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.
Oops, OpenD probably found a subject where google is not helping him find answers. Get back to us when you read about all angles of this complex issue. Ignoring this issue may be very costly for all of us. What are you going to do when your crop get cross polinated with your neighbor's GMO crop and you are not able to collect and replant seeds due to patents? Get your head out of the sand and see that the only studies out there are financed by the co's promoting and profiting from the GMO. The is no scientific evidence that they are bad because your corrupt officials are in bed with the big agricultural co's. This reminds me of the big oil fighting to keep the lead in gasoline some decades ago.
Sorry, but your adherence to anti-GMO propaganda misses the truth on several key points...
1) Monsanto has led the way in promising not to sue farmers who experience accidental cross pollination with their products, posting this pledge on their website. In the most highly publicized case of this general nature yet prosecuted, concerning a soybean farmer in Indiana, he lost, and had to pay damages, because it was proven he deliberately tried to work around the license, for his personal profit.
2) There are literally 1,000s of universities, companies, government entities, and NGOs doing GMO research, the majority of which have no connection at all with the GMO giants such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bosch, Dow and others. Claiming that most of the research only supports the position that GMOs are safe because all the research is paid for by biotech companies is merely throwing mud, unless you can supply specific evidence that it is true. And it lies about how science works.
In fact the simplest explanation of why there is no credible research showing that GMOs are not safe is that there IS no credible research showing that GMOs are not generally safe. But there is a lot of research to the contrary, such as this... a report on a mega study from UC Davis
Quote:
The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study
Visit almost any anti-GMO website and you will find alarming headlines about the alleged dangers of GMO foods. They kill pigs, cows and sheep on farms and in lab studies! Humans are next!
“Monsanto MON -0.79%’s GMO Feed Creates Horrific Physical Ailments in Animals,” screams a typical article, in AlterNet, a popular anti-GMO site. It touts “new research” but as is typical of such articles and such sites, it neither quotes a study nor links to any independent research.
Although there have been more than 2,000 studies documenting that biotechnology does not pose an unusual threat to human health and genetically modified foods are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods, questions remain in the minds of many consumers.
What does the research say?
Animal feeding studies are the basis for evaluating the safety of GMO crops. One-off studies of lab animals have occasionally shown some problems. Gilles-Eric Séralini, in his retracted GM corn study (later republished in a non-peer-reviewed anti-GMO journal), claimed rats fed genetically engineered corn developed grotesque cancerous tumors—the kind no farmer would miss among his animals if this cause-effect was genuinely in place.
Anti-GMO crusader Jeffrey Smith, on his personal website, the Institute for Responsible Technology, lists more than a dozen cases in which he claims animals fed GMOs exhibited abnormal conditions, including cancer and early death. He also references his own self-published book, and anecdotal evidence that pigs fed GM feed turned sterile or had false pregnancies and sheep that grazed on BT cotton plants often died.
“Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows adverse or unexplained effects,” he writes. “But we were not supposed to know about these problems…the biotech industry works overtime to try to hide them.”
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine—an alternative medicine group that rejects GMOs and believes that vaccines are dangerous—claims, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.
Is there any basis to these allegations? After all, globally, food-producing animals consume 70% to 90% of genetically engineered crop biomass, mostly corn and soybean. In the United States alone, animal agriculture produces over 9 billion food-producing animals annually, and more than 95% of these animals consume feed containing GE ingredients. The numbers are similar in large GMO producing countries with a large agricultural sector, such as Brazil and Argentina.
Estimates of the numbers of meals consumed by feed animals since the introduction of GM crops 18 years ago would number well into the trillions. By common sense alone, if GE feed were causing unusual problems among livestock, farmers would have noticed. Dead and sick animals would literally litter farms around the world. Yet there are no anecdotal reports of such mass health problems.
But we don’t need to depend on anecdotes to address these concerns. Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed. [NOTE: article is behind a paywall until October 1.]
The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.
What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.
At one time there was no credible research for tobacco causing cancer or lead in paint causing braindamage or other public health issues too. Just a thought.
At one time there was no credible research for tobacco causing cancer or lead in paint causing braindamage or other public health issues too. Just a thought.
Read the report about the UC Davis study showing there is no difference in safety or nutrition between GMO feeds versus non-GMO feeds... no difference... after more than 20 years and over a trillion feedings.
I have a question for both OpenD and WhtViper1. What if eventually the majority of the people in a state vote to have GMO foods labeled as such? Should the Federal government be able to strike it down?
I have a question for both OpenD and WhtViper1. What if eventually the majority of the people in a state vote to have GMO foods labeled as such? Should the Federal government be able to strike it down?
Of course.
States do not have the ability to supersede federal law.
What if Hawaii votes to secede. Nope, federal law trumps.
What if Hawaii votes to discriminate against old folks. Nope, federal law trumps.
What if Hawaii votes to take over the military bases. Nope, federal law trumps.
And on and on.
A state cannot selectively decide what federal laws they want or don't want. Just as a county cannot decide what state laws it selectively wants or do not want.
States do not have the ability to supersede federal law.
What if Hawaii votes to secede. Nope, federal law trumps.
What if Hawaii votes to discriminate against old folks. Nope, federal law trumps.
What if Hawaii votes to take over the military bases. Nope, federal law trumps.
And on and on.
A state cannot selectively decide what federal laws they want or don't want. Just as a county cannot decide what state laws it selectively wants or do not want.
Good points!
So then, if people really want GMO foods labeled, they need to take it to a Federal level and call their representatives in congress.
States do not have the ability to supersede federal law.
What if Hawaii votes to secede. Nope, federal law trumps.
What if Hawaii votes to discriminate against old folks. Nope, federal law trumps.
What if Hawaii votes to take over the military bases. Nope, federal law trumps.
And on and on.
A state cannot selectively decide what federal laws they want or don't want. Just as a county cannot decide what state laws it selectively wants or do not want.
What about states that decide that they want to legalize marijuana, even though Federal law still outlaws it?
What about states that decide that they want to legalize marijuana, even though Federal law still outlaws it?
Federal law does prohibit marijuana use - even medical marijuana.
There is nothing stopping the US Attorney from wiping out those states laws by filing suit in Federal Court - the US Attorney has chosen not to do that and the DEA uses the resources it has towards the large cultivators.
The Supreme Court, if it took a case, could invalidate state laws regarding marijuana.
In fact, the Federal Government has gone after some organizations for marijuana -
For instance, US vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative in which the Supreme Court ruled there are no exceptions to Federal Law for medical marijuana.
In Gonzales vs. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that despite state laws, marijuana is federally illegal.
State laws do not protect marijuana sellers and users from Federal Prosecution.
Sorry, OpenD...after i read your fist line about Monsanto leading the way in not to sue the farmers i stopped reading. At one point you will have to communicate more by saying less. That Monsanto slowed down in intimidating and harassing farmers is just a big fat lie. Again, do not rely on google for this type of info.
Let's talk about the University X study....who is financing that study? follow the money and you will see that all of this stinks! Maybe the GMO are safe, maybe they are not...but don't you think there should be at least one impartial goverment study about this? How are we going to get an impartial study from this goverment of lobbyists?
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.
