Why i do not want GMO in my food or my pets food

[JulyBlizzard]

If you have laying hens and consume three of their eggs a day you are growing over 10% of your food.

 

[lindsay297]

wow.....that was interesting!!

May I say that as a Canadian I treasure my right to make a free choice of what I do and what I put on my table. I believe that what is on grocery store shelves should be labeled correctly and fully. In reality not many people read the labels anyways!! So that those who care to buy their food from there can make an educated decision, if they choose to!!

I choose to raise egg layers from a neighbours farm that have been hatched there and raise and butcher my own eating chickens. I get my beef from a local farmer that has raised his cows for generations. I have a large garden that I do not use fertilizers or chemicals on and can and process what I can myself.

I think that we can all admit that big business and government agencies have approved certain things and then years later went, uh-oh. I think that this may (GMO) be one of those which is why they should be labeling and allowing all free choice.

Hope that I have not insulted anyone in this!! Just putting in my three cents!!

 

[cutechick2010]

GMO doesn't "require" anything any other plant doesn't require

Some GMO's specifically ELIMINATE the need to spray pesticides

You just keep repeating rhetoric that is short on substance

Out of curiosity, can I ask why you DO like GMOs? What are the aspects of it that you see as positive?

 

[cutechick2010]

There is a hugh difference in breeding to get a certain breed and genetically modifying. An animal is cross bred with different breeds to attain a certain characteristic, not an animals DNA spliced with a foreign dna unrelated to the original species.

Yes, how often in nature do fish mate with tomatoes, or people with pigs, or goats with spiders? Saying that GE crops or animals are the same as selectively bred ones is a weak argument.

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

Out of curiosity, can I ask why you DO like GMOs? What are the aspects of it that you see as positive?

I don't "like" nor "dislike" them
I DO like sticking to facts instead of misinformation

Some of the postitve aspects are 85% less pesticide use, and lower fuel costs, which in turn reduces pollution, and keeps food costs lower

Add in the fact that there have been no PROVEN harmful effects, and it's just simple logic

 

[karlamaria]

Out of curiosity, can I ask why you DO like GMOs? What are the aspects of it that you see as positive?

I'm thinking she either grows Gmo foods for her self or the market. Her claims are also unfounded. Gmo has been proven to cause cellular changes and cancers. But you can not fight those who either do not want to believe, or who are in the mix and growing it and will fight to the bitter end that it's good for you and they said so lol . Do what is right for your family and animals, I do and it's our right to say heck no to Gmo. My mom is the same way, flouride is good for you, Gmo is ok the government would not sell us anything that would harm us, big brother pharma is only there to heal what ails you.... It's all a crock. So please please do what you think is right for you and your family and pets, and live stock. In the end it's only you to blame if what you ate or took or gave to your pets was wrong . I refuse to listen to big government about Gmo, trust no one with what may be good or bad , you use your own knowledge . yeah my two cents I'm not going to post links or info, it will only claimed there false lol.

 

[JulyBlizzard]

I don't "like" nor "dislike" them
I DO like sticking to facts instead of misinformation

Some of the postitve aspects are 85% less pesticide use, and lower fuel costs, which in turn reduces pollution, and keeps food costs lower

Add in the fact that there have been no PROVEN harmful effects, and it's just simple logic

Actually no offense but your information is incorrect. For one the less amount of pesticides and herbicides is short lived. Less than three years to be exact. Then the amounts vastly increase exponentially. As far as herbicides which is one of the most common uses with round up ready crops the "weeds" are becoming resistant to round up, especially at lower amounts. So the solutions is to use more with a mix of other herbicides.

Now there are a number of lab tests that have done that call into question the health of gmos. There exists a "new" organism that cannot be classified as last I heard that is connected to feeding gmo grains to cows.

Now as for how gmos are used for pesticides and herbicides that brings into one of the larger issues. Pesticides were invented to kill human beings. They are lessened and then studied to how they can effect insects at lower levels. But these often kill indiscriminately, in other words you kill the good with the bad. Still it is even more complex as the half lifes of these materials continue to live on in the food web. That means that the can build up in animals along the way to include you and me. So as temporary measure they may not be that harmful but as you increase exposure over time combined with greater applications and cocktails you are heading for large problems.

Animals to include you and I receive our health indirectly from the health of the soil. When you have poison that remains in the soil organisms fail to do well. You can create an imbalance as many beneficial organisms do not migrate as well as pest organisms. So you have interfered with a balance that now requires your interference.

Now lets also look at the technology that is used in order to create genetically engineered organisms which is a more appropriate term. A gene gun has been the most common way to insert a foreign gene into a sequence. Sounds good so far. The problem comes from two aspects of the technology which degrades it as a scientific technology. One is that the gene particles cannot be inserted into an intended part of the gene sequence. So the insertion is blind at best. Unfortunately it also can cause damaged genes to express and the gene inserted to be damaged. This still does not mean that when they then select for plants that show a marker or express what they want that they are also looking for all the possible negative effects that can come with this technology.

That brings up the second major problem. In order to insure the gene that is inserted expresses itself they have manipulated the gene to essentially be forced on the entire time. Some genes remain in a sequence and have not expressed themselves for who knows how long...thousands of years. These can be part of the splintered genes during the violent collusion and thus can cause a sequence to be turned on during the life of the plant such as certain chemicals that cause an allergic reaction can increase their levels to a point that more people who previously showed no allergies to a food now have.

There are numerous other aspects to consider. My main point is that we know poisons are bad and that is the major use of this technology. The secondary main point is there is a giant lack of knowledge of genetics to utilize such a technology as well the lack of a more precise, thus viable technology to implement such actions.

Thus I conclude the use of this technology and the manipulation of the government agencies in order to bring this technology onto the market before it is rigorously tested can only be motivated by a short term profit due to a true lack of willingness to invest in such a technology. Had this technology began development inside the government it would continue at the tax payer expense only to fall back into the hands of corporations such as Monsanto for pennies on the dollar just as a number of their factories and technologies were purchased after World War II. By eliminating competition and regulatory bodies influence we are dealing with motivations that are highly questionable. You are now a guinea pig and pandora's box is open and can never be closed again.

I would be more than happy to point you to articles, books etc. in order for you to see the scientific data for yourself.

In the end I live in a country for which I have literally shed blood for to defend your freedoms and I am not allowed the basic freedom of choice without an unfair cost to me. While the government subsidizes companies like Monsanto both directly and indirectly.

We can also discuss the amount of energy and oil used in this type of farming and what it means to the future and the costs of our everyday life while a few reap large profits from this.

 

[mg15]

Yes, how often in nature do fish mate with tomatoes, or people with pigs, or goats with spiders? Saying that GE crops or animals are the same as selectively bred ones is a weak argument.

The Frankenfish is now on the table for voting in the U.S.
genetically modified with three fish, the sea eel, atlantic salmon and
wild sockeye salmon. Specifially lableing for now it's not sure for these
fish. If the lable says, ( I foget the term but raised in a tank) those will
be the frankenfish, aka atlantic salmon.

 

[triplepurpose]

I don't "like" nor "dislike" them
I DO like sticking to facts instead of misinformation

Some of the postitve aspects are 85% less pesticide use, and lower fuel costs, which in turn reduces pollution, and keeps food costs lower

Add in the fact that there have been no PROVEN harmful effects, and it's just simple logic

How do you figure there have been "no PROVEN harmful effects?" Just because you are unaware of them? And refuse to educate yourself about them? Because that doesn't count. In fact, the PROVEN harmful effects, as PROVEN through animal studies, include "infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system" (from a report by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine). You can find more scientifically proven facts here: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers. It would be nice sometimes if ignoring things meant they weren't true but the real world doesn't work that way. I really suggest taking July Blizzard up on their generous offer and start reading up on some of those facts you like so much.

BTW, the last fall-back of GE advocates is often that "we must feed the world." (As if the world couldn't feed itself if we just took our foot off it's neck.) Here's an article that really gave me some "food for thought" about the place of GEOs in "feeding the world." I read about this issue a while ago in a couple of different news sources, but it really gave me some perspective. Perhaps others will find it enlightening and inspiring too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

But I'm guessing that it's all just more "misinformation" to some... You can't really have a discussion when people repetitively denounce any alternate views, however rational, as "misinformation." Then it just becomes a childish argument.

 

[JulyBlizzard]

How do you figure there have been "no PROVEN harmful effects?" Just because you are unaware of them? And refuse to educate yourself about them? Because that doesn't count. In fact, the PROVEN harmful effects, as PROVEN through animal studies, include "infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system" (from a report by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine). You can find more scientifically proven facts here: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers. It would be nice sometimes if ignoring things meant they weren't true but the real world doesn't work that way. I really suggest taking July Blizzard up on their generous offer and start reading up on some of those facts you like so much.

BTW, the last fall-back of GE advocates is often that "we must feed the world." (As if the world couldn't feed itself if we just took our foot off it's neck.) Here's an article that really gave me some "food for thought" about the place of GEOs in "feeding the world." I read about this issue a while ago in a couple of different news sources, but it really gave me some perspective. Perhaps others will find it enlightening and inspiring too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

But I'm guessing that it's all just more "misinformation" to some... You can't really have a discussion when people repetitively denounce any alternate views, however rational, as "misinformation." Then it just becomes a childish argument.

Well said. Today I received an email from my Senator, Claire McClaskill. I had asked her as a disabaled veteran of OIF who literally shed blood for her freedom, who stood up for her in a fight she would be incapable of doing herself to stand up for my freedom now. That ahs to do with the new Senate Ag bill that has a number of riders that pave the way for Monsanto et al. She sent me a long reply back that had everything to do with industrial ag and nothing to do with what I asked her for. She didn't even comment on it or thank me for my service.

I merely would like to force the issue of choice. Why should it be absent from the label? How can a GE organism be both similar to a naturally occurring species enough to not require testing and at the same time novel enough to insure a patent? These organisms are indeed quite magical.