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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
GM crops are probably safer than conventional plants, according to the Environment Secretary.
Making the strongest call yet for the adoption of the technology, Mr Paterson told the BBC that that GM has significant benefits for farmers, consumers and the environment.
He said the next generation of GM crops offers the "most wonderful opportunities to improve human health."
Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by BaneOfQuo
The next logical step would be to stop wasting so much. We waste enough food every day to feed the rest of the world. There is more than enough to go around. At our house the only things we throw out are the things that have gone bad. And that rarely happens.
Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by Wonderer2012
There is still too much that isn't known about GMOs for me to trust it...
Originally posted by BaneOfQuo
We hav been modifying the world around us since humans first settled and form our early agrarian societies. Back then it was a matter of survival and sustainability. We face the same scenario now in a world this continually growing and struggles to find means to feed the population.
GM crops are probably safer than conventional plants
Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by BaneOfQuo
My question to people who bring up the "feed the starving people" issue is this.
Why is anyone starving now, because GM crops have been around for many years? Shouldn't everyone be fed by now?
And to the topic, Yes, lets believe anyone in the government, because they only tell us the truth, right?edit on 20-6-2013 by chiefsmom because: addition
Originally posted by SloAnPainful
Originally posted by BaneOfQuo
We hav been modifying the world around us since humans first settled and form our early agrarian societies. Back then it was a matter of survival and sustainability. We face the same scenario now in a world this continually growing and struggles to find means to feed the population.
I get where you're coming from, but we haven't been modifying what goes into our bodies I.E food. Something we ingest that has the ability to kill us...
Feeding the population is important but not at the risk of also killing people. I would say that's not making much progress...
-SAP-
Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by BaneOfQuo
Nature NEEDS to regulate itself. We're intervening way too much as it is. When we do get to the point were the Earth can't sustain us anymore we'll need to move a bunch of people off world or if the technology doesn't permit the Earth will cleans itself. She's done it before she'll do it again.edit on 20-6-2013 by XLR8R because: (no reason given)