reply to post by robin22391
You have been conditioned to think a certain way. Even with that conditioning you realize that modifying a microbe can be bad though. That is good.
The problem with Monsanto's endeavor is that they are ignoring the evolution of the microbes caused from the changing of their product. That is
I have seen the problems that have occurred by introducing bugs in this area that had no natural preditor to try to kill something that was found
later to be less of a threat than what they incorporated to kill it. Sure the consequences were unknown, and now these introduced bugs are considered
invasive species. It is funny how this practice of mistakes gets buried because someone in the government allowed it.
The big problem with Monsanto is that their actions increase the amount of Soy and Corn products in the foods we eat. You cannot only take the direct
effects into consideration, you need to look at the whole picture when evaluating something. The side effects of modifying our diets too much usually
leads to more disease and problems with thinking. This leads to the products contributing to the problem, not actually being a direct cause of the
problem. Too much corn is not good for cows. This leads to problems in formation of the meat and even changes the milk.
Now Monsanto does not directly cause this problem, but the fact that corn is more available to feed the cow at a cheaper price is a major player.
Cows can have a little grains as a treat but now they are feeding them a lot more and the result is they grow bigger but the quality of the meat is
compromised. The elastin binding proteins aren't forming right and the good forms of lipoic acid are reduced. We evolved having these chemicals at
certain levels in the beef, if they are not present our health is compromised. On top of that, we need to eat more to acheive our needs and the
excess sugars get stored. Now until the government lists some of these chemicals as essential nutrients, the producers nutrition will tend to show
that the food is just as nutritious. But it is not. Food is more than vitamins and minerals. Food is more than proteins and fats. The realization
that certain fats are better than others is finally being accepted but the people who learn of it do not look at the big picture.
Look at the levels of the Omega threes of a lean beef brisket. Look at the levels of Omega threes of round steak. The proportions of Omega 3 to
Omega 6's is way different, even on the same cow. These muscles are way different. Do you need to eat fish to get your proper amount of 3's. Or do
you pick a variety of different beef cuts in your diet. The nutrition database is a good place to observe this.
This is food science, not what they teach you in school. We have a lot of evidence out there that needs to be evaluated to see what it says, by
someone who has the ability to see what is going on, someone with an open mind who has not been trained to believe a certain way.
Good luck with your schooling, I hope I have opened your eyes a little to see what is really out there. Yes, people often get carried away trying to
show that Monsanto's products are bad but they are using the wrong evidence. What they are seeing is true but they haven't correctly identified the
problem and the problem needs the right evidence to support it. Only certain evidence is allowed as real and proven also. That is not science at
all, science knows we know little about things, it knows there is much to learn. If we knew everything, why would we need scientists?
Who funds anti-Monsanto? Probably a lot of older people who see that something is wrong. Probably farmers who see a possible problem. Look at the
people out there who like to eat organic, they are not poor. I am not rich, even though my name is rich, but I avoid GMO food and if I had a trillion
bucks I would definitely destroy the company using real evidence and scientific research. But all I can do is to avoid their foods.
13-9-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)