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
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 1
view profile
History
GMO issue.Page 1 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
I would like to open a thread on the issue of Genetically Modified Organisms otherwise called GMOs. Right now a large part of our nations food crops and live stock are in some way genetically tampered with. The laws are set to where companies do not even have to label these products as containing GMOs. We are their guenea pigs.

Worse yet, Monsanto one of the leading companies in GMO has found a way to put a patent on seed for crops grown for food. This has all sort of implications that people do not often even know about. The prime one here being that farmers will no longer be able to save their own seed, they will you guessed it have to buy it all from Monsanto every year. Which in the endgame means this company could find a way to control food. It also has all sorts of implications on the level of preserving genetic diversity which is key to avoid famines caused by blights.

Further there is also the issue of contamination of non GMO crop with these GMO crops since many plants (Such as commercial varieties of corn, which in the USA has been heavily genetically modified.) pollinates using the wind. It's pollen can travel for in some cases in the right conditions for miles.

There are so many issues we can discuss on this one.

For those of you whom have no idea what the heck I am talking about and for those otherwise interested let me share a couple of links with you on this very subject.

Form your own opinions feel free to share them here.

Sadly this is all about politics, this company is tied deeply to the defense industry and has been allowed to run amuck partly thanks to the good ole boy deregulators that have ruled washington. This corporation is the lovely "people" whom brought us such things as the infamous Agent Orange and also sell a rather popular defoliant to this day called "round up."

This company is permitted to do things by our government, I think everyone should know about. Get informed and then what you do after that is on you. At least you will know what is going on.

Again form your own opinion on this matter and do share I love to hear what people think even when it differs or is polar opposite to my own.

now the links

http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=105

this second one is more from a ranchers perspective.

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/patent-for-a-pig-video-monsanto-files-patent-for-new-invention-the-pig-2005/

Let's stay on the subject and have a good debate.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 2
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/17/2009 5:54:59 PM
>>>We are their guenea pigs.

Of which there have been no recorded sickness resulting from genetically modified plants. Ever.

In fact, these plants have far greater scrunity under the FCC than regular plants- making them far safer than organic.

>>>Worse yet, Monsanto one of the leading companies in GMO has found a way to put a patent on seed for crops grown for food.

Taking advantage of the Plant Patent Act of 1930, which was spurred by Luther Burbank, who in his lifetime created over 800 strains of fruits, vegatables, flowers, grains, and grasses(including the Idaho Potato)

That clever Monsanto- taking advantage of an act thats existed for the last 80 years. imagine that- using legislation that was passed with the intention to promote people to create stronger, better, and healthier foods to create foods that are stronger, better, and healthier......

>>>Which in the endgame means this company could find a way to control food.

Unless people simply choose to....you know....not grow their food.......
 seenitall
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 3
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/17/2009 7:52:58 PM
--issue of Genetically Modified Organisms otherwise called GMOs---

We have been doing it for thousands of years. The corn, rice and wheat that feed the
worlds 7 billon souls bear little resemblence to the original wild strains.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 4
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/17/2009 7:57:40 PM
Rerun. Arguments based on fallacies, beginning most obviously with appeal to fear. Thread search "GMO". Go ahead - give it a shot. I know it SEEMS hard at first.

Every organism has modified genes. It makes no difference how the modifications are achieved.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 5
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/17/2009 10:16:20 PM


Every organism has modified genes. It makes no difference how the modifications are achieved.


We are not talking about just plants mixing and mingling and pow a new strain or variety we are talking about inter species modification. They are putting bacteria, and animal dna into plants something of which we have not been doing. Also I think it is criminal that they do not have to label these foods. People should know exactly what they are eating and be able to make a choice to ingest things that have been modified in this way or not.

I disagree quite a bit that it makes no difference how the genes come about. I will not say modified because it is not a modification when two things cross and make a new variety of a plant. It is a modification when someone goes in at the gene level and forces something to happen that can never come about in nature at the genetic level especially with the case of inter species modifications that is occurring. HUGE difference. Much of which the long term consequences are not even known yet. Yet, these companies are allowed to put this stuff out there in open air fields where there will be and is contamination of natural occurring plants. Further the issue of patents IS a huge problem I dont care whom you wish to blame for the first people to do it. It is a VERY bad idea to allow people to patent the pigs and plants etc. They are treating it like they invented something new. If it is a "pig" and a "plant" and to be viewed as such as you are claiming since you stat how, "it dont matter how the modification came about." Then why should they be able to patent a pig? They are now god and almighty creators of the pig and plants?

They can certainly patent the process to make a new GMO variety but patent of the seed or reproduction on a natural level of an animal or a plant is just plan wrong and hateful. I get email from farmers all the time whom have done business with Monsanto and none have very nice things to say about them and their practices.

There are plenty of scientists that are in strong opposition to the current view held by our government agencies as to looking at the modifications done in the lab through use of bacterium and other inter species genetic modification as being the same as plant to plant modification.

Again np we can agree to disagree. I will grow my heirloom varieties in organic fashion you can eat your round up ready "corn" sprayed with round up and genetically modified with god knows what.

I will save my seeds from year to year and trade them with other farmers and you can cuss at monsanto every year when they send their secret police to your fields making you continue paying for what you could have collected for free if you didnt buy their stuff...
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 6
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/17/2009 10:48:28 PM
You have no idea what can and can't happen in nature: "something to happen that can never come about in nature at the genetic level"

And companies have ALWAYS sold "Their Seed," and sometimes been jerks about it. The response is to buy from a different supplier.

Again, Bacteria and viruses insert genetic material in these plant species "in nature" almost exactly like they do "in the lab." Why the heck do you THINK they chose those methods for introducing genetic material into the plants? Let me hold your hand: BECAUSE IT HAS WORKED IN NATURE FOR THOUSANDS AND MILLIONS OF YEARS. Why re-invent the wheel when nature hands you a syringe to do the job? You know how you can tell it happens exactly the same way in nature? There are already unrelated species of plant showing up with glyphosate resistance, carried there by viral or bacterial vectors, possibly from the extant "GMO" crops.

Fear-mongering from ignorance. If you don't like Monsanto, buy from someone else, like BASF SE, Bayer CropScience, or Syngenta. Buy from Fedco, Heritage, or Shumway's. Just be prepared for Heritage yields and disease resistance from Heritage strains.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 7
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/17/2009 10:52:11 PM
>>>People should know exactly what they are eating and be able to make a choice to ingest things that have been modified in this way or not.

Part of me knows this is a simple and moderate suggestion.

But part of me equally knows that you will use this consession to continue to slander GMO in order to fear monger people into being terrorfied by foods that have caused no ill harm, and, in all reality, are some of the safest foods avalible.

>>>I will not say modified because it is not a modification when two things cross and make a new variety of a plant.

Even when its completely unnatural?(ie cross cereal with corn- two plants that would never meet naturally in the wild)

>>> It is a modification when someone goes in at the gene level and forces something to happen that can never come about in nature at the genetic level especially with the case of inter species modifications that is occurring.

I understand the distinction- but why is Genetically altered foods dangerous, but altered foods through cross breeding isn't?

>>>Much of which the long term consequences are not even known yet.

Nor have any consequences have been witnessed at all.

If we are slowly poisoning ourselves with genetically altered foods, wouldn't we see it accumilate?

>>>Yet, these companies are allowed to put this stuff out there in open air fields where there will be and is contamination of natural occurring plants.

Contaminating it with what?

Seriously, you keep edging the reality of your unstated premise- that you think people will be harmed from Genetically Altered Foods, with no evidence that ANYONE has ever been harmed from Genetically Altered Foods.

And thats the dark secret that you hold- that you see a product that has saved countless lives- well over a Billion by some estimates- raising the quality of life all over the world and literally creating massive positive change in countries that need it the most- you look at this advancement with scorn, claiming it will kill us all if we're not careful, and the best solution is to refuse to embrace this ability to both perserve and improve lives in light of living in fear of the boogie man.

>>>Further the issue of patents IS a huge problem I dont care whom you wish to blame for the first people to do it.

Anyone notice he jumped from warning that they're cross breed with our norms to warning about how the Corporation will own a monopoly on these foods? So many contradictions- if they are cross breeding, then who needs the Corporations? And why is it okay for a Corportation to cross breed a better strain and sell it, but if they genetically alter it, its a problem? Why the distinction? Isn't a Monopoly a Monopoly?

And whats to stop farmers from simply refusing to buy from these guys?

>>>It is a VERY bad idea to allow people to patent the pigs and plants etc.

I never said anything about Pigs- and we've lasted 80 years with patents on plants- why is it suddenly a horrible idea?

>>>They are treating it like they invented something new.

Because they have- they've created strains that are more adaptive, stronger, and yeild greater results.

>>> They are now god and almighty creators of the pig and plants?

Something tells me this has more to do with simple plants for you......

>>>but patent of the seed or reproduction on a natural level of an animal or a plant is just plan wrong and hateful.

.......How is it hateful?

>>>I get email from farmers all the time whom have done business with Monsanto and none have very nice things to say about them and their practices.

And thats fine- you don't have to do business with them, and they don't have to do business with you.

Wheres the problem?

>>>you can cuss at monsanto every year when they send their secret police to your fields making you continue paying for what you could have collected for free if you didnt buy their stuff...


......

Where do you get your pot?
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 8
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/17/2009 11:03:52 PM
let me also add this to the debate since they are far more studied than I and have a way with words in which I lack.








CONCERNS ABOUT THE ETHICS OF GENETIC MODIFICATION

H. Lehman and J.F. Hurnik
Departments of Philosophy and of Animal and Poultry Science (resp)
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1 CANADA

Presented at the Fifth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 7-12 August 1994. Proceedings Volume 20.



FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS

In support of deployment of genetically engineered organisms and products, numerous arguments have been presented. Some of these arguments are easily shown to be fallacious. Yet, the fact that we have heard some scientists advance such arguments suggests that these arguments may be disposing researchers, producers and others to support the current rapid deployment of genetically engineered life-forms.

The first fallacy may be expressed as follows: To modify the genomes of agricultural crops through deployment of genetically engineered organisms is acceptable since we have been modif ying genomes successfully through selective breeding, hybridization, etc. f or a long time.

Clearly this argument is unsound. The fact that some practice has been regarded as acceptable for a long time is an appeal to tradition. While appeal to tradition may be relevant to a moral assessment of a practice, whatever support such an appeal may yield is easily overridden by stronger moral considerations. Consider, for example, that such practices as slavery or unfair discrimination based on gender were sanctioned by tradition in our cultures for considerable periods of time. Further, even if technologies based on genetic engineering are merely new forms of traditional methods of developing improved crops, genetic engineering increases the power available for modification of genomes since such techniques allow for the modification of genomes through introduction of genes which could not have been introduced through previous methods. Additionally, techniques of genetic engineering increase the speed with which we can modify genomes. In light of the increased power and speed which genetic engineering yields, these methods may be expected to impose greater stresses both on ecosystems and on social systems within which agriculture is undertaken. For example, will the use of herbicide-tolerant crops reduce the stability of the ecosystems on which crop production is dependent, or will it lead to further reductions in the number of farms or further increases in the size of farms? Reduction in number of farms and concentrations of wealth in the hands of large landholders give rise to concerns about the future well-being of our democratic political institutions.

The second fallacy can be expressed as follows: Modification of genomes occurs regularly through biological processes such as natural selection, and transfer of genes through viral vectors. Since such modifications occur through such biological processes, there is nothing wrong with our making such modifications through genetic engineering.

Clearly, this argument is also unsound. Just because something happens in accord with a biological process does not imply that it is acceptable for us to repeat it or emulate it. and just because something happens in accord with biological (or chemical or physical) processes does not mean that it is good that it happens or that it is morally acceptable for us to do the same sort of thing. Biological processes produced and spread such diseases as sleeping sickness and malaria. From the perspective of human beings these are not good processes and clearly it would not be morally acceptable for us to condone them on the grounds that they are biological processes.

We want to stress that we are not arguing that transfer of genetic material from one species to another is morally unacceptable. Some people may have made such claims on the grounds that such transfers are 'unnatural'. Others may have claimed that such transfers violate divine purposes and will lead to worldwide disasters. We are not prepared to explore arguments which appeal to premises concerning divine purposes. Such claims go well beyond our expertise. Further, we are quite skeptical of the validity of claims concerning what is natural or unnatural. We do not believe that there is any evidence which gives rational support to such claims as that transfer of genetic material from the genome of one creature to the genome of other creatures will lead to worldwide disaster or that it is immoral for us to make such transfers because they are allegedly unnatural. These claims can be challenged by pointing to examples of such processes occurring independently of human intervention as part of the evolutionary development of life on Earth. Furthermore, citing the transfer of genes from genome to genome by viral or other vectors may be appropriate as part of a rational refutation of claims such as these.

However, it is one thing to show that genetic engineering is not necessarily evil. It is quite another thing to show that it is rational or morally acceptable to develop and deploy such technologies at the present time and in all the particular situations in which we wish to do so. Very likely when nature performed her feats of genetic engineering there were traumatic and even catastrophic effects for particular creatures. We may say that life itself went on; but, very likely, ecosystems were modified in ways that led to the replacement of populations of some varieties of organisms with other varieties. Prior to introducing such technologies, should we not proceed cautiously so as to avoid harmful and even tragic consequences such as have resulted from our hasty implementation of other technologies?

The third fallacy may be expressed as follows: Genomes of domestic plants or animals are vast complexes of genetic material. Modification of genomes through insertion of one or few genes is an extremely small change. Thus it is acceptable for us to engineer such changes.

The obvious reply to this argument is that small changes can have profound effects. Small differences in the nature of the bacteria acting on a product can make the difference between production of a harmless substance and a deadly toxin in human food. Small differences in tuberculosis bacilli can render them resistant to the antibiotics we have been using to treat them. A small difference in an organism might make it a suitable host for a human pathogen. Very likely small changes in agricultural pests could lead to enormous costs in trying to repair or control the effect (l 6).

The fourth fallacy may be expressed as follows: If we don't introduce technologies based on genetic engineering other people in other countries will do so. Thus, it is acceptable, perhaps even necessary, for us to do so.

The argument that because other people are doing something it is therefore morally acceptable for us to do the same thing is clearly fallacious. The fact that others engage in the behaviour does not show that the behaviour is morally acceptable.

A fifth fallacious argument that has been offered on behalf of rapidly going ahead with deployment of technologies based on genetic engineering is that we are forced to do so in consequence of economic factors. Those who make this argument probably assume, as in the case of the fourth fallacy, that others will deploy such technologies. Further, they assume that such others will gain some competitive advantages through the introduction of such technologies.

This argument is open to a number of criticisms. For one thing, it is misleading to say that economic considerations force us to deploy these technologies. To say that we are forced to deploy these technologies is to say that it is not possible for us to do otherwise. In our view, this is untrue. If we deploy genetic engineering it is a result of decisions on the part of individuals to take such steps. If we, as a society, allow genetic engineering to be deployed that also is a decision which we make and for which we (as a society) are responsible.

Conceivably deployment of genetic engineering would yield competitive advantages for those who adopt it. If that is true it is one of a wide range of activities which might give competitive advantage to some people for some time. Introduction of production processes which compromise on the safety of workers may give some firms competitive advantages. Tolerance of production practices which include easy disposal of toxic wastes may give some firms competitive advantages. Reduction of taxes or contributions for unemployment insurance, health insurance, etc. would give firms competitive advantages. In these other cases we see that production methods or policies which sacrifice human health or safety, and the environment. beyond certain limits are not acceptable even if such sacrifice would yield competitive advantages. Similarly, we should take steps to determine whether technologies based on genetic engineering are acceptable in light of considerations of the well-being of humans and our environment before we deploy such technologies.

However, we should not grant that deployment of genetic technologies which might yield benefits such as those listed above would indeed yield competitive advantage to us as a society. The use of recombinant bovine somatotropin would almost certainly yield economic advantages for the manufacturer. Whether it would also yield advantages overall for the rest of us is much less clear. The social costs arising from displacement of a large number of dairy farmers as a result of modern technologies could be significant. Similarly the social costs arising from greater concentrations of economic power which may result from use of such technologies may be significant. In the long run, people who are more cautious in regard to the adoption of these now technologies may be the ones to reap economic advantages.



Further I agree a monopoly is a monopoly and none of it should be allowed.

Let me ask you why is so personal? You work for monsanto or some big stock holder?

Why when I state about the fact that monsanto sends their little goons to peoples property to check to see if they planting their seed and if they bought it or saved the seed that you are attacking me and claiming I smoke pot. I do not though I see nothing wrong with it if someone chooses to, though how this is relevant or in any way pertaining to the topic or a defense for this behavior of monsanto I will never know.

Let me also state I am not here to say my view is the only correct view. I have put as you just seen a view that contradicts with my own as an example. There are many ways to look at this issue and many reasons other than my own to be opposed to these things not being labeled and protections for farmers put into place. I am not one of these snob types that thinks my way is the only way. I do what I do you do what you do that is fine but, we can still discuss this reasonably and yes even disagree.

I am not attacking you personally I would ask the same respect.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 9
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/17/2009 11:30:11 PM
Since I forgot to give the link for the above quoted piece here it is there is more there if you are interested I dont want to mass copy and paste their work I would rather direct you to their site.

http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/lehman.htm
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 10
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/17/2009 11:38:00 PM
Here is another good link

There is tons of scientific information on this site in opposition to GMO and scientists dispelling myths many people are using as arguments here. Instead of me trying to in my limited capacity argue what these scientists have found I will let you read for yourself and of course form your own opinions.

http://www.saynotogmos.org/biotech_myths.htm
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 11
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/18/2009 3:22:40 PM
>>>Let me ask you why is so personal? You work for monsanto or some big stock holder?

No, its personal because if beliefs like yours are perpetuated, then billions that live today would have been dead, and billions more would be starving and suffering. And all of this is backed by one simple fact- there has never been recorded any illness or sickness because of genetic manipluation of a plant. If you beliefs were to become mainstream, then billions of people would die for NO PURPOSE, other than your fear of something that doesn't exist, and your conviction that fear-mongering is a proper solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

>>>Why when I state about the fact that monsanto sends their little goons to peoples property to check to see if they planting their seed and if they bought it or saved the seed that you are attacking me and claiming I smoke pot.

Do they? Have you got evidence of it? And how is protecting a patent even remotely compariable to secret police arresting people and dragging them off in the middle of the night to death camps?
 fortran
Joined: 2/21/2004
Msg: 12
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/18/2009 5:04:03 PM
I go along with the others. All of evolution (remember Darwin) is about modifying the gene. And we continue to find weird and wonderful ways that nature has modified the genes before we even started to play these games. If one wants a demonstration of what nature can do, just look at the history of the influenza virus. We have human hosts (that we hope to save), bird hosts, and pig hosts. It is possible it is more complicated that this, but it seems that pigs are the bridge to bring avian influenza into human influenza.

Extinctions are Heaviside (square wave) functions on a geological timescale. That society can do in 1 year which nature can do in 100 or 1000 years still shows up as a square wave in the geologic record.

Mankind has messed with the global warming gases, mass balances tremendously in the last few decades (more so now than long ago). To expect nature to take geological time to fix this problem is the same as to commit suicide. Yes, 1 million years from now, the problems of global warming will not exist. It is entirely possible that mankind does not exist as well. We now that invasive species (and genome) problems can exist. If we come up with a good way to alter the greenhouse gas mass balance problem, especially one which has a trigger which we can pull, is this not a good thing?

However, in the near term, if we put our heads in the sand, we get warmer temperatures and better suntans. And who cares if life doesn't exist in a couple of generations? Just as long as we can lie on the beach, get a tan, a good refreshment, and something good to eat at the end of the day.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 13
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/18/2009 7:04:41 PM
fortran, the logical conclusion to your argument is to kill yourself (or selves) and save the resources and the wear and tear on Earth.

Wouldn't you agree?
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 14
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/18/2009 7:30:12 PM


No, its personal because if beliefs like yours are perpetuated, then billions that live today would have been dead, and billions more would be starving and suffering. And all of this is backed by one simple fact- there has never been recorded any illness or sickness because of genetic manipluation of a plant. If you beliefs were to become mainstream, then billions of people would die for NO PURPOSE, other than your fear of something that doesn't exist, and your conviction that fear-mongering is a proper solution to a problem that doesn't exist.


More myths put out there by the biotech corporations.



The Biotechnology Myths

The agrochemical corporations which control the direction and goals of agricultural innovation through biotechnology claim that genetic engineering will enhance the sustainability of agriculture by solving the very problems affecting conventional farming and will spare Third World farmers from low productivity, poverty and hunger (Molnar and Kinnucan 1989, Gresshoft 1996). By matching myth with reality the following section describes how and why current developments in agricultural biotechnology do not measure up to such promises and expectations.

Myth 1:
Biotechnology will benefit farmers in the US and in the developed world.

Most innovations in agricultural biotechnology are profit driven rather than need driven, therefore the thrust of the genetic engineering industry is not to solve agricultural problems as much as it is to create profitability. Moreover, biotechnology seeks to industrialize agriculture even further and to intensify farmers' dependence upon industrial inputs aided by a ruthless system of intellectual property rights which legally inhibits the right of farmers to reproduce, share and store seeds (Busch et al. 1990). By controlling the germplasm from seed to sale and by forcing farmers to pay inflated prices for seed-chemical packages, companies are determined to extract the most profit from their investment.

Because biotechnologies are capital intensive they will continue to deepen the pattern of change in US agriculture, increasing concentration of agricultural production in the hands of large-corporate farms. As with other labor saving technology, by increasing productivity biotechnology tends to reduce commodity prices and set in motion a technology treadmill that forces out of business a significant number of farmers, especially small scale. The example of bovine growth hormone confirms the hypothesis that biotechnology will accelerate the foreclosure of small dairy farms (Krimsky and Wrubel 1996).

Myth 2:
Biotechnology will benefit small farmers and will favor the hungry and poor of the Third World.

If Green Revolution technology bypassed small and resource-poor farmers, biotechnology will exacerbate marginalization even more as such technologies are under corporate control and protected by patents, are expensive and inappropriate to the needs and circumstances of indigenous people (Lipton 1989). As biotechnology is primarily a commercial activity, this reality determines priorities of what is investigated, how it is applied and who is to benefit. While the world may lack food and suffer from pesticide pollution, the focus of multinational corporations is profit, not philanthropy. This is why biotechnologists design transgenic crops for new marketable quality or for import substitution, rather than for greater food production (Mander and Goldsmith 1996). In general, biotechnology companies are emphasizing a limited range of crops for which there are large and secured markets, targeted at relatively capital-intensive production systems. As transgenic crops are patented plants, this means that indigenous farmers can lose rights to their own regional germplasm and not be allowed under GATT to reproduce, share or store the seeds of their harvest (Crucible Group 1994). It is difficult to conceive how such technology will be introduced in Third World countries to favor the masses of poor farmers. If biotechnologists were really committed to feeding the world, why isn't the scientific genius of biotechnology turned to develop varieties of crops more tolerant to weeds rather than to herbicides? Or why aren't more promising products of biotechnology, such as N fixing and drought tolerant plants being developed?

Biotechnology products will undermine exports from the Third World countries especially from small-scale producers. The development of a thaumatin product via biotechnology is just the beginning of a transition to alternative sweeteners which will replace Third World sugar markets in the future (Mander and Goldsmith 1996). It is estimated that nearly 10 million sugar farmers in the Third World may face a loss of livelihood as laboratory-processed sweeteners begin invading world markets. Fructose produced by biotechnology already captured over 10% of the world market and caused sugar prices to fall, throwing tens of thousands of workers out of work. But such foreclosures of rural opportunities are not limited to sweeteners. Approximately 70,000 vanilla farmers in Madagascar were ruined when a Texas firm produced vanilla in biotech labs (Busch et al. 1990). The expansion on Unilever cloned oil palms will substantially increase palm-oil production with dramatic consequences for farmers producing other vegetable oils (groundnut in Senegal and coconut in Philippines).

Myth 3:
Biotechnology will not attempt against the ecological sovereignty of the Third World.

Ever since the North became aware of the ecological services performed by biodiversity of which the South is the major repository, the Third World has witnessed a "gene rush" as multinational corporations aggressively scour forests, crop fields and coasts in search of the South's genetic gold (Kloppenburg1988). Protected by GATT, MNCs freely practice "biopiracy" which the Rural Advancement Foundation (RAFI) estimates it costing developing countries US $ 5.4 billion a year through lost royalties from food and drug companies which use indigenous farmers' germplasm and medicinal plants (Levidow and Carr 1997).

Clearly, indigenous people and their biodiversity are viewed as raw materials for the MNCs which have made billions of dollars on seeds developed in US labs from germplasm that farmers in the Third World had carefully bred over generations (Fowler and Mooney 1990). Meanwhile, peasant farmers go unrewarded for their millenary farming knowledge, while MNCs stand to harvest royalties from Third World countries estimated at billions of dollars. So far biotechnology companies offer no provisions to pay Third World farmers for the seeds they take and use (Kloppenburg 1988).

Myth 4:
Biotechnology will lead to biodiversity conservation.

Although biotechnology has the capacity to create a greater variety of commercial plants and thus contribute to biodiversity, this is unlikely to happen. The strategy of MNCs is to create broad international seed markets for a single product. The tendency is towards uniform international seed markets (MacDonald 1991). Moreover, the MNC-dictated provisions of the patent system prohibiting farmers to reuse the seed yielded by their harvests, will affect the possibilities of in-situ conservation and on-farm improvements of genetic diversity.

The agricultural systems developed with transgenic crops will favor monocultures characterized by dangerously high levels of genetic homogeneity leading to higher vulnerability of agricultural systems to biotic and abiotic stresses (Robinson 1996). As the new bioengineered seeds replace the old traditional varieties and their wild relatives, genetic erosion will accelerate in the Third World (Fowler and Mooney 1990). Thus the push for uniformity will not only destroy the diversity of genetic resources, but will also disrupt the biological complexity that underlines the sustainability of traditional farming systems (Altieri 1994).

Myth 5:
Biotechnology is ecologically safe and will launch a period of a chemical-free sustainable agriculture.

Biotechnology is being pursued to patch-up the problems that have been caused by previous agrochemical technologies (pesticide resistance, pollution, soil degradation, etc.) which were promoted by the same companies now leading the bio-revolution. Transgenic crops developed for pest control follow closely the pesticide paradigm of using a single control mechanism which has proven to fail over and over again with insects, pathogens and weeds (NRC 1996). Transgenic crops are likely to increase the use of pesticides and to accelerate the evolution of "super weeds" and resistant insect pests strains (Rissler and Mellon 1996). The "one gene - one pest" resistant approach has proven to be easily overcome by pests which are continuously adapting to new situations and evolving detoxification mechanisms (Robinson 1997).

There are many unanswered ecological questions regarding the impact of the release of transgenic plants and micro-organisms into the environment.

Among the major environmental risks associated with genetically engineered plants are the unintended transfer to plant relatives of the "transgenes" and the unpredictable ecological effects (Rissler and Mellon 1996).

Given the above considerations, agroecological theory predicts that biotechnology will exacerbate the problems of conventional agriculture and by promoting monocultures will also undermine ecological methods of farming such as rotation and polycultures (Hindmarsh 1991). As presently conceived, biotechnology does not fit into the broad ideals of a sustainable agriculture (Kloppenburg and Burrows 1996)


That is from
Article by Dr. Miguel A. Altieri
"The Myths of Agricultural Biotechnology: some ethical questions"
http://www.CNR.Berkeley.EDU/~agroeco3/the_myths.html
revised 07-30-00
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 15
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 2:17:12 PM
>>>More myths put out there by the biotech corporations.

And how many myths are you perpetuating?

Please, address the issue- is it dangerous, unsafe, or unhealthy to eat genetically modified foods? Has anyone, ever, been harmed because their food was genetically modified?
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 16
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 3:13:56 PM
One does not have to use the food from any specific supplier unless the government decides you have no choice. So who's up for more government regulation..............and corruption.

Patents expire. Even those that are the basis for profitable monopolies. It takes considerable money to defend and maintain a patent even for the 17 years it is in enforcable. Compare that to a copywright that is pretty much free, lasts virtually forever, and has government help to enforce. As an inventor, I find it a bit unfair that no matter how wonderful my creative work may be for the world or how difficult it was to achieve, my reward for the considerable effort is limited and requires considerable financial resources. A writer or entertainer, who may have been attributed credit for something as trivial as a popularized phrase, can reap rewards to his estate for generations well past his life time while contributing nothing more. What of that reward is earned?

I personally don't agree that naturally occuring DNA sequences should be patentable. That decision was made by government bureaucrats empowered to make such decisions. The decision to not require GMO labeling was also due to empowered government bureaucrats.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 18
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 5:09:32 PM



Scientists deliver anti-GMO message
Posted By Brian Shypula
Posted 10 days ago


Scientist Susan Bardocz is hoping U.S. President Barack Obama is a man of his word when he says Americans must take responsibility for their actions.

She wants that to mean a pullback from the spread of genetically modified foods (GMs) that were seen under the previous Bush and Clinton administrations.

“President Obama said we should be responsible for our actions, for ourselves, our state and the world, so I really hope that he means it,” Bardocz said in an interview after speaking at a seminar in Milverton.

She and her husband, Arpad Pusztai, also a scientist, are leading anti-GM advocates.

Pusztai was dismissed from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, after he went public with research on genetically modified potatoes in 1998.

During his research he found that rats fed genetically modified potatoes had problems with their immunity and growth. His conclusion was that the genetic modification process had somehow made the potatoes less nutritious.

The research was largely responsible for sparking the intense debate in the U.K. over the safety of genetically modified foods.

“Media exposure brought home to people that they were being used as guinea pigs in genetically modified food experiments,” Pusztai said.

The Hungarian-born scientists say current GM foods unnecessarily risk the health of people, animals and the environment because not enough is known about the genome and the crops are not tested with scientific rigour.

“Independent science is really a myth nowadays,” Pusztai said.

There are societal consequences if scientists aren’t protected and allowed to do independent research. People are being denied their democratic right to know, and GM companies, by manipulating public opinion, are jeopardizing public health, he said.

Continued After Advertisement Below

Advertisement

The couple spoke to a partisan audience of about 200 at the seminar put on by Bio-Ag Consultants and Distributors, a Wellesley-based distributor of products and services for sustainable and organic farming.

One man asked Pusztai what organic farmers can do to protect their crops from being contaminated by GM crops.

Pusztai said GM growers should be made to take special courses before being allowed to plant the crops.

Bardocz, a professor of nutrition in the agriculture faculty at the University of Debrecen, also spoke about the changes in food. After hundreds of generations without change, food has undergone major changes in the last two to three generations with the introduction of synthetic chemicals, she said.

Farming has become “pharming,” she said.

She suggested people adopt the 100-mile diet.

“I would advise them to eat local food, in season, produced preferably organically, because that’s the only safe way,” she said.

— Stratford Beacon-Herald

This article can be found here.

http://www.todaysfarmer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1427247

There is tons and tons of information out there from independent scientists whom have done extensive studies, research and that are specialists in the field of genetics and other pertinent fields on the subject whom are silenced because of their findings Against GMOs threaten the biotech industry.
 Bi-Atch
Joined: 10/1/2008
Msg: 19
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 5:39:14 PM
I just began a thread about Nostradamos and his Dec 21 2012 doomsday prediction....one of the major reasons for d-day will be war caused by famine, drought, starvation and social upheaval among the superpowers. Nostra argued that this in turn will give rise to the Antichrist being able to take over the world (the Antichrist being a Middle Eastern male politician) who will appear to offer amnesty and assistance to other countries but in actuality would take over their populations and make them into slaves.

The GMO and Monsanto argument is an interesting one in relation to this thread and this theory....could Monsanto be a part of the Antichrist's rise to power? Or would the initial impact of the comet that causes famine, drought, starvation etc render Monsanto and the GMO argument obsolete?

Might there be another form of crop engineering entirely begun by the Antichrist that will be used in his takeover of the earth's political infrastructures?

Food for thought
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 20
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 5:52:01 PM


WANTED: Monsanto for crimes against the planet
24 August 2002
Johannesburg, South Africa — Long time corporate scoundrels Monsanto are WANTED for their crimes against the planet. It started innocently enough with the production of Agent Orange for military use in Vietnam. Then came PCBs and Dioxin. Now they are after our food. Their goal: global food supply domination.
The environmental criminal: Monsanto is wanted for questioning in relation to the genetic pollution of the planet Earth, force feeding global citizens genetically engineered foods and the global take over of the planet’s food sources.

It is armed with the arrogant belief that genetic engineering is safe, both for the environment and human health. Monsanto is the same company that brought us such safe, healthy products as Agent Orange and PCBs.

The accomplice: The US and Canadian governments not only ignored the inherent risks of genetic engineering, they have aided Monsanto setting up an inadequate regulatory system that relies on risk assessment, industry science and voluntary compliance.

The environmental crime: As if polluting the planet with noxious PCBs, dioxins and harmful pesticides wasn’t enough, now this leader in the genetic engineering industry is threatening to alter the genes of every food crop on Earth.

Monsanto's Robert Fraley testified: “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”

Through a spending spree of billions of US dollars acquiring seed companies around the world and the contamination of the global food chain with GE crops, Monsanto’s diabolical plan of global food take over may soon be a reality.

But since meeting resistance from people in developed nations, Monsanto has turned its focus to developing nations. They claim that they can help meet the world’s growing food needs and feed the hungry. But they ignore the fact that most hungry people live in countries that have food surpluses rather than deficits.

Innovative, environmentally responsible farming practices are already in the ground, offering food security and sustainable livelihoods without drawing farmers into more dependency, threatening biodiversity or endangering human health. Food security, the ability of a community to feed itself consistently on a diverse and healthy diet, is a complex problem that will not be solved overnight, it depends on people having access to land and money. Monsanto is offering neither.

And why should we believe that this move to sell genetically engineered crops to developing nations to help them with hunger and malnutrition comes from the goodness of their hearts. If their relationship with farmers in developed nations is any indication, farmers in the developing world will be trampled by the coercion and censorship tactics of this agriculture bully.

Monsanto promotes a farming model of snooping and snitching on your neighbours. The company employs a small army of private investigators to check up on farmers and advertises a toll-free informer line. They have tried to censor journalists questioning the safety of Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone and stop the printers of the Ecologist from publishing a special edition attacking Monsanto.

Instead Monsanto spends millions on public relations campaigns of misinformation and warm fuzzy feelings.

The victim: Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from the prairie food belt of Canada. His canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready canola seed. Monsanto's position is that it doesn't matter whether Percy knew it or not, his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene and he must pay their technology fee. Percy and his wife Louise stood up to Monsanto in a classic battle of good versus evil, David versus Goliath, but in this round it was Monsanto that won out in the Canadian court battle. Percy is appealing.

Monsanto quotes Gandhi “we must be the change we wish to see in the world” in their propaganda. But it was Percy who received the Mahatma Gandhi Award while he was in India in October 2000. The award is given in recognition of working for the betterment and good of humankind in a non-violent way.

Listen to Percy’s story>>

The verdict: Oh so guilty, their arrest is overdue. Monsanto has already polluted every corner of the planet with PCBs and dioxin, they must be held accountable before all crops and genetic resources on the planet are contaminated and our food supply forever under their control.

The US and Canadian governments must hold Monsanto accountable for their crimes against the environment and the global food supply. World governments need to agree on legally binding rules for corporations that hold them responsible for the actions next week at the Earth Summit.

The Reward: A safe and secure global food supply, a healthy environment and the chance to properly tackle the inadequate distribution of food to the world’s hungry.



This is from greenpeace can be seen in whole form here.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsanto-are-wanted-for-crimes
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 21
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 6:33:57 PM
How about this for example?



By Linn Cohen-Cole


People say if farmers don’t want problems from Monsanto, just don’t buy their GMO seeds.

Not so simple. Where are farmers supposed to get normal seed these days? How are they supposed to avoid contamination of their fields from GM-crops? How are they supposed to stop Monsanto detectives from trespassing or Monsanto from using helicopters to fly over spying on them?

Monsanto contaminates the fields, trespasses onto the land taking samples and if they find any GMO plants growing there (or say they have), they then sue, saying they own the crop. It’s a way to make money since farmers can’t fight back and court and they settle because they have no choice.

And they have done and are doing a bucket load of things to keep farmers and everyone else from having any access at all to buying, collecting, and saving of NORMAL seeds.

1. They’ve bought up the seed companies across the Midwest.

2. They’ve written Monsanto seed laws and gotten legislators to put them through, that make cleaning, collecting and storing of seeds so onerous in terms of fees and paperwork and testing and tracking every variety and being subject to fines, that having normal seed becomes almost impossible (an NAIS approach to wiping out normal seeds). Does your state have such a seed law? Before they existed, farmers just collected the seeds and put them in sacks in the shed and used them the next year, sharing whatever they wished with friends and neighbors, selling some if they wanted. That’s been killed.

In Illinois, which has such a seed law, Madigan, the Speaker of the House, his staff is Monsanto lobbyists.

3. Monsanto is pushing anti-democracy laws (Vilsack’s brainchild, actually) that remove community’ control over their own counties so farmers and citizens can’t block the planting of GMO crops even if they can contaminate other crops. So if you don’t want a GM-crop that grows industrial chemicals or drugs or a rice growing with human DNA in it, in your area and mixing with your crops, tough luck.

Check the map of just where the Monsanto/Vilsack laws are and see if your state is still a democracy or is Monsanto’s. A farmer in Illinois told me he heard that Bush had pushed through some regulation that made this true in every state. People need to check on that.

4. For sure there are Monsanto regulations buried in the FDA right now that make a farmer’s seed cleaning equipment illegal (another way to leave nothing but GM-seeds) because it’s now considered a “source of seed contamination.” Farmer can still seed clean but the equipment now has to be certified and a farmer said it would require a million to a million and half dollar building and equipment … for EACH line of seed. Seed storage facilities are also listed (another million?) and harvesting and transport equipment. And manure. Something that can contaminate seed. Notice that chemical fertilizers and pesticides are not mentioned.

You could eat manure and be okay (a little grossed out but okay). Try that with pesticides and fertilizers. Indian farmers have. Their top choice for how to commit suicide to escape the debt they have been left in is to drink Monsanto pesticides.

5. Monsanto is picking off seed cleaners across the Midwest. In Pilot Grove, Missouri, in Indiana (Maurice Parr), and now in southern Illinois (Steve Hixon). And they are using US marshals and state troopers and county police to show up in three cars to serve the poor farmers who had used Hixon as their seed cleaner, telling them that he or their neighbors turned them in, so across that 6 county areas, no one talking to neighbors and people are living in fear and those farming communities are falling apart from the suspicion Monsanto sowed. Hixon’s office got broken into and he thinks someone put a GPS tracking device on his equipment and that’s how Monsanto found between 200-400 customers in very scattered and remote areas, and threatened them all and destroyed his business within 2 days.

So, after demanding that seed cleaners somehow be able to tell one seed from another (or be sued to kingdom come) or corrupting legislatures to put in laws about labeling of seeds that are so onerous no one can cope with them, what is Monsanto’s attitude about labeling their own stuff? You guessed it - they’re out there pushing laws against ANY labeling of their own GM-food and animals and of any exports to other countries. Why?

We know and they know why.

As Norman Braksick, the president of Asgrow Seed Co. (now owned by Monsanto) predicted in the Kansas City Star (3/7/94) seven years ago, “If you put a label on a genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”

And they’ve sued dairy farmers for telling the truth about their milk being rBGH-free, though rBGH is associated with an increased risk of breast, colon and prostate cancers.

I just heard that some seed dealers urge farmers to buy the seed under the seed dealer’s name, telling the farmers it helps the dealer get a discount on seed to buy a lot under their own name. Then Monsanto sues the poor farmer for buying their seed without a contract and extorts huge sums from them.

Here’s a youtube video that is worth your time. Vandana Shiva is one of the leading anti-Monsanto people in the world. In this video, she says (and this video is old), Monsanto had sued 1500 farmers whose fields had simply been contaminated by GM-crops. Listen to all the ways Monsanto goes after farmers.

Do you know the story of Gandhi in India and how the British had salt laws that taxed salt? The British claimed it as theirs. Gandhi had what was called a Salt Satyagraha, in which people were asked to break the laws and march to the sea and collect the salt without paying the British. A kind of Boston tea party, I guess.

Thousands of people marched 240 miles to the ocean where the British were waiting. As people moved forward to collect the salt, the British soldiers clubbed them but the people kept coming. The non-violent protest exposed the British behavior, which was so revolting to the world that it helped end British control in India.

Vandana Shiva has started a Seed Satyagraha - nonviolent non-cooperation around seed laws - has gotten millions of farmers to sign a pledge to break those laws.

American farmers and cattlemen might appreciate what Gandhi fought for and what Shiva is bringing back and how much it is about what we are all so angry about - loss of basic freedoms. [The highlighting is mine.]



The Seed Satyagraha is the name for the nonviolent, noncooperative movement that Dr. Shiva has organized to stand against seed monopolies. According to Dr. Shiva, the name was inspired by Gandhi’s famous walk to the Dandi Beach, where he picked up salt and said, “You can’t monopolize this which we need for life.” But it’s not just the noncooperation aspect of the movement that is influenced by Gandhi. The creative side saving seeds, trading seeds, farming without corporate dependence–without their chemicals, without their seed.

” All this is talked about in the language that Gandhi left us as a legacy. We work with three key concepts.”

” (One) Swadeshi…which means the capacity to do your own thing–produce your own food, produce your own goods….”

“(Two) Swaraj–to govern yourself. And we fight on three fronts–water, food, and seed. JalSwaraj is water independence–water freedom and water sovereignty. Anna Swaraj is food freedom, food sovereignty. And Bija Swaraj is seed freedom and seed sovereignty. Swa means self–that which rises from the self and is very, very much a deep notion of freedom.

“I believe that these concepts, which are deep, deep, deep in Indian civilization, Gandhi resurrected them to fight for freedom. They are very important for today’s world because so far what we’ve had is centralized state rule, giving way now to centralized corporate control, and we need a third alternate. That third alternate is, in part, citizens being able to tell their state, ‘This is what your function is. This is what your obligations are,’ and being able to have their states act on corporations to say, ‘This is something you cannot do.’”

” (Three) Satyagraha, non-cooperation, basically saying, ‘We will do our thing and any law that tries to say that (our freedom) is illegal… we will have to not cooperate with it. We will defend our freedoms to have access to water, access to seed, access to food, access to medicine.’”


Can find it here
http://survivingthemiddleclasscrash.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/the-multiple-ways-monsanto-is-putting-normal-seeds-out-of-reach/
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 22
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 6:40:07 PM
Lol- all these links, and yet you cannot answer a simple question.....
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 23
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 7:53:31 PM


Health risks
The genetic engineering industry claims that no one has been harmed by eating GE foods. But without labeling of GE ingredients, there is no way to track any harm. Doctors and scientists warn that there is not enough evidence to insure that these foods are safe in the human diet. In fact, there is ample evidence of risk:
Allergies: By inserting foreign DNA into common foods, without adequate safety testing, the biotech industry is introducing possible new food allergens. Most genes being introduced into GM plants have never been part of the food supply so we can't know if they are likely to be allergenic. For this reason, people who are hyperallergenic or environmentally sensitive may want to avoid GM foods.
Antibiotic Resistance: The rise of diseases that are resistant to treatment with common antibiotics is already a serious medical concern. Doctors warn that the current use of antibiotic resistance genes in GE crops may add to this risk.
Environmental risks
Biological Pollution: Unlike chemicals that are released into the environment, genetically engineered organisms are living things that will reproduce and spread uncontrollably and at will, with little possibility of containment or clean-up. Once released, they can never be recalled, so their effects are irreversible.
Increased Pesticide Use: Most GE crops have been designed to withstand herbicides. Studies show that farmers who grow GE soybeans use 2-5 times more herbicides than farmers who grow natural soy varieties.
Crop Contamination: GE pollen and seeds can contaminate farms, threatening the purity of crops.
Superweeds: Other studies have shown that GE crops can cross-pollinate with related weeds, resulting in "superweeds" that become difficult to control. Canadian canola growers have found weeds in their fields resistant to Round-Up and Liberty herbicides, forcing the growers to use more potent toxic herbicides.
Threatening organic farming: GE insect resistant crops could create “superbugs” who will build up a tolerance to a fundamental pest control tool used by organic farmers; the loss of this tool would be devastating to the safest, most environmentally friendly food production we have.

www.cog.ca/toronto/documents/What%20are%20GMOs.pdf

There are plenty of risks. Both health concerns and far more concerns with hardcore socioeconomic impact. You claim that these companies are doing this out of some philanthropic vein. You claim they have our safety in interest in mind yet many of these companies have a long history of making dangerous substances and claiming them to be tested and safe. They suppressed information from scientists then who gave accurate dissenting opinions of the dangers of those chemicals now these companies have been facing massive lawsuits due to it being proven in the case of agent orange and dioxin to be completely harmful. It has also been shown they knew full well this information and purposefully mislead the public.

The same thing is likely occurring here as well. Since there are plenty of scientists who are coming out against GMO technology with results showing harm to animals whom ingest them as well as a whole list of other serious concerns.

There is also an attempt to ram this stuff through and force it into places that do not want it via government and laws. They are even trying to force states and counties to not be able to stop GMO crops from being grown in their own state and counties. Where other farmers have concerns of contamination of their crops. Since the patent laws also state that contaminated crops belong to the companies holding the patents. A farmer could plant a crop and it can get contaminated and the seed then belongs to the company with the patent. There is a huge swing of opposition world wide to GMOs and it is gaining momentum. Expect more grass roots activism on this issue in the future as the problems continue to surface caused by the activities of these corporations.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 24
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 8:56:14 PM
Again, HAS ANYONE EVER BEEN HARMED BY INJESTING A GMO?

>>>You claim that these companies are doing this out of some philanthropic vein.

I never made that claim- I said they were doing a good the likes of which has never been seen. Their intention is clear- they want money for their investment and hardwork, just like the rest of us. But their result? It is clearly the most powerful change in society since the invention of electricity- the standard of living has risen because of peoples attempts to make stronger, healthier, and more productive crops.

>>>You claim they have our safety in interest in mind

Once again, I never made such a claim- I simply stated that there is no health risk ever found in Genetically Modified foods, and because of paranoia, the FDA is extra careful with these foods- making them far safer for you than organic. Again, these companies do not set out to save the world or destory it- they simply wish to make money by offering people a service through voluntary trade.

>>> It has also been shown they knew full well this information and purposefully mislead the public.

If this is true, then they should be punished for their actions and for selling unsafe foods- but that doesn't mean because they have been accused of some of their foods being dangerous that all of their foods are dangerous- prove GMO is dangerous, not Agent Orange.

>>>Since there are plenty of scientists who are coming out against GMO technology with results showing harm to animals whom ingest them as well as a whole list of other serious concerns.

None of which seem to appear in the now Billions of humans who are eating GMO, Hundreds of Millions have eaten them their entire lives.

>>>There is also an attempt to ram this stuff through and force it into places that do not want it via government and laws. They are even trying to force states and counties to not be able to stop GMO crops from being grown in their own state and counties.

That sounds familar;

Wikipedia Says....

In 2004, Mendocino County, California became the first county in the United States to ban the production of GMOs. The measure passed with a 57% majority. In California, Trinity and Marin counties have also imposed bans on GM crops[./quote]
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 25
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 9:53:59 PM


1) Can anyone point to any study published in a peer reviewed journal indicating that GMO food fed to animals is harming them?


I sure did. Look up a few posts. Mice having immunity issues as well as other concerns from eating gm potatoes. The scientist lost his job for coming out against the biotech industry.




2) Drawing a comparison to DDT and GMO is not a fair representation....DDT and other pesticides are poisons, while gmo are not meant to kill anything, merely to improve the quality of the product on a genetic level



It is a fair representation because the same company is making GMOs that made dioxin and agent orange, and they said dioxin was safe and even had a bunch of scientists claim it was safe while trying to silence ones that found it unsafe. Same goes for Agent orange. Same company was in on that one too and same results. You expect anyone to trust these nuts?

Further the damage being done to family farmers with this stuff is enough in my book to ban it outright.




4) GMO is not something to be feared and banned, but something to be studied and harnessed. Think nuclear energy - it can be dangerous if not handled properly, otherwise, it can light up our dark homes and peer into our bodies to detect cancer.


Ok the problems with this issue are broad and very dangerous. First if you do ANY research into this issue you will find that there are plenty of people black marketing this stuff. Which means they are making it in labs maybe even garages and who knows how it is being done. I forget the exact percentage of gm blackmarket seed that is out there but it is very large in foreign countries like India and Brasil.

They have opened a can of worms to which we will not know the problems being caused for a very long time.

I am not opposed to study of these things (which should be done in containment not put out into the wild and on farms.)

What I have come out against is the fact that this has gone global FAR before it should have as well as the damage it does to farmers and farming of other methods in general. It has not been tested near enough and science still does not even fully understand DNA much less what happens when you tamper with it in this way. The implications of what is going on will still not be fully understood for a very long time. Though one thing is for sure these corporate entities are being VERY aggressive in trying to gain as complete control over farming and seed companies as they possibly can. I think everyone should find that in and of it self quite alarming.

control of food is far more powerful than any nukes.


This is not about feeding hungry people there is plenty of food produced in the world famine is occurring with or without GMOs. It is happening due to inadequate distribution of already existent supplies.

Again the rosy colored glasses the Biotech industry try to hand out do not match up with the facts.

There is and has been enough food for us all to flourish the reason so many are malnourished has nothing to do with production but, rather is mostly caused by greed and wasteful mismanagement.

Food costs can be cut by 90% if it was grown locally and didnt have to be shipped half way across the world. Given that we will eventually run out of fossil fuels to run all that shipping it would be wise to develop local based economy sooner rather than later.

This has to do with someone trying to reinvent the wheel so they can lay claim to all of the funds. They are not inventing anything all that useful. Nature provides us with what we need to grow our food for next to nothing. These companies wish to teach people that they have to use their chemicals and their Frankenstein plants to do what you can do with some compost that you make and some good old fashioned seeds from real plants.

If you have a problem with weeds chances are you can go down to your local county yard waste collection facility(all those leaves and sticks and stuff from yard cleanup that they collect that people throw away thinking its junk) with your proof of residency and a pickup truck and fill it full of free mulch. Can do it in my county.. I got 100% No problem with weeds. You let your plants grow up some and drop the mulch pow no weeds and less need to water..

Rotate your crops, and grow trap crops and you dont have problems with bugs. No need for their pesticides either.

Can get manure from ranchers often for trade of some veggies or for free! Compost that stuff and easy as 123.

Learn a thing or two about permaculture as well. Save you TONS of money and work!
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 26
GMO issue.
Posted: 2/19/2009 10:00:45 PM
>>>This is not about feeding hungry people there is plenty of food produced in the world famine is occurring with or without GMOs. It is happening due to inadequate distribution of already existent supplies.

Sure is easy to say when YOU'RE not the one going hungry.....
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > GMO issue.