Greenpeace and GMO

2»

Comments

  • Boxes&Books
    Boxes&Books USA Posts: 2,672
    Is Clinton for GMO's or against it? I believe she was publicly against, but in private was backing it. Can't remember - someone had donated big money to her, and then she went against their original agreement ... Maybe more money elsewhere?
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,458
    PJPOWER said:

    Something else to consider when choosing your food...
    http://www.sciencealert.com/eating-only-organic-food-is-a-sham

    Interesting article, but the title was misleading. They didn't really say it wasn't better, just that there isn't evidence to prove either way yet. I would hope most people that eat or garden organic are aware of this already, but there are always the sheep....

    I think there is a definite positive impact environmentally, but the health effects will vary based on a person's way of living and how they balance their diet.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    tbergs said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Something else to consider when choosing your food...
    http://www.sciencealert.com/eating-only-organic-food-is-a-sham

    Interesting article, but the title was misleading. They didn't really say it wasn't better, just that there isn't evidence to prove either way yet. I would hope most people that eat or garden organic are aware of this already, but there are always the sheep....

    I think there is a definite positive impact environmentally, but the health effects will vary based on a person's way of living and how they balance their diet.
    I think that the take away is that when you buy "organic", it does not always mean what people think it means.
  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    PJPOWER said:

    brianlux said:

    GMO's are a short sighted solution with long-term negative ramifications that will harm us and the rest of life more in the long run. Relying on short term solutions generally is not the wisest choice.

    Not so sure that every type of GMO leads to long term harm. Some are only used to make a crop that is more drought tolerant, using less water, etc. some great things about using certain GMOs, and it appears many scientists agree.
    And Roundup resistant.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,671
    Cancer and Alzheimer's rates are rising and the poisons in the environment are on the increase. It will take millennia for all our human produced pollutants to wash out of the environment and for ecosystems to restore healthy balances.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    tonifig8 said:

    Is Clinton for GMO's or against it? I believe she was publicly against, but in private was backing it. Can't remember - someone had donated big money to her, and then she went against their original agreement ... Maybe more money elsewhere?

    It probably depends who she's giving a speech to...
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,671
    lukin2006 said:

    tonifig8 said:

    Is Clinton for GMO's or against it? I believe she was publicly against, but in private was backing it. Can't remember - someone had donated big money to her, and then she went against their original agreement ... Maybe more money elsewhere?

    It probably depends who she's giving a speech to...
    http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/02/06/hillary-clintons-support-for-gmos-confirmed-by-gates-foundation/#.WAgRPslH1OY
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    Interesting article about GMOs written by an organic farmer. The basic premise is that those who oppose GMOs are focusing on the wrong issue; there's no proof that consumption is harmful to health. Rather, the potential harms are related to the other management techniques that tend to go along with them. I have been skeptical of the anti-GMO movement for some time since I've never seen credible evidence of harms to health, but I can agree with this reasoning. Of course, the answer doesn't necessarily need to be no GMOs; it could easily be better management practices where herbicides and the like are not the default.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/brent-preston/gmo-has-no-benefits_b_13203826.html
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    great example of why someone like trump gets elected ...

    http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/17081-107-nobel-laureate-attack-on-greenpeace-traced-back-to-biotech-pr-operators
    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2016/Nobel-laureates-sign-letter-on-Greenpeace-Golden-rice-position---reactive-statement/

    it doesn't take a phd to realize that agri-food industry and environmental exploitation are the reasons why we can't feed some people ... monsanto and the industrialized food system is absolutely destroying our food system ... objective studies are available for everyone to see that traditional / organic farming delivers far more yield than industrialized farms plus they actually deliver real food ... look at objective studies on the nutritional value of organic vs. non ... you can taste it for yourself ...

    lastly - the primary position of anti-gmo people is that there are no long term health studies on gmo and that ultimately, we ask that foods simply be labeled so as consumers we can make that choice ...
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    oftenreading said:

    Interesting article about GMOs written by an organic farmer. The basic premise is that those who oppose GMOs are focusing on the wrong issue; there's no proof that consumption is harmful to health. Rather, the potential harms are related to the other management techniques that tend to go along with them. I have been skeptical of the anti-GMO movement for some time since I've never seen credible evidence of harms to health, but I can agree with this reasoning. Of course, the answer doesn't necessarily need to be no GMOs; it could easily be better management practices where herbicides and the like are not the default.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/brent-preston/gmo-has-no-benefits_b_13203826.html

    Agri-business and FDA: whatever doesn't kill you instantly is generally safe.
    Ex. Glyphosate
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    JC29856 said:

    oftenreading said:

    Interesting article about GMOs written by an organic farmer. The basic premise is that those who oppose GMOs are focusing on the wrong issue; there's no proof that consumption is harmful to health. Rather, the potential harms are related to the other management techniques that tend to go along with them. I have been skeptical of the anti-GMO movement for some time since I've never seen credible evidence of harms to health, but I can agree with this reasoning. Of course, the answer doesn't necessarily need to be no GMOs; it could easily be better management practices where herbicides and the like are not the default.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/brent-preston/gmo-has-no-benefits_b_13203826.html

    Agri-business and FDA: whatever doesn't kill you instantly is generally safe.
    Ex. Glyphosate
    If you know anything about the FDA you know they are generally criticized for being too cautious and taking too long to approve medications/products. Not too many people accuse them of being too quick to give approval, so congrats on that angle.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    oftenreading said:

    JC29856 said:

    oftenreading said:

    Interesting article about GMOs written by an organic farmer. The basic premise is that those who oppose GMOs are focusing on the wrong issue; there's no proof that consumption is harmful to health. Rather, the potential harms are related to the other management techniques that tend to go along with them. I have been skeptical of the anti-GMO movement for some time since I've never seen credible evidence of harms to health, but I can agree with this reasoning. Of course, the answer doesn't necessarily need to be no GMOs; it could easily be better management practices where herbicides and the like are not the default.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/brent-preston/gmo-has-no-benefits_b_13203826.html

    Agri-business and FDA: whatever doesn't kill you instantly is generally safe.
    Ex. Glyphosate
    If you know anything about the FDA you know they are generally criticized for being too cautious and taking too long to approve medications/products. Not too many people accuse them of being too quick to give approval, so congrats on that angle.
    I can't see these criticisms you mention. Any reference?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    JC29856 said:

    oftenreading said:

    Interesting article about GMOs written by an organic farmer. The basic premise is that those who oppose GMOs are focusing on the wrong issue; there's no proof that consumption is harmful to health. Rather, the potential harms are related to the other management techniques that tend to go along with them. I have been skeptical of the anti-GMO movement for some time since I've never seen credible evidence of harms to health, but I can agree with this reasoning. Of course, the answer doesn't necessarily need to be no GMOs; it could easily be better management practices where herbicides and the like are not the default.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/brent-preston/gmo-has-no-benefits_b_13203826.html

    Agri-business and FDA: whatever doesn't kill you instantly is generally safe.
    Ex. Glyphosate
    Just wait and see what happens when your boy gets his hands on the FDA!
    He plans to gut it and leave us to fend for ourselves.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    oftenreading said:

    JC29856 said:

    oftenreading said:

    Interesting article about GMOs written by an organic farmer. The basic premise is that those who oppose GMOs are focusing on the wrong issue; there's no proof that consumption is harmful to health. Rather, the potential harms are related to the other management techniques that tend to go along with them. I have been skeptical of the anti-GMO movement for some time since I've never seen credible evidence of harms to health, but I can agree with this reasoning. Of course, the answer doesn't necessarily need to be no GMOs; it could easily be better management practices where herbicides and the like are not the default.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/brent-preston/gmo-has-no-benefits_b_13203826.html

    Agri-business and FDA: whatever doesn't kill you instantly is generally safe.
    Ex. Glyphosate
    If you know anything about the FDA you know they are generally criticized for being too cautious and taking too long to approve medications/products. Not too many people accuse them of being too quick to give approval, so congrats on that angle.
    the FDA in the US is just the approval arm of big multi-nationals ... this is the agency that approved rgbst ...
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    The FDA approves foods for Americans that are banned in other countries...

Categories