Those AGAINST GMO - VS - Those For , page 2

seabag

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 11:18 AM

link

reply to post by covertpanther

Against!

Though I would like to try some of that laboratory meat on a cracker just for fun!

Encore

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 11:31 AM

link

edit on 8-8-2013 by Encore because: (no reason given)

tallcool1

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 11:31 AM

link

Against GMO - please don't mess with my food! Or at least label it truthfully.

Also - against people who come in to a poll thread just to snivel about the poll. Seriously, WTF?

If you are against taking a simple poll - then don't participate. Really simple actually. Keep your superiority complexes out of the simple poll regardless of how stupid you think we are.

Or actually - if you want to do a more "accurate" poll (or whatever your complaint is), then make another poll thread and most of us will probably participate in that one too.

covertpanther

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:24 PM

link

reply to post by tallcool1

Thank you for that friend. Its a harmless poll, so everyone can stop arguing and getting heated up. To substitute all the negative energy surrounding the topic, we just leave one liners or a simple paragraph stating our feelings/thoughts on the matter.

Nice avatar btw

kind of scary!

10-3 for AGAINST

johnrobca

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:36 PM

link

let God play God .... and let me eat natural food

100% against

beezzer

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:38 PM

link

reply to post by covertpanther

Define GMO.

Gregor Mendel might have an issue with those against GMO foods.

Just sayin'.

Mister_Bit

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:40 PM

link

Against!

We've no idea what the long term affects would be.

groingrinder

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:08 PM

link

I am against GMO. Primarily I am against corporations who are trying to obtain a monopoly on food. If this was being done to help the human race, instead of monopolizing the food for profit, then I would probably have a different opinion.

luciddream

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:18 PM

link

90% FOR!

Half the people just assume its plants. I see better future in biotechnology.

edit: would not be surprised if half the people here hate science and don't understand a single thing... but bandwagon with others and throw the baby with the bathwater.

"organic food" companies are a big business, thanks to gullible, easily scared people.

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

AlphaHawk

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:22 PM

link

reply to post by johnrobca

let God play God .... and let me eat natural food

You'll be hard pressed to find any food that man hasn't had a hand in changing in some way.

Wheat, corn, rice and the like all have been altered by us to grow the way we went it to.

Some thousands of years ago.

LittleBlackEagle

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:54 PM

link

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by covertpanther

Against!

Though I would like to try some of that laboratory meat on a cracker just for fun!

lulz nothing like some hearty gmo spam for the win!!

against everything gmo stands for, their business practices, their lack of long term testing and against their needing govt to keep them out of court. it all smells of underhanded bull chit to me.

LittleBlackEagle

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:57 PM

link

Click here for more information.

johnrobca

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:00 PM

link

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by johnrobca

let God play God .... and let me eat natural food

You'll be hard pressed to find any food that man hasn't had a hand in changing in some way.

Wheat, corn, rice and the like all have been altered by us to grow the way we went it to.

Some thousands of years ago.

Id like to disagree but I know you are right!! As someone who doesnt like the idea of GMO I have always wondered about my own hypocrisy on this subject .... why am I OK with an orange carrot but not OK with a monsanto product? ... there is the obvious answer because of the tricks that Monsanto get up to but even then there is a huge grey area between "natural" and "monsanto style GMO".... how do we know that crossing this type of tomato with that type of tomato wont produce a cancer causing chemical?

edit on 8-8-2013 by johnrobca because: (no reason given)

Blaine91555

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:17 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Considering the incredible level of starvation and death worldwide that would be caused by returning to old farming methods, I'm for any GMO product deemed safe by peer reviewed studies. I reject completely studies by radicals and less than reputable science with an agenda or based on unfounded paranoia. Things such as GMO's are needed to feed the world.

The needless starvation of perhaps tens of millions from food shortages pretty well dictates that.

I am for labeling to let people decide for themselves.

I do have issues with not enough competition and how certain companies are behaving.

I also have issues with those who want to force their wishes on everyone else.

This is way to complex to narrow down to a for or against vote.

From the Wikipedia -

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Organisms that have been genetically modified include micro-organisms such as bacteria and yeast, insects, plants, fish, and mammals. GMOs are the source of genetically modified foods, and are also widely used in scientific research and to produce goods other than food. The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism' defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").....

GM crops have made it possible to produce many times the yield on the same finite amount of available arable land. The world looses that, the poorest of the poor suffer greatly. Prices skyrocket, while yeilds fall. People would suffer most in the poorest countries.

It is in no way as simple as for or against. It's absurd to even suggest it is that simple.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

juspassinthru

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:44 PM

link

100% against.

C-JEAN

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:45 PM

link

WHERE ARE the buttons used to chose an answer? like:

[_] 100% Against
[_] 100% For
[_] A lot against
[_] A lot for
[_] A little against
[_] A little for
[_] . . .

or similar ???

Blue skies.

LittleBlackEagle

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:51 PM

link

Originally posted by Blaine91555

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Considering the incredible level of starvation and death worldwide that would be caused by returning to old farming methods,

i see a lot of people who share that same feeling but i have never seen nor heard any empirical proof of such, being a moderator i thought maybe you had some real studies to show that? extra DIV

juspassinthru

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:55 PM

link

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
Against!

We've no idea what the long term affects would be.

Bingo.

We evolved along with our food sources. We can't possibly understand the ramifications of adding non-indigenous genes to food without years of *untainted* studies.

But we damn sure know about the absolute culture of corruption that touches every face of the corporate world, the government and their regulatory bureaus. If these people were sure of their position on GMOs, why would they oppose labeling?

olaru12

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:12 PM

link

I eat slim jims, 7/11 burritos, cheetos, and some other things that would go against the T&C; but that's my choice.

I don't want Corporate America determining what I eat without at least labeling it. They can start with GMO and eventually put in drugs to make you stupid and you would never even know.

uh oh....

Against.

edit on 8-8-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

Blaine91555

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:13 PM

link

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

Its simple really. Reduce the crop yields, reduce the amount of food and you increase the prices. The rest follows in a logical order. People who in many cases live on less than $2 a day would be harmed badly. Imagine what even a 25% rise in food prices would do to the significant part of the world that lives on that much.

That we have finite amount of arable land is a given. That the population is growing is a given.

As to how many would suffer should GM crops disappear right now? It's a certainty that the poorest of the poor would fare the worst of all. I don't think you need anything but critical thinking to know that is true.

I'm more fearful of monopolies in food production and too few people controlling the food supply than I will ever be of GMO's.