U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-06-2013, 12:49 PM
 
115 posts, read 171,520 times
Reputation: 85

Advertisements

Monsanto has scientists in their pockets stating as the USDA states that GMO's are "generally safe".
I suppose it simply depends if you trust Monsanto or not. From all my research, I definitely do not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-06-2013, 01:20 PM
 
366 posts, read 438,120 times
Reputation: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanove View Post
Monsanto has scientists in their pockets stating as the USDA states that GMO's are "generally safe".
I suppose it simply depends if you trust Monsanto or not. From all my research, I definitely do not.
I don't trust companies, I trust evidence. The evidence of these supposed health risks is missing. Until I see evidence, the only reasonable position I can take is that there are no health risks inherent in GM foods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2013, 02:06 PM
509
 
2,283 posts, read 3,335,834 times
Reputation: 2471
I-522 was written by a Harvard law graduate that farms wheat outside of Waterville. The wheat farmers are really for I-522 due to the international markets and other countries policies on GMO foods.

That said....I voted against I-522. 70% of current foods are GMO. The percentage will only go up. It would be like California, where EVERYTHING could cause cancer and that tag is on ALL PRODUCTS.

Your gut (stomach) will destroy any GMO foods without risk to you!!

However, I would support regulation of GMO foods that could be grown outside. Much more concerned about the effect of GMO plants on wildland ecosystems than my stomach.

If we are truly concerned about peoples health we would require the irridation of all organic foods. People have been killed and sickened by organic food products in the past few years that could easily been prevented by irridation of organic foods.

The Europeans do it!! Yet, they do not like GMO foods.

Given the population growth projected in the next few decades.....everybody will be eating GMO or we will be starving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2013, 02:37 PM
 
366 posts, read 438,120 times
Reputation: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
If we are truly concerned about peoples health we would require the irridation of all organic foods. People have been killed and sickened by organic food products in the past few years that could easily been prevented by irridation of organic foods.

The Europeans do it!! Yet, they do not like GMO foods.

Given the population growth projected in the next few decades.....everybody will be eating GMO or we will be starving.
It's refreshing to see a level-headed take on the situation that doesn't resort to hyperbole or conspiracy theories. You make a very good point about food safety. The trouble is that many of the same people who backed I-522 also oppose food irradiation.

How about a bill that prevents farmers from including chicken manure in their animal feed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2013, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
2,638 posts, read 4,123,404 times
Reputation: 3539
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
I-522 was written by a Harvard law graduate that farms wheat outside of Waterville. The wheat farmers are really for I-522 due to the international markets and other countries policies on GMO foods.

That said....I voted against I-522. 70% of current foods are GMO. The percentage will only go up. It would be like California, where EVERYTHING could cause cancer and that tag is on ALL PRODUCTS.

Your gut (stomach) will destroy any GMO foods without risk to you!!

However, I would support regulation of GMO foods that could be grown outside. Much more concerned about the effect of GMO plants on wildland ecosystems than my stomach.

If we are truly concerned about peoples health we would require the irridation of all organic foods. People have been killed and sickened by organic food products in the past few years that could easily been prevented by irridation of organic foods.

The Europeans do it!! Yet, they do not like GMO foods.

Given the population growth projected in the next few decades.....everybody will be eating GMO or we will be starving.
We can't say for sure that these are harmless to our bodies- there is a reason that GMO foods are banned in many, many other countries. I think we don't need to ban it or anything, but people really should have been given the right to see which foods have it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2013, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Washington State. Not Seattle.
1,586 posts, read 1,713,788 times
Reputation: 1538
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubfan View Post
I don't trust companies, I trust evidence. The evidence of these supposed health risks is missing. Until I see evidence, the only reasonable position I can take is that there are no health risks inherent in GM foods.
I agree with this completely. Unfortunately, evidence-based science seems to take a back-seat to emotional knee-jerk-reaction in some political circles.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jm31828 View Post
We can't say for sure that these are harmless to our bodies- there is a reason that GMO foods are banned in many, many other countries. I think we don't need to ban it or anything, but people really should have been given the right to see which foods have it.
What, exactly, is the reason that GMO's are banned in other countries? Because "Genetically-Modified" sounds scary?

I highly doubt that Europe has a bunch of secret scientific studies proving the detrimental health effects of GMO's, and just don't want to share with us.

I get tired of the "Well, Britain (or France, or Italy, etc) did such-and-such, so we should too", even though they have no more evidence or reasoning than we do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2013, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Quimper Peninsula
1,968 posts, read 2,217,724 times
Reputation: 1666
Agent orange was deemed "safe" by the "scientific community" Heck the government sprayed it on our troops!
DDT was considered "safe" guess it wasn't in the end.

Point is it complete and utter arrogance to think any of us know if it is "safe" or "not safe" to alter living organisms in a way that nature never has. Sure today to the best of the Monsanto scientists knowledge it is "safe" but they said that about other creations of theirs in the past....

To play GOD with our food, with profit as the motive... Does not sound "safe" to me...

Besides, we are not requesting an FDA warning label, just information so we can make the choice... Whatever our reason, health, moral or religious.

---
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2013, 04:46 PM
 
366 posts, read 438,120 times
Reputation: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueTimbers View Post
Agent orange was deemed "safe" by the "scientific community" Heck the government sprayed it on our troops!
DDT was considered "safe" guess it wasn't in the end.
Agent Orange was never "deemed safe by the scientific community". The compounds in it were well known to organic chemists as being highly toxic and dangerous. Agent Orange was a massive tragedy and embarrassment but you can't pin that one on the scientists.

DDT was considered safe enough for its application at the time. The reason it was banned in the USA was not human toxicity, but its effects on ecology which could not have been foreseen. Note that DDT is still used today in many countries to control disease-carrying insects and has likely saved millions of lives in this capacity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2013, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Washington State. Not Seattle.
1,586 posts, read 1,713,788 times
Reputation: 1538
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueTimbers View Post
Agent orange was deemed "safe" by the "scientific community" Heck the government sprayed it on our troops!
DDT was considered "safe" guess it wasn't in the end.

Point is it complete and utter arrogance to think any of us know if it is "safe" or "not safe" to alter living organisms in a way that nature never has. Sure today to the best of the Monsanto scientists knowledge it is "safe" but they said that about other creations of theirs in the past....

To play GOD with our food, with profit as the motive... Does not sound "safe" to me...

Besides, we are not requesting an FDA warning label, just information so we can make the choice... Whatever our reason, health, moral or religious.

---
So by this logic, we should either postpone or outright ban any and all new inventions, until such time that technology advances to the point that we can definitively prove it's safety...

I have a colleague who is actually very concerned about this subject. Her basic problem with people who are anti-GMO is the fact that these people are against an aspect of agriculture for absolutely no scientific reason other than "it might be bad", whereas GMO's have the potential to feed millions of poverty-stricken and starving people in places where "natural" crops can't survive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2013, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Quimper Peninsula
1,968 posts, read 2,217,724 times
Reputation: 1666
Quote:
Originally Posted by PS90 View Post
So by this logic, we should either postpone or outright ban any and all new inventions, until such time that technology advances to the point that we can definitively prove it's safety...

I have a colleague who is actually very concerned about this subject. Her basic problem with people who are anti-GMO is the fact that these people are against an aspect of agriculture for absolutely no scientific reason other than "it might be bad", whereas GMO's have the potential to feed millions of poverty-stricken and starving people in places where "natural" crops can't survive.
OR they have the potential to leave millions poverty stricken and starving...

Ethiopia did fine since the beginning of society in that area... UNTIL we gave them a "better" "higher yielding" wheat. Sure it yielded better for a while than their traditional wheat, then came along disease and drought that caused complete crop failure with our "better wheat" This lead to the collapse of government and society in that country. Their wheat may have yielded less in some years, but in hard years it yielded enough for people to survive on.

Same thing happened in India with cotton...

These people do not have money to buy patented seeds every year. My gosh, I am appalled at the idea of patenting life!!!! It disgusts me.

Seeds and plants have evolved right along with humanity, providing the types of nutrient we need.

Throw all that evolution away.... Place the very survival of our species in the hands of companies like Monsanto.. (Yes, those "frankenfoods" do cross pollinate with non GMO crops... What happens if oops, not such a good idea to add a fungi genome to the corn genome...???)

Man, wake up... Their are 10's of thousands of small farmers and seed producers that are under heavy pressure from the likes of Monsanto... Plus wonder where all the honey bee's went? Again you can thank GMO corn and soy... All that Glyphosate is going to cause extinction of the very species we rely on to pollinate or crops...

Monocroping with very little genetic diversity... Sounds like an evolutionary gamble we should not take!

I never said ban anything!!!!!!!

It is a free market economy... Give us labeling and let the consumer decide.. WHAT are you afraid of???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2013 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top