Rationalwiki Wrote:The scientific consensus says that there are no generic health risks common for all GMFs.[53][54] Any possible harm can only come from a specific engineered trait. This view is shared by the World Health Organization,[55] the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the European Food Safety Agency, the International Council for Science,[56] the U.S. National Academies of Science,[57] and almost all national scientific bodies. According to one metastudy which included 12 long-term studies and 12 multigenerational studies: "The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed."[58]
Scientists with anti-GMF positions are a tiny minority of researchers, many of them with ideological and/or financial conflicts of interest

My emphasis.

(June 27, 2016 at 10:53 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 10:41 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: There are quite a few unpalatable things about it mate.

Well that's certainly not one of them. GMOs aren't harmful.

Well, that depends on your idea of GMO, for the most part I'd agree.

Allowing corporations the ability to sue sovereign governments, thereby influencing policy, not so much.

(June 27, 2016 at 10:54 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

Rationalwiki Wrote:The scientific consensus says that there are no generic health risks common for all GMFs.[53][54] Any possible harm can only come from a specific engineered trait. This view is shared by the World Health Organization,[55] the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the European Food Safety Agency, the International Council for Science,[56] the U.S. National Academies of Science,[57] and almost all national scientific bodies. According to one metastudy which included 12 long-term studies and 12 multigenerational studies: "The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed."[58]
Scientists with anti-GMF positions are a tiny minority of researchers, many of them with ideological and/or financial conflicts of interest

My emphasis.

OK...not really the argument, but, OK.....

Just saying I'm skeptical. There's two sides to it. There are those who say TTIP is a threat to Europe and there are those who say that's a conspiracy theory which was my immediate intuitive reaction after all the secret plotting was mentioned. And if GMOs is listed as one of the problems and they're clearly not a problem it seems to undermine the credibility of the criticism. Pesudoscience (anti-GMO) and conspiracy theory tend to go hand in hand.

Wikipedia Wrote:he content of the drafts of agreement, as well as the reports on negotiation rounds, are classified from the public, an arrangement that The Independent criticised as "secretive and undemocratic".[20] As noted above, elected representatives may only view the texts in a secure "reading room" in Brussels, to avoid any further leaks of information about TTIP negotiations into the public domain.

To answer the criticism, the European Commission has made negotiation documents public, including all EU proposals in the regulatory and rules components of the agreement.[62][70][71] The Trade Commissioner has described the negotiations as "the most transparent trade talks ever conducted by the EU".[72]

Bold is the other side of things.

(June 27, 2016 at 10:45 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 10:32 am)abaris Wrote: I blame them for instrumentalising every fear and every concern any given population may have. That's what I blame them for. They're not creating the problem or point. But they're cashing in on it in a dishonest way. Since, as I said before, they don't have anything beyond fear and concern to sustain themselves.

You know, in this instance, over here, in the UK, the Remain side were by far the worst in terms of propagating fear, it goes both ways.  Pandering to the lowest common denominator.

I actually think this was learnt from the Scottish referendum. The Yes campaigners ran a positive campaign whereas the No campaign from Westminster was all fear-mongering. Two years later, both sides of the referendum were ran from Westminster and they went back to what previously worked for them.

(June 27, 2016 at 11:02 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Just saying I'm skeptical. There's two sides to it. There are those who say TTIP is a threat to Europe and there are those who say that's a conspiracy theory which was my immediate intuitive reaction after all the secret plotting was mentioned. And if GMOs is listed as one of the problems and they're clearly not a problem it seems to undermine the credibility of the criticism. Pesudoscience (anti-GMO) and conspiracy theory tend to go hand in hand.

It ain't a conspiracy mate, the issue with GMO's and food safety in general with respect to TTIP is that the US allows a whole lot more than the EU, the EU allows virtually no GM foods.  For any bi-lateral trade deal, something would have to give.

The Independent article on the matter was exactly the one I found. Still looks like conspiracy theory to me.

Just saying I require more evidence than rumours about plotting.

Wikipedia Wrote:The European Commission says that the TTIP would boost the EU's economy by €120 billion, the US economy by €90 billion and the rest of the world by €100 billion.[9] Talks began in July 2013 and reached the third round of negotiations by the end of that year.[9]

(June 27, 2016 at 10:52 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Reading up on it it looks like this anti-TTIP stuff is anti-American paranoia.

Not all of it, no. Recently one of our papers published leaked informations on it. Not a tabloid but a serious paper. The negotiators always made a big secret over the contents of that deal. Obviously rightly so, since, if it were signed in it's current form, it would give the USA, and most of all, corporations, undue leverage. Such as courts of Arbitration trumping regular courts of law in case of economical disputes.

Now, there's two ways you can react to that information. One is to blow it out of proportion and incite fear in the process to make a political dime, thereby solving nothing. The other one would be, building upon that and try to execute influence by signing petitions, taking the streets, to make renogotiations happen. You can also take it up with the European court, which rejected treaties and laws being to the detriment of the people before.

(June 27, 2016 at 11:04 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 10:45 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: You know, in this instance, over here, in the UK, the Remain side were by far the worst in terms of propagating fear, it goes both ways.  Pandering to the lowest common denominator.

I actually think this was learnt from the Scottish referendum. The Yes campaigners ran a positive campaign whereas the No campaign from Westminster was all fear-mongering. Two years later, both sides of the referendum were ran from Westminster and they went back to what previously worked for them.

It's the single biggest thing that pissed me off about the campaign, especially from the remain side, not once did I hear Cameron or Blair wax lyrical about the improvements the EU has made to people's everyday lives.  All we heard was the prospect of armageddon if we left.