If you're going for precision, shouldn't it be

Depending on the food, those additional proteins could end up in your bloodstream, right? Now is that bad? Maybe, maybe not. Not all industry-funded studies have held up to scrutiny either but you're right insofar as the broad consensus is that GMOs are generally safe. The longer that consensus exists, the more convinced I'll be but until we have a couple generations experience, I guess I'll be the "paranoid" one.

I'm a little surprised you didn't hear about the multimillion dollar campaigns against Prop 37 (CA) and Initiative 522 (WA) last year. The Grocery Manufacturers Association was willing to "spend anything" and it resulted in a new record: the most money ever raised to defeat an initiative in Washington state. After a little scuffle, the top donors were revealed to be Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto Company, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences LLC, and Bayer CropScience.

You didn't actually provide an argument. You made a broad observation (yes, drugs should elicit an effect) followed by a questionable assertion (aren't GMO crops supposedly distinguishably healthier?), then an unfounded claim (far easier task...). Citing 'self-evidence' isn't very convincing. [I mean would you have difficulty tracking down supportive papers? ;) ]

'yet' was an allusion to potential but not-immediately-apparent, chronic or cumulative effects. I would bring up DDT/Agent Orange/... but those are very extreme examples and most definitely would/will feed trolls. More likely, if detrimental effects do appear, they won't be lethal, just suboptimal. Meanwhile, waiting won't do me any harm.

What we currently have is an absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

No, that's a signal I've realized this isn't an argument. This is troll feeding. My bad.

The Beavis and Butthead version is better.

MOD PARENT UP PLEASE!

Bah! A true alarmist doesn't wait for events...

I was just as underwhelmed as you when I heard "coldest temperatures since... 1995!"

That said, last summer was particularly hot:

* Historical Heat Wave Expanding Across the West (June 2013)
* Death Valley Heat Breaks All-Time US June Record
* Heat Wave July 2013
* What’s Behind the Heat Wave

And in December, we did see dramatic weather extremes:

Tornadoes in December?

Just two weeks later, it's a cold snap: Chicago already broke it's record low -- more to follow.

I make absolutely no apologies for the inconsistency of TV personalities.

But the general idea with a changing climate affecting storm systems has to do with the ability for air to hold water:

* Warm air holds more moisture.
* A warmer atmosphere is moister generally.
* Storm systems feed off the latent heat of water vapor (which is released by precipitation).
* Extra heat in the ocean & atmosphere nourishes storms.
* Also, if the air holds more moisture, more precipitation can form.
* Finally, higher sea levels cause higher storm surges.

The theory with most consensus regarding the current 'polar vortex cold front' is: a decreasing temperature difference between the equator and polar regions weakens the polar jet stream, which allows the vortex to "wander" farther south than it previously would have. The vortex isn't always circular and right now, the midwest is actually colder than Alaska.

So while the cold front isn't directly related to stronger storm systems, atmospheric scientists reasonably hypothesize they are both influenced by our changing climate.

Disclaimer: I'm currently an instrumentation technician for an atmospheric research group at a large public university. I don't publish but I do collect and reduce data.

You mean scientists like Árpád Pusztai?

I'm not fearful; that's silly. I've been educating myself and based on my understanding of the current GM technology, including a familiarity with the methods by which GMO crops are evaluated for safety, I've decided they are not sufficiently rigorous to convince me of the crops' safety.

FWIW, I'm a civil engineer. I currently work in the field of air quality. Yes, I do science! (Everyday!)

I think it's fair to say [Citation needed]

yet

Except they produce proteins which provide resistance to glyphosate, right? That would imply they are distinguishable, right? If they weren't, how would Monsanto be able to sue farmers for planting GM crops without their permission (which they do).

Anyway I agree it's generally okay to assume 'traditionally' breeded plants are safe. Eons of natural selection seems to have worked well.

What I don't agree with is the implicit trust given to the methods of introducing GM genes. A gene gun literally shotgun blasts cell DNA with the new genes stuck to metal particles hoping some sticks in the right spots; progeny are selected which express the desired trait but it can't be known if other areas of the DNA were adversely affected. Another method hijacks a soil bacterium to produce a new gene which is transferred to the target host. Relatively controlled but in an absolute sense pretty messy.

In light of the second paragraph, it should be noted the third paragraph ignores how that deliberate mutation would never happen without human intervention.

The safety aspects of GMO crops are still up for debate (obviously!). I advocate caution is all. That and transparency. If they're so freakin' safe, why does Monsanto spend sooo much cash to prevent labeling?

A lot of (probably safe to say most) pharmaceuticals are derived from plants/animals/mold/etc or based on modified existing substances. The completely novel compound is the minority. I think the analogy stands.

But aside from the potential for physical harm, there's demonstrated economic harm in the form of unfair patent litigation against farmers whose crops were contaminated and ecological harm by the dilution of heritage strains and acceleration of pesticide resistance. Personally, I think these are more important concerns because they are more concrete but for some reason people get upset when you attempt to steer the debate that direction.

/eyeroll

It's true the GMOs aren't dousing themselves with pesticides. Irresponsible farmers do bear some responsibility.

The situation is analogous to antibiotics though: over-prescription by doctors leading to overuse by patients accelerates resistance. The doctors' willingness to prescribe enables the patients. You can provide patients with guidelines but it's far more effective to be more discerning in what is prescribed.

You're not listening. I'm not talking about eating nucleic acids. I'm talking about the proteins they encode.

I doubt a "simple chemical analysis" would be sufficiently rigorous to catch all changes in gene expression. I also wouldn't claim no surprises have been found so far Do you recall the Starlink corn recall?

Anyway, I haven't put forth any "what ifs". My contention is that it's inappropriate to accept manufacturer's claims of safety at face value. True for other industries, true for GMO. Studies done thus far have put forth opposing conclusions about the safety of GMO crops and I'm inclined to err on the side of caution.

For me, the safety issue is ancillary to the considerations of unfair patent litigation against farmers whose crops get contaminated, the rights of consumers to know just what they're consuming, and the accelerated resistance of pesticides caused by overuse. There's economic and ecological harm to consider in addition to physical.

So feel free to dismiss my valid concerns as "fear mongering". Make claims I have 'no facts to stand on'. I can't do anything about your biases and you can't do anything about mine.

Based on the number of insults you fling and your ability to "checkmate" you are clearly far more qualified than the people who competed for and earned grant money to pursue the very research you disparage. Obviously if you use enough rude adjectives, people must bow to your superior logic!

But while we're talking:
- mutations in chromosomes passed on to offspring are, in fact, related to the notion of 'evolution'
- characterizing foreign entities as merely "differently mutated" cells is a criminally gross understatement
- your naked mole rat article is interesting but the claim your support it with is a hasty generalization; odd you say "probably wouldn't find any..." but your assertion is absolute
- an 'improved' immune system which better detects cancerous cells wouldn't prevent those cells from developing in the first place, right? do you realize how circular that "cancer exists because..." argument is?

That said, you are so obviously right about "over-specialization". How on earth can we trust someone who knows that much about the topic of which they speak? Clearly, the less knowledge you have of a topic the less ignorant and more qualified you are! I, for one, am waiting for you to receive your well-deserved Nobel Prize in Everything.

Your humble doltish, dipshit nitwit,
EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC

P.S. What the hell does brain size and penguin eggs have to do with cancer?