Great News!!: Congress bans FDA from approving genetically modified fish

reply to post by EthanT


If only the'd follow suit with SOY and WHEAT and everything the animals we eat - eats. Like cow's food. Chicken's food.

Delicious poison.

Activism GO!

YEAH!

I promise you all, I will have no less than 50 childs if you all make FOOD in this world safe.

50 childs.

K.

"Young argued that the modified fish would compete with wild salmon in his state.
Other critics have labelled the modified salmon a 'frankenfish' that possibly could cause allergies in humans and eventually decimate the wild salmon population."

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

I have heard of Monsanto crops doing the same thing, competing with non gm crops such as wheat and corn. I wonder why nothing is done about that? hmm..

Farmers have been sued by Monsanto over crops growing on their fields that they, the farmer, never planted.

But, I guess Monsanto's pockets are deeper than Aquabounty's.

Remember the simpson's episode with the three eyed fish? Perhaps just a coincidence but you know how keen simpons are with predicting things, 9/11, the movie predicting the EPA disaster and swine flu. Maybe the three eyed fish was not just a funny nuclear radiation joke but a scary nuclear radiation policy.

reply to post by Amaterasu

lets hope we never have to farm our own foods
in 20 years we wont even know where eggs come from
providing its all still there in 20 yrs
10 percent of the population will die in the ensuing cataclysm
20 with disease and famine
20 in the wars
and the rest because we havent learned to grow our own

This made my day!!! Thanks for posting this!

Next step, stopping Obama from deregulating GMOs...

Remember when they said tuna has more mercury than the swine flu vaccine? Maybe they were referring to genetically modified tuna.

Originally posted by nilrem
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

lets hope we never have to farm our own foods
in 20 years we wont even know where eggs come from
providing its all still there in 20 yrs
10 percent of the population will die in the ensuing cataclysm
20 with disease and famine
20 in the wars
and the rest because we havent learned to grow our own

Well, I suspect that if We act on My ideas, which I offer here in a few threads, We can avoid the plans of the NWO, and move to better the planet as a whole, uplifting Humanity. To consider My ideas, I invite You to these threads:

The End of Entropy - the foundation - read first

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform - the structure

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Here's a simple schematic for drawing on the plenum ("dark"/Zero Point/Radiant/Orgone/...) energy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



The Abundance Paradigm:

media.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh well. You can buy Catfish at the supermarket from Vietnam full of Agent Orange.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by civilchallenger
reply to post by EthanT

 

I don't view this as good news. All this does is reinforce a broken system. Instead of relying on the government to tell us what is and isn't health, we should be relying on independent consumer groups and consumer reporting groups decide whats good for us. People's faith in government to ban extremely unhealthy foods is severely misplaced. People need to stop assuming that because something is in a grocery store and looks good... it is therefore safe and ethical to buy.

That all may be true and in a perfect world that would work fine. But HOW does a consumer have a clue with nothing labeled? THAT would be the job of the government, ensuring the LABELS give Us the data We need to make healthy choices.

You missed my whole point. The consumer driven model works in an *imperfect world*. UL is exactly the kind of organization that puts labels on products that decide whether a product is going to electrocute you or not. If the government would make their own electrical safety organization it would probably be much worse in performance than the UL and also be overbearing and costly for everyone involved. Remember that private businesses can come up with certifications and labels that are much more effective and less costly than government labels.

reply to post by civilchallenger


I see Your point, indeed. I do, however, recommend We eliminate the need for money (see My post above with links), and hold to strict organic policies. If We did, We could distribute food based on need (eliminating vast waste) and feed everyOne, make products lacking "planned obsolescence" (eliminating more waste), have actual cures instead of "medicines" that are patentable and sicken in other ways and require more "medicine" to mask (eliminating profit considerations over Human life), and many other positive ventures.

See those links I offer above.

Wow. they voted.

And I thought all congress did all day was send nasty pics to each other and try to make it look like they are busy.

What gets banned next? GM wieners?

Here's an idea: If you GM foods are deleterious,don't eat them. It's that simple. There steps one can take to avoid all genetically modified foods.

Oh dear, I'm really shocked at the responses and opinions in this thread. Are 90% of this forum so ignorent that they think there is a problem with genetically modified food?
I'd like to think that the people on here were critical scientific thinkers who 'deny ignorence' but to out of hand refuse GM food is stupid.
Most GM crops are made to resist diseases or to produce more yeild, theres nothing wrong with that at all. It saves the poor working man (the farmer) money on treating crops or losing product.
Does everything you people think come from sci-fi nonsense about GM food turning you into super heros?
I think this is terrible news, people should stop fearing science and educate themselves better. Maybe these spiritual/religious zelots should confine themselves to the dark ages and let the inteligent modern generation do all the thinking for them.

excellent, so now everything but the salmon will be destroyed (which they might still be destroyed eventually anyways, now someone other than the USA is going to screw the natural salmon stocks over)

reply to post by SpookyFox


articles.mercola.com...

After 30 years of GMO’s, the case against them grows ever stronger according to this excellent article by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS):
•No increase in yields: GM soy decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soy, and up to 100 percent failures of GM cotton have been recorded in India.
•No reduction in pesticide use: USDA data showed that GM crops increased pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the United States.
•Roundup herbicide: This product is lethal to frogs and toxic to human placental and embryonic cells. It is used on more than 80 percent of all GM crops planted in the world
•GM crops harm wildlife: Wastes from GM corn impairs the growth of aquatic insects.
•GM food and feed have been linked to deaths and sicknesses: Both in the fields of India, and in lab tests around the world.
Growing GM crops will not counteract the soaring rates of hunger, poverty, food prices and environmental disasters that are occurring, the author concludes. What’s needed is a fundamental change in farming practice that eliminates GM crops and supports small-scale organic farms instead.

articles.mercola.com...

A new study is causing fresh doubts about the safety of genetically modified crops. The research found Bt toxin, which is present in many GM crops, in human blood.

Bt toxin makes crops toxic to pests, but it has been claimed that the toxin poses no danger to the environment and human health; the argument was that the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of the toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.

articles.mercola.com...

A new paper demonstrates that consuming genetically modified (GM) food leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice. Researchers reviewed data from 19 studies and found that parameters including blood and urine biochemistry and organ weights were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals.

The kidneys of males were the most affected, experiencing 43.5 percent of all the changes. The livers of females followed at more than 30 percent. Other organs may have been affected too, including the heart and spleen, and blood cells.

This is from just one site. More and more evidence is piling up that GMO is not only bad for us, but bad for the environment too.

There is also a deliberate effort to contaminate organic food sources out there, so that in the end you will not have a choice between GMO and nonGMO foods.

articles.mercola.com...

That's the reality of the situation, which is why we cannot rest on our laurels and must fight against the approval of each and every new GM crop. You cannot contain them. They absolutely WILL contaminate their conventional and organic counterparts.

This is also what makes the recent approval of GM alfalfa in the US so incredibly dangerous. The release of GM alfalfa quite literally threatens the entire organic industry, including organic meat, as alfalfa is the fourth most grown crop in the US, and is used to produce forage seed and hay to feed cows and other livestock.

reply to post by EthanT

If you are aware of which is good salmon and which is not, you'd know to never buy salmon that comes from the Atlantic because of the level of pollution, Pacific salmon on the other hand is safer.
But guess what, with what's happened in Japan with the Fukushima nuclear reactors, well now the Pacific salmon won't be any good either, and for that matter neither will any of the other types of sea food.
So in the end, the FDA is now not concerned anymore to put genetically modified sea food on everyone's supper table. Why, cause the radiated sea food will get you, so there is no need to genetically modify fish.

Anyone that thinks there is nothing wrong with genetically modified foods haven't done their homework, or they're just promoters of the stuff and are part of this mad agenda.

too bad theyll push it till the end of time and win. thats how they do it fight for decades and get their way

Originally posted by EthanT
reply to post by SpookyFox

 

articles.mercola.com...

After 30 years of GMO’s, the case against them grows ever stronger according to this excellent article by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS):
•No increase in yields: GM soy decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soy, and up to 100 percent failures of GM cotton have been recorded in India.
•No reduction in pesticide use: USDA data showed that GM crops increased pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the United States.
•Roundup herbicide: This product is lethal to frogs and toxic to human placental and embryonic cells. It is used on more than 80 percent of all GM crops planted in the world
•GM crops harm wildlife: Wastes from GM corn impairs the growth of aquatic insects.
•GM food and feed have been linked to deaths and sicknesses: Both in the fields of India, and in lab tests around the world.
Growing GM crops will not counteract the soaring rates of hunger, poverty, food prices and environmental disasters that are occurring, the author concludes. What’s needed is a fundamental change in farming practice that eliminates GM crops and supports small-scale organic farms instead.

articles.mercola.com...

A new study is causing fresh doubts about the safety of genetically modified crops. The research found Bt toxin, which is present in many GM crops, in human blood.

Bt toxin makes crops toxic to pests, but it has been claimed that the toxin poses no danger to the environment and human health; the argument was that the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of the toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.

articles.mercola.com...

A new paper demonstrates that consuming genetically modified (GM) food leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice. Researchers reviewed data from 19 studies and found that parameters including blood and urine biochemistry and organ weights were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals.

The kidneys of males were the most affected, experiencing 43.5 percent of all the changes. The livers of females followed at more than 30 percent. Other organs may have been affected too, including the heart and spleen, and blood cells.

This is from just one site. More and more evidence is piling up that GMO is not only bad for us, but bad for the environment too.

There is also a deliberate effort to contaminate organic food sources out there, so that in the end you will not have a choice between GMO and nonGMO foods.

articles.mercola.com...

That's the reality of the situation, which is why we cannot rest on our laurels and must fight against the approval of each and every new GM crop. You cannot contain them. They absolutely WILL contaminate their conventional and organic counterparts.

This is also what makes the recent approval of GM alfalfa in the US so incredibly dangerous. The release of GM alfalfa quite literally threatens the entire organic industry, including organic meat, as alfalfa is the fourth most grown crop in the US, and is used to produce forage seed and hay to feed cows and other livestock.

Right so you've taken one site and a smattering of 'summing up's' of studies and then you're making a completely wild accusation that "There is also a deliberate effort to contaminate organic food sources out there, so that in the end you will not have a choice between GMO and nonGMO foods."
You've not cited any actual studies, these are people cherry picking bits of research to help persuade you that GM food is somehow bad. Where are the figures and empreical data?
I'm sorry but until you reference a study with an entire artical which you've clearly read in advance, understood and shows there are indeed problems then to me you just look like you're scare-mongering, just like the loon a few posts up claiming that a childrens cartoon "the simpsons" is somehow able to predict 9/11 and three eye'd fish!!

All you had to do was read the links I posted, and you would have found more links to external sites and studies such as this one:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Originally posted by filosophia
Remember when they said tuna has more mercury than the swine flu vaccine? Maybe they were referring to genetically modified tuna.

Either way it is not comparable at all to being injected with mercury containing vaccines. I would rather eat some tuna laced with mercury than having it injected directly into me.