Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wisechoice

(180 posts)
43. It is not that easy
Tue Mar 4, 2014, 04:46 PM
Mar 2014

There are too many variables to establish the relationship. You need 2 groups, one eating GMOs and one not eating GMOs. You cannot monitor a person from not eating GMO food because there are too many unlabeled food that contain GMOs. Then there are other things that introduce health issues, such as environment, water etc. That is the reason we need large sample and longer period to study. There are bottlenecks introduced to this kind of study by pro GMO groups. One is the labeling of GMO foods. Other bottleneck is that the independent research bodies has limited access to these GMO seeds.
" Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results. While arguing that seed companies' intellectual property rights ought to be protected, Scientific American calls the practice dangerous and has called for the restrictions on research in the end-user agreements to be lifted immediately and for the Environmental Protection Agency to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to genetically modified products for testing.[69] In February 2009, the American Seed Trade Association agreed that they "would allow researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops." This agreement left many scientists optimistic about the future, but there is little optimism as to whether this agreement has the ability to "alter what has been a research environment rife with obstruction and suspicion."[68][70]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

I want to like and share the article... I realy do...but Veilex Mar 2014 #1
Yup. Exactly. HERVEPA Mar 2014 #3
That's interesting. Mr_Jefferson_24 Mar 2014 #4
You've already assumed i'm a proponant for GMOs and you're mistaken... Veilex Mar 2014 #5
I didn't make any assumptions... Mr_Jefferson_24 Mar 2014 #6
Because your comment is a framing for an argument I refuse to have... Veilex Mar 2014 #7
Seems a pretty straightforward question to me... Mr_Jefferson_24 Mar 2014 #8
so much for "I didn't make any assumptions..." eh? Veilex Mar 2014 #14
This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #29
So let me get this straight... Veilex Mar 2014 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #45
You clearly arent paying attention. Veilex Mar 2014 #46
This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #47
Still about attacking me I see, instead of supporting the video... are you GOP? Veilex Mar 2014 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #49
Uhhh no... Veilex Mar 2014 #50
This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #51
And yet again you ignore EVERYTHING I've said. Veilex Mar 2014 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #53
BINGO!!! DeSwiss Mar 2014 #26
Question and Answer. CSStrowbridge Mar 2014 #10
Please feel free to provide links to the... Mr_Jefferson_24 Mar 2014 #12
"If that protein is safe to eat from its original source, it is safe to eat in its new source." Veilex Mar 2014 #15
I'd like to see a single scientific method based research paper that has been peer reviewed on... Veilex Mar 2014 #37
I can only wish that our politicians in Washington, the USDA, and the FDA... bvar22 Mar 2014 #11
FYI, re: Smith HuckleB Mar 2014 #19
This is exactly what I was saying earlier... Veilex Mar 2014 #34
Peer reviewed, huh? DeSwiss Mar 2014 #27
Financial reviews are certainly a problem, however... Veilex Mar 2014 #35
Oh, my goodness. HuckleB Mar 2014 #41
The k and the r. Berlum Mar 2014 #2
Pure bullshit. CSStrowbridge Mar 2014 #9
The growing chorus of people... Mr_Jefferson_24 Mar 2014 #13
So how come... CSStrowbridge Mar 2014 #16
How 'bout this fact... Mr_Jefferson_24 Mar 2014 #17
You don't know the definition of "fact". CSStrowbridge Mar 2014 #20
we cannot prove the long term effects of gmo wisechoice Mar 2014 #21
Ugh. CSStrowbridge Mar 2014 #22
it does wisechoice Mar 2014 #25
Again I ask... CSStrowbridge Mar 2014 #38
Where is that I said you just ask questions? wisechoice Mar 2014 #44
Generally if it says "soy, corn or canola" on the label then it is GMO -- THAT is the labeling KurtNYC Mar 2014 #30
wrong conclusion wisechoice Mar 2014 #31
Allergies are, relatively, poorly understood but there is some agreement on the relationship KurtNYC Mar 2014 #32
Thanks for your input Kurt. Mr_Jefferson_24 Mar 2014 #54
The original poster... CSStrowbridge Mar 2014 #40
It is not that easy wisechoice Mar 2014 #43
No screeching here... Veilex Mar 2014 #36
You're not going to change their minds. HuckleB Mar 2014 #18
I think you are right. CSStrowbridge Mar 2014 #23
I'm with you. HuckleB Mar 2014 #24
Bullshit. DeSwiss Mar 2014 #28
What's bullshit? CSStrowbridge Mar 2014 #39
Now, that's funny. HuckleB Mar 2014 #42
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Understanding the Science...»Reply #43