Genetically modified food

I guess that's where critical thinking would come into play.

For sure. I agree with you about the predators. Some of the spam I get worries me a bit because I can imagine elderly noobs worrying about the stern message from the "bank" saying their account will be closed and donated to The Businessman's Club unless they immediately prove their identity with name, address, DOB, credit card number, expiry date and verification code etc.

Darwinian, really.
 
I did read this study...and the study released shortly afterward discrediting most of the facts presented. In fact I believe some of the people involved are being investigated for mis-leading and manipulation of data.
I'll see if I can find the link.

I'm just repeating what I heard on the radio. You can draw your own conclusions. This debate reminds a lot of the global warming debate. It's basically the same scenario as far as who is doing the debating and which side of the fence certain people are on. I prefer to err on the side of caution. I have such a life that I am stuck in this world having to trust this government to look out for my best interests, but I don't feel that this is the case. It's no secret that the politicians are owned by the corporations now. It's also no secret that corporations are in it for profit, not to serve our best interests. Higher yield equals profits. Producing this higher yield outweighs the negative effects that result from corporate profiteering. So, trust but verify? Good luck with that. Based on their track record, they don't deserve my trust.
 
I'm just repeating what I heard on the radio. You can draw your own conclusions. This debate reminds a lot of the global warming debate. It's basically the same scenario as far as who is doing the debating and which side of the fence certain people are on. I prefer to err on the side of caution. I have such a life that I am stuck in this world having to trust this government to look out for my best interests, but I don't feel that this is the case. It's no secret that the politicians are owned by the corporations now. It's also no secret that corporations are in it for profit, not to serve our best interests. Higher yield equals profits. Producing this higher yield outweighs the negative effects that result from corporate profiteering. So, trust but verify? Good luck with that. Based on their track record, they don't deserve my trust.

Why should you trust yourself? If you are like most of us, you hand over large amounts of cash to these corporations, ensuring they will keep delivering food, energy and resources so you can live your life as you like and they become wealthy and influential in the process. One nice thing about having ten fingers is you can point at least one at yourself, in addition to everyone else, for problems affecting society.

And GMOs are not at all like global warming. We have evidence the earth is becoming warmer and we argue over the causes. We have no evidence GMOs are harmful to eat.
 
A new medical study examined the long-term effects of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide and Roundup-resistant GMO corn and has found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts of Roundup, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males and seven months for females, Linda reported. She spoke with Stacy Malkan, a GMO specialist who is working for the passage of Proposition 37 in California, which would make it mandatory to label genetically engineered fish, crops and foods, and to clearly separate them in supermarkets and grocery stores from foods that are not genetically engineered. More.

source

Excellent point to take away: Don't eat herbicides!

OMG, I can't believe you are quoting Coast to Coast AM. This is the biggest site of conspiracy theorists and nuts ever.
 
oh good lord, when will I learn to look deeper at these links.
Sorry but any site that talks of bigfoot , aliens on the moon ,911 inside jobs and the like really should be instantly dismissed.
 
Excellent point to take away: Don't eat herbicides!

OMG, I can't believe you are quoting Coast to Coast AM. This is the biggest site of conspiracy theorists and nuts ever.

Oh, c'mon now. It's a fun program to listen to sometimes. The Earth Files are just reporting Earth events. I take that other programming stuff with a grain of salt.

Why should you trust yourself? If you are like most of us, you hand over large amounts of cash to these corporations, ensuring they will keep delivering food, energy and resources so you can live your life as you like and they become wealthy and influential in the process. One nice thing about having ten fingers is you can point at least one at yourself, in addition to everyone else, for problems affecting society.

And GMOs are not at all like global warming. We have evidence the earth is becoming warmer and we argue over the causes. We have no evidence GMOs are harmful to eat.

I'm kinda stuck in this world. So, unfortunately I have to live like most people in America. I'm too poor to have any choice in the matter. Heck, I don't even have my own kitchen anymore.

They argued the validity of Global Warming for how many years? 20? maybe? The GMO debate is just heating up, and yes, it is still the same players.
 
Don't forget nanotechnology. Isn't there some issue with nano particles in sunscreen causing cancer? But if you don't use it you get cancer from the sun. But if you don't go in the sun you suffer Vitamin D deficiency.

We're all gunna die and I blame time. If time didn't keep marching on none of this would happen. And even nanos, sun and osteo don't get you then it's heart disease or stroke or dementia.

I believe that if you consistently eat plenty of fresh veggies and fruit and drink lots of water then you'll be okay. Add exercise, creative interests and your quota of hugs, and that's a healthy lifestyle IMO, even if you do some "naughty" things.
 
Drummers are lucky.


Those who survive as hunter/gatherers, after the inevitable future die-off caused by exceeding the earth's carrying capacity limits for humans, will only need fire to hollow out logs, in order to continue their craft.








.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget nanotechnology. Isn't there some issue with nano particles in sunscreen causing cancer? But if you don't use it you get cancer from the sun. But if you don't go in the sun you suffer Vitamin D deficiency.

We're all gunna die and I blame time. If time didn't keep marching on none of this would happen. And even nanos, sun and osteo don't get you then it's heart disease or stroke or dementia.

I believe that if you consistently eat plenty of fresh veggies and fruit and drink lots of water then you'll be okay. Add exercise, creative interests and your quota of hugs, and that's a healthy lifestyle IMO, even if you do some "naughty" things.

Everything in moderation....even the naughty things.You can eat southern fried chicken,as long as its cooked properly ,and as long as you don't eat it once a week or more.

As far as hugs,don't underestimate the power of the right mate,and a healthy bedroom life....or living room,bathroom,basement,swing......you get the idea....variety.....bo ya.

Try brewing your own beer also.Just use filtered water and sterilize everything well.I've been doing it for a little while now,and with a small investment,you can turnout some pretty decent beer...even first time around.......and there's no additives.You have to drink it before 3 months pass,or it begin to go bad.

Steve B
 
Most of the food that is modified is found in the center isles of the grocery store and in fast food restaurants as processed foods.
It is all part of a plot to make people sick,sterile, fat, and stupid so that the "New World Order" can be put into effect.
http://youtu.be/FEMbWn6ClxM
http://youtu.be/DWiJPeGtxQ0
http://youtu.be/4R1ixshimfM

Agree. Modified anything is disgusting. Especially vintage drums. GMO is banned the world over, right? Except in the good ole USA. "Bring us your tired, your weary, your genetically altered food. Be our guinea pigs..."

p.s. Get your Ludwig club date wmp snare yet Bob? I hope :)
 
So the fact that humans have been genetically modifying mood since the very beginnings of agriculture (and in fact, one of the defining features of agriculture) means nothing then? That humans are now doing it a much more audited and measured way than was ever possible in the past still means nothing?

Ever heard of 'selective breeding'? It's the same result as modern genetic modification, just a slightly different process.

EDIT: Just to add, if you've ever eaten wheat, then you've eaten genetically modified food. If you've ever eaten an orange carrot, then you've eaten genetically modified food. Strawberries? Yep. I could go on but the vast majority of basic staple foodstuffs has - in one way or another - been genetically modified. Selective breeding produces exactly the same result. Take an example whereby two varieties of wheat exist. One is more productive but prone to parasitic disease and another that is less productive but immune to the parasite. For thousands of years, humans have simply crossed the varieties to produce wheats that are both high in yield and resistant to disease. This happens in nature, too - all the time, just the selection process is different and not conscious.

The only difference between modern genetic modification and cross-pollination is specificity. Rather than crossing both varieties to produce a hybrid, very specific parts of the genome can be selected to create a hybrid. It's simply a much more efficient method, more tightly controlled and ultimately potentially much safer - although safety and cross-pollination methods have never been an issue.

To all of those that are criticising genetic modification on emotive grounds, you simply need to do more research and basic reading. For those concerned with genetic modification on an ethical level, you simply have to look at what potential to feed starving populations genetic modification holds. Increasing yields in areas where the yield is hugely important is often the difference not only between price/availability but also hunger, malnourishment, pestilence and (ultimately) death. On a purely ethical level, surely feeding starving millions holds more importance than any other concerns?
 
Last edited:
What about putting genes of animals in plants? They do that. Is that OK too? Not by me it's not. How about making plants that make their own pesticides? Is that OK too? Or making plants so they can handle Roundup pesticides, is that OK too? Not by me. I don't get to have much of a choice, that's the part that gets me hot under the collar. As far as combatting world hunger....it's just the ruse they operate under. They say something altruistic and we are expected to believe it, and many do. I don't. I don't trust my government and what they are doing with the food supply. There's a ton of GMO on the shelves, and people are still starving last time I checked. If that's the first thing on the agenda, combatting world hunger, why are GMO's on supermarket shelves first? The reason for GMO's is to line corporate pockets, cut costs, while controlling/tampering with the food supply. Seriously the powers that be don't give a rats ass about hunger, that's a joke.

What it comes down to is I don't believe anything the government/multinationals tries to pass off on us, history has shown that. The fact that nothing is required to be labeled...that says it all right there. If it was so great, don't you think they would trumpet that? No, they are sneaking it in the food supply. We don't get a choice. Doesn't that raise all the red flags there are? It should.

Duncan I know we will never see eye to eye on this and I am not trying to change your mind, but dam man you sure put a lot of trust in your government. They would love to have you in their ranks.
 
I don't necessarily support the governments, I support the scientists. It doesn't necessarily have to be a political statement, it just turns out that way. As for my government? Bunch of Tories, won't trust them as far as I can throw them but I do trust the scientists (mostly) because they are not politicians.

I'm not going to argue over this with you Larry. I'm just going to say that there are real-World use cases for genetic manipulation and that in the vast majority of use-cases, we have been doing it for as long as human civilisation has existed. There are specific examples that I don't agree with either but I don't make my decisions based on gut feelings, I make them based upon the evidence and that is far more important to me.
 
I support the scientists too. But they are funded by the governments, and the info they uncover is manipulated by the bosses of those good scientists, that's why I don't trust government sources of info. The scientists are truthful, their PR bosses are not. Cross pollination in my mind is a far cry from taking certain genes out and inserting them wherever. You're lucky in that the EU bans GMO's and you don't have to ingest them. You have to ask yourself why that is? Maybe someone can tell me.
 
I support the scientists too. But they are funded by the governments, and the info they uncover is manipulated by the bosses of those good scientists, that's why I don't trust government sources of info. The scientists are truthful, their PR bosses are not. Cross pollination in my mind is a far cry from taking certain genes out and inserting them wherever. You're lucky in that the EU bans GMO's and you don't have to ingest them. You have to ask yourself why that is? Maybe someone can tell me.

The FDA doesn't regulate a lot of things like the EU does. Its very lax in the US. I'm not really sure why, but at least we have options. We can eat the GM food and hope for the best, we can grow our own food, we can move, or we can become a politician and try to change public policy. lol.

Seriously though, there are worse alternatives. I'm no that worried about it. Most scientists in many ways are romantic idealists, they want to discover and make new things to make the world a better place. If these foods were really eminently dangerous to our health, they wouldn't have published the paper in the first place. The fact that these results have been accepted by the scientific community, the FDA, and the grocery distributors, (all of whom do not wish to be sued for distributing and condoning mass consumption of these foods) means that its healthy enough for mass consumption. In my mind its analogous to Skittles: not natural or healthy per se, but it not poison and its tastes good.

I'm very much for labels. If this tomato has a fish gene that prevents it from freezing, it should say that it's genetically modified so people can make informed decisions and be conscious of what they eat. Its not fair to the consumer otherwise.
 
Back
Top