Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: biointegrity.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to biointegrity.org.

Comments · 7

  1. Re:Well two things by thoughtlover · · Score: 2, Informative · on Genetically Modified Canola Spreads To Wild Plants

    You may notice that people are not dying from this, we haven't had an epidemic of many people becoming ill or dying because a genetically engineered food was introduced...

    Not yet, at least.

    Even though testing could not reveal whether 51 people were legitimately sickened by Starlink corn, the news left a lingering thought it could.

    Even earlier this year when a report found that GM corn may cause organ damage in rats, it only showed 'signs of toxicity' (not proof). http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

    We probably won't know the true effects for decades or maybe longer. Perhaps livestock will develop reactions to GM feed that we won't know about until we have an adverse reaction to eating them. Too many what-ifs, but it's nice to think about them.

    The EU has some of the strictest laws regarding labeling of GMOs on food products... And, apparently there were some folks in the FDA that saw a clear danger from using GMO in the food chain. Hmm...

    FTA: "Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

    And "KEY FDA DOCUMENTS REVEALING (1) HAZARDS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS--AND (2) FLAWS WITH HOW THE AGENCY MADE ITS POLICY"

    http://biointegrity.org/list.html

  2. Re:be honest in your argument by Myopic · · Score: 1 · on Avoiding GM Foods? Monsanto Says You're Overly Fussy

    I sincerely appreciate the link. I considered scoffing, but instead I took a little time and looked over those documents. They all seem to be from 1991-3 (and so does the website), so I'm wondering where is the science from the last two decades. Nevertheless, science from my childhood is still valid, so I started reading.

    I didn't have time to read every link, but I read "our summary" of about ten papers. Unfortunately they weren't really summaries, which would have saved some time, but I persisted. I focused on the sentences which were underlined, but in the end I was underwhelmed.

    For instance this one

    http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/14/view1.html

    is a request for the FDA to review a marker gene. There is no alarming warning, let alone the result of a study showing harm. Honest question: is a request for a study supposed to make me worry?

    Here's another one

    http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/21/view1.html

    which appears to be a statement of purpose for the FDA and options for regulating foods. The options strike me as boring and procedural. Honext question: is that supposed to make me worry?

    One more:

    http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/09/09.pdf

    this one is interesting. It is a critique of some report. The critique suggests some language changes. To me, it sounds perfectly reasonable to 'focus on the safety of food, not the method of production', but maybe other people want to focus on the method of production instead of the safety of the food? Honest question: is it your position that the method of production deserves more attention than the safety of the end product?

    When you engage in this kind of discussion in the future, you might do well to find a different list of links to provide. Otherwise you might run across a person like me who (ahem) puts on his reading glasses, checks your facts, and finds them uncompelling. I remain unconvinced by your arguments.

  3. Re:be honest in your argument by Myopic · · Score: 1 · on Avoiding GM Foods? Monsanto Says You're Overly Fussy

    I sincerely appreciate the link. I considered scoffing, but instead I took a little time and looked over those documents. They all seem to be from 1991-3 (and so does the website), so I'm wondering where is the science from the last two decades. Nevertheless, science from my childhood is still valid, so I started reading.

    I didn't have time to read every link, but I read "our summary" of about ten papers. Unfortunately they weren't really summaries, which would have saved some time, but I persisted. I focused on the sentences which were underlined, but in the end I was underwhelmed.

    For instance this one

    http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/14/view1.html

    is a request for the FDA to review a marker gene. There is no alarming warning, let alone the result of a study showing harm. Honest question: is a request for a study supposed to make me worry?

    Here's another one

    http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/21/view1.html

    which appears to be a statement of purpose for the FDA and options for regulating foods. The options strike me as boring and procedural. Honext question: is that supposed to make me worry?

    One more:

    http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/09/09.pdf

    this one is interesting. It is a critique of some report. The critique suggests some language changes. To me, it sounds perfectly reasonable to 'focus on the safety of food, not the method of production', but maybe other people want to focus on the method of production instead of the safety of the food? Honest question: is it your position that the method of production deserves more attention than the safety of the end product?

    When you engage in this kind of discussion in the future, you might do well to find a different list of links to provide. Otherwise you might run across a person like me who (ahem) puts on his reading glasses, checks your facts, and finds them uncompelling. I remain unconvinced by your arguments.

  4. Re:be honest in your argument by Myopic · · Score: 1 · on Avoiding GM Foods? Monsanto Says You're Overly Fussy

    I sincerely appreciate the link. I considered scoffing, but instead I took a little time and looked over those documents. They all seem to be from 1991-3 (and so does the website), so I'm wondering where is the science from the last two decades. Nevertheless, science from my childhood is still valid, so I started reading.

    I didn't have time to read every link, but I read "our summary" of about ten papers. Unfortunately they weren't really summaries, which would have saved some time, but I persisted. I focused on the sentences which were underlined, but in the end I was underwhelmed.

    For instance this one

    http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/14/view1.html

    is a request for the FDA to review a marker gene. There is no alarming warning, let alone the result of a study showing harm. Honest question: is a request for a study supposed to make me worry?

    Here's another one

    http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/21/view1.html

    which appears to be a statement of purpose for the FDA and options for regulating foods. The options strike me as boring and procedural. Honext question: is that supposed to make me worry?

    One more:

    http://biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/09/09.pdf

    this one is interesting. It is a critique of some report. The critique suggests some language changes. To me, it sounds perfectly reasonable to 'focus on the safety of food, not the method of production', but maybe other people want to focus on the method of production instead of the safety of the food? Honest question: is it your position that the method of production deserves more attention than the safety of the end product?

    When you engage in this kind of discussion in the future, you might do well to find a different list of links to provide. Otherwise you might run across a person like me who (ahem) puts on his reading glasses, checks your facts, and finds them uncompelling. I remain unconvinced by your arguments.

  5. Re:be honest in your argument by blackbeak · · Score: 1 · on Avoiding GM Foods? Monsanto Says You're Overly Fussy

    Sure, GM food COULD be bad, and 9/11 COULD have been perpetrated by the US government. But, having looked at all the claims, they are all wrong in both cases. And thus, the valid comparison between them.

    Get out your reading glasses and look again Myopic, here's Biointegrity's list of some FDA documents with which you should be more familiar: http://biointegrity.org/list.html

  6. Re:GM by blackbeak · · Score: 1 · on Avoiding GM Foods? Monsanto Says You're Overly Fussy

    GM food might be 100% harmless! What do you suppose those chances are? Everyone here - especially those clamoring for citations - should follow this link to a list of some of the FDA's internal documents on the subject: http://biointegrity.org/list.html

  7. Re:Someone remind me... by cevnet · · Score: 1 · on Dodging the Negative Reaction To GE Crops

    If you assume "genetically modified" is always better than naturally existing, you are... an idiot. That is provably false assumption. Yet, many people share your nutty idea that genetically modified==better.

    What is it with the supporters of GM-food? Why do you want to shove it down everyone's throat, even though they explicitly state they don't want it. There is hardly another way more effective in raising doubts about your agenda.

    "Internal documents made public by a lawsuit reveal that the FDA's own scientists warned that GM foods could lead to unpredictable toxins, allergies, and new diseases," Smith said. "They insisted that each GM food be subject to long term safety testing before it was approved." http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2003/2003-09-04 -10.asp