- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Opponents of GMOs just need to sit down and shut up
Posted on 5/27/14 at 8:32 am to Gray Tiger
Posted on 5/27/14 at 8:32 am to Gray Tiger
Far less obesity rates that's for sure.
1
Posted on 5/27/14 at 8:33 am to TK421
quote:
No. I am, however, saying you are a fricking moron if you think that has anything to do GMOs.
Huh, where the hell did I say that?
Posted on 5/27/14 at 8:35 am to MJM
In a thread about GMOs, you wrote:
I'm sure you thought it was a brilliant response.
quote:
They should have included the stat for deaths due to obesity from eating processed crap.
I'm sure you thought it was a brilliant response.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 8:42 am to MJM
GMOs don't cause obesity. They are nothing but genetic crosses to make crops produce more. Without them there would be more starving people... You can't be all organic and feed the population of the world.
The processed food isn't bad due to GMO. It's bad due to artificial steroids, hormones, chemicals, preservatives and fillers used when it's processed.
The processed food isn't bad due to GMO. It's bad due to artificial steroids, hormones, chemicals, preservatives and fillers used when it's processed.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 8:50 am to TK421
quote:
In a thread about GMOs, you wrote:
Um,ok. Sorry for posting about other food issues in a thread about food? My posts clearly stated what I was talking about throughout the thread. I started with GMOs then moved on to processed foods.
Sick burn though
Posted on 5/27/14 at 8:51 am to samson'sseed
Is it just me, or does it seem that the same people who reject all the science about GMO's constantly throw the "science" at the public about AGW? So the science on global warming is settled but on GMO it isn't?
Of course, I am an unenlightened dinosaur.
Sorry I can't stay to discuss, but have to get to work.
Of course, I am an unenlightened dinosaur.
Sorry I can't stay to discuss, but have to get to work.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 8:52 am to MJM
quote:
All they produce is processed crap that is terrible for your health
GMO has nothing to do with processed foods at all. That is a completely different issue.
Many times, GMO = roundup ready meaning glyphosate can be used as a post-emergence herbicide in fields without damaging the crop.
While not a panacea, glyphosate has a broader spectrum, lower toxicity and lower cost compared to alternative products.
Environmentalists should LOVE GMO crops for this reason alone, they keep far more chemicals out of the environment and the food we consume than any other commercially viable product or method.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 8:53 am to MJM
People being increasingly sedentary is what is causing obesity. Nothing else really. But making up boogeymen can be fun, I guess.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 8:55 am to MJM
quote:
My posts clearly stated what I was talking about throughout the thread
No, you got caught being ignorant about a subject. I'm not the only one who attacked you for this reason. It's ok, we know you are old.
quote:
I started with GMOs then moved on to processed foods.
It appears you are ignorant with respect to both of these subjects.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 8:58 am to UGATiger26
quote:
Worldwide deaths per year due to malnutrition - 330,000
So gmo's are more nutritious? Are have they lowered malnutrition worldwide?
Link?
Posted on 5/27/14 at 9:00 am to GeeOH
quote:
So gmo's are more nutritious? Are have they lowered malnutrition worldwide?
Yes, more food has more nutrition than less food, generally speaking.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 9:04 am to MJM
quote:
Far less obesity rates that's for sure.
Along with higher starvation rates.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 9:17 am to GeeOH
quote:
So gmo's are more nutritious? Are have they lowered malnutrition worldwide?
Link?
Ummm...yes. I don't really think this merits providing a link.
Ask a hungry person in Zambia if they would prefer GMO crops or no crops at all.
This post was edited on 5/27/14 at 9:18 am
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:02 am to samson'sseed
I'm noticing that GMO opponents are normally also anti-vacciners and people who believe we are being sprayed with chem-trails from airplanes. I guess a kook is a kook.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:07 am to UGATiger26
quote:
Ummm...yes. I don't really think this merits providing a link.
Ask a hungry person in Zambia if they would prefer GMO crops or no crops at all.
So you have data that shows because of GMO's, world hunger is less?
I surely understand your generic position that if a crop has a higher yield, it would create excess. Do a little more research. Show me lowered world hunger that are a direct result of GMO's.
You see I have insight from contacts with 20+ yrs of working for Montesano and also from the other side (farming and selling markets).
The one thing that is driving this technology the hardest is the ability to get more out of LESS land. To do that it takes GMO's and much more nutrients (fertilizers, etc) in the soil. The soil can't keep up naturally, so man made products have to be introduced. This, in itself, creates a situation where health is brought into the equation. More chemicals = higher health risks = more negative impacts on health.
The need for food, and more of it, is obviously a huge issue going forward. There is no perfect answer. Health of humans is effected either way.
I will say this, it is pretty terrifying when you look into the company of Montesano and see how heavily their "board members" are entrenched in the sectors of our government that control all of the aspects of GMO's, their production (farming), and the reporting health agencies. Do yourself a favor and read up on that.
It's all about control. They soon will control the majority of the seed of these crops. Therefore, they can control who purchases it and where it is grown and how much you may grow, etc etc etc.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:08 am to samson'sseed
All opponents will sit down and shut up!
Forward!
Forward!
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:09 am to deltaland
quote:
The processed food isn't bad due to GMO. It's bad due to artificial steroids, hormones, chemicals, preservatives and fillers used when it's processed.
This.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 10:15 am to samson'sseed
I see no reason why labeling is a bad idea. Yes, it will raise costs but shouldn't the producers know what they are putting in there.
An alternative idea would be to include a "GMO free" desgination by the FDA that food producers could voluntarily put on their food. This worked well for organic, although FDA standards on organic were lacking.
Personally I am pro-GMO for developing countries. Its great. However, I don't want to put that shite in my body. I pretty much avoid all GMOs pretty easily.
An alternative idea would be to include a "GMO free" desgination by the FDA that food producers could voluntarily put on their food. This worked well for organic, although FDA standards on organic were lacking.
Personally I am pro-GMO for developing countries. Its great. However, I don't want to put that shite in my body. I pretty much avoid all GMOs pretty easily.
Posted on 5/27/14 at 11:03 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
An alternative idea would be to include a "GMO free" desgination by the FDA that food producers could voluntarily put on their food.
I'm pro GMO, and I'd prefer this approach.
This post was edited on 5/27/14 at 11:04 am
Posted on 5/27/14 at 11:06 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
Personally I am pro-GMO for developing countries. Its great. However, I don't want to put that shite in my body.
What is your supposition as to what it might do to your body?
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News