Can someone debunk this

[Amarok]

Correction 

I withdraw the statement about huggy not citing his source i misread . Does not change my point thou . 


As for the Anti GMO bullshit it's just that bullshit

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2016/05/0...nal-crops/

[Succubus]

I'm only on page three and I'm wondering why it's run into ten pages already. Did an idiot show up?

[KevinM1]

I'm only on page three and I'm wondering why it's run into ten pages already. Did an idiot show up?

Yes

[Huggy Bear]

Theists don't choke on food?

Lol, Huggy is victim-blaming people who choke to death.  That's a new one from the Theist camp.

---

Also from your website
https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/inj...ildren.htm


That works out to about 73 kids (under the age of 5)per year in the U.S. (and seeing how I specified INFANTS, the number gets even smaller), which is hardly an epidemic. 41,000 people die every year from second hand smoke and second hand smoke isn't on anyone's list of concerns.

---

A lot of diseases can be traced back to GMO's and hormones put in our food. 

Sources please.  Preferably reputable ones.  😏

I am appalled.

I thought you guys were critical thinkers, capable of forming your own opinions, yet you require some one to tell you that genetic modified / hormone laced food is not good for you?

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

https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/safe...hier-you#1

“Modern production of foods incorporates a wide range of synthetic chemicals,” says Jeff Gillman, PhD, associate professor of horticulture at the University of Minnesota and author of The Truth About Organic Gardening. “Many of these chemicals have the potential to be very damaging to humans if they are exposed to high concentrations, or to low concentrations over an extended period of time.”

Injecting hormones into young livestock can make them gain weight faster. More weight means more meat, which means more profit for the producer. Hormones also increase the production of milk by dairy cows.

Hormones have been used for decades in the meat and dairy industries. Synthetic estrogens and testosterone are the most common. Typically, farmers implant a pellet in a cow’s ear at an early age; it releases hormones throughout the animal’s life.

Initial concerns about estrogen-injected cows centered on a compound called diethylstilbestrol (DES). Nearly all beef cattle were treated with DES in the 1950s and 1960s. DES was also used as medicine, given to pregnant women to prevent miscarriages.

However, it was also discovered that DES caused a higher risk of vaginal cancer in the daughters of women who received the medicine.

It’s also long been known that breast cancer risk increases with higher lifetime exposure to estrogen. These facts have led many to question whether the continued use of synthetic estrogens in livestock is safe.

And although pesticide tolerances are assumed to be safe, these chemicals are by their very nature toxic, and haven’t been studied directly in people.

According to Minowa, the individual safety profiles of pesticides don’t take into consideration any hazard from their combined effects. “Take a box of [cereal] off the shelf, and you can find residues from 32 pesticides,” Minowa says. “Each one is within its tolerance, but what’s the effect of those chemicals acting in combination in our bodies?”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s...03139.html

Although there are no longer any genetically modified (GM) tomatoes being sold today, the FDA’s shady approval process of the Flavr Savr provides a lesson in food safety—or rather, the lack of it—as far as gene-spliced foods are concerned. We know what really went on during the FDA’s voluntary review process of the Flavr Savr in 1993, because a lawsuit forced the release of 44,000 agency memos.

(Those same memos, by the way, also showed that FDA scientists had repeatedly warned their superiors about the serious health risks of genetically modified organisms [GMOs]. They were ignored by the political appointees in charge, who allow GMOs onto the market without any required safety studies.)

---

Correction

I withdraw the statement about huggy not citing his source i misread . Does not change my point thou .


As for the Anti GMO bullshit it's just that bullshit

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2016/05/0...nal-crops/

As if your website is in any way objective.

[vorlon13]

I'm still agog over the stomach mucus = God proof thing !!!


Praise Jesus and his Holy Exudate !!!!

[The Grand Nudger]

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

We do....so it seems like a silly question.  The top 7 gmo crops reads like a list of us staple foodstuffs.  We've been eating it for 40 years whether we realize it or not.  A less ridiculous concern relating to gmos are issues of obesity as the gmos are so damned good at producing a glut of food at reduced cost to consumer.

I'm unconcerned, though I appreciate the cottage industry that gmo fear-mongering has created for me.

[LadyForCamus]

Huggy, did you even read the article you linked to? Talk about a lack of critical thinking skills, lol.

[vorlon13]

It's a long way from this:



to all of this:




That's thousands of years of genetic higgledy piggledy there, and people have been eating it all along with great enthusiasm. And even though we can do the advances so much faster now, the product still looks like this:

[The Grand Nudger]

Broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage aren't even naturally occurring organisms.  They were all bred from kale. All three are midly toxic and have been known to cause goiter. Nevertheless, they;re considered safe for human consumption and helped us get around something even more lethal...starvation in the colder months, lol. We've been trying to breed the toxicity out of potato for a few thousand years....still a work in progress. Tomato (and citrus) contribute to ulcers. Corn...ha., where do I begin?

There's literally no such thing as a free lunch, no matter what the luddites tell themselves.

[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.......