Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"It's the most dangerous thing facing human beings in our generation."
That opening line says it all. This "documentary" is nothing more than an agenda-driven pile of steaming manure.
I have to wonder... Do these pinheads THINK? And if they do, do they think GMOs are more dangerous than, say, nuclear war? Or famine? Or chemical weapons? Or genocide? Or AIDS?
Plants engineered to repel pests use less pesticides, allowing natural insect predators to thrive and spread to non-GM fields.
Quote:
Crops genetically modified to poison pests can deliver significant environmental benefits, according to a study spanning two decades and 1.5m square kilometres. The benefits extended to non-GM crops in neighbouring fields, researchers found.
Plants engineered to produce a bacterial toxin lethal to some insects but harmless to people were grown across more than 66m hectares around the world in 2011.
Bt cotton is one type and now makes up 95% of China's vast plantations. Since its introduction in 1997, pesticide use has halved and the study showed this led to a doubling of natural insect predators such as ladybirds, lacewings and spiders. These killed pests not targeted by the Bt cotton, in cotton fields, but also in conventional corn, soybean and peanut fields.
Ulf-Ingo Flugge, University of Cologne, Germany.
F1000 Plant Biology 06 Aug 2012
Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India.
Quote:
This first long-term study demonstrates that the implementation of the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton technology in India has a positive impact on cotton yield and cotton profit.
"Bt cotton is one type and now makes up 95% of China's vast plantations. Since its introduction in 1997, pesticide use has halved and the study showed this led to a doubling of natural insect predators such as ladybirds, lacewings and spiders. These killed pests not targeted by the Bt cotton, in cotton fields, but also in conventional corn, soybean and peanut fields."
It always amazes me how the anti-GMO nazis can be slapped in the face with studies like this, but still claim that technologically advanced crops are a hazard to humanity. It's such silly, shallow, selfish thinking.
It's the same with the nutty "Organic or NOTHING!" crowd. They refuse to admit that "natural" chemicals are dumped on organic crops by the truck-load, and will continue to believe that natural is always preferable over synthetic. It's just goofy thinking.
University of Florida scientist Dr. Kevin Folta tries to explain that GMO technology is not scary to scientists, that activists need to stop thinking that all GMO scientists are working for Monsanto, and he sees a huge potential future benefit from GMO transgenics for feeding more people higher quality food with less environmental impact.
The game-changing Proposition 37 being voted on in California this November just got a huge infusion of cash from opponents this week, as the coffers jumped from $2 million to *$25 MILLION* in the last week alone.
Here are the top 10 contributors:
MONSANTO COMPANY $4,208,000.00
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. $4,025,200.00
PEPSICO, INC. $1,716,300.00
BASF PLANT SCIENCE $1,642,300.00
BAYER CROPSCIENCE $1,618,400.00
DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC $1,184,800.00
NESTLE USA, INC. $1,169,400.00
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $1,164,400.00
CONAGRA FOODS $1,076,700.00
SYNGENTA CORPORATION $821,300.00
Clearly all companies that are only looking out for your health
Arguments AGAINST Proposition 37:
- It's a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions--without providing any health or safety benefits.
- It's full of special interest exemptions.
- It authorizes shakedown lawsuits.
Also, there is NO CREDIBLE, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that Monsanto has donated millions of dollars in an effort to defeat Proposition 37.
People REALLY need to THINK, as a result of having read FACTS, rather than some ridiculous blogs by a bunch of agenda-driven crazies.
Arguments AGAINST Proposition 37:
- It's a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions--without providing any health or safety benefits.
- It's full of special interest exemptions.
- It authorizes shakedown lawsuits.
Also, there is NO CREDIBLE, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that Monsanto has donated millions of dollars in an effort to defeat Proposition 37.
People REALLY need to THINK, as a result of having read FACTS, rather than some ridiculous blogs by a bunch of agenda-driven crazies.
Sorry George, you know I almost always back you up on these ridiculous anti-GMO threads... but if people want to know if their food is GMO, then that's their prerogative, regardless of rather or not their thinking is flawed. I know there are technicality problems with the bill too, as far as the "Natural" labeling, and the private lawsuit thing, but the bill at its bones I have no problem with. I am very much pro-GMO, but I am also very much "the government doesn't have to protect people from themselves", so I have no problem with people wanting to know if their food is GM, and if they have a problem with that for whatever reason, they can choose not to eat it. If the food industry doesn't like it, they will have to change to meet the demands of people just like every other industry does. Thats how it is suppose to work in this country... its not the governments job to make dietary choices for you in regards to soda drinks and transfats even if you make bad choices, and its not the governments job to make dietary choices for you regarding GMO, even if you make bad choices. And to say there is no evidence that Monsanto has donated millions in opposition is a little ridiculous, its very well documented (not sure why it matters though... so has Pepsi and Coke, thats their right imo), google it, or look at the Calif. Secretary of State's campaign finance reports, please don't make our side sound crazy too. http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaig...011&view=late1
Sorry George, you know I almost always back you up on these ridiculous anti-GMO threads... but if people want to know if their food is GMO, then that's their prerogative, regardless of rather or not their thinking is flawed. I know there are technicality problems with the bill too, as far as the "Natural" labeling, and the private lawsuit thing, but the bill at its bones I have no problem with. I am very much pro-GMO, but I am also very much "the government doesn't have to protect people from themselves", so I have no problem with people wanting to know if their food is GM, and if they have a problem with that for whatever reason, they can choose not to eat it. If the food industry doesn't like it, they will have to change to meet the demands of people just like every other industry does. Thats how it is suppose to work in this country... its not the governments job to make dietary choices for you in regards to soda drinks and transfats even if you make bad choices, and its not the governments job to make dietary choices for you regarding GMO, even if you make bad choices. And to say there is no evidence that Monsanto has donated millions in opposition is a little ridiculous, its very well documented (not sure why it matters though... so has Pepsi and Coke, thats their right imo), google it, or look at the Calif. Secretary of State's campaign finance reports, please don't make our side sound crazy too. California Secretary of State - CalAccess - Campaign Finance
Let's think about this for a minute...
Why does Pepsi or Coke have any dog in this fight? Why Ocean Spray Cranberrys, and Nestle?
There's something ludicrous in that bill, and they know it. And it's about a heckuva lot more than GMOs.
Why does Pepsi or Coke have any dog in this fight? Why Ocean Spray Cranberrys, and Nestle?
There's something ludicrous in that bill, and they know it. And it's about a heckuva lot more than GMOs.
Um... because all their products contain GMO crops, and they are afraid that if people know it they won't buy them. Thats what I am arguing... that if people do/don't want to buy foods they know has GMO, whatever their scientific/unscientific or educated/uneducated reason may be, thats their prerogative, and if Pepsi has to adapt their purchasing and packaging accordingly and don't want to, tough cookies thats how capitalism works. If people want to know.. they can know, if people don't care, they can not care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
