The Truth About Gentically Modified Foods and How Ties to the NWO and Control of the 3rd World and The Food Supply

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
fogbrella

Jingles wrote:

For one thing "ur" instead of "you're".

If you write your posts like a teenager writing a text, people won't bother reading, nor will they take you seriously. Avoiding unnecessary, unreadable text message abbreviations goes a long way towards effective communications.

It doesn't matter if you're from the hood or not. Everyone modifies their voice for writing from their spoken voice. The advantage of writing is that one can edit and modify to best convey their message. 

 

while I naturally sympathize, in general, with your wish for some adherence to a certain "standard" when communicating in text, I do mildly object to labelling it "like a teenager writing"

I don't believe that's what's happenin'...

the thread's author is simply - literally - spelling simple words the way those words sound, when spoken - albeit in an abbreviated, but easily-recognizable form - using "ur" to replace "you're" or "your", but NOT, for example, "Eeohr" - but he's not doing that to more complicated words (like "kmplkted", for example) which then MIGHT be misconstrued

I think it actually shows a certain respect for the reader(s), if a tad presumptious that they're also bright enough to "get" the simple abbreviations

Of course, it raises the question: Why IS it that the same "adherence to standard" isn't so rigidly applied to the spoken word?

You ARE, after all, expected, practically every day, to engage in conversation with a "mixed" audience - y'know, people ("ppl") you bump into, and to be smart enough, yourself, to "roll-with" the language as it is being spoken - ie, you're expected to "get it" - whatever "streamlining"  the speaker (from whatever background or training or sensibility) applies.

eg: (for example) there's "there's", instead of "there is",  "didn't", instead of "did not", or "you're", instead of "you are", etc. ("etc" being another inadvertant example!)

There is no, "Uh, could you repeat that, and, uh, use the full words - no apostrophes or abbreviations, please?"

 So, you can SPEAK in "streamlined", abbreviated, or apostrophied - and perfectly understandable -  forms, but, what? when you attempt to WRITE that,  as it sounds, when spoken , therefore all meaning is suddenly obscured?

I do not think so.

I  too sometimes abbreviate my text - substituting "you're" and/or "your(s)" - not with "ur", but with the same, spoken-sounding - and quicker-to-type "yer(s)", as in, "Yer standing on my foot!", or "Hey pal, that stink is definitely yers"...

... I have also often been known, in my twangier moments, to substitute the word "and" with " 'n " - as in, "rice 'n beans"

people "get it"

they may not like it, but HEY! I'm a tree-planter!

the point is, I don't think that the author of this thread, by his occasional "streamlining" of the written word, rendered anything so incommunicable as to obscure the point.

The quoted article (re GMOs, Gates, Monsanto, Spitzbergen cold-storage, and the implied future of food) was understandable enough! - there WAS no "communication break-down" there  - the salient points were made! but here we are, anyway, deliberating a few shortcuts which the thread's author took, delivering it. 

I do believe this is an obvious case of "attack the messenger" - as somebody else suggested - that the initial objection raised is an idealogical response to the implications, suggested in the article  - of "corporate intrigue" (STILL in denial) - than it is about the text used.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that initial objection - to a (very) few liberties taken - seems bent on completely ignoring the devastating implications of the article.

(at least, it seemed that way, when I began this reply, which was three or four hours ago)

Someone else suggests that the "source" is questionable.

Please outline yer doubts about the "source" of that article - give us some xmpls yer psbly concerned with - don't just make the inference and walk away.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Again more nonsense. I don't have time to address it all right now, so just two:

Quote:
LTJ, there are risks of cross-fertilization with GMO to native grasses and plants.  There are regulations to try to minimize those risks.

Total crap. The Percy Schmeiser court decision says, essentially, "if you get my germs I own you." Consequently, it is in the interests of GMOs to allow their germs to get into the wild. There are few if any restrictions on how they are distributed, transported, or used. Test sites are kept secret so they can't be monitored. All of the law in North America is on the side of thugs and the theives.

 

Quote:
I agree that there is enough food in the world and that distribution is a huge problem.  However, the world's population is likely to peak at close to 10 billion - there is not enough food for that many people yet.  Even still there are other reasons to increase food production - such as reducing the strain of over-fishing.  Increasing yield per acreage would also reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture.  And we wouldn't need to increase food production if we consumed far less meat - but I don't see that happening.  And support for GM doesn't have to be strictly about increasing yield - it may be a benefit to the environment if the crops require less pesticides, are more efficient at converting nutrients into food, or require less or no tilling.  I don't say that GM crops are perfect, but I think that the environmental and poverty problems are severe enough that everything should be on the table.  And I have yet to see any legitimate argument as to why they shouldn't be used.

Ah, the big lie. 

GMO is about monoculture and profit. The corporations behind GMOs don't give a fuck about the environment, health, or anything else. GMOs result in more not less pesticides as the GMOs themselves become a weed and as pests become resistant (remember how evolution works?). They result in habitat loss as more land is converted to monoculture as the weird math of commodities and yield demand it. GMO crops don't feed people; they feed the middlemen and the processed food industry that poisons everything. GMOs and industrial agriculture are two of the foremost threats to our planet's survival as they are wholly energy dependent, fed on chemicals. destroy the top soil, and poison our waters.

The reason we can't feed 7 billion people, today, through any method of agriculture, is because the corporate capitalist model doesn't distribute food according to need but according to ability to pay. While people starve in one nation, in another tons of food goes to waste. While Nigerians starve in the fields, Nigerian ports ship Nigerian agricultural products to Europe. That will not change no matter the yield as these corporations are firmly committed to the model that starves most of the world while feeding obesity in part of it.

Science is a wonderful thing when used in the interests of humans to understand and better live within nature. When it is used to undermine or subjugate nature it is anti-human as we, as humans, are fundamentally of nature.

Look at what the Monsantos and Cargills of the world are doing to your planet. Look at what they are doing to you as your diet is one of sugar, chemicals, and food-like objects. Do you believe they are altruistic? Do you believe they are motivated by a desire for a greener world or a healthier you? If you do you're either not paying attention or you are a fool.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 Okay not wave petunias though trademarks work similarly to patents in that propogation is legally limited. 

 Here though is a list some plants that are actually patented.  They're not hard to find if one really cares to look.

 Rose

 Strawberry

 Poinsetta

 Gazania

 Raspberry

 

 

 

 

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Quote:
In fact if the GMO crops tomorrow had removed the risk of cross fertilization they would then start screaming that seeing as cross fertilization occurs naturally, that it is dangerous that GMO crops can't.  That, LTJ is being incredibly disingenuous.
Perhaps it would be - if it wasn't completely a strawman argument. 

You are pretending that there is no difference between the related genes of species close enough to cross-pollinate and the alien genes of entirely different species inserted where they could never naturally occur. You seem well enough informed to know the difference, and I wonder why you would ignore the risks involved.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:

LTJ, there are risks of cross-fertilization with GMO to native grasses and plants.  There are regulations to try to minimize those risks.  I am not saying that those regulations are good enough.  Maybe they are maybe they are not.  Scientists are also moving forward with many different methods to eliminate that risk.  Things like growing sterile varieties of the plants, modifying the plants to stop the foreign genes from appearing in the pollen, or fluorescent markers to identify stray seeds, among others.   

However, there are also risks of cross fertilization from non-gmo plants to native grasses and plants.  And there have been, of course, many cases of this especially as plants are transplanted from one area of the world to another.  And cross fertilization occurs in nature.

But, of course, this isn't really about cross-fertilization.  If changes were made tomorrow so that the chances of cross fertilization from GMOs was gone, people who say they are against GMOs because of cross fertilization fears wouldn't change their minds.  They would just find another excuse.  Those people who say that they are against GMOs because of cross fertilization fears don't have the same concern about cross fertilization from plants like wave petunias coming from Japan.  Those people who say that they are against GMOs because of cross-fertilization don't demand regulations to decreases the risk of cross fertilization from non-gmos for the simple reason that they are only using cross fertilization as an excuse for their anti-gmo position.  In fact if the GMO crops tomorrow had removed the risk of cross fertilization they would then start screaming that seeing as cross fertilization occurs naturally, that it is dangerous that GMO crops can't.  That, LTJ is being incredibly disingenuous.

 You mean like making up disengenious strawman arguements to make your point?  Yes you've got it all covered because you just know what people think and will think. 

Here's a clue. Some people actually are concerned with cross fertilization of non indigenous plants whether all the way from Japan or from different regions  because of such ecological concerns. It isn't just about GMO's.  It's actually a big concern for some people who grow and are trying to presevere indigenous crops or regional varities of traditional food crops.  

 

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Thanks for pointing that out, ElizaQ. As one example, the native mulberry has pretty much disappeared in Southern Ontario due to the importation of the decorative 'weeping' asian species.

Trevormkidd

ElizaQ wrote:
Here though is a list some plants that are actually patented.  They're not hard to find if one really cares to look.

 Sorry, I think that there is a misunderstanding as to what I have said.  I didn't say that non-gm crops could not be patented (only that wave petunias were not) - what I said was "Many GMO plants are patented along with their seeds." and "I know of no case of a patented non-genetically modified plant in which the offspring are patented."  The links you posted are patented non-gm plants, but it no way indicates that you can not save seed.  According to Canada's (and the US') Plant Breeders Rights Act there are exemptions allowing the saving of seeds and use of those saved seeds without infringing on the patent holders rights.  GMOs are covered under different legislation as it is the gene, not the seed or plant that is patented.

Frustrated Mess wrote:
Total crap. The Percy Schmeiser court decision says, essentially, "if you get my germs I own you."

Seriously if you are not even going to bother to understand the case you are talking about then there is no sense responding to you anymore.  Schmeiser himself knows that was not the case.  Had it been the case he would have used it as a defence and been successful.  That was made abundently clear in the court cases.  However, Schmeiser acknowledged that he purposely isolated the GM crops through using roundup to kill the non gm crops.  Saved the seeds from those GM plants and stored them separated and planted them the next year.  Schmeiser knew he was planting GM crops in 1998.  In fact it was well enough known that Monsanto actually contacted him about the patent infringement prior to him planting those seeds.

The supreme court decision is available on the web.  As wikipedia states of the three cases: "A widespread misunderstanding of the case is that at issue was the question of accidental contamination, and that a victory for Monsanto would place farmers in jeopardy for contamination of their fields which was beyond their control. In fact, the courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category."

If you doubt the accuracy of that statement because it comes from wikipedia then read the court decisions. 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:
Perhaps it would be - if it wasn't completely a strawman argument. 

You are pretending that there is no difference between the related genes of species close enough to cross-pollinate and the alien genes of entirely different species inserted where they could never naturally occur. You seem well enough informed to know the difference, and I wonder why you would ignore the risks involved.

The problem with your argument is that because gmo crops with alien genes are so different from the wild grases and plants you spoke of earlier they are less likely than non gmo plants to cross pollinate as plants need to be fairly genetically homogenous.  Plus any cross breed or hybrid would be unlikely to outcompete wild grasses or plants.  A far greater concern would be what BA has stated earlier of GMO crops becoming weeds that simply out compete (but haven't cross-pollinated with) other plants and grasses.  However this is also a concern with non gmo plants and there are solutions being worked on which I outlined in a previous post. 

ElizaQ wrote:
 You mean like making up disengenious strawman arguements to make your point?  Yes you've got it all covered because you just know what people think and will think. 

Here's a clue. Some people actually are concerned with cross fertilization of non indigenous plants whether all the way from Japan or from different regions  because of such ecological concerns. It isn't just about GMO's.  It's actually a big concern for some people who grow and are trying to presevere indigenous crops or regional varities of traditional food crops.

No it is not a strawman argument.  I used to be 100% anti-gmo and I know a whole lot of people who are environmental activists as I spent many years running in those circles.  I have asked a couple dozen of those friends to give me reasons why they are against GMOs and when I give them a scenario where their concerns have been addressed and ask them if they would still be against GMOs the answer in each and every case has been yes.  If genetic technology was inserted into GMOs which would stop the risk of cross fertilization - how many anti-gmo babblers on this thread would change their position?  I suspect zero.  For the exact reason that I stated - People are against the GMO technology and the risks of cross fertilization is a minor issue for them that they only bring up to support their anti-GMO technology position. 

That is not to say that there are not people who are concerned about all cross fertilization.  But when the subject is brought up it is almost always in relation to GMOs.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:
And yes, like myself, all of them have called for better testing on GMO (and non-gmo) food.

So once again I state.  We both believe that there needs to be better testing on GMO products.  Where our beliefs differ is that I believe the better testing should be done before they products are exposed to the general human population and the natural environment and you believe it should be done after.

 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:

Seriously if you are not even going to bother to understand the case you are talking about then there is no sense responding to you anymore.  Schmeiser himself knows that was not the case.  Had it been the case he would have used it as a defence and been successful.  That was made abundently clear in the court cases.  However, Schmeiser acknowledged that he purposely isolated the GM crops through using roundup to kill the non gm crops.  Saved the seeds from those GM plants and stored them separated and planted them the next year.  Schmeiser knew he was planting GM crops in 1998.  In fact it was well enough known that Monsanto actually contacted him about the patent infringement prior to him planting those seeds.

The supreme court decision is available on the web.  As wikipedia states of the three cases: "A widespread misunderstanding of the case is that at issue was the question of accidental contamination, and that a victory for Monsanto would place farmers in jeopardy for contamination of their fields which was beyond their control. In fact, the courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category."

I have read the decision and my comments aren't compiled from talking points.  And, surprise, surprise, you misrepresent Schmeiser. I would encourage anyone interested in what really happened without the corporate spin to visit Schmeiser's web site, here:

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

It also lays bare the earlier falsehood that there are controls over the use of GMO and its release into the wild.

Let's take just this little bit of spin: "In fact, the courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category"

Sounds so reasonable doesn't it? But Schmeiser planted the canola in 97 from seeds he saved in 96. So the onus is now on the farmer to ensure his seeds are not contaminated by GMOs as opposed to Monsanto to prevent their seeds from contaminating someone else's plants. And on the issue of "accidental contamination"? From Schmieser's web site even though he supposedly understands something else:

"In a key part of the ruling, the judge agreed a farmer can generally own the seeds or plants grown on his land if they blow in or are carried there by pollen -- but the judge says this is not true in the case of genetically modified seed.

It was that part of the ruling that most upsets Percy Schmeiser. The implications are wide ranging and Schmeiser has launched an appeal that was heard on May 15 & 16, 2002 in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The Federal Court of Appeal subsequently rejected Schmeiser's appeal. Schmeiser then asked for leave from Canada's Supreme Court to hear the case. Leave was granted in May 2003 and the case was heard on January 20, 2004.

The Supreme Court issued their decision in May 2004 and one can view the decision as a draw. The Court determined that Monsanto's patent is valid, but Schmeiser is not forced to pay Monsanto anything as he did not profit from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his fields. This issue started with Monsanto demanding Schmeiser pay the $15/acre technology fee and in the end, Schmeiser did not have to pay. The Schmeiser family and supporters are pleased with this decision, however disappointed that the other areas of appeal were not overturned."

Read it yourself (with links to the relevant court documents): http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm 

"In my case, I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract. If I would go to St. Louis and contaminate their plots--destroy what they have worked on for 40 years--I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away,"  Percy Schmeiser

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Your "problem with my argument" seems to depend upon a series of assumptions that you do not (or cannot) explain. Such as why you've assumed GMO plants less likely to cross-pollinate. Or why you assume plants in the wild to be "genetically homogenous" across species. Or why, even if we accept your assumption that the risks may be reduced by hybridization, that said risks would be worth taking. 

Quote:
... and when I give them a scenario where their concerns have been addressed and ask them if they would still be against GMOs the answer in each and every case has been yes.

Do you enjoy knocking off your own strawmen? Where in the world have anyone's concerns about GMOs been addressed? Indeed, why can't they be promoted openly on their merits if the major concerns have been addressed?

Why shouldn't they just be labeled, so the market can decide? 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:
Why shouldn't they just be labeled, so the market can decide?

Exactly. Free market corporations are afraid of the market. That should tell us all we really need to know.

Bookish Agrarian

The problem with your argument is that because gmo crops with alien genes are so different from the wild grases and plants you spoke of earlier they are less likely than non gmo plants to cross pollinate as plants need to be fairly genetically homogenous.  Plus any cross breed or hybrid would be unlikely to outcompete wild grasses or plants.  A far greater concern would be what BA has stated earlier of GMO crops becoming weeds that simply out compete (but haven't cross-pollinated with) other plants and grasses.  However this is also a concern with non gmo plants and there are solutions being worked on which I outlined in a previous post. 

 

This betrays a real lack of understanding how living plants actual exist in the real world outside the lab.  I use to grow GM crops.  I understand their reality.  They are far more noxious as a weed than any other non-GM crop if for no other reason than you can not use any other technique to get rid of them.  Yes invasive species are a problem, but in comparision they are not a rival for things RR Canola.  As well, GM crops are not sterile.  They have extra inserted genes that are not naturally found in the species.  That is the point.  It is why vertical breeding as opposed to horizontal breeding is taking place.  Therefore the chance to interbreed with related species is not impaired in any way.  In fact, because they are RR immune they have a head start in out competing.

 

 

Well I guess we now know when bio-diversity loss, including benifical insects, fungus and bacterias, soil degredation and anti-biotic resistance started.  With the introduction of GMOs

 

This is incrediably disingenuous.  GM cropping is a super ramping up of the tillage techniques that are at the root of these problems.  Since I took my land off drugs and GM cropping the land is much healthier, my yields are much better and my land is much more drought tolerant and other positives.  No one suggested that GM cropping was the problem, however, they are an exponential increase in the problems.

 

I am also aware that no amount of testing would satisfy those who oppose GM products.  In fact most anti-gmo organizations who are saying that the testing is inadequate also oppose and try to block gmo testing, field trials etc. 

 

This is simply untrue.  Yes groups and individuals have objected to poorly designed or unreviewable trials, but to say they have been opposed at all terms is either an example of your ignorance or your dishonesty.

 As for your claim that "anti-biotic resistance due to the gene insertion technique itself."  I would love to see the evidence for such a claim. 

 

If you had even bothered to read the link I provided from Africa you would have seen a very detailed document, with a full bibliography that would have directed you to just that.  It seems you are the one with the closed mind you accuse others of having.  Since you can't be bothered to actually read counter argument before you open your big trap I am done posting in response to anything you post.  If you really are interested in these issues, and not just some kind of ignorant mouth piece you might want to check out Raj Patel's Stuffed and Starved.  It explains how there is more than enough food being grown in the world to end hunger, the problem is the food distribution system, and of course our geo-political priorities.  You might want to also check out organizations that actually represent farmers around the world.  Those who represent peasent farmers around the world are universally opposed to GM cropping because they have seen first hand the damage the system creates in their communities.

 

Trevormkidd

Frustrated Mess wrote:
I have read the decision and my comments aren't compiled from talking points.  And, surprise, surprise, you misrepresent Schmeiser. I would encourage anyone interested in what really happened without the corporate spin to visit Schmeiser's web site, here:

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

Your evidence comes strictly from Schmeiser's own site.  I value the perspective of a set of judges over the defendant whose site contradicts the evidence he put forward in court. 

Quote:
Sounds so reasonable doesn't it? But Schmeiser planted the canola in 97 from seeds he saved in 96.

The ruling in each case were about the 98 crop and specifically stated that it had nothing to do with the 97 crop.  So much for the value of his site. 

Quote:
So the onus is now on the farmer to ensure his seeds are not contaminated by GMOs as opposed to Monsanto to prevent their seeds from contaminating someone else's plants.

If you read more than Percy's site you would know that is the exact opposite of what the courts said.  And so on it goes.  Although I do love your quote at the bottom: "In my case, I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract. If I would go to St. Louis and contaminate their plots--destroy what they have worked on for 40 years--I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away,"  Percy Schmeiser

That would be relevant and true if this wasn't a deliberate case of Schmeiser purposefully abandoning his own seed in favor of what he knew was GM seed.  Furthermore the courts ruled that he could keep his own seed.  Schmeiser destroyed it of his own accord.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:
If you are really worried (which I highly doubt)...........But, of course, this isn't really about cross-fertilization.......And I have yet to see any legitimate argument as to why they shouldn't be used....... I am also aware that no amount of testing would satisfy those who oppose GM products........because they are actually simply against all gmo no matter what the positive or negative consequences........

It seems in stating that "all" of us who "oppose" (ie question) GMO products have our minds made up it is actually you who has his mind made up - about who we are and why we are saying it.

Trevormkidd wrote:
I support better testing of GM..........As for GM potatoes, there was one independent study 11 years ago.  The results have not been reproduced and to say that both the Lancet (where it was published) and the Royal Society had significant concerns.......LTJ, there are risks of cross-fertilization with GMO to native grasses and plants.  There are regulations to try to minimize those risks.  I am not saying that those regulations are good enough.  Maybe they are maybe they are not......progressive people should not assume that the majority of poor farmers would agree with our vision of how they should be farming. 

Trevormkidd wrote:
I have asked a couple dozen of those friends to give me reasons why they are against GMOs and when I give them a scenario where their concerns have been addressed and ask them if they would still be against GMOs the answer in each and every case has been yes.

We have asked you to give reasons why our concerns about GMO's are not founded and not only do you not address our concerns but you confirm they are concerns and when we ask you if you still would be against taking GMOs off the market until these are solved in each and every case (your answer) has been yes - you would be against taking them off the market.

Trevormkidd

Refuge wrote:
So once again I state.  We both believe that there needs to be better testing on GMO products.  Where our beliefs differ is that I believe the better testing should be done before they products are exposed to the general human population and the natural environment and you believe it should be done after.

I never said that the better testing should be done after the products are exposed to the general human population.  I would like better tests to be done to all gm and non-gm food before it is on the market.  That includes non-gm food which currently requires no testing.  Does that mean that I support a ban of the GM food currently on the market?  No.  Most of it has been consumed by millions of people over several years.  That is better than the results of any testing is going to be.  The major scientific journals have concluded that there is no more of a risk from the current GM food on the market than from conventional food.  However, in the future I support better testing being done.  That is not a novel position.  I support better testing being done on pharmaceuticals.  That doesn't mean that I support pulling all of the current pharmaceuticals off the shelves.  I also support testing on alternative medicines.  That doesn't mean that I support the current businesses selling those products being shut down until tests are done.

Trevormkidd

Refuge wrote:
We have asked you to give reasons why our concerns about GMO's are not founded and not only do you not address our concerns but you confirm they are concerns and when we ask you if you still would be against taking GMOs off the market until these are solved in each and every case (your answer) has been yes - you would be against taking them off the market.

Not exactly.  The issue is risk analysis.  For instance are there concerns about cross fertilization with GMOs?  Yes.  But what are the risks?  I try to follow the scientific evidence.  The journals I read seem to say that the risks are roughly the same as non-gm crops.  So should the GM crops be taken off the shelves based on that?  No, as that doesn't actually lower the risk level.  Should scientists move forward to lower that risk further?  Absolutely.  Do I support every GM product on the market right now?  No, I don't support the roundup ready ones for instance.     

Trevormkidd

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Your "problem with my argument" seems to depend upon a series of assumptions that you do not (or cannot) explain. Such as why you've assumed GMO plants less likely to cross-pollinate.

The less genetically homogenous a plant is to another the less likely it would be to cross pollinate. 

Quote:
Or why you assume plants in the wild to be "genetically homogenous" across species.

I don't assume that plants in the wild are genetically homogenous across species.  I do assume that the closer genetically two plants are to each other the more likely they are to cross-pollinate.  Seeing as you said your self tha GM plants have have alien DNA that difference in the genetic could would make it less likely to cross pollinate.  And for instance if they added chromosomes to a GM plant it would be very difficult for it to cross pollinate with its non-gm relatives which have fewer chromosomes.

Quote:
Or why, even if we accept your assumption that the risks may be reduced by hybridization, that said risks would be worth taking.

There are always risks.  As long as the risks of GM plants are considered no greater than non-gm plants then the risk of using GM plants is no higher than the risk of not using GM plants.  The major scientific bodies have said the risk of current GM plants is no greater.

Quote:
Do you enjoy knocking off your own strawmen? Where in the world have anyone's concerns about GMOs been addressed? Indeed, why can't they be promoted openly on their merits if the major concerns have been addressed?

If you read what I wrote I asked them in the scenario where their concerns were address would they still be against GMOs.  They said yes indicating that under no circumstances will they ever accept GMOs.

As for promoting GMOs on their merits I think it would be a great idea.  What that requires is for Green Peace and other environmental groups to stop spreading lies about GMOs. 

Quote:
Why shouldn't they just be labeled, so the market can decide? 

Who said anything against labelling??

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:

Refuge wrote:
We have asked you to give reasons why our concerns about GMO's are not founded and not only do you not address our concerns but you confirm they are concerns and when we ask you if you still would be against taking GMOs off the market until these are solved in each and every case (your answer) has been yes - you would be against taking them off the market.

Not exactly.  The issue is risk analysis.  For instance are there concerns about cross fertilization with GMOs?  Yes.  But what are the risks?  I try to follow the scientific evidence.  The journals I read seem to say that the risks are roughly the same as non-gm crops.  So should the GM crops be taken off the shelves based on that?  No, as that doesn't actually lower the risk level.  Should scientists move forward to lower that risk further?  Absolutely.  Do I support every GM product on the market right now?  No, I don't support the roundup ready ones for instance.     

dis aint even fully about that there are benefits and negatives. This about the economics behind it and how they don't give a fucc about the ppl only the money and that what they provin time n time agen. They aint our friends, wanna exploit us till da very end.  that what matters and the economic system also the reason why there starving ppl so makin GMO foods (which have a main claim of that) aint gonna remedy the situation and it hasn't. It about the system god n dat is what it is. Fucc capitalism fucc eatin the crumbs fallin off da riches chin. Ill go der n take everything n spread it. Fucc few livin well n every1 else sufferin every1 can live well. n finally Fucc A Materialistic Capitalistic mindset that holds u bacc from realizin the truth n fucc ur bullshit.

The anti-gmo organizations are against testing that funded by the companies themselves cuz that has bias involved if ur gonna make a argument atleast make it on truths and facts instead of obscuring it to fit ur own agenda.

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

also the risk wit GMO crops and more pollination wit others is that for example rice has been modified the GMO version to pollinate thru the air n this fuccs up the regular rice and since the GMO rice controlled it fuccs up the farmers.

Trevormkidd

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
This betrays a real lack of understanding how living plants actual exist in the real world outside the lab.  I use to grow GM crops.  I understand their reality.  They are far more noxious as a weed than any other non-GM crop if for no other reason than you can not use any other technique to get rid of them.  Yes invasive species are a problem, but in comparision they are not a rival for things RR Canola.

You are referring to a single type of GM plant as if it represented all GM plants. 

Quote:
As well, GM crops are not sterile.

I never said they were.  I said they could be.

Quote:
They have extra inserted genes that are not naturally found in the species.  That is the point.  It is why vertical breeding as opposed to horizontal breeding is taking place.  Therefore the chance to interbreed with related species is not impaired in any way.  In fact, because they are RR immune they have a head start in out competing.

Again referring to a single type of GM plant as if all GM plants were the same. 

Quote:
This is incrediably disingenuous.  GM cropping is a super ramping up of the tillage techniques that are at the root of these problems.

Wow.  How many times can you make the claim that a single type of GM crop represents all GM crops. 

Quote:
Since I took my land off drugs and GM cropping the land is much healthier, my yields are much better and my land is much more drought tolerant and other positives.  No one suggested that GM cropping was the problem, however, they are an exponential increase in the problems.

I think that is great.  If it works as well as you say it does I have no doubt that most of the farmers in Canada will be following your lead.

Quote:
This is simply untrue.  Yes groups and individuals have objected to poorly designed or unreviewable trials, but to say they have been opposed at all terms is either an example of your ignorance or your dishonesty.

Really have you read Green Peace's position?  Then you can go to the next group from there. 

Quote:
If you had even bothered to read the link I provided from Africa you would have seen a very detailed document, with a full bibliography that would have directed you to just that.  It seems you are the one with the closed mind you accuse others of having.  Since you can't be bothered to actually read counter argument before you open your big trap I am done posting in response to anything you post.

It is 80 pages long.  Half of the footnote links I clicked on didn't work.  It sources Smith 3 times which makes me question its credibility.  It has not been peer reviewed.  Few of its sources are peer reviewed.  I have read part of it.  I may or may not finish it.  However, not yet being able to find anything is a science journal related to your assertion, makes me skeptical about the reliability of the claim.

Quote:
If you really are interested in these issues, and not just some kind of ignorant mouth piece you might want to check out Raj Patel's Stuffed and Starved.  It explains how there is more than enough food being grown in the world to end hunger, the problem is the food distribution system, and of course our geo-political priorities.  You might want to also check out organizations that actually represent farmers around the world.  Those who represent peasent farmers around the world are universally opposed to GM cropping because they have seen first hand the damage the system creates in their communities.

I doubt I will read that book as I have read others in a similar vien.  I am perfectly happy if any farmers choose not to use GMOs.  I will also continue to support those who wish to use the technology.

Trevormkidd

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:
Trevormkidd wrote:
dis aint even fully about that there are benefits and negatives. This about the economics behind it and how they don't give a fucc about the ppl only the money and that what they provin time n time agen. They aint our friends, wanna exploit us till da very end.  that what matters and the economic system also the reason why there starving ppl so makin GMO foods (which have a main claim of that) aint gonna remedy the situation and it hasn't. It about the system god n dat is what it is. Fucc capitalism fucc eatin the crumbs fallin off da riches chin. Ill go der n take everything n spread it. Fucc few livin well n every1 else sufferin every1 can live well. n finally Fucc A Materialistic Capitalistic mindset that holds u bacc from realizin the truth n fucc ur bullshit.

Technology is not capitalist.  Just because a technology can be abused by capitalists does not make it bad.

Quote:
The anti-gmo organizations are against testing that funded by the companies themselves cuz that has bias involved if ur gonna make a argument atleast make it on truths and facts instead of obscuring it to fit ur own agenda.

I would believe that if Greenpeace and other groups didn't oppose the field testing of golden rice.  Even after their initial objections were dealt with they still opposed the trials which were required to get the very information that they said was needed.  

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Trevor: Your claims of general scientific consensus about the appropriateness and acceptability of GMO agriculture are as absurd as the claims of controversy by climate change deniers.

Perhaps you need to be introduced to Dr. Pusztai, just one of the controvertial figures that multinational agribusiness attempted to silence - but whom wikipedia states has been vindicated, as his studies have been validated. 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Does the NDP have a position on GMO foods?  Shouldn't it be universally accepted as bad for social justice by the left and babble?

Trevormkidd

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Trevor: Your claims of general scientific consensus about the appropriateness and acceptability of GMO agriculture are as absurd as the claims of controversy by climate change deniers.

I have claimed no consensus on GMOs.  I have correctly stated that my view matches the position of the major scientific bodies and journals.  Those bodies and journals do not state that there is a consensus.

Quote:
Perhaps you need to be introduced to Dr. Pusztai, just one of the controvertial figures that multinational agribusiness attempted to silence - but whom wikipedia states has been vindicated, as his studies have been validated.

I have not seen a wikipedia article that inaccurate since several years ago wikipedia states that the population of the town I lived in was "two chicks and a cat."

There is no evidence that multinational companies attempted to silence Pusztai.  When Pusztai released his results in a media press conference instead of through a science or medical journal, the head of the lab immediately asked him to provide all the data for him to make his claims.  When he didn't, and the data he did supply didn't match his claims at the media conference he was put on leave.  The head of the lab then brought in 6 independent scientists to review the quality of the work.  They basically thought it was crap and didn't match his claims.  At that point in time he was let go.  Could it have been the silencing of multinational companies?  Yes, but I think they would be smart enough to know that the firing of Pusztai was bad news for them, whereas had he been kept on his poor work would have been the center of attention.  The lab likely had a better reason to let pusztai go as it was against policy to release data in the manner he did and the quality of the work reflected poorly on the lab's reputation.  Lab's have a tendency to fire employees for that.  Pusztai work was also controversially published in the Lancet (a prominent medical journal known for being fairly critical of GMO and the regulations on GMOs at that time) where they also had 6 independent scientists peer review the work.  They were harshly critical of it: lack of controls, poor statistical methodolgy, small study size, very high standard deviations in all groups and the conclusion in general etc.  The statistical chart from the Lancet publication can be found here:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4440/1858/640/pusztaiDATA.jpg       

The results are basically meaningless.  Pusztai, may end up being vindicated, but he certainly has been yet.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:

ElizaQ wrote:
Here though is a list some plants that are actually patented.  They're not hard to find if one really cares to look.

 Sorry, I think that there is a misunderstanding as to what I have said.  I didn't say that non-gm crops could not be patented (only that wave petunias were not) - what I said was "Many GMO plants are patented along with their seeds." and "I know of no case of a patented non-genetically modified plant in which the offspring are patented."  The links you posted are patented non-gm plants, but it no way indicates that you can not save seed.  According to Canada's (and the US') Plant Breeders Rights Act there are exemptions allowing the saving of seeds and use of those saved seeds without infringing on the patent holders rights.  GMOs are covered under different legislation as it is the gene, not the seed or plant that is patented.

  I know you didn't say that non-gmos couldn't be patented you said that you didn't know of any cases where non-gmo plants offspring are patented.  If you don't know or get what that means then sorry you don't know what you are talking about. I do. I'm in the biz. You cannot propagate most if not all patented or tradmarked plants with any intent to pass them on or make any money off of that plant propagation. Period.   Plant propagation also consists of more then just saving seeds. Seeds are just one method.   Sure they're not going to go after a home gardener who propagates a patented plant for use in their own garden,  which is why saving 'wave petunia' seeds isn't a big deal (beyond them being a hybrid)  It's kind of like buying a CD and putting it on tape or on an MP3 player. They're not likely go after a gardener who gives some seed or cuttings to a friend but technically you're really not supposed to do that either.  That's cheating the patent holder or retailer who holds the rights to that trademarked or patented plant out of $$.     The patent holder basically holds the rights to that plant and has rights in governing it's use and distribution, the same way that a company holds the right for use of a GMO plant. 

 As for plant breeders there are stipulations for using patented plants for further breeding processes but you can't just do it willy nilly or have to gets right to doing it. As you said there are exceptionsm, but that fact that there has to be exceptions is because of the legal stipulations of plant patents and their propogation whether from seed or other methods. 

 BA, a farmer has also said  that there are many examples in his field. I have the feeling he knows what he is talking about.

 It's also interesting to because in one instance you argue that GMO's are just an extention of traditional plant breeding practices but yet in patent law they are quite different. That the genes are patented. That's quite different wouldn't you say?  Or is this just an exercise in having it both ways. It's really the same, but hey it's different.  

 

Quote:

No it is not a strawman argument.  I used to be 100% anti-gmo and I know a whole lot of people who are environmental activists as I spent many years running in those circles.  I have asked a couple dozen of those friends to give me reasons why they are against GMOs and when I give them a scenario where their concerns have been addressed and ask them if they would still be against GMOs the answer in each and every case has been yes.  If genetic technology was inserted into GMOs which would stop the risk of cross fertilization - how many anti-gmo babblers on this thread would change their position?  I suspect zero.  For the exact reason that I stated - People are against the GMO technology and the risks of cross fertilization is a minor issue for them that they only bring up to support their anti-GMO technology position. 

That is not to say that there are not people who are concerned about all cross fertilization.  But when the subject is brought up it is almost always in relation to GMOs.

 Here's another clue and why it's a strawman. It's in YOUR experience.  Your evidence is anecdotal yet you use it in some sort of absolutist terms by applying your opinion, where you actually said you know that everyone actually thinks that way, is therefore disengenious and then made that a point of arguement pertaining to people here.   That's a prime example of strawman.    Just because you experienced this with the people you happened to converse with doesn't mean it's true f generalized or not.   Did you ever consider that possibly the scenarios you gave them don't actually warrent them changing their minds?   Here you even give and example that's only a hypothetical. "If it could be done would you change your mind?" 

That's what makes it a strawman and disengenious, applying that to everyone who happens to have issues with gmos. 

My experience is different.  Mine comes from a number of different places including such crazy places as university ecology classes where one would assume that the professors have at least some idea of what they are talking about.  My concern is primarily based on ecological concerns. It's number one actually and I know many who feel the same way. 

  Then there is this this 'well I was once where I assume you are  until I learned better,' sorta of statement as if that implies some sort of enlightenment on the subject. 

   So since your pulling that line.  I will too.  I wasn't anti-GMO,( though I'm not completely anti-GMO anyways, just very wary and concerned and very willing to be convinced that its all safe and okay),  UNTIL  I started learning and studying subjects like ecology and learned quite a bit about the area of biological study vs applied ecology in more depth.   Things like how surprisingly the two don't always run and work together particularly in the bio-tech industries.  Biology majors don't necessarly all learn or study ecology at all.   As well  I learned about the the problems with many of your hypothetical 'what ifs' and 'they're working on its'  example  coming to fruition any time soon, where 100% of the risk is dealt with.  

 

    The fact is that issues to do with cross fertilization which by the way the proper technical term is out-crossing are an issue now, as they are being used now. It's not some hypothetical future that will occur when the kinks get all worked out.   The issues that people that like BA brought up about the adaptation of bugs to plant entities like BT transgenic crops are real We are conducting the big experiment now and frankly it's quite irksome that they're so easily dismissed as concern that's not worthy.  You'd think that we might have learned something from the issues with superbugs that antibiotic use has caused which have followed similar mechinisms but no that's just different. Though it's really not because that problem is all about ecosystems and their behavior  as well. 

  We are already seeing results of this big experiment in animals particularly in places like the salmon fishery where manipulated salmon are causing problems with the wild populations, to their detriment.  It's the same sort of biological pattern and even though the science assured that the 'risk' was little and that regulations were set up to mitigate the risks surprise, surprise nature isn't cooperating as it's supposed to and according to the 'models.'   Well actually it's not really surprising if one has a basic understanding of ecological systems. 

 There have been a few recent studies that show the very real possibility that certain transgenic crops/and or the inputs needed to grow those crops might actually be one of the contributing factors to our bees being in trouble.  It's not been any way proved yet but there is some initial correlative findings that need to be studied further. That's a huge problem if it's in any way true.    If this was proven to be true would that change your mind at all? Do you understand the  consequences on our food supply if we screw up the bees and the magnitude of the problems that will cause?  Actually not will cause, whatever is behind the bee problem it's already having consequences.  

So here's my strawman.  I've talked to many people who are very pro-GMO and I have found them sorely lacking in understanding ecologically and how plants and eco-systems behave. They think they do but it soon becomes clear that it's basically an elementary 'food chain' type understanding.   Yes they base there view on 'science' and talk about risk and whatnot and sometimes have decent knowledge of biology but just understanding certain aspects of biology does not necessarily equate with understanding ecological systems in a wholistic manner.   They don't understand that 'risk' in ecology isn't just a matter of percentages and chance and a common understanding of 'risk assessment'  because it's understood differently,  because the consequences can be much more widespread and extremely difficult if not impossible to 'fix' if something goes wrong.    Effecting pollinators is really good example here. The consequences for this are almost unimaginable.  So far there is no techno fix for that problem because with all of amazing biological and ecological  knowledge no one knows for sure what the f*ck is going on with them and what to do about it.  But hey, we'll figure it out. No need for concern or anything.    I find after talking to dozens of these people that they become fixated on one aspect of biological science as superior, namely the techno fixes that will solve everything if not now but eventually and all this ecological mumbo jumbo is just really hippy stuff as the lab can overule what happens in field if we just fits the bits and pieces together better.   They just easily dismiss other people who might come from different place in biological sciences  and understanding as anti-science and make broad statements about what  they must think because obviously they're just anti for the sake of being anti.  I find that these people will be pro-GMO, no matter what is said or shown because they're working from a very myopic viewpoint.  This includes many trained biologists. 

Trevormkidd

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Does the NDP have a position on GMO foods?  Shouldn't it be universally accepted as bad for social justice by the left and babble?

I am not a member of the NDP.  When I was several years ago I remember their position being in favour of labelling, and stating that the technology has great promise and potential risk.  I am unaware if their position has changed since that time.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:
The statistical chart from the Lancet publication can be found here:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4440/1858/640/pusztaiDATA.jpg       

The results are basically meaningless.  Pusztai, may end up being vindicated, but he certainly has been yet.

Actually, it is your link which is basically meaningless, stripped of any and all context. And despite your flat denial, most would concede that Pusztai has been vindicated. Here's a somewhat neutral review of the controversy. 

Trevormkidd

ElizaQ wrote:
  There have been a few recent studies that show the very real possibility that certain transgenic crops/and or the inputs needed to grow those crops might actually be one of the contributing factors to our bees being in trouble.  It's not been any way proved yet but there is some initial correlative findings that need to be studied further. That's a huge problem if it's in any way true.    If this was proven to be true would that change your mind at all?

Yes if it were true I would support a ban on GMOs.  If the problem was in a single type of GMO and found to be something that could be easily corrected then would still support a ban of several years until significant amounts of studies could be done.  Even then I would support GMOs being taken completely out of private industry hands.  The scientific community as a whole would support a ban too I am sure.  New Scientist recently had a piece where they said that a consensus was forming on the causes being a combination of "Infections, lack of food, pesticides and breeding"  However, I don't recall seeing any papers published in the major scientific journals recently being that confident on the causes, so I am a little doubtful that evidence is strong enough to support that opinion.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126954.600-honeybees-under-attack-on-all-fronts.html 

Cueball Cueball's picture

And we all know the scientific community is unbiased and above economic coercion. "The scientific community as a whole" got right behind the evidence that cigarettes cause cancer, and climate change is almost certainly a reality right of the mark, grants, corporate subsidies and systemic privileges that reward work that has a financial positive for corporations never impact the judgement of the "community as a whole", we all know that.

Just ask Robert Oppenheimer.

What I don't get is why you are so beholden to this idea that GMO's are a necessary and immediatly need solution to food production world wide. Why such modified genetic structures have to be introduced into field testing on a wide scale, when its quite clear that the long term impacts on the overall ecosystem will not be fully understood for very many generations.

Why the hurry, when there are simple social and organizational means of increasing production without the need for reshaping the habit in ways that are possibly irreversible?

I would suggest a great deal of caution when introducing such breeds into the general environment.

There was not a lot of "strong" evidence to support the opinion that the internal combustion engine were detrimental to the environment, when Henry Ford started rolling his "Model T's" of the production line, either. In fact there was no evidence at all. But they are.

Fermi and Oppenhiemer both died of cancer because when they first started playing around with the atom there was little "evidence" to support the notion that radiation caused cancer. At the time there were plenty of members of the "scientific community" around willing to say that they were "a little doubtful that evidence is strong enough to support that opinion".

Actually come to think of it, there is no rock solid evidence that either died of cancer caused by radiation. But if someone wants to be a fool and think otherwise they can do so, but shouldn't expect people to pay much attention.

Serious people that is.

Bookish Agrarian

Again referring to a single type of GM plant as if all GM plants were the same.

 

You are either extremley ignorant or dishonest.  I gave an example.  An example is not the same as an extrapolation.  There are other GM varities that have caused simular issues.  I really strongly suggest you try reading the literature with an open mind.  In any case you have clearly demonstrated that you have an extremely closed mind.  As such I will stop wasting my time on someone who has no interest in the views of others.  Views that are ground in both science and personal experience and in working with farmer organizations from around the world.  It is also extremely revealing how you glossed over the example around the root causes of BSE in Canada.  Just to help you out it is what we call an illustration.

Someone who claims that there is near universal acceptance among scientists of GM cropping is clearly reading, or only willing to read, one side of the story.  There are many, many major scientific groups and well respected scientist that would suggest your perspective is dangerously naive and quite frankly dishonest.  What is particularly dangerous and demonstrates your total ignorance is your unwillingness to even consider the economic treadmill many farmers find themselves in and how that economic vulnerability is exploited by these corporations.   And yes I have farmers coming to me all the time to re-discover ways of low input farming.  The simple reality is that my bottom line is much better than theirs because of the economics involved.  The trouble is that the system is controlled and concentrated and many farmers have a choice, be in the corporate system or leave farming.  It is a scary course to chart out for open territory and fraught with risk.  You also seem to assume I am some sort of small, little farmer.  I am not.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:

I never said that the better testing should be done after the products are exposed to the general human population.  I would like better tests to be done to all gm and non-gm food before it is on the market.  That includes non-gm food which currently requires no testing.  Does that mean that I support a ban of the GM food currently on the market?  No.  Most of it has been consumed by millions of people over several years.  That is better than the results of any testing is going to be.The major scientific journals have concluded that there is no more of a risk from the current GM food on the market than from conventional food.  However, in the future I support better testing being done.  That is not a novel position.  I support better testing being done on pharmaceuticals.  That doesn't mean that I support pulling all of the current pharmaceuticals off the shelves.  I also support testing on alternative medicines.  That doesn't mean that I support the current businesses selling those products being shut down until tests are done.

That is percisely the problem, GMO foods are seen by the government as equivelent to natural foods when it is not know if they are like natural foods or not (what Cueball said about the scientific community which followed the government after Monsanto "convinced" the government that their foods were no different).

Testing on the gerneral population in NOT BETTER than doing testing in a labraroty.  There are no independent or dependent variables in society and every study which does testing on anything always comes down to how reliable their independent and dependent variables are.  There is no match sampling, no control group, no any kind of study parameters which would allow a reasonable theory to be proven or disproven.  Testing is not for the general public it is to be done in labratories.

When children's medication was pulled it was not pulled because it was proven to be ineffective by tests, it was suspected to be ineffective, it wasn't proven to have contributed to adverse health effects in 164 cases, it was pulled base on suspicion.  It was pulled so there could be further testing done.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Health/Health+Canada+puts+kids+cold+medicine/1094438/story.html

For someone who believes so strongly in scientific studies why are you saying that you think the better testing is in the general public?  Especially when people themselves don't even know when they are taking these GMO's so it wouldn't be reportbale to health Canada like the children's medication would.  Even if it were labelled how long did it take to get children's medication off the shelves and how many children suffered or died before that happened?

I am only talking here about the human populations health but it also carries across to what Frustrated Mess, Bookish Agrarian, Farm Punk and ElizaQ are saying about the health of the environment, something I am not as familiar about the effects on but know there are questions about it.

The GMO's that are currently out there have not been tested enough, all of them.  I know that you  disagree with me on that point because of your strong belief in the infalibility of the scientific community but we do disagree.  There needs to be better legislation specifically to do with GMO's  for testing and all GMO's must meet that testing before they are released, and just like children's cough medication they should be pulled from the shelves until they are, when it is persons life at risk or the enviroment as there have been enough questions raised in this thread alone to show there have it shouldn't be out in the public for the reasons I stated above, and the others have stated.  Being in the public will not establish how dangerous these products are (or safe if indeed they are) for generations and the possible harm they may reek without the testing is not worth it.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Trevormkidd wrote:

Refuge wrote:
We have asked you to give reasons why our concerns about GMO's are not founded and not only do you not address our concerns but you confirm they are concerns and when we ask you if you still would be against taking GMOs off the market until these are solved in each and every case (your answer) has been yes - you would be against taking them off the market.

Not exactly.  The issue is risk analysis.  For instance are there concerns about cross fertilization with GMOs?  Yes.  But what are the risks?  I try to follow the scientific evidence.  The journals I read seem to say that the risks are roughly the same as non-gm crops.  So should the GM crops be taken off the shelves based on that?  No, as that doesn't actually lower the risk level.  Should scientists move forward to lower that risk further?  Absolutely.  Do I support every GM product on the market right now?  No, I don't support the roundup ready ones for instance.     

What Cueball said about the scientific community.  And what I said in my previous post.

remind remind's picture

Continued here

This thred is too long for dial up follow along. will move refuge's 2nd to last post over.

Pages

Topic locked