MovieChat Forums > GMO OMG (2013) Discussion > If you want to learn, don't watch televi...

If you want to learn, don't watch television, crack open a freaking book


Currently there are near 2000 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds.

Citations to 400+ of these published studies are provided at the searchable GENERA Database accessible here: http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

A longer 600+ list is here: http://gmopundit.blogspot.de/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html



Double blind peer reviewed and independent research is available, and you're going to believe some whackjob who wants to make a buck from a biased television documentary? This isn't about you, it's about all of us, learn for the betterment of mankind.

reply

All funded by the biotech companies themselves or goverment which is owned (lets be honest) by the food industry...

reply

pb60, not everyone is out to get you. The world is a lot more complex, and it's not just a giant conspiracy theory. All it takes is patience and discipline and you might actually learn a thing or two ;)

reply

Sorry but nutritional equivalence studies and potential risk assessment studies don't equal safety studies even if you list 2 million of them, it's a logical fallacy called "pointing to experts".

reply

Your lack of understanding towards how to read scientific journals, let alone understanding the concept of science itself is the only fallacy here. Look up the definition of cognitive dissonance and you will see you fit that description quite well.

What you have is not an argument, just the words of someone who is not educated and is scared of learning.

reply

Feel free to cite any that you think are long-term controlled feeding studies of at least 30% natural lifespan amongst any mammallian species.

While you're looking, here are over 300 signatures from scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), who strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety - http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/150120_signatories_no_consensus_lv.pdf

Science = water boils at 100C at sea level.
Not science = Genetic Literacy Project rants.

reply

As a student of the natural sciences I pity your ignorance. Like I mentioned previously, your cognitive dissonance is quite strong.

You can get signatures from academics, but if they are not trained in the biological sciences (more specifically in genetics and ecology) their opinion will mean nothing, since they - like you - do not understand the processes involved. Also, 300? That's nothing. There are at least 7x (the number you listed) more scientists who agree with GM technology in the articles I linked you.


Go back to school, then come back here and try again. You might actually learn how to read those articles. ;)

reply

Anti-GMO idiots are generally people with very little concept of how science actually works.

reply

Yes, it's more saddening than anything because they are responsible for the hindering of progress. So many people could be helped, but unfortunately the rich don't care about the poor.

reply

It's clear you don't understand the difference between a controlled, double-blind, independently peer-reviewed feeding study vs. a nutritional equivalence study or risk assessment study which is why you're having trouble citing a single example of the former demonstrating the safety of consuming transgenic crops.

It's also clear given how easy it is to look through those 300 signatures to see their affiliations that you didn't bother looking, otherwise you would have realized these are exactly the academics you're looking for.

And no, when I put my name on an article that looks at antibiotic resistance marker genes being fed to broiler chickens over 5 days it does NOT mean that I believe foods from transgenic crops have no negative health effects on humans.

Go back to school and learn what a logical fallacy is. You might actually learn it's something you engage in on a daily basis.

reply

"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted.
It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore, and even deny anything that does not fit in with the core belief."
.
.

reply

I agree. THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS. This film first uspset me by adding multiple audio clips the first time it trys to give facts. Starts slowly working children into the mixture, until you're virtually getting into the freaking mini-van and going to... i turned it off.
So, ghastly void of information i became so irritable i got online and wrote about it... i haven't logged onto this site in about a year.
OMG INDEED!!!!

reply

Documentaries are always a terrible way of learning anything. Why? Because you're getting a biased version of the information that is sometimes so far from the truth it's not even funny. Unfortunately the entertainment business doesn't really have guidelines for accuracy.

I recommend nature or local small-project stories if people want to watch a documentary, otherwise it will be doing more harm than good in terms of misinformation.

Schooling and textbooks exist for a reason; it takes significantly more time than an hour-long television show to understand a specific topic.

Make sure to give this movie the bad rating it deserves.
.
.

reply