cdmtdm Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 worth the one minute to watch this you tube clip ...http://expandedconsciousness.com/2014/10/16/what-is-a-gmo-explained-in-1-minute/ .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 yes, but worth to watch, everyone knows that. Genetic Modified Organism are genetic modified and as it is difficult to produce meaningful DNA, it is mostly copy/paste. You put the DNA of human insulin into E coli or some yeast and it produces insulin for people who have diabetics. The technology is a bit tricky to convenience the bacteria that it is a good idea, but over all it is a copy/paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdmtdm Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 yes, but worth to watch, everyone knows that. Genetic Modified Organism are genetic modified and as it is difficult to produce meaningful DNA, it is mostly copy/paste. You put the DNA of human insulin into E coli or some yeast and it produces insulin for people who have diabetics. The technology is a bit tricky to convenience the bacteria that it is a good idea, but over all it is a copy/paste. ??? no everyone does not know that as you put it , the mainstream need to wake up to what they are consuming ....... please explain what you are trying to say ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 yes, but worth to watch, everyone knows that. Genetic Modified Organism are genetic modified and as it is difficult to produce meaningful DNA, it is mostly copy/paste. You put the DNA of human insulin into E coli or some yeast and it produces insulin for people who have diabetics. The technology is a bit tricky to convenience the bacteria that it is a good idea, but over all it is a copy/paste. ??? no everyone does not know that as you put it , the mainstream need to wake up to what they are consuming ....... please explain what you are trying to say ... OK, I guess you are right, I may have overestimated the education of most people. But that doesn't make GMO bad. That only means that humans are really smart. What makes GMO bad is the companies who are doing it. Common sense would be to go very slow about any organism you let out from the lab. Common sense would be to NOT use it for food till you really understand things. Use it for rubber trees, cotton, biofuel first but not for food. Than if you use it for food use it somewhere with unquestionable benefit: Like allow people to cultivate in dry areas. What they do is exactly the opposite. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdmtdm Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 selfish corporate greed is driving this , i see no need for GMO whatsoever .... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolley Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 selfish corporate greed is driving this , i see no need for GMO whatsoever .... Exactly. We have lost control of the food chain and each generation is getting sicker and weaker. In fact with declining fertility and testosterone levels in males we could face our own extinction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partington Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 yes, but worth to watch, everyone knows that. Genetic Modified Organism are genetic modified and as it is difficult to produce meaningful DNA, it is mostly copy/paste. You put the DNA of human insulin into E coli or some yeast and it produces insulin for people who have diabetics. The technology is a bit tricky to convenience the bacteria that it is a good idea, but over all it is a copy/paste. ??? no everyone does not know that as you put it , the mainstream need to wake up to what they are consuming ....... please explain what you are trying to say ... OK, I guess you are right, I may have overestimated the education of most people. But that doesn't make GMO bad. That only means that humans are really smart. What makes GMO bad is the companies who are doing it. Common sense would be to go very slow about any organism you let out from the lab. Common sense would be to NOT use it for food till you really understand things. Use it for rubber trees, cotton, biofuel first but not for food. Than if you use it for food use it somewhere with unquestionable benefit: Like allow people to cultivate in dry areas. What they do is exactly the opposite. I thought as well that everyone getting a high school level science education over the past couple of decades knew at least the basic principles of gene splicing involved in the production of GMOs and therapeutic proteins like insulin or clotting factor 8. Someone who doesn't have this level of knowledge of course is not going to be able to assess the dangers and advantages of GMOs, or the need for them, as well as someone who does. But an internet video is not a trusted source for gaining knowledge about this, as 70-80% of everything on the web is just wrong. After all, YouTube videos claiming absolutely anything might well be uploaded by North Koreans deciding to call themselves 'Jethro from Nebraska'... and an anti-GMO website may not be wholly objective in its approach. A high school text book aimed at 16-18 year olds would give reliable and trustworthy information on almost any biological subject that you would care to know about, and so would be a better source of information. I agree GMOs need to be treated with caution and elaborate safety checks, but each GMO must be treated as a separate case, as they are all different. There is no problem that applies to all GMOs non-specifically as a class, the advantages and disadvantages depend on which genes have been introduced. It's rather like signing up a new player to a football team: it's often successful but sometimes doesn't work out. But each case must be taken on its own merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Issangeorge Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 There are three things I dislike about GMOs. 1/ they are not labeled so we really do not have a choice whether we eat them or not. 2/ as best as I understand it, farmers can't plant seeds they get from last year crops, they have to buy new seeds from the producing company. 3/ and perhaps most important, the crops and planting procedures are not studied enough. Read this article about an unintended consequence about using GMO corn and roundup. The corn may be perfectly safe for human consumption, but it is destroying the Monarch Butterfly population. http://m.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/03/researchers-gm-crops-are-killing-monarch-butterflies-after-all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 There are three things I dislike about GMOs. 1/ they are not labeled so we really do not have a choice whether we eat them or not. 2/ as best as I understand it, farmers can't plant seeds they get from last year crops, they have to buy new seeds from the producing company. 3/ and perhaps most important, the crops and planting procedures are not studied enough. Read this article about an unintended consequence about using GMO corn and roundup. The corn may be perfectly safe for human consumption, but it is destroying the Monarch Butterfly population. http://m.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/03/researchers-gm-crops-are-killing-monarch-butterflies-after-all 1) yes label should be a must. I saw somewhere labeled "No GMO". 2) That is not a problem of GMO, that is a problem of corrupt lawmakers, greedy companies, etc, etc. They tried several similar things on non GMO. 3) yes side effects. And not studied enough. That is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 yes, but worth to watch, everyone knows that. Genetic Modified Organism are genetic modified and as it is difficult to produce meaningful DNA, it is mostly copy/paste. You put the DNA of human insulin into E coli or some yeast and it produces insulin for people who have diabetics. The technology is a bit tricky to convenience the bacteria that it is a good idea, but over all it is a copy/paste. ??? no everyone does not know that as you put it , the mainstream need to wake up to what they are consuming ....... please explain what you are trying to say ... OK, I guess you are right, I may have overestimated the education of most people. But that doesn't make GMO bad. That only means that humans are really smart. What makes GMO bad is the companies who are doing it. Common sense would be to go very slow about any organism you let out from the lab. Common sense would be to NOT use it for food till you really understand things. Use it for rubber trees, cotton, biofuel first but not for food. Than if you use it for food use it somewhere with unquestionable benefit: Like allow people to cultivate in dry areas. What they do is exactly the opposite. I thought as well that everyone getting a high school level science education over the past couple of decades knew at least the basic principles of gene splicing involved in the production of GMOs and therapeutic proteins like insulin or clotting factor 8. Someone who doesn't have this level of knowledge of course is not going to be able to assess the dangers and advantages of GMOs, or the need for them, as well as someone who does. But an internet video is not a trusted source for gaining knowledge about this, as 70-80% of everything on the web is just wrong. After all, YouTube videos claiming absolutely anything might well be uploaded by North Koreans deciding to call themselves 'Jethro from Nebraska'... and an anti-GMO website may not be wholly objective in its approach. A high school text book aimed at 16-18 year olds would give reliable and trustworthy information on almost any biological subject that you would care to know about, and so would be a better source of information. I agree GMOs need to be treated with caution and elaborate safety checks, but each GMO must be treated as a separate case, as they are all different. There is no problem that applies to all GMOs non-specifically as a class, the advantages and disadvantages depend on which genes have been introduced. It's rather like signing up a new player to a football team: it's often successful but sometimes doesn't work out. But each case must be taken on its own merits. I recall that I didn't learn anything in "high school" about it, but it was technical one....Instead I learned how to design a aircraft engine....But well 25 years ago, hope things have changed. (or not there are still people who don't want genes or atoms in their food.......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdmtdm Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 partington , its the scientists that created this .... do you think science books will give an accurate unbiased picture ? the lies have spread into the education system , education is being funded by the multi nationals.... they are influencing what is being taught.... you would have to give me some very specific examples, of the long term benefits of GMO farming before i could even contemplate a positive side ....i spent 5 years using Monsantos products i understand the lies now ... here is a scary one they are using now ..deemed the " Terminator Gene" ... tell me how that is a good thing , other than for wall street .... many independant docos on this subject ... too many to say its a fantasy , its real and people need to wake up to whats happening to our seed banks . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 partington , its the scientists that created this .... do you think science books will give an accurate unbiased picture ? the lies have spread into the education system , education is being funded by the multi nationals.... they are influencing what is being taught.... you would have to give me some very specific examples, of the long term benefits of GMO farming before i could even contemplate a positive side ....i spent 5 years using Monsantos products i understand the lies now ... here is a scary one they are using now ..deemed the " Terminator Gene" ... tell me how that is a good thing , other than for wall street .... many independant docos on this subject ... too many to say its a fantasy , its real and people need to wake up to whats happening to our seed banks . That Monsantos is evil does not make the technology evil. You could make plants that can live with much less water and let people in Africa use it (either for food or just to cover the desert and cause a positive climate change there). just where is the profit of doing so? You could make almost brainless pigs, who need less food for the same amount of meat and don't suffer as much. You can let a pig grow spare organs for people, etc etc Just a few companies without any ethic dominate the market. It is not the technology that is bad...You can use a knife to cut food or to stab people.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdmtdm Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 partington , its the scientists that created this .... do you think science books will give an accurate unbiased picture ? the lies have spread into the education system , education is being funded by the multi nationals.... they are influencing what is being taught.... you would have to give me some very specific examples, of the long term benefits of GMO farming before i could even contemplate a positive side ....i spent 5 years using Monsantos products i understand the lies now ... here is a scary one they are using now ..deemed the " Terminator Gene" ... tell me how that is a good thing , other than for wall street .... many independant docos on this subject ... too many to say its a fantasy , its real and people need to wake up to whats happening to our seed banks . That Monsantos is evil does not make the technology evil. You could make plants that can live with much less water and let people in Africa use it (either for food or just to cover the desert and cause a positive climate change there). just where is the profit of doing so? You could make almost brainless pigs, who need less food for the same amount of meat and don't suffer as much. You can let a pig grow spare organs for people, etc etc Just a few companies without any ethic dominate the market. It is not the technology that is bad...You can use a knife to cut food or to stab people.... the fact is we have enough food on the planet to feed everyone and more ..we have the technology to farm in arid regions as well , we dont need and frankensience creations , what we need is less corporate pigs in the trough ..... its all about money !!! who supports Monsanto and the like ? Govts , big govts ....who donates to the govts to be elected ? corporations .... so who is in control ? again give me a specific example of a GMO creation, that has served mankind without a negative affect on the enviroment . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beammeup Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 There has not been a lot of testing on humans yet. You are the test. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 partington , its the scientists that created this .... do you think science books will give an accurate unbiased picture ? the lies have spread into the education system , education is being funded by the multi nationals.... they are influencing what is being taught.... you would have to give me some very specific examples, of the long term benefits of GMO farming before i could even contemplate a positive side ....i spent 5 years using Monsantos products i understand the lies now ... here is a scary one they are using now ..deemed the " Terminator Gene" ... tell me how that is a good thing , other than for wall street .... many independant docos on this subject ... too many to say its a fantasy , its real and people need to wake up to whats happening to our seed banks . That Monsantos is evil does not make the technology evil. You could make plants that can live with much less water and let people in Africa use it (either for food or just to cover the desert and cause a positive climate change there). just where is the profit of doing so? You could make almost brainless pigs, who need less food for the same amount of meat and don't suffer as much. You can let a pig grow spare organs for people, etc etc Just a few companies without any ethic dominate the market. It is not the technology that is bad...You can use a knife to cut food or to stab people.... the fact is we have enough food on the planet to feed everyone and more ..we have the technology to farm in arid regions as well , we dont need and frankensience creations , what we need is less corporate pigs in the trough ..... its all about money !!! who supports Monsanto and the like ? Govts , big govts ....who donates to the govts to be elected ? corporations .... so who is in control ? again give me a specific example of a GMO creation, that has served mankind without a negative affect on the enviroment . No there is not enough food, specially if people should get enough protein. Yes there is a lot technology, but important would be that small farmer can farm without much technology and GMO would be a solution. One example without negative effect: human insulin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdmtdm Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 that insulin experiment is ongoing , its a LIVE test on the ignorant , already people have died , so, sorry bad example ....... the long term side affects are unknown ..... the attached link will correct your belief on food ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolley Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 The big problem with GMO is that it also pollutes nearby crops. I believe the pollen spreads to other crops so you are getting GMO even if you don't want it. Things are already bad enough for our food chain without adding GMO into the mix. Chemicals like roundup mentioned by another poster have been linked to autism in children and numerous other health problems. I think NZ has banned GMO and has a thriving organic foods industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loptr Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 selfish corporate greed is driving this , i see no need for GMO whatsoever .... Exactly. We have lost control of the food chain and each generation is getting sicker and weaker. In fact with declining fertility and testosterone levels in males we could face our own extinction. What better way for TPTB to reduce the population of the earth by 80% to remove the "useless eaters"... Does anyone really believe any of this is by chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 selfish corporate greed is driving this , i see no need for GMO whatsoever .... Exactly. We have lost control of the food chain and each generation is getting sicker and weaker. In fact with declining fertility and testosterone levels in males we could face our own extinction. What better way for TPTB to reduce the population of the earth by 80% to remove the "useless eaters"... Does anyone really believe any of this is by chance? If you want to reduce the population you need to reduce the fertility of females not from males. One fertile male can make many females pregnant....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 It's easy to see whether or not somebody is interested in genuinely discussing a topic by how they frame their opening remarks. Since the OP has given us no opening remarks, I guess we need to go to the video. How does the video frame the discussion? Before we hear anyone talking, we see this picture and hear some spooky music: Wow that's pretty scary, isn't it? And I like how it appears right next to the rhetorical question "what is a GMO?" Don't bother learning about science, kids, and don't question anything or think for yourself, just look at the scary picture! That GMO Corn Monster is coming to eat you! This is called poisoning the well. This is where negative or slanderous information is presented to an audience in an attempt to preemptively establish facts that are not in evidence. Fifteen seconds later, we get this: Taking full advantage of our arachnophobia. At this point I wonder why anyone would even take this video seriously. It's teetering on the edge of satire. Everybody run! Mutant Spider-Goat is coming to chew on your flowers! Right. If you want to know what this is all about, disregard the scary picture and go learn something: Researchers from the University of Wyoming have developed a way to incorporate spiders' silk-spinning genes into goats, allowing the researchers to harvest the silk protein from the goats milk for a variety of applications. For instance, due to its strength and elasticity, spider silk fiber could have several medical uses, such as for making artificial ligaments and tendons, for eye sutures, and for jaw repair. The silk could also have applications in bulletproof vests and improved car airbags. That's not scary, in fact I think it's amazingly awesome. So the video is pretty laughable, no doubt there. Does it have anything of substance to offer? Here's something: [With regard to plants that produce their own pesticides] So they're completely swapping genes between the normal species barriers, creating new organisms that are not part of the evolutionary process I like how he says this with an incredulous voice, as if... HOW DARE THEY?! Firstly, there's no such thing as a "normal species barrier". What is that - some kind of force field that prevents different species from mixing their genetic material? Taxonomic classifications of nature are entirely human constructs, and nature is under no obligation to follow our rules. Having said that, gene swapping between species (also called horizontal gene transfer) is quite common in nature, so the video is factually wrong about that. Gene transfer has even happened between different phyla (that's five steps higher than species on the taxonomic ladder, in case anyone's keeping score). This is such a colossal error that you've got to wonder where Jeffry M. Smith got his genetic engineering degree. Oh wait, he didn't. He's an activist, self-published author and politician. A politician. Don't you feel better now? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdmtdm Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 whats your point ? my opinion on GMO is 100% dont do it .... this is purely intended to control the production of food ... by a very few corporations .... control the seeds , you control the food !!! so regardless of your critique on the video , nothing has changed .... these companies are on a mission to destroy farming as we know it . Its just fortunate that some countries have woken upto this and banned GMO and in some cases Monsanto altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 It's easy to see whether or not somebody is interested in genuinely discussing a topic by how they frame their opening remarks. Since the OP has given us no opening remarks, I guess we need to go to the video. How does the video frame the discussion? Before we hear anyone talking, we see this picture and hear some spooky music: Wow that's pretty scary, isn't it? And I like how it appears right next to the rhetorical question "what is a GMO?" Don't bother learning about science, kids, and don't question anything or think for yourself, just look at the scary picture! That GMO Corn Monster is coming to eat you! This is called poisoning the well. This is where negative or slanderous information is presented to an audience in an attempt to preemptively establish facts that are not in evidence. Fifteen seconds later, we get this: Taking full advantage of our arachnophobia. At this point I wonder why anyone would even take this video seriously. It's teetering on the edge of satire. Everybody run! Mutant Spider-Goat is coming to chew on your flowers! Right. If you want to know what this is all about, disregard the scary picture and go learn something: Researchers from the University of Wyoming have developed a way to incorporate spiders' silk-spinning genes into goats, allowing the researchers to harvest the silk protein from the goats milk for a variety of applications. For instance, due to its strength and elasticity, spider silk fiber could have several medical uses, such as for making artificial ligaments and tendons, for eye sutures, and for jaw repair. The silk could also have applications in bulletproof vests and improved car airbags. That's not scary, in fact I think it's amazingly awesome. So the video is pretty laughable, no doubt there. Does it have anything of substance to offer? Here's something: [With regard to plants that produce their own pesticides] So they're completely swapping genes between the normal species barriers, creating new organisms that are not part of the evolutionary process I like how he says this with an incredulous voice, as if... HOW DARE THEY?! Firstly, there's no such thing as a "normal species barrier". What is that - some kind of force field that prevents different species from mixing their genetic material? Taxonomic classifications of nature are entirely human constructs, and nature is under no obligation to follow our rules. Having said that, gene swapping between species (also called horizontal gene transfer) is quite common in nature, so the video is factually wrong about that. Gene transfer has even happened between different phyla (that's five steps higher than species on the taxonomic ladder, in case anyone's keeping score). This is such a colossal error that you've got to wonder where Jeffry M. Smith got his genetic engineering degree. Oh wait, he didn't. He's an activist, self-published author and politician. A politician. Don't you feel better now? yeah don't worry about facts and science! don't want genes and atoms in my food Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) i see no need for GMO whatsoever Not everything in this world is about you. In many parts of the developing world, blindness is a huge problem due to vitamin A deficiency. One bowl of Golden Rice would provide 60% of a child's vitamin A need. There are three things I dislike about GMOs. 1/ they are not labeled so we really do not have a choice whether we eat them or not. We don't spend millions of dollars labeling things unless there is a need. This very thread shows that many people are poorly informed about genetic modification. How can consumers react in an informed way to a GMO label if they don't understand GMO technology in the first place? You might as well put a skull and crossbones on the product, because people are only reacting out of fear. Watch the video in the OP if you doubt that. How about this: I'll agree to GMO labels if you'll agree to labels that say "grown with chicken sh*t" for traditionally farmed produce. Why not let the consumer decide, right? 2/farmers can't plant seeds they get from last year crops, they have to buy new seeds from the producing company. Why is this a problem? 3/ and perhaps most important, the crops and planting procedures are not studied enough. Read this article about an unintended consequence about using GMO corn and roundup. The corn may be perfectly safe for human consumption, but it is destroying the Monarch Butterfly population. That's not a GMO problem. That's a problem of farmers being overly dependent on a single herbicide. Most farmers know how to rotate their crops and herbicides. I don't want to see the monarch butterfly go extinct either. The solution might be as simple as encouraging milkweed to grow in the wild (rather than in a farmer's cornfield). We had a similar problem when we started building hydroelectric dams. Salmon and other fish couldn't get back upstream to spawn (how we didn't foresee that, I have no idea). Did we ban hydro power? Of course not! We applied ourselves and came up with an elegant solution: fish steps. Edited January 18, 2015 by attrayant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 whats your point ? My point is that the video in the OP is politically motivated garbage. Your "opinions" are based on fear and ignorance. this is purely intended to control the production of food ... by a very few corporations .... Conspiracy theory time. Conspiracies are impervious to reason, so I'm not even going to try. control the seeds , you control the food !!! I would have believed you if only you had typed in all caps and used one more exclamation point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdmtdm Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 so you are an expert in this field ? i should bow to you why ? let me ask you this ...have you ever grown food for a living ? please explain why my CONSPIRACY is WRONG ? you have to give me some reason to believe i am missing something here , no one can give a fair argument as to why GMO even exists .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 i see no need for GMO whatsoever Not everything in this world is about you. In many parts of the developing world, blindness is a huge problem due to vitamin A deficiency. One bowl of Golden Rice would provide 60% of a child's vitamin A need. We don't spend millions of dollars labeling things unless there is a need. This very thread shows that many people are poorly informed about genetic modification. How can consumers react in an informed way to a GMO label if they don't understand GMO technology in the first place? You might as well put a skull and crossbones on the product, because people are only reacting out of fear. Watch the video in the OP if you doubt that. How about this: I'll agree to GMO labels if you'll agree to labels that say "grown with chicken sh*t" for traditionally farmed produce. Why not let the consumer decide, right? 2/farmers can't plant seeds they get from last year crops, they have to buy new seeds from the producing company. Why is this a problem? 3/ and perhaps most important, the crops and planting procedures are not studied enough. Read this article about an unintended consequence about using GMO corn and roundup. The corn may be perfectly safe for human consumption, but it is destroying the Monarch Butterfly population. That's not a GMO problem. That's a problem of farmers being overly dependent on a single herbicide. Most farmers know how to rotate their crops and herbicides. I don't want to see the monarch butterfly go extinct either. The solution might be as simple as encouraging milkweed to grow in the wild (rather than in a farmer's cornfield). We had a similar problem when we started building hydroelectric dams. Salmon and other fish couldn't get back upstream to spawn (how we didn't foresee that, I have no idea). Did we ban hydro power? Of course not! We applied ourselves and came up with an elegant solution: fish steps. Adding "GMO" doesn't cost millions of Dollars. And keeping it secret because the population is anyway to stupid is cynical. Why do we write the ingredient on it, if the people are anyway to stupid to understand them? If someone doesn't want to eat GMO than it is their choice, if it the reason is wrong or right. Some don't want to eat pork, others don't want to eat beef and others no GMO. Their choice. And non declaration of course adds to the conspiration theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Flint Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 selfish corporate greed is driving this , i see no need for GMO whatsoever .... sir your avatar is a symbol for aluminati, if so, i cannot take anything you say as truth, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 selfish corporate greed is driving this , i see no need for GMO whatsoever .... sir your avatar is a symbol for aluminati, if so, i cannot take anything you say as truth, sorry. I recommend you use glasses......The Aluminati don't use the food pyramid as their symbol with the cake on the top That food pyramid was at just about every doctor when I was a child, I doubt they were all Aluminati. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I am not a genetic engineer. However it is false to suggest that you need to be a scientist or PhD researcher in order to understand science theory and research publications. The research papers are out there (some done by independent organizations, some by the companies themselves). All you have to do is read them. If they are too technical to digest, then there are a lot of reliable science publications out there to make it easier for the layman. Maybe twenty years ago you might have had an excuse, but in this day and age of internet access there is absolutely no excuse for anyone who can read, reason and deduce to remain uninformed about almost anything.I'm not asking you to bow to me. Nice way to put words in my mouth. I'm asking that you not unquestionably swallow the glurge in videos like the one you gave us in the OP. That's all. let me ask you this ...have you ever grown food for a living? No, I am not a farmer. But why are you making this about me? I've also never flown or designed an airplane but I can talk to you at length about Bernoulli's principle, which explains the physics behind how something so unbelievably heavy can fly if given enough thrust. One need not be an aeronautics engineer to understand the basic science behind it.Also, I note with amusement that you're willing to listen to a politician (who makes glaring factual errors in his video) in support of the anti-GMO argument, but when it comes to the pro-GMO argument you insist that we all be experts. That's a nice double standard you've got there. Be a shame if something happened to it. please explain why my CONSPIRACY is WRONG? Nope, sorry. That's not the way intelligent discourse works. You made the assertion. You carry the burden of proof. It's up to you to prove why you're right and the tens of thousands of genetic engineers and farmers are wrong. Here's a short educational video explaining the burden of proof, in case you're unfamiliar. no one can give a fair argument as to why GMO even exists Now I have to question if you're debating in good faith. There are many reasons why we pursue genetic modification. Apparently you're not even bothering to read the replies in this very thread, because several reasons have already been given to you right here.I'm not going to spend all day doing your research, but the benefits are real and the farmers obviously seem to want them. Why? Don't ask me. Ask them. They're the experts, right? Here's a short (<3 minute) video from a farmer talking about her family farm and why she supports GMO tech. Here's a commentary from a Maryland farmer explaining her angst at the anti crowd for demonizing anything they don't understand. You want to hear from the farmers, well there they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attrayant Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Adding "GMO" doesn't cost millions of Dollars. And keeping it secret because the population is anyway to stupid is cynical. Why do we write the ingredient on it, if the people are anyway to stupid to understand them? If someone doesn't want to eat GMO than it is their choice, if it the reason is wrong or right. If something is already labeled, them it's a minor cost for redesigning and printing. Still, that is a cost. I'm more referring to things like produce that don't normally have labels. Labels will have to be manufactured and applied. I don't know if "millions of dollars" is the right order of magnitude, but surely it will be a significant added cost to the grocer. And of course that cost gets passed along to all of us. I don't want to pay extra for my GMO produce because other people don't understand that it's safe. That's bowing to somebody else's ignorance at my expense. Some don't want to eat pork, others don't want to eat beef and others no GMO. Their choice. The labels "beef" and "pork" are already there. This would be a more apt analogy if somebody were proposing additional labels on the packages that said "BEEF FROM HOLSTEIN CATTLE" and "BEEF FROM FRANKSTON CATTLE" and all the other dozens of breeds. As with GMO produce, there's no good reason for such labeling and legislation to require it would be wrong. Edited January 18, 2015 by attrayant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now