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.
Originally posted by rockn82
A great man once said "He who establishes his argument with noise and command, shows his reason is weak."
Originally posted by rockn82
Every instance, every single one, of humans interfering with nature has lead to a terrible outcome.
Originally posted by obamuh
Originally posted by rockn82
A great man once said "He who establishes his argument with noise and command, shows his reason is weak."
not a great quote - the left learned long ago that derision is as effective as reason. but the problem with the anti-GMO stance is that you'd rather let africa starve than confuse some grasshoppers. it's difficult to respond civilly to that level of inhumanity.
Originally posted by guavas
The only reason to genetically modify food is to increase profits.
Originally posted by obamuh
Originally posted by SarK0Y
current GMO doesn't provide qualitative seeds + it can make dead zones to animals/insects/...
GMOs don't need to make qualitative seeds as long as seeds can be modified. and practically all industrial crops are dead zones for animals anyway, GMO or not.
Originally posted by Boomer1941
Originally posted by obamuh
it's one thing to be against monsanto, but being against GMOs in general is sort of retarded. millions of people are getting the nutrients to survive that they wouldn't normally consume. if people really want the world fed, GMOs of all stripes will continue to be vital.
What happens when the seeds run out and the poor and needy can't afford to buy more. Why let the food supply be controlled by a corporation?
Originally posted by SarK0Y
Originally posted by obamuh
Originally posted by Boomer1941
What happens when the seeds run out and the poor and needy can't afford to buy more.
why will the seeds run out? and why won't there be other seeds? and don't you want the most nutritious crop possible EXACTLY when people can't afford to buy more?
current GMO doesn't provide qualitative seeds + it can make dead zones to animals/insects/...
Originally posted by obamuh
Originally posted by hawkiye
Americans,
French, Spanish, and Indian citizens called to let you know they found your testicles that have been missing for many decades...edit on 5-11-2010 by hawkiye because: corrections
thanks,
we are still looking for your integrity and will keep you posted.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by obamuh
Originally posted by rockn82
A great man once said "He who establishes his argument with noise and command, shows his reason is weak."
not a great quote - the left learned long ago that derision is as effective as reason. but the problem with the anti-GMO stance is that you'd rather let africa starve than confuse some grasshoppers. it's difficult to respond civilly to that level of inhumanity.
So you're saying that Africa is starving because of a lack of GMO crops? C'mon... you should know better than to set up such straw men and logical fallacies. The issues are not black and white. Sure, increasing agricultural production could feed more people... but increasing food production also has the inconvenient effect of increasing populations. That's why we're in the mess we're in now- totalitarian agriculture; take over land, raze it, turn it to domesticated monocultures, and use the massive surpluses to feed massive population growth. GMO is just the modern/advanced version of this and we're playing with some serious fire.
When Pusztai fed supposedly harmless GMOs to rats, they developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and showed signs of a damaged immune system. Moreover, the results clearly indicated that the cause of the problem was due to the unpredictable side effects arising from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, his study suggested that the GM foods already on the market, which were created from the same process, might also create such effects.
When Dr Pusztai expressed his concern he was fired from his job of 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. His 20-member research team was disbanded, all testing protocols were abandoned, and the pro-GM establishment embarked on an extensive disinformation campaign to discredit the study’s results to protect the reputation of GM foods already in the marketplace.
www.seedsofdeception.com...
It’s easy to understand the FDA’s industry-friendly policy on regulation of GMOs when you see the revolving door between agency regulators and the companies they regulate.
The FDA has claimed it was not aware of any information showing that GM crops were different “in any meaningful or uniform way,” from non-GMO crops and therefore didn’t require testing. But 44,000 internal FDA documents made public by a lawsuit show that this was a complete lie.
The overwhelming consensus among the FDA’s own scientists was that GM foods were quite different and could lead to unpredictable and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. It turns out that FDA scientists, who had urged superiors to require long-term studies, were ignored.
www.seedsofdeception.com...
You're grouping together all GMO again. Please don't. Not all GMO is harmful to the environment. And you need to quantify your statements if you're going to scare people with them.
The bottom line is, will the GMO crop nourish us, in other words, will our body accept it as good healthy food? And will the environment accept it, in other words will it decompose normally into usable compounds, and will it harm or help animals?
Originally posted by Stewie
Yes, great news!
All of the action it seems is coming out of Europe. Good for them!
Someday the fat Americans will wake up!
Thanks for the link!