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.

 

ECO-REVOLUTION: GMO Crops TORCHED in America

page: 9
81
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Yeah, I don't agree with the destruction of someones private property in any form. I doubt anyone would appreciate someone destroying their property because another does not like it.

The best way to solve this problem is to not buy the stuff. Farmers grow what people buy. The problem is, you don't know what you're buying because there are no labels on products containing transgenic GMO ingredients. I think just about every processed food would be on the GMO list imo.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


I think just about every processed food would be on the GMO list imo.
True.
Let's look at it terms of sugar beets though. Do you think the sugar refined from GMO beets is any different from that of non-GMO beets? Does anyone care about "organic" sugar?

edit on 6/25/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by covertpanther
 




Your against people destroying GMO crops?

In general I'm against people destroying private property.
But apart from that, just exactly what do you think the idiots who did this accomplished?



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Philippines
 


I think just about every processed food would be on the GMO list imo.
True.
Let's look at it terms of sugar beets though. Do you think the sugar refined from GMO beets is any different from that of non-GMO beets? Does anyone care about "organic" sugar?

edit on 6/25/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


In it's refined form, I don't think anyone could taste the difference if GMO or not, or if refined sugarcane or not. At this point with so many addicted to sugar, I don't think people care too much about the little details like GMO or organic sugar, as long as they get their fix.

I can taste the difference between HFCS and refined sugar though.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 

Yup. Glucose is glucose and that's what sugar beets are planted for.

Sucrose. Sorry.

edit on 6/25/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   

ATTENTION ALL



Please note that advocating destruction of private property may be considered a serious threat leading to post removal and possibly account bans. I.e. don't suggest that people go around committing arson.

It is a slippery slope, so please tread carefully when discussing the matter.

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


I am in the UK, I don't eat much sugar though I can taste the difference between all sorts of cane sugar, such as demerara, golden, muscovado etc and can taste the difference between sugar beet sugar and cane sugar very easily, it has a slight 'beet' taste.

We don't use HFCS much here either, and when I have tasted it it isn't nice. When eating as natural food as possible, processed foods, salt and sugar become something that is easily detectable. Most processed foods taste awful to me, too much sugar, salt, and 'plastic' ingredients.

I ate a GMO cookie once and had instant stomach ache, it was imported from the USA. I can even taste the difference between flours, Organic is much nicer and has less undesirable side effects, some flours induce stomach ache and tiredness for me, and from baking my own bread for years, have learned to trust certain brands. Whether the ones that I don't like are GMO tainted or not, remains to be seen. We don't allow GMO wheat here so it theoretically shouldn't be. Use of chlorine, bromates, and peroxides is not allowed in the European Union for bleaching flour either though Organic and ancient flours are superior in taste.

I would urge all people to eat as natural and organic as possible, for health and taste.
edit on 25-6-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Trueman
 

Right. Animals are dying all over the place from eating GMOs. That's why ranchers keep buying them for feed.




To be fair, a lot of health problems that can only occur due to long term exposure that takes years or even decades to show up is something animals raised for food avoid. Their lifespans aren't long enough to study all the adverse effects.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 




Their lifespans aren't long enough to study all the adverse effects.

That's a good point. Now go back and follow the context. The claim was that GMOs are killing livestock.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Philippines
 


I am in the UK, I don't eat much sugar though I can taste the difference between all sorts of cane sugar, such as demerara, golden, muscovado etc and can taste the difference between sugar beet sugar and cane sugar very easily, it has a slight 'beet' taste.

We don't use HFCS much here either, and when I have tasted it it isn't nice. When eating as natural food as possible, processed foods, salt and sugar become something that is easily detectable. Most processed foods taste awful to me, too much sugar, salt, and 'plastic' ingredients.

I ate a GMO cookie once and had instant stomach ache, it was imported from the USA. I can even taste the difference between flours, Organic is much nicer and has less undesirable side effects, some flours induce stomach ache and tiredness for me, and from baking my own bread for years, have learned to trust certain brands. Whether the ones that I don't like are GMO tainted or not, remains to be seen. We don't allow GMO wheat here so it theoretically shouldn't be. Use of chlorine, bromates, and peroxides is not allowed in the European Union for bleaching flour either though Organic and ancient flours are superior in taste.

I would urge all people to eat as natural and organic as possible, for health and taste.



Sure I can taste the differences between different kinds of sugars as well, but when it is refined to white sugar, cane or beet, its composition is the same, after being stripped of its former self and refined into sucrose. I think it would be very hard to tell the difference of origin in its refined state, and even harder to tell the difference if refined beet or cane is used in its final processed form.

I agree organic is great, but I don't trust stores to be honest in selling 100% organic all times. In my experience it is best to know the farmer or grow it yourself.

Also, it depends on what kind of flour you're using, but if it's wheat, it is probably some form of dwarf wheat which is not very nutritious from my research.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


I bake and can tell the difference, especially in things like tablet and fudge which require lots of sugar. Most of the baking industry agree that both differ in taste and how they function and choose their preference accordingly, mostly in favour of cane sugar.

There are still 0.5% impurities in sugar and that is perhaps where the taste difference occurs.

www.sfgate.com...

The criteria for Organic certification here in the UK is pretty strict and less likely to contain GMO than Organic in the US.

www.aboutorganics.co.uk...
www.soilassociation.org...



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
The sweet smell of three nights in a row of arson? GMO might not be the real issue here, only the bias presented.

It could be the day laborers. Or maybe at that time it was too expensive to harvest that batch and they trashed it for insurance, if such a thing exists.

Then there is the idea that a government agency did it. It could be a disease or contaminant that was blowtorched out. Three nights of arson and it couldn't get resolved on the second night who did it, or at least the third, under normal investigation? Then it couldn't quite be arson after two nights of the same phenomenon. It happened in Oregon; maybe radiation fallout did something and there was going to be an inspection and so they burned evidence under some secret government agreement.

It could be competition from another farm. GMO is the coincidence not necessarily the reason.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Sandalphon
 


It could be the day laborers. Or maybe at that time it was too expensive to harvest that batch and they trashed it for insurance, if such a thing exists.
It wasn't production crops. It was seed crops.
Sygenta does not sell sugar beets. They sell seeds.
edit on 6/25/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   
The OP is Very misleading, what with the word arson, and a photo of a gas can. THE PLANTS WERE UPROOTED. The plots were less than a quarter acre. Ashland Oregon has always drawn activist, organic types of people; of course this sort of destruction is not typical. As the plants were likely, small, this may have been done by one or more people in a short time.

www.dailytidings.com.../20130621/NEWS02/306210304


The OP makes it seem like this was a violent action.

edit on 25-6-2013 by ecapsretuo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 




I have no reason to think that approved GMO crops are unsafe because I have seen no convincing evidence to indicate that they are. I have no reason to think that there is anything inherently unsafe about them.



That seems a little naive for you. You speak as if "convincing evidence" is some virtuous cause that will always be fair and balanced. How do you factor in the billions of dollars worth of interest that may seek to keep any of this convincing evidence in the dark?
The topic has proved to me murky at best. As if convincing evidence would ever have a chance against the monsanto team of lawyers



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Back on the third page I posted that the farmer should have been tarred and feathered in addition to his field burned and that an angry mob should tear up Monsanto's HQ.

I now recant that statement. After reading the all responses to this point, I believe I have heard the voice of reason.

The government is to blame for whatever damage may be caused by GMO crops and for not listening to the people concerning labeling.

After much consideration, any issue we have a problem with today can be laid at the feet of our government. Send the angry mobs to them.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wirefly
 

I appreciate the value of your personal experience.
Have you seen a decline in the productivity of your livestock since the advent of GMO feeds?
Do you think large scale producers would tolerate the use of GMOs if they saw reduced productivity with their use in feed?
edit on 6/24/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Do people tolerate slave rings despite the fact they typically increase productivity and profitability for the owner of the plantation/sweat shop?

Or do ethics and morality come into play and hold us back from this unpleasant production-oriented system?

Although GMO foods are not the same subject, the risk-reward system involved with it is very similar and comparable.

Balance has always been the key to a better future for everyone. We learned to balance slavery with freedom, and for a time this worked out extremely well. It was when we lost the balance that many people fell back into a 'slave paradigm' mostly out of their own ignorance.

So I believe the best route here is also a type of balance. We need to evaluate the risk-reward system closer and find exactly what we do not accept (as going too far), and determine what we do accept (as being within reason).

Clearly in the subject of genetic manipulation there are many caveats. Many issues to iron out first. Many of them are ethically centered and require society to come to terms with and to address them.

Also in terms of this specific discussion, I believe it is very wise to keep in mind the old adage/maxim of "Don't put all of your eggs into one basket".

Productivity isn't everything. Slavery proves this.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FyreByrd
 




This is an act of arson and/or vandalism.

Ok ecovandalism is nothing new.
Better?
It's still pointless. Just like tagging stop signs is.
edit on 6/24/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Actually it's worse than tagging a stop sign.

Because tagging a stop sign doesn't ruin someones life.

But burning their property down sure as hell does.
Also it endangers people because fire can kill them.

So therefore it is a malicious act and should be handled in that manner.

I want to see positive change in society but becoming a criminal never worked! It always made the system worse.

Arson and vandalism through malice, extreme ill will/spite.
Very negative emotions/actions.
Doesn't do anyone any good.



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join