Genetically Modified foods are awesommmmmme!!!

Wr said:
It's not natural for plants to have 100% yield rate.

Reason most crops give you a 60-70 % yield is because the rest is food for the soil to regenerate the next season and so on. But instead of natural compost, they think farmers should buy fertilizer from the store. For the sake of business, this is extremely harsh on the environment.

These designer seeds are not natural and are destroying soil that has been good for years.
Click to expand...
Well I'd disagree here. The "reason" crops give a yield isn't directly linking to making the soil rest as much as it is that the crops have poor yields due to natural processes that aren't as efficient as they'd be without intervention. Its not like plants are thinking to that regard, not that plants aren't sentient though. 

I think this discussion would be better if you understood why 100% yield was desirable in the first place. Its not that its because we're trying to change nature...its that we're trying to feed humanity.

GMOs deserve strict criticism, but lets not forget the problem they aim to fix. 
 
If we're talking about the the 90 day studies that are required of GMO's by the FDA then no they don't check you. Serious flaws were found in the studies by the NIH. Apparently GMO's are pretty much banned in every other country, but of course the American public just sits back and let's these corporations put whatever in our food then not offer the right to know what's been placed in it. :rolleyes
 
Pig Love said:
This is potentially the most important thread on the forum in regards to your well being. Does anyone have anything to say about GMO being fed to you?


If you don't know, then ask questions
Click to expand...
Not all GMO's are bad or problematic. 

Stop this alarmist nonsense.

In 2012 GMOs have enriched many lives. Lets not go off the deep end by villainizing this word for political gain. 

Not every deep green head of lettuce or large strawberry is going to lead to cancer as much as it'll feed more people. 

A "GMO" can even be plants you physically pollenate. 
Pig Love said:
il prescelto said:
I'm confused, I thought we already had GMO food in circulation. can someone clarify?
Click to expand...

Yes and it damages you more and more every day.
Click to expand...
Oh wow. Very informative statement. Any proof for this alarmist claim?

My problem here is that it seems to me that you're unaware of what GMOs actually are OR what the flaws in them actually are. 

GMO is a VERY broad term and technically everything you ever eat is a GMO. Even foods labeled as natural have artificial production methods under our current definitions for what classifies as "organic" 
 
CJ863 said:
If we're talking about the the 90 day studies that are required of GMO's by the FDA then no they don't check you. Serious flaws were found in the studies by the NIH. Apparently GMO's are pretty much banned in every other country, but of course the American public just sits back and let's these corporations put whatever in our food then not offer the right to know what's been placed in it.
eyes.gif
Click to expand...
This is largely untrue if you get into the nuance of the argument.

People love to source the arguments that France and Spain doesn't allow Monsanto products for example.

Well thats true, except that France and Spain have their OWN conglomerates and food production magnates with similar techniques. They're vying for their OWN dominance in Europe.

Europe isn't this panacea of "organic" and progressive food production. 

I think anything that attempts to enhance or change the biological content of our food deserves great amounts of research and significant investments in quality control methods...HOWEVER, the aims that these techniques seek to address are not malevolent and we need to remember that.

For every potentially problematic "GMO" there are dozens more which have been made more available, cheaper, and more nutritious than their "natural" states.

For example, how would you feel after a long work out and you needed a potassium boost? Then you go to reach for a banana and find this instead:

Whats the matter? Too many seeds? Not big enough? Ripens too early to transport? Too bitter?

Those are natural bananas. 

Do you all know the difference between Cavendish Bananas and Gros-Michel? ...and why one of them doesn't dominate the world banana market anymore? 

GMO production, via selective pressures (read: forced evolution) has removed many of the stresses of REALITY from modern food consumption. 

Lets not get carried away here.

Criticize what deserves to be criticized, but champion our successes in food production. 

The techniques of people like Norman Borlaug to increase wheat production have been estimated to save the lives of billions. 
 
Last edited:
Clearly you have an agenda :lol:

You said the studies check out, but they don't which is my entire point. Imply whatever you want to sway the argument but the facts are there. No study has been done to prove the longterm effects of GMO's on our health, and those that have been done have been flawed.


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
 
Last edited:
CJ863 said:
Clearly you have an agenda
laugh.gif


You said the studies check out, but they don't which is my entire point. Imply whatever you want to sway the argument but the facts are there. No study has been done to prove the longterm effects of GMO's on our health, and those that have been done have been flawed.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
Click to expand...
I meant to say the studies that show this particular corn is problematic check out. I was agreeing with you. I should have stated that more clearly.

For example, there are studies coming in that started in the late 70s showing that HFCS is INCREDIBLY bad for you. I know doctors who will straight up tell you that juice is poison. 

The point is to show that not everything that is edible that reaches the lab is just going to be shot to ****. There are clear benefits for GMOs and we as a society don't benefit if we don't fairly and responsibly orient our criticism. 
 
Last edited:
No doubt. I agree there are benefits of GMO's but some of the stuff is down right scary which is where I can see reason behind the alarmist articles and videos. Cmon fam edible corn that releases a toxin to kill a fungus? :x I'm down for it under 2 conditions: that the public is fully aware of what is truly being put in our food, they are thoroughly studied in order to ensure that there aren't any adverse side effects of consuming GMO's
 
FutureMD said:
Well I'd disagree here. The "reason" crops give a yield isn't directly linking to making the soil rest as much as it is that the crops have poor yields due to natural processes that aren't as efficient as they'd be without intervention. Its not like plants are thinking to that regard, not that plants aren't sentient though. 

I think this discussion would be better if you understood why 100% yield was desirable in the first place. Its not that its because we're trying to change nature...its that we're trying to feed humanity.

GMOs deserve strict criticism, but lets not forget the problem they aim to fix.
Click to expand...



Firstly, are YOU somehow vested or involved with GM crops/foods? I don't want to make assumptions, but you keep writing "we".

Secondly, don't you think it is really a matter of profit and greed as opposed to "feeding humanity"?


Oh wow. Very informative statement. Any proof for this alarmist claim?
Click to expand...

Any proof otherwise??

Not to mention that a MAJOR issue here is that we have a right to know what we are consuming.
 
BallRN23 said:
FutureMD said:
Well I'd disagree here. The "reason" crops give a yield isn't directly linking to making the soil rest as much as it is that the crops have poor yields due to natural processes that aren't as efficient as they'd be without intervention. Its not like plants are thinking to that regard, not that plants aren't sentient though. 

I think this discussion would be better if you understood why 100% yield was desirable in the first place. Its not that its because we're trying to change nature...its that we're trying to feed humanity.

GMOs deserve strict criticism, but lets not forget the problem they aim to fix.
Click to expand...


Firstly, are YOU somehow vested or involved with GM crops/foods? I don't want to make assumptions, but you keep writing "we".
Click to expand...
No. And if I was related to GMOs how would that chance the validity of anything that I said? GMOs aren't to be feared, they're to be held to a high standard. Theres a difference.

Additionally, I'm talking about humanity trying to sustain humanity. 

We are all here because of each other. Food is necessary.

You know a little over 100 years ago, chicken was some what of a delicacy and rarer occasion for most families? 
Secondly, don't you think it is really a matter of profit and greed as opposed to "feeding humanity"?
Click to expand...
And doctors get paid.

ISPs gouge customers on internet prices.

There is a profit incentive in any form of business...but not just for profit's sake, but for R&D as well. Companies like Pharmaceuticals and Agriculture have relatively HIGH overhead. Lets not forget that. 

Profit and greed leads to cutting corners, no doubt. But to villainize and ENTIRE INDUSTRY? Thats just ridiculous. 

I never see tempered debate in these threads...especially when there are nuanced arguments. This isn't religion or science where claims can be factually debunked or not. We're talking about the benefit that entire industries produce for society. 

Thats like saying "well since bayer let some drugs go that caused a disease then lets ban cough syrup too!"
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. 

Can you show me where GMO's "make you worse and worse over time" as Pig Love recklessly and indiscriminately asserted?
Not to mention that a MAJOR issue here is that we have a right to know what we are consuming.
Click to expand...
No doubt about that at all. I dont have a problem with trying to resolve this matter...its the way you throw these issues out there though and the context you've placed them in relation to other arguments that is a turn-off. 

Like Obama or not, but he's added significant labeling to foods in the USA.

Additionally, you know how flawed the labeling of organic foods are...right? [1] [2] [3] [4]  [5]

I'm not telling you that I don't prefer foods that I know have been raised with a little more "care" but you have to know that even then, you're not getting exactly what they're telling you. 

Education is key here to making informed decisions about what you eat...but fear and scare tactics surrounding a three letter acronym doesn't help either, nor do rising food prices aid the narrative that the illuminati is out to turn you all into tomato dependent lemmings. 
 
Last edited:
eek.gif
eek.gif
eek.gif


I feel like I'm reading about new government corruption every day.

God bless our country man.
 
Is anyone going to do anything about this troll? This dude is killing NT and I refuse to respond to anything he writes ever again!

:D
 
Last edited:
Pig Love said:
Is anyone going to do anything about this troll? This dude is killing NT and I refuse to respond to anything he writes ever again!

happy.gif
Click to expand...
Facts 'a make'em dance!

FutureMD says no to sensationalism, Pig Love can't!
 
Last edited:
It's pretty sad this guy knew I was talking about him.

Carry on Fam, I just needed an outlet.


The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s GMO corn

Mike Adams
Natural News
Sept 26, 2012

By now, nearly everyone interested in healthy living is aware of the recent research linking Monsanto’s GMO corn to cancer tumors and an increase risk of premature death in both men and women. News of the research is spreading like wildfire across the ‘net, and support for Proposition 37 — which seeks to label GMOs in foods — is growing by the day.

But the media has not yet reported on the everyday foods being sold in grocery stores right now and made with Monsanto’s genetically modified corn (GM corn). Which foods are most likely to contain Monsanto GM corn? To answer this question, I visited a local grocery store in Austin, Texas and purchased 10 breakfast cereals made with high levels of non-organic corn.

According to the Center for Food Safety, up to 85% of the corn grown in the United States is genetically modified. This means corn-based cereals that use non-organic corn have a very high likelihood of containing GM corn.

The following list presents the top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s genetically modified corn. For the record, none of these cereals claim to be GMO-free, nor made with organic corn. The exact GMO content of these cereals remains a mystery precisely because manufacturers of these cereals refuse to label them with their GMO content. This lack of full disclosure by the food industry underscores the urgent need for a labeling law so that consumers can make an informed decision.

Legal note: In no way are we claiming these cereals will cause cancer tumors to grow in your body or that they pose an immediate risk to your health. Those studies have not yet been done on humans. GM corn is an experimental crop with unknown long-term effects of humans. Breakfast cereals made with GM corn may turn out to pose a significant long-term risk to human health, but that has not yet been determined. This article is presented in the public interest, reflecting reasonable caution over a common food ingredient which French scientists have now convincingly linked to cancer and premature death in studies conducted on rats.

The top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s GM corn

Cocoa Puffs and Corn Chex, Frosted Flakes and Honey Graham Oh’s Honey Nut Chex and Kashi Heart to Heart, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and Kellogg’s Corn Pops, Kix and Barbara’s Bakery Puffins Peanut Butter

Which cereals contain no GMOs? Nature’s Path

There is only one brand of breakfast cereal I know of that’s 100% non-GMO and 100% organic across their entire product line. That company is Nature’s Path:

700


If you buy breakfast cereal, and you don’t want to eat Monsanto’s GM corn, always choose cereals from Nature’s Path. This is my No. 1 most highly trusted cereal company.

Many “natural” brands that appear to be healthful and natural are actually not organic or GMO-free. For example, “Barbara’s Bakery” cereals are not organic. Although they are positioned in store shelves alongside other organic cereals, they are actually made with conventional crops grown with pesticides which may include Monsanto’s Roundup.

You may also notice that most of the cereals most likely to contain GM corn are children’s cereals. It is the children in America who are being fed the most GMOs. This represents a highly unethical food experiment being conducted on an entire generation, and the long-term effects of human consumption of GMOs are simply not known.

What we do know is that rats fed this very same Monsanto GM corn developed shockingly large cancer tumors.

The photo released by the French research team, showing large cancer tumors growing at a strongly heightened risk in rats fed a “lifetime” of Monsanto’s GM corn, is shown below. According to that study, 70% of females died premature and showed significant damage to their liver, kidneys and other organs.

There must however be some good that this multi billion dollar company does for us though, there just has to be.
 
Last edited:
Pig Love said:
It's pretty sad this guy knew I was talking about him.


Carry on Fam, I just needed an outlet.
Click to expand...
Its also sad that you thought you couldn't just say my username.

But hey, its easier for you to just allude to things, right? You're not good at being responsible for your insults either, are you?

I love the narrative in this thread.

If you bring the conversation back to the center instead of trying to use the SWAT team to kick in Monstanto's doors then all of a sudden you're a government shill  from israel sent to infiltrate the US's food supply and turn us into zionist rothschild worshippers or something.

Do better Pig Love.

I don't have a problem with talking about problems with GMOs in particular but GMOs themselves are not a problem. 

Grow up. 
 
No. And if I was related to GMOs how would that chance the validity of anything that I said? GMOs aren't to be feared, they're to be held to a high standard. Theres a difference.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would absolutely make a difference. It would show bias, for one. Also, until PROVEN otherwise, they ARE to be feared IMO. What is this high standard that you speak of? There are effects that are unknown and potentially devastating. Let's not be naive here.

Additionally, I'm talking about humanity trying to sustain humanity. 
Click to expand...

I would like to see some proof of this. IMO, it has to do more with greed and profit than sustaining humanity.


You know a little over 100 years ago, chicken was some what of a delicacy and rarer occasion for most families? 
Click to expand...

You know that the over-consumption of toxic animal products is a health hazard right? Now, we can have a LOT of meat per day and of course to sustain that we need to farm them in essentially toxic environments. Let's not question the way we're living......let's just manipulate the entire planet so that IT works the way WE want it to. Nevermind the consequences.


Profit and greed leads to cutting corners, no doubt. But to villainize and ENTIRE INDUSTRY? Thats just ridiculous. 
Click to expand...

Well, when you have an enormously villainous, powerful company like Monsanto.....can you blame people? They are pretty damn evil, and they pretty much are a huge part of the industry.



Can you show me where GMO's "make you worse and worse over time" as Pig Love recklessly and indiscriminately asserted?
Click to expand...

Yet you seem to be claiming that they are safe. What is your stance on this?? Well in any case, I would like to see some legitimate proof that GMO's are indeed safe, and not environmentally harmful.



Additionally, you know how flawed the labeling of organic foods are...right? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Click to expand...


C'mon man. You can't be serious with these "sources." They pretty much all cite the horrible Stanford study. Are you even reading what you cite or were you hoping that I wouldn't?? This is why I thought you Google search, copy, and paste.


I'm not telling you that I don't prefer foods that I know have been raised with a little more "care" but you have to know that even then, you're not getting exactly what they're telling you. 
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. However, this does not negate anything I said.

Education is key here to making informed decisions about what you eat...but fear and scare tactics surrounding a three letter acronym doesn't help either, nor do rising food prices aid the narrative that the illuminati is out to turn you all into tomato dependent lemmings. 
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Who brought up Illuminati? I'm just wondering why you are so keen on throwing Illuminati into the mix here? Seems like an attempt to label anyone who argues against you as a "conspiracy theorist" with all the negative connotations attached to the term.

I'm glad we agree that we should have the right to know what we are consuming.
 
Additionally, I'm talking about humanity trying to sustain humanity.
Click to expand...
**** outta here :stoneface:

every thread I go in is FILLED with your crap...you can't even participate in a normal dialogue...you have to double post because your a pathological know it all....

seriously...you make NT a less desirable place to socialize.
 
Last edited:
B Smooth 202 said:
Additionally, I'm talking about humanity trying to sustain humanity.
Click to expand...
**** outta here
indifferent.gif


every thread I go in is FILLED with your crap...you can't even participate in a normal dialogue...you have to double post because your a pathological know it all....

seriously...you make NT a less desirable place to socialize.
Click to expand...
RIIIIIIGHT.

Because people don't understand that ALL FOOD IN THE 20TH CENTURY IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER.

"Organic" foods are even MODIFIED. They lie to get those labels most of the time. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/o...l=1&adxnnlx=1347044654-LY0UvCCm8oxA6GTD15Sq0Q

All you all need is a label that says "organic" and then ya'll will proclaim that this carrot thats 2x more expensive will save the world. 

Its BIGGER than that. 
 
BallRN23 said:
No. And if I was related to GMOs how would that chance the validity of anything that I said? GMOs aren't to be feared, they're to be held to a high standard. Theres a difference.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would absolutely make a difference. It would show bias, for one. Also, until PROVEN otherwise, they ARE to be feared IMO. What is this high standard that you speak of? There are effects that are unknown and potentially devastating. Let's not be naive here.
Click to expand...
No. Its not "proven otherwise"

Thats not how this works. 

Pig Love said "GMOs make you worse and worse" ....what the hell does that even mean? And he doesn't even back it up. He just says it and you say "well you can't prove him wrong"

Are you SERIOUS? 

Point out WHICH thing you're talking about and show your evidence.

There is a different between an "unknown effect" and something thats "potentially devastating"

Thats all speculation, especially if you're going to RECKLESSLY target the entire industry. 

Thats like saying, well since comcast gouges some customers, lets get rid of the internet!

No. Show evidence of specific cases IN HUMANS and other means to back this claim up, otherwise you don't get to just make unsubstantiated assertions because its comfortable. 

Thats irresponsible. 
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100414/full/464969a.html
GMOs make it possible to feed more people than we would with bronze age farming techniques. 

If you can ensure that crops make better yields, in more environments, and can protect themselves from blight then you've already enhanced your capacity to make THAT MUCH MORE product to deliver to the world market.

People like Norman Borlaug's techniques with wheat have made it possible to feed billions of people. 
You know a little over 100 years ago, chicken was some what of a delicacy and rarer occasion for most families? 
Click to expand...
You know that the over-consumption of toxic animal products is a health hazard right?
Click to expand...
Red meat. Not meat itself.

Plus if the meat is "toxic" then who would consume it? 
Thats not what I said either. I said that if you're going to shoot down commercial farming you have to realize that you're also removing the benefits it has brought to society.

Its equally as reckless to assert that ALL COMMERCIAL FARMING IS BAD. 

You benefit from it. 

You know you do.

Now you can push for better regulations, or you can just go pay 3x more for "natural" chicken that most people can't afford or would have access to. 

There might be "better" ways to do things, but you're missing the point of what commercial farming actually brings to the table.

Trust me. I've seen all the documentaries. I know how tricky GMOs can be. Trust me. I get that. I even shop at places that carry "less tampered with" foods from time to time....but most of that stuff is a placebo on the other hand.

You know that there are organic companies who lie just to get their certifications too, right? Many of them are fighting legislation that would make it harder to gain the "organic" label.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/prop-37_b_1821633.html
Evil, or heavy handed? Is Apple evil? Is Ma Bell evil? 

Stop anthropomorphizing companies. 

There are people who work there who individually may not even think about what they're doing, but they are trying to provide for themselves.

Its legal to patent strains of genes. Can you blame them for doing that?

Its legal to buy out farmers. Can you blame them for doing that?

I mean, how dare a company try to GROW or something?

Now...I think studies that show GMOs can lead to decreased nutrient absorption and may increase responsiveness to allergens are alarming, however no one ever speaks of the benefits that GMOs have brought to not just the US, but to countries that rely on US food exports.

You all are forgetting that ensuring crop yield is a MAJOR factor in addressing food shortages. 

Every farmer, no matter how "raw" wants to have better crop yields and doing something as simple as cross-pollinating his two favorite crops IS artificial genetic modification. 

The same thing gregor mendel did is the same thing Monsanto is doing. 

NOW...we can argue that SOME of their aims in SOME crops have not been as successful as they intended for it to be, but it doesn't change the underlying goal to improve output or to make a better product. 
If you can't prove that they "make you worse and worse over time" then you don't swing the pendulum to "they must be the greatest thing ever"

You should have a neutral stance and just collect evidence.

Pig Love hasn't backed his claim up with human observations and as such made a wild, unsubstantiated claim. 

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Pig Love has to show that it makes humans "worse and worse over time"....thats a very strong accustation and a broad accusation. 

I'm not claiming that GMOs are innately safe.

You don't understand the epistemological distinction being made here. 
 
Actually they don't.

Those articles came out before the sanford study.

They're not all the same either. They address that fact that on the other side of the fence are people that are blindly defending "organics" without poking holes in  the lengths they go through to lie about their "organic" labeling. 

People DO lie to get their organic labeling because of the pop culture phenomenon that being "green" brings to peoples minds. 

You can't ignore that either. I try to stay as neutral as I can on the matter because often times, places like Whole Foods or Trader Joes have products that ARE  commercially raised GMOs but have been SLIGHTLY prepared in another way and then they get the "organic" sticker.

Its incredibly corrupt on both sides. 

I'm just letting you know that the "O-word" isn't enough to signify a change for the better.

Its about weighing both sides of the matter. Read them again. Theres no way you could even say they refer to the stanford study when most of them are from before august. 
eyes.gif

That doesn't matter. The fact is that you can't confirm what "organics" are either because the legal definitions aren't tightly bound for them either.

There is corruption in organic farming as well because people start eating up when they hear the "O-word"

There are benefits AND corruption on both sides...now when presented with evidence that people will cheat to slide by regulations, you're unwilling to weigh the evidence.

Move to the middle and weigh the benefits of both sides. 
Education is key here to making informed decisions about what you eat...but fear and scare tactics surrounding a three letter acronym doesn't help either, nor do rising food prices aid the narrative that the illuminati is out to turn you all into tomato dependent lemmings. 
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Who brought up Illuminati? I'm just wondering why you are so keen on throwing Illuminati into the mix here? Seems like an attempt to label anyone who argues against you as a "conspiracy theorist" with all the negative connotations attached to the term.

I'm glad we agree that we should have the right to know what we are consuming
[/quote]
It was sarcasm. 
 
No. Its not "proven otherwise"



Thats not how this works.



Pig Love said "GMOs make you worse and worse" ....what the hell does that even mean? And he doesn't even back it up. He just says it and you say "well you can't prove him wrong"



Are you SERIOUS?



Point out WHICH thing you're talking about and show your evidence.



There is a different between an "unknown effect" and something thats "potentially devastating"



Thats all speculation, especially if you're going to RECKLESSLY target the entire industry.



Thats like saying, well since comcast gouges some customers, lets get rid of the internet!



No. Show evidence of specific cases IN HUMANS and other means to back this claim up, otherwise you don't get to just make unsubstantiated assertions because its comfortable.



Thats irresponsible.
Click to expand...


Pig Love has every right to express his OPINION (which I also share) that GMOs are unsafe and unproven. Comcast is not forcing humans to ingest the internet, but nice try. Huge difference here. Apples to zebras comparisons don't work.

"Potentially devastating" is something like what is/was happening with bees, etc. There are unknown effects that are potentially devastating whether you like to admit it or not. Do you think that GMO seeds will nicely just stay within the confines of a specific farm, or do you wonder what happens when they are introduced into the rest of the environment? Let's think about that for a second.....


http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100414/full/464969a.html




GMOs make it possible to feed more people than we would with bronze age farming techniques.





If you can ensure that crops make better yields, in more environments, and can protect themselves from blight then you've already enhanced your capacity to make THAT MUCH MORE product to deliver to the world market.



People like Norman Borlaug's techniques with wheat have made it possible to feed billions of people.
Click to expand...


Yes, GMOs make it more possible to profit more immensely than ever before. You can't "fool" nature without consequences. More yield than nature allows for means that something has to give.

From the article you linked:

"What are the most promising routes to feeding 9 billion people?

The first priority is to fight loss and waste. We lose as much as 30 to 35% of the world's food output. That gives us a large margin of manoeuvre to increase the food available. We are doing research with food processors and distributors to explore solutions. We certainly won't be able solve the problem, but we can improve it.

Diet will also be a major determinant in our capacity to nourish the world [animal products require considerably more energy and land than plants]. We need to ensure food availability of 3,000 kilocalories a day per person, of which only 500 kilocalories is from animal products — we are not trying to transform everyone into vegetarians. This provides a healthy and satisfying diet, but is far from a typical Western diet. If we continue the current dietary regime typical of OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries, and if many other countries follow us on this trajectory, we will not have the same results in terms of food availability as we would with a more moderate diet worldwide."




Where did you prove that GMOs ARE in fact being used to help "feed and sustain the planet" as you claimed. Where are most GM foods utilitzed (for profit)?? I'm still waiting on some evidence that it isn't purely about greed and profit. I'll keep waiting.


Evil, or heavy handed? Is Apple evil? Is Ma Bell evil?





Stop anthropomorphizing companies.



There are people who work there who individually may not even think about what they're doing, but they are trying to provide for themselves.



Its legal to patent strains of genes. Can you blame them for doing that?



Its legal to buy out farmers. Can you blame them for doing that?



I mean, how dare a company try to GROW or something?



Now...I think studies that show GMOs can lead to decreased nutrient absorption and may increase responsiveness to allergens are alarming, however no one ever speaks of the benefits that GMOs have brought to not just the US, but to countries that rely on US food exports.



You all are forgetting that ensuring crop yield is a MAJOR factor in addressing food shortages.



Every farmer, no matter how "raw" wants to have better crop yields and doing something as simple as cross-pollinating his two favorite crops IS artificial genetic modification.



The same thing gregor mendel did is the same thing Monsanto is doing.



NOW...we can argue that SOME of their aims in SOME crops have not been as successful as they intended for it to be, but it doesn't change the underlying goal to improve output or to make a better product.
Click to expand...


I would say Monsanto is evil AND heavy-handed. The corruption in the FDA/govt directly related to Monsanto is just ridiculous.

Stop justifying their dirty actions.

Also, are you REALLY comparing traditional plant breeding to using viruses to produce transgenic crops?? Please.




Actually they don't.



Those articles came out before the sanford study.



They're not all the same either. They address that fact that on the other side of the fence are people that are blindly defending "organics" without poking holes in the lengths they go through to lie about their "organic" labeling.



People DO lie to get their organic labeling because of the pop culture phenomenon that being "green" brings to peoples minds.



You can't ignore that either. I try to stay as neutral as I can on the matter because often times, places like Whole Foods or Trader Joes have products that ARE commercially raised GMOs but have been SLIGHTLY prepared in another way and then they get the "organic" sticker.



Its incredibly corrupt on both sides.



I'm just letting you know that the "O-word" isn't enough to signify a change for the better.



Its about weighing both sides of the matter. Read them again. Theres no way you could even say they refer to the stanford study when most of them are from before august. eyes.gif
Click to expand...


How are these from before August? The are ALL from September. OK, here are some of your sources:


What’s In A Label? Conflicting Studies Over Organic Food Obscure An Already Complicated Issue

By S.E. Smith on Sep 10, 2012 at 11:21 am

If you paid much attention to food news last week, which, uh, maybe you didn’t, you probably caught multiple reports on a Stanford study indicating that organic food doesn’t carry more nutritional value than conventionally-produced foods. This is one among a slew of recent studies and reports slamming the organic label, which is not as rosy as some people think it is.


The Organic Fable
Cristóbal Schmal
By ROGER COHEN
Published: September 6, 2012 235 Comments

....So I cheered this week when Stanford University concluded...



There is corruption in organic farming as well because people start eating up when they hear the "O-word"



There are benefits AND corruption on both sides...now when presented with evidence that people will cheat to slide by regulations, you're unwilling to weigh the evidence.
Click to expand...


No doubt that there is corruption on both sides. No doubt that people try to profit from every damn thing they can and may have zero integrity. I'm not denying that. Corruption, whether it be organic, conventional, or genetically modified, is still corruption and it stinks. Still, at the end of the day I am not seeing GM crops being utilized for anything but greed but I do see that they do have several drawbacks. Sorry to bring this post back from the dead, but I haven't had time to address it until now.
 
Thought I'd bump this 3 year old thread as this is important and in just the last 3 years a mass awakening has started about GMOs with one company after another going non GMO. We are going to win against Monsanto and other GMO manufacturers and Jefrey Smith predicts GMOs will be completely gone within 5 years, I find that incredibly optimistic but he seems quite confident, if they're gone before I die I'll be thrilled, and I think that will happen.

Also, the "pro GMO" guy's username in this thread is "Future MD", obviously he's studying to be a doctor and doctors education is controlled by the companies making the deadliest products ever made like prescription drugs and GMOs (prescription drugs alone kill 305 000/year in USA when properly prescribed and taken) and throughout their "education" are led to believe there's nothing better than these deadly products, so even if they have good intentions, those that "educate" them have murderous intentions.

His claim that all food is GMO also comes from Monsanto's marketing that tries to fool people into thinking hybridization is the same as GMO while they are completely different things, the only things genetically modified and on the market so far are corn, canola, soy, beets and coming soon potatoes and apples.

It's encouraging to see people are aware of this on NT, I recently saw a thread from a forum member that has cancer and while I sent him a PM that seems to have fallen on death ears I didn’t bother replying to the thread as it’s discouraging seeing how no one in that thread seems to realize how he’s being had by these companies. He’s wondering why he got cancer when he doesn’t drink or smoke, but he certainly eats GMOs and cancer causing pesticide covered food daily. It’s the very same drug companies that drench most non organic food in known cancer causing chemicals that increase cancer rates that then sell chemotherapy to profit from the cancers they’re themselves causing. It’s even sadder to see the “liquid food” he’s taking is basically 100% GMO corn and GMO soy, that toxic junk would give him cancer if he didn’t have it already. It’s sad how people will blindly trust repeat offense criminals that are caught intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of people and charge them tens of thousands of dollars for fraudulent treatments without bothering to research an independent side not financed by these companies, but will ignore people that want to help for free.
 
johndoe said:
 
It's encouraging to see people are aware of this on NT, I recently saw a thread from a forum member that has cancer and while I sent him a PM that seems to have fallen on death ears I didn’t bother replying to the thread as it’s discouraging seeing how no one in that thread seems to realize how he’s being had by these companies. He’s wondering why he got cancer when he doesn’t drink or smoke, but he certainly eats GMOs and cancer causing pesticide covered food daily. It’s the very same drug companies that drench most non organic food in known cancer causing chemicals that increase cancer rates that then sell chemotherapy to profit from the cancers they’re themselves causing. It’s even sadder to see the “liquid food” he’s taking is basically 100% GMO corn and GMO soy, that toxic junk would give him cancer if he didn’t have it already. It’s sad how people will blindly trust repeat offense criminals that are caught intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of people and charge them tens of thousands of dollars for fraudulent treatments without bothering to research an independent side not financed by these companies, but will ignore people that want to help for free.
Click to expand...
Please post articles that demonstrate GMOs cause cancer. 
 
Boris said:
johndoe said:
 
It's encouraging to see people are aware of this on NT, I recently saw a thread from a forum member that has cancer and while I sent him a PM that seems to have fallen on death ears I didn’t bother replying to the thread as it’s discouraging seeing how no one in that thread seems to realize how he’s being had by these companies. He’s wondering why he got cancer when he doesn’t drink or smoke, but he certainly eats GMOs and cancer causing pesticide covered food daily. It’s the very same drug companies that drench most non organic food in known cancer causing chemicals that increase cancer rates that then sell chemotherapy to profit from the cancers they’re themselves causing. It’s even sadder to see the “liquid food” he’s taking is basically 100% GMO corn and GMO soy, that toxic junk would give him cancer if he didn’t have it already. It’s sad how people will blindly trust repeat offense criminals that are caught intentionally killing hundreds of thousands of people and charge them tens of thousands of dollars for fraudulent treatments without bothering to research an independent side not financed by these companies, but will ignore people that want to help for free.
Click to expand...

Please post articles that demonstrate GMOs cause cancer. 
Click to expand...
Article
http://www.collective-evolution.com...iverkidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/
Study
http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom