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.

 

800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End

page: 5
70
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

3. The damaging effects of genetic engineering cannot be predicted or controlled The ability of genetic engineering to introduce unanticipated health hazards into foods derives from the fact that, although genetic engineers can cut and splice DNA molecules with base-pair precision in the test tube, when an altered DNA molecule is introduced into the genome of a living organism, the full range of its effects on the functioning of that organism cannot be controlled or predicted. What this means is that, in addition to the changes in biological function intended by the genetic engineer, the introduced DNA may bring about other, unintended changes, some of which may alter the properties of the food produced by the organism in a manner that makes it damaging to health.


www.psrast.org...

Nature and in fact the total of everything we know, is in a delicate balance, changing things without full knowledge is foolish and will ultimately lead to unintended consequences there is no doubt about that. It could ultimately lead to our extinction.




posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


Nature and in fact the total of everything we know, is in a delicate balance, changing things without full knowledge is foolish and will ultimately lead to unintended consequences there is no doubt about that. It could ultimately lead to our extinction.
Nature changes all the time. Mutation is a natural process.
Can you define "full knowledge"?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by HeyAHuman
 


In the old school of raw instinct which I come from (as well as many others), unnatural food = harmful.

How do you feel about horseless carriages and flying machines?




im sorry but i cant let you get away with that miss direction,
you are equating some one who wants to have food freedom,
with someone who is ignorant of technology

are you really grasping enough to resort to try and associate people who want to know whats in their food,
with technophobia?

really?

give over your human right to HEALTHY food to a multinational,
or ill mock you as a technophobic?

now its your turn to apologise!

xploder



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


you are equating some one who wants to have food freedom,
with someone who is ignorant of technology
No. I am making a comparison to someone who has the idea that if something is not natural it is bad. Why is it bad? Because it's not natural.

Why not extend that beyond food?



edit on 8/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Finally the science guys are backing us up...So here's what's next to pinpoint on your agenda's :Chemtrails , Mars , Ufo's , etc ..



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

What a crock of poop this quote is.....



No. I am making a comparison to someone who has the idea that if something is not natural it is bad. Why is it bad? Because it's not natural. Why not extend that beyond food?

Because this thread is about GMO food and nothing else.......
Can you relate to that and absorb it all?

GMO FOOD

Nothing else and nothing more.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
 


you are equating some one who wants to have food freedom,
with someone who is ignorant of technology
No. I am making a comparison to someone who has the idea that if something is not natural it is bad. Why is it bad? Because it's not natural.

Why not extend that beyond food?



edit on 8/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


an individual can DECIDE for themselves to use air travel: i personally choose not to,
and i can tell you about most of the mechanics of air travel,
aerodynamics engine design and many other aspects that together come together to make planes fly.

i CANT decide for myself weather i eat GMOs,

if bio tech is so very pleased with themselves and are true capitalists,
THEY WOULD LABEL THEIR PRODUCTS WITH PRIDE.
they do not.

if capitalism is predicated on the fact that consumers make informed decisions,
ie free market fundamentals
and the products that people want are successful,
ie they activly go out and buy them,
then why do most people not trust GMOs?
and why if this is true does some multinationals beat out their competition?

IS IT BECAUSE THEY HATE THE FREE MARKET?
OR IS IT BECAUSE THEY THINK CONSUMERS ARE TOO STUPID TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICE?

label it or its not capitalistic its parasitic.

xploder



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


i CANT decide for myself weather i eat GMOs
Actually, you can, apparently. Just as you can decide if you want to eat non-organically grown produce or not.
www.nongmoproject.org...

If you're that concerned about food safety maybe you should just assume that anything that doesn't have a non-GMO label contains GMOs. Sort of like assuming that anything that doesn't have a "Organic" label, isn't organic.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Whether the science is outdated or not. We are still having similar problems with GM now. It still affects people, the environment and biodiversity..

Look at the near hundreds of millions of bees that have died the world over. Look at the GM field that cropped up sneakily in Oregon. There are plenty more examples of GM incidents which show that in their current state are simply not suitable for consumption or for use elsewhere...

The fact that they are using GM to monopolise the food supply does not raise confidence either. And it is an experiment. They are using us as guinea pigs.

And what really gets on my nerves is that fact that all these 'big wigs' do not touch the stuff..!! If they say it is so damn safe why are they not eating it. And if it is safe why do they not conduct proper tests and release the information and evidence as to why it is so safe..

Should they not lead by example. Well I hope that the majority if not all of those 800 scientists still are of this opinion. Would be interesting to find out...

f/s purp...



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You're comparing apples to oranges here.

We shouldn't have to "assume" about anything, we should KNOW, because we are the ones spending our money on this food and eating it. If we do not want to eat GMO, we should know what is and isn't GMO because that's our right as a consumer.

Are you arguing just to argue? Because you claim that you believe GMO food should be labeled. You have a funny way of showing it.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


If we do not want to eat GMO, we should know what is and isn't GMO because that's our right as a consumer.
Why? If you're worried about GMOs look for the "non-GMO" label. If you're worried about pesticides look for the "organic" label. Don't see them? Talk to your storekeeper about it.


Are you arguing just to argue? Because you claim that you believe GMO food should be labeled.
No. I'm "arguing" to try to get people to think. You know...critical thought. Looking at more than one side of an issue. That kind of thing.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by fluff007
 


Look at the near hundreds of millions of bees that have died the world over.
And what is the cause of that? Are they only dieing in regions where GMOs are produced?


And what really gets on my nerves is that fact that all these 'big wigs' do not touch the stuff..
Really? I'd like to hear more about that.


edit on 8/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   


No. I'm "arguing" to try to get people to think. You know...critical thought. Looking at more than one side of an issue. That kind of thing.
reply to post by Phage
 

Yep anything but GMO Foods, would be good to discuss because the title and subject is making some people go way way off topic.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 

I'm not directing the conversation. I'm responding to questions I'm being asked.

But it seems like all the conversation has been about GMOs, not sure what you're on about.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Iwinder
 

I'm not directing the conversation. I'm responding to questions I'm being asked.

But it seems like all the conversation has been about GMOs, not sure what you're on about.


Not true but I do apologize for seeming combative to you, If you check out my second post above it is clear to all here that you do not want to discuss the topic as posted.

You seem to be drifting away from the GMO Food topic and onto whatever you wish to discuss.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


If you check out my second post above it is clear to all here that you do not want to discuss the topic as posted.
Whup. You got me. I posted a reply that was not about GMOs. But it was a direct response.

BTW, are you saying that I was trying to turn the conversation to horseless carriages and flying machines?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by purplemer
 

You realize that those very dated studies do not stand up to the research which has been done since, right?


Do studies deteriorate over time? What was the decay rate of these studies?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Iwinder
 


If you check out my second post above it is clear to all here that you do not want to discuss the topic as posted.
Whup. You got me. I posted a reply that was not about GMOs. But it was a direct response.

BTW, are you saying that I was trying to turn the conversation to horseless carriages and flying machines?


Basically yes that is what I am saying, BTW how many articles (Scientific ones) have your cited and quoted that are considered old?

Always and easy out, I stand by my post that you are most definitely straying off topic.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'll give you one thing, you picked a perfect avatar for your style of debate. I can just picture you with that look on your face every time you reply to someone.


Not knocking you or anything, just a thought I had.

You're really dead set on people not knowing what they eat aren't you? If you believe GMO's should be labeled, I have no idea why you try to justify non-labeling to such a degree. It's actually kind of bizarre.

Not every non-GMO food is labeled as such, so it seems like you're all for complicating things for the consumer but not for the multi-billion dollar corporations.

People should be able to know what they're eating. Sorry if you feel differently, but you're part of the vast minority.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join