- Aug 22, 2012
- 1,370
- 149
- 301
Round UP Ready for the GMO plants is toxic.
GMO 's are not organic plants.
Why i do not want GMO in my food or my pets food
- Thread starter Tammy N
- Start date
- Status
GMO 's are not organic plants.
Please go back and REREAD my post's I NEVER ONCE said GMO is Organic.
Quote: There is no,"Round UP Ready for the GMO plants". Do you mean that Roundup is toxic?
Roundup Ready means that the seed/plant is created so that you can spray Roundup Herbicides in-crop from emergence through flowering for weed control.
Chris
- Oct 13, 2008
- 1,020
- 287
- 369
A very contentious issue, for sure!
Folks have made some good points. There is indeed a lot of mis-information out there--however, I am opposed to GEOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms)--their cultivation, marketing, consumption--all of it--for several reasons. I'll try to keep it simple and brief.
1. the patenting/ownership of seedstocks issue: Having a situation where a for-profit corporation owns a significant amount of the gene-pool that the populace relies on for food, and therefore survival, is a dangerous, stupid idea. It is not in the interest of the common good, period. This is pretty self-evident.
2. The excessive use of herbicides and pesticides, and chemical fertilizers: Most GE crops are designed to be used in conjunction with larger amounts of these than conventional crops. We already know these substances are all toxic (to people, animals, plants, and/or essential soil microbes) to greater or lesser degrees, depending on the specific chemical in question. They are also heavily dependent, for manufacture, distribution, and application, on fossil fuels. None of this is smart, especially given that better models exist (organic fertilizers, selective breeding, diversification, crop rotation, intercropping, green manure, sheet composting, grazing land in between cropping, etc).
3. Lack of comprehensive safety testing, etc.: the companies creating GEOs insist they are safe, but adequate testing has not been done (or has been covered up and suppressed in cases where results suggested that the products might be harmful, we are told?) If testing has not been done, how can they know that they are safe? You see the problem here? If GEOs are indeed "safe," then it needs to be shown by rigorous, sincere, third-party testing, not somebody's word, or someone's hunch, or because the company trying to sell them says so. In fact, there is quite a lot of independent evidence that many of these food crops are NOT "safe." But even ignoring that, until better testing is done, I'm going to err on the side of caution and give benefit of doubt to the public interest groups and non-profits lobbying for consumer protection (and questioning the safety of GEOs)--not the companies presumably willing to cut corners to make a profit. Seems like the prudent course. If you want to buy a car, you don't just believe whatever the salesman tells you, you inspect things yourself or have a third party do it. The whole thing smells fishy no matter how you shake it.
4. Labeling and the right-to-know issue: Foods containing GEOs should be labelled as such, period. It's a simple issue of consumer sovereignty. Many consumers have made it clear they don't want GEOs in their food, and if consumers don't want them, they should not be hoodwinked into eating them. If processors are concerned that people will avoid the foods because they don't want to eat GMOs, then, oh well, that's that. Hey Monsanto--maybe you should have done more work to prove to us all that your products are safe before you introduced them! It's called the free market--people get to choose what they want to buy, whether corporations like it or not. And even if you or I think their choices are totally ignorant and wrong-headed.
IMHO, any one of these reasons is enough to discredit the whole GEO agenda. Taken together, it's way too much too swallow. "Feeding the world?" "Food security?" All of these ring hollow, and regardless just don't hold up when you look at the record so far. GEOs are about profits for seed/fertilizer/pesticide companies, not about advancing the common good. That's okay in and of itself, but they need to be demonstrated to be safe in every way, economically necessary, socially equitable, and generally beneficial, before they are allowed on the market--and so far they seem to be failing on all counts. The whole model is flawed.
Whether GEOs will actually give you or your chickens cancer outright or make you sprout a second head are debateable. Basic issues of human rights, consumer protection, and responsible business practices are not--at least they aren't supposed to be.
Well, that was neither simple nor brief, but there it is...
Folks have made some good points. There is indeed a lot of mis-information out there--however, I am opposed to GEOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms)--their cultivation, marketing, consumption--all of it--for several reasons. I'll try to keep it simple and brief.
1. the patenting/ownership of seedstocks issue: Having a situation where a for-profit corporation owns a significant amount of the gene-pool that the populace relies on for food, and therefore survival, is a dangerous, stupid idea. It is not in the interest of the common good, period. This is pretty self-evident.
2. The excessive use of herbicides and pesticides, and chemical fertilizers: Most GE crops are designed to be used in conjunction with larger amounts of these than conventional crops. We already know these substances are all toxic (to people, animals, plants, and/or essential soil microbes) to greater or lesser degrees, depending on the specific chemical in question. They are also heavily dependent, for manufacture, distribution, and application, on fossil fuels. None of this is smart, especially given that better models exist (organic fertilizers, selective breeding, diversification, crop rotation, intercropping, green manure, sheet composting, grazing land in between cropping, etc).
3. Lack of comprehensive safety testing, etc.: the companies creating GEOs insist they are safe, but adequate testing has not been done (or has been covered up and suppressed in cases where results suggested that the products might be harmful, we are told?) If testing has not been done, how can they know that they are safe? You see the problem here? If GEOs are indeed "safe," then it needs to be shown by rigorous, sincere, third-party testing, not somebody's word, or someone's hunch, or because the company trying to sell them says so. In fact, there is quite a lot of independent evidence that many of these food crops are NOT "safe." But even ignoring that, until better testing is done, I'm going to err on the side of caution and give benefit of doubt to the public interest groups and non-profits lobbying for consumer protection (and questioning the safety of GEOs)--not the companies presumably willing to cut corners to make a profit. Seems like the prudent course. If you want to buy a car, you don't just believe whatever the salesman tells you, you inspect things yourself or have a third party do it. The whole thing smells fishy no matter how you shake it.
4. Labeling and the right-to-know issue: Foods containing GEOs should be labelled as such, period. It's a simple issue of consumer sovereignty. Many consumers have made it clear they don't want GEOs in their food, and if consumers don't want them, they should not be hoodwinked into eating them. If processors are concerned that people will avoid the foods because they don't want to eat GMOs, then, oh well, that's that. Hey Monsanto--maybe you should have done more work to prove to us all that your products are safe before you introduced them! It's called the free market--people get to choose what they want to buy, whether corporations like it or not. And even if you or I think their choices are totally ignorant and wrong-headed.
IMHO, any one of these reasons is enough to discredit the whole GEO agenda. Taken together, it's way too much too swallow. "Feeding the world?" "Food security?" All of these ring hollow, and regardless just don't hold up when you look at the record so far. GEOs are about profits for seed/fertilizer/pesticide companies, not about advancing the common good. That's okay in and of itself, but they need to be demonstrated to be safe in every way, economically necessary, socially equitable, and generally beneficial, before they are allowed on the market--and so far they seem to be failing on all counts. The whole model is flawed.
Whether GEOs will actually give you or your chickens cancer outright or make you sprout a second head are debateable. Basic issues of human rights, consumer protection, and responsible business practices are not--at least they aren't supposed to be.
Well, that was neither simple nor brief, but there it is...
Last edited:
Quote: What would be the point when you already know it's in everything NOT organic?
Quote: Do you realize that statement makes no sense at all?
Quote:
Quote:
There's some of that MISinformation you spoke of.
GMO's generally require fewer pesticides, and LESS TOXIC pesticides than what was generally used before they were developed
Modern farmers use all the methods you named.
They aren't "exclusive" to the organic crowd
The organics on a COMMERCIAL scale require as much fuel to plant, harvest and distribute as GMO's, and often take MORE fuel due to extra tillage for weed control
Quote: No one is "hoodwinked"
All the rhetoric about "no testing" is simply false hype, considering nothing has stopped anyone from doing any testing they wanted to do in the DECADES these crops have been in production
If you don't want GMO, buy Certified Organic, because everything else is GMO
It's really pretty simple
Quote:
There's some of that MISinformation you spoke of.
GMO's generally require fewer pesticides, and LESS TOXIC pesticides than what was generally used before they were developed
Modern farmers use all the methods you named.
They aren't "exclusive" to the organic crowd
The organics on a COMMERCIAL scale require as much fuel to plant, harvest and distribute as GMO's, and often take MORE fuel due to extra tillage for weed control
Quote: No one is "hoodwinked"
All the rhetoric about "no testing" is simply false hype, considering nothing has stopped anyone from doing any testing they wanted to do in the DECADES these crops have been in production
If you don't want GMO, buy Certified Organic, because everything else is GMO
It's really pretty simple
Funny thread, arguing on why Gmo food is ok why its bad lol .Some of us believe it's a death wish I do not want that crap in my body either, but I notice a big thing here, that it's more of an argument and who will win it. A few here are going gung hoe with explanations on why it's ok,to the point of making me feel uncomfortable like we are idiots who do not do our home work. but to some of us, we know the truth, Monsanto is poisoning us and doing a good job of convincing the masses it's okie dokie . Like sheeple to the slaughter . To those who know and try to eat pure and feed pure awesome, to those who do not awesome. What ever any of you do it's an individule choice. My choice is to buy non Gmo feed, non Gmo veggies and food. For my birds and my family. I'm wondering about those who are so for Gmo and stating its ok, are you growing Monsanto seed? One of the producers of our food suply? I find those who are so for it are the ones producing Gmo crops.
Last edited:
Quote: Quote:
I find most of those against it just repeat the misinformation and the rhetorical hype without really knowing much about farming at all
They generally throw in a little condescension, but seldom have much in the way of credible proof.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain the logic behind creating a seed for a plant that "won't develop any seeds"
What crops are they working on?
I find most of those against it just repeat the misinformation and the rhetorical hype without really knowing much about farming at all
They generally throw in a little condescension, but seldom have much in the way of credible proof.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain the logic behind creating a seed for a plant that "won't develop any seeds"
What crops are they working on?
Bear,
I think I shot that theory down a page or two back when I posted,
"CPGE (aka Terminator Technology) allows the crop to grow normally and set seed, but the seed would not germinate as the development of the embryo was arrested. The anti-tech activists have conducted such massive fear-generating campaigns against CPGE that made Governments of many countries prohibit the use of CPGE in agriculture. Even the Patent holders had agreed not to use CPGE in any crop. CPGE was not targeted at the farmer to prevent him from using the previous seasons’ seed, but this was the thrust of the anti-tech argument."
Chris
Last edited:
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.
- Status
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
Small amount of blood on an egg
- Started by Angelique25
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
What colour (genetic) are they?- Started by ayaya
- Replies: 0
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
I culled my first cockerel, now what?- Started by redinator
- Replies: 119
-
*Answer These Questions The Best You Can Please *- Started by N3mesis_IceWing_NightWing
- Replies: 107
-
-
-
