So what if GMO corn causes cancer

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote: If your right its only cause the media agenda to sell us that we have a 2 party system.

Fact is that without media bias, all 6 would get quite a bit.

 

[Arielle]

ANd back to GMO's . . . . . I personally don't buy into the GMO issues that many tout. Rather I see a bigger picture and that is about how much of our diets are grain based. Hunter gatherers don't eat grains at the level modern people do. I'm happy to feed a chicken grain , GMO corn, oats, etc., then eat the chicken. Considering how much food I eat in a day, or rather don't, I choose to ditch the grains in favor of high level anti oxidant and micronutrient foods, like berries, nuts, fruits and low carb vegies.

I would like to see more evidence making it to mainstream media on diet and smart foods to eat. Seems like still only a minority understand that good quality food is a great place to improve one's health. For example, my mother beat melanoma cancer. And I plan to beat a few other cancers.

 

[redhen]

 

You could always run.  



              

 

[hemet dennis]

You could always run.

I'd vote for you.

 

[kathyinmo]

ANd back to GMO's . . . . . I personally don't buy into the GMO issues that many tout. Rather I see a bigger picture and that is about how much of our diets are grain based. Hunter gatherers don't eat grains at the level modern people do. I'm happy to feed a chicken grain , GMO corn, oats, etc., then eat the chicken. Considering how much food I eat in a day, or rather don't, I choose to ditch the grains in favor of high level anti oxidant and micronutrient foods, like berries, nuts, fruits and low carb vegies.

I would like to see more evidence making it to mainstream media on diet and smart foods to eat. Seems like still only a minority understand that good quality food is a great place to improve one's health. For example, my mother beat melanoma cancer. And I plan to beat a few other cancers.

Do you understand that ALL food can be GMO? Yes, your berries, nuts, and veggies, too.
Did you watch the video I posted? It is very good and explains very well.

 

[KristyHall]

sheesh - i can't believe you don't trust the corporations that enrich themselves by selling inferior GMO foodstuff

it's not like... they would LIE to us

and besides, monsato chicken tastes good

I have been feeding my family chicken I have raised on vegetables I have grown from non GMO seed and free range ( I'm a member of seed savers exchange). I never mentioned that I had switched almost exclusively to birds I have raised since some family members get attached to the chickens.

one day I ran out of chicken in the freezer. In desperation I picked up that frozen chicken breast and chopped it and served it in a stir fry without telling anyone.

My family's reaction was one of disgust when they bit into the chicken. "why did you put Tofu in here?!" was the question my sister asked. She was right. It was tasteless and rubbery and bland as improperly prepared tofu.The texture was wrong, and it was incredibly salty and spongy.

By the end of the evening everyone had picked the chicken bits out of the stir fry.

 

[KristyHall]

Technology has raced far beyond the legal ramifications of those technologies. Patenting genes is only one of the many Gordian knots of legal, moral and other complications that have come with biotechnology. I think the initial patent on a gene was a precedent making mistake. Those genes are novel, but they are not "invented", "developed" or "unique". They came from humans, plants and animals, and they have existed in their present forms for a long time. This is one of the reasons companies like GMO crops; the insertion of foreign genes into a plant or animal does make that "new" plant or animal patentable.

In vitro fertilization has brought on a whole lot of legal issues as well; many of which are still evolving. Who owns fertilized embryos? Who gets do decide what happens to unused embryos? Are they the company's property, the parent's property, or even property at all? Do embryos of deceased parents have rights to the parent's estates, pensions, etc? Some of the issues are already being decided in the courts. Unfortunately, the courts are not where these issues should be resolved. They should be dealt with on a legislative level.

Newer technologies on the horizon are going to bring even more questions. Freezing eggs has just made the news this week, and other recent news has included stem cells from cadavers, mice egg cells developed from skin cells, and other technologies. Human cloning, fusing eggs or sperm to create embryos, and other types of parthenogenesis can't be far behind.

Even getting a genetic test can cause all kinds of problems, and unforeseen complications. Recently, in the news, was a report of a young child forced to go to a different school because he has the genes for cerebral palsy, but not the disease. Can a medical provider compel genetic testing? Can they act on the results of a genetic test? Can a person be denied alcohol due to a predisposition towards alcoholism?

I'm sure anyone can extrapolate on some of these...gay couple and children, medical coverage for genetically predisposed positions, not being allowed to do certain things because of your genetic makeup, GMO foods completely unregulated in the market place, tailored drugs and who controls them. The lists are nearly endless. The potential for both good and bad outcomes are infinite.

Most of our lawmakers are uniformed about science, and many are very squeamish about the issues and implications of some of the technologies. If a "Personhood" law is passed, what are the implications for current reproductive technology? Would it outlaw in vitro fertilization? How about disposal of "non-viable" or "unusable" embryos? Would you be allowed to remove cells from a bastocyst for genetic testing?


The people in charge of making the laws governing these choices are woefully inadequate. Members of the House Science Committee think that there are magic girl parts that can repel rape sperm and that the theory of evolution is a lie "straight from the pit of hell". They are ignorant of the scientific method, and technology. They have little idea of the far ranging implications and effects of biotechnology. They have little interest in moving beyond the instructions and interests of their corporate sponsors or religious leaders. It is a brave new world out there, and the people we have elected to help us govern the choices are not doing a very good job of it. We have thrown it on the courts and can only hope for the best

I so agree. Especially with the two last paragraphs

 

[KristyHall]

It never should have happened.

Agreed. It is a very frightening concept. It is even worse when parts of the human genome is patented. (source needed)

In other words, companies own part of us.

 

[KristyHall]

You could always run.

I think Queen Em would sorely disagree.

 

[nan4848]

When people start realizing that a corporation's, any corporation, bottom line is more important than the welfare of the public they will start seeing things differently. Also that if science can do something....doesn't mean that science should.

Biotech companies are allowed to police themselves. No independent long term studies are required.