GM - Yes or No?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by dannubis
@ geronimo:

What you say is true. However, the species we transpplanted from one ecosystem into another were already "tested" by nature. And even then in most of the cases it has led to near catastrophies (e.g. african bee in america, western colonists in America, ...). So maybe we should just be a little bit carefull when introducing new species into ecosystems not equipped to handle them. Usually it blows up in our face.

Or you can stick your head in the sand...

I apologize I may have read some untintended attitudes into your posts.

I certainly agree that careful environmental impact studies are important for GM organisms and derived products.

However, do you agree that such careful environmental impact studies are important for all human activities and that there is nothing special about recombinant DNA techniques in general which would demand more rigorous impact studies than are needed for all other new technologies and practices?

[Sava]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
putting greed before public health

profit

public health


Think about what would happen if the situation were reversed. If everyone was healthy and there was no profit, there would be instability... war... population explosion. We'd destroy ourselves.

Frankly, I accept a little bit of suffering because it allows the rest of us to survive. Humanity isn't mature or responsible enough to deal with success and prosperity. We've evolved to be greedy, gluttonous creatures. If there was "enough to go around" so to speak, bad things would happen.

It's in humanity's best interest to struggle.

And I don't need you to agree with me. You probably won't.

[DanS]

most GM crops have not been sufficiently tested to judge what they may cause in the environment (including allergies).

Most non-GM crops and foods haven't been scientifically tested either, btw.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I'm not familiar with that case - I'd have to see details about it. It does sound familiar.

The homepage of the most famous victim has several stories, also about other law suits.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by DanS


Most non-GM crops and foods haven't been scientifically tested either, btw.

1/10

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by DanS
To be honest, it's a pretty worthless conversation you're having here. For one, I think those cases were dismissed.

Schmeisser's case for instance was only dismissed by Canadian Supreme Court, he lost battles on the way. And a considerable number of farmers (no estimate is known to me, sorry) decided to rather pay the fee before waging a war against a multi-national giant fore years.

[Solly]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Until you disengage GM from the blatant profit-making exercise that companies like Monsanto are engaged in, the risk of putting greed before public health is currently far too great IMO...

Is GM dangerous to health?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by VJ
Wow, "serious concerns" again.

There was a time when GM was brand-new, suspicious technology which needed to be further researched and tested so it would not have some (not very likely but) potentially catastrophic consequences when widely grown.

That time was in the 1980s. There has been absolutely no concrete evidence against GM crops, just unspecified "concerns" proved wrong in a matter of months when broadly investigated by scientists.

A whole generation has already consumed GM foods in the US. It's time to face reality and start eating more efficiently grown food in Europe, too.

You're limiting this again on the nutritional part. The problems with GM go much further. And stil, you don't have to be a genius to predict that when the number of patented GM crops rises there will be cases of bad consequences for the consumer because the companies either didn't test enough or concealed evidence. This is not a special GM thing, it happens from pharmaceutics to "normal" food industry to other industries threatening our health all the time. It's in the very nature of man that some will risk problems of others for their own profit.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by DanS
Roundup-Ready seeds (especially soybeans) must be a great benefit to farmers, since the uptake was so fast across the board with all types of farmers -- everybody from your family farm to large agribusinesses.

Well, that's correct. It meant less time needed for herbicide application, an easier handling and spending. But its use also leads to the creation of roundup resistant super-weeds which is accelerated by this procedure, which in turn are already fought against with other, more aggressive herbicides.

So, this relative, and probably medium-termed profit for the farmers should not be our only parameter.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


1/10

really why do you think you can so easily dismiss this?

Do you really believe that in the absence of testing we catch every non GM crop that is dangerously allergenic to some people (like the peanut) or that could potentially serve as a host vector for blights that silently afflict wild related or even unrelated species?

If anti-GM activists can blithely dismiss decades of closely observed consumption of GM crops by large populations as inconclusive what fills you with so much confidence in the general safety of all of those untested crops?

[Wernazuma III]

really why do you think you can so easily dismiss this?
Do you really believe that in the absence of testing we catch every non GM crop that is dangerously allergenic to some people (like the peanut) or that could potentially serve as a host vector for blights that silently afflict wild related or even unrelated species?

I like this troll much better, I was almost writing an elaborate answer. Look at what I said about the scale and immediacy of the introduction of GM crops.

If anti-GM activists can blithely dismiss decades of closely observed consumption of GM crops by large populations as inconclusive what fills you with so much confidence in the general safety of all of those untested crops?

The fact that positive study results lie in the interest of giant companies doesn't add to confidence in the first place - this is also true for pharmaceutics or other fields and nothing exclusive to producers of GM seeds. As for conventional food, my higher confidence lies in the fact that over the centuries, generally speaking, humans figured out what harms them and what not. And we couldn't have prevented those plants from coming into existence in the first place anyway. The other option is not to eat anything...

This doesn't mean I consider all GM food to be harmful, and I'm sure all kinds of undiscovered risks lie in conventional food, but what I said more or less determines my level of confidence.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
hippies taking away GM food from thrid world countries. I say let them decide if they want to eat or not. Hippies Selfish bastards.

Thrid world countries can't afford GM crops to begin with, so they aren't being taken away. GM crops are more expensive and don't allow farmers to save grain for the next planting.

There is no reason why we can't both support and oppose GM. Somethings are good, like mosquitoes that don't transmit disease. Heck, maybe they could make their saliva non-itchy too.

GM food isn't a bad idea in theory, but the purpose of it is not to make the world more productive when it comes to food. As it is, the world produces far more food than can be profitably sold, meaning mass quantities are destroyed every year to keep prices propped up.

The only purpose of GM food is to make GM companies rich. I don't see why we need to have this stuff foisted upon us when it produces no real benefits.

Before anyone brings up the golden rice, a day's supply of that stuff would only render 5% of the Vitamin A a body needs. Hardly enough to combat Vitamin A deficiency. It's just a fig leaf being used to sell the gullible on GM food.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava



profit

public health


Think about what would happen if the situation were reversed. If everyone was healthy and there was no profit, there would be instability... war... population explosion. We'd destroy ourselves.

If we're smart enough to live without profit, we're smart enough not to breed ourselves into extinction. And, uh, all those bad things happen with profit.


Hmmm, maybe you were being sarcastic.

[Kuciwalker]

Wernazuma is an idiot.

[Wernazuma III]

Thanks for your great insight. I haven't seen any meaningful input of you in this whole thread.