Posted on 09/23/2013 5:34:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
“Monsanto must be held responsible.”
Then file a lawsuit. Oh, but then you’d have to actually be able to demonstrate that they did you harm. Good luck with that.
The problem is not the development of GMO’s. the problem is with the application, just as the problem with antibiotics is with their over prescription and misuse. There’s plenty of evidence that natural selection breeds superbugs and superpests....
Few people object to buying pasteurized milk, and yet pasteurized milk is clearly labeled as such. If GMO was such a benign and forward-looking technology they would be proud to label GMO food.
This is a classic example of crony capitalism, which is the opposite of the free market.
Farmers haven’t planted open pollinated corn for generations.
“This sounds awfully like the anti-fracking nonsense.”
Bingo. When the left gets this upset about something, you can be sure there is another agenda below the surface that they don’t want to talk about. With fracking, they really want to stop us from finding new sources of fuel, because they don’t want a strong, energy independent America.
With the anti-GMO hysteria, the left is trying to minimize our food production, to both weaken us, and to reduce the world food supply as a backdoor to population control.
It’s not just leftists who hate Monsanto. Monsanto is deep in government pockets and is on its way to controlling food sources. Control the means of food production and you control the people. Get your heirloom seeds while you still can.
Stalin would have loved Monsanto,
“Monsanto is absolutely sinister.”
Geez, you even sound like a leftist now.
So you want the FDA to do what? Ban food that isn’t known to be harmful because you think it might be?
You've bought the leftist agitprop hook, line and sinker. Only an anti-capitalist could think that a company wants to force its customers out of business.
They want the land and don't want the competition..
Monsanto wants the land? That's nuts. Most family farms use commercial seed, and even if it isn't GMO, it is hybridized. Monsanto is the biggest in the industry because they provide products that farmers willingly purchase because they find value in it.
They regularly sue these farms for "illegally using Monsanto crops".
Regularly? Really? Monsanto has more than a quarter million customer who sign purchase agreements with Monsanto every year. Over the last 12 years, there have been less than 150 legal actions between Monsanto and their contracted customers. Of those, only about 10 have ever been required a trial for resolution. For a company of that size, with hundreds of thousands of contracts, to only have about 12 legal actions a year is pretty damn low. Those are not the kinds of numbers a rational person would describe as "regularly."
I prefers God's genetic structure in my food and should have the choice regarding what I eat.
Just about everything you eat these days has been genetically modified. If you only ate what was originally found on earth, you'd probably starve. No one is forcing you to do anything. You can find non-GMO labeled food if you want to find it. If this is such a big issue, then the market will deliver options for you without you demanding big government force the market to provide it for you. That is, unless you want government to have even more power over industry......
There really isn't any difference. One just gets you there faster than the other.
Hybrids are created everyday in nature.
Natural grafting occurs, that is true. However, there are all kinds of problems that can come from it. Grafting of plants by humans, on the other hand, is responsible for most of the varieties of food you enjoy today. Furthermore, it was human inspired genetic modification that was responsible for the Green Revolution that saved more than a billion people from starvation. The hybrid plants that saved so many people, mostly children, from the horror of death by starvation would have never been possible from people like you. And you call others ignorant....?
Utter and complete nonsense. The food industry is massive, and it is one of the most fragmented industries in the world. It's Hollywood nonsense (The Omen) to think that one company is going to control food production/sources.
And you think that is a good argument for “GMOs magically make you fat”?
No, I don’t. I didn’t make it as such.
All I refuted was the fallacious argument that that couldn’t be so because weight is strictly a function of calories in versus calories expended.
Have you see the predictions for the world's population by 2050? Even if you accept the lowest estimates, agricultural productivity will have to rise 60% by then to feed all of these people. That is roughly double the output possible with current farming technology.
What's your solution? Victory gardens? You'd better hope bio-science continues to advance. Luddites starve.
Yes, metabolism impacts calories burned. It doesn't exempt you from the (energy in)-(energy out) equation.
Grafting and hybridization are two different things.
How many more years do you have left at monsanto before you can retire?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.