And what peer reviewed papers do you want?
I don't believe I said he wasn't an expert on toxicology - I personally have no idea of his credentials in that regard. I said that he wasn't an expert on GMOs. I called him a fraud on the basis that has not supported a lot of his claims or submitted them for peer review, and yet still peddles his theories and scaremongering as valid science.
You mean, like submiting their work to peer review?
No, it's more like a scientist being asked by another scientist for the evidence that supports their work. Which is what it is.
Well, dismissing a web page by virtue of it's format makes a lot more sense than reviewing the contents.
... Says the guy who thought a bing search results pages should present a convincing argument. If you're going to make silly claims and support them with nothing, you're going to get ridiculed and not taken seriously. That's just the way the world works, I'm afraid.
No, it just makes him extremely suspect and the claims he's made completely irrelevant since he refuses to support them with facts. Even you must admit that a man who makes such claims as he does ought to support them with evidence and submit that evidence to peer review. What possible reason could he have not to?
Hold on, so you asked for ANY papers on GMOs? THAT is what you were asking for? Have you even TRIED looking??
Here are 818 peer-reviewed papers from Pub Med Central on the subject of (or partially about) genetically modified food:
genetically modified food - PMC - NCBI
Again, I didn't say that. I said he wasn't an expert on GMOs.
Good thing I never made that claim, then. Also, this debate isn't going to go well if you're going to talk in ridiculous hyperbole, not provide any evidence whatsoever, then turn around and accuse me of being a hypocrite.
Oh, well, if there's a
label on it then it must be absolutely 100% accurate. Because, as I'm sure you yourself believe, everything that companies tell us about food is totally accurate and honest.
Once again:
selective breeding and cross-fertilization are methods of genetic engineering. Have you ever eaten a banana? Then, guess what, that banana was
genetically engineered, because yellow bananas do not grow naturally in the wild. When you learn that GM doesn't mean that a fruit or vegetable was grown in a lab by
eeevil scientists, you'll see why this whole debate is a total farce. The real truth is that most people have absolutely no clue what GM actually means or refers to. Most people are extremely under-educated on food and nutrition, and this is the primary cause of the majority of fad diets, health foods with jumped-up prices (that aren't any healthier for you), and our pointless fascination with organic produce which has no demonstrable benefits whatsoever compared with non-organic food.
Erm... What presumption?
Again, what on earth are you talking about? Do you not understand what "rearing" means?
Kind of like how your suggestion of him being an expert based on the one article you posted means nothing?
You mean, those seven sources - not one of which is a scientifically reviewed paper?
You owe me an entire truck full of new irony meters.