From what I have been learning, I feel very strongly that GMO foods pose a serious health risk. Many of my associates agree.
I'd like to share a piece by Staci Joy, Board Certified Holistic Public Health Nurse:
It has become an inconvenient truth for me to finally understand the serious consequences that genetically engineered farming has on our national public health safety, especially among our children who are the most vulnerable to its potentially harmful effects.
Here's the scoop: Since 1996, big agri-businesses like Monsanto have been getting away with genetically engineering our food supply by splicing deadly pesticides and antigens into the genes of major crop seeds, mostly soy, corn, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, wheat, cotton and soon, salmon and mosquitos. They won't stop until they've obtained a patent on every single seed, fish, animal, and every living organism in existence.
So far, these foods have infiltrated just about every food item on the supermarket shelf that is non-organic.
So what's the big deal anyway? It's a very big deal because this technology is potentially dangerous to humans (especially children) and livestock who eat GMO foods, wreaking havoc throughout their immune systems, gastrointestinal tracts, nervous systems, and reproductive tracts, potentially leading to diseases and sterility. It has not been proven safe, through independent testing, for long-term health effects.
This is, without a doubt, the most serious public health disaster in man's history. (Read more here: http://www.stacijoy.com/)
For more information on this crucial issue, follow these links:
www.ResponsibleTechnology.org
www.SeedsofDeception.com
fooddemocracynow.org
How are we suppose to know which foods are safe and which are not? It seems as though the modified food chain has infiltrated our foods in every way.
You are assuming the worst without any proof of any negative effects on actual people (or lab animals for that matter).
And the response from Monsanto? Director of corporate communications for Monsanto, Phil Angell, summed up his company’s take on the issue in a report by food author Michael Pollan for New York Times Magazine in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
I'm assuming that you meant that the GM crops have been altered to be pest resistant. Having plants that are resistant to bugs would mean that less chemical would have to be applied to the fields. I see that as a good thing.
Hoffa believes that this is what Ruth is referring to: http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/pages/roundup-ready-system.aspx Monsanto modifies their seeds to make them resistant to their Round-Up brand of weed control herbicide, so that the crop survives while all other sprayed field vegetation dies. The Flavr Savr Tomato was the first commercial grown and sold GMO food product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr If you remember the Patch users Mary and Terry, they each did blogs about a year ago demonizing Monsanto. The claims against GMOs are mostly liberal conspiracy theories that are unsubstantiated with any kind of hard objective factual evidence.
If you truly want to answer the question, do some research and come back with independent data that supports the claim that GMOs cause harm and quantify that level of harm. Anything short of that is just mongering fear and spreading propaganda and perhaps even be libelous (or is it slander?) to those in the business of GMO foods...
Your claim that science has given us remedies that later are proven to have bad side effects is an impossible standard to live up to. Science will always discover things that were assumed safe or unsafe in the past. Since you aren't using any empirical evidence to support your claims, allow me one. I would guess that for every 100 examples of "GMO Bad" over the past 200 years, 1 has actually been as bad as they say. No facts to prove this, just giving you an example of your own argument.
But you admittedly offer nothing but blind speculation as the basis for your conclusion. If Underwriters Laboratory put their seal of approval on GMO foods, would you change your mind about them? The first GMOs started being sold in 1994. If they're as bad as you're assuming they are, don't you think that we would have seen some proof positive negative results after nearly 20 years of integration in our society? Hoffa questions how you are able to use the internet, as the electromagnetic radiation emitted from electronic devices, such as computers, has never been fully independently tested for long term adversarial health effects on humans. You must not use cell phones, or even land-line phones, either, right? Or is this really just a blind hatred towards a very profitable corporation?
People are starving all over this planet, modify away! Now if they can grow a vegetable that tastes like steak- I am all in.
You claim that you aren't trying to convince anyone else of your point of view, but the fact that at the beginning on your article, you stated such a strong opinion about the dangers of GMO foods, seems to indicate otherwise. If not to influence others to your point of view, what was the purpose for posting the article?
"killing a species" Wouldn't want that now would we? Let's pity the locusts while we let children starve. We will at lease feel morally superior. The obesity? This is caused by GMOs? BS This is caused by overeating and lack of activity. Has been since day one. I think it is a good thing that smart, informed and productive people are telling those who "can look out their window and see..." to step off and get off our backs and out of our way. GMOs were developed to please environmentalists. Now we see they are just irrationalists.
Europe does eat lots of GMO food forced on it by USA and world food agreements. Yields from conventional development led to huge increases in yield. GMO have not increased the natural rate of development. Soaking GMO food in organophosphates (OP) that kill every other plant just means we eat OP soaked food and the predicted effect was shown by Professor Seralini recently.
Europe does eat lots of GMO food forced on it by USA and world food agreements. (Funny, what treaty or trade agreement forces a population to eat something against their will?) Yields from conventional development led to huge increases in yield. (These let to exponential increases in GMO yields) GMO have not increased the natural rate of development. (Natural rate of development of what? Do you mean yields? What are you talking about?) Soaking GMO food in organophosphates (OP) that kill every other plant just means we eat OP soaked food and the predicted effect was shown by Professor Seralini recently. (The study, conducted by a prominent opponent of genetically engineered crops, was immediately criticized by some other scientists, who said the methods were flawed and that other research had not found similar problems.-NY Time. Sounds like another silicone breast implant witch hunt.)