March Against Monsanto Explodes Globally

originally posted by: Phage

And getting hit by a car is totally the same thing as avoiding non-tested foods, totally.

Non-tested? Are you sure?

I look forward to the long term studies you'll present

a reply to: HalfLeaf

What long term studies were made on wheat hybrids?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: HalfLeaf

What long term studies were made on wheat hybrids?

Wait, you taking me for a moron here?

I thought we were talking about GMO, is this how you play?

a reply to: Phage

3 months test trials, ooooh geez we knew that in Sweden, organic food we eat!

a reply to: HalfLeaf

Its called lobbyism, you take a go off topic, and you make a discussion about a topic within the topic usually the one that undermines the workaround.

Its called, relevant and sustainable.

Glyphosate is on sale at Wal-Mart.


Gotta get me some. Weeds in the yard.


Fun article:
gmoanswers.com...

a reply to: HalfLeaf

I thought we were talking about GMO, is this how you play?

What makes GM plants inherently more risky than hybrids such that they should be subjected to more extensive testing?

Is it something about the DNA? Because it has artificially installed genes? Why? Is there some reason to think that DNA is poisonous somehow? What reason? DNA (and genes) is composed of various combinations of the same 4 bases. What makes genetic modification so scary in food?

If I eat a tuna salad with tomatoes I am eating fish DNA and tomato DNA. Both are broken down into little bits. Scary?

a reply to: Phage

Phage, you should let go of your battle. It's endless, and your on every anti GMO thread that gets attention.

Don't give yourself a heart attack convincing people, naturally grown food is equal to these genetically fixed in laboratory settings, type foods.

It's not equal, or Monsanto wouldn't spend billions and billions convincing people it's the same. There's a difference in their product vs earth's, that's why they profit and push.

Chill out old man, let the pro GMO be pro, let the anti be anti, you don't have to act as some GMO guardian angel every thread.

Cheers

a reply to: Elementalist

It's endless, and your on every anti GMO thread that gets attention.

I'm on a lot of threads that get attention.
What's your point? I shouldn't post anything that disagrees with anyone about anything?

a reply to: Phage

Why do you think the PTB are fighting labeling so hard? Do you trust the government to carry out these test and give factual results? Do you see conflict of interests inside of the government labs and agencies?




Personally I do not trust them and history backs me up.....They have lied many.....many times.

originally posted by: Phage


If I eat a tuna salad with tomatoes I am eating fish DNA and tomato DNA. Both are broken down into little bits. Scary?

Are the fish and tomato DNA genetically engineered to be resistant to round up?

Being a respected member with great scientific knowledge, your comfortable with the amount of science involved with this to label it safe? Seems like altering the genetics of a plant to be resistance to a petro based herbicide could be a dangerous prospect. Do you think countries around the world who have banned the use of such products are not acting rationally or do they have a point that not enough research as been made into these products to label them as safe?

a reply to: LDragonFire

Are the fish and tomato DNA genetically engineered to be resistant to round up?

No. Would that make them dangerous to eat?

Being a respected member with great scientific knowledge, your comfortable with the amount of science involved with this to label it safe?

Yes. (I wouldn't go so far as to say "great.")

Seems like altering the genetics of a plant to be resistance to a petro based herbicide could be a dangerous prospect.

Why? But glyphosate is not petroleum based.

Do you think countries around the world who have banned the use of such products are not acting rationally or do they have a point that not enough research as been made into these products to label them as safe?

I think they have done so based on politics rather than science.

GMO vs. Organic

It is as bad as the Climate change debate

GMO is an option when it comes to feeding the world and not just feeding but possibly providing more of the nourishment they need to have some baseline of health. If you can engineer food to provide more vitamin A to keep blindness at bay....that IS a good thing. You might ask "at what risk"? Show me a risk first without crying foul....and don't hop on the pesticide band wagon because pesticides have been around for some time now. Fear and ignorance fuel both sides of this debate. I am not talking about the folks on ATS....fear and ignorance comes from the masses who have not educated themselves on this topic so that they can make an INFORMED decision other than...."Organic is good"....."GMO is bad"

Genetic modification to cure different cancer in Humans would surely be a good thing..Right? Side effects? We won't know until we try but I guarantee that if we don't try we will not know and waiting to discuss it in committee will cement that failure.



Evil corporations involved...sure...but that is a different debate.....

a reply to: wdkirk




It is not just evil corporations anymore guys.........WE LIVE IN A CORPORATE OLIGARCHY. I am sorry and did not mean to raise my voice but come on.....The government is the corporations. The people doing the checking and tests are the same people involved in the corporations. The entire game is rigged and can not be trusted anymore if it actually ever could be trusted.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LDragonFire

Are the fish and tomato DNA genetically engineered to be resistant to round up?

No. Would that make them dangerous to eat?

Wouldn't that require scientific study to determine?

a reply to: LDragonFire

Wouldn't that require scientific study to determine?

In order to conduct a scientific study you would first need a hypothesis about how it could be harmful. A scientific study cannot be based on "Oh, well maybe there is something dangerous bout the genes which cause plants to be resistant to glyphosate. Let's do a study."

BTW, did you know that there are plants that are naturally resistant to glyphosate? I have some in my yard.

a reply to: Phage

I will ask you these simple questions again.........Why are TPTB fighting labeling so hard? Do you trust the government agencies and labs to give us factual results? Do you see a conflict of interests inside the government labs and agencies?



Simple questions really...........

a reply to: Phage

I don't think you read my sources. That UMN.edu source puts a big burden on non GMO farmers when GMO farmers don't have to mess about to protect nearby non-GMO crops.
My sources showed farmer suicides got worse. They took out loans to buy seeds on promises that did not come to fruition then could not buy more seed, as you have to every crop even if you haven't run out. I looked at rpxcorp...they buy patents and engage in 'defensive patent buying'.

I meant 'cornering the market' in certain regions. In some places, farmers could only buy from them. And if there was 1 other source, farmers were misled, about the crop yield especially in India. The yield was higher where there was more irrigation, in some instances.

I imagine they are tested when they reach the markets as in the 'wheat GMO' incident, 2 countries turned the product away.