Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Anti-GMO hysteria now most dangerous anti-science movement

  1. Aug 21, 2015 #1

    BWV

    User Avatar

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/bc-g-081915.php

    If a bunch of morons wants to believe that evolution is a myth then there is not all that much harm done. vaccine and global warming denial are more problematic, but nothing comes close to interfering with the science it's going to take to feed 11 billion people
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 21, 2015 #1

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's a toss-up to me. The Catholic Church instructed Africans not to use condoms in 1990, just as the AIDS crisis was heating-up, potentially contributing to a the millions of deaths from AIDS since:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS#Pope_John_Paul_II

    In 2003, four African countries declined food aid from the the US because it was genetically modified (all but Zambia later accepted) in the middle of a famine, at the behest of "environmentalists". One incident, of an overall resistance that puts millions of lives at risk:
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/280...e-zambia-strongest-anti-gmo-stance-in-africa/

    Who's the bigger anti-science murderer? Tough call.

    In third place, I would put some of the same "environmentalists" as above, who are also responsible for holding-back nuclear power, potentially contributing to hundreds of thousands of air pollution deaths, not to mention contributing to whatever happens to global warming (though ultimately, the GW issue will start and end with Chinese coal power).
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2015
  4. jcsd
  5. Aug 21, 2015 #2

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Let's try to keep this on topic about the misquided fight against GMO foods.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2015
  6. Aug 21, 2015 #3

    BWV

    User Avatar

  7. Aug 21, 2015 #4

    BWV

    User Avatar

  8. Aug 21, 2015 #5

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Asking one's relationship with an issue is dirty play. It's essentially an ad hominem - it promotes attacks on the arguer, not on the argument.

    A badly supported argument can be dismantled, regardless of whence it is issued. It is easy enough to refute an argument as biased without ever having to ask if the arguer is biased.

    Also, it keeps the debate from getting personal.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2015
  9. Aug 21, 2015 #6

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  10. Aug 21, 2015 #7

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Obviously this thread is being monitored by the Mentors...
     
  11. Aug 21, 2015 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    [Not BWV, but...] I eat.
    What, specifically, are you wanting to know? How about the FDA's opinion:
    And:
    http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm [Broken]

    The scientific consensus on GMOs is crystal clear.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  12. Aug 21, 2015 #9

    BWV

    User Avatar

    A perfect bubble of confirmation bias where any contrary evidence can be disregarded as corrupt industry propaganda. No different than how vaccine denialists, 9-11 Truthers or any other pseudoscientific cult operates
     
  13. Aug 21, 2015 #10

    BWV

    User Avatar

    You asking if I support the intimidation and harassment of legimate scientists by anti-science activist groups?
     
  14. Aug 21, 2015 #11

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not sure that 'impartial' is so much necessary as 'doing right by the people'.

    True, although it does directly follow that any-research-that-is-not-independent is therefore unreliable. You can draw that conclusion, but it would need to be defensible, otherwise you're simply cherry-picking the studies that bolster your stance.

    Probably true, but that does not in-and-of-itself mean the scientists have The Truth, and that the GMO companies are squelching truth.

    eg. Wrong ideas are put forth right here on PF all the time, about all sorts of things, and PF actively silences them, but that does not mean that the ideas are right, and that PF is squelching truth.

    Finally, I'm not saying, you're wrong about any of this, I'm just saying that this is another logical fallacy called poisoning the well. It's not a strong stance.
     
  15. Aug 21, 2015 #12

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Inappropriate sources will be deleted, only valid peer reviewed sources (including articles that refer to and cite these sources are allowable). Personal opinions are not acceptable.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2015
  16. Aug 21, 2015 #13

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No. I'm asking you to state your case.

    You posted a link to an article, but neglected to mention the point you want to make about it. I'm just guessing, unless you want to take the guesswork out.
     
  17. Aug 21, 2015 #14

    BWV

    User Avatar

    Thought the thing was appalling enough it didn't need comment or explanation
     
  18. Aug 21, 2015 #15

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It does. And it's actually required by PF rules. You must make your own argument, here, not in some offsite article. You can certainly refer to articles, but they're not a substitute for your explanation.
     
  19. Aug 21, 2015 #16
    Look. I'm not denying the value of the general consensus of the scientific community. I'm just pointing that there does seem to be some disagreement out there and that some of these people who are disagreeing with the status quo have PhDs in related fields that I know very little about.

    Agreed, but it makes me raise an eyebrow.

    Um... I don't think you looked at those sources carefully because two of them were from peer reviewed journals and the other was a NYT piece. I realize that one of the articles was from a personal website, but it was published in Nature (Nat Biotechnol. 2009 Oct;27(10):880-2. doi: 10.1038/nbt1009-880.); if I linked it there you wouldn't be able to actually read it. And may I point out that every other article linked in this thread does not fit this criteria (and includes a wikipedia link!). Is this some type of conspiracy to silence the dissenter? ; )
     
  20. Aug 21, 2015 #17

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Do they have any peer reviewed papers in journals we accept?
     
  21. Aug 21, 2015 #18
  22. Aug 21, 2015 #19

    BWV

    User Avatar

    The non-GMO, natural way to make cheese is to kill a calf and harvest the stomach enzymes for rennet. Fortunately for cows and consumers, scientists in the 80s figured out how to extract the rennet producing genes and insert them into bacteria. 80-90 percent of cheese in the U.S. And UK is made with this genetically engineered rennet

    https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=184.1685
     
  23. Aug 21, 2015 #20

    BWV

    User Avatar

    It is not difficult to find articles on pubmed claiming a link between vaccines and autism
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21623535/

    And there is an absolute scientific consensus against any link - it has come as close to being actively disproven as any epidemiological issue can be

    The site takes a lot of marginal research of little value
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Anti-GMO hysteria now most dangerous anti-science movement
  1. Anti-gravity (Replies: 46)

Loading...