RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,343
- 189,965
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Last edited:
Mmmkay GMOs Are Bad
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by johnnyredstorm,
- Start date
- 7,728
- 3,807
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
There's a difference between HYBRID food and GMO products.
Cross-pollination, grating etc. is completely safe. Laboratory gene isolation and splicing is not.
Cross-pollination, grating etc. is completely safe. Laboratory gene isolation and splicing is not.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,343
- 189,965
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Says who?
- 5,850
- 9,204
- Joined
- May 20, 2006
Because the sole purpose of "doing stuff" is to make that particular crop cheaper to produce. Not to enhance nutrition, not to expand production, not to expand growing ability (unless it's cheaper. It's to make the companies growing the food more money. Period.
And you got people in here defending, just because. Because they can. Because you don't want to be labeled foolish or fearful.
RUSTYSHACKLEFORD is a 22 year old brat who just graduated and now feels he personally holds the world's wealth of knowledge in his brain. He knows more than every expert in every field regarding just about any topic you can think of. Must be nice to always be the smartest guy in the room.
- 7,728
- 3,807
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
Hybrid fruits have been eaten for hundreds of years.
A tangerine is a hybrid fruit, most varieties of fruits and vegetables that we currently eat are hybrids. Farmers take the most desirable qualities of certain foods and manually mix them together until they get a grape with the perfect taste, an orange with the perfect size, a banana with the perfect shape etc.
That's been going on for centuries. You can do it in your backyard.
Using high tech genetic equipment to isolate flounder genes and insert them into tomato gene sequences, for frost-resistance, is something entirely different.
Technically, they're both forms of genetic modification but that's silly semantics used by these multi-nationals to rock people to sleep and get their products engrained in everyone's lives.
There is virtually no regulation or testing on GMO products, which can be put on your table with little to no oversight or transparency.
The little bit of independent testing that has been done, on their safety does not look good.
Why y'all be defending this type of BS instead of wanting better for us?
I don't get it.
10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health
http://www.collective-evolution.com...-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/
A tangerine is a hybrid fruit, most varieties of fruits and vegetables that we currently eat are hybrids. Farmers take the most desirable qualities of certain foods and manually mix them together until they get a grape with the perfect taste, an orange with the perfect size, a banana with the perfect shape etc.
That's been going on for centuries. You can do it in your backyard.
Using high tech genetic equipment to isolate flounder genes and insert them into tomato gene sequences, for frost-resistance, is something entirely different.
Technically, they're both forms of genetic modification but that's silly semantics used by these multi-nationals to rock people to sleep and get their products engrained in everyone's lives.
There is virtually no regulation or testing on GMO products, which can be put on your table with little to no oversight or transparency.
The little bit of independent testing that has been done, on their safety does not look good.
Why y'all be defending this type of BS instead of wanting better for us?
I don't get it.
10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health
http://www.collective-evolution.com...-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/
Last edited:
- 5,379
- 4,433
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
So because someone doesnt want to put GMOs in their bodies they're obviously a liberal gay loving anti government hippie...
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,343
- 189,965
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Excuse me.
You come in thread after thread being condescending and riding your high horse. I'm having a discussion, like I do in every thread. You can disagree with me find, but I have never come close to the childishness you display on NT on the regular.
So miss me wit you nonsense B
Last edited:
- 5,850
- 9,204
- Joined
- May 20, 2006
I think it's pretty clear who is speaking nonsense in here.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,343
- 189,965
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- 32,091
- 26,389
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
Except it isn't. It's functionally the same.
In fact some of the genes that humans are selecting for in the creation of "hybrid" plants like the Sweet Potato actually contain foreign DNA not implanted by humans but naturally transfering.
It's called Horizontal gene transfer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421084204.htm
Essentially foreign DNA has found it's way into other spices of plants "NATURALLY". Why is different or suddenly unsafe when humans attempt to replicated this process.
- 5,712
- 1,019
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
I support GMO. 80% of the items in an average supermarket are made from GMOs so labeling each grocery item just to tell the average idiot shopper they are eating a GMO product is ridiculous. If you care about your body, do the research yourself and buy that grass fed beef, free running chicken or organic produce. Stop depending on the govt for labels. Plus the same large scale food producers that make GMO products also make organic products... probably in the same freaking manufacturing plant. What's the over/under that the grocery item you bought that is labeled "organic" is actually made from GMOs?
I have traveled to Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam, and a multitude of other 3rd world counties where the poor simply do not eat. Seeing little kids starving and eating ketchup packs as their only meal for the day is horrible. GMO is the only viable solution IMO long term wise for this over populated planet. Yes I understand the evolution of super weeds that are immune to round up and stronger cancerous pesticide will eventually be used... however the positive far out weigh this negative.
Take for example the banana wilting bacteria in Uganda. Millions of Ugandans depend on bananas as a staple diet. GMO type bananas, with 6 times the vitamin A, have been introduced and farmed there which will help feed how many folks? I am sorry but feeding hungry people today > conspiracies of Corporation greed/take over, plight of local farmers, environment and health issues in the future.
What's the over/under that the grocery item you bought that is labeled "organic" is actually made from GMOs? I have traveled to Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam, and a multitude of other 3rd world counties where the poor simply do not eat. Seeing little kids starving and eating ketchup packs as their only meal for the day is horrible. GMO is the only viable solution IMO long term wise for this over populated planet. Yes I understand the evolution of super weeds that are immune to round up and stronger cancerous pesticide will eventually be used... however the positive far out weigh this negative.
Take for example the banana wilting bacteria in Uganda. Millions of Ugandans depend on bananas as a staple diet. GMO type bananas, with 6 times the vitamin A, have been introduced and farmed there which will help feed how many folks? I am sorry but feeding hungry people today > conspiracies of Corporation greed/take over, plight of local farmers, environment and health issues in the future.
Last edited:
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,343
- 189,965
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Umm
Not one of those studies cited actually say GMO consumption is unsafe for humans.( The one that comes the closest was retracted and the author assumes it is a cover up)
The ones that do are saying pesticides that happen to be used on GMO crops, have been linked to negative stuff.
That not the same brah
-But if the compromise is labeling and more/better testing then I'm ok with that compromise.
But a lot of anti GMO activist complain about how bad testing is, and never acknowledge who difficult the make the lives of scientist that are doing GMO research.
Like if they're so unsafe, let it be proven.
Last edited:
- 74,479
- 23,945
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
isn't the world hunger problem a logistical issue, not the result of a food shortage?
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,343
- 189,965
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Won't it be a better system though if people could grown their own crops as opposed to relying on a broken system to get them food?
And I did acknowledge that fixing the world hunger problem will have to involve addressing the massive waste and logistical issues
Last edited:
- 15,203
- 16,033
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
I understand your stance. Its pretty noble in terms of what can be achieved. But to me, I just look at every technological advance we have made as a society. Progress has been undoubtedly been made, but unpredictable adverse affects have always occurred as well. Food is not something that should be played with.I didnt read your post, I only clicked the vid.^^^ Soon as I comment, "here come the red herrings." Thats weak. At least be direct, bruh
I am no expert on GMOs but its common sense that if it isn't broken, then dont fix it.
Our food isnt and has never been broken in terms on nutritional value.
Millions are starving, we waste nearly a third of our food in America and things aren't broken?
Maybe you should read the articles in my previous post.
Plus I called people would come with bringing up Monsanto in that post, in the very next post you do it, so I thought it would be direct enough that I was talking about you.
You highlighted what I said but obviously don't understand what you read.
I talk about nutritional value in the foods we eat and you come back with talk about ppl starving? and how we waste food?...
Seems like we having two different discussions. Let me entertain your conversation then. So gmo's gonna end world hunger? you believe that?
I know what you're saying. My comment was to let you know that the GMO debate is not really about that. Sure the people that can afford food have always been able to get nutritious foods, I don't debate that.
GMOs biggest benefit is to make sure those people can do so for future generations and to help those who lack access to nutritious food.
I don't believe GMOs are silver bullet. Because thinking that way makes people believe that work doesn't need to be done in other areas. We still waste tons of foods, food aid still doesn't get to a lot of people that need it.
But I do believe GMO crops have the potential to greatly improve the situation. Even put us on the brink of actually solving world hunger one day, that potential alone makes be a big supporter of them.
- 74,479
- 23,945
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
agreed papi.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,343
- 189,965
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
.........You better say yes brah
Last edited:
- 74,479
- 23,945
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
really depends which morons are running. if there's a bush on ballot, best believe I'm voting against him.
- 353
- 182
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2013
None of those with the exception of corn have been genetically modified, you're just showing how uninformed you are. The ones other than corn have been HYBRIDIZED, not genetically modified which is completely different. All those "news" sources you linked to are financed by Monsanto, but conflicts of interest don't seem to bother you. The dangers of GMOs are clearly proven which is why they're banned in so many countries. The only studies that "prove" they are safe are done by Monsatan and stop after 90 days because they know GMOs only start causing cancer in rats after about 120 days, so by stopping the studies at 90 days they "prove" they're safe. In addition, they only use pure glyphosate in those studies, not the full much more toxic chemical cocktail that's used on food sold to the consumers, so they can only "prove" they are safe with 2 major falsifications in their studies.
Last edited:
Sources needed.