GMO's

^ Pretty much this, my mother actually has celiac spru, and eating food that contains gluten actually causes bodily harm to her. For normal people, gluten is about as healthy as flour, wheat, or another grain. Gluten is just the binding agent between foods, generally.

GMOs, even if they present short-term issues for our bodies, eventually (soon on evolutionary terms) don't even matter, as our bodies just simply adjust to it, much like over a few generations we'll eventually learn how to process fast food items much more efficiently, because that is what our bodies do, and have always done.

My one real concern about GMOs is the branding/corporate motivation. Copyrighting the genomes of these plants, or anything else.

 

My mom is a freak about this lol. Unfortunately I don't eat anymore.

 

Nope.

 

In my opinion, I believe that the only significant difference between "Organic" and "non-organic" food is the price.

 

GMO's aren't inherently bad. Here's an example: If you put more sugar in lemonade it becomes sweeter, which isn't bad. The problem is if you put cyanide in lemonade, It tastes good, and then kills you. So if we are extremely cautious with it, It shouldn't harm us.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 6, 2015, Original Post Date: Jun 6, 2015 ---

Non-organic can contain pesticides which are detrimental to your health. Organic can too, but they are less harmful.

 

GMO's have completely different genes that are not normal and don't correspond with our human bodys, that is why we see these diseases and conditions appearing more and more.

Source: http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/GMO-health-1.pdf

 

Not necessarily. If we introduce a drought tolerant gene from, say, corn into wheat, then that should be completely harmless. The only danger is if it reacts with the genes in the wheat to form some sort of death bread.

 

Cause ice cream and Doritos naturaly correspond with our bodies right? Stop linking crap and use your brain in an argument.

Also necro

 

Please don't do that.

 

I did a project on this back in grade 9!
I am completely and 100% against the use of GMOs because;
1. they are harmful to human beings
2. they are genetically altered to fend off pesky insects which actually do good for this planet
3. scientists should just grow them in indoor farms

 

This discussion is about as nuanced as one on all drugs.

A small percentage are extremely bad for you. Most are fine in moderation. Some are life-saving. The same goes for GM crops.

Without GM foods, you guys would be eating like cavemen. Have you seen what bananas used to look like before we tweaked them? They were inedible. And I mean... *REALLY* inedible. Huge seeds, a thick hard skin, and a tough center.

The science is 'in' on this one. GM foods are amazing for us, so long as they don't contain harmful pesticides that destroy the ecosystems of vital wildlife. Most of which, don't.

@XxGedaviaManxX

1. they are harmful to human beings

In the sense that cocaine is harmful to humans, so... drugs are harmful to human beings? Yes. Some are, most arn't. Do you have any evidence that they're bad for you, across the board?

2. they are genetically altered to fend off pesky insects which actually do good for this planet

Again, some do, some don't. The whole idea of GM crops is so that they increase shelf-life, or make them viable for consumption.

3. scientists should just grow them in indoor farms

I can only imagine that this would be insanely expensive to set-up and continue to run. Would it be nice? Sure. Practical? I don't think so, though I'm willing to hear whatever evidence you have to argue that it is.

 

I'd suggest that you look this up. Yet, you describe GMOs like its a drug, (GMO, Genetically Modified Organism). Since the organisms are "Genetically Modified", they are not organic, they are genetically altered and lab grown. your proof is insufficient as well, so read up and prove me wrong.

 

@XxGedaviaManxX -- I'd suggest that you look this up.

No no no. That's not how this works. Watch how flawed of a response this is, when I do the exact same thing.

"Hey Gedavia. You're wrong. All GMOs are amazing for you. Just look it up."

See? We get nowhere. If you claim that GMOs are bad, you have an intellectual responsibility to demonstrate that they're bad. You shouldn't deflect from providing evidence, by asking others to do the leg-work themselves.

What are the reasons and evidence **you** have, that justifies your beliefs about GMOs?

Yet, you describe GMOs like its a drug, (GMO, Genetically Modified Organism). Since the organisms are "Genetically Modified", they are not organic, they are genetically altered and lab grown.

I'm not making any direct comparisons. Merely, an analogy. Some drugs are bad. Very few, in fact. But some drugs are crucial for you and I to exist. We'd be dead without drugs, period, right? The same goes for GMOs. Some GMOs are bad. Very few. But they are vital to our existence as a species.

your proof is insufficient as well,

What proof would that be? About bananas?

http://www.techinsider.io/what-foods-looked-like-before-genetic-modification-2016-1

so read up and prove me wrong.

You have this backwards. You shouldn't come into a conversation, tell people that they're wrong, and then refuse to show them why. I've given you concrete examples of where GMOs have been good for humanity. Now it's your turn to present yours.

If you make a claim, it's up to *you* to prove it. It's not up to everyone else to prove you wrong. This is also known as the 'Burden of Proof'.

(From Wikipedia) -- When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[4]

 

anyway, this is a debate. I don't want any beef

 

Is that it?

@XxGedaviaManxX -- GMOs are wrong! They're bad for you!

@TheDebatheist -- I don't think so. Here's 1 example of where it's been good for us. Can I have *your* evidence please?

@XxGedaviaManxX -- I think your evidence is insufficient. No, I won't prove it. Just look it up for yourself. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong.

@TheDebatheist -- Okay, here are 5 examples of where GMOs have been good for us. I'm meeting my burden of proof when you ask me for evidence. Could you please do the same? It's not up to me to prove me wrong, it's up to you to prove yourself right. Here's Wikipedia explaining why.

@XxGedaviaManxX -- I don't want any beef, lolz.

 

The dangers of GMOs is that Joe from a sketchy lab is supposed to modify the seed of an apple so that it isn't bitter. Instead, since Joe only has 2 weeks of non-conventional training, he accidentally modifies the DNA and now the seeds contain high doses of Hydrogen Cyanide. Now, people eating Joe's apple cores or products made with core material die.

Given the fact that the majority of Genetically Modified products are tested multiple times for defects and harmful side-effects, these instances aren't common at any scale. Apart from that, companies are not hiring Joe to do their work and instead prefer highly trained professionals to do their work.
Add laws and regulations against harmful modifications and you have a safe, working system for the improvement of many agricultural products.

 

"Since 1990, world hunger has almost halved (from 18 to 10% undernourished), thanks to technologies like GMO's. Genetic modification has been one of the greatest agricultural innovations of all time and it has put us on the track to seriously eradicating world hunger.
Whether or not you'd like to consume GMO's is a personal choice and long-term studies will need to be conducted to determine if they do have negative side-effects. For now, there is no question whether or not we should use GMO's - it's a global necessity." @Fuzzlr

and the fact that we are arguing over two different points of view is what makes this a debate. I'm sticking to my opinion and you can stick to yours. There is lack of evidence on both sides, so the jury is out until science answers our questions for us.

 

But you're not arguing. An argument involves a back and forth. Reasoned discussion. You're not doing that though. Essentially, you've just branded yourself as a a closed-minded person. Because, regardless of everything that's been said, you're going to be "Sticking to your opinion". You havn't addressed a single word -- not one -- of the evidence that myself et al have presented.

Edit: Not to be as brash and impolite.

Then, you say something incredibly dishonest. That there is a lack of evidence on both sides, to cover yourself for a lack of evidence on your side.

If this happens again, and I'm afraid that I have no choice but to block you. But I would like a discussion about this.

I presented an example.

You asked for more evidence.

I presented 5 examples.

You don't address a single word of what's been said, then say that you're "sticking to your opinion".

On the flip side:

You have presented zero examples.

I asked you to present evidence.

You said that it was up to me to prove you wrong.

I showed that this is not true (Burden of Proof), and that you still need to present evidence.

You say that 'There is a lack of evidence on both sides. There is no scientific consensus/conclusion yet.'

That is a complete lie. Demonstrably so, from the comments in this thread.

I'm asking, pleading with you here. For the 3rd time. Where is your evidence that GMOs are bad for you?

If you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it. This is logic101 here.

 

ok enough, don't flatter yourself.