Environmentalism That Kills!

[PoliticalChic]

Not Carson's Silent Spring... Publications from my state's Department of Conservation (we have tons of eagles since DDT was banned) Open a science book? I have three degrees in science...including a masters...How about you? Trying to create science from conservative speculation does not = science

Well, then...let me update your education.

"As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.

But by 1960 – 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use – the Audubon Society reported counting 25 percent more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat,” but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles,” according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.
A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths."
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High | Fox News

 

[Nika2013]

www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/.../DDT_and_Birds.html

[url=http://www.eagles.org/vu-study/survival/threats-to-survival.php

[url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0620_020620_baldeagle_2.html

 

[taichiliberal]

Sure, let's not point out that the local gov'ts failure to properly organize their economic/social and agricultural structure to feed it's people, let's blame people with legitimate reasons to be against GM foods. Yeah, like Agri-corps with a $$$ vested interest in patenting food and dominating that market has nothing to do with it.

Here's a reality check:

What countries have banned GMO crops? - Mankato Green Culture | Examiner.com

Institute for Responsible Technology - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

Say No To GMOs! - Scientists Speak

You've bought the Left-wing hype like it was on sale.

"... let's blame people with legitimate reasons to be against GM foods."

There are no legitimate reasons to be against GM foods.



The most Leftist of of bodies is the EU.

The EU operated via the ‘precautionary principle’ can be summarized as ‘better safe than sorry,’ and in Europe, it is the law of the land.
“The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk. However, in practice, the scope of this principle is far wider and also covers consumer policy, European legislation concerning food and human, animal and plant health.” The precautionary principle


b. “In practice, many environmentalists do not eschew risk analysis when they apply the principle; rather, they use it selectively to advance preconceived agendas, cherry-picking scientific risk assessments and information in order to restrict technologies that they dislike — such as biotechnology, DDT, fossil fuels, nuclear energy — and to advance technologies that they favor, including forms of renewable energy, organic farming and light-weight vehicles.”
Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT | NCPA


Even so....

In 2010, the European Commission, after considering 25 years of GMO research, concluded that “there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.”



Only the gullible believe as you do.

You're not only gullible, Chic, you're willfully ignorant! The bottom line is that you have bonafide, legitimite scientists who have researched this material and concluded otherwise to the European Commission's corporate financed research. Open your eyes and THINK beyond your knee-jerk rejection of anything you perceive to be "liberal":


Major study proves cancer dangers of GM food
September 20 2012 at 03:30pm
By SEAN POULTER


Major study proves cancer dangers of GM food - IOL SciTech | IOL.co.za



Mainstream media called out for complete blackout on GMO health risks

 

[taichiliberal]

Institute for Responsible Technology - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

There are so many questionable points in that article that there few legitimate ones get burried under the avalanche of slop. I'll do a more detailed markup later.

And I haven't even bothered opening the other two yet.

Empty rhetoric on your part, bunky. Let us know when you've got something more substantial. In the meantime, FYI:

Major study proves cancer dangers of GM food
September 20 2012 at 03:30pm
By SEAN POULTER


Major study proves cancer dangers of GM food - IOL SciTech | IOL.co.za

 

[taichiliberal]

Not Carson's Silent Spring... Publications from my state's Department of Conservation (we have tons of eagles since DDT was banned) Open a science book? I have three degrees in science...including a masters...How about you? Trying to create science from conservative speculation does not = science

Well, then...let me update your education.

"As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.

But by 1960 – 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use – the Audubon Society reported counting 25 percent more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat,” but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles,” according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.
A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths."
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High | Fox News

Let us know when any of your sources record or mention the genetic defects that cause the eagle eggs to become increasingly brittle and non-viable for incubation....a little trait that showed up AFTER continued use of certain pesticides in the area. I'll wait.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not Carson's Silent Spring... Publications from my state's Department of Conservation (we have tons of eagles since DDT was banned) Open a science book? I have three degrees in science...including a masters...How about you? Trying to create science from conservative speculation does not = science

Well, then...let me update your education.

"As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.

But by 1960 – 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use – the Audubon Society reported counting 25 percent more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat,” but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles,” according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.
A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths."
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High | Fox News

Let us know when any of your sources record or mention the genetic defects that cause the eagle eggs to become increasingly brittle and non-viable for incubation....a little trait that showed up AFTER continued use of certain pesticides in the area. I'll wait.

"...Let US know..."


Don't be afraid to stand up on your own two feet, little fellla.


Say "Let ME know." It doesn't hurt...and makes you appear to be an adult.


Could you provide the study to which YOU allude?

Or is this an 'Libs around the water cooler' thing?

 

[Nika2013]

I think that I provided enough citations for a reasonable person....or do you not believe US Fish and Wildlife, Stanford University, and National Geographic? All trustworthy sources....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think that I provided enough citations for a reasonable person....or do you not believe US Fish and Wildlife, Stanford University, and National Geographic? All trustworthy sources....

1. For some reason your links are not clickable.



2. It's not DDT per se that is thought to do the damage to eggshells, but a DDT metabolite known as DDE. Thus the most persuasive feeding study refers to it: "DDE-induced Eggshell Thinning in the American kestrel: A Comparison of the Field Situation and Laboratory Results." This groundbreaking study was published in the Journal of Applied Ecology by Jeffrey Lincer in 1975.

3. Lincer noted that the "inverse correlation between DDE in North American raptor eggs and eggshell thickness is clear but does not prove a causal relationship since other chemicals or factors could be involved." So to find out what effect DDE might have, Lincer fed captive kestrels a DDE-laced diet and then compared their eggs with those taken from the nests of wild kestrels. Lincer found that dietary levels of three, six, and 10 parts per million (ppm) of DDE resulted in eggshells that were 14 percent, 17.4 percent, and 21.7 percent thinner respectively. "Despite the recent controversy, there can be little doubt now as to the causal relationship between the global contaminant DDE and the observed eggshell thinning and the consequent population declines in several birds of prey," concluded Lincer.

4. Despite considerable research, no one has ever identified the physiological mechanism(s) by which DDE causes eggshell thinning, according to Anderson….In 1998, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds researcher Rhys Green published a study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Bwhich found that eggshell thinning of some bird species had begun 50 years before the introduction of DDT…..science shows pretty conclusively that it's another story for raptors.
That would be your eagles. So...while not provable....the evidence suggests that particular birds....eagles....are sensitive to DDE. DDT, Eggshells, and Me - Reason.com


5. A note about trustworthy sources such as US Fish and Wildlife.....

“Ron Arnold, a former executive director of the Sierra Club and founder of the unfairly maligned ‘Wise Use’ movement, has spent the last twenty years researching the cooperation among foundations, ENGOs, individual activists, and activist federal employees….Arnold proves that thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas. Put plainly, by the early 1990s, according to Arnold, the federal agencies- the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management- and many equivalent state agencies were riddled with activists.”
Nickson, "Eco-Fascists", p.164.


6. And one more note:
Let's acknowledge a deleterious effect of DDT on raptors. The ban in the United States was the result of the defeat of malaria....not the effect on eagles.

If we had deaths due to malaria here, I'm sure you would see the eagle-effect as necessary.

So....

"In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson asked, "Who has decided—who has the right to decide—for the countless legions of people who were not consulted that the supreme value is a world without insects, even though it be also a sterile world ungraced by the curving wing of a bird in flight? The decision is that of the authoritarian temporarily entrusted with power."
Banning DDT saved thousands of raptors over the past 30 years, but outright bans and misguided fears about the pesticide cost the lives of millions of people who died of insect-borne diseases like malaria. The 500 million people who come down with malaria every year might well wonder what authoritarian made that decision."
DDT, Eggshells, and Me - Reason.com

 

[Old Rocks]

So, Chic, this is what you desire for our nation. What a nice person you are.

China Admits Existence Of 'Cancer Villages' In Report, As Pollution Concerns Mount

 

[gallantwarrior]

It isn't just plant crops that are a danger, either. Here's a little saga that almost everybody I know is following very closely:

More than 80 percent of the world's fish stocks have been so overharvested, they qualify as either depleted, threatened, or endangered, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, and genetically engineered salmon was "invented" as a way to counteract the damages associated with the public's rising demand for healthy seafood. Well-intentioned as that may sound, man-made fish will neither solve the environmental problems associated with overfishing, nor will it offer the public a healthier alternative to what's already on store shelves.

AquaBounty's "AquAdvantage" salmon will be raised in fish farms that, even when raising native breeds, cause significant environmental damage. They essentially operate as underwater factory farms, with thousands of fish swimming in their own waste, which in turn requires high doses of antibiotics. The fish are prone to escape, and when they do, they compete with wild fish for food, and they breed with those fish, slowly rendering wild fish populations extinct (fish farms raising farmed Atlantic salmon have already decimated wild Atlantic salmon stocks). Though AquaBounty claims that its fish are sterile, the company's own documents show that as much as 5 percent of the GE fish could be fertile and could reproduce if the fertile specimens escape, says O'Neil. And once you let a genetically modified fish into the wild, there's no recalling those man-made genetic creations.

The fish are also genetically engineered to grow 30 times faster than a regular salmon and, as such, they eat more. It already takes four pounds of wild fish to feed a pound of farmed fish, and their rapid growth rate will likely require more than that (so much for solving the problem of overfishing).
These fish are also less healthy than wild Alaskan salmon or even farmed Atlantic salmon. The few studies that have been done on these genetically engineered fish have shown that they contain lower levels of heart- and brain-healthy omega-3 fatty acids than either form of regular salmon. These fish are also notably deficient in certain vitamins, O'Neil adds. There's also a great deal of concern that genetically modifying salmon could increase the incidence of seafood allergies among the public.

The Fishy Risk the FDA Is Taking with Your Health | Rodale News

Super salmon or 'Frankenfish'? FDA to decide - Health - Food safety | NBC News

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, Chic, this is what you desire for our nation. What a nice person you are.

China Admits Existence Of 'Cancer Villages' In Report, As Pollution Concerns Mount

"...this is what you desire for our nation."


Why is it you are afraid to face me with what I actually say?

I'm not shy....I let you know what I believe.....it's hardly necessary to put bogus words
in my mouth.


C'mon....big boy....take me on.

Don't be afraid....I won't hurt you...too much.

 

[Old Rocks]

What you actually say, after wading through all the silly verbage, is that there should be no regulation. Well, in China there is no regulation, and in Russia, very little.

It was the environmentalists that kept this nation from going down that road. When we were on that road, and our rivers were becoming open sewers, our air a source of ill health, the environmentalists sounded the tocsins, and the people in this nation responded.

Now people like you wish to return us to the days when our rivers were sewers. No way. Not only that, we are going to increase the rules and regulations so that our air and water is even better than at present. And you can squeal all you want. The majority of the citizens in this nation prefer clean air, water, and land. And if some fat cat has to make a million less or so because of that, so be it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It isn't just plant crops that are a danger, either. Here's a little saga that almost everybody I know is following very closely:

More than 80 percent of the world's fish stocks have been so overharvested, they qualify as either depleted, threatened, or endangered, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, and genetically engineered salmon was "invented" as a way to counteract the damages associated with the public's rising demand for healthy seafood. Well-intentioned as that may sound, man-made fish will neither solve the environmental problems associated with overfishing, nor will it offer the public a healthier alternative to what's already on store shelves.

AquaBounty's "AquAdvantage" salmon will be raised in fish farms that, even when raising native breeds, cause significant environmental damage. They essentially operate as underwater factory farms, with thousands of fish swimming in their own waste, which in turn requires high doses of antibiotics. The fish are prone to escape, and when they do, they compete with wild fish for food, and they breed with those fish, slowly rendering wild fish populations extinct (fish farms raising farmed Atlantic salmon have already decimated wild Atlantic salmon stocks). Though AquaBounty claims that its fish are sterile, the company's own documents show that as much as 5 percent of the GE fish could be fertile and could reproduce if the fertile specimens escape, says O'Neil. And once you let a genetically modified fish into the wild, there's no recalling those man-made genetic creations.

The fish are also genetically engineered to grow 30 times faster than a regular salmon and, as such, they eat more. It already takes four pounds of wild fish to feed a pound of farmed fish, and their rapid growth rate will likely require more than that (so much for solving the problem of overfishing).
These fish are also less healthy than wild Alaskan salmon or even farmed Atlantic salmon. The few studies that have been done on these genetically engineered fish have shown that they contain lower levels of heart- and brain-healthy omega-3 fatty acids than either form of regular salmon. These fish are also notably deficient in certain vitamins, O'Neil adds. There's also a great deal of concern that genetically modifying salmon could increase the incidence of seafood allergies among the public.

The Fishy Risk the FDA Is Taking with Your Health | Rodale News

Super salmon or 'Frankenfish'? FDA to decide - Health - Food safety | NBC News

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/280359-gm-foods-cancer-in-rats.html

 

[gallantwarrior]

I have two primary concerns with GMOs or GEs. The first being the fact that with our technology, we like to play god. Without knowing the consequences, but with all the best intentions, we create these monsters and unleash them into our environment and more importantly, into our food supplies. There is enough evidence to indicate that doing this is unwise and possibly very dangerous. "Evidence" in support of GMO/GEs provided by the very companies that stand to gain the most from introduction of such organisms is highly suspect and should be viewed with skepticism.
That brings me to my second big concern about GMOs/GEs. The companies that have created these unnatural monstrosities hold patents. That means that any organism, whether an original GMO or a hybrid, can be claimed by them and profit made. These companies have a vested interest in crippling or destroying their competition. In this case, small farmers or individuals whose interest lies in having access to healthy food choices are the target.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What you actually say, after wading through all the silly verbage, is that there should be no regulation. Well, in China there is no regulation, and in Russia, very little.

It was the environmentalists that kept this nation from going down that road. When we were on that road, and our rivers were becoming open sewers, our air a source of ill health, the environmentalists sounded the tocsins, and the people in this nation responded.

Now people like you wish to return us to the days when our rivers were sewers. No way. Not only that, we are going to increase the rules and regulations so that our air and water is even better than at present. And you can squeal all you want. The majority of the citizens in this nation prefer clean air, water, and land. And if some fat cat has to make a million less or so because of that, so be it.

2. "What you actually say, after wading through all the silly verbage, is that there should be no regulation."

Are you able to quote where I've said that?
No?
Well, then....what is a probable conclusion?


a. When you post such a fabrication, it speaks to the veracity of my position, in that you have no counter to same.



2. What I do espouse, though, is public policy based on real science, one based on empirical results.


As I've shown in posts to which you have shown no counter, that the environmentalism of your persuasion is based on guess, conjecture, and made up numbers.

The reason? Because it is more Marxism, control, and worship of Gaia, Mother Earth than it is science.
Didn't the East Anglia memos teach you anything?

3. It's putative father is Hegel, not Kant.



....and you've bought it like it was on sale.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have two primary concerns with GMOs or GEs. The first being the fact that with our technology, we like to play god. Without knowing the consequences, but with all the best intentions, we create these monsters and unleash them into our environment and more importantly, into our food supplies. There is enough evidence to indicate that doing this is unwise and possibly very dangerous. "Evidence" in support of GMO/GEs provided by the very companies that stand to gain the most from introduction of such organisms is highly suspect and should be viewed with skepticism.
That brings me to my second big concern about GMOs/GEs. The companies that have created these unnatural monstrosities hold patents. That means that any organism, whether an original GMO or a hybrid, can be claimed by them and profit made. These companies have a vested interest in crippling or destroying their competition. In this case, small farmers or individuals whose interest lies in having access to healthy food choices are the target.

1. " with our technology, we like to play god."
If we are speaking of the same conccept, God has a capital 'G.'

As for the technology....did you object to heart transplants?
Cosmetic surgery.



2. "we create these monsters and unleash them into our environment and more importantly, into our food supplies."
Now...you wouldn't accept that premise without some evidence....would you?
How about giving a few examples of the kind of problem to which you allude.
(Check out the link I provided in post #53)

a. 'Here it is worth noting that there have been no documented human health effects from GM foods.
…current regulations for GM foods, if applied to non-GM products, would ban the sale of potatoes and tomatoes, which can contain poisonous glycoalkaloids; celery, which contains carcinogenic psoralens; rhubarb and spinach (oxalic acid); and cassava, which feeds about 500 million people but contains toxic cyanogenic alkaloids. Foodstuffs like soy, wheat, milk, eggs, mollusks, crustaceans, fish, sesame, nuts, peanuts, and kiwi would likewise be banned, because they can cause food allergies.'
GM food: Golden rice will save millions of people from vitamin A deficiency. - Slate Magazine


3. "The companies that have created these unnatural monstrosities hold patents.....profits.'
Good for them!
That's how and why innovation occurs.
Wise up.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I have two primary concerns with GMOs or GEs. The first being the fact that with our technology, we like to play god. Without knowing the consequences, but with all the best intentions, we create these monsters and unleash them into our environment and more importantly, into our food supplies. There is enough evidence to indicate that doing this is unwise and possibly very dangerous. "Evidence" in support of GMO/GEs provided by the very companies that stand to gain the most from introduction of such organisms is highly suspect and should be viewed with skepticism.
That brings me to my second big concern about GMOs/GEs. The companies that have created these unnatural monstrosities hold patents. That means that any organism, whether an original GMO or a hybrid, can be claimed by them and profit made. These companies have a vested interest in crippling or destroying their competition. In this case, small farmers or individuals whose interest lies in having access to healthy food choices are the target.

1. " with our technology, we like to play god."
If we are speaking of the same conccept, God has a capital 'G.'

As for the technology....did you object to heart transplants?
Cosmetic surgery.

Not being a "true believer", I rarely capitalize the word. Not meaning to be offensive. As for technology, I have real heartache when they start messing with our food and nutritional resources.

2. "we create these monsters and unleash them into our environment and more importantly, into our food supplies."
Now...you wouldn't accept that premise without some evidence....would you?
How about giving a few examples of the kind of problem to which you allude.
(Check out the link I provided in post #53)

I can provide links, too. In summary, the science is imperfect and there have many harmful incidents linked to GMOs.

Why genetically modified organisms (GMO) should be prohibited

http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/organic/cows-fed-gmo-corn-died-syngent/

Grass linked to Texas cattle deaths - CBS News


a. 'Here it is worth noting that there have been no documented human health effects from GM foods.
…current regulations for GM foods, if applied to non-GM products, would ban the sale of potatoes and tomatoes, which can contain poisonous glycoalkaloids; celery, which contains carcinogenic psoralens; rhubarb and spinach (oxalic acid); and cassava, which feeds about 500 million people but contains toxic cyanogenic alkaloids. Foodstuffs like soy, wheat, milk, eggs, mollusks, crustaceans, fish, sesame, nuts, peanuts, and kiwi would likewise be banned, because they can cause food allergies.'
GM food: Golden rice will save millions of people from vitamin A deficiency. - Slate Magazine

Again, lots of articles about links between a lot of health problems that are on the rise, allergies most specifically.

Spilling the Beans: Unintended GMO Health Risks


3. "The companies that have created these unnatural monstrosities hold patents.....profits.'
Good for them!
That's how and why innovation occurs.
Wise up.

While you may say "good for them", it is not good for us. It isn't just the profit motive here. It is very specifically the drive to destroy any competition, no matter how small. And these companies are using our corrupt government to regulate food production in their favor. I personally would like to retain the choice of not eating GMOs.

APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, part of the USDA, has a very stringent and active program that governs the import of plants and animals from foreign countries. They do this in order to protect and preserve our food supplies from a wide range of diseases and invasive species. Do you agree with a program of this nature?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have two primary concerns with GMOs or GEs. The first being the fact that with our technology, we like to play god. Without knowing the consequences, but with all the best intentions, we create these monsters and unleash them into our environment and more importantly, into our food supplies. There is enough evidence to indicate that doing this is unwise and possibly very dangerous. "Evidence" in support of GMO/GEs provided by the very companies that stand to gain the most from introduction of such organisms is highly suspect and should be viewed with skepticism.
That brings me to my second big concern about GMOs/GEs. The companies that have created these unnatural monstrosities hold patents. That means that any organism, whether an original GMO or a hybrid, can be claimed by them and profit made. These companies have a vested interest in crippling or destroying their competition. In this case, small farmers or individuals whose interest lies in having access to healthy food choices are the target.

1. " with our technology, we like to play god."
If we are speaking of the same conccept, God has a capital 'G.'

As for the technology....did you object to heart transplants?
Cosmetic surgery.

Not being a "true believer", I rarely capitalize the word. Not meaning to be offensive. As for technology, I have real heartache when they start messing with our food and nutritional resources.

2. "we create these monsters and unleash them into our environment and more importantly, into our food supplies."
Now...you wouldn't accept that premise without some evidence....would you?
How about giving a few examples of the kind of problem to which you allude.
(Check out the link I provided in post #53)

I can provide links, too. In summary, the science is imperfect and there have many harmful incidents linked to GMOs.

Why genetically modified organisms (GMO) should be prohibited

http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/organic/cows-fed-gmo-corn-died-syngent/

Grass linked to Texas cattle deaths - CBS News


a. 'Here it is worth noting that there have been no documented human health effects from GM foods.
…current regulations for GM foods, if applied to non-GM products, would ban the sale of potatoes and tomatoes, which can contain poisonous glycoalkaloids; celery, which contains carcinogenic psoralens; rhubarb and spinach (oxalic acid); and cassava, which feeds about 500 million people but contains toxic cyanogenic alkaloids. Foodstuffs like soy, wheat, milk, eggs, mollusks, crustaceans, fish, sesame, nuts, peanuts, and kiwi would likewise be banned, because they can cause food allergies.'
GM food: Golden rice will save millions of people from vitamin A deficiency. - Slate Magazine

Again, lots of articles about links between a lot of health problems that are on the rise, allergies most specifically.

Spilling the Beans: Unintended GMO Health Risks


3. "The companies that have created these unnatural monstrosities hold patents.....profits.'
Good for them!
That's how and why innovation occurs.
Wise up.

While you may say "good for them", it is not good for us. It isn't just the profit motive here. It is very specifically the drive to destroy any competition, no matter how small. And these companies are using our corrupt government to regulate food production in their favor. I personally would like to retain the choice of not eating GMOs.

APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, part of the USDA, has a very stringent and active program that governs the import of plants and animals from foreign countries. They do this in order to protect and preserve our food supplies from a wide range of diseases and invasive species. Do you agree with a program of this nature?

If I post an OP tomorrow with a specific response to this post, would it be all right if I use your name in the post? Not insulting....merely directing to your objections.
I can do it without as well.....

 

[gallantwarrior]

1. " with our technology, we like to play god."
If we are speaking of the same conccept, God has a capital 'G.'

As for the technology....did you object to heart transplants?
Cosmetic surgery.

Not being a "true believer", I rarely capitalize the word. Not meaning to be offensive. As for technology, I have real heartache when they start messing with our food and nutritional resources.

2. "we create these monsters and unleash them into our environment and more importantly, into our food supplies."
Now...you wouldn't accept that premise without some evidence....would you?
How about giving a few examples of the kind of problem to which you allude.
(Check out the link I provided in post #53)

I can provide links, too. In summary, the science is imperfect and there have many harmful incidents linked to GMOs.

Why genetically modified organisms (GMO) should be prohibited

http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/organic/cows-fed-gmo-corn-died-syngent/

Grass linked to Texas cattle deaths - CBS News


a. 'Here it is worth noting that there have been no documented human health effects from GM foods.
…current regulations for GM foods, if applied to non-GM products, would ban the sale of potatoes and tomatoes, which can contain poisonous glycoalkaloids; celery, which contains carcinogenic psoralens; rhubarb and spinach (oxalic acid); and cassava, which feeds about 500 million people but contains toxic cyanogenic alkaloids. Foodstuffs like soy, wheat, milk, eggs, mollusks, crustaceans, fish, sesame, nuts, peanuts, and kiwi would likewise be banned, because they can cause food allergies.'
GM food: Golden rice will save millions of people from vitamin A deficiency. - Slate Magazine

Again, lots of articles about links between a lot of health problems that are on the rise, allergies most specifically.

Spilling the Beans: Unintended GMO Health Risks


3. "The companies that have created these unnatural monstrosities hold patents.....profits.'
Good for them!
That's how and why innovation occurs.
Wise up.

While you may say "good for them", it is not good for us. It isn't just the profit motive here. It is very specifically the drive to destroy any competition, no matter how small. And these companies are using our corrupt government to regulate food production in their favor. I personally would like to retain the choice of not eating GMOs.

APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, part of the USDA, has a very stringent and active program that governs the import of plants and animals from foreign countries. They do this in order to protect and preserve our food supplies from a wide range of diseases and invasive species. Do you agree with a program of this nature?

If I post an OP tomorrow with a specific response to this post, would it be all right if I use your name in the post? Not insulting....merely directing to your objections.
I can do it without as well.....

Not a problem.

 

[PoliticalChic]

APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, part of the USDA, has a very stringent and active program that governs the import of plants and animals from foreign countries. They do this in order to protect and preserve our food supplies from a wide range of diseases and invasive species. Do you agree with a program of this nature?

If I post an OP tomorrow with a specific response to this post, would it be all right if I use your name in the post? Not insulting....merely directing to your objections.
I can do it without as well.....

Not a problem.

I didn't get this message in time to include it...but you'll see the reference at the bottom.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/280536-disinformation-attempts-by-the-enviros.html