GMO foods cause smaller testicles and brains

[variant]

The Rodale study covers a thirty year field trial. Your references don't compare even remotely with the depth and breadth of the Rodale thirty year trial and study.

The Rodale study is a thirty year side by side trial. The links you site don't hold a candle to the depth and breadth of the Rodale studies and trials.

Take some time to review it in depth: rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FSTbooklet.pdf

Well no one farms like it's the 1980's anymore so...

They are more recent actually, which gives the organic farmer more leeway as organic practices have improved.

 

[RelativeBearing]

Mybe I'm missing something, but the 30 year trial was conventional vs organic, not GMO nescarily specificly vs organic, and in many ways fails to show what it claims because conventional did better in many areas, in amount of nitrogen needed, amount of offtime that is required for certain foods and so on.

Yes. You're missing something.

GMO's are not allowed in organic agriculture.

Neither do you understand much about agriculture. More nitrogen being needed is bad, not good. Nitrogen costs money to buy and apply, and it runs off and pollutes streams, lakes, rivers, and especially the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[Desk trauma]

Neither do you understand much about agriculture. More nitrogen being needed is bad, not good.

Were we to depend on organic sources of nitrogen we would be back where we were at the turn of last century prior to the invention of the Haber Bosch process watching yields plummet and desperately scraping guano islands or the Atacama desert hoping to stave off Malthus.

 

[Vylo]

As someone who actually works in the food industry for a company that uses both GMO and non-GMO ingredients, I can tell you that GMOs do increase yields, and that they cost substantially less than organics.

We have organic fields around my county. You can easily spot them by the lackluster output.

 

[RelativeBearing]

Sorry guys - you're out of date. The evidence is in, and it is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Organic outproduces toxic/conventional/GMO agriculture, and it produces food with no pesticide residue, and it does all that while helping to reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated associated with global warming and volatile organic compounds associated with smog.

I've posted the scientific evidence from years of trials.

So, what's your beef dudes? Unless, of course, you're paid posters for toxic agriculture. Then your posts make perfect sense.

Oh yeah - and organic agriculture, unlike GMO's, does NOT shrink testicles and brains.

 

[Desk trauma]

I must say my paymasters at big pharma and GMO Inc are way behind with the checks so much so it's as if I am not being paid at all to post my views.

 

[Vylo]

Sorry guys - you're out of date. The evidence is in, and it is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Organic outproduces toxic/conventional/GMO agriculture, and it produces food with no pesticide residue, and it does all that while helping to reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated associated with global warming and volatile organic compounds associated with smog.

I've posted the scientific evidence from years of trials.

So, what's your beef dudes? Unless, of course, you're paid posters for toxic agriculture. Then your posts make perfect sense.

Oh yeah - and organic agriculture, unlike GMO's, does NOT shrink testicles and brains.

No the evidence isn't "in" or "overwhelming". It is a bunch of slop thrown around by organic trying to make a buck by scaring people. You can make a lot of money slapping the words "organic" on something.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes. You're missing something.

GMO's are not allowed in organic agriculture.

Neither do you understand much about agriculture. More nitrogen being needed is bad, not good. Nitrogen costs money to buy and apply, and it runs off and pollutes streams, lakes, rivers, and especially the Gulf of Mexico.

yes, and organic farms use far more nitrogen then conventional.

And that disqualifies the test itself. A) GMO crops have improved over the last 30 years, so using ones from 30 years ago with modern will tend to hide any benefits currently. B) Since it's just that they MAY be GMO and may not also disqualifies, if only 10% of the conventional farms use GMO then any benefits again is hidden.

This test has been taken apart and criticized for bad metholodology and so on, and considering it's by a biased group, not a independant group I would take the results with a grain of salt.

Also given just how much missinformation and lies there is with organic farming, and unsupported claims I be even less inclined to trust. These are the same guys that sell the lie of organics using either no or less pesticides, when they use far more, at far more toxic levels.

 

[Vylo]

yes, and organic farms use far more nitrogen then conventional.

And that disqualifies the test itself. A) GMO crops have improved over the last 30 years, so using ones from 30 years ago with modern will tend to hide any benefits currently. B) Since it's just that they MAY be GMO and may not also disqualifies, if only 10% of the conventional farms use GMO then any benefits again is hidden.

This test has been taken apart and criticized for bad metholodology and so on, and considering it's by a biased group, not a independant group I would take the results with a grain of salt.

Also given just how much missinformation and lies there is with organic farming, and unsupported claims I be even less inclined to trust. These are the same guys that sell the lie of organics using either no or less pesticides, when they use far more, at far more toxic levels.

Yeah anyone who goes on about the "energy" of news is probably not all there in the head.

 

[Aureus]

Sorry guys - you're out of date. The evidence is in, and it is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Organic outproduces toxic/conventional/GMO agriculture, and it produces food with no pesticide residue, and it does all that while helping to reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated associated with global warming and volatile organic compounds associated with smog.

I've posted the scientific evidence from years of trials.

So, what's your beef dudes? Unless, of course, you're paid posters for toxic agriculture. Then your posts make perfect sense.

Oh yeah - and organic agriculture, unlike GMO's, does NOT shrink testicles and brains.

Whats the beef? How about the fact that you started this thread by dredging up a study conducted in 1998. A study that has been utterly torn apart and destroyed as being worthless trash. Yet you've still got got the gall to call others out of date? You need to look in the mirror. You are utterly out of date, and utterly lacking in any real evidence to support any of your claims. You've demonstrated that you do not care at all about the truth and only about pushing your agenda.

A panel of experts, the Royal Society and food-safety scientists in regulatory agencies around the world, all have concluded that the study does not demonstrate that the GM potatoes were unsafe in any way.

Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work. Two separate expert panels reviewed this research and concluded that both the experimental design and conduct of the experiments were fatally flawed, and that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from the work

No differences were seen between the groups of animals. Experts who reviewed the data stated that there were no meaningful differences between control and experimental groups, that the same cellular differences could be seen in all groups—GM-fed or not—and that too few animals were used to allow statistical significance to be achieved

Flawed study design and improper diets doomed the study to failure. The diets were protein-deficient and different groups of rats received different diets. Some rats were fed raw potatoes – raw potatoes are toxic to rats and might cause disturbances to gastrointestinal cells

Genetic Roulette Claim: GM potatoes damaged rats | Academics Review

 

[stray bullet]

Scientific ignorance is really beginning to scare me.

Organic, all natural, anti-GMO is the new religious fanaticism. It is based on the effectiveness of preaching, not reason, not evidence. Kids and the elderly are dying because people won't vaccinate.

We are entering the true Dark Ages.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

So, what's your beef dudes? Unless, of course, you're paid posters for toxic agriculture. Then your posts make perfect sense.

I love how in these threads, whether it's GMOs or 9/11 truthers or whatever, those on the pro-conspiracy side eventually claim that anyone arguing against them must be paid by the organisation in question.

It's like the monster of all self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

[bill5]

Yep. Just another swirl of water helping us down the social toilet. sigh

 

[Btodd]

Scientific ignorance is really beginning to scare me.

Organic, all natural, anti-GMO is the new religious fanaticism. It is based on the effectiveness of preaching, not reason, not evidence. Kids and the elderly are dying because people won't vaccinate.

We are entering the true Dark Ages.

I've been harping on this for a while now...it really is like a religion. Appeal to Nature fallacy. The people who fall prey to it (as you said, anti-GMO, all-organic, as well as anti-vaxxers, etc.) cannot be reasoned with.

Any attempt to do so just makes them dig their heels in even further.


Btodd

 

[Inkfingers]

smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains,

I guess that's what so many politicians support GMOs.

 

[bill5]

I think if anything getting obsessed with things like Facebook and conspiracy nuttiness causes brain shrinkage. Can't vouch for the other stuff.