E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Mold in blue cheese = Good because it's in the kitchen
Mold that produces penicillium glaucum = Bad because it's in the lab.

 

Ah, no. Sharks do evolve; they just evolve really slowly. That is not because nature conserves but because there have been relatively few natural selective forces exerting themselves on the shark population. At the moment it is occupying a relatively stable ecological niche. About to change, though.

Oh, and as a beekeeper I can authoritatively state that GMO does not kill bees anymore than non-GMO selective breeding does. To wit: there is this non-GMO strain of rapeseed selectively bred to produce a lot of rapeseed oil. Unfortunately as a byproduct it produces very little pollen and nectar, depriving the bees of a food source over large swathes of agricultural land.

But it's not all bad; bees aren't stupid and have quickly learned to ignore these flowers. As a consequence they haven't been getting pollinated and aren't producing the desired seed from which the oil is extracted. Never piss off your pollinating workforce.

And rapeseed honey tastes pretty crap anyway.

 

We don't even know how sharks have evolved as all we have to go on are their teeth, egg sacks and a few other bits, sharks skeleton is made of cartilage rather than bone and cartilage doesn't make good fossils, or at least complete fossils.

 

It was a bit more to it than just killing bees, such as rats refusing to eat, and if they refuse to eat what would make it fit for human consumption?

 

You mean this discredited study? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair

 

That still doesn't change that nature conserves, repeats, and replicates the process thou, and if it happens slowly enough and in sync no problem. They've been around for a few years now.

 

I tried giving cucumber and broccoli to a rat once. They didn't eat it. Does that mean cucumber and broccoli aren't fit for human consumption?

 

No we're not, but genetically we are close enough which is why they are used in labs. So if a rat wont eat it perhaps it's not fit for human consumption.

Maybe this rat wasn't an omnivore? Perhaps he was a vegetarian? Who knows.

 

This thread, man...

 

Clearly that's why they use bananas in labs for testing, because of our similarities.

What research did Monsanto use to discredit this two year study with? I assume Monstanto has already done this research themselves, and used that research to discredit this two year study with.

 

There is no need to discredit it. It discredited itself by being unscientific:

Cherry-picked data
Zero dose response
Small sample groups
Using a strain of rat that has an 80% chance of developing cancer
Releasing a book on the subject within the same week of the study's publication
Media embargo that prevented journalists from getting a 2nd opinion

...is not science, it's a sales strategy.

 

That's actually not good enough, especially since Monsanto assures us its all safe for human consumption.

That could be but it works the other way around too, in this case Monsanto would also have a monetary interest.

 

The fact of the matter is you've been eating GM crops for years. 90% of GM crops are commodity crops i.e. used as ingredients in processed foods, or fed to delicious animals. 80% of corn in the US is GM, and yet...zero causal adverse effect

So, what did you eat from breakfast, lunch and dinner?

 

This is all very impressive Gareth, I mean it is, and if the two year study was so badly conducted it would actually suit Monsanto rather well, easy to dismiss, apparently the study was also retracted. That said, I'm still very much interested in a study by Monsanto that proves that their product is safe for human consumption.

We do try our best to stay away from it as much as possible.

 

How?

 

Both, actually. You can switch them around.

Well now I got something to read.

Edit.

I appreciative it. Yeah, quick glance says a 90 day study. I have not read it all though.