Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
OverSword

Monsato = evil, They will be the death of us

168 posts in this topic

Because farmers don't spray chemicals all over their crops anyway to protect them from insects, diseases and animals currently. Because engineering plants to produce high yields in small crop areas is a bad thing?

That's the science I want if you idiots want to keep yourselves in biofuels without bulldozing the whole of the Amazon to make way for cropland. Oh, and BTW, mankind has been tinkering with the genetic makeup of plants for centuries. It's how we've ended up with 200 different kinds of potato.

More than centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derp. And they did it the natural way. Not by altering the genetics and then pushing it on a public untested followed by lawsuits against farmers that got a stiff wind oneday and got there crops crosspollinated by this garbage. Talk about having to bulldoze out your land.

Never mind well just dump the whole lot on NZ and call it good. You can have Monsanto. Because we dont want him in America dont let that stop you from takling his garbage. But TBH we have plenty of farmland and have nothing to do with the Rainforests of Brazil. So might want start topic on that. This ones about Monsanto's lawsuit currently in the USA court system.

What? They did alter the genetics and pushed it on the public untested. There is nothing natural about it and it doesn't matter what way the genetics were altered, the end mechanism is the same. Now, as for Monsanto, they should not be allowed to sue people over cross pollination or breeding techniques. That is like trying to sue nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a science that may forever change our food system without the scientific evidence to back it up to show that it is safe and also not contaminate existing strains that are not owned by Monsanto? That really doesn´t seem like good, solid science to me but rather foolish greed.

And is it really necessary to call all people who don´t agree with your POV idiots. I´ve noticed derogatory statements in some of your other posts. Reflects poorly on you IMHO.

When you let your emotions override your intelligence you come off making idiotic statements like this. Genetic engineering changes our food system forever 1000s of years ago. It has definitely been tested because we have been growing and eating genetically engineered food for over a 1000 years. It does not matter what way you change the genetics the end result is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, as for Monsanto, they should not be allowed to sue people over cross pollination or breeding techniques. That is like trying to sue nature.

But they are suing people because they OWN the nature involved. can´t you see the problem here?

When you let your emotions override your intelligence you come off making idiotic statements like this. Genetic engineering changes our food system forever 1000s of years ago. It has definitely been tested because we have been growing and eating genetically engineered food for over a 1000 years. It does not matter what way you change the genetics the end result is the same.

Not sure where you think my emotions are involved here. My concerns are stated quite eloquently by Br Cornelius a few posts above this. Perhaps you could respond to it.

Edited by jugoso
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the science is not.

I disagree, I'm totaly against genetic engineering and feel it's very risky. If you had your choice between a potato grown using natural fertilizer in a clean field and one geneticaly engineered for multiple purposes would you really eat the frankenpotato? Not me brother.

Oh, and BTW, mankind has been tinkering with the genetic makeup of plants for centuries. It's how we've ended up with 200 different kinds of potato.

Michael, what people do to interbreed plants and the genetic engineering done in the lab are not the same thing.

Edited by OverSword
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize I will never have the resources to determine what is safe from what isn't in a timely manner, so as a personal response I've taken the following article to heart in the past year and attempt to follow its advice as closely as I possibly can. I thought I'd pass it onto you because I think you'd appreciate it Gummug. I think the essence of the idea is best described by the quote "consuming food in its most natural state, or as close to it as possible."

http://www.dailystre...-meal-at-a-time

Thank you, and I mean it! Right now I have to run but I am really looking forward to reading your link when I return. :)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selective breeding is not the same as genetic splicing.

Selective breeding is applying the principles of accellerated evolution and the outcomes are largely predictable based upon the components which are breed together.

Splicing disimilar genes from different groups assumes that there is a one to one relationshoip between a gene and a protein expression with a specific predictable conseuqunce of that protein on the plants physiology. It is now known is that there is no single gene to protein relationship. Each gene code to multiple proteins dependent on the state of gene switches. The consequence of this is that a seemingly predictable gene splice can cause a whole range of different protein expressions dependent on the environmental stresses the plant is placed under. This is the field of genetics of which we have barely started to scratch the surface. Hence to splice a gene from one organism to another is like playing russian roulette with our food.

There is already a growing body of evidence that GM crop residues which peasant farmers rely on to feed their stock have been turned toxic to grazing animals and caused deaths in the stock. This was neither anticipated or detected before these crops were placed on the market.

The potential consequences of meddling in something so fundamental before you have even learned the language are to horrific to contemplate.

The companies know that people will not trust GM crops to be safe and so they have spent the last 10 years lobbying to never have to declare to their customers that they are selling GM foods. Would you trust anyone with so little confidcence in their own products.

Only a lack of awareness of genetics could possibly allow you to believe that this is the same as selective breeding and that there are no risks involved. Let us not forget that no GM crop has shown increased productivity over its none GM counterparts.

Br Cornelius

I don't want to hi-jack this thread, but I learned that when Monsanto introduced some GM (I think it was cotton) seed in India, they promised the farmers it would produce more and better crops. After they had cornered the market and driven the natural seed off, they quadruled the price of the seed and the farmers had to take out loans to buy it. When they couldn't repay the loans, some of the farmers committed suicide...very horrible. If requested, I'll try and find the link. Imo, Monsanto, at least the top level managers is a CRIMINAL organization.

edited to remove double quote...don't know how I did that...

2nd edit: OK I'm a stickler for typos

Edited by Gummug
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice.

Why, pray tell, should I follow my own advice? I know when to back down, but I haven't come across a scenario where that has been the case.

I'm totaly against genetic engineering and feel it's very risky.

So when the science is proven, you're still going to sit there, clinging to your ****ty conspiracy theories and withered vegetables? Please yourself. But I know which one of us will die of starvation first.

If you had your choice between a potato grown using natural fertilizer..

Assuming of course, natural fertilizer means manure and not the substance one buys in large sacks at gardening and hardware stores.

In a clean field and one geneticaly engineered for multiple purposes would you really eat the frankenpotato? Not me brother.

I really wouldn't care.

Michael, what people do to interbreed plants and the genetic engineering done in the lab are not the same thing.

Still altering the genetic makeup of plants. Therefore, it's genetic engineering.

Edited by MichaelW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selective breeding is applying the principles of accellerated evolution and the outcomes are largely predictable based upon the components which are breed together.

In other words, you are altering the genetic make up of a plant for whatever needs that made you do so in the first place, be it adaption to climate or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genetic engineering of food plants is safe and has been proven to be safe.

So when the science is proven, you're still going to sit there,..

Seems like you´re contradicting yourself. can you clarify please.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, you are altering the genetic make up of a plant for whatever needs that made you do so in the first place, be it adaption to climate or whatever.

Its actually called selective breeding. Something youve been told several times and ignored.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like you´re contradicting yourself. can you clarify please.

I'm saying that relevant authorities such as the WHO have ruled GM foods and such to be safe.

Its actually called selective breeding. Something youve been told several times and ignored.

I haven't ignored it. Selective breeding is genetic modification.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the simple fact is that some 80% to 90% of Canola, Papaya, Corn, Cotton, Soybeans, Sugar Beets and probably Wheat and Potatos are GMO plants in the US today. It is really going to be hard for the great masses of US consumers to avoid them. So, I'm still waiting for that Gigantic Leap in Death, Illness, Mental Damage, or other ill affects that the Doom sayers are predicting. It is true that it is impossible to predict what will happen long term, but it seems just as likely, or more so, that nothing will actually happen. Not every insecticide is DDT. Not every fertilizer is going to damage human chromosomes.

I do agree more testing needs to be done by impartial organizations, but this Doomsaying is just political propoganda. (Even if it is true!)

Edited by DieChecker
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the science is not.

Regardless, the way Monsanto do business isn't ethically or morally right at all.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't ignored it. Selective breeding is genetic modification.

So far from reality you are. Im going to guess you never grown a plant or raised an animal before.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying that relevant authorities such as the WHO have ruled GM foods and such to be safe.

WHO: And our ruling is ... *gets handed a hundred million dollars* it's perfectly safe.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the simple fact is that some 80% to 90% of Canola, Papaya, Corn, Cotton, Soybeans, Sugar Beets and probably Wheat and Potatos are GMO plants in the US today. It is really going to be hard for the great masses of US consumers to avoid them. So, I'm still waiting for that Gigantic Leap in Death, Illness, Mental Damage, or other ill affects that the Doom sayers are predicting. It is true that it is impossible to predict what will happen long term, but it seems just as likely, or more so, that nothing will actually happen. Not every insecticide is DDT. Not every fertilizer is going to damage human chromosomes.

I do agree more testing needs to be done by impartial organizations, but this Doomsaying is just political propoganda. (Even if it is true!)

It just seems to me a bit hypocritical that for any food product (unless it's a simple fruit or vegetable or meat), you have to list the ingredients, but you don't have to state whether it's GMO or not. :(

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the simple fact is that some 80% to 90% of Canola, Papaya, Corn, Cotton, Soybeans, Sugar Beets and probably Wheat and Potatos are GMO plants in the US today. It is really going to be hard for the great masses of US consumers to avoid them. So, I'm still waiting for that Gigantic Leap in Death, Illness, Mental Damage, or other ill affects that the Doom sayers are predicting. It is true that it is impossible to predict what will happen long term, but it seems just as likely, or more so, that nothing will actually happen. Not every insecticide is DDT. Not every fertilizer is going to damage human chromosomes.

I do agree more testing needs to be done by impartial organizations, but this Doomsaying is just political propoganda. (Even if it is true!)

But there is a growing body of evidence of harm. The real problem though is that the food safety organizations have been corrupted by a revolving door approach with companies like Monsanto. In such a situation we are unlikely to see the relevant research financed or published. Monsanto has received special favours status in America since Bush senior and the US government has used its political muscle to punish any country which rejects Monsanto GMO products ever since (wikileaks has the smoking gun).

America has some of the worst food related health indicators in the world so I am not entirely certain that the damage isn't already rearing its ugly head.

That is not a situation which is likely to develop a body of impartial research. All of this for a product that doesn't increase crop yields.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets answer the simple question. What are the actual benefits of GMO crops as currently available ?

More important, what are the actual environmental costs as currently implemented ?

The second part is easy to answer - Roundup(glyphosphate) resistant superweeds which necessitate an overall increase in the use of herbicides.

Can someone supply some impartial evidence to support the claim that GMO's have increased productivity.

Br Cornelius

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support that if we continue this trend we will have world wide spray days of roundup.

Also no indigenous plants species left.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another question which has a baring on what people actually believe to be the risks on genetic manipulation;

Would you submit yourself to a first generation human gene therapy ? Do you think its a safe enough technolog to allow human gene splicing ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, the way Monsanto do business isn't ethically or morally right at all.

Agreed. But writing off genetic engineering because of the actions of one company is ridiculous. It would be like saying don't by Toyota's because of user-error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHO: And our ruling is ... *gets handed a hundred million dollars* it's perfectly safe.

Saying the WHO is corrupt? How retarded do you have to be to believe this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.