|
Authored by: albert on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
and you'll get it, and when you do, you can think about those thalidomide
babies. There was no 'scientific evidence' back then, either. Hopefully, we'll
see it in our lifetime.
I don't want chemical companies rolling the dice with my health, my childrens,
or anyones. Monsanto wants nothing less than total world domination in
agriculture, and they have shown that they will try anything to get it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 08:30 PM EDT |
... before I want to let a company contaminate the food source with possibly
unsafe food. This is not a case of you can't prove it's bad so it should be ok.
This is a case of it clearly has the known possibility of being bad (we know for
a fact it is possible for organisms to create poisons), and you are risking
millions, or billions, of people's lives on the guess that it is probably ok.
Of course my ideal is already far gone, with genetically modified food being all
over the place. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't introduce controls now. Even
if we can't remove the genetically modified food from our food source, we can
implement control's on new modifications, as each modification has a separate
chance of being bad for people.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 08:46 PM EDT |
'But I can't simply accept to call Monsanto's seeds "poison" and to
think they "ruin the earth".'
Whether you consider the seeds themselves to be poison or not, there is no
denying that their use leads to increased use of herbicides which are most
definitely poison.
There's the allergy issues as well, where soy grown from seeds with brazil nut
genes added caused a reaction in nut allergic people for example. So in some
cases, the modified seeds are a proven poison without considering any wider
impact.
'Moreover - but this is a personal opinion - I think patenting GMOs is
acceptable, since it's nothing like mathematical algorithms, or software patents
(like we love to discuss here).'
And nothing like a law of nature huh?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 09:39 PM EDT |
The only 'elitism' I see here are the Monsanto execs, private jets, private
schools, hobnobbing with the rich and powerful (and the bed is crowded, what
with the FDA and Dept of Agriculture). Funny how rhetoric cuts both ways.
Guys, the 'opposition' to GMO foods is not going away. Maybe you should get a
law passed making it illegal to oppose GMO foods. Or promoting the benefits of
GMO. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 10:29 PM EDT |
You mean like bt corn, which expresses the toxin of the
bacillus thuringensis bacteria in every part of its plant -
ears, stalks, roots, tassels, leaves..... ???
Whereas the bacillus thuringensis bacteria only expresses
that toxin in the gut of an immature predator that attacks
plants.
Like that poison?
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
.. it's 'tother way 'round.
If you want approval to put your product on the market, then
YOU need to prove that it is safe BEFORE it is sold to US.
This is so simple, that I don't know why people keep missing
this, and expecting the wrong person to prove a negative.
The applicant has to prove the positive. I doubt that this
will be the last time.
Maybe I should make it my sig?
And, No! current GMO food has NOT been proven to be safe.
None of the studies used for approval are available to the
public, the studies that were done independently (all 3)
showed health hazards to the human digestive system, and
Congress gave GMOs a pass on FDA approval requirements.
If you dispute those facts, please provide us with a link to
the relevant documents that prove otherwise. Remember, YOU
have the burden of proof.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
Let me guess: You are
maybe living in a GMO-free country like Italy,
and that maybe affects
your casualness.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
> so far there hasn't be any from peer-reviewed articles.
That is because the evidence is mainly found in publications
published by the UN, or governments. However, the key phrase
"genetically modified crop" is usually omitted. Instead, alternative
words and phrases are used to describe the destruction caused
by the GMO crops.
Even in peer-reviewed publications, the phrase "genetically
modified" is not usually used. Instead, you see comparisons
between specific varieties of crops. It isn't uncommon to see the
more obscure name used for the GMO crop.
It is when you see photographs of land that has had ten plus
years of exclusive GM crops being grown, that you see the
damage done. Yearly soil analysis shows the deterioration even
more dramatically. However, those results are usually not
distributed outside of the specific agribusiness that requested
them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
In pharmaceutical testing, you don't just sell a pill and then find out if its
safe. You test first. Extensively. For three phases.
Now, I'm not against GMOs per se. There is a lot of good done in that realm.
However, I don't know if things are tested nearly well enough these days.
I used to believe that if demonstrated to be safe by a reasonable amount of
testing, they don't need to be labeled. After all, think about it: Corn is by
definition genetically modified grass. It is a mutant, bred by Native Americans.
That is genetic manipulation by people who knew nothing of genes. That could
have been just as dangerous. At least now we kinda know what we are doing.
However, Monsanto is souring me on this. You should not be able to patent these
things, and if you can patent them, there needs to be protection for the farmers
who's crops get accidentally pollinated by this through no fault of their own.
How are they supposed to stop it? Are they supposed to get a genetic analysis of
every ear of corn?
If a gene is more than 50% manmade (i.e. not derived from any living thing), I
could see that being patentable. However, such a thing does not exist to my
knowledge.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
Untested, unapproved, unwanted. Three facts about the GM wheat
found in the wild (see another story on this page).
That makes it easy to understand why some people apply epithets like
Mad Scientists Run Amok,
Frankenstein Food Cannot Be Kept Off Our Plates,
Money Crazed Monsanto Messes With Nature.
Not facts, but they reflect a primal human fear of the unknown.
And high tech GM is unknown to over 99.99% of humanity. Ten thousand
years of agricultural tradition is being turned over in not much more than
the space of a two term president. This may (or not) turn out to be for
the good of food production. If the answer is negative, it won't matter,
we are all doomed. If it's positive then this will all seem like the
storm in a teacup. Either way, we live in interesting times.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|