| Revision as of 03:02, 6 June 2013 editViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,146 edits →Message for User:Petrarchan47: ce← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:56, 6 June 2013 edit undoViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,146 edits →Message for User:Petrarchan47: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| <blockquote>A few animal studies have raised red flags, including some showing intestinal damage; structural changes in the kidneys, pancreas, and spleen; infertility; low birth weights in mice litters; and cancerous tumors in rats. But proving a causal connection, especially in humans, is tricky. "'''These studies raise questions that demand answers, but the government has chosen thus far not to do that'''".</blockquote> | <blockquote>A few animal studies have raised red flags, including some showing intestinal damage; structural changes in the kidneys, pancreas, and spleen; infertility; low birth weights in mice litters; and cancerous tumors in rats. But proving a causal connection, especially in humans, is tricky. "'''These studies raise questions that demand answers, but the government has chosen thus far not to do that'''".</blockquote> | ||
| Finally, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute of Biological Studies says in the same sidebar article, "'''There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat and no significant safety testing is required by FDA''' |
Finally, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute of Biological Studies says in the same sidebar article, "'''There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat and no significant safety testing is required by FDA'''" | ||
| Consensus? ''What'' consensus? Where is this scientific consensus that wolf-man is screaming about? Nowhere to be found, of course, and this is the most recent issue of the most popular science magazine in the United States. Perhaps wolf-man will now claim that '']'' magazine is also a ''fringe'' source? ] (]) 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | Consensus? ''What'' consensus? Where is this scientific consensus that wolf-man is screaming about? Nowhere to be found, of course, and this is the most recent issue of the most popular science magazine in the United States. Perhaps wolf-man will now claim that '']'' magazine is also a ''fringe'' source? ] (]) 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ==Message for El duderino== | |||
| ], please see the above threads. The mainstream scientific view ''does'' support the protesters, and the claims by ], ], and ] are completely bogus. Again, to quote biologist David Schubert, "'There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat and no significant safety testing is required by FDA". That's a mainstream scientific view published by a mainstream science magazine. Don't be misled by pro-GMO POV pushers. ] (]) 03:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:56, 6 June 2013
 | In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law. –Dhammapada (1:5) |
| This is Viriditas's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 |
Message for Arc de Ciel
User:Arc de Ciel, you wrote, "can we agree that the protesters here are misinformed as well (about safety)?" There is no evidence that the protesters are misinformed about anything, let alone safety, and our secondary sources make this explicitly clear:
More than 60 countries require labeling of food with genetically modified ingredients, but the United States isn't one of them, which explains why Ben & Jerry's previously allowed some GMOs in their ice cream without you even realizing it....In fact, the United States Food and Drug Administration doesn't even require extensive safety testing on genetically modified ingredients before they hit the market--and potentially end up in the processed food that you eat. As the Union of Concerned Scientists explains, the FDA oversees genetically modified foods under a "largely voluntary consultation program," in which companies get to decide what, if any, safety data they want to submit. Many health groups such as the Consumer's Union, the Center for Food Safety and the Union of Concerned Scientists have demanded that the US change its system....And it seems that popular opinion is shifting away from the United States' lax approach. On Saturday, protesters in dozens of cities rallied against Monsanto, one of the major biotech corporations that sells herbicides and produces genetically modified seeds that are resistant to those herbicides.
Please stop trying to inject pro-GMO POV into an article about the March Against Monsanto. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Message for User:Petrarchan47
Regarding IRWolfie's usual "scientific consensus" nonsense, please read the above comment and pay attention to this paragraph at the UCS website. IRWolfie is arguing from ignorance:
...the scientific underpinnings of risk assessment and risk management are chronically and severely underfunded. Compared with the amount of U.S. taxpayer funds spent on biotech product development and related research, very little is earmarked for research on risks of engineered products. For example, in the 11-year period of 1992 to 2002, the USDA spent approximately $1.8 billion on biotechnology research and approximately $18 million on risk-related research.60 Many features of genetically modified food crops, for example, impacts of stacked genes and unresolved issues about Bt allergenicity, raise concerns that have simply not been adequately investigated....Finally, the scientific evidence available to date, while encouraging, does not support the conclusion that genetically modified crops are intrinsically safe for health or the environment. The next generation of products—crops engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals64 and crops engineered to alter regulatory and metabolic pathways65—offer far more numerous traits and appear to be more obviously dangerous than Bt and herbicide-tolerant crops.
So once again we see IRWolfie playing fast and furious with the facts, disregarding them because they are inconvenient. He argues that a consensus exists for GMO safety from a lack of evidence for safety. This is the quality of discourse you can expect from a big, bad "wolf". When you look even closer at this "consensus" it falls apart. The European Food Safety Authority has been accused of serious conflicts of interest while using "industry scientists and information to form its decisions on food and chemical safety" and were accused of "allowing industry data to underlie its decisions about food safety". According to a report by Corporate Europe Observatory and the Earth Open Source, "EFSA has often been found to ignore independent research for unscientific reasons. The agency has issued controversial guidelines for the assessment of pesticides and GMOs that benefit industry, not the public interest." (Stocks, 2012, Farmer's Weekly).
And as for the weak "consensus" supporting industry-funded GMO studies, see this essay by Corinne Lepage who rightly points out that the studies allegedly supporting GMO safety are almost non-existent, as "no toxicological study has ever been carried out on rats fed over two years ", that the GMO debate only concentrated on the contamination risks and the cultivation, completely avoiding the question of health" and that "the absence of effects of GMOs on human health has been repeated like a dogma, even though no long term study has allowed this to be confirmed."
Journalist Andrew Curry covered this topic in an article for the American science magazine Discover in April 2013, under the title "Seeds of Conflict". Unlike wolf-boy, he did not portray any kind of scientific consensus on the issue. Not only that, but the relevant sidebar in the print edition (linked online) says "four recent studies illustrate the clashing viewpoints, which leave basic questions of safety and effectiveness under contention". In the relevant sidebar article ("Anti-GMO Grass-Roots Effort Gains Ground in U.S.") it says:
A few animal studies have raised red flags, including some showing intestinal damage; structural changes in the kidneys, pancreas, and spleen; infertility; low birth weights in mice litters; and cancerous tumors in rats. But proving a causal connection, especially in humans, is tricky. "These studies raise questions that demand answers, but the government has chosen thus far not to do that".
Finally, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute of Biological Studies says in the same sidebar article, "There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat and no significant safety testing is required by FDA"
Consensus? What consensus? Where is this scientific consensus that wolf-man is screaming about? Nowhere to be found, of course, and this is the most recent issue of the most popular science magazine in the United States. Perhaps wolf-man will now claim that Discover magazine is also a fringe source? Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Message for El duderino
User:El duderino, please see the above threads. The mainstream scientific view does support the protesters, and the claims by User:AIRcorn, User:a13ean, and User:IRWolfie are completely bogus. Again, to quote biologist David Schubert, "'There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat and no significant safety testing is required by FDA". That's a mainstream scientific view published by a mainstream science magazine. Don't be misled by pro-GMO POV pushers. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)