Then chow down by all means...for me, No thanks...my body cannot tolerate that stuff, once I got away from that stuff, the better I felt as was evident in my yearly check ups. Today's allopathic medicine is deadly to me...I have got to do it naturally.
I've only been studying this stuff for twenty years now and haven't even had so much as a cold during that time.

You never heard of Typhus, Cholera, Salmonella, TB...the list goes on........Yeh...I really think we are way ahead of where we were before science and technology gave us solutions to all these things, I for one am happy to have my food laced with all these terrible things you speak of because when we didn't have all of that, we were dying like flies from all the aforementioned causes. While there may be problems from the issues of which you speak, the lives saved are much more those that may have been lost.

No...the integration that there are some that are more sensitive to any kind of smoke was in reference to the entire human race...not just and island...the same goes for all the different pronealities between individuals...we are not all the same like the lamestream wants us to think.

Foods loaded with processed and fake sugar and no exercise is one of the main problems but we also are eating poison meat and pesticide laden fruits and vegetables which our parents or grandparents didn't have and most people bought or grew their food locally...not to mention there were a lot less people living in the cities...
The whole way of growing our food has changed, the environment has changed in many purposed, natural and unintended ways due to a shear lack of Wide Scope Accountability...-accentually- considering all possibilities and if you get it wrong you take action and fix it- not keep it quiet until someone dies due to your incompetence.

I don't mean to be a prig....but your last contention was that ..."on some of the Caribbean islands they smoke real unprocessed tobacco and there is no cancer there...now you suggest that on some islands they....."are more sensitive to any kind of smoke"

I will revert back to my original point....obesity and laziness is such a major factor that any effect by these other issues is either insignificant, or covered up by the effects of weight and lack of exercise.

No one said that cancer wasn't around "back in the day"...An yes, it's true about some islands in the Caribbean and yes, some blood types are more sensitive to any kind of smoke.
I'm just pointing some objective observations that put into question all this rhetoric...you have to look at the big picture. Nothing is as it seems these days.

OMG....Its a plot....No one ever died of cancer back in the day. Even the poison they had back then was better for you. and "The People who live there" in the Caribbean told you that no one there gets cancer....well you got me convinced! WOW, science at work.

Smoking wasn't as bad in those days...it wasn't until the mid to early fifties that the tobacco companies sought to put poisons into their products...I suggest that government was part of all that...then the turned on them...an interesting development in all that rhetoric is that the tobacco companies are STILL putting those poisons in their products.

Another interesting fact is that on some of the Caribbean islands they smoke real unprocessed tobacco and there is no cancer there...I learned that from people who lived there.

I wil still maintain that Lifestyle and calorie intake are far more dilaterious than these other factors. We do know for sure that sitting on you ass and getting fat will cause all the problems that plague us these days....without all this GMO, Microwaves etc. Let me remind you that back in the day they had similar bad things...lead paint, X-Ray devices at the shoe store to be mis-used, smoking poor sanitation and water treatment, few vaccines, unsafe cars...Geese like everybody smoked....bad things are not new.

It's better to take the time to understand the whole picture and then specifically insert the gene you want rather than trying to cross two different strains and hope you get it with no unexpected changes.

GMO means knowing exactly what changes you are making. That does not make the changes good or bad, of course, each change has to be evaluated on it's own basis. This is why using GMO as if it were a single thing is absurd.

It's technology. If you are anti-GMO you are anti-technology. Feel free, of course, to be opposed to the product which is round-up resistant if you have evidence that it is dangerous.

Its difficult for many to vote with their wallets when the labels don't tell if the foods have gmos or not. Another problem is that "gmos" include so many different varieties of crops, the labels also should tell which specific gmo is included in the product in detail. Banning all gmo's is not the answer either. Personally I try to avoid all products that obviously contain corn or soy since most of those crops in the US are dominated by gmos. That means very severe limits on all soft drinks and many juices, too. It does help that the soft drinks don't taste "right" because they use corn based sweeteners. It does take more time to prepare meals from fresh vegetables instead of factory canned and frozen, but I think there are health benefits.

What your missing is they ate better food, lived in a better environment, weren't bombarded by microwaves and 60cycle radiation (that had BX cable to carry the electricity), a healthier mind set more natural medical care AND physical exercise.
That makes all the difference in the world over the long haul...they had it good when they were young. Today...the young are bombarded by the worst of all those things.

Maybe if the younger people would eat less and exercise more, they wouldn't die from being fat asses and having things like Diabetes. All these old folks have been eating all these GMO foods for the same time or longer than the young...its just back in the day...when they were kids, they didn't sit on their ass and play video games all day. They went out and played, and got some exercise. If the GMO was the problem...it would be killing the old people as well.

The only people that are living long are the people that have been around so long...people born in the early to mid 1900's are living longer or (normal) lives. People born after that period...say late 1950's are dying earlier...I see the trends, the younger generations will not live half as long. We are seeing this trend now...I work at a hospice.
So until we change our health protocols to deal with the causes and not the symptoms; get back to real natural foods and perhaps more responsible, honest science only then we will start to live longer like those that are living into their 90's now.

On vacation I ran into an Indiana farmer who heard me talking about GMO. She related that she was testing non-GMO field acreage after workers started getting sick too much. She speculated that the gmo chemicals factored into those being sick. The woman owned a very large farm. She confirmed that it is common practice to spray Round Up (Glysophate) on wheat to kill/dry it before harvest.

Thankfully I tracked my own iron that lead to my diagnose after repeated attempts with my former primary doctor. Then the dimwit says no rush on surgery which I ignored and had it 19 days after confirmed. When my surgeon woke me up after surgery (originally classified as ileo cecum cancer), he said "You are a very lucky man." I said how can I be lucky? He then said the cancer started in appendix which was swollen. I then said so if it was to burst I would dead 6 months later. He said yes. Don't trust your doctor too much!

My cancer tissue was sent to CA for a oncotype genetic test which allowed me to decline chemo. Markers are in the low normal range now. Insurance wouldn't pay for the $4K test so testing company wrote it off as research expense.

I am not overly worried, but the article gave impetus to the question of where , or if, there is any truth to be found and what is the liability of the government and companies to the truth. But anything man has had a hand in, is suspect because of the imperfect understanding man has of the universe and nature. It is the weakness that tends to cause the most damage and leads to the fastest runs out of town. Look at the Flint fallout, their short term exposure to lead will have lasting effects for their whole lives on some of them, and yet all the politicos do is wring their hands, say sorry, oops and blame someone else.

I would not worry about the safety of GMOs since feeding studies are done before marketing. Same goes for any food that has been marketed for years. Even the studies of various chemicals as tumor and cancer causes has the same problems as with food products. There was a well researched book by Edith Efron , 'The Apocalyptics: How Environmental Politics Controls What We Know About Cancer', 1985 dealing with how chemicals are tested and whether the results are valid or have a political root. Also, everything you eat probably contains small amounts of chemicals that do not register in analysis. Just remember that it is the dosage the makes the poison for most stuff including water.

Plus, not to be contrary, but "Well, shit, dude, WE Don't Eat GMO Grain" doesn't make sense. We do eat the grain. Monsanto provides the seed to the farmer, who grows the grain and corn, and it is sold as just grain and corn. It gets made into creamed corn, canned corn, maybe corn on the cob. Grain is made into bread and biscuts. Anything that was uptakedn into them (such as the roundup crap they sprayed all over the place to kill off the weeds rather than use the old fashioned, inefficient equipment) may, and this is where it gets all fuzzy, be loaded into the grain and corn grown after getting drenched in it. Thus we would ingest it ourselves, as well as all our animals we feed it to. The mangled DNA would also be passed onto the "child" fruit (grain and corn) since it is the whole point of it growing: they are the seeds for the next generation. There is no disclosed data on what is in the food after their little engineering tricks to grow it.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...
note: probably biased, but some references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphos...
Seems a bit more balanced.

https://entomology.ca.uky.edu/ef130
The "scholarly" view.

Excellent questions, Nick! I don't have a 'view,' I just have questions... that's my biz.
If the GMO'd seeds lets plants resist Roundup, it should be a simple test to see if the FRUIT of the plants contains more Roundup (or anything else that might be dangerous to us) than the non-GMO Roundup-UN-resistant breeds!

But 'they' NEVER provide that data, so I have no 'view' until they do... just the question they don't seem willing or able to answer...

Like finding tumors in rats fed GMO grain... Well, shit, dude, WE Don't Eat GMO Grain... we eat the stuff that GROWS ON the Plants that Grow from those seeds.

The danger is implied, not demonstrated.
This is Not Fucking Rocket Surgery!

Critical Thinking IS DEAD.
Cheers!

Absolutely. Given how complex things are today, it's hard to get the time to actually get to the facts. I find it's important to translate what people say in view of their often hidden agendas. It doesn't sound great, and I might be wrong sometimes- but I just have to go by my gut reaction sometimes for better or worse

See bottom evlwhiteguy has a similar thought. It is sad we can imagine it that way, but look at how many people loved to see Charlton Heston say "Soylent green is people!!"

Uh, you may have a point there. If the avg age drops, but the "special people" are not affected, who is to say that this would be so bad? Could someone actually be engineering such a thing? Crap, there goes that damn conspiracy theory button again..

You sound like an insane envriomental whacko Carl. That is what the other side will tell you. The truth is you are right, there are alternate methods beyond brute force engineering to improve things.It is an issue I think AR would appreciate: Is it better to just force something to do what you want, or to take the time to understand the whole picture and use the tools that are there to bend it to what you want?

Ed, my issue is that some genetic change may be bad, and undoing it is not always possible, and I am pretty sure that a company wanting money is tempted to just "brush aside" or even hide, the facts they do not want know is some crazy attempt to think no one will find out. Maybe some have actually done it, the tobacco industry was successful for many years, but I prefer to not grow tumors all over, or have my liver fall out, just because some company did not do due diligence.

OK, I'll bite. I generally see what they are calling out is the results of the use of GMO seeds and the produce they make. The "roundup resistant" and DNA changes combine to do 2 things: Allow the use of roundup chemicals on food plants without killing them (but how much of it is retained in their fruit?) and the basic fundamental changes in their DNA which are passed on to that fruit and is as much a part of it as from the seed. How much damage or toxicity is passed on to the consumer of the fruit? There are numerous examples of unrelated chemical discharges getting into the food chain and ending up in other food sources such a mercury in seafood, and now even radioactive isotopes from Japan. Do you have a different view on this? Curious..