800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End

Originally posted by Phage
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.

This is not true. I'll take one example; Nature Valley's granola bar. Nature Valley gets their grains from Monsanto GMO foods, but it is not stated on the package. Monsanto has MANY clients that use GMO foods in their ingredients. The packaging is not labelled, and thus, people unknowingly consume these foods. That is not free choice my friend. If they want to produce GMO foods, and sell it to everyone, fine! But, the public has a right to know, wouldn't you agree?

My biggest concern, and the biggest alarm to me is, why are these people so sneaky about their labelling? If it's as good as they claim, and as harmless as they claim, why not open the discussion to the general public? Why not let all of the world know what food it is they're eating? Why isn't it labelled, and why are they so defensive that we ask that they label it? Why?
If they're so sure of themselves, it should have labels everywhere, with them giving out samples to labs around the world for testing. Why aren't they boastfully, and openly tooting their own horns?

Smells like bull# to me!
I'm sorry, but from the inhumane acts I see documented in that documentary, I wouldn't trust that company as far as I can throw them. Maybe they're telling the truth, but you've heard of the boy who cried wolf? Exactly! Don't expect me, or any sane person, to trust someone who has a history of lying to others, & hiding life-changing truths for the sake of profit.

No thank you, Phage. I want no part of that! If you want to risk it, by all means...

reply to post by Char-Lee

A major conclusion is that the present state of scientific knowledge is inadequate for reliable ecological risk assessment. The basic information with regard to mechanisms governing the environmental interactions of GMOs is insufficient.

The major conclusion of whom? In that 14 year old article?

I know. It's really easy to find arm waving about GMOs. It's just hard to find any science that supports it. Here's a really interesting study about why that is.

Opposition to GMOs stems from the many potential risks highlighted by various groups and a number of media, and from a stigmatisation of their possible advantages. By presenting themselves as defenders of consumers' interests and health, the opposition rallied a substantial proportion of the Western public who saw no advantages in GMOs.

For a certain part of people, GMOs thus seem to have become a symbol for many negative aspects of global economic development when in fact they are by no means the only forms or embodiment of that development. In this respect they differ from many other innovations that also strongly represent general economic development but the advantages of which are judged more clearly apparent by those who have access to them, and which are therefore the focus of little opposition. Indeed GMOs are accused of having negative characteristics, but quite many other products and services have similar features.

www.ejbiotechnology.info...

reply to post by Char-Lee

There is also the issue of not being allowed to replant from grown seed. thus making every grower incapable of normal growth.

The question of saving seeds really is not exclusive to GMO or Monsanto. Virtually all hybrid seed used in large scale agriculture is patented and cannot be legally reseeded.
www.ers.usda.gov...

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What's so hard about labeling things as "GMO"?

Not much.

Let me rephrase what I said, you'd rather it STAY complicated for the consumers to look for non-GMO foods while the corporations laugh all the way to the bank.

It's not more complicated for the consumer either way. I don't really care if the corporation's profits are reduced or not.

All this money Monsanto is spending on campaigning against these bills could have been spent with labeling, plus other more useful things.

Except that Monsanto won't be doing any labeling in either case.

reply to post by Char-Lee

Then there is the growing pest and weed resistance factors, what will nature do to recover?

Both of which started before GMOs existed.

Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds.

Um. really?
Do you know how herbicide resistance develops? And again. It started before there were GMOs.

reply to post by Phage


So it's not hard to label them as GMO's (even though you said the opposite in the other thread), it's not more complicated either way, and Monsanto won't be spending any money on labeling.

So the question is... why do they spend millions of dollars lobbying courts to shoot down bills if it doesn't affect them in any meaningful way? If they're worried about losing profits from people knowing their food is GMO, they must not be very confident in its quality and healthiness.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

[quote
www.ejbiotechnology.info...

talk about dated can't you supply something a little more recent.

the date from your study.

Policies of International Cooperation Plant Biotechnology Electronic Journal of Biotechnology ISSN: 0717-3458 Vol. 6 No. 1, Issue of April 15, 2003 © 2003 by Universidad Católica de Valparaíso -- Chile Received October 15, 2002 / Accepted March 18, 2003 DOI: 10.2225/vol6-issue1-fulltext-4

reply to post by Phage


you are determined to turn a blind eye to the scale of catastrophe that awaits us from one single mistake,

as a scientist how can you possibly believe we understand such a complex system to the point where we can interfere and NOT have unintended consequences?

to me it is you who is unscientific,
your lack of forethought is stunning

in your world view "hey what could go wrong we tested for 90 days"

in my view any number of things can and will go wrong

understand this, you cant even debate the future because if you looked at it your position would devolve.

i cant predict the future neither can you,
one thing is certain,

the greed and stupidity of man no no bounds

we cant even begin to test for the damage, and so will only find out when its already to late.

xploder

I don't think that the opinion of ten thousand scientists would make a difference. I am sure that by now, other crops will not grow in the fields that have had all that glycophosphate added. As soon as fertilizer is added, it can reactivate and kill the crops. I think Monsanto execs should be held personally financially accountable for this problem.

reply to post by TheWhiteKnight

I call it crooked. Did you know about this, phage?

Not that much but your stance seems confusing.

You say that you voted against a bill that the majority of other Californians voted against. Then you say that the voters were well informed enough to vote like you did, the "right way".

Was there no advertising for re-criminalization? You are saying that Californians didn't fall for the pressure but thought for themselves and voted the "right way"?

So they were smart enough to not re-criminalize pot but not smart enough to demand GMO labeling? Is that your point?

Did it occur to you that they actually did think for themselves and vote the "right way" as they saw it? Or do you think that Californians are just suckers...because they didn't vote the way you did on that particular issue?

reply to post by Phage


lets ask the mods for a pol

we could agree before hand on the wording as to not influence the outcome in favour of one view point or another.
that would settle weather ATS members want GMOs or NOT

xploder

Stop? But they're just getting started!

The goal of Monsanto is to copyright and control all life and all reproduction of life on this planet. Only species of life they mutate in their labs will be "legal" and everything else will be illegal. Humans will be openly bred as slaves, wholly owned based on their genetic makeup.

They will foul the air, water and food and ensure only their crops can survive the toxic environment.

Their goal is total domination and control of all life on the planet yet they are treated like just some capitalist business.

They represent one of the gravest threats to all humanity and life on this planet.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So it's not hard to label them as GMO's (even though you said the opposite in the other thread)

No, I didn't say that. It's easy to label them as GMOs. I said it is problematic to determine that a product does not have GMOs.

So if all you're going to do is label GMOs you might as well just put the label on every product with soy or corn in it. I don't think there is a penalty for having a GMO label on something that doesn't have GMOs but there sure is for not having a label on something that does.

So, to be on the safe side, it would be prudent to label everything. Because if you don't put that label on it, and if you happen to get a bit of GMO corn in your tortilla, the store that sold it to you is going to be in big trouble. Not Monsanto. The store (prop. 37). So now what? You still don't know which is GMO and which isn't because everything has the label. That "non-GMO" label makes some sense?

If they're worried about losing profits from people knowing their food is GMO, they must not be very confident in its quality and healthiness.

No. They are worried about the effects of the lies, distortions, and ignorance spread by the anti-GMO crowd. They are worried that labeling implies that there is something inherently dangerous about GMOs when the science indicates no such thing.

Has anyone actualy taken a look at the names and credentials of those who claim to be scientists on that list ? Here are some that seem suspicious. Many do not look like they have any background in the field to have such strong opinion. Some are just students.

8 Damien Beaumont B.Sc Postgraduate student at the University of New England Armidale Australia
9 Peter Belbin B.Sc Land Management Consultant Tafe Australia
10 Dr. Graeme E. Browne General Practitioner Melbourne PSRAST Australia
11 Dr. Judy A. Carman Epidemiologist Flanders University Adelaide Australia
12 Dr. Catherine Clinch-Jones General Practitioner Adelaide Australia
19 Angela Fehringer Anthropology Student Sydney Australia
26 Vince Halpin B.Sc Acupuncturist Herbalist Pharmacist Australia
29 Dr. Warren Kinne Ph.D Philosopher theologian Society of St Columban Australia
32 Keith Loveridge B.Sc Bachelor Environmental Soc Sci RMIT University Croydon Conservation Society Australia
34 Michelle Mclaren Bach Nutrition and Dietetics Australia
39 Tim Osborn Web Development Australia
42 Dr. Peter Renowden Strategic Planner Melbourne Australia
43 Sandra Russo Principal of College As a Homoeopath I lecture have a private clinic and mentor students of Homoeopathy Adelaide Training College of Complementary Medicin Australia
44 Frank Samson B.Sc R & D Project Manager (Physics) Sola International Holdings Australia
46 Dr. Rosemary Stanton Ph.D Nutritionist Australia
47 Dr. Maarten Stapper Ph.D Farming Systems Agronomist Australia
48 Michelle Starr Ph.D student Natural Therapist none Australia
53 Thomas Klemm Psychologist Konrad Lorenz Institute Austria
54 Dr. Maria G. Neunteufel Economist Vienna Austria
60 Dhirendra Panda Ph.D student MOBILISATION AND ACTIVISM the collective Bangladesh
61 De Beer Daniel M.Sc Lawyer Lawyers Without Borders and Vrij university Brusse Belgium
63 Verstraeten Guy B.Eng have an engineering eductation in biochemistry education I have ethical objections to do work in most of the current industries and research Belgium

I stopped pasting names from that point but it gets worse. I would say 800 scientists is stretching the truth to an extreme if not just a plain lie.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

talk about dated can't you supply something a little more recent.

As I've explained, being dated is not the problem.
But the paper I linked is a study about how attitudes about GMOs formed early on. Since those attitudes are still common, the paper of interest.

reply to post by XPLodER

that would settle weather ATS members want GMOs or NOT

I don't think you need a poll for that. I will concede the popularity. But science is not a matter of popular vote.

But I don't think ATS can really be considered a representative sample of national opinion either.

Bt toxin is being produced by GMO tobacco, corn, rice, potatoes , and other crops. It is a toxin to certain insects, including hymenoptera (bees and relatives). Its use coincides with the decimation of the bee population.

en.wikipedia.org...

Monsanto employees and ex-employees roam the halls of Congress, sit in the Senate, and sit on the Bench.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak

Bt toxin has been used as an insecticide for decades and is certified for use in organic farming.
academicsreview.org...

reply to post by Phage


It isn't nearly as complicated as you make it seem. Monsanto already labels them as GMO when they sell them to the farmers correct? So what's so hard about keeping them separate from non-GMO's from that step onward and eventually into the store? All it would take is a simple check list and segregation of GMO and non-GMO foods that could happen all the way down the line to the stores.

If they do it correctly, there will be no lawsuits to worry about. They already do it with organic food, so what's so hard about doing the same with GMO?

So your argument revolves around Monsanto choosing profit over consumer choice and knowledge about what they're eating. Pretty shady in my opinion. Like I've said before, if they are willing to keep us in the dark about what foods are GMO, what would stop them from keeping us in the dark about health risks from GMO food?

reply to post by Phage


Just because it has been certified doesn't mean it's safe.

I guess since cigarettes are legal, that mean there are no health risks associated with them?