Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > GMO issue.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 76
GMO issue.Page 4 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

If the evidence isn't conclusive, why should it affect our legislation? Isn't that jumping the gun?

The problem is, it affected our legislation BEFORE there was even a GMO planted in Canada, owing to Monsanto's shady lobbying tactics, which through bribery of corrupt politicians, laid the legislative framework for planting & marketing this crap in Canada. Under our old legislation, it wouldn't have even been considered food and they could not have called (for instance) their GM Canola "canola" because it was chemically different than canola and could not occur naturally.

Think about it...patents are granted for innovation, for creating something new. You couldn't patent GM canola as a form of canola because it was simply too different; in addition, under the old laws, you couldn't patent anything occurring in nature, but Monsanto "lobbied" their way around the old laws and had the legislation changed. Under the old laws, they couldn't patent life, but even if they could, they couldn't have called GM canola "canola" (so they couldn't have called it food either - not without rigorous testing with respect to nutrition & toxicity, over a period of years), for if they had been able to call it canola, it would not have been sufficiently different & innovative to be patentable. Their lobbying was a masterpiece of strategic lobbying & deception that basically screwed everybody except Monstanto itself. I find it interesting to note that the boards of outfits like Monsanto don't appear to consume their own products. At a huge meeting in England a few years ago (Monsanto et al are trying (successfully) to overcome resistance to GM "foods" in europe too), the participants at the GMO conference staged a banquet. One of the stipulations to the caterer was that ALL foods at the banquet could not be GMOs and wherever possible, organic. I guess what's "good enough" for us isn't good enough for them. What do you suppose they know that we don't?

Even though, by the 60's, that strain of Potato had been spread accross the globe with no known harm or side effects?

When did they start marketing it? Just because something looks like a potato doesn't mean it's good to eat, or that chemical differences won't manifest a problem even decades later. This brings to mind a story recently out of Russia in which a type of GMO potato currently in common use in the junk food joints was found to allow near explosive reproduction & growth of the H1N1 flu virus. This potato is grown exclusively in Mexico, the US, Canada and Chile which (just by coincidence I'm sure) are the countries with the highest (by a country mile) incidence of that flu. So, while the potato itself may not be harmful. consuming it appears to greatly increase you chance of catching, spreading & dying from the H1N1 flu.

You're not asking for all food to have greater scrunity- just GMO's.

Don't put words in my mouth. I know what I'm saying and I'm not asking, I'm demanding that ALL foods, (but most especially GMOs) should be subject to MUCH greater scrutiny than they have in the past.

What makes you believe older strains are safer? Wouldn't older strains be more likely to hold diseases they've been experiencing for centuries, whereas new strains that were designed to combat these diseases have less chance?

I can't believe you'd be dumb enough to ask that. Most of our human DNA is composed of chunks of virus naturally "spliced" into it from "diseases" we have caught since the dawn of time. Our evolution is largely based on it and many of our heritable traits can be traced back to viruses, some of which still exist in the various foods we eat. Obviously they are no longer toxic to us as we are immune to what was once that toxicity. New strains which "combat" these things may possibly affect or "attack" part of our own DNA, since it may contain receptors they are designed to attack.

Should you not earn money for the work you do?

The way they do?...No!

do you really believe in the anti-corporate propaganda?

I'd better...I write a lot of it! And it isn't propaganda...Monsanto's record alone reads like a litany of war crimes at the Nurembourg Trials.


Have they banned trans fats yet? Why?

Because of the right of self-determination.

Wrong, they banned them because the accumulation of years of data showed that they were unhealthy to eat. This has been known for years, but nothing changed until a media campaign made it obvious to the generally uninformed man in the street just how bad they were. When it started to affect sales, the various fast food outfits "snapped into action" to keep from losing a bundle in sales. It had nothing to do with rights, or science; it all had to do with money. The cattle were cutting down on the "feed", so the feed suppliers had to act.

Consumers asked for better, cheaper foods.

Bullsh!t!... I never asked for that; did you? Did anybody you know? (nobody I know asked for that either).
I remember asking for more comprehensive ingredient listings on packaged foods (and got the opposite); I remember asking that the word "organic" not appear on any non-organic food labels (to avoid confusion) be made law through legislation (I didn't get that either). In fact there are all sorts of things I asked for, but never got. Strange that you think I asked for something that I got (against my will) that I never asked for.

These laws were created to encourage more plant strains- they are doing exactly what they intended on doing.

False. Canadian patent laws originally excluded nature and life. It was corporate lobbying (not consumer lobbying) and "free trade" agreements (Don't get me started on those!) that were responsible for the crummy changes to our patent laws.
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 77
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/18/2009 9:52:31 AM

No; I'm saying you can't selectively breed infertility as a trait by pollination unless you start with pollen from "sterilized" plants. It's pretty hard to do that with natural pollen which doesn't already carry the "sterility" trait.

Nope. But I really, really like how you make sicence up as you go along.


Are you saying it is physically impossible for GMO plants to contain them; or that all prions are animal proteins?

Nope. You need to do some research. I'm not going to educate you because I find you tiresome.


While the industrial revolution lowered the cost of desirable goods, it came at a tremendous hidden cost that I would submit most thinking people of today would rather not pay if they knew.

Fascinanting. Posted on the internet using a computer, no less. You must be really suffering here.


Let's see if you can provide the biochemical evidence to back up your claims. That's right, I'm calling you out and calling your bluff. Refute my allegations with science, not meaningless rhetoric.

Two things. (1) I'm a scientist and that's not how science works. The person/party making the original claim has ot jsutify, not vice versa. You can't say dumb things and then ask the other party to prove they're right. It's on you. (2) As stated above, you are demonstrating a fair amount of intellecutal ignorance and I find you irritating. There's a saying in science when someone shows up with a statement so incredibly baseless as to make one's jaw drop. "You aren't even wrong." Wear that one for a while.


Spoken like a professional "debunker" to discourage further debate.

You dont like dbunkers? You feel you've been debunked? I hope you know what that means, inreality. Your assertions have been rendered implausible.
You can debate all you want. You have a right to be wrong and you're making full use of it. I'm just telling you that I"m the one with a science degree, I've studied this field and you don't seem to know even the basics from which you would formulate an informed opinion.
There's plenty of debate in this field...among people who know what they're talking about. You? Not worth my time. Buh bye!
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 78
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/18/2009 11:26:30 AM
Nope. But I really, really like how you make sicence up as you go along.

I can see I shouldn't have used the word "sterilized" so loosely, but you should have gotten the essence of what I was so awkwardly attempting to say. I do not consider forced hybridization to create triploid "mule" plants as naturally occurring and while you can selectively breed a reduction in plant fertility, a sterile plant will produce no seed, so sterility is obviously not a heritable trait. So breeding a sterile plant is a two generation process; big deal.

I'm not going to educate you because I find you tiresome.

that's a cop-out if I've ever heard one.

Fascinanting. Posted on the internet using a computer, no less. You must be really suffering here.

That's right, and so are you. If you don't see it, well...I'll be kind and not say anything insulting, which forces me not to say any more about it.

I'm a scientist and that's not how science works.

If you think that's not how science works, then you are no scientist.
I suggest the possibility of infectious mis-folded proteins being produced in GMOs and you answer with "You're making up fantasy versions" instead of "that's scientifically impossible because..." and have the nerve to call your aspersion science? Shame on you. I reiterate, you are NO scientist.

The person/party making the original claim has ot jsutify, not vice versa

Had you been a real scientist, you would have seen that I wasn't making a claim, only suggesting what I considered a possibility. So I have nothing to "jsutify", whatever that is.

As stated above, you are demonstrating a fair amount of intellecutal ignorance and I find you irritating.

It's spelled "intellectual". Try not to be such a slob typing; it makes you look non-intellectual and ignorant. I hope you do a better job on your papers (assuming you had the intellectual wherewithal to produce one). Anyway, I find your sloppy typing quite irritating, and funny.

You dont like dbunkers? You feel you've been debunked? I hope you know what that means, inreality.

I only dislike the phoney ones; the ones who can't debunk claims but turn instead to logical fallacies like ad hominems & such. The Amazing Randi is a real debunker; you are just a "dbunker" (notice the quotes?...I also spelled it your way so you'd recognize the word).

I"m the one with a science degree, I've studied this field and you don't seem to know even the basics from which you would formulate an informed opinion.

Well you don't know what my education is (and of course I never tell anyone, in keeping with my personal privacy policy) and I'm not going to tell you. I'll only say that your statement is an erroneous assumption regarding my education, so you can't legitimately imply that you are the only one with a science degree. As to your claim to that degree, I hope it is at least an honors degree, because a science major BSc is not generally considered a professional degree and unless your job description lists you as a scientist, or you have that Honors degree, you have no business calling yourself a scientist. Of course, even if you did have an honors or Masters degree, your posts only indicate how the quality of education has declined over the years. You certainly wouldn't rate that level of educational attainment in my judgment. In my opinion you have a pretty elitist & snobbish opinion of yourself for someone with only a crummy BSc degree.

There's plenty of debate in this field...among people who know what they're talking about.

Yeah, but what has that got to do with you?

You? Not worth my time. Buh bye!

Chicken, eh?
 Andy687
Joined: 6/5/2008
Msg: 79
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/18/2009 11:37:36 AM
Then go live in the starving african nation that was talked into banning GMO's.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 80
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/18/2009 11:53:34 AM

Then go live in the starving african nation that was talked into banning GMO's.

Who talked them into it? I can't blame them for preferring to risk starvation over eating GMOs, but I can blame the west for withholding natural seed to ensure that they either eat GMOs or starve. If they had never let the west plant non-indigenous crops in the first place, they wouldn't be in this fix.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 81
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/18/2009 12:53:19 PM
>>>The problem is, it affected our legislation BEFORE there was even a GMO planted in Canada

You've dodged the question. The question wasn't "how did these plants come to be in Canada"- the question was "Why should these plants be banned from consumption if no harmful effects have been found?"

Clearly you have an adversion towards corporations, and lobbists- but the evils of the capitalist system is not what is being discussed here, but rather, the harm GMO's does to the human body, and, if no harm can be found, then why should we be protected from these products? It seems I have to ask this question again and again, until I can get a straight answer to the actual question I've asked- if no harm has been discovered from consumption or growing these plants, than why should they be banned? Just 'cause?

>>>owing to Monsanto's shady lobbying tactics, which through bribery of corrupt politicians

So you most definately are following kabiosile's tactics, then, by presenting slander as evidence? Can you prove bribery or corruption from a source that doesn't exist to push their agenda?

>>>patents are granted for innovation, for creating something new. You couldn't patent GM canola as a form of canola because it was simply too different;......for if they had been able to call it canola, it would not have been sufficiently different & innovative to be patentable.

Am I the only one who finds something contradictory in this statement? You claim patents exist for creating something new- but you claim its so different that, yes, it is new. But, in the same paragraph, you state that, no, its so simular to previous products that it isn't true. So it is but it isn't, eh, depending on how you'd like us to see it at that point in time? Sounds like DoubleSpeak to me.

>>>(so they couldn't have called it food either - not without rigorous testing with respect to nutrition & toxicity, over a period of years)

Again, more unsubstainiated claims- Are you implying that there was no testing over a period of years? Are you implying there is something wrong with these foods nutritition, or that these foods are toxic?

>>>At a huge meeting in England a few years ago (Monsanto et al are trying (successfully) to overcome resistance to GM "foods" in europe too), the participants at the GMO conference staged a banquet. One of the stipulations to the caterer was that ALL foods at the banquet could not be GMOs and wherever possible, organic.

First off- "Monsanto et al"? So are you to say you're generalizing other companies in the same boat as Monsanto because its convient? Was it Monsanto you are talking about or wasn't it?

Secondly- maybe they like Organic foods. Maybe they see their foods as an inexpensive alterative to organic. Maybe they wanted to offer a direct comparison of their products versus the products of others. I honestly do not know. But what I do know is it takes a special kind of person to look at someones catering bill and conclude that they are attempting to do something sinister simply because they don't serve their own food. I simply do not know what their reasons for doing that were- and neither do you- but that doesn't stop you from implying that their reasons were somehow evil, when the simpler explaination that their reasons were benign is just as likely.

Are you going to assume McDonalds is doing something sinister if, in one of their conferences, they serve steaks instead of Big Macs? That Walmart is somehow trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes if, during their conferences, they offer shirts made in America rather than China?

>>>When did they start marketing it?

The Russet Burbank potato was invented in 1870, and is the most commonly used potato for french fries.

>>>because something looks like a potato doesn't mean it's good to eat, or that chemical differences won't manifest a problem even decades later.

Sounds like you got an example of this happening? Or again, is this just your own paranoia?

>>>So, while the potato itself may not be harmful. consuming it appears to greatly increase you chance of catching, spreading & dying from the H1N1 flu.

As always, can you prove this? Or could this be merely a coincidence?

>>>I'm demanding that ALL foods, (but most especially GMOs) should be subject to MUCH greater scrutiny than they have in the past.

Why? What evidence of harm has GMO's presented? Why should you waste my and your tax dollars testing this food more closely than any other?

Although I still don't say I put words in your mouth. Even if you believe all foods should recieve greater scrunity, you claiming that GMO's should recieve greater greater scrunity still makes my claim completely true.

>>>New strains which "combat" these things may possibly affect or "attack" part of our own DNA, since it may contain receptors they are designed to attack.

So, luddite, what do you suppose? That we oppose all innovation? And, once again, can you present an example of this ever happening?

>>>The way they do?...No!

Your own political and philosphical differences doesn't mean people who work to invent new strains shouldn't be compensated for their work.

>>>I'd better...I write a lot of it!

And so it becomes clearer still. This doesn't have has much to do with safety as it does to do with promoting, pushing and forcing your own polticial beliefs.

>>>Wrong, they banned them.....

Hold up- we're talking about two different things here, it seems. I'm saying Transfats have no been banned because people have the right to self-determination, and personal responsiblity. You're talking about how they are already banned? Huh?

Eitherway, again, this isn't an issue of safety, but rather an attempt to push your own political idealogy- that grown adults need to be protected from making their own decisions in life. Some people don't want transfats. Some people do. And its up to the consumer to make that decision with their dollar- its not your place to make that decision, with either Transfats or GMO's.

>>>When it started to affect sales, the various fast food outfits "snapped into action" to keep from losing a bundle in sales. It had nothing to do with rights, or science; it all had to do with money.

Exactly! Consumers no longer wanted it, and companies were losing business to other companies that would offer such a product to consumers- so they were pressured to change. Vote with your dollar.

>>>Bullsh!t!... I never asked for that; did you?

Anyone who bought a $3 burger rather than a $7 burger did, yes. Again, vote with your dollar- people look out for the biggest bang for their buck, and your adversion towards this practise doesn't change the fact that its not your place to wave your hand accross society and decide what they can and cannot have, or what they do or do not want- people are more than capible of making decisions for themselves.

>>>I remember asking for more comprehensive ingredient listings on packaged foods (and got the opposite); I remember asking that the word "organic" not appear on any non-organic food labels (to avoid confusion) be made law through legislation (I didn't get that either).

Again, as I've said with kabiosile, I don't consider those unreasonable requests- but at the same time, given the slander and propaganda you like to perpetuate, it is very clear you do not want these labels for a more informed consumer- you want those labels solely for you to point at them and say "these are the products that need to be banned, to protect society"- you are misrepresenting your stance, pretending that you are the friend of freedom of choice, when in reality you are attempting social control.

Eitherway, if you feel these are things that need to change, take action- don't demand GMO's be banned because you have a gut feeling they are evil- prove it, and you will see change. As it is now, you're only fear mongering- and oddly enough, people don't like to be maniplulated like that.

>>>I can't blame them for preferring to risk starvation over eating GMOs

You can't blame them? Are you serious?

You know, you're free to follow their lead- be the revolution you're supporting the starving nations of the world to be.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 82
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/18/2009 4:43:43 PM
Why should these plants be banned from consumption if no harmful effects have been found?

For the same reasons that we no longer care to get silver fillings for our teeth, or care to drink water drawn through lead pipes, or insulate our living quarters with asbestos (or line out toasters with it), or eat fish from mercury polluted water, or x-ray our feet to determine the optimal shoe size, or seal tin cans with lead, or sweeten food with cyclamates (aspartame & Splenda should be banned now, but it will probably be like trans-fats - until the public makes a big stink about it, they'll keep feeding that crap to us). These are all things that we used to do for many years thinking they were safe. Only the compilation of data over the course of years (and at the cost of many innocent, unsuspecting lives) showed them to be so dangerous that the activities & products were banned, pulled, or superceded in the interest of safety. We should have known better than to trust in the safety of these things before test market data collected over years indicated that they were probably safe (or unsafe) and the appropriate action taken.
There are a great many things we should have done many years ago that we didn't do and there are a great many things we are still doing (stupidly) that we shouldn't in light of current knowledge (fluoridating our water supply for one). I would place the encroachment of GMOs into the market, barely tested, to the displacement of foods that are known to be safe and without labelling to show that the food is not the food you used to eat (thus forcing people to act as unknowing "beta testers" and eating experimental "food" without their informed consent) as one of the greatest crimes of the century, certainly worthy of a Dr. Mengele, but not of any country that pretends to be civilized, or to care about its people.
Anyone who wants to be a beta tester & eat that sh!t and take the risk of long term damage they can't can't even guess at, that's fine with me, but let's not expect an intelligent consumer to do that, so we should at least label it as GMO or imitation food until we know it's safe or unsafe and not let them crowd out the good foods from the market in the meantime.
presenting slander as evidence?

What evidence do you want; it's all out there for the taking; do your own due diligence. I would suggest however that you seriously consider the source(s) of the pro-GMO studies.
Sounds like DoubleSpeak to me.

That's because it IS doublespeak. If a product is new and innovative, then it is not the same as the old, natural product and ought not be called by that name. If it is so similar to the old product that it can be called by the same name, how can it be considered new & innovative? (i.e patentable). Somehow, Monsanto managed to do just that, so that their GM corn could be called corn, GM canola called canola, etc. Highly deceptive marketing if you ask me.
Are you implying that there was no testing over a period of years?

There was no INDEPENDENT testing at all that I'm aware of. Basically the government just took the industry's word for it that the "foods" were safe based on the industry studies. (Talk about a conflict of interest!)
Was it Monsanto you are talking about or wasn't it?

Not by themselves, but I can't find the article in my records (this was about ten years ago), however, I believe Bayer and Syngenta were there as well, but couldn't swear to it.
I simply do not know what their reasons for doing that were- and neither do you- but that doesn't stop you from implying that their reasons were somehow evil, when the simpler explaination that their reasons were benign is just as likely.

I prefer to see them as pretty much like Mr. Burns not being able to eat "Blinky". As speculation, it is probably closer to the truth and definitely more entertaining.
Sounds like you got an example of this happening? Or again, is this just your own paranoia?

No I have no such example and I'll tell you once again that prudence isn't paranoia, However my anger at the biotech industry knows no bounds and I hope to one day launch or participate in a major class action suit against them.
As always, can you prove this? Or could this be merely a coincidence?

On looking into the story I came across, it appears to be a disinformation "bait" piece produced by some slug in the biotech industry to suck in the conspiracy nuts, so they can later be discredited as wearing tinfoil hats. So I now officially denounce the story as somebody's made up fantasy.
What evidence of harm has GMO's presented?

I'll post some reading for you later.
Why should you waste my and your tax dollars testing this food more closely than any other?

Because it would not be nearly the waste of our tax dollars that marketing that garbage in Canada was in the first place (yes we helped pay to grow that sh!t here - and I for one am not too happy about it). We wouldn't have had to spend a nickel on researching its safety if we'd simply disallowed their planting in Canada for several years and allowed the Americans to play guinea pig instead of us. Moreover, we could have sued the US for billions for cross border contamination of our grain and preserved the European/Australian markets for our natural grain instead of being subject to import restrictions, embargoes & testing of our grain for GMO content.
you claiming that GMO's should recieve greater greater scrunity still makes my claim completely true.

Are you kidding me? GMOs didn't even get a fraction of the scrutiny that "edible petroleum" products get. It wasn't even independently tested for safety. Greater scrutiny? ANY scrutiny would be greater scrutiny than they got!
So, luddite, what do you suppose? That we oppose all innovation? And, once again, can you present an example of this ever happening?

I AM something of a modern day luddite, except maybe not as violent. I don't oppose innovation but I do oppose being force-fed garbage. I practically have to buy all European products no to get some assurance that I'm not eating GMO swill. Do you have any idea how expensive that is? And why do I have to do that? Because our thoroughly bribed & corrupt d!ckheads in parliament wouldn't allow proper labelling of GMOs, that's why. Is it too much to ask to at least know what we're eating? Apparently you and the government, in conjunction with the biotech industry thinks so.
You want an example of something yet to happen????? Sorry, even I can't give you that.
Your own political and philosphical differences doesn't mean people who work to invent new strains shouldn't be compensated for their work.

Maybe we should have given Dr. Mengele a decent pension for all the innovative research & hard work he did too.
This doesn't have has much to do with safety as it does to do with promoting, pushing and forcing your own polticial beliefs.

It has everything to do with safety and my resistance to having garbage promoted, pushed and forced down my throat like it's some kind of improvement in my life. It has exposed me to unknown risks, raised my cost of living and my hackles generally.
You're talking about how they are already banned? Huh?

At this point they don't need or care if a ban becomes official. Anybody in the industry has pretty well found a substitution for it. You might say they are now unofficially banned by an industry that didn't want to lose money in sales or lawsuits once the cat was out of the bag.
an attempt to push your own political idealogy- that grown adults need to be protected from making their own decisions in life

Get Real!...The consumer generally wasn't even made aware of the choice, which should have been made with his informed consent, so how could he make a decision he wasn't aware of?
Vote with your dollar.

I do, that's why more of my food dollar goes overseas, because my country can no longer produce enough wholesome food domestically, though I buy local organic when I can (they deliver too).
Anyone who bought a $3 burger rather than a $7 burger did, yes.

By that line of reasoning burgers should still cost under a quarter like they did when I was a kid...I always bought the cheaper burger, but I notice it didn't stop everyone from raising their price. Nowadays, I don't even eat meat that isn't certified organic, so even a $7.00 burger is comparatively cheap for me (AND I have to make it myself).
you want those labels solely for you to point at them and say "these are the products that need to be banned, to protect society"

That's just more horsh!t and you know it! If they had at least had the decency to label the GMO food I would have simply bought the food that wasn't and told my kids to avoid it like the plague too. Everyone else? well I might inform them of the facts and let them make the informed decision of their choice. Then the marketplace could decide what is to happen with GMO foods. Anything else would make me the dictatorial control freak you accuse me of being.
don't demand GMO's be banned because you have a gut feeling they are evil- prove it, and you will see change

Oh horseshit!...I've been screaming about it for years, but I have also been collecting evidence in anticipation of a major lawsuit...
>>>I can't blame them for preferring to risk starvation over eating GMOs
You can't blame them? Are you serious?

That's right , I can't blame them for not knuckling under to extortion...I wouldn't either!
be the revolution you're supporting the starving nations of the world to be.

In actively seeking justice for the oppressed of the world, I am!

Here's the reading I mentioned:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13025
http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey14.htm
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm
(this one's the fake bullsh!t story I mentioned:) http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/7227/54/
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 83
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/18/2009 6:32:01 PM
I'm just heading out the door, so I'll address your post soon enough later tonight, but it seems you didn't understand one of my comments;

>>>That's right , I can't blame them for not knuckling under to extortion...I wouldn't either!

By saying "be the revolution you're supporting", I'm saying that if you think its a good thing for people to be rather dead than fed, then you should follow your own lead, and stop eating food if you suspect it may be somehow GMO's- if you support people going into starvation and malnourishment rather than eating GMO's, maybe you should experience what they experience- truly understand the hell these people go through because their politicians don't want to "knuckle under the extortion" of getting free, genetically modified foods as aid.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 84
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/18/2009 7:06:52 PM


By saying "be the revolution you're supporting", I'm saying that if you think its a good thing for people to be rather dead than fed, then you should follow your own lead, and stop eating food if you suspect it may be somehow GMO's- if you support people going into starvation and malnourishment rather than eating GMO's, maybe you should experience what they experience- truly understand the hell these people go through because their politicians don't want to "knuckle under the extortion" of getting free, genetically modified foods as aid.


Again you speak the biotechs propaganda it was not a case of better dead than fed... They chose to work with the UN whom bought real natural corn from their local farmers instead of making a situation worse by flooding the country with free GMO corn which would put all of their farmers out of business. It is a simple economic decision this country had to make. Take a bad situation and make it worse by taking free GMO corn or work with the UN whom bought the corn from their local farmers. The choice was a no brainer. They went with natural corn from the UN instead of letting the biotech industry make them totally reliant on them.

Yet you continue with the BS propaganda and try to say other are the ones with the propaganda.

You do not wish to address my posts because they lay you out for the shill you are, that is unless you are just someone who has let the industry blow smoke up their ass.

You lie and lie and lie some more and expect people to believe you. When they can google Substantial equivalence and it will tell you EXACTLY what the policy is.. Here let me save you the trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_equivalence

That is the policy no testing no labels the industry says its safe so of course since they have a revolving door policy into the FDA and USDA the ex industry workers just shove this crap through and are in contempt of public safety.


Again I could care less what others do or want to do.. It's all good. I have called for these things to be labeled so that people can make their choice. I am not trying to force people to eat anything but, the biotech industry is. They dont want people to know what they are eating... This is the crux of the problem.. I believe the consumer should always know..


Further I am not wasting my time people are talking about the issue and thats what I came here for.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 85
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/20/2009 11:49:42 PM
>>>we no longer care to get silver fillings for our teeth, or care to drink water drawn through lead pipes, or.....

Again, you're implying there is something seriously wrong with GMO's- and yet, you cannot prove it.

When Telephones first came out, people were terrified that all social communication would end, and called for their banning. People were terrified that Microwaves would make their food radioactive- they were convinced that the Blues made people violent, and there are still millions of parents still worried that too much time playing video games somehow turns your kids into killing machines. People are always worried about the future, new technologies, and changes- Genetically Modified Organisms are no different. We should not be driven into an age of unreason- we are not the descendants of fearful men- and we should not fear something simply because it is new, or different- we must have reason behind our beliefs, and cause- you offer nothing but fear mongering against what you deem to be the unknown.

>>>until the public makes a big stink about it, they'll keep feeding that crap to us

With the exception of children, the public is comprised of grown adults who are capable of making their own decisions and accepting responsibility for it. Do you believe it shouldn't be that way? If you choose to put food in your mouth, knowing full well that, in excess, that food can be unhealthy and, over time, could be lethal, don't you hold any responsibility?

Like I said, at the end of the day, this really has to do with politics- I believe each and every grown adult should be free to make their own decisions. You believe we need a nanny state to protect us from ourselves- and all your conclusions on GMO's derives from that.

>>>We should have known better than to trust in the safety of these things before test market data collected over years indicated that they were probably safe (or unsafe) and the appropriate action taken.

Again, back to new technologies- should all Cell Phones have a 90 year ban, until we can be certain it holds no future risk? Wireless Internet? Microwaves haven't been around for more than 50 years- do you fear them?

If we were to follow your creed, the worlds first cars would just start appearing around the world, flying machines would have been given the okay just 6 years ago, and the modern toilet would be considered new technology. You demand an unrealistic standard for judgment, while refusing to exist in the world voluntarily you demand others should.

>>> barely tested

Source please.

>>> (thus forcing people to act as unknowing "beta testers" and eating experimental "food" without their informed consent)

Like you said at the end of this post- they can choose not to eat food at all. You seem to admire people who choose death.

>>>so we should at least label it as GMO or imitation food until we know it's safe or unsafe and not let them crowd out the good foods from the market in the meantime.

Exactly- just as I predicted- you don't want the food identified so people can be informed consumers- you want it identified so you have somewhere to attempt to push a ban. By calling it "imitation food", you instinctively dictate that it is somehow lesser, worse, or bad for you, when you have NO EVIDENCE to support it. Furthermore, your "safe foods" could very well not be safe at all- many of these genetic changes are to make them stronger against diseases.

>>> it's all out there for the taking; do your own due diligence

Quick! Can anyone find anything ironic about that statement?

Times up- lets find out;


<div class="quote">
<div class="quote">I'm not going to educate you because I find you tiresome.

that's a cop-out if I've ever heard one.

Thats right- Seven hours prior, JustDukky condemned another user that making the claim "do your own research" as being a 'cop-out'- a few hours later, they do the EXACT SAME THING.

Either way, I'm asking for you to defend your statement- you said Monsanto bribes corrupt politicians. Can you prove it? Or is it, as I've said, slander?

>>>I would suggest however that you seriously consider the source(s) of the pro-GMO studies.

And I would ask that you seriously consider your anti-corporate sources- but we both know that neither side will do either.

>>>That's because it IS doublespeak.

Again, you misunderstood what I was saying. If there is no difference between GM Corn and non-GM corn, then your claim that its totally different is baseless- if there is a difference between GM Corn and non-GM Corn, then your claim that its the same product is baseless. You want it both ways- to claim its entirely different, and that its the same- that the differences constitute a clear and present danger to the public, while at the same time scoffing, and saying its not different enough to be considered a different product to begin with, and they shouldn't be allowed to patent it. You want the freedom to claim its an entirely different product, but also entirely the same- So yes, that is doublespeak- and that is also manipulation.

>>>There was no INDEPENDENT testing at all that I'm aware of.

Well, so long as you weren't made aware of them.....

Couldn't you make your own independent testing? Most Soy sold within the United States and Canada is GMO now- go to any store and you could probably find some to test.

But I suppose its just easier to **** that no independent testing was done- cause if it was, you'd have been told.

>>>Basically the government just took the industry's word for it that the "foods" were safe based on the industry studies.

What about the Government makes you think they could do any better?

>>>I prefer to see them as pretty much like Mr. Burns not being able to eat "Blinky".

Exactly- you have a predisposition to completely hating corporations- they could tell you the sky is blue, and you still would call them liars. It has nothing to do with facts, and entirely to do with validating your politics.

>>> As speculation, it is probably closer to the truth

Again, more unsubstantiated claims- how is it closer to the truth? Why? How could you possibly know? And how much of your own personal bias do you believe plays a role in your interpretation of all of this?

>>> So I now officially denounce the story as somebody's made up fantasy.

There's a shocker- you presented a conspiracy because it supported your beliefs, rather than looking at it objectively and finding out if its true first....glad to see you yourself are not above spreading misinformation.

>>>We wouldn't have had to spend a nickel on researching its safety if we'd simply disallowed their planting in Canada for several years and allowed the Americans to play guinea pig instead of us.

You have no idea how much both our countries depend on each other for trade, do you? Should both our countries have thrown out billions of dollars for no apparent reason?

>>>You want an example of something yet to happen????? Sorry, even I can't give you that.

Then why did you make the prediction?

>>>Maybe we should have given Dr. Mengele a decent pension for all the innovative research & hard work he did too.

Ah, what did other users call that again? Argumentum ad Nazism?

>>> raised my cost of living

Again, proof?

Whats this? You can't prove it? But you keep repeating the same claims like a broken record?

>>>You might say they are now unofficially banned by an industry that didn't want to lose money

Exactly- people didn't want it, so business's stopped serving it. There is nothing sinister about it- simply supply and demand. You don't seem to think companies can do things because the consumer wants them to- and if they do, you scoff, and say they're still evil.

>>>because my country can no longer produce enough wholesome food domestically, though I buy local organic when I can

Again, clearly this has to do with pushing your personal preference, and acting like its your right to force it onto others. You like organic foods? That's great- but the additional cost comes with the additional expense.

>>>Nowadays, I don't even eat meat that isn't certified organic, so even a $7.00 burger is comparatively cheap for me (AND I have to make it myself).

Cry me a river- you want a purchase from a farmer who agrees with your ideology and only your ideology- and they're gunna make you pay for that luxury. Don't like it? Don't demand that your farmers agree with your politics to deserve your business.

>>> Everyone else? well I might inform them of the facts and let them make the informed decision of their choice.

**WHAT FACTS??**

I've asked you, again and again, to defend claims you've made in this forum- and again and again, you've responded with the same: "I can't prove this food is toxic, but it is!"

>>>Here's the reading I mentioned:

Odd- you demand corporations have their facts checked independently, since otherwise they would have an agenda to push- and yet, you get your information from sources that....have an agenda to push.....
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 86
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/21/2009 1:25:00 PM
you're implying there is something seriously wrong with GMO's- and yet, you cannot prove it.

That is a lie. I am implying no such thing, nor am I trying to prove anything.
Do you believe it shouldn't be that way?

I wouldn't have it any other way; too bad the government doesn't agree with that and treats us like ignorant children and cattle for human experimentation.
I believe each and every grown adult should be free to make their own decisions. You believe we need a nanny state to protect us from ourselves- and all your conclusions on GMO's derives from that.

What would lead you to think that I believe the opposite of what I believe? Your first statement is a statement I might have made myself. The others are delusional accusations you have made to create strawmen, just as you did above.
should all Cell Phones have a 90 year ban, until we can be certain it holds no future risk? Wireless Internet? Microwaves haven't been around for more than 50 years- do you fear them?

No. The ban should be permanent as far as I'm concerned! But seriously...people should have clear labelling on those products outlining whatever risks ownership may entail. It's already been shown that microwave transmission towers are a major concern in terms of microwave radiation hazards, so too with cell phones and data is now coming in to suggest that the transmitters in wireless routers may also pose a safety hazard when situated too close to people. People should be given full information about current research on the safety of any product, so they can decide for themselves whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks.
You demand an unrealistic standard for judgment

Is it unrealistic to expect truth in marketing? Yeah; given today's mercenary corporate capitalist environment and governments who run their countries like plantations, I guess it is.
Source please.

Read about "substantial equivalence" in the US and how the American FDA's disregard for the safety of it's citizenry transports that gross negligence to Canada via NAFTA and "harmonization"" of regulations.
You seem to admire people who choose death.

No. I admire people who don't knuckle under to tyranny. Conversely, I despise people who would suggest that not doing so "is their own damn fault."
you don't want the food identified so people can be informed consumers- you want it identified so you have somewhere to attempt to push a ban

You must live in a literary garbage dump. Nobody could produce that much of it on their own! The crowding out of good foods, proved safe over a period of centuries with expensive, patented, "Frankenfoods" that are deceptively left unlabelled as such, effectively "bans" the good stuff in any real sense, while forcing the testing of new products on an unsuspecting public by non-consensual human experimentation. Do you honestly consider this a good thing? What's your last name, Mengele? Anyway I didn't fall for yet another of your attempted strawman arguments (Geeze you do that a lot!).
JustDukky condemned another user that making the claim "do your own research" as being a 'cop-out'- a few hours later, they do the EXACT SAME THING.

I'm sure it looks that way to you, because you obviously aren't smart enough to see the difference between the two situations. If you were, you wouldn't make the allegation. Just because I called the bluff on some stuffed shirt who probably got his degree from the "Name on Request Correspondence School of Science", or some other such degree mill is no reason to suspect I'm doing what he did. It may be (and in fact is the case) that I'm not going to waste my valuable time compiling data (that is freely available to you if you but look for it) as though I'm making a case on this forum. I'm not making such a case (here) for three other reasons: 1) You wouldn't bother to read it because it does nothing for your argument. 2) You aren't interested in learning truth, you are interested in locking horns with me. 3) I don't want to let too much of the cat out of the bag concerning possible future litigation.
your claim that its totally different is baseless

Quit trying to set up strawmen. It's very annoying. If you weren't a strawman yourself and had anything but straw in your head, you'd know I never made that claim.
Most Soy sold within the United States and Canada is GMO now- go to any store and you could probably find some to test.

It wouldn't work; the GMO soy is mixed with the non-GMO soy (if there is any left) and isn't labelled as being GMO. So what would any tests prove? That I'm stupid enough to eat GMO soy? Sorry...not that dumb!
What about the Government makes you think they could do any better?

They won't. That's another thing I like to rant about...how useless and harmful the government is.
It has nothing to do with facts, and entirely to do with validating your politics.

My politics ARE valid to anyone with enough brain to appreciate my arguments. I guess that lets you out though. (sneaky ad hominem eh?)
Well, this post is getting long and I'm getting bored. If you're really nice and ask politely, I MAY come back later and trounce the rest of your long and pathetic post for you.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 87
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/21/2009 10:52:51 PM
>>>I am implying no such thing, nor am I trying to prove anything.

You certainly are- again with the double speak- you want me to believe that you do not claim there is any harm in GMO's, while at the same time demanding it be separated from the general food supply because there is harm in GMO's- you want two contradicting claims, and the freedom to switch between either contradiction as its convenient to your argument.

>>>No. The ban should be permanent as far as I'm concerned!

Then why am I even wasting my time with you? You don't even have the data, but you believe there should be a permanent ban on all GMO's, for all time?

>>>People should be given full information about current research on the safety of any product, so they can decide for themselves whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks.

You dodged the question- should Microwaves be banned until 100 years has passed since their invention? Computers? Energy Efficient light bulbs? Central Air?

Why do you make the distinction with GMO's, but not with other new technology?

>>>Is it unrealistic to expect truth in marketing?

We weren't discussing marketing, we were discussing new technology- You hold the belief that everything should be tested for 100 years before its considered "safe" for the market- but you only apply such failures in logic to one subject- Genetically Modified Foods. Otherwise, you wouldn't be on that computer infront of you- because who knows the long term harm its causing you, unless its tested for two generations?

>>>Read about "substantial equivalence" in the US

I asked for a source, not homework. You claimed it was barely tested- by what standard?

>>>No. I admire people who don't knuckle under to tyranny.

And it sure is brave, those foreign politicians, letting their people starve to death so they can make a moral stance against something that, again, has shown to have no negative repercussions.

>>>good foods, proved safe over a period of centuries

Again, what about diseases these foods can hold? Don't these GMO's reduce the chance of this?

>>>while forcing the testing of new products on an unsuspecting public by non-consensual human experimentation

You're just full of contradictions, aren't you?

I hate to reference claims people make out of order of what they make it, but lets take a look, shall we;


It wouldn't work; the GMO soy is mixed with the non-GMO soy


Wait....so they are experimenting on people, by mixing traditional foods with GMO's? Wouldn't that invalidate any experimentation? Isn't that a contradiction? Which is it- are they experimenting on people, or are they mixing it together, making any experimentation worthless, since all the results would be muddled?

I'm sure you'll come up with some handy spin.

>>>Just because I called the bluff on some stuffed shirt who probably got his degree from the "Name on Request Correspondence School of Science", or some other such degree mill is no reason to suspect I'm doing what he did.

I don't see how the intelligence or experience of the user changes anything- you said they were wrong to make the claim that you should do your own research- less than 12 hours later, you made the identical claim that I should do my own research. Who the person is doesn't change anything.

>>> I don't want to let too much of the cat out of the bag concerning possible future litigation.

Such a humanitarian- letting people ignorantly suffer, because you kept actual evidence of harm from the public because you want to sue the Food Industry.

And you compare me to Nazi's.

>>> If you're really nice and ask politely, I MAY come back later and trounce the rest of your long and pathetic post for you.

Odd request from someone who, in nearly every post, compares me to or attempts to associate me to Nazi's. Why should you expect me to act polite when you have no interest in acting it yourself?
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 88
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/23/2009 11:38:58 AM
Again you put up a smoke screen. Food and drugs are to be held at a higher scrutiny than things that dont get put into the body and become part of us where it can directly screw us up... It is the FDA's own self imposed role to protect public safety on these matters and I know there has long been a revolving door policy with the biotech industry that these peoples actions should be considered a conflict of interest.

The GMO case should be reopened with proper people in charge that have nothing to do with the biotech industry. Everything should be tested independently and ALL of products with even traces of these things in it should be labeled. So that people with food allergies or just even people whom for other reasons seek to avoid eating these things can. The two worst things about this is the FDA and USDA allowing people whom were ex-ceos, and higher ups of the biotech industry to be the ones to make the policies for these things and second not demanding independent tests, and labeling as part of the deal..

It is insane that the FDA let these things through without proper scrutiny and testing.

You cannot compare it to a car or a toilet.. We do not eat cars and toilets.
You cannot compare a naturally bred potato that was from mixing two potatoes through their natural form of reproduction with GMOs....

They are crossing things that will not naturally cross with a technique that has not been thoroughly tested for safety... In fact there are just as many scientists out there whom are screaming for more testing and caution on this matter..

Since they wish to feed this to us they should most definitely prove without a doubt that it is safe and yes this means they should be held to a higher scrutiny and be made to jump through hoops. They should also most definitely above all else be labeled. People should always 100% know what they are eating.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 89
GMO issue.
Posted: 1/12/2010 8:45:26 PM
I read this in story in whatreallyhappened.com today and felt compelled to post it.
Some of the research on GMO safety is starting to come in now...and it doesn't look good.

http://food.change.org/blog/view/is_monsantos_corn_destroying_your_internal_organs
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 90
GMO issue.
Posted: 1/13/2010 11:34:01 AM
Again, I am not arguing that these companys do what they do cause they want to feed the world- they do what they do to make money, just like anyone else.

But regardless of their intentions, they do help make food cheaper, and crops more productive. Just like how the grocery store offers bread at a lower price- they don't do it because they think people need to eat more bread- they do it because they want you to buy their product.

Is it impossible that a company could do good things while acting in self-interest? To a starving person, do you think Monsanto's intention matters? And why do you expect a private business to be run like a charity in the first place?
 endlesslift
Joined: 12/31/2009
Msg: 91
GMO issue.
Posted: 1/13/2010 11:37:59 AM
I guess GMO is now very wide spread. They've got disease resistant stuff, fast growing stuff, you name it I'm sure.

I'm not convinced that if it's a GMO then it's bad.

We're all GMOs. The only difference who made the modification.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 92
GMO issue.
Posted: 1/13/2010 3:39:18 PM

What can we do about it?

How about pulling their charter and dismantling it?
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 93
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/10/2010 9:44:56 AM


India Blocks Sale of Monsanto GM Crop

India has put a halt to plans to allow genetically modified eggplant from the agri-giant Monsanto to be sold on the Indian market. On Tuesday, the Indian government reversed a decision to allow Monsanto to sell its eggplant crop, known as Bt Brinjal. It would have been India’s first genetically modified food crop and the world’s first commercially cultivated genetically modified vegetable.


This came from democracynow.org in the headlines.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/10/headlines#7


What can we do about it? Start complaining to the big stores like walmart and other major shopping chains that you want to know what items have GMO in them so you can not buy them.

Walmart banned rBGH in all of their stores due to the consumer outcries.

That pretty much put the nail in the coffin of that one GMO issue.

We as "consumers" need to wake up and realize we have a lot more power than we thought. Everything we buy is like a vote. Now that you know about this GMO issue if you do not agree with it take action! Demand labeling to the stores. They will demand it to the manufacture or ban it from their store because they know it will be bad for sales!







Also you can help educate others about the issue.

Plus if you have a farm or garden you can plant non GMO varieties.

If you own a garden I would even suggest open pollinated Heirloom varieties. You can actually be a part of preserving genetic diversity in our food plants, which is a HUGE issue.

One of the biggest threats of losing genetic diversity is when diseases and pests begin to strike. If there is only a few or one type, that gets wiped out and we have what basically happened with the potato famine.
 OnlineFishBowl
Joined: 8/1/2010
Msg: 94
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/25/2012 2:28:31 AM
so apparently there's GMO grass that produces it's own cyanide. Texas officials figured this one out after investigating mysterious deaths amongst some people's cattle. what's next? trees with tear gas or bushes with napalm
 OnlineFishBowl
Joined: 8/1/2010
Msg: 95
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/26/2012 4:20:06 AM
they're already at the point where scientists can engineer body parts by themselves. i found that out when investigating the Treyvon Martin-Dick Cheney connection. it's still a pipe dream of being able to manufacture body parts individually, but how much time is needed to perfect the process before it's safe to use?

the GMO aspect wants to branch it out into meat production for consumption as well. perhaps this is tied in with the patent on the pig Monsanto acquired. made me wonder if it's not already here when i saw the Boston Pizza ad this spring showing off boneless hot wings...
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 96
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/26/2012 4:36:31 PM
>>>I've heard of reports of animals refusing to eat genetically modified food./so apparently there's GMO grass that produces it's own cyanide.

And I heard reports that the song "roller coaster" had a clip of a woman being murdered- but upon further inspection, I found that that wasn't true.

Oftentimes, that's the case on things you find on the internet- you gotta source for that "report"? Otherwise, It's gunna hafta join the list of other internet garbage that I cannot believe....

>>>Not only that once the damage is done it will be very difficult and very expensive (if possible at all) to reverse.

No country or business in the world keeps track of food strains? People have been keeping track of food strains for nearly 1000 years!

>>>Europe has for the most part been very steadfast in its opposition to GMO even though the EU has tried to have it introduced.

"Europe"? What parts? How much? I appreciate you creating conclusions for us, but it'd make things a hell of alot easier if you respect us enough to give us your sources....

>>>We can only hope people continue to hold their ground because for major corporations to patent and control the global food supply is one of the greatest abominations imaginable.

Ugh. Why do these conversations always lead to an anti-corporate message? Its as if the entire argument against GMO's has nothing to do with the character of them, and everything to do with pushing a political agenda through fear.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 97
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/27/2012 9:41:52 AM
To address some concerns expressed regarding allegations made in this thread, here is one study regarding a GMO:

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

And here are a few articles referencing other studies on GMOs:

http://www.qwmagazine.com/2012/06/14/brazilian-farmers-win-2-billion-judgment-against-monsanto/

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice10Mar2008.html

http://aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 98
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/27/2012 1:35:53 PM
Well, keeping in mind of Dukky's strict "No Agenda" policy for sources, the GM Free Cymru would definitely not fit that criteria...they are, after all, lobbyists about keeping GMO's off the streets....

Still, I have read alot of these articles you've provided, and they don't seem to address the comments I was responding to or the comments made in these forums....for example, there's no mention of "animals not eating it, because animals can sense these things", or that these companies are attempting to kill us with full stomachs.

Would you agree that those comments are simply fear mongering, and have no place in a serious discussion?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 99
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/27/2012 3:24:23 PM
Who said I have a strict "no agenda" policy for sources?? Certainly not me. EVERYONE has an agenda, including me. To deny that would be denial of the very nature of the human animal. The real question ought to be the motive behind the agenda. In my own case, I'm motivated by a caring for my family, their health and a caring for my fellow man. IMO, that beats the corporate agenda of profit above all every time.

It wasn't my intention to address all your critiques of the other posts here, and I didn't want to waste my time chasing down rumours. I have my suspicions, but that's all they are. I'm not going to do their debating for them.

Regarding the fear mongering comments with allegedly no place in a serious discussion, I'd say that they only have a place in serious discussion if the allegations can be backed up with facts. Whether or not the comments are fear mongering is not for me to decide…I can't know the minds or motives of the people who may have said them; therefore I can't say with conviction that they are or are not fear-mongering
 OnlineFishBowl
Joined: 8/1/2010
Msg: 100
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/28/2012 4:49:47 AM
World’s First Genetically Modified Babies Born
Breaking News | June 27, 2012

(Michael Hanlon) The world’s first genetically modified humans have been created, it was revealed last night.

The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics. So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three ‘parents’. Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental program at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey. The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilized in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

full story at
http://govtslaves.info/worlds-first-genetically-modified-babies-born/

=====================================================

what's the point of having sex any more if they're going to be doing this? it's like owning a Ferrari but you're stranded on a deserted island...
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > GMO issue.