What's the deal with GMO foods?

[Ziltoid]

I agree with zigaz, but still think GMO foods should be outlawed. You don't need GMO foods to feed the world, just good farming practices.

The reason I'm against GMO's isn't the science, but the ethical track record of companies making them.

Monsanto is a very disturbed, unethical and domineering corporation who doesn't care about the health of its consumers, only its profits.

Monsanto does have shitty unethical practices, but they're really not far behind any other company in that regard, especially compared to tech companies.

Don't outlaw GMO's, outlaw patent trolling.

 

[Darius]

If you dislike human technological and scientific progress so much, strip naked wand walk into the woods, see how long you last.

I presume if you ever get cancer, you won't stoop to taking any of those icky man made drugs created in a lab, right?

You like technology so much. It must be all good.

Why don't you take a bath in radioactive waste. After that choke down some Anthrax.

Come back a month later and tell us the results.

 

[Ziltoid]

If you dislike human technological and scientific progress so much, strip naked wand walk into the woods, see how long you last.

I presume if you ever get cancer, you won't stoop to taking any of those icky man made drugs created in a lab, right?

You like technology so much. It must be all good.

Why don't you take a bath in radioactive waste. After that choke down some Anthrax.

Come back a month later and tell us the results.

...You're aware that radioactivity and anthrax aren't manmade, right?
Add lead, arsenic, and cyanide to that list.

You seem like the type of person to buy anything you see at the supermarket labeled "all natural".

Asbestos, the new ALL NATURAL flame retardant!

 

[zigZag]

I agree with zigaz, but still think GMO foods should be outlawed. You don't need GMO foods to feed the world, just good farming practices.

The reason I'm against GMO's isn't the science, but the ethical track record of companies making them.

Monsanto is a very disturbed, unethical and domineering corporation who doesn't care about the health of its consumers, only its profits.

@Darius - Then I guess you should get back to the caves then because almost all scientific advances can be used for evil. Splitting the atom can give you nuclear energy or bombs. Chemistry and biological advances can give you Nerve agents or they can give you Cures and Vaccines to disease.

Umm Yeah monsanto is a corporation who wants to protect its intellectual property, grow revenues and make investors happy... same as every other corp. I don't find their practices unethical tbh. If they were not making customers happy(Farmers who buy their seeds) Then they would be out of business. I think there is a lack of education on what the technology is and what it can do and what it has done among the Anti-GMO crowd.

Your claim of monsanto not concerned about your health is true they are concern about profits. However if the products they sold caused people to have health problems then they would quickly go out of business.

 

[Darius]

...You're aware that radioactivity and anthrax aren't manmade, right?

Weapons grade Anthrax and radioactive waste aren't man-made. Good to know. Got any other wonderful facts you care invent?

You sound like you are the kind of guy that would eat a diet consisting of just McDonald's fast food, because all technology must be good for you.

 

[KorbenDallas]

Zigzag-

You are simply uninformed. I grew up right by Monsanto's corporate headquarters. I personally know a board member of Monsanto.

I know monsanto better than you. They harass farmers who don't use their seeds, do not publish results of studies that demonstrate health risks associated with some of their GMO's, have an army of lawyers not much different than Scientology to quash dissent, have infiltrated the FDA, and own at least one member of the Supreme Court.

They are a huge company who has done a lot of very unethical things, destroyed many small farmers lives for wanting to stay independent, and employ an army of thugs and lawyers.

GMO's, like many technologies, if used properly, are probably harmless.

They can be very harmful too. Food modified to be resistant to pesticides have been shown to greatly increase risk of certain tumours and cancers. No studies have been done on the LONG TERM effects of GMO's.

For now, its best to outlaw GMO's, or, at least require labeling.

 

[Oz.]

 

[RexImperator]

It really depends how and what they are modified for.

For instance, designing "Round Up Ready" (glyphosate resistant) crops is a terrible way to farm. They basically make the (soybean, corn) crops resistant to weed killer and then douse the whole field with it.

 

[zigZag]

Zigzag-

You are simply uninformed. I grew up right by Monsanto's corporate headquarters. I personally know a board member of Monsanto.

I know monsanto better than you. They harass farmers who don't use their seeds, do not publish results of studies that demonstrate health risks associated with some of their GMO's, have an army of lawyers not much different than Scientology to quash dissent, have infiltrated the FDA, and own at least one member of the Supreme Court.

They are a huge company who has done a lot of very unethical things, destroyed many small farmers lives for wanting to stay independent, and employ an army of thugs and lawyers.

GMO's, like many technologies, if used properly, are probably harmless.

They can be very harmful too. Food modified to be resistant to pesticides have been shown to greatly increase risk of certain tumours and cancers. No studies have been done on the LONG TERM effects of GMO's.

For now, its best to outlaw GMO's, or, at least require labeling.

Please cite those studies.

So you want to ban Molecular breeding(What the technology is called) Because you don't agree with the business practices of one company who uses said technology?

 

[KorbenDallas]

Zigzag-

You are simply uninformed. I grew up right by Monsanto's corporate headquarters. I personally know a board member of Monsanto.

I know monsanto better than you. They harass farmers who don't use their seeds, do not publish results of studies that demonstrate health risks associated with some of their GMO's, have an army of lawyers not much different than Scientology to quash dissent, have infiltrated the FDA, and own at least one member of the Supreme Court.

They are a huge company who has done a lot of very unethical things, destroyed many small farmers lives for wanting to stay independent, and employ an army of thugs and lawyers.

GMO's, like many technologies, if used properly, are probably harmless.

They can be very harmful too. Food modified to be resistant to pesticides have been shown to greatly increase risk of certain tumours and cancers. No studies have been done on the LONG TERM effects of GMO's.

For now, its best to outlaw GMO's, or, at least require labeling.

Please cite those studies.

So you want to ban Molecular breeding(What the technology is called) Because you don't agree with the business practices of one company who uses said technology?

Or mandatory labeling.

 

[zigZag]

Zigzag-

You are simply uninformed. I grew up right by Monsanto's corporate headquarters. I personally know a board member of Monsanto.

I know monsanto better than you. They harass farmers who don't use their seeds, do not publish results of studies that demonstrate health risks associated with some of their GMO's, have an army of lawyers not much different than Scientology to quash dissent, have infiltrated the FDA, and own at least one member of the Supreme Court.

They are a huge company who has done a lot of very unethical things, destroyed many small farmers lives for wanting to stay independent, and employ an army of thugs and lawyers.

GMO's, like many technologies, if used properly, are probably harmless.

They can be very harmful too. Food modified to be resistant to pesticides have been shown to greatly increase risk of certain tumours and cancers. No studies have been done on the LONG TERM effects of GMO's.

For now, its best to outlaw GMO's, or, at least require labeling.

Please cite those studies.

So you want to ban Molecular breeding(What the technology is called) Because you don't agree with the business practices of one company who uses said technology?

Or mandatory labeling.

That would not be necessary because GMOs aren't any different to conventionally bred crops. The Very act of labeling them would send the message that they are inferior eve when they arent and so they should not be labeled. It's like labeling crops that have been picked by illegal aliens and crops that have been picked by american citizens. Doesnt make any sense.

 

[KorbenDallas]

Yea, they are different. GMO crops are modified in a lab.

 

[zigZag]

Yea, they are different. GMO crops are modified in a lab.

They are both modified by people and the net result is the same. So no they aren't different. Well one takes Takes a few years the other takes decades or more.

 

[KorbenDallas]

people would believe you more if your advocates weren't so dishonest.

Published on Jul 24, 2013

Please Share this Vid, thank you. Highly toxic levels of Pesticides now legally allowed in your food, not just GMO's but all non-organic foods, thanks to Monsanto and the EPA. This is a direct result of super weeds becoming resistant to Monsanto's Round-up pesticide in their GMO crops. The amount of allowable glyphosate(ROUNDUP) in oilseed crops such as flax, soybeans and canola will be increased from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 40 ppm, which GM Watch acknowledged is over 100,000 times the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells. Additionally, the EPA is increasing limits on allowable glyphosate in food crops from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm
Just last month, The Cornucopia Institute concluded a study by finding glyphosate "exerted proliferative effects in human hormone-dependent breast cancer." A similar study released in April concluded that "glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins."

"Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," independent scientist Anthony Samsel and MIT's Stephanie Seneff concluded in the April study. "Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer's disease."

Dr. Don M. Huber, emeritus professor of plant pathology at Purdue University, found in yet another examination that "Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things," in turn removing most nutritional value from GMO foods.

A press release issued by the group Beyond Pesticides criticized the decision as well. "Given that alternative methods of growing food and managing weeds are available, like those that exist in organic agriculture, it is unreasonable for EPA to increase human exposures to Roundup," they wrote.

In the past, Monsanto has long-defended their use of the chemical. "We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has," Jerry Stainer, Monsanto's executive vice president of sustainability, stated previously. "It has been very, very extensively studied."
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-glyphosate...

 

[zigZag]

people would believe you more if your advocates weren't so dishonest.

Published on Jul 24, 2013

Please Share this Vid, thank you. Highly toxic levels of Pesticides now legally allowed in your food, not just GMO's but all non-organic foods, thanks to Monsanto and the EPA. This is a direct result of super weeds becoming resistant to Monsanto's Round-up pesticide in their GMO crops. The amount of allowable glyphosate(ROUNDUP) in oilseed crops such as flax, soybeans and canola will be increased from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 40 ppm, which GM Watch acknowledged is over 100,000 times the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells. Additionally, the EPA is increasing limits on allowable glyphosate in food crops from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm
Just last month, The Cornucopia Institute concluded a study by finding glyphosate "exerted proliferative effects in human hormone-dependent breast cancer." A similar study released in April concluded that "glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins."

"Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," independent scientist Anthony Samsel and MIT's Stephanie Seneff concluded in the April study. "Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer's disease."

Dr. Don M. Huber, emeritus professor of plant pathology at Purdue University, found in yet another examination that "Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things," in turn removing most nutritional value from GMO foods.

A press release issued by the group Beyond Pesticides criticized the decision as well. "Given that alternative methods of growing food and managing weeds are available, like those that exist in organic agriculture, it is unreasonable for EPA to increase human exposures to Roundup," they wrote.

In the past, Monsanto has long-defended their use of the chemical. "We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has," Jerry Stainer, Monsanto's executive vice president of sustainability, stated previously. "It has been very, very extensively studied."
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-glyphosate...

If You drink enough water.. It can kill you. What's Your point?

 

[KorbenDallas]

He said it wasn't dangerous and that he would drink it. Then, it was offered to him, he didn't drink it, and declared, "I'm not an idiot".

My point is that advocates for GMO are on record for being disingenuous liars. Why should we not label GMO's if their spokespeople are documented liars?

 

[zigZag]

He said it wasn't dangerous and that he would drink it. Then, it was offered to him, he didn't drink it, and declared, "I'm not an idiot".

My point is that advocates for GMO are on record for being disingenuous liars. Why should we not label GMO's if their spokespeople are documented liars?

It isn't dangerous but that does not mean you should drink a glass of it. That makes no sense. The only people I see going on private property destroying fields are Anti-GMO people. The only people that lie about GMOs causing cancer are anti-GMO people.

There has not been Any studies done to show GMOs are how you say. Your fear is completely irrational.

 

[KorbenDallas]

He said it wasn't dangerous and that he would drink it. Then, it was offered to him, he didn't drink it, and declared, "I'm not an idiot".

My point is that advocates for GMO are on record for being disingenuous liars. Why should we not label GMO's if their spokespeople are documented liars?

It isn't dangerous but that does not mean you should drink a glass of it. That makes no sense. The only people I see going on private property destroying fields are Anti-GMO people. The only people that lie about GMOs causing cancer are anti-GMO people.

There has not been Any studies done to show GMOs are how you say. Your fear is completely irrational.

That's not what the GMO advocate said though. He said you could drink it, and furthermore, said he WOULD.

That's why people don't trust GMO's. Their paid advocates are deliberately misleading liars.

 

[zigZag]

He said it wasn't dangerous and that he would drink it. Then, it was offered to him, he didn't drink it, and declared, "I'm not an idiot".

My point is that advocates for GMO are on record for being disingenuous liars. Why should we not label GMO's if their spokespeople are documented liars?

It isn't dangerous but that does not mean you should drink a glass of it. That makes no sense. The only people I see going on private property destroying fields are Anti-GMO people. The only people that lie about GMOs causing cancer are anti-GMO people.

There has not been Any studies done to show GMOs are how you say. Your fear is completely irrational.

That's not what the GMO advocate said though. He said you could drink it, and furthermore, said he WOULD.

That's why people don't trust GMO's. Their paid advocates are deliberately misleading liars.

It seems that if this is the best evidence you can bring for companies being evil then you are just grasping at straws. A guy refuses to drink a glass full of herbicide from a random person = GMO advocates are evil and cannot be trusted and we must ban all Molecular breeding.

 

[KorbenDallas]

No, it's not the best evidence, I only continued to hammer the point, because you refused to concede he was lying, saying only that drinking water can kill you too. He wasn't asked to drink a lot, only a glass, which, he claimed he would.

Now, you are being misleading, by saying this is the only evidence anti-gmo advocates have.

Seems to me like a pattern is emerging...

I simply don't trust people who have a track record of misdirection and dishonesty. That's not the only evidence I have seen though.