Are GMOs harmful?

Posted by: sciguy23

Poll closed on 4/1/2016 at 12:00PM.
21 Total Votes


11 votes


10 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
triangle.128k says2016-03-19T18:05:58.2923509Z
@NewLifeChristian "and the environment," I thought you were past your environmentalism?
BrendanD19 says2016-03-20T00:05:02.7792557Z
@400spartans Mankind has not been putting salmon genes in tomatoes for thousands of years
BrendanD19 says2016-03-20T05:26:20.0264502Z
@themightyindividual GMOs increase pesticide use and pesticides are bad for you and the environment. The GMOs themselves may not be harmful, but the way they are used is
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-20T18:07:22.0787835Z
@triangle.128k Yeah, well that's what I thought, but now I'm questioning my beliefs on the environment.
triangle.128k says2016-03-20T19:09:25.3674092Z
The economy is still more important than a few trees dying.
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-20T19:11:59.8707996Z
@triangle.128k Yeah, well, it's more than just a few trees these days . . .
themightyindividual says2016-03-20T19:13:24.6895863Z
@Brendan 19 they have engineerie gmos for many purposes including the elimination for the need of pesticide. Your opinion is so invalid I find it hard to believe you are serious. The genes in all crops have been manipulated by humans I very the course of thousands of years. Gmos is just a more precise and (much) quicker way to do so.
triangle.128k says2016-03-20T19:19:15.9793935Z
@NewLifeChristian Still not worth hurting businesses with crazy EPA regulations.
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-20T19:20:53.3006190Z
@triangle.128k Those regulations are necessary. Listen, we can't have businesses spewing toxins into the environment that harm people's health. I'm pretty much a libertarian (economically) up until people get hurt, because, as always, people getting hurt is not a good thing . . .
themightyindividual says2016-03-20T19:31:45.5876003Z
@NewLifeChristian you do realize that most of the EPA's allegations are based on nonsense and the majority of them (even if true) couldn't possibly hurt anyone? Draining a swamp is not the end of the world, but not doing so could be the end of several businesses who profit from doing so.
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-20T19:39:35.4158603Z
@themightyindividual Like I said before, it's not just draining a swamp, it's destroying hundreds of wildlife habitats. This isn't a minor issue like many like to make it to be, it's a serious problem, and in the future, we might not have any more swamps because of tyranny from big corporations.
triangle.128k says2016-03-20T19:53:14.7174639Z
Environmentally friendly processes increase as time passes. There's no point to burden economic growth because of some animals and trees dying. Slight clearing of natural habitats is a necessary evil for future development and economic growth. In fact, many important pharmaceutical drugs come from the amazon rainforest.
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-20T21:08:40.6121131Z
@triangle.128k In regards to that last part, I agree that we should collect materials for important medical drugs in the Amazon rainforest; however, major deforestation (which is being done today) is not necessary, and therefore, should not be done.
triangle.128k says2016-03-20T21:27:05.5728447Z
@NLC Ever since 2004, deforestation has been on a path of drastically decreasing. In fact, the deforestation rate is 1/5th of what it used to be, so it's not really a real issue.
themightyindividual says2016-03-20T22:05:48.4291240Z
@triangle.128k the amount of trees in the United States has been increasing steadily for quite some time now.
BrendanD19 says2016-03-22T03:11:20.5788892Z
Deforestation is still continuing in places like the amazon
BrendanD19 says2016-03-22T04:14:20.6415608Z
@komododragon8 no, most modifications are a) to allow producers to patent them and make more money or b) to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides, usually made by the same company.
themightyindividual says2016-03-22T04:30:40.2467990Z
Instead of more government enforced environmental regulations the solution is the free market. Logging companies would definitely want to replant the trees they cut down if they owned the land (as a farmer replants the crops he harvests). The problem is that in many countris the government owns the land and private logging companies have no incentive to replant because they don't own the property they only work on it.
Anonymous says2016-03-31T20:45:05.7072129Z
Always funny when someone passes along collective evolution, as if it was even slightly reliable.
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-31T20:56:12.7916412Z
@KRTxBallistic Did you even read the article?
triangle.128k says2016-03-31T21:06:24.5965252Z
@NewLifeChristian You know those Africans in poor areas where they struggle to get food? Tell them how bad GMOs are, and I'm sure they'd be happy to hear. Especially considering GMOs have helped to feed people like them.
NewLifeChristian says2016-03-31T21:09:51.2822501Z
@triangle.128k GMOs aren't helping them . . . Since when has feeding harmful substances to people been considered "helpful"?
BrendanD19 says2016-04-01T01:10:37.0216504Z
@davidsondw17 but what about the environment?
themightyindividual says2016-04-01T04:05:56.2002806Z
Lol BrendanD19 calm down, we're talking about food production not the environment! No one cares about the environment when it is weighed against the needs of human beings' digestive systems. GMOS increase food production.
triangle.128k says2016-04-01T04:13:39.1644483Z
@themightyindividual True, increased food production is definitely a plus from GMOs. The alleged claims against them usually use pseudo-scientific methods, and they aren't effective in disproving how GMOs are harmful.
triangle.128k says2016-04-01T04:16:08.1930537Z
@BrendanD19 Then clearly judging by your comment, there's nothing wrong with GMOs. The problem would be the pesticides being used against crops. If anything, GMOs make the effects of pesticides a lot less of a risk then they could be.
triangle.128k says2016-04-01T04:18:40.4647797Z
Regarding the environmental concerns, wouldn't feeding the poor and hungry be much more of a priority than a few bugs and plants dying?
themightyindividual says2016-04-01T06:18:46.3437541Z
themightyindividual says2016-04-01T14:35:37.2432784Z
Thegreatdebate98 says2016-04-14T15:41:48.2912234Z
Even if GMO's don't have a significance impact on the human body, there are still many more blatant effects. When farmers spray round up on genetically engineered crops, they have to wear full body protective suits. In multiple studies, most of the rats who were given the round up herbicide, developed tumors. What quickly effected the rats, can slowly effect humans. Besides GMO's themselves, Monsanto is still one of the most corrupt corporations. Every threat to its power is wiped out. They force smaller farms to pay a fee for the sole purpose of owning land that they want ownership over. They are connected to every company that makes processed and artificial foods, that are quite dangerous despite how the crops are grown. Monsanto has ties with Nestle, Kraft, Coca Cola, Kelloggs, Mars, Pepsico, and the list goes on. Other impacts that have been linked, but not proven to be caused by GMO's are environmental, increased herbicide use, and the takeover of smaller businesses. It is not just a liberal idea to believe that GMO's are harmful.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.