Is Soylent non-GMO?
Is Soylent non-GMO?
GMO is good stuff. Allows for more efficient farming. Reduces our impact on the environment - farm more on less. I think there’s more to be done on that but it’s a good start. The amount of land used for farming right now is just shocking.
That’s what I thought, but wait 'till you see the rat tumors.
I doubt any of us plan on eating 50 lbs of soylent powder per day.
I think it’s fat soluble (glyphosphate), so it builds in your system. Not sure. Not a genetic engineer.
Oh, glyphosphate, no one has talked about that here before. I am sure a forum search would have yielded no results.
/sarcasm …in case it wasn’t obvious
Yes, the pictures of rat tumors where the rats were fed GMO food are quite disturbing. However, it would be a mistake to not question the study - as many have done. It’s come up repeatedly here - here for example. http://discourse.soylent.me/t/gmo-preservative-concerns-and-alternatives/2508/6
The snopes page at http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/monsantocorn.asp is a good starting off point to research it.
Regardless of the science there’s always going to be some vocal people talking about how evil such-and-such is.
Well I searched for ‘gmo’ and the last post was 2013, before 1.4 came out. There are 2 types of GMO I think. One is Roundup/glyphosphate resistant (so they spray it on), and the other produces pesticides in each cell. I don’t know what pesticide though.
Roundup has been discussed to death on this forum. Use the search feature. It is not toxic in the trace amounts found in our food supply. If you really think it’s dangerous try to find a case of someone dying from food exposure.
You may be correct, but your threshold of ‘food exposure’ is incorrect. No one has ever died from 1 cigarette.
Ok. Find a case of long term exposure from just food actually causing a death. One cigarette won’t kill you but smoking them over a lifetime is a different story.
GMO stands for genetically modified organism. There are many, many more than two types (even if you are only talking about food). A one minute Google search could have told you that. Apparently that movie-length agitprop above doesn’t do a great job explaining GMOs. Did you watch it before posting? The title was more than enough for me.
The rat tumors were in rats that were of a genetic variation that has much more tumors than normal. I believe the experiment, if true and done correctly, was suppose to show that it increased the chance/amount/size of these tumors… it is not that the GMO stuff by itself caused the tumors out of the blue… these rats were, whats the word… dispositioned to have tumors.
That’s still a terrible standard. The reality is the interactions between food and our body are still pretty poorly understood. If eating GMO foods for a year set you up to develop cancer 10 years later there’d be no way to know.
That’s the problem with so much of our health issues. There’s so very many things that don’t show up until much later, so it’s hard to find the real culprit.
Not saying that GMO foods are bad, or good… the be honest I just don’t know. There’s so much conflicting information from both sides of the debate. But saying there’s no recorded deaths from food exposure to round-up is pretty disingenuous.
That’s my point. If round up was really so dangerous it would be easy to find cases of it causing problems. There is no proof that it’s any more dangerous than anything else you come in contact with on a daily basis.
I don’t know what is more disappointing: that six people replied to your transparent attempt to troll, or that I am the seventh.
You ask if Soylent is non-GMO. You know Soylent is not non-GMO; you basically admit it in a later post where you say you’ve searched other GMO threads here in discourse.
After leading with your blatantly insincere question, you link a youtube video. People who post a video as their first words are not looking for answers, or even looking for information. They are looking to spread propaganda.
This is further evident when you reply to the first sincere answer with “wait 'till you see the rat tumors.” Hardly the response of a person searching for genuine information.
In your second reply, you transition to glyphosphates. As you no doubt know from your exhaustive search (see point 5), there is a very recent thread on this matter. Which leads to…
You say you searched GMO, and the last post was 2013. That doesn’t preclude your “question” being posted there. There is no statute of limitations on threads; if it still applies, it still applies. Not to mention, your search also turned up tens of individual posts from recent weeks and months that deal with GMOs.
In the same post, you mention Roundup. Rather than rehashing the insincerity of people railing against Roundup, I would just point you back to the glyphosphate thread (and the post that shows that glyphosphates is literally safer than table salt).
The fact is you created a duplicate thread and posted an insincere question (the answer is easiy-found and already known by you) so you could post an anti-GMO documentary. Since that was your true motive, I’ll respond to that with a quote from Myles Powers,
“So in conclusion, the documentary has shown the calibre of the people behind the alarmist anti-GMO movement. By getting such basic science incorrect, it is an insult to people who have legitimate concerns about the technology and some of the companies involved.”
I like how nobody in this thread has yet managed to spell “glyphosate” correctly
Point by point for those who want to get into the weeds (so to speak)
Except that you missed my point entirely. I’m pointing out that we really don’t know how ingesting round up is affecting us over the long term.