GMOs aren't natural. They are a environmental threat. And if we eat it we might not know what might happen to us in the future. We might get sick, die, or other things too. We don't even know what the factories, farmers, etc even put in the food. Either it's Chemicals and other toxic stuff. We should stop GMOs before it destroys us all.
We can't just mess with our delicate system. We can't assume that if we change one thing that it wont change the whole system. Everything in our world has a purpose, wither we recognize it or not. God has made it how it is for a reason. And not only is it effecting the environment, it is affecting us, and the animals.. Monsanto and other huge industries are only thinking of money and how much they can make. They couldn't care less about our environment, our health and our future.
Who wants their food doused with herbicide anyway? Glyphosate is a proven carcinogen, when we have millions of GMOs in places they shouldn't be how are we to contain or kill them? Agent Orange is our only option and we all know what that does. Just ask the Vietnamese. Wake up people.
Foods we eat can foster illnesses . We don't know how artificial proteins can affect human cells.
Manufactured foods can control the development of cells for good or bad. I want to control what goes into my body not some gigantic corporation whose main goal is profit and how foods can be used by government to enable them to control our health and possibly our lifespan.
Government and multinationals ( as we move into fascism) are already working hand in hand to gain control of everything on the planet such as: population control, where people live, their transportation, their mobility around the country, food supply, controlling the education of the population , plus, behavior modification techniques, to name a few.
We don't know the long term effects on humans or the environment that come from genetically modified organisms. Scientist see only the good in GMOs but their is also a lot of negative. More testing should be done. Biotech companies are dishing out money to fight the labeling campaign because they don't want to have restrictions and regulations pushed on to them.
Genetically modified organisms have one type of cell, so if there are environmental factors harming the crop all of them will die rather than just a percentage of the overall crop. They are also taking over the natural organisms. The GMOs take up the resources and habitat of the natural organisms and can possibly force them to extinction in the area.
GMOs have been studied and studied by independent scientists, with overwhelming findings of their dangers they pose to us and the environment, but mostly our CHILDREN. Why has the government not studied them? They don't WANT to...GMOs offer too much money to the government. It's always all about the money!
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments' superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn't require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA's own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, later their vice president. He's now the US Food Safety Czar.
The point of GMOs is to make a more resilient plant to disease, insects, as well as our own chemicals (pesticides insecticides) thus yielding more crop. The downside of this is forcing the opposition to mutate (Happens with bacteria, and we know this for a fact). We could potentially be creating our food demise when an undesirable begins to cross with strong traits or we create plants that overwhelm lesser native plants. Essentially we are disrupting an equilibrium and the result could be a huge biodiversity ef up...
Antibiotic-resistant genes are used as 'markers' in GM crops to indicate whether the genetic modification has been successful. The GM process is inefficient and only a small number of cells incorporate the foreign genes. Therefore, an antibiotic resistance gene is included and, if the genetic modification is successful, the plant cell will grow in the presence of the antibiotic - if not, it will die. If these genes are transferred to disease-causing organisms, they may compromise antibiotic treatment. The antibiotic marker genes have no function in the plant and could be removed, but this costs more. The British Medical Association has called for a ban on the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes. This proves that it is dangerous!
Because in the process of creating genetically modified organisms, there is indirect harm to the beneficial species such as insects, bees and birds which initially effect the ecosystem. Different use of herbicide resistant can also make weeds resistant to herbicides. Through cross-pollination GM gene can travel in the environment mixing with "organic" species.
It is known that some GM golf grasses have been able to cross pollinate with weed species. Those other species then need to be sprayed with more harmful herbicides, thus putting more chemicals into the natural environment. That is a straight forward environmental threat. Additional unforeseen problems are likely to arise.
Wake up people! This is in no way natural, and we cannot mess with God's work. These big companies who have the GMO patent want to make their profit and work with the government to do so. That's how the government works period. Money talks loud. Not one single F*** is given about the peoples health. And in thirty years when millions of people end up with cancer and tumors because of what we are now consuming, they will figure out a way to gain an unfathomable amount of profit on us via healthcare.
Introducing plants and animals that do not naturally occur into the ecosystem could have devastating effects on current species due to cross breeding and cross pollination. Herbicide resistant plants could spread their qualities to weeds, which would make the harder to kill. Also, studies have found that the claims that GMOs increased crop yields. They take just as long to grow as standard foods.
We shouldn't be fed fake foods, it is un-healthy for us & causes sicknesss. The food may be quite delicious but it's not good for us. Chemicals are put into the foods and we eat the foods. The meat we eat is not good for us, I've watched numerous videos of how our food is processed and it's quite disturbing.
Haven't you heard about bt? Some plants were modefied to produce it and get rid of bugs, yet some of it gets into humans that eat it. AT HIGHER concentrations! And plenty of mothers who were expecting exposed their children to it as a result. Even over in india, many animals are dying from eating the leftover crops, and that's f they didn't become infertile or get diseases in organs. Wake up people, theese things are poison.
When genes are more diverse, they are more robust. This is why a pure bred dog tends to have greater health problems than the dear old mutt. Plants with reduced genetic diversity cannot handle drought, fungus invasions or insects nearly as well as natural plants. This could have dire consequences for farmers and communities dependent on GMO crops for survival.
because its they use tons of chemicals that are poison used by companies that don't care about our health and not to mention the cruelty to the animals also if its supposed to be good why do the keep it a secret they should no reason to if its so good
Recently there was a story on BBC about researchers who compared mice fed on a GM diet for two years to those on a normal diet. What they found was that GM food increased the risk of tumours and cancer by 60%. I believe more research should be carried out. But you shouldn't sell GM food now, as we haven't identified the long-term effects on humans. For all we know, GM food could be causing major health issues. And not only this, but you also have a new strand of weeds created by GM crops, which can only be killed by using a chemical used in Vietnam with a flamethrower. That doesn't sound environmentally healthy, does it?
We buy fruits , veg, meat and gains under the premise that they are what they are. And what is a potato? A potato is a plant, depending on what you believe, came from another plant, and another plant, and so forth. If I buy potatoes, I expect them to come from nature; if they are not natural, then it would be like eating something that is not a plant.
Just the other day, I looked up "Monsanto" on google, and I was redirected to a Canadian Monsanto page. I am deeply offended. On our flag, we have a maple leaf, a sign of nature; GMO foods are not natural. Allowing GMO into our country is like allowing the maple leaf to die off of our flag.
By adding genetically modified foods into the average diet, we have allowed ourselves to become modified. Children are growing and developing at a faster rate than ever before, and diseases are running rampant. GMO foods play a big part in this, in my opinion. Additionally, when genetically modified organisms are released or grown, they affect the original version of the organism.
Genetically modified organisms pose a threat to the environment. They exists and take valuable natural resources from native and unaltered organisms. They can decimate certain insect and animal populations, leading to a damaging shift in the environment.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could become an environmental threat because they can overwhelm heirloom and indigenous plant varieties. There have been cases where genetically modified corn has blown onto a farmer's fields, incorporating the changed genes of the GMO product into the farmer's seed exchanges. Other forms of corn in the seed exchange would eventually be bred with the genetically modified crop, accidentally resulting in a crop containing all genetically modified material in a few generations. Genetic modifications in this way lessen the biodiversity of crops.
If there is one thing science has taught us, it's that we don't understand nature very well. Year after year, theories are created, disproved, and discarded, because we continuously find that life is more complicated than we had imagined it to be. Genetically modified organisms are an environmental threat, because we don't fully understand organisms, so we cannot anticipate the impact genetically modifying them may have on the environment.
Roundup-resistant soy is producing Roundup-resistant "superweeds". There is anecdotal evidence that when taking a field of Roundup-resistant soy, and then spraying crops with Roundup for a prolonged period of time, you may, in fact, create Roundup-resistant weeds which, for all intents and purposes, diminishes the need for Roundup, or any other weed killer.
Genetically modified organisms are a threat to our environment, as they are biologically unnatural and we do not know the long-term effects of their existence. For example, we may find that GMOs, like tomatoes, eat up too much oxygen, thereby depriving humans of the air they need to live and exist. Until studies are done on the long-term outcomes, we should be careful.
Technology and science have a place in everyday life, but some things go to far. A man-made organism is an example. Depending on what it is used for, it could provide good, but also has the potential to cause a lot of harm. Since the organism is not part of the natural world, it's introduction could ruin an ecosystem and it's diversity. In addition to that, if something bad has the potential to happen, it very well could. I think people in this day and age are a bit too quick to rely on new forms of technology without considering the consequences of it. The BP oil incident of a few months ago is a prime example. Now imagine if this was something that directly effected the surroundings in which you lived everyday. Until all containment issues have been explored, man-made organisms should be left alone.
I think GMOs are a threat because they are simply not natural. Anything "modified" has to have some danger or risk associated with it, especially something that can be consumed or breathed in by a human or animal. These GMOs can have cancerous or other disease risks and should not be allowed.
Humans have been modifying plant and animals by selective breeding for thousands of years, but genetically modified organisms take it a step further. The complete impact of one organism is not always known, because one organism is just one step in a large food chain. Modifying one organism might negatively effect the entire food chain in ways that are not completely understood, and this might be an environmental threat.
Mankind has a history of doing things without understanding the ramifications of their actions. Nature lives in a delicate balance and when man plays with such an important part of the very nature of our world they could create impacts that they can't perceive that could in the long run kill off critical parts of our ecosystem. Our world is a delicate place and we should be very careful how we interact with it.
There are just not enough studies that show how certain mutation would effect environment, and until comprehensive studies are done humans should not play with the risk of doing more damage to the environment than they have already done. Each genetically modified organism needs its own studies, and permission to use them on a wide scale should only be accepted after all the risks are properly addressed.
Much like invasive species, I believe GMOs could be a huge environmental threat if not properly contained. If any of these organisms escaped into the wild, they may not have any natural predators in that environment. In that case, they would proliferate and eventually push out and endanger other native species. This also works for plants, not just animals. A genetically modified strain of plants may be more resistant to a certain environment than the natural species and will eventually outgrow them.
Sounds great, right? Gm foods can be grown easily, withstanding cold or drought, without spraying for pests or weeds. Not only that, but the food can be made more nutritious. So what's the problem? Why so much controversy? Opponents of genetic modification have many criticisms against this new technology. First of all there are multiple environmental concerns. Gm foods can cause harm to other organisms unintentionally. For example, a study published in nature on bt corn found that the pollen caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars, even though the caterpillars don't eat corn. If the bt corn pollen is blown onto neighboring milkweed plants (the caterpillars food source) the caterpillars could eat the pollen and die. The results of this study are under debate, since the experiments were not done in the field, but in a laboratory, and new studies suggest that the original may be flawed. Researchers at the university of guelph performed a study and found that under natural conditions, bt corn does not pose a risk to the monarch butterfly . If pollen is blown onto neighboring plants, the plants could crossbreed and the introduced gene could be transferred to non-target plants. This is a concern if a herbicide resistant crop were to breed with a weed and transfer the herbicide resistance gene. This would create a weed that is unharmed by the chemicals used to kill it. Monsanto has patented their roundup ready seeds, and farmers wishing to use them must purchase a license from the company. This can lead to trouble for farmers who don't use the Monsanto seeds. Perry schmeiser is a canola farmer in western Canada who has never bought seeds from Monsanto. In 1998 he was sued by Monsanto since they discovered roundup ready canola in his field. Schmeiser claims that the seed was blown in from neighboring fields, but Monsanto believes he obtained it illegally or stole it. Regardless of how it was obtained, Monsanto felt this was patent infringement and took schmeiser to court in June of 2000. This court battle captured the interest of farmers around the world, because even if they did not intend or even want to have patented seeds in their fields, they could be sued. The judge ruled in favor of Monsanto and stated that it didn't matter how the seed got into schmeiser's field. Whether it was blown in, cross-pollinated by birds, bees or animals, fell off farmer's trucks or migrated from a neighbor's field, it is still patent infringement, and the plants were to become the property of Monsanto. All of schmeiser's profits from 1998 were awarded to Monsanto since there was a probability of having the genetically altered seeds throughout his fields. Insect pests may also become resistant to the toxins produced by gm crops like bt corn. It is now known that some bacteria are becoming antibiotic resistant (so-called superbugs') making it difficult to treat diseases such as tuberculosis. Likewise, opponents of gmos believe that insects could become pesticide resistant making them difficult to control in the future. This process is called mutation. Along with environmental concerns, there are also worries about the effects that gm foods can have on humans. There are concerns that introducing a new gene into a food could cause an allergic reaction in some people (for example, if the gene came from a nut). Most scientists believe that other than allergic reactions, gm foods do not pose a threat to human health, however as with all new products, no long-term studies have been performed.
DNA is the molecule of life in all organisms. We are simply moving DNA from one organism to another in turn causing that organism to make a protein that is already naturally made. There is nothing inherently unsafe and unnatural in DNA directing cells to make proteins. We often eat both organisms separately including all their DNA and protein molecules. What makes it different that we simply are merging the molecules into one organism? It is not "new" DNA and "new" protein molecules. The vast majority of arguments against GMO's are based solely in emotion and rhetoric. Show me the evidence.
First, genetic modification can help framers skip steps in the process, such as spraying their crops with pesticides, because the food are already resistant to pests. Secondly, there are more benefits in the foods themselves. For example, Golden Rice have been modified to contain additional vitamins and minerals like Vitamin A. Lastly, studies are currently being done with bananas to produce newer and safer vaccines against viruses such as Hepatitis B.
After evaluating many facets of the arguments for and against GM food crops, I have been able to draw my own opinion on the matter. I believe that GM food crops definitely have great potential for solving the problems of world hunger and malnutrition, and that they also have the ability to help preserve our environment by drastically reducing our uses of chemical pesticides and herbicides. I do, however, think that before our society becomes too reliant on GM there is much more research needed in regards to safety, effects on human health, effects on biodiversity, policy, and regulation. It would be truly unfortunate for us to disregard a technology that could so greatly benefit the world. After researching GM and both sides of the argument, it is apparent to me that many people are misinformed about the issue. Many claim that GMOs are “biologically unnatural” and we should not “mess with God’s nature.” From my point of view, people have been employing selective breeding to ensure the presence of desirable traits for many years, there is nothing different about this concept except for the technique by which we accomplish it. From my extensive reading of opinion columns, news articles, and anti-GMO propaganda I have come to the conclusion that there is a great deal of misunderstanding when it comes to genetic engineering. Scientists do no not throw random genetic sequences together, hoping for the best to see if it works. They work very specifically, removing precise genes from organisms to implement in another.
Deregulation of genetically modified organisms is a prerequisite for commercial use. Deregulation is a costly, rigorous, and time consuming process. No entity embarks on this process without substantial cost-benefit analysis. The regulatory agencies of the US and other nations do not seriously examine evidence of safety without significant prior assurance that care has been taken by applicants to generate their case. A vast accumulation of peer reviewed literature attests to the safety of these products. Conspiracy theories implying that several world governments, the entire scientific community and the whole commercial food industry are complicit in suppression of evidence to the contrary are fantastic.
We shouldn't be fed fake foods, it is un-healthy for us & causes sicknesss. The food may be quite delicious but it's not good for us. Chemicals are put into the foods and we eat the foods. The meat we eat is not good for us, I've watched numerous videos of how our food is processed and it's quite disturbing
If we look at the world today we can see people starving everywhere. This is partially due to the price and the lack of food available for the consumers. With GMOs we farmers are able to produce more food than thought possible. In the 1990, 100 bushels an acre was thought to be a good year, now we are seeing 250-300 bushels an acre because of GMOs. With the development of GMOs there is less need for harsh pesticides and other chemicals for pest control. The farmer makes his living off of the ground and not going to do something to the ground which they use to make their living and feed their family. These are just a few of the reasons that GMOs are not bad.
There is nothing wrong with GMOs. They are not any more "unnatural" than traditional cross breeding. It's all the same thing. Just because you are only now becoming aware of this"problem" doesn't mean that all of a sudden it's dangerous. News Flash! You've been eating GMOs for years with out knowing and are you dead yet? NO. So suck it up, GMOs are here to help.
The vast majority of anti-GMO people have never taken a course in genetics or molecular biology. The genetic modifications under consideration (introduction of the genes for Bt toxin or glyphosate resistant EPSP synthase) have no effect on a plant's nutritional value or safety as a food. The issue of "environmental threat" is driven by one paper about monarch butterflies that has long since been debunked. There is some legitimacy to the issue of monocultures of food crops, such as corn. However, farmers, including the large corporate farmers, are well aware of this and there is huge genetic diversity in the corn germ plasm that used by the seed producers.
To everyone quoting the BBC documentary on mice. That so called "Scientific Investigation" was completely invalid and bias as the specific breed of mice that they tested on had a huge percentage of developing cancer, something like 75%+. They also only recorded the mice that developed the cancer and disregarded the rest that had no symptoms. Not to mention that the company who undertook the experiment are extremely for environmentalism. If people want to know if GM organisms are actually carcinogenic and pathogenic then the correct scientific parameters and procedures should be applied.
I have worked in agricultural for over 30 years and remember the days when we used very toxic insecticides. In the span of my career these have gone by the wayside thanks to the development of Bt crops. My son was given GMO produced human growth hormone as a juvenile and many people depend upon other pharmaceuticals produced by GMOs. New technologies or new ideas in general always bring inherent risks and those must be weighed against the benefits. There will likely be some mistakes made in expanding GMO plant species but so far the results have been positive with little down side. So many of the arguments against GMOs are so misguided that they prevent us from having meaningful dialogue on the subject. Fortunately the scientific community is on the task and hopefully real results can be communicated to the largely, scientifically illiterate masses.
There has not been enough research conducted to definitively establish whether genetically modified organisms will effect the environment around them. The companies creating these products are being tasked with the responsibility of establishing the environmental safety of their products. As a result the tests have been shown to be biased in overwhelming favor of the products safety. Independent research and tests have shown the opposite. The organisms have an effect on the animals that feed on them. Sometimes detrimental effects other times creating more insecticide and pesticide resistance in the target species. With more resistance, the GMO product will no longer be effective against the target species it was designed to be resistant too. This equates to even more insecticide and pesticides being used, hence even more chemicals in the environment. The same is true for herbicide resistance. With repeated exposure to the same herbicide, such as Round Up, the weeds become resistant to it. Then you need more chemicals to achieve the same effect as before. Not only that, but eventually you can't keep dumping more and more of the same chemical on the weeds before moving onto a stronger chemical. There have already been reports of weeds developing this resistance. They are now being called 'superweeds' because the farmers can't get rid of them anymore. Also, the GMO plant has an effect on the quality of the soil. Plants interact with the soil they are rooted in. There is chemical exchanges between soil and plant, so genetically modified organisms actually put the toxins they are producing into the soil as well. Then there are the insects that rely on the crops pollen. If the pollen is altered then it can have detrimental effects on them. There have already been reports of effects to bees in areas where GMO crops are being grown. GMO pollen is also released into the air and can mix with non-GMO crops, thereby contaminating them. To sum it up, we have a responsibility to make sure these crops are not actually causing damage to the environment around them before we spread them around the world. If we find out the detrimental effects years down the road then it may be too late to stop the damage or reverse the damage.
GMOs are not a threat to biodiversity, but rather provide support to human beings. People depend on GMOs for vitamins and minerals that they cannot receive from non-genetically modified organisms. Global warming has affected the balance between the ecosystems, thus leading to agricultural difficulties and to plants being genetically modified.
The core of most opposition seems to be "magical thinking" that engineered genetic changes are somehow fundamentally different from natural changes "comic-book thinking" about the dangers of some new unnatural force that could overwhelm nature. Both are false. Finally, some opposition is based on opposition to the agricultural techniques which pose real threats to the environment and sustainability, but these concerns have nothing to do with GMOs, per se. This is like blaming computers for the system of finance that employs them.
It would be difficult to do a science project on whether or not GMOs are harmful. I'd say about 90% of what I found from Google Search are posts on forums and websites from people who've been deeply misinformed.
There's people who don't even understand GMOs and are convinced that they contain "poison", or that the process hurts the animal. People with claims that their relatives are developing AIDS and cancer by consuming GMOs. Why not take it from a scientist who actually understands it?
It's very very easy to spread false information on the internet and even to persuade people of high authority of false information. Stop the madness.
Most claims that GMOs are "harmful" are based off of incorrect assumptions. Why is that people naturally believe something is harmful because it is unnatural? We have been genetically modifying organisms for centuries. Selecting the juiciest oranges, or the largest potatoes, or the sweetest apples for breeding is a form of genetic manipulation. Breeding dogs to serve as trackers, or herders, or guard dogs is a form of genetic manipulation. Now that genes can be manipulated directly, people panic because it is unknown. In my honest opinion, GMOs are safe and do not pose any more of a health threat than current "natural" foods.
I believe genetically modified organisms are not an environmental threat. A 1999 study supported my belief that expertly designed GMOs are not inherently harmful. The opposing argument tends to lean toward the fact that GMOs are "unnatural", but that seems to me to be more of a metaphysical argument, rather than a scientific one.
There is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to Genetic Engineering. Firstly, scientists do not willy-nilly throw some random genetic sequences into an organism and see if it works. They remove specific genes from organisms and implement them into another organism, no gene is created randomly, it is transfered from one species to another. Therefore claims that they will be dangerous is non-sense as they already exist in nature and their biochemical properties are very well understood. Secondly, saying that they aren't natural is void of any logic. What does it mean for something to be natural? And how does something being unnatural make it bad? Cyanide is natural, would you prefer we put those genes in your corn? What humans are doing can be considered improving a species, speeding up evolution. So what if it's better than other organisms? That is natural selection, organisms are in a constant war with each other. If you don't like how one species is better than another then you must truly be confused by the most basic ideas of biology.
We all know that, as stated by Darwin, the organisms on Earth evolved by natural modifications in their genetics. This has led to powerful organisms like humans, who can now control what nature did earlier. We may make some mistakes along the way, but will succeed ultimately in this task of genetic engineering, and creating a better species of organisms. I believe that such a growth cannot be a threat to us.
If animals bred with GMOs are correctly handled (e.g. they don't go outside of their holding areas, they are raised humanely, etc.) then there should not be a fear of them contaminating the outside area.
The emerging biotechnology field has enabled the scientists to produce genetically modified organisms. Proper researches are carried out by the scientists before producing the genetically modified organisms to prevent any side effects. Many improved plant species with several benefits have been introduced by producing genetically modified organisms. Also, these modified organisms can be used in researches to discover new enzymes and hormones. Hence, it will result only in the improvement and will not pose as a threat.
So often, fear of the unknown keeps us from progressing. Understanding that it is wise to move slowly on the production of GMO's, I certainly am not against the production of these organisms. Indeed, many, are directly useful for humans, such as the Genentech technology that is used to produce an insulin that humans can use. Increases in crop production is also one of the many benefits of GMO's. Yes, there are risks, and it is good to move slowly, testing to ensure there are not unwanted side effects of the effort. But, with the world becoming more populous, we need to find ways to adapt to the changes. GMO's have the potential to offer solutions that we otherwise would not have.
For example, take a look at farmers' crops. The seeds developed through genetic modification have more resistance to drought and insect attacks. As a result, they yield more per harvest, thus producing more food and diminishing the food shortage problem. Although there have been some issues regarding GMO side effects, we cannot deny the potential of GMOs as a benefit to humankind.