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.
Advocates Fight for GMO Food Labeling After Election and More News
A ballot measure that would have made California the first state in the nation to require such labeling was defeated, 53.1 percent to 46.9 percent. Support for the initiative, which polls said once was greater than 60 percent, crumbled over the last month under a barrage of negative advertisements paid for by food and biotechnology companies.
So lets just say ten years from now, when babies are born w/o genitals, one eye or whatever mutation that will abound...only then will we learn that it was what???? Gentically modified food that caused these. So for the FDA...same song...same tune for now.
So lets just say ten years from now, when babies are born w/o genitals, one eye or whatever mutation that will abound...only then will we learn that it was what???? Gentically modified food that caused these. So for the FDA...same song...same tune for now.
This is fear mongering at it's finest, congratulations...
If something like that were to occur why couldn't it be from contamination released in the atmosphere by a comet or meteor?
-or-
Genetic modifications done to human beings by the aliens living here to further tailor human beings for their nefarious purposes?
Just as plausible and believable as your scenario....
NFN but GM foods have been commercially available since 1994, so in 18 years there has been no accredited scientific proof of any kind that they have any deleterious effects on human beings....
This is fear mongering at it's finest, congratulations...
If something like that were to occur why couldn't it be from contamination released in the atmosphere by a comet or meteor?
-or-
Genetic modifications done to human beings by the aliens living here to further tailor human beings for their nefarious purposes?
Just as plausible and believable as your scenario....
NFN but GM foods have been commercially available since 1994, so in 18 years there has been no accredited scientific proof of any kind that they have any deleterious effects on human beings....
Scare on pooterposh.........
Well I am not going to help your head in the sand. There are studies that show GMOs increase blood pressure, damaged the liver etc. I know you want references, but you will just say that it is not relevant or whatever...so i will leave the GMO products to you. Good luck and happy eating!!
Well I am not going to help your head in the sand. There are studies that show GMOs increase blood pressure, damaged the liver etc. I know you want references, but you will just say that it is not relevant or whatever...so i will leave the GMO products to you. Good luck and happy eating!!
True, we do like to read accredited scientific facts vs some study done by some anti-GM group here.....
I post accredited scientific facts and you post ahhhhh *nothing*
Care to fill me in as to why the conspiracy crowd always resorts to phrases like this: Well I am not going to help your head in the sand.
Only people like you who are enlightened know THE TRUTH <wink><wink>
True, we do like to read accredited scientific facts vs some study done by some anti-GM group here.....
And how exactly would you suggest to accredit scientific facts if GMO was pushed down everybody's throat without any long term studies whatsoever? Geez, biathes don't even want to label GMO food, how would you know what got you? GMO doesn't kill at the first bite (yet), therefore it's safe? That's "accredited scientific fact" in your world?
GMO doesn't increase yields of the crops per se, it may very well decrease yields, Monsanto ~ Do GM Crops Increase Yield?. GMO crops are more resistant to herbicides and poisons and in this convoluted way they increase yields. At what price? Making crops more suitable for industrial agriculture, fundamentally suicidal human enterprise.
How GMO (useless without generous application of poisons) would save third world? By introducing additional inputs (bio corporations would charge premium $ for). Additional inputs = necessity to increase scale & technological level of production = necessity of bank's loans (i.e. perpetual debt peonage of the 3rd world) = land accumulation by a few "winners" = disposal of the human excess to the 3rd world slums, destruction of the remnants of indigenous cultures and natural world. How would 3rd world pay for all that technology, proprietary seeds & poisons, fossil fuels to power all of that? Would bio, oil & poison corporations just give away their stuff in the noble quest to feed third world? Or, more likely, charge a premium and then call on the third world to "develop" and pay their debts? Then, as usual, IMF, World Bank, CIA, possibly brave men and women in uniform bravely charging, appropriation of 3rd world resources, including cheap desperate, dispossessed labor locked in the slums.
IMF etc. would predictably call for "development" a.k.a sweatshops, mega plantations, monocultures, food commodities exported to feed the overfed 1st world in order to earn $ in order to pay off debt incurred to buy life saving GMO technologies. Sounds like a plan. It does miracle for Mexico, as we speak, just ask a few illegals how GMO helped them to reach the land of opportunity. Of course, kiss good bye local crop varieties that don't require generous applications of poisons and synthetic fertilizers.
And how exactly would you suggest to accredit scientific facts if GMO was pushed down everybody's throat without any long term studies whatsoever? Geez, biathes don't even want to label GMO food, how would you know what got you? GMO doesn't kill at the first bite (yet), therefore it's safe? That's "accredited scientific fact" in your world?
Step out of your conspiracy world for a second, most people really couldn't care less if their food contains GM technology or not. People have been eating GM technology for almost 2 decades and only the green conspiracy types have ever had health problems.... Hmmmmmm
Quote:
GMO doesn't increase yields of the crops per se, it may very well decrease yields, Monsanto ~ Do GM Crops Increase Yield?. GMO crops are more resistant to herbicides and poisons and in this convoluted way they increase yields. At what price? Making crops more suitable for industrial agriculture, fundamentally suicidal human enterprise.
The first three paragraphs on that web page says something quite different than what you posted:
Since the advent of biotechnology, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically-modified (GM) crops don’t increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops.
Both claims are simply false.
In agriculture, desirable crop characteristics are known as traits. One of the most important traits is yield. Improving crop yield can be accomplished through both breeding and biotechnology. GM crops generally have higher yields due to both breeding and biotechnology.
I checked that web page, the last time it was updated was 9/21/2009. Posting lies and manipulating the verbiage of another websites article..
Tisk tisk mee, that's very underhanded and makes one wonder how many other times you have reworded things to suit your agenda here in the forums on C-D....
Quote:
How GMO (useless without generous application of poisons) would save third world? By introducing additional inputs (bio corporations would charge premium $ for). Additional inputs = necessity to increase scale & technological level of production = necessity of bank's loans (i.e. perpetual debt peonage of the 3rd world) = land accumulation by a few "winners" = disposal of the human excess to the 3rd world slums, destruction of the remnants of indigenous cultures and natural world. How would 3rd world pay for all that technology, proprietary seeds & poisons, fossil fuels to power all of that? Would bio, oil & poison corporations just give away their stuff in the noble quest to feed third world? Or, more likely, charge a premium and then call on the third world to "develop" and pay their debts? Then, as usual, IMF, World Bank, CIA, possibly brave men and women in uniform bravely charging, appropriation of 3rd world resources, including cheap desperate, dispossessed labor locked in the slums.
IMF etc. would predictably call for "development" a.k.a sweatshops, mega plantations, monocultures, food commodities exported to feed the overfed 1st world in order to earn $ in order to pay off debt incurred to buy life saving GMO technologies. Sounds like a plan. It does miracle for Mexico, as we speak, just ask a few illegals how GMO helped them to reach the land of opportunity. Of course, kiss good bye local crop varieties that don't require generous applications of poisons and synthetic fertilizers.
Wow! talk about a conspiracy rant that was awesome mee.....
Step out of your conspiracy world for a second, most people really couldn't care less if their food contains GM technology or not. People have been eating GM technology for almost 2 decades and only the green conspiracy types have ever had health problems.... Hmmmmmm
Don't weasel out, GM food was pushed down everybody' throat without any long term health studies. We are guinea pigs. It's a fact. There are major recent changes in public health, it's another fact. With proper brainwashing people don't care about anything for as long they have their Frankenstein burger on a chemical bun. Your point?
Quote:
The first three paragraphs on that web page says something quite different than what you posted:
Obviously you have major reading comprehension issues, it's an official Monsanto website, that explains that GMO does increase yields by promoting desirable crop characteristics such as resistance to herbicides and poisons. Yet, with all that GMO technology yield increases are rather unimpressive even according to Monsanto.
Quote:
I checked that web page, the last time it was updated was 9/21/2009. Posting lies and manipulating the verbiage of another websites article..
Monsanto website spreads lies and manipulate the verbiage. Geez, I think they should consider you for a PR spot. Looks like your GMO zeal would put even Monsanto to shame.
Quote:
Wow! talk about a conspiracy rant that was awesome mee.....
Nope dear, it's nothing but elementary economics and recent world' history/politics. Things you obviously have no clue about to argue rationally. It's far easier to label everything you cannot/don't want comprehend "conspiracy".
The FDA is run by a former Monsanto executive. You cannot possibly think that the FDA oversight is sufficient when it comes to GMO products. I also want to see how those US studies alleging the safety of gmo crops were funded. Second, I argue that companies must not gain the right to patent food sources. Particularly given the way Monsanto bullies farmers who are unfortunate enough to have their crops contaminated by gmo trash, and then are sued for patent violations. This is a serious ethical issue with the potential for catastrophe. Seeds that are engineered to become sterile ensuring farmers must buy new seeds next year? You do not see the lunacy in that?
As for evidence supporting the hazards of gmo, the following summarized a few peer reviwed studies in europe that have indicated statistically significant differences between gmo and non gmo products' impact on animal biology. Also, I concur that these should have been tested more extensively BEFORE being approved in the US. If gmos are so safe, why do companies fight so hard against labeling?
The FDA is run by a former Monsanto executive. You cannot possibly think that the FDA oversight is sufficient when it comes to GMO products. I also want to see how those US studies alleging the safety of gmo crops were funded. Second, I argue that companies must not gain the right to patent food sources. Particularly given the way Monsanto bullies farmers who are unfortunate enough to have their crops contaminated by gmo trash, and then are sued for patent violations. This is a serious ethical issue with the potential for catastrophe. Seeds that are engineered to become sterile ensuring farmers must buy new seeds next year? You do not see the lunacy in that?
As for evidence supporting the hazards of gmo, the following summarized a few peer reviwed studies in europe that have indicated statistically significant differences between gmo and non gmo products' impact on animal biology. Also, I concur that these should have been tested more extensively BEFORE being approved in the US. If gmos are so safe, why do companies fight so hard against labeling?
Ahhhh, I see the article you posted uses the infamous "most studies" "A review of 19 studies" crap......
If you go back and read my posts I specifically referenced human beings, not once did I reference lab animals...
I STILL stand by what I said earlier:
NFN but GM foods have been commercially available since 1994, so in 18 years there has been no accredited scientific proof of any kind that they have any deleterious effects on human beings....
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.
