be finicky about nonsequitors, grammar and tone before the're finicky about content. People also tend to downvote things that are already being downvoted. So perhaps it's likely you were the victim of some snarky redditors downvoting a low-content or Captain Obvious post rather than being the target of shills or men in black.

In my opinion, there is an explanation to your experience, particularly in the /r/technology thread: I would be what people would normally label "progressive/liberal/yada whatever stereotypical non-conservative anti-capitalist." The thing is, when I engage in conversations about social issues with people in the "scientific/white-nerd" community, they tend to still be sheltered by their white privilege. Thus, when you simply state that solving poverty would end hunger not GMOs, it doesn't fit the Scientific's "activist" thought models. Same experiences with race, class, trans issues, misogyny, capitalism etc.. thoughts?

I hate when posts like yours get downvoted. This is one of the most "on the money" things I have read in quite some time.

GMO topics tend to attract serial downvoters for some reason.

It really sucks but liberals continue to be driven by this "is it's scientifically ok, then it is MORALLY upright." How about not doing morally disastrous things like war and US backing of dictatorships, or the destabilizing of foreign economies to prevent world grief? (though the economy is the least of worries, I would think it more just to look at the socio-political harms as more disastrous) Science isn't the answer to worlds problems, just like Liberalism or Christianity or Organic food or Vegetarianism isn't... It's stopping oppression, the good versions of the things I mentioned which look at the whole context and fight to end the whole system in which we all live in and perpetuate. You the shit :)

for some reason

Because actual scientists get pissed off at conspiratards who give scientific progress a stigma.

"conspiritards" nice to throw some white privilege along with some ablsism right. When was I bashing scientific progress? Scientific progress is the sort done by scientists (in all fields) which courageously stand up to the neo-liberal institutions which do more harm than good. (yes, I think the destabilization of Africa and countries of color and the US backing of dictatorships around the world is harm). You sound like the stereotypical white activist. People are dying, they don't have time to wait on good hearted scientists (I'm not denying their good intentions) to solve the "food problem"... Stopping oppression=stopping poverty... not GMOs...

From Forbes “From 1950 to 1992, the world’s grain output rose from 692 million tons produced on 1.70 billion acres of cropland to 1.9 billion tons on 1.73 billion acres of cropland — an extraordinary increase in yield per acre of more than 150 percent.

From IFL Science on the safety: http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/comprehensive-study-100-billion-animals-finds-gmos-safe-livestock

You're right, my bad. Here's a source about the Panama Disease, a plague that affected bananas and was solved through one of the first instances of GM. It's probable that bananas would not exist as widely as they do, if at all, if this GM had not been implemented.

Also, do you agree that the source I provided to prove the safety is enough evidence?

I don't know what comment you made.

However, you should be informed about GMOs (and I mean the science behind it, not what naturalnews says), i.e. take an online course about genetics, biotechnology methods in the laboratory, etc. Sometimes, people that are anti-GMO really have no idea what they are actually arguing against; same with pro-GMO that only use what Popular Mechanics or whatever pop-biology magazine says.

I'm open for a discussion if you would like one.

How about you prove they're harmful first? Gotta love you conspiracy nuts, this is why nobody takes you seriously.

I had to delete my comment because it reached -50 downvotes

Are you here to have an interesting discussion, be part of the reddit community or just here to build karma points?

There are different types of GMOs. Not all of them are bad.

Change socks. They get bored.

happened to me too, i ignore them

https://www.reddit.com/r/Australianfreespeech/ This one gets down voted all the time.

I've had the same experience. If you aren't popular culture on reddit, you are going to get down voted. It doesn't matter how many sources you cite. They don't care about facts. It's a brigade+useful idiots. I rarely find people with open minds but when I do it's nice having a rational conversation. As long as you can reach a couple people.

I use 2 ways to deal with them, either just laugh a lot at them, (write hahahaha) a LOT, or lead them on to waste their time, you know play a bit and then ask them where you can purchase some napalm or something of that ilk. You can try something like, "hmm, yea My father always said Monsanto was a good company". They will get excited at this, and ask some other silly question. You then say something like, "Yes, he always spoke highly of their Agent Orange and Bulk rates for Napalm. Shill dispersal. NEVER try to argue with a shill, weelll unless you really want to. :)

/u/dtiftw really likes to defend GMOs...

Neil deGrasse Tyson sez...

It's because you're making a really juvenile point. How do you suggest that we "end world poverty" in a realistic and lasting way?

Spoiler alert: it's a ridiculous pipe dream that ignores human nature

The shills are in overdrive right now, they are also voting down evidence of the harmful effects of vaccines

http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2s0mfp/the_vaccinated_are_infected_carriers/

shills bro...they are front running anything and everything...

why worry... the herd is culling itself...

Shills are frontrunning the reddit hivemind when it comes to vaccines/gmos/9/11/false flags/israel/jews.

Expect that kind of automatic resistance anywhere that is a main/frontpage subreddit.

Wow that's quite the claim.

Any scientific sources that show that vaccines, gmo's or jews are dangerous?

Lots of sources from the 30s and early 40s. Surprisingly though, they stopped doing research in that field of inquiry in 1945. I guess you could say Antisemitism had quite the Downfall.

reddit.com/user/beardslymcgee

probably your main account right

I can neither confirm nor deny.

Confirmed then.

Guilty until proven MORE guilty!

Redditor for 2 days, only bashes things on r/conspiracy

Seems legit.

Thanks! I am pretty legit if I don't say so my self.

The responsibility and claim lies with whom seeks to express safety.

Sure thing. That is why science is awesome. Although I'm not sure how one would scientifically prove an entire race of people aren't dangerous (common non-racist sense would tell you someone's race has little to do with their behaviour), I can definitely help out with the first two.

For vaccines, here is a nice review of all the studies that prove vaccines don't cause autism. I post it because it is a common claim. Got any other claims about vaccines? I imagine I could scare up some sources, considering vaccines are one of the most researched and important scientific advances in human history.

Now... on to GMO's. First off, Yes, Monsanto sucks. It is a large corporation that fights for it's own self interests, often at the cost of the common man. Good thing there is a world-wide community of qualified individuals who share their knowledge and sort out facts from bullshit. here is a little overview. Remember, forbes isn't the source you want to look at, go to where they source. Look at the scientific organizations they cite. Also, don't forget to look at google scholar or other journal sites for more info.

MIT Lincoln Laboratory researchers develop a technique to cure a broad range of viruses (Three year old press release! What's the holdup?!)

The Draco Fund - Funding Hope for the Demise of the Viral Infection

The difference between the rationalists and the conspiracy theorists

Ultimately, if you have any sort of theory that falls outside of our current consensus, you're not going to receive a serious review from mainstream scientists, because they're generally afraid of anything that challenges the consensus. As a prominent example I like to bring up, Lynn Margulis had to submit her theory of endosymbiosis explaining the origin of human mitochondria at least a dozen times (I forgot the exact count) before anyone was willing to publish it. Today it's scientific consensus.

However, that shift in consensus merely happened because scientific consensus doesn't like to be challenged. Consensus only changes when it's forced to change to preserve its credibility, when the damage to scientists reputation becomes less by accepting that they were wrong and allowing a consensus change than by sticking to their current consensus.

Anyone who proposes any sort of fringe theory receives this answer from the "rationalist" crowd, that he should submit it for peer review, but in reality peer review mostly serves to protect the dominant paradigm, not to improve it through challenges...

...Even the Climategate emails that were leaked showed attempts by prominent scientists to manipulate the peer review process to prevent certain papers from being published, and serious climatologists voiced their concerns about this at the time. The Climategate emails didn't so much disprove global warming, as they demonstrated the painful shortcomings of science and the fact that systems with a high degree of complexity don't reveal their secrets after systematic observation.

In reality, what is necessary is for us to accept the fact that scientific consensus doesn't tell us something about the nature of reality, but rather what institutionalized power believes reality should look like. I would take it a step further and argue that new observations don't lead to a shift in consensus, but rather, that a shift in consensus is what leads to new observations...

TL;DR: The mainstream science communities are not immune to Group-Think, Group-Serving Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, The Dunning-Kruger Effect, Illusory Superiority, or corruption in other means.

List of studies of neurotoxic vaccine additives and autism

Race affects a person's entire life and perspective.

Monsanto has had decades to infiltrate various legitimate organizations and are caught manipulating data all of the time.

You are just another disingenuous block of text.

Most Jewish people today are medern/moderat/secular Jews (they take the good and leave the bad).

However, most of the "Jews" in power are (political/Rothschild) Zionists pretending to be Jewish.

Jewish people and evil (political/Rothschild) Zionists are not the same thing! This above mentioned form of Zionism is a very racist, genocidal, greedy, self-serving, unsympathetic, sociopathic, psychopathic, and fundamental ideology. There are Zionists that are not claiming to be "Jewish", but "Christian" (faux Christian), such as the Bush Family and Biden. Many of the Zionists claim to be "Jewish", in part, to discredit any and all critics with a dismissive conversation ender by calling them "anti-Semites". Zionists that claim to be Jewish are about as Jewish as terrorists claiming to be Muslim (as in, not at all true to the (modern/secular/moderat) religions).

Part of the plan by these (political/Rothschild) Zionists that claim to be Jewish is to have the masses hate actual Jewish people and Israel for their atrocities; The average uninformed/missinformed person may mistake these Zionists as true Jewish people, and falsely blame humanist Jewish people for all of the atrocities of the Zionists (War, Coup de tats, Usery, human rights/constitutional defying laws/policies/actions, etc.).

The three big (political/Rothschild) Zionist Occupied Governments (ZOGs) are the USA, the UK, and Israel. Many other countries are also controlled, owned, and operated by the Zionists (through Central banking, mega corporations that politically lobby federal politicians, mainstream media, etc.). Many USFG politicians have Israel-USA dual citizenships.

The Zionist grid of power in a nutshell: The USA is Israels bitch, the USA, Israel, UK (and others) are the bitches of the (political/Rothschild) Zionists, and the Zionists are the bitches of the top-of-the-top of the Global Elites/Powers That Be (PTB)/Illuminati.

Protip: When trying to denounce (political/Rothschild) Zionism and its ilk, for the love of God, do not use David Duke as a source! Duke may be right about the power of Zionism to an extent, but using Duke as a source probably discredits the Conspiracy/Truth/Dissent movement since Duke used to be a KKK Grand Wizard, is a white-supremacist, and is also not fond of Jewish people (even if they are humanist and not Zionists).

CDC lies

More lies

And here

GMO

And as for Jews, well, Israel.

Please link the long term studies proving the safety of GMO's for mass consumption.

This is all that has ever been asked, unfortunately no matter how many times it has been requested it is always met with the same bullshit responses.

Edit: Before you reply make sure its not about GMO animal feed.

Edit2-theresponseabove:

Sure thing. That is why science is awesome. Although I'm not sure how one would scientifically prove an entire race of people aren't dangerous (common non-racist sense would tell you someone's race has little to do with their behaviour), I can definitely help out with the first two.

For vaccines, here is a nice review of all the studies that prove vaccines don't cause autism. I post it because it is a common claim. Got any other claims about vaccines? I imagine I could scare up some sources, considering vaccines are one of the most researched and important scientific advances in human history.

Now... on to GMO's. First off, Yes, Monsanto sucks. It is a large corporation that fights for it's own self interests, often at the cost of the common man. Good thing there is a world-wide community of qualified individuals who share their knowledge and sort out facts from bullshit. here is a little overview. Remember, forbes isn't the source you want to look at, go to where they source. Look at the scientific organizations they cite. Also, don't forget to look at google scholar or other journal sites for more info.

Well, first I'll assume you accept the evidence I put forward concerning vaccines, considering your lack of reply on the subject.

As for the long term studies on genetically modified organisms and their safety, I can essentially cite the entire agricultural history of mankind. After all, genetic modification has been occurring since very early in mankind's history, just simply at a slower rate. Selective breeding is genetic modification. It is why your bananas are different then before man and your dog doesn't look like a wolf. The fact that we are able to selectively choose specific genes at a more accurate and faster rate has no bearing on their safety. As I said, there are plenty of studies showing the safety of these new techniques. Combined with thousands of years of trials, I think the evidence is pretty concrete.

Of course, considering the relatively new techniques for genetic modication, you may have some concern, and obviously long-term studies aren't possible with a new technology. Luckily, so much is known about the techniques we use, that genetic modification is a precise science. Those conducting the experiments know exactly what they are changing and how it will effect the organism, thanks to decades of scientific knowledge. It is selective breeding... accelerated. Nothing more.

Again, please don't take my word for it. Peer reviewed scientific journals are just a google scholar search away.

EDIT: Of course, from an environmental perspective, their is concern over genetically modified organisms and how they may effect natural ecosystems. However, this is unrelated to the issue of safety regarding human consumption.

As an avid gardener.grower of stuff who grows a pretty good bit when it's warm. I feel my knowledge is a bit above that of a layman, far below an agriculturist or genetic engineer, but here is my visceral feeling on the matter;

Selective breeding I understand -- Cross-breeding, etc. has been around for nearly as long as agriculture has. I get all that. Where I get the visceral heebie jeebies is (and please correct my perception if it is incorrect) when you have corn (as an example) that has (as I understand) something genetically introduced in a lab that would say.. Sevin (Round-Up) resistant.. I wonder, and freely admit that this is a feeling, How can a plant that is resistant to being soaked with Sevin be safe to eat? The residual chemicals alone.. Aren't they a concern? I'm not even getting into the actual makeup of the modified plant, but I guess that's my concern.

My only real gripe about most modified vegetables is that in my experience flavor is often sacrificed for factors of a practical nature, like increased storage time possibilities.

I just grow the heck out of heirlooms (veggies) in the warm weather, and almost without exception, they simply taste better.

Roundup is nothing you'd want to consume, but it does break down relatively quickly, into byproducts that are relatively non-toxic. It's a problem if it gets into water, but it sticks to soil pretty well. Still, it's no different than any other herbicide- runoff can be an issue, and you probably don't want to eat it. You can say the same thing for all of them, though, and it generally isn't like the herbicide gets soaked into the plant like a sponge. Environmental concerns are there, but again, same for all pesticides, herbicides, and even fertilizers.

As to the biochemistry of roundup ready plants, there's a biosynthetic pathway that all plants need to have working in order to survive. Compound A gets modified by enzyme A and turned into compound B, which is modified by enzyme B and turned into compound C... and so on until you get the product, compound Z. Roundup works by being the right molecular shape to stick to enzyme B's off switch and not let go. With enzyme B not working, compound C can't be produced, and the whole chain to compound Z is disrupted.

Roundup resistant plants produce a version of enzyme B that's shaped a bit differently, and that means that the roundup molecule can't stick to the off switch. The pathway keeps going, compound Z gets produced, and the plant is fine. Here's the thing- modified enzyme B isn't that different from normal enzyme B, and as far as we know, it's safe to eat (if you follow the links provided by the guy you replied to, you can see links to studies supporting that statement).

I will agree with you that heirloom whatevers usually taste better, but that has more to do with selective breeding for stable transport than transgenic tinkering, to my knowledge.

Thanks for the information, gents. I guess it's something I always connected, although I freely admit I didn't understand the mechanics behind all this.

Well carbaryl (sevin) is an insecticide so you could probably apply as much as you want to to just about any plant and it and it wont do anything.

GMO

noun

1. genetically modified organism: an organism or microorganism whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/GMO?s=t

genetic engineering

noun, Genetics.

1. the development and application of scientific methods, procedures, and technologies that permit direct manipulation of genetic material in order to alter the hereditary traits of a cell, organism, or population.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetic%20engineering?s=t

Edit: Emphasis added.

The idea that geneticists know exactly what they are changing and how it will affect the organism is absolute nonsense and anyone with any exposure to the field knows you're full of shit. Human genome was sequenced almost twenty years ago, but the protein encoding is ongoing and all that really matters when determining characteristics.

Again, please don't take my word for it. Peer reviewed scientific journals are just a google scholar search away

To me, this sounds like a "No" on the link to a long term study proving GMO safety for mass consumption.

All that typing you did and you still got nothin'.

Thank You 2-day old user, for living proof the shills are alive.

I had to make another account. Unfortunately despite this sub containing so much "undeniable proof" the moderators still feel the need to ban dissenting opinions.

I already explained the long term study issue. It is astounding how unwilling people here are to actually critically look at their own views. You are fighting an entire discipline of academics. Multiple disciplines. If you asked them your idiotic, misguided question about long term studies you'd get the same response (albeit with far more detail and likely hundreds of sources backing it).

What about all the new technology you likely use every day? Are you refusing to use cell phones and be around wifi signals because of the lack of long term studies on what they do to people? Because there is far more evidence that cell phones may be dangerous in the long term. Or do you not care about that because your fear mongering "news" sites don't tell you that you should be?

Using our advanced techniques to Genetically modify food has already saved hundreds of thousands of lives. But if you would rather believe in a massive conspiracy involving every biologist and geneticist in the world because of some crap you read on blogs on the internet, go for it I guess.

Well, first I'll assume you accept the evidence I put forward concerning vaccines, considering your lack of reply on the subject.

Don't assume such insanity, it is unfitting for you.

your bullshit reply

Fuck off.

Edit-theresponseabove:

Well, first I'll assume you accept the evidence I put forward concerning vaccines, considering your lack of reply on the subject.

As for the long term studies on genetically modified organisms and their safety, I can essentially cite the entire agricultural history of mankind. After all, genetic modification has been occurring since very early in mankind's history, just simply at a slower rate. Selective breeding is genetic modification. It is why your bananas are different then before man and your dog doesn't look like a wolf. The fact that we are able to selectively choose specific genes at a more accurate and faster rate has no bearing on their safety. As I said, there are plenty of studies showing the safety of these new techniques. Combined with thousands of years of trials, I think the evidence is pretty concrete.

Of course, considering the relatively new techniques for genetic modication, you may have some concern, and obviously long-term studies aren't possible with a new technology. Luckily, so much is known about the techniques we use, that genetic modification is a precise science. Those conducting the experiments know exactly what they are changing and how it will effect the organism, thanks to decades of scientific knowledge. It is selective breeding... accelerated. Nothing more.

Again, please don't take my word for it. Peer reviewed scientific journals are just a google scholar search away.

EDIT: Of course, from an environmental perspective, their is concern over genetically modified organisms and how they may effect natural ecosystems. However, this is unrelated to the issue of safety regarding human consumption.

Then perhaps you'd like to reply to it?

This reply is for everyone except eegcmylsdraeB

Look at this pathetic attempt to derail and misinform. These types of people willfully admit and are proud to not only assume their words are yours but would, if given the chance, use it to coerce others or you into positions never intended to be in.

The type of behavior shown by the person above is the reason we cannot have actual conversations, why we feel pitted against each other.

Edit-theresponseabove:

Then perhaps you'd like to reply to it?

What a fantastic rebuttal. I especially enjoy your point by point analysis of the points I made and evidence I provided. I was also impressed your ability to debunk the work of thousands of qualified PHD scientists from across the globe.

Seriously though, your inability to defend your own points does a disservice your cause, and anyone who hasn't already drank the pseudoscientific Kool-aid can see right through your shit. And honestly, that is all I can hope to accomplish responding to your posts. You are way too far gone for me to hope for any kind of influence, but for anyone who may be on the fence, your lack of any ability to defend your points and demonstrated utter distaste of responsible skepticism towards any claims that don't fit your worldview, I would hope they see you for what you really are.

So yah, call me a shill. Attack my credibility. I understand this is the only recourse you have in a situation like this. You are met with evidence you cannot counter or wish away. Your latest response is a final attempt at salvaging your damaged ego until you can crawl back into your hole and use your cognitive dissonance to assure yourself you are somehow justified in your behavior. All the while those with any ounce of awareness will be pushed further from your already dying cause.

REKT

What a fantastic rebuttal. I especially enjoy your point by point analysis of the points I made and evidence I provided. I was also impressed your ability to debunk the work of thousands of qualified PHD scientists from across the globe.

Seriously though, your inability to defend your own points does a disservice your cause, and anyone who hasn't already drank the pseudoscientific Kool-aid can see right through your shit. And honestly, that is all I can hope to accomplish responding to your posts. You are way too far gone for me to hope for any kind of influence, but for anyone who may be on the fence, your lack of any ability to defend your points and demonstrated utter distaste of responsible skepticism towards any claims that don't fit your worldview, I would hope they see you for what you really are.

So yah, call me a shill. Attack my credibility. I understand this is the only recourse you have in a situation like this. You are met with evidence you cannot counter or wish away. Your latest response is a final attempt at salvaging your damaged ego until you can crawl back into your hole and use your cognitive dissonance to assure yourself you are somehow justified in your behavior. All the while those with any ounce of awareness will be pushed further from your already dying cause.

^{^ Checkmate. ^}

My point was:

Please link the long term studies proving the safety of GMO's for mass consumption.

This is all that has ever been asked, unfortunately no matter how many times it has been requested it is always met with the same bullshit responses.

Have a nice day.

And I explained that to you already. I am sorry you feel you know more about the safety of food than entire fields of geneticists and biologists.

You didn't address any of my responses to your claim. Believe or not, if you'd like to have an honest discussion, you need to respond to points with more than insults.

Please link the long term studies proving the safety of GMO's for mass consumption.

Is not a claim.

unfortunately no matter how many times it has been requested it is always met with the same bullshit responses.

This is an observation, how many studies have you linked and how many topics have you "assumed" we are talking about?

Look at this pathetic attempt to derail and misinform.

Are you for real? You are the one attempting to derail by not adressing any of his points. You are the one steering away frome actual conversations.

Right? Holy fuck, this is some next level mental gymnastics.

All I wanted was

Please link the long term studies proving the safety of GMO's for mass consumption.

I didn't allude to arguing over racism or vaccines, he assumed I agreed fully like any criminally minded person would.

And he linked a source with references to multiple studies which you blissfully ignore.

animal feeding data, some multi-generational and as long two years.

comprehensive list of animal feeding studies

The findings also comport with long-term GMO feeding laboratory studies.

*Before you reply make sure its not about GMO animal feed. *

Here.

Look at all the needless assumptions, judgements, accusations, and unnecessary bullshit one had to wade through just to get a proper response.

It is quite sad people whom declare such scientific affinity would behave in such manner. It is no wonder there is an anti-GMO "agenda," replies like the ones above make me want to align myself with such views. It would be beneficial to the scientific community, an by proxy the public at large, if "you people" would quit being such cunts.

It is quite sad people whom declare such scientific affinity would behave in such manner. It is no wonder there is an anti-GMO "agenda," replies like the ones above make me want to align myself with such views. It would be beneficial to the scientific community, an by proxy the public at large, if "you people" would quit being such cunts.

The irony. It's killing me. Unlike GMO's.

I certainly hope you are not wrong.

Edit: Actually the irony is you people are taking a hostile position against someone whom developed the habit of not doing what they want. If the irony is killing you, it would certainly make sense. To justify such behavior would most probably produce those conditions.

Even more irony. You're the one calling the other side cunts, yet this side takes a 'hostile' position? Oh please.

Also

Look at all the needless assumptions, judgements, accusations, and unnecessary bullshit one had to wade through just to get a proper response.

If you would've clarified what you meant in the beginning (instead of repeating yourself ad infinitum), you hadn't need to 'wade through needless assumptions, judgements, accusations and unnecessary bullshit' in the first place.

You may have the last word, please reply.

~Verify

ayy lmao

https://i.imgur.com/L24cy.gif

Please see a psychologist.

Please see a psychologist.

Why?

For the delusions and paranoia.

Don't you ever feel embarrassed saying shit like that?

No, I just feel like you're paranoid and delusional, and in saying that to you I'm probably just being mean because there's no chance you would ever actually thoroughly consider what I'm saying, so it's just tormenting someone who already has enough shit to deal with.

No, I just feel like you're paranoid and delusional, and in saying that to you I'm probably just being mean because there's no chance you would ever actually thoroughly consider what I'm saying, so it's just tormenting someone who already has enough shit to deal with.

I feel embarrassed you exist.

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

I hope you see the tragedy before you permanently set your trajectory. I honestly, really, do.

So guy who just created his account... Tell us your story. Why do you care? Suddenly you've a keen interest in protecting racist jews and GMO and vaccines. Its a little shilly in here...

Sure thing.

I was hired by the JIDF yesterday. They told me:

"Make up lies, but make sure that they are all backed out by scientific organizations across the globe! Because us sneaky jews payed off all those scientists already! Then, go onto websites where the actual truth is disseminated in the form of Low quality 'news' sites with a history of distorting information and no mechanisms for fact checking or peer review."

And I said to my Jewish puppet masters. "YES SIR, because despite the billions you've already apparently spent in paying off hundreds of thousands of academics, I am an important cog in the machine of disinformation. I will go onto a conspiracy forum that has never been able to actually prove anything independently and sabotage their already fruitless efforts."

Or maybe I had a few too many beers tonight and foolishly thought some good would come out of expressing my opinion on scientifically proven subjects and their relation to the baseless fear-mongering that I saw in this thread.

But I guess Jew-Shill may make it easier for you to discount and ignore (without providing any evidence contrary to mine), so I would go with that one.

EDIT: L'Chayim! Thank you anonymous shill brother. May we fight the truth on the ever important battlegrounds that are the niche internet forums.

Would gild you for this fantastic comment if I was not flat broke. Spot on.

You're pretty good at what you do, the least obvious I'd say in recent memory. Take that as a compliment. Do they give you classes, or is it natural skill?

You are obviously being paid to post propaganda. The JIDF exists, which is frightening enough, so the idea of using it to mock someone is kind of like using a silly voice to say, "The NSA is spying on you! Hoo Hoo!" They are spying on everyone.

A lot of conspiracies are obviously and demonstrably true. You do not make them untrue by illogically requesting a resource for claims that have been previously verified at every juncture that they are stated. Nobody need cite Isaac Newton to refer to gravity.

I'm a random 22 year old university educated Canadian. I'm not Jewish (German actually!) and have never received money from anyone to make posts.

I agree with everything the other guy is saying. GMO is safe (business practices aside) vaccines don't cause autism (you're going to believe a fake scientist and a porn star?) and the evil overlord Jews... I know nothing either way so I'll leave that one alone.

You're away with the fairies lad.

The boilerplate sarcastic mockery is strong in this one.

To be fair, being accused of being a paid shill probably would tend to put most people on the defense.

being accused of being a paid shill probably would tend to put most people on the defense.

FTFY

Here's a question, lets say I am a shill... Why does that matter at all? If you are so sure I'm lying, then my points and the thousands of hours of scientific research that backs them should be easy for you to address.

Shouldn't you smack me down with the your crazy knowledge and expose me as the paid government agent that I am?

I like to think of it as a challenge and entertainment. I make as controversial comments as possible to bring them out to play.

Honestly in most subs it does more harm that good as it reinforces the pro gmo perspective because everyone heavily upvotes those propaganda comments, which further ingrains those mentalities into people's heads.

You are better off fighting the good fight on /r/conspiracy posts that reach the frontpage so you can have some backup fighting against shills, and you aren't outnumbered a hundred to one when compared to /r/worldnews or /r/politics etc.

I prefer to voice my opinions and facts on other subs because that's where it is needed the most. I really don't care about the downvotes. I like to plant the seed of doubt.

Anything that is going to receive alot of attention/pageviews is going to get more and more attention from shills as time goes on. On any site, let alone something with as much traffic as reddit.

Hence why shills monitor/influence/sidetrack discussion on r/conspiracy so heavily as our subs increase closer to 300k.

I'm also seeing more and more bots operating on this subreddit as well, let alone the "main" subreddits.

Welcome to reality. Just keep trying.

There are very few subreddits that allow discussion of certain subjects. A couple good ones are /r/conspiracy and /r/worldpolitics.

Welcome to the new Corporeddit.

Ever since reddit was bought up and free speech suppressed the quality, in terms of free thinking and alternative views, has diminished immensely.

I completely agree, that is why corporations and Govt;s (same same) are trying to control all aspects of the internet.

That's irony in the last paragraph, right?

Karma is ego centric. Thanks for reminding us that its not about the karma. Its about the truth.

Can you please provide sustainable evidence that your back up your claim?

I have read multiple reads books regarding the subject and have found no evidence that support these superstitious claims.

No, actually you can't. To prove something "safe" you have to prove it has no negative effects. Since you can't prove a negative, you have to prove that there are harmful effects, "wally".

I was saying he should have had sources in his OP in the other thread.

Loving the insults though. It's pretty common when folks like you have no idea what they are talking about but hate to feel wrong you're first instinct is to insult. Keep it up, ol' chap.

Can you give me a link that states they are all the same thing? Because every dictionary classes them as different? Are we using different books?

Because the W.H.O. differs with you.

http://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/

Are you going to argue with W.H.O.?????????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA,

No "killer tomatoes"? here, read this,

http://www.wanttoknow.info/gmoinyourfood

your move.

answer the question.

answer the simple question. so very very simple. c'mon you know you wanna. C'mon live dangerously, answer the question. I promise not to tell your masters.

C.mon, we will have to do this with baby steps. answer the simple question

does bubba wanna lollie?

aaaww,, Can't answer a simple direct question? tutut, what will your paymasters say.

oh, deary, now because he has been put on the spot, it is pouting time. LOL, I can feel the rage from here.

It's crazy, the GMO shills are strong even here in /r/conspiracy. They've got one of the strongest online presences out there. I just made a post on /r/TIL with several peer reviewed published scientific papers on the negative effects of GMOs, and initially got upvoted to 20 (Because the AVERAGE PERSON WANTS labelling on GMO products), and then 10 minutes later, downvoted to negative numbers, once the shills arrived. It's absurd. Why would any rational person vote down a post with links to scientific papers?

It's interesting that you don't think that.

Rule #10: No personal attacks on other users.

Because anyone who disagrees is labelled shill without second thought - without even considering that maybe they just understand the science well enough to dismiss the anti-science stance that is anti-gmo.

And yes, there is also extensive testing on Glyphosate. And why do you assert that crops which have been engineered to resist roundup are not good to eat? Where is the evidence for that?