Amazon.com Widgets
  • Corporate America should care more about their people and their well being rather than their money

    GMO's are the reason we are the most obese country in the world "Fat America", but these giants don't care about us and our health they are only worried about themselves and their paychecks, its not natural so why would Monsanto be selling poising? I mean GMO's are only illegal in 26 other countries, the least they can do is more labeling.

  • Fight Against GMOs

    There was nothing wrong with the food farming system to begin with. We should spend money on educating farmers on the sustainable methods of farming. Studies have shown that conventional heirloom seed farming produces a higher yield than its sideshow competitor (GMOs). So just imagine how efficient a sustainable farm would be, with even higher yields.

  • GMO Foods Are Already Legal

    This debate seems to be prompted with a bit of misinformation as there is only one country that completely bans gmo. Foods derived from genetic modification are legal in all but Peru. There is no reason for them not to be as there is no unbiased and credible evidence that they are harmful.

  • Stop it‘s Poisonous

    Do you want to get sick? In my perfect little world genetically modified organisms would be illegal, but coming from a realistic perspective they should be labeled with symptoms too (either labeled or illegal). We’ll genetically modified organisms (aka GMO) does exactly how it sounds. GMO’s are genetically modified organisms. So what is a GMO? Let say farmers are planting strawberries, and the strawberries can’t stand cold climates, and the fruit ruins and the farmer can’t sell the fruits. There’s an Alaskan fish that can withstand such cold climates, and they use the gene of the fish and the scientist inject it into the strawberry. How do you genetically alter organism? We’ll first of you can’t change the gene unless you invade it. So you have an altered the gene with a virus and bacteria, and then the (bacteria + virus=) bacterius has to invade the genes of the organism (plants, animals, anything that is living). So the scientist injects the bacterius into the (strawberry + fish=) strawberish in order for it to turn into a manmade mutating genetically altered product to come to your local grocery store, and into your mouths.
    You are what you eat. We’ll if I eat GMO’s and GMO’s are just invading bacterius then what does that make me? Good point. We’ll you and your children are part of this big scientific experiment that’s not contained, and has so many variables. SO in other word you are becoming Frankenstein as you read. How so? We’ll there was a scientific study done. Animals that where fed GMO’s had enormous health risk. What you may ask? They had insulin regulations, major changes in organs, changes in the gastrointestinal system, infertility, immune problems, and accelerated aging. HURRAY!!! Also after GM soy was introduced to the UK soy allergies had a %50 increase. If that’s not good enough for you I don’t know what is.
    In other countries they don’t have the right to eat what they want, but in America we do. Organic food prices are rising slowly but surely. You want to know why? Since GMO’s companies (like Monsanto) are buying land close to organic local farmers, and then cross breeding their plant with the farmers. After that they sue the organic farmers for selling their GMO plants to others. The organic farmers have to sell the GMO plants then, or they can just quit. In this economy citizens contribute one million dollars. For an example the farmer gets ten dollars a day and he decides to get a haircut for five dollars, now the barber has five dollars to spend, and the barber pays the babysitter, and so on and so forth. We’ll what about the farmers in poor countries? Hard working farmers in India that are trying to feed their families, and keep them alive kill themselves because they can’t afford to pay for the new supplies they need for the new GMO seeds/plants.

  • GMO should be illegal

    I think GMO should be illegal because scientist's still don't know if GMO is bad for you. Why send it out into the world if you are not sure if GMO is bad or not. GMO makes rats have tumor's, imagine what GMO can do to you. That is why I want GMO to be illegal.

  • American doesn't need to eat poision

    I think America shouldn't have to eat poison. GMO is basically messing up the food that mother nature gave us. Americans have to worry if their food is GMO or not. It would make it easier for Americans to NOT have GMO food and healthier for them too! No more GMO food!

  • Dangerous, unproven, and mixing foreign genes into our food

    There are MANY scientists whose disagreements with GMOs are silenced by the agri-business. In addition to the wide health risks that GMOs pose, and the irreversibility of the mutations they make, there is not even proper evidence to support the claims that GMOs can feed the world...Putting aside the concept of letting a small group dictate which crops we should all use and thereby railroad all of Nature into a narrow use - as if we humans know better!
    For example:
    according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

  • Dangerous, unproven, and mixing foreign genes into our food

    There are MANY scientists whose disagreements with GMOs are silenced by the agri-business. In addition to the wide health risks that GMOs pose, and the irreversibility of the mutations they make, there is not even proper evidence to support the claims that GMOs can feed the world...Putting aside the concept of letting a small group dictate which crops we should all use and thereby railroad all of Nature into a narrow use - as if we humans know better!
    For example:
    according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

  • It can reduce world hunger.

    There are so many starving countries in the world. With GMOs, we can increase food supply and feed the hungry. Also, there is no proof whatsoever that GMOs are harmful. All they do to make GMO foods is they insert altered DNA into the food. GMOs may kill off insects, but most insects just hurt the crops anyways.

  • GMO Foods Should Not Be Made Illegal

    Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) foods should not be made illegal. There are so many hungry people in this world that it seems ridiculous to make food illegal without scientific proof that it is harmful. The Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization have said that the food is safe. There is no scientific proof that GMO food causes allergies or any other sorts of health problems.

  • There is no need.

    I had written a long post, but unfortunately, my laptop crashed on me, and I was not able to restore my last session, so i will sum it up.

    The claim that there is no research is completely wrong. They are one of the most studied subject in science. There are over 2000 published independent, peer reviewed studies concluding they are safe.

    The claim that because scientists who disagree are "silenced" fails to hold up. A lot of these studies are criticized, not to "silence" them because they are right, it's because their studies are flawed. Like the Seralini (may not be spelt correctly) study are flawed. His sample size was too small, and the breed of rats he used are known to spontaneously grow tumors. To no ones surprised, the rats did grow tumors. He then, published photos of these rats, with tumors 40% of their mass, to be used as propaganda.

    I also find the hypocrisy in the anti movement hilarious. Many of these studies are proven to be funded by organic groups and companies, and are often biased, and flawed, and contain conflict of interest, despite the author declaring no conflict of interest. One study (I forget) the author declared no conflict of interest, but when researched, it was found he worked for an organic company. When these junk studies are called out, the activists claim this is the "big ag" covering up the "truth". But when independent, peer reviewed studies that conclude they're safe, they're somehow funded by companies like Monsanto, and are not to be taken seriously, but the junk studies, by scientists proven to have conflict of interest, and being flawed (some contradicting themselves) are called out are somehow more reliable.

  • We can't afford the ecological cost

    The world population is expected to exceed nine billion by 2050. GMO technology will be needed to feed this huge population, as it can improve yields by a significant amount. Organic farming is often pushed by environmentalists as the better option, but they don't seem to realize that it is an antiquated farming method that is no longer an option to feed the human population. If we even tried to produce today's yields with only organic farming, we would need to clear an additional area of three billion hectares, about twice the size of South America! Think of all the wild habitat that would be lost! We need GMOs to survive, banning them would be extremely counterproductive.

  • GMO's have already saved BILLIONS of lives. As our population grows and our arable land diminishes, this becomes more and more of an important topic.

    I got into an hour and half long debate with someone this morning on whether or not GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms, specifically crops) are harmful or not. His belief is that all GM crops are harmful to both humans and the environment. I stated that it is possible some may be harmful, but, since we are speaking of science, then it is likely many GM crops are selected in a very careful process to be as certain as possible they don't have any mutations. He stood his ground on his belief that every GM crop is harmful. I pointed out that we have been genetically engineering crops since the early 1970's and it has saved BILLIONS of lives from starvation. He told me that I am thinking of selective breeding and other such processes, which I now know from further studies is not the case.

    This caused me to want to study the issue further. I tried to find some articles or blogs with references to scientific studies and/or research papers. After a couple hours of searching, I found one. http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3.pdf

    So far I have only thoroughly checked one source. I immediately noticed it was taken a bit out of context. Page 11, paragraph 2 of the pdf., endnote 1 refers us to the following scientific article archived at The NCBI - National Center for Biotechnology Information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/

    Browse through it. The scientific terminology may not be familiar, but the language should make the general idea easy enough to understand. Basically, the current methods of genetically engineering crops can create a lot of mutations. The article seems to state that usually the mutations can be detected. However, studies conducted on current commercially sold crops shows that some crops with mutations do make past screening. The part of the article I found most interesting is the very last paragraph. The authors state that "transformation-induced mutations" (pay careful attention to use of the word "mutations") increase the risks of genetic engineering, and "are unnecessary for the production of transgenic crops." (You can look up the word "transgenic")

    Basically, the conclusion of the article is that mutations are not necessary, provide no benefit, and increase risks in genetic engineering. Well, of course mutations pose a risk and are unnecessary. However, as the article also states, scientific procedures for creating transgenic crops and analyzing them for mutations can be improved upon.

    What the referenced article they used did not state was that it has been proven that these mutations are harmful. It only stated that the mutations "may" be harmful.

    My point is that the very first reference that "GMO Myths and Truths" uses is not anti-GMO in the slightest. The authors actually seem enthusiastic about furthering advancements in biotechnology.

    Anyway, I'm going to dig further in to some of the references that this seemingly biased article uses. Perhaps I'll update my argument later. Who knows. Maybe after more research I change my opinion.

    Also, watch this video from gogogmo.Com:
    https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=vf86QYf4Suo#t=1283


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.