Can someone debunk this

[Amarok]

Would you feed gmo's / hormones knowingly to your kids?

Not my kids my brothers kids but still  yup i do

---

As if your website is in any way objective.

So that's your big come back .Not the fact it already addresses and refutes each point you put up . Just scream it doesn't agree with you so it's not objective . And your articles are the peak of objectivity .The first a site that promotes Alt med quackery . The other so full of  Anti GMO vitriol i can just see the foam forming at the corners of the writers mouth as he wrote it.  So fuck off with pretending your objective .

---

From my supposed Non Objective site 

I endorse evidence. Full stop.
Before we go on, let us go over some essential background.

1. Humans have been taking wild plants and animals modified them for our needs and wants for over ten millennia. That is how we turned wolves into dogs, Teosinte into corn or the wild banana into the large, seedless bananas that we eat today. Many of our favorite fruits, vegetables and crops look very different today than they did in the wild. This was done using artificial selection. This is a crude, inefficient and slow method that shuffles thousands of genes every generation.

2. Today, you can modify plants in a large variety of ways. You can use the traditional farming techniques such as crossbreeding and hybridization, lab techniques such as embryo rescue or even put them in chemical mutagens or blast them with radiation. None of these methods are classified as “GMO” by regulatory agencies. They are completely unregulated and you can release the crops into nature the very moment you can create them. No testing required.

3. A crop only becomes a “GMO” if it is modified using a particular set molecular biology methods called recombinant DNA technology. For the “GMO” label, it does not matter what you modify or if the resulting crop is safe, only the method you used. If you use this specific method, regardless of what you did, you have to work your way through about a decade of toxicological and ecological safety studies. Even if you cause the exact same change with one classical method and GM technologies, only the latter will count as a GMO.

4. When talking about “GMOs” it is vital to distinguish the molecular biology method from GM applications. The method works. It produces changes that are much smaller, much more precise and much more well-known than any other classical method. It is the same method that was used to make the bacteria that produces e. g. insulin for children with type-I diabetes that previously got their medication from extracting insulin from cattle and other animals.

5. As for specific GM applications, they must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis just like any other product, such as medication or a toy. Most scientists want all products regulated, but that the regulation be based on what changes are done and not what method is used.
Thus, I am in favor of molecular biology methods and I am in favor of those GM applications (and only those GM applications) that have been found to be safe and effective. Why? The answer is because I accept evidence that those methods work effectively and because safe and effective GM applications have reached that status because the evidence supports it. Thus, I am pro-evidence. Full stop.

This is not he same as irrationally endorsing all possible applications that has ever been done with a given method. I endorse evidence. The only reason that “pro-GMO” is a term that is sometimes used is because it is not possible to explain all the above in casual conversation. The scientific position I outlined above is not the ideological opposite of “anti-GMO”. It is just conclusions based on scientific evidence. So when a pro-science advocate uses the phrase “GMOs are safe”, they mean that the methods used to make GM crops are safe and that the vast majority of GM applications that have risen to prominence are also safe.

Clearly a fanatical GMO fan boy . Now go read Huggies sources and compare who's being more rational.

No one is shielded from criticisms: People and groups who are popular within the skeptic community do not get a free pass. If they make pseudoscientific claims, they get criticized just as harshly as the typical denialist. For instance, I have dissected anti-psychiatry claims by biologist and talented creationist critic Jerry Coyne on medical psychiatry and , despite the fact that he is very rational in many other areas.

Again from my Non objective website . Clearly he's a fanatical author with an agenda . Which is why he takes skeptics to task when they promote bullshit.......