It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The only ones that oppose GM technology are the organic food industries that stand to lose millions of dollars in profits. They are more concerned about money than the environment.
GM products have the promise of growing more food on less land, using less water, less fertilizer, and less pesticides.
GM is an environmental win-win all the way around.
2. i grow both gm and non-gm crops, and I tell you ide pick GM any day b/c you look at a “organic” and a gm farm and the organic is much sicker lacing the take-up of nitrogen, weeds run allover the place b/c you cant spray for them so your precious organic food is harvested along with poisonous plants such as black-eyed Susan’s and hemlock….o wait your rater have foods harvested with known things that will kill you rather than a unknown bitchin contest between tree huggers and big biz?
3. I am around, plant, touch, and eat gm corn out of the field. I am a organic chemist and I have found NOTHING wrong with gm foods. And if you want another side how about using GM to put vaccines in to your food so your mom doesn’t give birth to a brother with birth defects or giving your kids there shots for school to keep them safe without contamination from needles (and less crying 2!)
5. gm has been around for a generation and look at kids now ya a lot of them are ignorant (lol) but there just as smart if not more and just as healthy as any oter generation.
6. I don’t understand ppl if you don’t want GM food you better lone big biz b/c there is no way to grow a non-gm crop without having the backing of big biz……I swear I don’t want to get a reply you don’t know they could …look, I have 20,000 acres and with fuel prices new machinery, most costing upwards of $100,000 it is hard to get by letalone to make some profit
Originally posted by dave_54
The only ones that oppose GM technology are the organic food industries that stand to lose millions of dollars in profits. They are more concerned about money than the environment.
Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed
• Research by the Russian Academy of Sciences released in December 2005 found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed GM soy died within the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers fed on non-modified soy. Six times as many offspring fed GM soy were also severely underweight.
• In November 2005, a private research institute in Australia, CSIRO Plant Industry, put a halt to further development of a GM pea cultivator when it was found to cause an immune response in laboratory mice.
• In the summer of 2005, an Italian research team led by a cellular biologist at the University of Urbino published confirmation that absorption of GM soy by mice causes development of misshapen liver cells, as well as other cellular anomalies.
• In May of 2005 the review of a highly confidential and controversial Monsanto report on test results of corn modified with Monsanto MON863 was published in The Independent/UK.
Milkweed samples were taken from within and at the edge of the Bt corn field and were used to assess mortality of first instar monarch, D. plexippus exposed to Bt and non-Bt corn pollen. Within 48 hours, there was 19% mortality in the Bt corn pollen treatment, compared to 0% on non Bt-corn pollen exposed plants and 3% in the no pollen controls. This second study counters all the spurious arguments that the Losey's study was a 'worse case scenario' that bears no relevance to field conditions. Besides which, when Losey conducted his experiments he did not spatula Bt pollen on to the leaves of milkweed, as was reported by industry, he dusted the leaves in accordance with levels observed in the field.
Source#2
Last week, Nature magazine reported the results of one of the biggest agricultural experiments ever conducted (2). A team of Chinese scientists had tested the key principle of modern rice-growing - planting a single, high-tech variety across hundreds of hectares - against a much older technique: planting several breeds in one field. They found, to the astonishment of the farmers who had been drilled for years in the benefits of "monoculture", that reverting to the old method resulted in spectacular increases in yield. Rice blast - a devastating fungus which normally requires repeated applications of poison to control - decreased by 94 per cent. The farmers planting a mixture of strains were able to stop applying their poisons altogether, while producing 18 per cent more rice per acre than they were growing before.
People think GM is healthy?
There are several differences between the normal breeding process and the artificial genetic manipulation process. One key difference is the use of highly-infectious viruses for artificial genetic manipulation as a promoter to switch on the introduced gene. One commonly-used virus is a highly-infectious form of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV). (The form of CaMV virus found in normal foods is not highly-infectious and cannot be absorbed by mammals.) The dangers were described in detail by reknowed geneticist Dr. Mae-Wan Ho in a meeting on March 31st 1999 at the invitation of UK Environment Minister, Michael Meacher. Additional scientific information about the dangers presented by infectious promoter viruses such as CaMV are described by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Dr. Joe Cummins, Emeritus Professor of Genetics, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Western Ontario. Finally, a recent scientific report by Molecular Biologist, Angela Ryan provides further concerns regarding the use of the CaMV virus to create genetically-manipulated foods.
Another key difference between normal breeding and artificial genetic manipulation is that the genetic manipulation greatly increases the risk that the plant (e.g., soy) will develop toxic or allergy-causing compounds. Such unexpected changes have already been shown to occur in some genetically-manipulated crops.
The insertion of a new gene can sometimes alter the synthesis of chemicals in the plant. Such an alteration can lead to the change in existing chemical compounds in the plant (including a possible significant increase in existing levels of toxic compounds) or the development of new toxic or allergy-causing compounds. There would be no way to predict these effects in advance and it would be difficult to test for these effects without many years of careful, independent research on human test subjects. Gradual toxic effects could occur over weeks, months, years, or even decades and society would not be aware of the health damage until it was too late.
Extinction of Seed Varieties A few years ago Time magazine referred to the massive trend by large corporations to buy up small seed companies,
destroying any competing stock, and replacing it with their patented or controlled brands as "the Death of Birth." Monsanto additionally has had farmers sign contracts not to save their seeds - forfeiting what has long been a farmer's birthright to remain guardians of the blueprints of successive life.
As an example of the feverish attempt to expand herbicide use, Monsanto's patent for Roundup was scheduled to expire. Not to lose their market share, Monsanto came up with the idea of creating "Roundup Ready" seeds. It bought out seed companies to monopolize the terrain - then licensing the seeds to farmers with the requirement that they continue buying Roundup past the expiration of the patent. These contracts had stiff financial penalties if farmers used any other herbicide.