How Bad is Beer??

Because Paul asked me to... duh.

I don't trust the US based science really. . . Europe I'm much more inclined to believe and act on given the lack of pervasive corporate corruption and the precautionary principal the govern by, among other reasons.

Organic Food is Bullshit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdOQHjqOscM

:-D

Matt N wrote:Organic Food is Bullshit: youtube.com/watch?v=TdOQHjq… :-D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!#Criticism

SinRopa wrote: nytimes.com/2014/04/24/busi… I'll quote my favorite parts: "serious shortcomings in the management and governance of the European Union’s core institutions" ; "series of prominent scandals" ; "resignation of a European commissioner in the face of suspicions he knew about attempted bribery to soften anti-tobacco legislation" ; "prosecution of lawmakers for agreeing to large payments in exchange for proposing amendments at the European Parliament" Yeahhhh...sounds much better over there...

Not the point but your obfuscation is on par with that of ClimbandMine...

But from that article...

“This report should not give any comfort to euro-skeptics, because it shows there is a good foundation in the rules and regulation in place, and that what we need now is proper follow-up and enforcement,” Mr. Dolan said."

I cannot say this about the US... given citezens united et al. So it's funny you cite that as a reason to be skeptical.

Drew Hayes wrote:BEER IS BAD FOR YOU! In other news, bears shit in the woods.

Bear shit in the woods is better than beer shits in the woods...which are still better than bear beer shits in the woods.

assquack wrote: Bear shit in the woods is better than beer shits in the woods...which are still better than bear beer shits in the woods.

Gold!

When I saw a title, at first I thought this was a thread about fattening and demotivating characteristics of beer, not a crazy GMO debate.

just go right to 25 minutes

what was that video about again?

Well, to be clear,none of those are studies. The first is a literature/historical review, the second is an article, the third is just a graph of trends. A study would take a number of people and feed them one thing (GMO's, HFCS) and another control group would not get those things. It could be prospective or retrospective. Second, all those discusses is the over consumption of fructose, which I 100% agree is not a great thing to be over consuming, and i think literature supports that. I am asking for studies regarding GMO's.

EDIT:

I read your edited post, again, none of those are studies. Apparently the text you list at the bottom references an animal study that says that rats fed GMO feed were fatter than ones fed none GMO, that would be a relevant study. However, animal studies are fraught with difficulties to expand to humans you would be surprised how poor of a comparison they can be. Additionally, while I have not read the study (if you find it I would look it over), it would be nearly impossible to control effectively. Corn is a heterogenous material, some batches of corn may have more starches than others, feeding a set weight to each group does not insinuate one group is getting the same amount of calories as the other. You may say, well it suggests that the GMO corn has more calories than the non-GMO, which may very well be true. Is that a bad thing? White sweet corn has more calories that yellow corn, does that make it worse? I am looking for actual info that GMO's are somehow harmful, not that that batch of GMO corn may have had more calories than another batch of corn.

Here are a couple of articles (not studies), that I think are equally helpful to read on the subject:

ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repo…

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl…

While I realize we will likely never agree on the topic, I believe there is no evidence showing GMO's are harmful to humans. Indeed GMO's have the potential to be life saving. It's estimated that 670,000 children die every year from Vit A deficiency. A strain of rice has be transfected with a gene to make it produce beta carotene (What makes carrots orange), which is converted to Vit A in the body. Trial are ongoing to provide this to asian children in hopes of preventing deaths from Vit A deficiency. (it was studied on Americans first) ajcn.nutrition.org/content/…

This study showed a cup of this rice a day would likely be enough to prevent deficiency.

asn-cdn-remembers.s3.amazon…

Now we're talking some serious GMOs and additives (photo by Michael Schneiter).

To clarify Paul this is what I wrote for which you asked for studies:

More and more studies are seemingly point to the over-consuption of sugars (which are predominantly GMOS in our country) and pesticides we use in our food.

I was being cautious to not directly point the fingers at GMOs as it's more a sugar/corn thing (and the note that most our sugar is now from GMO corn in our country, high fructose corn syrup). Additionally, I don't think there's been any definitive link to large issues but I also believe the science is VERY new.

Why do other countries take precautionary views, ie prove its safe first then we'll legalize vs our approach which puts the consumer at the most risk...

Do you believe the pumping of fracing fluids back into a well has been proven to cause earthquakes? There a lot of science in both directions right now and most folks don't believe it like on this issue but in 1965 the USGS proved a direct correlation between volume of fluids pumped back into well and frequency of local earthquakes.

Morgan Patterson wrote: I was being cautious to not directly point the fingers at GMOs as it's more a corn thing (and the note that most our corn is now GMO corn in our country).

So what you're saying is there isn't a single well done study floating around that points towards the GMOs are bad conclusion, so you just . . . what, go with your gut on this one? The analogy given earlier to tobacco is pretty bogus - there was a lot of good science for a long time pointing to the dangers, big tobacco just created a false controversy with good PR and bad science. There is no good science on the side of the "Monsato is bad, because GMOs" group. Monsato is pretty freakin bad - but not because of GMO's.

I'm laughing at the thought of the bold climber who just ascended a 5.10R route, under fast-approaching thunderstorm, who is worried about the GMO's or whatever in his summit beer.

Beer is ~5% alcohol (poison). This is like worrying about the lead content in bullets.

Alexander Blum wrote: So what you're saying is there isn't a single well done study floating around that points towards the GMOs are bad conclusion, so you just . . . what, go with your gut on this one? The analogy given earlier to tobacco is pretty bogus - there was a lot of good science for a long time pointing to the dangers, big tobacco just created a false controversy with good PR and bad science. There is no good science on the side of the "Monsato is bad, because GMOs" group. Monsato is pretty freakin bad - but not because of GMO's.

I'm not in a position to judge every study as I haven't read the worlds' compiled scientific knowledge on the subject. Admittedly the majority of what is out there it points to it being safe but those are produced by institutes funded by industry. So in a sense yes, yeah I go with my gut. Clearly the majority of the EU banned it based on more then just their 'gut'. Precautionary approach is what I advocate for myself.

We haven't even had this food technology around for a generation, how can you or anyone be so quick to support it? You ask for proof it's bad, where is the proof it's definitively safe for generation of humans to come?

" There is no good science on the side of the "Monsato is bad, because GMOs" group." I would argue the since is new and the laws that allowed GMO's were passed in this country before there really was ANY science. Like big tobacco the industry funds hundreds upon hundreds of studies biased towards there being no effects (they have all the money mind you, money buys votes and controls information) while small groups are inherently underfunded to do studies and combat multinational billion dollar groups and their lobbies.

A side note, the pollution of GMO strains throughout the world is also very concerning... what do you do if/when a problem is discovered and those tampered genes are now world wide and can't be undone ( worldwatch.org/node/525).

Proj Guideline #1A: For any online activism to be credible, it must also include a topless dancer.

Morgan Patterson wrote: We haven't even had this food technology around for a generation, how can you or anyone be so quick to support it? You ask for proof it's bad, where is the proof it's definitively safe for generation of humans to come?

We have been genetically modifying food since the dawn of modern agriculture. Why is it not okay to continue to do so in a more precise manner? What's the difference?

Buff Johnson wrote:Proj Guideline #1A: For any online activism to be credible, it must also include a topless dancer.

The head of Bridgewater Associates (Ray Dallio) largest hedge fund in the world and one of the richest dudes started his investment shop in his garage. At his first conference in order to get people to pay attention to his ideas he brought up a sketch board and a stripper. Sufficed to say.. the men listened but he was also fired.

Alexander Blum wrote: We have been genetically modifying food since the dawn of modern agriculture. Why is it not okay to continue to do so in a more precise manner? What's the difference?

Selective breeding is different then tamping with genes on the molecular level. One is a process of natural forces.. the other cooked up in a lab. Crossing flounder genes with tomato so they don't freeze as easily vs breeding for yellow beans or some recessive trait are vastly different. tinkering with DNA sequence in corn so it doesn't react to your pesticide you are trying to sell is also not selective breeding.

SinRopa wrote:"what, exactly, do consumers have to fear? To find out, Popular Science chose 10 of the most common claims about GMOs and interviewed nearly a dozen scientists. Their collective answer: not much at all." popsci.com/article/science/… "...more than 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been published, including five lengthy reports from the National Research Council, that focus on human health and the environment. The scientific consensus is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops." "One frequently cited study, published in 2012 by researchers from the University of Caen in France, claimed that one of Monsanto's corn GMOs caused tumors in lab rats. But the study was widely discredited because of faulty test methods, and the journal retracted it in 2013. More recently, researchers from the University of Perugia in Italy published a review of 1,783 GMO safety tests; 770 examined the health impact on humans or animals. They found no evidence that the foods are dangerous."

"Absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of abense”

For a long time we had no evidence that Margarine was worse for you then butter (the Margarine containing a very high amount of trans fatty acids, vs the natural saturated fats in butter). Margarine was actually promoted as a healthy alternative to butter, indeed at the time there was no evidence that Margarine was worse for you then butter. But, Absence of evidence of harm did not turn out to be evidence of absence of harm, and today we know that trans fat (Margarine) is much worse for you then sat fat (from biological sources).

I still do eat some GMO's from time to time, but science track record is not always great and the methodology can have some flaws as we have seen with trans fats, anti-biotics, etc.

I find it ironic for a person consuming mass production beer known for it being cheap, being appalled about GMOs. It's like shopping at Wal-Mart and finding out it was all mass-produced cheap import. Cheap beer <= cheap grains, cheap grains = GMOs.