It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by XPLodER
Actually, you can, apparently. Just as you can decide if you want to eat non-organically grown produce or not.
i CANT decide for myself weather i eat GMOs
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.
The major conclusion of whom? In that 14 year old article?
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.
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.
There is also the issue of not being allowed to replant from grown seed. thus making every grower incapable of normal growth.
What's so hard about labeling things as "GMO"?
It's not more complicated for the consumer either way. I don't really care if the corporation's profits are reduced or not.
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.
Except that Monsanto won't be doing any labeling in either case.
All this money Monsanto is spending on campaigning against these bills could have been spent with labeling, plus other more useful things.
Both of which started before GMOs existed.
Then there is the growing pest and weed resistance factors, what will nature do to recover?
Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Char-Lee
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
I call it crooked. Did you know about this, phage?
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 it's not hard to label them as GMO's (even though you said the opposite in the other thread)
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.
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.
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
As I've explained, being dated is not the problem.
talk about dated can't you supply something a little more recent.
that would settle weather ATS members want GMOs or NOT