http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/10/dr-don-huber-interview-part-1.aspx There are many other quotes supporting Brian's claim
And like you know, even cancer is a mutation. And like gmo, they alter the function of cells while enhancing others.
I really hope you guys really look into botany. See the symbiotic relationship of microorganism and plants. When you truly understand the true component of 90% of what you eat is from "roundup ready" products; you will understand that just because the plant can withstand overloads of round up; that it isn't nutritious. That the soil is slowly dying and eventually unable to support any life. That when you eat a cow or pig feeding on round up ready corn; they absorb the same roundup and lack up taking essential minerals. There is no surprise that abortion rates of dairy cows and pigs are at 70%; ironically since roundup ready crops circulated in almost all feed. There will be a day when you will look back, if we aren't dead already, and say "wtf where we thinking?!"
Big ag is making so much food we're letting 2/3 of it spoil or are just throwing it away. I'd rather have 2/3 too much rather than having 2/3 too little And if nutrition is all you care about, rice is the main nutrition of a huge % of the world's population.
If you think rice is the only nutrient they eat; you are sadly mistaken. Most cultures eat rice with various other produce and meats. For a science buff; you really can't see the forest through the trees
Lmao dude; I bet you didn't read any of the links or information. And btw; you said "if you are concerned with nutrients, eat rice" STRAWMAN was yours. I just replied to it.
You are filled with hyperbole and strawman. You play words to try and give you outs; then when confronted; you back peddle like a chump.
How about you read what I wrote. For all the GMO being grown, much of the world gets much of their calories from rice. Given that the RDA is 2000 calories, rice is an inexpensive way to feed people in resource challenged places. It's grown locally in many such places. It stores well, and can be shipped elsewhere as long as it's kept dry. If your population isn't getting enough nutrition, they're starving. So, sure mags. You should eat rice. /green font When you mindlessly click on the reply button, take a few seconds to let these words sink in. If possible.
Yep. you bring up some shit argument that you were called out on. Then you went back back peddling that it was on something else. You argued a point and had your lunch; then said it was something else to avoid admission of utter none sense. Basically, off topic. Oh and PS: you feed someone only rice; they will eventually die. But you already known that didn't you? So the double whammy is your concept of feeding the starving isn't solved.
I understand the concept of "gmo" may not be a "threat" in the general term; but one must remember who is leading the efforts in this industry. The major players aren't just Monsanto. So the concept of gmo maybe a positive future; the companies spear heading this research are biotech companies that are using this research to increase usage rates of their herbicides applied. So what is an herbicide? It's usually an enzyme that binds certain minerals that block other enzymatic action. Agents that suffocate plants from the necessary components to survive. But this enzyme isn't a free thinking organism. It reacts with all living organisms. It's distributed through foliar (spraying on the leaves and absorbed through the plants vascular system). So if you read reports on how this product glyphosate (round up) degrades in soil; it doesn't degrade in plant tissue, root zones or foliar. Roundup residue stays in the plant. The more you use, the more residue stays in it's system. Also, round up doesn't effect plants. Once in contact with soil; it will destroy all living beneficial organisms. That will completely set a chain reaction to the general health of the soil; lowing cation exchange, destroying the ecosystem of the soil. What does that mean? It means plants become more unhealthy, the animals that eat the plants become more unhealthy, the waste the animal gives is more unhealthy. Eventually a ecology disaster takes place with a mass build up of glyphosate spreads in our streams, soil, food and wildlife. http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...-of-genetically-modified-crops-in-two-charts/ The link below gives a summary of how important the ecology of the soil is. http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/COG/COGHandbook/COGHandbook_1_3.htm So if you think this is just "nutrient concerns"; that is only a small portion of the bigger picture. It's a concern that the land we use, livestock we eat, fish we consume and water we drink are all effected by this. Glyphosate has a control of over 90% of all corn, soybean, canola, and cotton production. It just was deregulated for alfalfa production; which contributes to 60% of the total worlds livestock feed.
While I agree that it is possible (although rare) for GMO's to end up having unintended consequences, and I certainly agree that the practices by the larger companies that specialize in GMO (like Monsanto) are dangerous to the ecosystem and destroy smaller farms through unscrupulous practices, I see a world right now that has more people than ever before. I see a world with more people living longer than ever before. I see children bigger, taller and better fed than ever before. Considering GMO foods are pervasive in modern society, I think that GMO food is plenty nutritious. That being said, I shop at farmers markets and shop organic for produce most of the time. I would rather choose non GMO food for the reasons I specified in my first post. But Just because non-GMO is better and just because some of the corporations are evil empires, doesn't mean that GMO food is of the devil. GMO food production allows millions, perhaps billions of people a level of food quality and quantity they would otherwise not have.
That's the problem though. The majority of the biotech companies creating these gmo seeds are agrochemical companies. They've used the patented technology to make the food better, but stabilize the crop to survive with applications of their herbicide and pesticides. So supporting the current gmo model will be detrimental to our environment.
