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.
Originally Posted by Juram Its something humans have been doing for eons through selective breeding and pollination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
something i have pointed out numerous times, however there is a difference using selective breeding and cross pollination, and modifying at the gene level. it is possible to make a genetic modification at the gene level, and inadvertently turn on a dormant gene, or turn off an active gene, either of which can cause problems down the road.
There is a huge difference between breeding through grafts and cross pollination, and gene splicing. The roundup-ready crops genes are actually spliced with the genes of a bug which resists round-up - YUM!
Originally Posted by Juram Its something humans have been doing for eons through selective breeding and pollination.
There is a huge difference between breeding through grafts and cross pollination, and gene splicing. The roundup-ready crops genes are actually spliced with the genes of a bug which resists round-up - YUM!
The whole gluten intolerance is actually the bodies reaction to roundup induced wheat. A person gluton intolerant can eat pasta from italy with no problems.
"As we've already seen, the number and extent of resistant weeds have increased dramatically over the past decade. At the same time, some Roundup-susceptible weeds have been replaced by weeds inherently less easy to control with glyphosate. The result has been an increase in overall herbicide use—recently estimated at about 383 million pounds higher than would have been the case without Roundup Ready crops."
The biggest problem with GMOs isn't the genetic modification, but the heavy use of chemical herbicides that goes with it. Chemical herbicides and pesticides are destructive to the environment and can cause health problems in animals and humans.
Its a good thing that organic produce never uses any pesticides or things that might be harmful to us.....oh wait.
In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides. The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out). Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!*
Moreover, we actually know less about the effects of "natural" pesticides. Conventional "synthetic" pesticides are highly regulated and have been for some time. We know that any remaining pesticide residues on both conventional and organic produce aren't harmful to consumers. But, writes agricultural technologist Steve Savage, "we still have no real data about the most likely pesticide residues that occur on organic crops and we are unlikely to get any."
Scientists can examine pesticides before they are sprayed on fields, however. And what do these analyses show?
"Organic pesticides that are studied have been found to be as toxic as synthetic pesticides," Steven Novella, president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, recently wrote.
Organic foods are no safer than conventional foods. Even Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA), recognizes this as fact. An “organic label does not promise a necessarily safer product," she once remarked (PDF).
If GMOS are so great then why are GMO companies so opposed to labeling?
Why are they scared to let people know what is in their food?
If their product is so great then why are they trying to hide it from public view?
Don't people have a right to know what is in their food?
Probably because that would be the first step to banning GMOs. Europe goes completely bat**** crazy when talking about GMOs no matter what the science says so I can't blame companies for wanting to fight the labeling.
Probably because that would be the first step to banning GMOs. Europe goes completely bat**** crazy when talking about GMOs no matter what the science says so I can't blame companies for wanting to fight the labeling.
I want the labels to name the exact gene inserted, method of insertion, and the source of the gene inserted.
The whole gluten intolerance is actually the bodies reaction to roundup induced wheat. A person gluton intolerant can eat pasta from italy with no problems.
A person with true celiac, of which there are darn few, cannot eat anything with gluten.
As long as GMOs have to do with 'genetic' intra-plant pesticide activity (read: poisons) - I'd prefer to PASS. The 'poison' doesn't magically turn off at harvest.
Call me crazy (or chemically blond - I don't care) - but I support truth-in-labeling - especially FOOD.
What's wrong with those 'big boys' that they fear labeling?
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.
