Organic Food not better for you

[Bonam]

Great posts Wayward Son. I particularly liked your detailed post with the three potato hybrids example. Always good to have a thoughtful new poster on the board

[Wayward Son]

This is beyond traditional breading, this is genetic manipulation of a plant.

I am going to assume that you don't actually know anything about the "traditional breeding" that has actually been going on for the past 80 years. The breeding that has fed the world. I am actually going to have to assume that you don't actually know much about the traditional breeding that went on for centuries before that. The difference between our food crops and the ancestors from which we developed them from is that we heavily manipulated their genetics. Just because our ancestors didn't know that they doing such, doesn't mean that is not what happens. Our food has been heavily manipulated on the genetic level. That is a very good thing.

Hopefully the rest of your argument is not as made up.

None of my argument was made up. I did give a simplified example of what plant breeding does in the hope that you might actually know something after you read it. My hope was in vain.

What is so anti-science about not wanting to ingest pesticides? Since it is healthier in the sense you are not eating all sorts of pesticides, what kind of myths do you think organic farmers are putting forth?

Organic farming using pesticides.

Some of the pesticides that Monsanto offers can be traced to Agent Orange... we can also see the downfall of the use of DDT before it became clear it was causing major health problems.

Agent Orange was not a pesticide. All kinds of things can cause health problems, but it is dose which makes the poison. I would rather swim in DDT than have much exposure to several common organic pesticides.

Organic pesticides did not have to pass the stringent modern safety tests that synthetics do. They were grandfathered in. So they use copper sulfate which does not biodegrade. They use rotenone which is a highly neurotoxic. Compared to most synthetics in use, rotenone-pyrethrin is not only likely far more dangerous, but it generally has be applied several more times.

And, as you are so interested in labels maybe you should check out the labels on organic pesticides for things like toxicological effects and persistence in the soil. These are things that you will find on all synthetic pesticides, but on organics they will most likely say that it is unknown. Why? Because they haven't been studied, and do to the organic lobby, they don't need to be.

The EIQ is known for several organic pesticides though. A scoring of 10.0 would mean that an ounce in a stream would kill the fish in the surrounding area. Rotenone, the neurotoxin, scores a 33.0. Sabadilla, another organic pesticide, 35.6.

The positive thing however, is that because the doses are so low for the consumer, they don't have to worry. The farm workers, however do, where they are often poor migrant workers exposed to higher levels of pesticides because they do not biodegrade as well as the synthetics.

And yes pesticides are used, but there are natural solutions that will work. Part of the problem with the GMO crops and spraying them with Round Up is creating pesticide resistant weeds that demand either a different herbicide, or simply more of the herbicide. And since the GMO crop is resistant to it, simply spray more to kill the weeds. But that still gets absorbed into the plant which we then consume.

1) roundup is not a pesticide, so it would hardly result in pesticide resistant weeds.

2) all plants develop resistance to herbicides, pesticides and fungicides whether they are synthetic or organic. It is called evolution. It happens to organic ones as well, and the only reason it does not happen more quickly is because organic farming makes up a small percentage of agriculture. If all farms went organic next week, you would likely see complete resistance in a couple years. A whole bunch of people would starve - a whole bunch more than would starve initially when the organic farming take over didn't come close to feeding everyone. But that is small price to pay to uphold an anti-science fairy tale, right?

You and I are not genetically modified to resist the pesticides/herbicides. You can wash your produce thinking you have gotten rid of all the pesticides, but you do know that the fruit/vegetable has absorbed some of the chemicals.

So what? Maybe you should look into the Ames test and you will find that all plant food is jam-packed full of pesticides they naturally produce and all kinds of other toxins, most of which have found to be mutagenic using the Ames test. The human body can fend off trace residues of pesticides with ease.

Experts in toxicology and immunology have a far different view of these than the general public does, because they have actually studies these issues and they have not found it to be harmful, and possibly beneficial. Science and reality do not conform to the naturalistic ideology, for the simple reason that it is complete nonsense.

This is a good point, I agree with this single notion. But with companies like Monsanto lobbying government to get their way and the ease of politicians that can bend the rules with some palm greaser, tells me that you and I are both going to have a hard time convincing them that this must be the case.

You don't think that the organic industry has their little grubby hands lobbying government. There is a reason why for example organic pesticides don't need to pass the same tests as the rest. There is a reason why organic pesticides are still being used that wouldn't get certified for regular agricultural use, but have been grandfathered in.

Ok, maybe you can tell me how organic farming harms the environment?

All farming harms the environment. Organic farming has the added effect of requiring more land to produce the same amount of food and continuing to use old crappy pesticides instead of mainstream farming where new safer synthetic are always being developed.

You sure are trying to pull out all the stops with your anti-organic stance. I have at least presented some material to back up my thoughts.

You have? Seemed like one big naturalistic logical fallacy to me.

Organic farming is based on pseudo-science. That is why it is promoted through mass media (although finally some of the media has realized what nonsense it is), instead of through science and publishing in journals. It is based on pre-scientific ideas like vitalism. It promotes the idea that a plant knows the difference between an organic potassium or phosphorus and a synthetic one. It continues to burden itself with a bunch of rules that are based on ideology instead of science. And as I have said before, it requires more land to produce the same amount of food. I like natural spaces and don't want to see them needlessly turned into farm land because the general population is illiterate when it comes to science.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Wayward Son

[Wayward Son]

If a person is allergic to let's say peanuts, and you splice part of the peanut gene into another food you eat and you get an allergic reaction, (some seem to be deathly allergic to peanuts too) would you still be opposed to having the GMO label on the food?

If GMO is just as good as the real thing, then companies won't have a problem with putting the label on the box. Why would you object to leaving out what types of ingredients are in your foods?

GMOs are not an ingredient. And I already explained the reasons why I opposed mandatory labels for things like GMOs. If you wish to discuss that you can go back to that post and refer to it.

That is but one reason. Are allergies a concern to you?>

About 95% of food allergies come from 10 or 12 foods. I would like to see the causative proteins altered or removed. If it is done, it will be GMO that does this, saving many lives.

Well I guess you can take the thread away now since you know what my answers would be for your questions.

If long term independent testing showed that (and testing that is not susceptible to bias and lobby money) then I would have to agree. But many of these tests are about 3 months. And if you want to talk about long term effects, I suspect you are not going to find anything within 3 months.

Allergy testing does not take 3 months.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetically-modified-foods-unsafe-evidence-that-links-gm-foods-to-allergic-responses-mounts/

I will not click on a link to Globalresearch which is on par with naturalnews, infowars, and David Icke for conspiracy insanity. However, I already know that author must be Smith, who is a liar and a lunatic. He does actually believe he can fly.....seriously....He is an advocate for transcendental meditation and all kinds of other whacky crap. But of course, it is his scientific credentials that should matter most. And his scientific background is solid....all none of it. No scientific training what-so-ever. He often makes claims that someone with high school science should be able to see through easily.

His claims that you quote, like every claim in his books and articles are laughably wrong. It comes from completely misinterpreting a single study which was not measuring soy allergies, and was conducted before GM soy ever became available in the UK. Those should have been the first hints to Smith that his claims are wrong, baseless and hilariously stupid, along with the fact that he admits no such results have ever been found anywhere else. I used to be anti-gmo. In fact I read Smith's first book Seeds of Deception back in '03 or '04, and thought highly of it. A couple years later I started to question some of the anti-gmo claims I was reading about, and went back to Seeds of Deception as I now had scientific training and the ability to judge both the scientific claims as well as the sources that were being used. As I read along I saw one embarrassing mistake after another, and when I traced his claims to his sources....oh boy. I actually started my own drinking game where I would take a drink if I traced back one of his sources and found it to either be ridiculous, or legitimate information that was completely misinterpreted, or if the source actually didn't lead anywhere (ie source to an article by Smith, which in turn uses another article as a source, which in turn sources the first article). It led to some pretty bad hangovers.

It is sad enough that Smith has made himself completely ignorant about science and reality. It is worse that he has spread that ignorance far and wide.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Wayward Son

[Wayward Son]

Great posts Wayward Son. I particularly liked your detailed post with the three potato hybrids example. Always good to have a thoughtful new poster on the board

Thanks. I am happy that some people gain something from my posts.

[bleeding heart]

I see no problem with that principle. Nature already proivides qwhat we need, there's no need to re-engineer anything.

What you think after humans living in nature for millions of years, suddenly you and joe bob the lab rat suddenly have a better idea?

Pshaa

I get what you're saying, but it's more complicated...and even by the standard you're setting, people have been tinkering with their food supply for a very long time.

If by "living in nature" you mean picking fruit from (wild) trees and hunting wild animals..fine.

But agriculture and animal breeding are themselves "tinkering with nature" (I have a problem with this terminology, but leave that aside fro the sake of the point I"m trying to make).

That is, for a very long time, we have been breeding particular traits in--and out--of animals and vegetables and fruit.

We medicate them, too, speaking of "lab rats"...and have been doing so for a very long time.

I don't mean to say that these points are themselves a clear argument for GM, which needs to be looked at on its own merits and demerits.

But it's a direct response to the "living in nature" argument.

Edited September 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[carepov]

I used to be anti-gmo. In fact I read Smith's first book Seeds of Deception back in '03 or '04, and thought highly of it.

GostHacked and Manny, it is not always easy to admit error, but if you continue to inform yourselves, sooner or later you will come to conclusions similar to Wayward Son. Please notice that he has focussed on the scientific truths and has avoided attacking the “organic lobby” or defending “big-agriculture”. It is possible to dislike Monsanto and support modern agriculture.

I am now reading and highly recommend: “Moore, Patrick (2011) Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”, has anyone read this book or have thoughts about Moore?

[Guest Manny]

It's not really a "direct response", it's just saying, "so what, we already do all this other stuff". So why not extend it further into the realm of direct genetic manipulation. Incrementalism. Once a direction is set, there is no boundary. Everything is simple, either black, or white.

[GostHacked]

This is a thoroughly ignorant response along the lines of "Let them eat Cake."

Absolutely not the same. The let them eat cake response was regarding the peasants who did not have food period. What you have implied based on the latter part of your post, is that they simply don't want to eat anything else apart from the rice. Well that is more of a culture thing and not a problem with the food or a need to GMO a certain type of food.

And why all of a sudden now after thousands of years are we concerned with Vit A deficiency for the Chinese?

I can't imagine anyone alive today not knowing that there are a whole lot of extremely poor people living in places like Southeast Asia who don't have access to doctors who might tell how to eat, although seeing as they survive on less than a dollar a day and on a single staple - mainly rice, telling them to eat more varied diet is kind of an extremely stupid thing to say and only the most ignorant people in the First World could manage to be that clueless.

You should note how much farmland China has purchased around the 3rd world in order to import food back to China leaving the locals with nothing. The Chinese even own farmland in Canada for China to take back home with them.

These people are not deficient in vitamin A because they love rice so much that they refuse to eat anything else.

Can you explain why you say one thing above, and then another below? Which is it? It would help to be consistent in your words.

They are vitamin A deficient because rice is that only thing they have to eat.

Maybe you should take the time to look out why golden rice was developed and where it is meant to deployed before you say that these people should take a hop to the store to buy some beef liver with collard greens and cheddar cheese. It is not these people who are ignorant, it is you.

Again, the hostility in your posts is really telling.

[GostHacked]

GMOs are not an ingredient.

Yes they are. And I would prefer to know the difference when I look at the ingredient list.

And I already explained the reasons why I opposed mandatory labels for things like GMOs. If you wish to discuss that you can go back to that post and refer to it.

Yes your sole objection is the rising cost of the packaging. Do you have a problem with properly informing your consumers as to what goes into the food? If GMO is as good as they say, then there should be NO objection from companies like Monsanto (who would not be affected by the extra cost of labeling products you buy at the store).

[Wayward Son]

Absolutely not the same. The let them eat cake response was regarding the peasants who did not have food period. What you have implied based on the latter part of your post, is that they simply don't want to eat anything else apart from the rice. Well that is more of a culture thing and not a problem with the food or a need to GMO a certain type of food.

You can't be serious. I will not respond to someone whose reading comprehension is that damn poor. If you are not going to respond to what I actually write, then there is no sense responding to you.

[Wayward Son]

I am now reading and highly recommend: “Moore, Patrick (2011) Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”, has anyone read this book or have thoughts about Moore?

I have the book, but have not read it yet.

There are several other books that cover the topic of discussing GMOs and organics from a science perspective instead of ideology: The March of Unreason by Taverne, Whole Earth Discipline by Stewart Brand, and Just Food by McWilliams.

[segnosaur]

What is so anti-science about not wanting to ingest pesticides?

Depends on your reason for not wanting to ingest them.

If there was actual scientific evidence that pesticides were harmful (and not just some article appearing on some woo-website written by a guy who has never published a paper in the field before) then there would be no problem. But if multiple scientific studies have shown no harm (to either GM foods or pesticides), yet you still say "Organic is better!" then you are indeed anti-science, because you're looking at scientific results and saying "I trust a non-sense website rather than the work of qualified individuals".

Since it is healthier in the sense you are not eating all sorts of pesticides...

For one, its never been proven, in scientific studies, that modern pesticides are harmful to humans in our food when used properly.

And of course the risk of not using pesticides must also be considered.... more crop losses, possibly mass starvation, etc.

Some of the pesticides that Monsanto offers can be traced to Agent Orange...

Unless you can show that there were actual reliable studies showing that those pesticides harmed humans, then the "origins" of those same pesticides is irrelevant. You're attempting to appeal to emotion rather than logic.

...we can also see the downfall of the use of DDT before it became clear it was causing major health problems.

And the failure to use DDT (or other pesticides) allowed the spread of diseases like Malaria.

And yes pesticides are used, but there are natural solutions that will work. Part of the problem with the GMO crops and spraying them with Round Up is creating pesticide resistant weeds that demand either a different herbicide, or simply more of the herbicide. And since the GMO crop is resistant to it, simply spray more to kill the weeds. But that still gets absorbed into the plant which we then consume.

I think the other posters in the thread have adequately debunked your arguments, namely:

- 'Natural solutions' will also result in weeds that are resistant (the only reason it doesn't happen is because Organic farming is rare.)

- Many of those 'natural solutions' can be even more dangerous than the artificial ones (i.e. 'organic pesticides' don't decompose like artificial ones.

For example, see: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019?popular=true

Some supporters of organic growing claim that the danger of non-organic food lies in the residues of chemical pesticides. This claim is even more ridiculous: Since the organic pesticides and fungicides are less efficient than their modern synthetic counterparts, up to seven times as much of it must be used. Organic pesticides include rotenone, which has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and is a natural poison used in hunting by some native tribes; pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine, which I don't want on my food whether it causes any diseases or not.

Ok, maybe you can tell me how organic farming harms the environment?

Sweet Zombie Jesus. I already explained that in post 175. Do you even bother reading stuff that other people write?

Organic farming is harmful because it produces lower yields. This means that more land must be plowed under to make farms to grow the stuff.

I'm sure the fluffy bunnies and squirrels living in the forest would prefer not to have their homes destroyed in order to make more farmland so that idiots who insist on "organic everything" will have their emotions soothed.

Not to mention the article I quoted above, which points to the fact that 'organic pesticides' includes things like sabadilla, which can harm honey bees.

On the other hand, since organic farming is so inefficient, it means that if all-organic methods were used they could grow enough food to feed about 4 billion people. Problem is, there's close to 7 billion people on the planet. That means that you'd be killing off about 1/3 of the people on the planet by going 'organic'. Maybe that might actually help the environment.

Oh, and by the way, while I'm at it, should I point out that Ecoli infections are roughly 8 times higher per capita by consumers of organic food than inorganic?

You sure are trying to pull out all the stops with your anti-organic stance. I have at least presented some material to back up my thoughts.

When your material contains references to websites like "globalreasearch" then no, you haven't.

If a person is allergic to let's say peanuts, and you splice part of the peanut gene into another food you eat and you get an allergic reaction, (some seem to be deathly allergic to peanuts too) would you still be opposed to having the GMO label on the food?

Jesus christ on a pogostick.

Another idiotic statement that's been debunked in an earlier post.

Yes, it would be bad if transplanted genes lead to allergic reactions. THAT IS WHY THEY TEST THESE THINGS.

Do you really think all scientists work in some underground bunker deliberately trying to kill us all off? Just like any food additive, medication or pesticide, these things are tested before hand. (And guess what? they actually have started developing lists of genes that are problematic.)

If GMO is just as good as the real thing, then companies won't have a problem with putting the label on the box. Why would you object to leaving out what types of ingredients are in your foods?

Once again BECAUSE IT WOULD BE USELESS AND ADD TO THE COST.

The let them eat cake response was regarding the peasants who did not have food period. What you have implied based on the latter part of your post, is that they simply don't want to eat anything else apart from the rice. Well that is more of a culture thing and not a problem with the food or a need to GMO a certain type of food.

And why all of a sudden now after thousands of years are we concerned with Vit A deficiency for the Chinese?

Wow... just, totally wow. The ignorance is amazing.

Did you know that there are more countries that have Vitamin A deficiency than China? Actually, compared to most of the developing world, they're fairly well off.

Here's a map showing countries that have been hardest hit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vitamin_A_deficiency.PNG

Notice Africa? Almost every country there is listed as having clinical (severe) vitamin A deficiency.

And did you know that sub-Saharan africa is also, you know, very poor? Their average income in 2001 was actually lower than it was in 1960 ($315) (See: http://www.forbes.com/global/2001/0528/046.html). Simply put, they cannot afford to go out and "buy a carrot".

But do you know what Africa does do? It grows rice. Perhaps not as much as they need, but 39 different countries grow rice (including many that have vitamin A deficiencies and who can't just "go buy a carrot".) http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x2243t/x2243t05.htm

Anyone applying logic would think "Hmmm... I can't afford a carrot, but I'm growing rice anyways... so why don't I just use this rice that will give me the Vitamin A I need?"

[Guest Manny]

Right, so we see that we need to keep looking for better solutions, but sometimes our solutions are no better, and could even conceivably be worse, than the problems they are intended to solve. And GMO is one of those. Other genetic/ hybridization experiments gone awry include Australia, and Killer Bees.

[segnosaur]

Right, so we see that we need to keep looking for better solutions, but sometimes our solutions are no better, and could even conceivably be worse, than the problems they are intended to solve.

First of all, is there any point in pointing out that at this time, there is no logical evidence that GM foods or modern pesticides, when used properly, have caused any significant problems? The stuff has been studied over and over again, for years and years.

Secondly, ever consider that there might be, you know, time frames involved? Ok, so you want to stop the use of GM foods and other modern farming practices because we will find "something better". So, what do you do with the millions in Africa that suffer from Vitamin A deficiency and can't afford to "go buy a carrot"? They need a solution now, not years down the road.

Of course, even if they did find a 'better solution', some anti-science idiots will probably try to curtail those solutions as well.

[Wild Bill]

Of course, even if they did find a 'better solution', some anti-science idiots will probably try to curtail those solutions as well.

It would seem segnosaur that if one doesn't know much and doesn't want to learn anyway it's easy to be afraid of almost everything!

[Guest Manny]

Years and years? It's a new technology. Large scale public exposure is only 15 years. I read somewhere thats not considered a very long time to make such an evaluation.

Also, there has been research showing problems with GMO as cited here, and others in the past. So I don't know what you mean by, there's no logical evidence. There is some. As with most things entering the political realm it's just being advocated by one group, disputed by another.

[Guest Manny]

Secondly, ever consider that there might be, you know, time frames involved? Ok, so you want to stop the use of GM foods and other modern farming practices because we will find "something better". So, what do you do with the millions in Africa that suffer from Vitamin A deficiency and can't afford to "go buy a carrot"? They need a solution now, not years down the road.

It doesn't take that long, to grow carrots.

[Guest Manny]

It would seem segnosaur that if one doesn't know much and doesn't want to learn anyway it's easy to be afraid of almost everything!

No it's easy to be afraid to talk to people like you, because one gets so frequently called "imbecile!"...

And that goes a few of you on this board You people can kiss me arse...

[Guest Manny]

[segnosaur]

No it's easy to be afraid to talk to people like you, because one gets so frequently called "imbecile!"...

While it is possible for harsh words to be used in an on-line forum debate, people like you are certainly not helping the cause.

There are a couple of key things that you (and GostHack) seem to be doing here...

- You keep bringing up points that have already been debunked. Yes, its possible that there are some obscure bits of knowledge that not everyone is privy too... The problem is, when someone brings up a point, that point gets debunked, and the person brings up that exact same point, it shows that the original poster is either being a 'troll', or that they are even too lazy/stupid to even acknowledge that the issue has been dealt with.

- You bring up points that are extremely easy to address. Its an online forum, in a thread dealing with scientific issues.... if you're going to make posts, you should do at least a bit of basic research. When we can debunk your claims in less than 30 seconds, it makes people wonder why your opinions are even worth considering.

Years and years? It's a new technology. Large scale public exposure is only 15 years.

Actually it was a couple of years more than that.

And you seem to be forgetting... they actually test this stuff out before the public is exposed, both in the lab and in controlled studies.

I read somewhere thats not considered a very long time to make such an evaluation.

Oh, as long as you read somewhere.

Could you be any more vague? Some respected scientific organization, or some conspiracy nut?

Also, there has been research showing problems with GMO as cited here, and others in the past. So I don't know what you mean by, there's no logical evidence. There is some.

You see, this is why some people get looked down on...

Yes, some people posted claims of "research showing problems with GMO shown here". However, those claims were completely debunked. Yet here you are bringing up the exact came claim, adding nothing new. Did you not read any of the posts showing that that "anti-GMO research claim" was flawed?

As with most things entering the political realm it's just being advocated by one group, disputed by another

Except that whether GM food is safe is not a political question, its a scientific one.

Much like creationists or anti-vaccination people, there's no scientific evidence to back up their claims so they have to rely on emotion, on imagery, and deception to make their "political case".

Secondly, ever consider that there might be, you know, time frames involved? Ok, so you want to stop the use of GM foods and other modern farming practices because we will find "something better". So, what do you do with the millions in Africa that suffer from Vitamin A deficiency and can't afford to "go buy a carrot"? They need a solution now, not years down the road.

It doesn't take that long, to grow carrots.

You see, this is one of these arguments that was made that is far far too easy to debunk.

Did you ever realize that certain crops don't grow well in all situations? Carrots don't grow well in waterlogged soil (you know, the places where rice actually grows well.) The subsistence farmer working a field in sub-saharan Africa or a place like Cambodia will probably not have the proper growing conditions in his local field).

[Guest Manny]

You don't understand. I don't always have time to be specific, or natter on incessantly to try to prove some abstract "point" to someone I don't know. I make a few statements based on what I already know. Sometimes I may go out and do extra research if the topic is interesting enough. Other times I just read and learn here, and make up my own mind. It's as simple as that.

I know some of you spend a lot more time here typing out reams of info, or copy/pasting info from a web page, and you get satisfaction from that. I do not. So there you go.

Lots of times I make a general point, someone tries to debunk it, I say nothing and someone else steps in with all the data. I like that way... works for me... much more efficient.

[segnosaur]

You don't understand. I don't always have time to be specific, or natter on incessantly to try to prove some abstract "point" to someone I don't know.

The problem isn't the amount that you post... its that what you post is wrong.

I make a few statements based on what I already know.

Which, from the looks of things, seems to be very limited.

Sometimes I may go out and do extra research if the topic is interesting enough. Other times I just read and learn here, and make up my own mind. It's as simple as that.

The problem here is that you aren't exactly learning what you read hear.

People have debunked pretty much all the points the anti-GM people have posted on the thread. But when you bring up points that have already been debunked, it shows that you're not exactly learning.

I know some of you spend a lot more time here typing out reams of info, or copy/pasting info from a web page, and you get satisfaction from that. I do not. So there you go.

I get satisfaction making sure my posts are based on, you know, fact. If that means I have to provide a few references, then I will do so.

Lots of times I make a general point, someone tries to debunk it, I say nothing and someone else steps in with all the data. I like that way... works for me... much more efficient.

Except whatever points you've been made have been debunked. Someone has stepped in with the data that proves you wrong. Yet you still continue to cling to your arguments.

[Guest Manny]

The problem isn't the amount that you post... its that what you post is wrong.

That's only your opinion and it means nothing to me. you and everyone else has been wrong here too, many times and I recall calling you out on the flu shots during flu season. And the other guy and everyone else can be wrong at any time, about any thing.

The difference is that some people get off on calling others out if they thing they're wrong, while being wrong themselves is forgiveable (so they think) or at best,concealable.

I am not wrong on these things, it is my opinion that GMO is not preferable. Its safety is questionable and a lot of people, real scientists are concerned about it. That is what I said several posts ago, so no need for me to waste time posting pages of stuff you won't believe in anyway.

[GostHacked]

IN a world where GMO is needed because people are starving, we have something like this to negate the need for GMO.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/09/28/food-waste-report.html

Canadians are among the world's most well-fed people — so much so that we're wasting billions of dollars worth of edible food a year, mostly coming from our homes, according to a study.

The Cut Waste, Grow Profit draft report from the Ontario-based Value Chain Management Centre (VCMC) suggests that more than half (51 per cent) of the estimated $27 billion of food wasted countrywide ends up as unwanted leftovers dropped into household trash bins.

Expectations for larger portion sizes, confusion about safe consumption and sell-by dates, and the low cost to households of over-purchasing and wasting food were among factors blamed for the wasteful behaviour.

[Guest Manny]

IN a world where GMO is needed because people are starving, we have something like this to negate the need for GMO.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/09/28/food-waste-report.html

We are among the most wasteful in the world, and also when it comes to water waste and energy waste!

The easiest thing we could do, that would have the biggest immediate impact is to CONSERVE...