Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Monsato = evil, They will be the death of us


OverSword

Recommended Posts

Not very considering the players involved specifically Monsanto. Nobody says that GMO food may not someday be a good thing but at the rate were going its all about the $$ and nothing about food. Theres much science and generational type testing that needs to be done to understand the long term effects on both Humans/Animals and crops.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That's true but I never claimed such. I don't actually have a problem with consuming most GM foods. I haven't exactly done extensive research as to what Monsanto have done to their seeds in regards to final product. So I am unable to make a comment on this ATM. The produce here in Australia isn't that potentially negatively impacted either so it's not much of a concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!)

So the masses of kids with autism or the recent huge numbers of young women with breast cancer or the many many people suffering from ADHD and ADD and AADD don't qualify as the " Gigantic Leap in Death, Illness, Mental Damage, or other ill affects that the Doom sayers are predicting" that you mention? Well when we have what you consider to be alot of health problems that we didn't have from the beginning of time to the 90's let me know.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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

Sorry, I have a very large awarness of genetics and the techniques used in genetic engineering as I use them every day, although my use is for different reasons. There is also risk involved in cross polination because of the same mechanism. I understand where you are coming from and I do not trust Monsanto and think there should be greater regulations, but all the rest is just over reaction in my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then, show me by what mechanism it is different.

I think you got your answer from BR and decided to disagree anyway. So if gene splicing is safe then superweeds that have developed because of mansatos meddling with nature are just 'no big deal' right?
Link to comment
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

The roundup resistant superweeds came before roundup ready crops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The roundup resistant superweeds came before roundup ready crops.

OK, then tell me in what universe would glow in the dark bunny rabbits occur naturally.

edit to add, I'm unaware of that being true.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you got your answer from BR and decided to disagree anyway. So if gene splicing is safe then superweeds that have developed because of mansatos meddling with nature are just 'no big deal' right?

Again roundup resistance came first. The problem is always going to be if you use only one product with one mode of action be it pesticides, antibiotics, antivirals, or herbicides the organism you are trying to kill will eventually develop resistance. In the case of roundup resistance it is more complicated because it has to do with soil bacteria as well as mutations and roundup is the culprit in both. You spray with roundup and some of the weeds don't die but their resistance to infection is lowered. Soil bacteria then attack the weakened weed and give the weed protection from roundup. Actually even the weeds once thought to be completely resistant are susceptible to roundup if they are grown in sterile soil. It is actually quite a fascinating relationship.

OK, then tell me in what universe would glow in the dark bunny rabbits occur naturally.

edit to add, I'm unaware of that being true.

They didn't come before roundup silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roundup recently lost its biodegradable status as well showing that it in fact it is not biodegradable at any appreciable rate. Its crops are also fed to our livestock. The food chain is splat cause of this mo-fu. In testing since this all started Roundup has shown to cause abnormal cell division in mice. But we will not know the impact on Humans for 40--50 years until these abnormal cell divisions could develop into human cancers. Watch breast cancer rates in women and that seems to be the most sensitive cancer to environmental effects IMO. Estrogens to be specific.

Edited by AsteroidX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't come before roundup silly.

But did they come before the roundup ready crops. I never heard of the resistant weeds until after the roundup ready seedstock. But I'm not a farmer and don't have firsthand knowlege or obviously anything close to the knowlege of genetics that you say you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXLtt1iC620&feature=player_detailpage[/media]

My love message for Monsanto

http://en.wikipedia....hays'_Rebellion

For those that care this is the source of Thomas Jeffersons quote

Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as ambassador to France at the time, refused to be alarmed by Shays' Rebellion. In a letter to a friend, he argued that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Edited by AsteroidX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But did they come before the roundup ready crops. I never heard of the resistant weeds until after the roundup ready seedstock. But I'm not a farmer and don't have firsthand knowlege or obviously anything close to the knowledge of genetics that you say you have.

You are correct but if one understands genetics a little bit crops are not immune to this roundup either unless they are genetically modified to resist as well. Try planting a Tomato plant and then spray it with roundup (in a pot) and see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have a very large awarness of genetics and the techniques used in genetic engineering as I use them every day, although my use is for different reasons. There is also risk involved in cross polination because of the same mechanism. I understand where you are coming from and I do not trust Monsanto and think there should be greater regulations, but all the rest is just over reaction in my opinion.

Cross pollination has a very limited range of outcomes because the parent plants are essentially 99.9% the same.

The same is not true of a wheat plant and a fish or a bacteria. The outcomes are entirely less predictable and this is attested to by the fact that the vast majority of the seed is not fertile, ie genetically unviable. How much of the outcome of cross pollination is sterile or self destructive of the cross?

You still did not address the fact that the principle on which it all works is a one to one protein to gene relationship whichy is not what happens in natural systems. the situation is entirely worse than that since the new gene is bombarded at random into the organism until a random "splice" takes.

it really is science by dynamite as far as I am concerned.

I suspect your experience probably come from bacterial genetic engineering. This to me is still somewhat dubious but at least has the advantage that, the product is grown in control environments creating minimal risk of escape into the "wild" Also the process is mainly used to create secreted chemicals which are then highly processed so that there is no living component to the product to cause damage.

The reality for me is that all of this is entirely to random in its approach and for such a potentially dangerous manipulation of the essential building block of life has not been tested in anything like enough of a rigorous manor and for long enough before commercialization.

The real kicker is that it is actually exploitative of farmers and has not shown to produce any of the benefits which have been claimed for it. the reality is that it has been used to lock people into using a single companies range of products which has been the primary driver of commercialization. Monsanto is actively seeking to monopolize the agroindustial food chain.

Criminal on so many levels.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link to Shay's rebellion AsteroidX. I had forgotten about that (I was not a good history student). That was really interesting...I guess even in the early days of the U.S. we struggled with corruption and greed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the masses of kids with autism or the recent huge numbers of young women with breast cancer or the many many people suffering from ADHD and ADD and AADD don't qualify as the " Gigantic Leap in Death, Illness, Mental Damage, or other ill affects that the Doom sayers are predicting" that you mention?

No, because there are a ****ton more factors involved with things such as breast cancer and mental illnesses. Ironically enough, genetics play a massive part in this, although I'm assuming you're educated enough to know that cancer isn't necessarily born from what you eat or how you live but more to do of whether or not that mutated gene that causes the cancer mutation is dominant or recessive.

Oh wait a minute. I bet you're one of these people who thinks autism and Asperger's Syndrome can be caught from vaccines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Well, if it is dangerous, then I do hope they get it figured out quickly. Because we've swapped over 80% of our crops to this stuff.

One thing I think is relevant is that in Europe and other places that have banned GMO crops, is that if 8 people died from GMO related illness, then the various European nations will ban that crop till it can be shown to be safe. While in the US, it takes like 8000 people to die before people even start caring...

So the masses of kids with autism or the recent huge numbers of young women with breast cancer or the many many people suffering from ADHD and ADD and AADD don't qualify as the " Gigantic Leap in Death, Illness, Mental Damage, or other ill affects that the Doom sayers are predicting" that you mention? Well when we have what you consider to be alot of health problems that we didn't have from the beginning of time to the 90's let me know.

Not that I know of. Studies in the UK have shown that increases in Autism rates are based on changes in the official symptoms and changes with how insurance deals with it, allowing more kids to be examined and identified. Rates have not appreciably changed in three or four generations. The "mild" cases just used to be called "stupid" or "slow".

As to breast cancer, I really don't know. But, I'd assume if DOES have to do with what is being eaten, rather then the materials the food is made of, it would be more about the diet of the person. Current generations eat a LOT more trash food then people did even 40 years ago. That is going to have an effect on the whole body.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Me Grimlock think nyone who takr money then make decision corrupt as day is long.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how anybody could be for genetically altering food like this. It almost sounds like the same idea the guy who started fast food came up with. (altering foods to make it better, more accessible, and affordable so everybody can eat it). Maybe I'm just an idiot, since I think fast food when you eat it too much is bad for you. Maybe I should eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the rest of my life and see how healthy I turn out.

Now the process for that actual round-up is even better. They basically grew the seeds in poison, and kept breeding the ones that survived which developed a super seed. Now make it in to something that we put in to our bodies. That almost sounds like smoking. Which also isn't bad for you.

I don't know something just screams bad idea about the whole process. I just can't figure it out.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how anybody could be for genetically altering food like this. It almost sounds like the same idea the guy who started fast food came up with. (altering foods to make it better, more accessible, and affordable so everybody can eat it). Maybe I'm just an idiot, since I think fast food when you eat it too much is bad for you. Maybe I should eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the rest of my life and see how healthy I turn out.

Now the process for that actual round-up is even better. They basically grew the seeds in poison, and kept breeding the ones that survived which developed a super seed. Now make it in to something that we put in to our bodies. That almost sounds like smoking. Which also isn't bad for you.

I don't know something just screams bad idea about the whole process. I just can't figure it out.

Using same logic salt-resistant durum wheat must be bad as well. How many of organies and greenies will ask for long term impact on human health? I bet, not one.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually using my logic isn't a bad one.

My Logic. One question. Is salt a poison?

Make that two questions. Is eating poison good for you?

If you can convince me to ingest poison, I am an idiot.

To be fair this was also to make you think. First you need to figure out is harmful, before you release it in to the general public. If you let something out that is untested and suddenly it is release and starts spreading like wildfire before the long term effects can be reasonably figured out. Bad things happen.

Salt isn't as dangerous as other poisons, so it is ok. What is the difference between good GMO's and bad GMO's is the planning and testing that goes in to them to make sure it is safe and does what it is supposed to do.

People today have a tendency not to do that.(Making sure you thoughly check everything even I just did it by not taking the time to my post complete the first time through)

Now that I read the article more thoroughly I can tell those guys where making that GMO product for a good reason(That seriously would of been useful after a visit from the early Mongols)

Edited by Jinxdom
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salt isn't as dangerous as other poisons, so it is ok. What is the difference between good GMO's and bad GMO's is the planning and testing that goes in to them to make sure it is safe and does what it is supposed to do.

Would you ever consider pouring salt all over your growing land ?

To label GMO/Food/Drink/Substitutes etc all to the level that is required of other additives was not too much to ask for.

Its Frankenstein science and whos the guinea pigs ?

Edited by AsteroidX
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how anybody could be for genetically altering food like this. It almost sounds like the same idea the guy who started fast food came up with. (altering foods to make it better, more accessible, and affordable so everybody can eat it). Maybe I'm just an idiot, since I think fast food when you eat it too much is bad for you. Maybe I should eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner for the rest of my life and see how healthy I turn out.

Now the process for that actual round-up is even better. They basically grew the seeds in poison, and kept breeding the ones that survived which developed a super seed. Now make it in to something that we put in to our bodies. That almost sounds like smoking. Which also isn't bad for you.

I don't know something just screams bad idea about the whole process. I just can't figure it out.

The active ingredient in round-up is not actually bad for mammals. That is why it was such a breakthrough and so successful. Unfortunantly over the years they have added more and more adjuvants to make it work faster and more effectively, especially on adult plants, which are bad for mammals. Although, I am not sure how else you would successfully breed roundup resistant crops without growing them in roundup to kill the ones without the genes responsible. Bacteria is selectively bred with antibiotics that way.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.