It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GMO Myths and Facts: 123 page report cites health risks, increase pesticide use, and more

page: 1
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
See the report at: earthopensource.org...

Excerpt from the Conclusion: "GM technology is fundamentally unsound and poses scientifically proven risks to human and animal health, as well as the environment. The claims made for the benefits of GM crops are highly exaggerated and GM crop technology has been shown to be unsustainable."

This report contains references and evidence based conclusions that refute claims made in support of GMO by industry and government agencies.

The biggest of these are in the U.S., where the USDA and FDA are specifically responsible for promoting the GMO industry. Citizens worldwide should continue to question their own governments' collusion with GMO industries who are seeking to reduce natural agricultural practices, especially when these nefarious activities have the support of multinationals.




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I wish I knew more about this stuff, but I'm having a tough time finding a source that seems objective to me. Reports that support GMO foods are called influenced by industry. The report cited by the OP was prepared by the co-founder of Earth Open Source, an investigative journalist, and a scientist I didn't bother checking on.

The report said this about Earth Open Source:

Earth Open Source is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to assuring the sustainability, security, and safety of the global food system. It supports agroecological, farmer-based systems that conserve soil, water, and energy and that produce healthy and nutritious food free from unnecessary toxins. It challenges the use of pesticides, artificial fertilizer and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the grounds of the scientifically proven hazards that they pose to health and the environment and because of the negative social and economic impacts of these technologies. Earth Open Source holds that our crop seeds and food system are common goods that belong in the hands of farmers and citizens, not of the GMO and chemical industry.
See why I'm having trouble finding a source I can rely on? They had their conclusions decided upon before they wrote the report. They might be absolutely correct, I don't know, but they don't inspire confidence.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Yes, it puts me in mind of a certain conspiracy site, where the members are sure they're being lied to and get together to prove it. With enough willingness to see the truth, a lot of sources, and a streak of independent thought, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.

Of course, it's just a conspiracy site. No reason to accept their conclusions, because they had already established that part beforehand....
edit on 7/5/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 

Dear Ex_CT2,

Clever, I like your comment. But I'm having a little more trouble with this one than with some. Maybe because I don't have the science background, I don't know. But what I keep hearing from both sides is "We have the truth, the other side is biased because of, whatever." One side says A, the other side says B, and I don't know how to tell them apart, or judge one as superior.

I'm really not picking sides. I don't know enough. And the reading I've done has been unproductive so far. Maybe I just have to check more sources.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I wish I knew more about this stuff, but I'm having a tough time finding a source that seems objective to me. Reports that support GMO foods are called influenced by industry. The report cited by the OP was prepared by the co-founder of Earth Open Source, an investigative journalist, and a scientist I didn't bother checking on.

The report said this about Earth Open Source:

Earth Open Source is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to assuring the sustainability, security, and safety of the global food system. It supports agroecological, farmer-based systems that conserve soil, water, and energy and that produce healthy and nutritious food free from unnecessary toxins. It challenges the use of pesticides, artificial fertilizer and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the grounds of the scientifically proven hazards that they pose to health and the environment and because of the negative social and economic impacts of these technologies. Earth Open Source holds that our crop seeds and food system are common goods that belong in the hands of farmers and citizens, not of the GMO and chemical industry.
See why I'm having trouble finding a source I can rely on? They had their conclusions decided upon before they wrote the report. They might be absolutely correct, I don't know, but they don't inspire confidence.


I agree %100, its really hard to find unbiased info. I do not eat GM because I do not trust monsantos and it seems fishy that the FDA has not tested GM but has approved them. But I still have no evidence that they are bad for our health. I am almost to the point of conducting my own experiment. I want to recreate the ONE that showed sterilization after 3 generations and dissect to see if the GM bacteria really dose effect intestine.

Its understandable that people would make up bogus claims to show how evil a company's is when people will still buy from those evil corperations if it dose not effect their immediate conscious lifes.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


you would think that all these "free-thinkers" would have figured out by now that the majority-opinion is usually the WRONG one (re :sheeple).

and yet.....

....all these GMO bashers (a sure-fire way to rack up S&F points) appear to be okay with the majority opinion on this one.


it reminds me of the recent thread claiming that "stupid people are too stupid to realize that they are stupid". (and thus believe themselves to be free-think......err....smart.)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
It sounds like they set upon the conclusion before they began, but then again this report isn't proclaiming to be scientific. Not saying it's wrong but that is suspicious, but at least the authors seem to be very academic. Interesting.
edit on 6/7/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by surfin4it
 






GM proponents often use the terminology relating to genetic modification incorrectly to blur the line between genetic modification and conventional breeding.
For example, the claim that conventional plant breeders have been “genetically modifying” crops for centuries by selective breeding and that GM crops are no different is incorrect (see 1.1). The term “genetic modification” is recognised in common usage and in national and international laws to refer to the use of recombinant DNA techniques to transfer genetic material between organisms in a way that would not take place naturally, bringing about alterations in genetic makeup and properties.
The term “genetic modification” is sometimes wrongly used to describe marker-assisted selection


Breeders have been genetically modifying through selective breeding. Otherwise there wouldn't be domesticated species of plants.

The difference of using bacteria to inject plants with rDNA is only that the effects and outcomes are expedited. The same thing happens over long periods of time in the wild, and sooner because of selective breeding in the past.

I won't say that GE is without its caveats but at the same time, it has been completely blown out of proportion. And rightly so in some cases because the corporations responsible for most of it are irresponsible in many regards.

But that does not mean it isn't a worthy technology to pursue, or that we should shun it because of a few buzz words.

...The types used in this "study" or "report" or whatever it's supposed to be...
edit on 6-7-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Monsanto has silenced journalists (mainstream media ones) before, and will continue to do so.

If you work for the MSM and you want to run a story about how Monsanto is bad, and the reasons. It will never get by. News networks can be sued, even if the information is true.

There are a few documentaries i've seen about it. I forget the one i am thinking of right now but they were talking to former Fox News associates who were going to run a story on monsanto's rBGH that was being injected into cows. Monsanto's lawyers were in contact, and by the time the lawyers had their way with the story. It had turned into another pro-rbgh' story. The reporters quit.

they do test this stuff, the test results just never reach the people. And they do not have to respond to FOIA requests either. How bout that.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
reply to post by charles1952
 


Yes, it puts me in mind of a certain conspiracy site, where the members are sure they're being lied to and get together to prove it. With enough willingness to see the truth, a lot of sources, and a streak of independent thought, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.

Of course, it's just a conspiracy site. No reason to accept their conclusions, because they had already established that part beforehand....
edit on 7/5/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)


Indeed, I admit I know next to nothing about GMO but I have always wondered why selling sterile seeds was such a bad thing? After all if a company is going to start to monkey with a plants genetics the responsible thing to do is engineer it so it cant reproduce.

Simply to avoid an eco disaster.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
This site is very credible. The page shows suggested articles and the sources are cited at the bottom of the page:


- GMOs With 'Stacked Traits' Exponentially More Harmful To Humans
- Genetically Engineered Crops Have Led To Massive Increases In
- Infographic unveiled: Top Ten GMO Foods to Avoid Eating


I hope someone finds this information valuable!



edit on 7/6/12 by BreeAnna00 because: Added more links



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by BreeAnna00
This site is very credible. The page shows suggested articles and the sources are cited at the bottom of the page:


- GMOs With 'Stacked Traits' Exponentially More Harmful To Humans
- Genetically Engineered Crops Have Led To Massive Increases In
- Infographic unveiled: Top Ten GMO Foods to Avoid Eating


I hope someone finds this information valuable!



edit on 7/6/12 by BreeAnna00 because: Added more links



ABSOLUTELY NOT credible. Com'on it's some website where anybody can contribute to
I wonder what your criterias for credible is ?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by piett

Originally posted by BreeAnna00
This site is very credible. The page shows suggested articles and the sources are cited at the bottom of the page:


- GMOs With 'Stacked Traits' Exponentially More Harmful To Humans
- Genetically Engineered Crops Have Led To Massive Increases In
- Infographic unveiled: Top Ten GMO Foods to Avoid Eating


I hope someone finds this information valuable!



edit on 7/6/12 by BreeAnna00 because: Added more links



ABSOLUTELY NOT credible. Com'on it's some website where anybody can contribute to
I wonder what your criterias for credible is ?


Nothing is credible. Period.
Ever. In the history of humanity has anything ever been credible. The only credible evidence is done by the corporate entities making the damn things. And they have no intention of releasing that data to incriminate themselves. (Science is credible, provable. The science being done to test GMO's are private corporate files)

so what are your criteria for something being credible?
edit on 6/7/12 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

ABSOLUTELY NOT credible. Com'on it's some website where anybody can contribute to
I wonder what your criterias for credible is ?


I was simply sharing my personal opinion, its welcome to whoever chooses to take it. I have found this website to be credible after reading it for about a year, my mom introduced it to me she lives an all natural lifestyle and has been doing this research since I can remember.

People can't just contribute to the website, they can send feedback and submit tips. This is copy and pasted from naturalnews.com's 'contact us' page:

"If you send us feedback on an article or any content item, you must include the URL of the content item to which you are referring. NaturalNews.com contains over 25,000 articles. Any feedback received by NaturalNews that does not include the full URL of the article being referred to will not be answered."

ATS is a website where anybody can contribute too



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I just want to write that I think natural is better. I think if given a choice between GMO and natural we should pick natural every time.

I am also eating a salad that is 100% grown in my backyard and contains no fertalizers or pesticides. Delicious!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CrimsonMoon
 


monsanto wont allow farmers to harvest there own seeds. they want then to continue to buy the seeds from them. Monsonto is putting patents on seeds, food and even more scray .. patent life. if you want to watch a scary movie on wht Monsanto is doing to these poor farmers, watch The Future of Food. You can probbaly get it at your local library



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AzureSky
Monsanto has silenced journalists (mainstream media ones) before, and will continue to do so.

If you work for the MSM and you want to run a story about how Monsanto is bad, and the reasons. It will never get by. News networks can be sued, even if the information is true.

There are a few documentaries i've seen about it. I forget the one i am thinking of right now but they were talking to former Fox News associates who were going to run a story on monsanto's rBGH that was being injected into cows. Monsanto's lawyers were in contact, and by the time the lawyers had their way with the story. It had turned into another pro-rbgh' story. The reporters quit.

they do test this stuff, the test results just never reach the people. And they do not have to respond to FOIA requests either. How bout that.



I think this is the video you're talking about.





GMO's are bad and not just for humans. They are bad for the environment and they are bad for the planet. The only thing they are good for is making more money for large corporate farms. And pushing smaller family owned farms out of business.


edit on 7/6/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
With normal produce we are told to wash it to remove pesticides etc because we know how harmfull they are.

With GMO food the pesticides are inside the food so we cant wash it off. Therefore GMO food is poison.

IF YOU WANT TO EAT PESTICIDES & HERBICIDES THEN EAT GMO.

BUT REMEMBER, EVEN THE MANUFACTURERS WILL TELL YOU THAT PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ARE POISON.

Anyone remember the thread about the GMO grass that produced cyanide gas and killed a herd of cows?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk

Anyone remember the thread about the GMO grass that produced cyanide gas and killed a herd of cows?



 


Is that like bitter almonds that Mother Nature produced?






The wild form of domesticated almond grows in parts of the Levant; almonds must first have been taken into cultivation in this region. The fruit of the wild forms contains the glycoside amygdalin, "which becomes transformed into deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing, chewing, or any other injury to the seed."[


But don't worry, selective breeding (genetic engineering) allowed us to eat the non-toxic almond we love so dearly.




Domesticated almonds appear in the Early Bronze Age (3000–2000 BC) of the Near East, or possibly a little earlier.


Link
edit on 6-7-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join