Genetically Modified Food

[wellard]

You KNOW I was refering to individuals [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[dragon_lord]

Originally posted by MagiK: As you say, we have been eating them for decades and our expected life span has steadily increased, not decreased.

I would like to see the stats linking GM food with increased life expectancy. I dont know how they would do that considering GM foods arent labelled. There are so many other factors effecting life expectancy.

Originally posted by MagiK: I think it is unconscionable that people are starving while tons of GM food sit untouched.

Maybe the people who need it most believe the cure is worse than the disease.(zimbabwe knocking back aid) At this moment in time im inclined to go with them.

Iv heard people say things like "We must produce GM foods, its the only way the world can support its growing population." all the time when it comes to GM debates. The assumption with that statement is that food will be shared with the rest of the world if we go GM. Right now 80% of the worlds food goes to 20% of the population (so i have read), why do people believe that would change with GM food?

[ 06-19-2003, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: dragon_lord ]

[wellard]

Why eat GM food? is their something wrong with the food we already eat? is N.America starving? No? well then it's all about profits. So tell me why run risks for profits? Is Monsanto paying into a global "if we made a mistake use this money to help rectify" fund? Or will it be up to the taxpayers to find an answer?

[harleyquinn]

5 words of why GM food is bad:

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes

Enough said!!! [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Originally posted by wellard: Why eat GM food? is their something wrong with the food we already eat? is N.America starving? No? well then it's all about profits. So tell me why run risks for profits? Is Monsanto paying into a global "if we made a mistake use this money to help rectify" fund? Or will it be up to the taxpayers to find an answer?

Umm Wellard, North America has as much food as it does in large part due to engineering of our crops. I don't care what anyone who has a full belly says, starving to death today is not preferable to "possible" or "hypothetical" or "non-existant" problems decades down the line.


It is pretty pathetic for people who are not starving to say "don't eat that poisoned american food" even though americans have been consuming it for decades....of course no one wants their population to get as fat and lazy as americans..better to starve to death today.

Im done in this thread. I've stated my opinion.

[wellard]

Sorry MagiK but I fail to see what is wrong with the food already growing? the world grows enough food already. It is a matter of distribution, droughts and non headline wars causing famine. Maybe if monsanto paid less to goverment/ senators and more into positive aid programmes the world would be a better place.


Harleyquinn... LOL at that killer tomatoe film [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[harleyquinn]

Originally posted by wellard: Sorry MagiK but I fail to see what is wrong with the food already growing? the world grows enough food already. It is a matter of distribution, droughts and non headline wars causing famine. Maybe if monsanto paid less to goverment/ senators and more into positive aid programmes the world would be a better place. Harleyquinn... LOL at that killer tomatoe film [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Thank you, thank you *bows*

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by MagiK: Hysteria, and Hype are the weapons used against both which of course I detest.

This just in: terror level threat raised to orange!

[Timber Loftis]

A word on GM foods and labelling.

The USFDA's position is that the labelling laws require all nutrition and health information to be put on the label. GMO foods are the equivalent nutrition-wise of their non-GMO counterparts, so the label laws do not require GMO-content information to be put on the container.

Well, I can argue that, but I needn't. Here's why. The GMO megacorps go to the FDA as ask that they ban the use of "Contains no GMO" on products. Now, not REQUIRING a content labelling is different that LIMITING an advertisement. So, due to the GMO lobbying, if Ben and Jerry's want to put "contains no rBGH" on its label, it also has to put "the FDA has determined GMO foods are not bad, etc, etc" on its label.

This is wrong and offends the free market. It also offends my right to choose what I put in my body, regardless of whether it is a "nutrition" decision or some other decision. As a vegetarian, I don't like not know whether my tomatoes contain fish genes or not. And, using fish genes in tomatoes is a common thing.

Can you ban "Tastes Better" on a label? Or "sugar free" or "reduced fat"? This is the result of a very strong lobbying effort by GMO producers. The situation is now simply one where a few captured government agencies (e.g. USDA, USFDA, and State Dept.) and the GMO mega-corps (e.g. Cargill, Monsanto, ADM) have colluded to create a government-sponsored oligopoly. If you want to see where farm subsidies really go, look here.

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Hysteria, and Hype are the weapons used against both which of course I detest.

This just in: terror level threat raised to orange! [/QUOTE]
Nonono Djinn, thats not hysteria or hype..that is giving the idiot public exactly what they demanded. Shouldn't have been such sissy whiners about not having enough prior information given out prior to 9/11. Like I said a loooong time ago..if the average dork knew how many threats were made daily they wouldn't have been bitching so much about not getting daily briefs...so now they got what they wanted...they gotta live with it...and you and I too.