GMOs Don't Hurt Anyone, But Opposing Them Does

reply to post by Grimpachi


GMO, for the most part means having poisonous pesticides of agent orange derivative in the food. AND I REFUSE TO EAT IT AND ITS ILLEGAL AND VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS AND ATTEMPTED MURDER AGAINST ME TO TRY AND CORRUPT MY WORLD AND FOOD. IN FACT I TREAT IT AS AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST ME BY TERRORISTS.

Also, Canadian research revealed it decreases the real nutrients in the food, hence its AGENDA 21, Codex Alimentarius, and act of war and again, attempted murder.

In addition it tries to force insect blends which is absolute evil.

So labeling all of this and ensuring there is good wonderful organic food all around so we have choices, is very important. Now what food do you think people will choose in a labeled world with TRUE FREE WILL CHOICE?

reply to post by Grimpachi


The scientists deserve respect. The field is one of the most complicated ones and creating innovation is very respectful.

Although the problem does not lie in the scientists, but in the companies they work for. They have digged themselves the hole with their extremely aggressive marketing tactics, pushing their patented products to the market using different lobbying tactics and other legal measures. This alone makes their actions extremely questionable, as it is very hard to determine their purpose. From an outsider, it truly seems as if their main target was simply profit and there are too many people who are willing to do anything : lie, deceive in order to gain profit.

Personally, I believe food is one of the fields, where such patents should not exist. The way Monsanto has been using these is simply wrong, trying to profit every move and gain monopoly of the market.

GM-foods are extremely important to research preparing for climate changes, catastrophies and helping solve food crisis in countries in need. As I am not NWO theory supporter, I see that such things should be done collectively by countries all around the world funding the project and trying to convince their top scientists taking part in it with zero intent on profiteering from it. Food is an inelastic need, which means price does not directly affect demand, if there are no alternatives. If every food company rose their prices 100% in US, people would still buy as it is needed for survival. You can not set a price for your life, anything goes in order to survive.

We do not fully know the possible future impacts of GM-foods. These might work in short-term, although with what consequences in the future? What happens in 1,2,3,4 generations? What impacts do these have on nature in long-term? As long as these questions are not FULLY answered, the use of these should be limited, only used in areas in true need, while strongly keeping eye on the possible consequences.

Helping out third-world nations is a very respectful activity, although when you help in one hand and rake inprofits on the other, then the purpose of your actions becomes highly questionable...

today it's 3, tomorrow it's the whole fruit!

reply to post by Cabin

As long as these questions are not FULLY answered, the use of these should be limited, only used in areas in true need, while strongly keeping eye on the possible consequences.

Apart from coming up with a reason why there may be a reason to think there is anything inherently dangerous about GM, how do you "fully" answer those questions? Think about that for a minute.

There is enough natural food for everyone. We need to re-organize our society to make sure the food makes it to everyone. The GMO route is a lazy cop-out that ignores the source of the problem in favor of a quick fix that is potentially dangerous.

Sure, we don't have any real data proving it's dangerous, but we don't have any real data proving it's safe either. We're just jumping in with both feet and hoping for the best, which is stupid because it's not even necessary.

It's like if you have 3 people in a room with 3 sandwiches. 1 guy takes all the sandwiches. The other two complain, so the guy with the sandwiches goes "Hey, I mixed up some stuff I found on the floor. It's got vitamins. It's got other stuff too, but I licked it a few seconds ago and I'm not dead yet so...why not make it your sole diet?"

Then you have a divide between the two guys without sandwiches. One of them doesn't want to eat the weird concoction because of health concerns, the other guy is grateful that the sandwich thief went through all the trouble to create the replacement food.

Neither of them asks the question that should be asked.

WHY WON'T YOU GIVE ME MY SANDWICH BACK?!

Grimpachi
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

I am not sure what you are arguing here.

Are you saying the rice doesn’t contain the nutrients needed to save lives and prevent blindness?

Are you saying that even though it does have the nutrients needed they should find another way or suffer through it after all like you said this has been going on for a very long time?

Are you saying because you don’t like the corporate aspect everyone should just forget about any good it can do?

I am just not sure what your message is.

There is no way to have a discussion with that, you have not only bought the PR line created to justify the owning of food at the DNA level, you have decided there is no other element to the story. You do understand that the issue with food is not the ability to grow, or grow food that resists roundup, it is distribution and a certain process of gambling on the production of food that creates our problem? Argentina was once the Bread Basket to the World, small country, lots of food - it is possible in a world not dominated by gambling and copyrights.

May I suggest this to you. Monsanto, or those that work there, are under no obligation to sell their wares to anyone at all. There can easily come a time when Monsanto, having eliminated the competition, simply refuses to sell their seeds anymore - there will be no need once the competition is gone. What if Monsanto has finally eliminated any substantial stockpile of old world seeds and finds itself unable to produce the replacements due to some unforeseen problem? What if Monsanto, unwilling to disclose any real data on what they produce due to copyright protection, find errors in the MFG of their seeds which lead to DNA damage and refuse to disclose that? What if Monsanto finds out later that their product is killing people in mass? While I know that Vioxx was great while it wasn't hurting people, its road to planet earth was no different then golden rice - where is Vioxx now?

If you think that corporate america are just misunderstood, you haven't look close enough at history. In Los Angeles GM worked very, very hard at eliminating an excellent public transit system, they were sick and tired of people not buying their cars - so they actively worked to destroy the system in place. They convinced the populace the moron politicians that destruction of public transportation was great for the people. See the PR folks worked a campaign, just like Monsanto. Now the city is spending a gazillion dollars to replace that perfect system, while GM sucks at the tit of the taxpayers they helped to screw over.

Maybe you haven't seen the energy industry. The same PR people sold the world the wonderment of creating nuclear grade weapons material via power creation. SDGE had to decommission San Onofre as a result of cutting corners due to a complete lack of regard for human life. Now, they are instituting a fine on every rate payer to cover the PROFIT they lost due to the decommission AND another fine to cover the expense of resolving their screw up. But keep in mind, they could just walk away - who'd do what to them? There are COUNTLESS corporations who have walked away from the messes they have made due to altruism. Monsanto can just walk away after running the table.

Monsanto is NOT altruistic. They are NOT interested in saving lives. They are a for profit company who's basic job is to make money for shareholders, and whose real job is to make sure the human population is reliant on just one system of food creation - you'll need to go way back to see who started that and why. They add the A gene to simply make it seem like the are caring, compassionate, wonderful people, yet they are far from it. They are indoctrinated zombies, whose effort is beyond sinister but whose PR team is the best in the business, the PR people who sold us the safety of Fukashima, Hanford, Vioxx, Fraking Waste, Strip Mining, Strip Malls, and Wi-fi.

reply to post by AlliumIslelily

Sure, we don't have any real data proving it's dangerous, but we don't have any real data proving it's safe either.

Except for the data that says it isn't dangerous.

We're just jumping in with both feet and hoping for the best, which is stupid because it's not even necessary.

What are the reasons for thinking there is something unsafe? Instead we get, "we just don't know." What do you think should be tested for? Bad stuff? How do you test for "bad stuff?" That isn't science.

"Hoping for the best" is somewhat of a distortion. Another way to look at it is, "Is there any reason to think there is something wrong with this. How can we see if those concerns are valid?" That is science.

There are a lot of things we "just don't know" and we do a lot of things that aren't "necessary." But of course, you can ignore the point of the OP or deny it.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Let's not complicate simplicity.

You want GMO's ingested by you, your friends and your family? Great.
You want to ensure they are never labeled simply because you and others like you deem them safe? Cool.

There is nothing wrong with these two statements because neither are "wrong."

Here's my statement to those:

I don't want/need/demand that ANYONE eat the way I eat, cook the way I cook, nor shop the way I shop.
Therefore IF I WISH TO KNOW WHAT IS IN MY FOOD THAT I AND THOSE THAT I CARE ABOUT INGEST?

My prerogative.
My right, my say.
End of debate.
Good day.

reply to post by crankyoldman

Argentina was once the Bread Basket to the World,

What? When was Argentina the primary provider of agricultural products? But guess what, their production has been steadily increasing.
media.rgemonitor.com...

What if Monsanto has finally eliminated any substantial stockpile of old world seeds and finds itself unable to produce the replacements due to some unforeseen problem?

And how is Monsanto going to do that? Do you think that Monsanto only produces GMOs? Do you think that no one else sells hybrids and other non-GMOs? For that matter, do you think that Monsanto is the only one who sells GMOs and patented hybrids?

Monsanto is NOT altruistic. They are NOT interested in saving lives. They are a for profit company who's basic job is to make money for shareholders,

Nope they aren't altruistic but they do sell a product that can help people and since they are successful it seems that people, farmers in particular, think that they sell a good product. If it wasn't a good product, it wouldn't be in such widespread use.

and whose real job is to make sure the human population is reliant on just one system of food creation - you'll need to go way back to see who started that and why.

But you just said their job is to make money for shareholders.

reply to post by Chinesis

If that's the case, you would probably be better off with a system of voluntary labeling of non-GMO products rather than labeling of products which may, or may not, contain GM materials.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Phage
reply to post by AlliumIslelily

 

Sure, we don't have any real data proving it's dangerous, but we don't have any real data proving it's safe either.

Except for the data that says it isn't dangerous. You and I both know that Science is the best guess in any given "experiment" which are anything BUT infallible data empirically derived. To conclusively equivocate that "GMO's are not dangerous" simply because a premature (incomplete and ongoing) study says so is irresponsible Science.

We're just jumping in with both feet and hoping for the best, which is stupid because it's not even necessary.

What are the reasons for thinking there is something unsafe? Instead we get, "we just don't know." What do you think should be tested for? Bad stuff? How do you test for "bad stuff?" That isn't science.

What do you mean how do we test for bad stuff? Why do we test anything? We test for many things: resulting efficacy, side effects and to know. Can you tell me that GMO wheat and corn are nutritionally superior OR inferior? And why?

"Hoping for the best" is somewhat of a distortion. Another way to look at it is, "Is there any reason to think there is something wrong with this. How can we see if those concerns are valid?" That is science.

Simply put: I (and my numerically vast proponents) wish to forgo "Science" and prefer to stick with "nature." Since Science lab rat food isn't Nature, and since Nature (to me) is superior to that of Science...I conclude that I (there's that word again, I) -I wish to eat non-gmo food(s) and require that they be labeled so that I may avoid them. Even if it were found that GMO's cured cancer (which isn't the case) I would still opt for pesticide/hybridized and GMO free food because it is my wish. My wish > YOUR Scientific view period point blank. When you pay my bills and walk my path...you have my permission to indulge in your senseless pontifications. Until then: You keep on being the Scientist and be in search for truth. I've already found my self evident truth in NATURE.

There are a lot of things we "just don't know" and we do a lot of things that aren't "necessary." But of course, you can ignore the point of the OP or deny it.

I could never demonize anyone who attempts to aid any sort of deficiency. In order to approve or disapprove the enrichment of the rice I would have to have access to the process that created the golden rice to be able to make an observation. Aiding the poor is a noble thing. I would ask are there other ways in achieving vitamin enriched rice? In the end if people CHOOSE to ingest any particular food knowing the risks? They should be afforded every right to. According to Science...cell phones are safe. Since the advent of the cellphone...are you going to be able to repeat the Science when the efficacy of those studies will take years to reach a realized comprehension?

reply to post by Chinesis

To conclusively equivocate that "GMO's are not dangerous" simply because a premature (incomplete and ongoing) study says so is irresponsible Science.

I didn't say that. Did I?

What do you mean how do we test for bad stuff? Why do we test anything? We test for many things: resulting efficacy, side effects and to know. Can you tell me that GMO wheat and corn are nutritionally superior OR inferior? And why?

What I mean is, is that testing for "bad stuff" is not possible. You must have a specific "something" to test for. There is no GMO wheat in production but no, I can't tell you GMO corn is nutritionally superior to non-GMO corn because it isn't. It's nutritionally equivalent.

Simply put: I (and my numerically vast proponents) wish to forgo "Science" and prefer to stick with "nature."

You and your "numerically vast proponents" are welcome to your opinion. But I have to ask, did nature make the device you are looking at right now?

According to Science...cell phones are safe. Since the advent of the cellphone...are you going to be able to repeat the Science when the efficacy of those studies will take years to reach a realized comprehension?

Well, I use a cell phone. Not much though, because I don't particularly like talking on the phone. I'm not sure I understand your point here.

Grimpachi and Phage...

Are you still trying to defend GMO's? Quit working for Monsanto already, guys. They really do not need you to fight their losing battle. Dump their stocks while it's not too late. IMHO, they should focus on their newly acquired $930 Million Climate Corp instead of environmental toxins and dodgy GMO seeds.

Monsanto Co. (NYSE:MON) had a loss and missed Wall Street’s expectations, AND came up short on beating the revenue expectation. The revenue miss is a negative sign to shareholders seeking high growth out of the company. Shares are down 2.35%.

Link

Seriously, I think it is an uphill task for you to prove the safety of GMO (most rational people are not buying)...the proof can only be easily facilitated by the big giants themselves: by giving permission and access to their products for external research bodies to carry out comprehensive studies. If a product is safe and perhaps better than previously thought, it will sell itself like hot cakes. By then, forget fighting GMO labeling, Monsanto and gang will not only volunteer but most definitely INSIST on GMO labelling themselves!

Meanwhile, for those interested, March Against Monsanto on 12 October maybe held in your area:
Event List

reply to post by Kurius

The stock market is a funny thing:
MON closed at 105.27 today (up 1.23). That's better than 6 points higher than a month ago.

Seriously, I think it is an uphill task for you to prove the safety of GMO (most rational people are not buying)

I'm not really trying to do that. I just don't like the lies that the anti-GMO crowd seems to have to resort to in order to make their case.

"Most rational people". I guess the farmers that buy GM seed (from Monsanto and others) are irrational then.

reply to post by Phage


You can't prove one way or another unless you conduct the tests yourself or 110% certain results are not tainted/manipulated. Why would you want to take the heat for some corporations who don't give a damn about you? Are you paid by them? Do you have substantial stakes in the companies?

You don't like the lies by the anti-GMO but love the lies of the pro-GMO's? You do realize there are possibilities of lies on both sides, don't you? To me both are just noises which could be planted by either party. So what if GMO is safe or unsafe? I am happy and feeling healthy with what I have been consuming and have no intention or gung-ho enough to switch to GMO's anytime soon, so should you. I don't need to convince you. However hard you try to convince others, it boils down to individual choices and responsibility to take.

Again, in the end, the product will sell itself if proven safe and good. You really don't have to worry for them.

Stock...Guess the Climate Corp did the trick, huh? Sell while it the going is good. This GMO business isn't going to work out well long term. Mark my word. They knew it...therefore the acquisition of CC...but it is an area which is not within their expertise.

Just to be clear monsanato is not the only company that supplies golden rice seed.



License for growing it are free.

The cutoff between humanitarian and commercial use was set at US$10,000. Therefore, as long as a farmer or subsequent user of golden rice genetics does not make more than $10,000 per year, no royalties need to be paid. In addition, farmers are permitted to keep and replant seed.

So the argument about replanting is N/A
Licensing not an issue.

No studies have shown negative effects from golden rice.



So are there any worthy arguments why this is being kept from countries and people that it would alleviate death and suffering?

reply to post by Grimpachi


The arguments agaisnt GMOs are irrational.

The only problem I have with GMOs is the personal freedom of the individual to choose.

Monsanto, or any other corporation, should not be allowed to monopolize the food supply.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

Monsanto, or any other corporation, should not be allowed to monopolize the food supply.

Are you sure that's happening? What products does Monsanto sell? How much of our food supply is made of of those products.

reply to post by Phage



Well, that's certainly not a monopoly on the food supply.

I honestly thought Monsanto manufactured more than corn and soy bean crops (as far as food is concerned). And the percent of acres was awfully low in 2011. I thought it would have been higher.


What about "non-germinating" seeds. If I grow a plant, I can use its seeds to grow more of its kind. Do GMO companies produce plants whose seeds do not germinate, forcing farmers to buy new seeds from said companies?

Also, is there any danger of plants with non-germinating seeds taking over an ecosystem and forcing the non-GMO plants into extinction?

Phage
reply to post by Kurius

 

"Most rational people". I guess the farmers that buy GM seed (from Monsanto and others) are irrational then.

edit on 10/4/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

no just plain greedy they'll learn, albeit, the hard way.

how laughable, your irrational defense of GMO's and your profession of Transhumanism, the new face of Eugenics
[see here also]
reveals you as a fanatical member of a death cult.
no different from any other fundie.

so keep on slapping labels on people who question as being,
ignorant, and as terrorists as you are doing herein.

but stop claiming falsely, that corporate and eugenicist agendas are science because they aren't.