Thanks for the head-up! Yet one other thing we can thank the NWO for....
Last time I looked, GMAs look just like their unaltered brethren under a microscope.
So they aren’t objecting to GMAs since there are no facts to back up the assertion they are “poison.” They just object to the IDEA of GMAs.
If it wasn’t for emotion-laden hysteria like this we could feed every person on the face of the Earth quite cheaply. How many millions have died at the hands of these busybodies? More than Hitler and Stalin killed combined!
Thanks for the post. I started paying attention to this kind of thing within the last year and a half.
I see no problem for me.
I bicycle to the town’s market every day.
I buy fresh pork or chicken, cut or ground to my wishes.
I buy fresh veges, grown on the near-by mountains.
I live in the vegetable capital of Cebu.
I do miss a good steak, as beef is very rare here.
The only beef option is to by frozen Aussie beef.
I tried it once...It was awful.
Anti-GMO advocates ignore the stringent testing regime and insistently wave the great "maybe." Despite all the testing, and despite many years of safe use, GMO's "might," or "could," in "unforeseen or unanticipated ways" cause some unspecified harm. The boogeyman is going to get you.
The same tactics, of course, can be and often are used against anything new. We see this game being played with vaccines, with new medicines, and even with powerlines, wind turbines, cellphones, etc. Something that has never been detected, something that has evaded all testing, something for which there is NO scientific evidence, "might" get you.
And therefore, yet another beneficial technology should be halted because the luddite lobby has reversed the burden of proof and has everyone out chasing the ghost. One can always demand more testing, but when testing has already been done, why? And how much is enough?
GM crop varieties are tested before being commercialized. They are, btw, also tested independently by importing countries as well. The burden of proof has been met. Unfortunately, activist groups do not incur any penalties for making false charges. That is the asymmetry that keeps these bogus issues alive; the professional critics flit from one hysterical charge to another, and the rebuttals, which rely on evidence, can never keep up with the smear artists.
Or it could have a homeopathic effect. Almost everything in the world is good and bad in various quantities and a GMO is probably not an exception.
sfl
Soy sauce in the news recently - poison.
Drownings prove that water is a poison.
Any food with calories is a poison, including fats because they help dissolve real carcinogens to carry them to your bloodstream, sugars because of the diabetes risk, and proteins because of potential kidney damage. Are gravitons a substance? If so, the large number of deaths by falling are proof that gravity is a poison.
All I’ve seen reported is that there are studies showing GMO is dangerous. There have been no studies showing are safe that I know of. I see reports of certain scientists defending GMOs, but I see no actual studies by these scientists. In fact, just the opposite in a web search for GMO studies showing they are safe ~
http://farmersforthefuture.ning.com/forum/topics/new-gmo-studies-give-further
http://www.naturalnews.com/031951_GMOs_safety_studies.html
And I suppose the naysayers believe Dr. Mercola to be a nutcase, too ~ http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/27/19-studies-link-gmo-foods-to-organ-disruption.aspx
http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers ~ with links to further negative health studies at the end.
Can anyone provide a link to an actual study showing GMOs are safe?
When actors can’t find a job they find a cause.
There are GMOS that contain major modifications or additions, and there are those that do not (such as varieties of fruit that mature earlier or later to spread out production over a longer season). "Labeling" as GMO does not address this. It is an issue too complex for government to manager and cries for third-party certification and labeling.
As it is, labeling products as "containing GMO" will end up just like Prop 65 labeling in California, with the labels on virtually everything saying that 'the product contains chemicals that cause cancer,' making the act of labeling for GMO meaningless.
You naysayers need to watch this movie or do some more research on what happens to a human body when we eat insecticide infused corn and soy, which if you read labels are in every processed food out there. The incidences of intestinal and "gut" problems are way up compared to the incidences before the mid '90's when first introduced.
Sometimes I think some FReepers would deny the sun rises in the east just because liberals say it rises in the east. I’m still on the fence on GMO foods, but err on the side of caution. I have my suspicions that it may not be the actual gene mod, but (with soy for example) the tons of Round Up that is sprayed on the crops that leaves residual that ends up in finished product and animal feed. Everyone is different and reacts in different ways to the same foods. Some people can’t tolerate dairy, some can’t tolerate gluten, perhaps there’s a segment of the population that can’t tolerate GM or certain GM foods. Wouldn’t it be nice for them if food was labelled so they could avoid it.
We’ve been genetically modifying plants since we first started saving the largest seed to plant the next year. Since we pollinated one sub species of plant with the pollen of a plant in a different sub species.
Maybe a better definition of what everyone is up in arms about is needed?
If we’re not going to use pesticides, herbicides or let large corporate farms produce our food, who conscripts the workers to plant, weed, remove pests, harvest and store our food?
Just throwing that out there.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510. S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.
Humans are funny.
We don’t want Genetically Modified food for fear of poisoning, yet we don’t have any problems sucking down tons of ‘medicines’ which have lists of ‘side-effects’ such as ‘heart attack, diarrhea, vomiting, uncontrolled bowel movements, blindness, and death’.
We don’t want GMO’s but we stick needles in our arms to inject heroin.
We don’t want GMO’s but we want the ‘right’ to stick our genitals into the rectum of other humans, as well as animals.
We dont’ want GMO’s but we do insist on ‘artificial’ sweeteners.
IF is a mighty big word.
Has ANY gmo food been shown to do this POISONING effect that is being used as the boogyman in this article?
this looks like this summer’s enemy.. evillllll “big agra”.. I see the unemployed college student lining up to protest in marijuana friendly states before the end of the month.
GMOs are like death man.. they’re made for profit which is evil man... (inhale)... (exhale).. it’s not real man.. hey, pass the nachos and don’t bogart the spliff..
bookmark
It is called “slow kill”.