Koolblue13 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Even if your statement were true, there would still be "reasons" for animal testing (medical, product safety, etc.). Manufacturing, transportation, medical fields all produce & use chemicals/poisons to support the demand of us, the population, which is made up of ALL of us. Our individual "toll" on the earth might vary, but we all affect it. I know saying we need a drastically healthier world is a controversial statement and near impossible to fathom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I do to, specially if that implies suffering/torturing.The dilemma of animal experimentation: Each of us is opposed to animal testing, but in the same way, each of us would like to get the best and safest medications and treatments. However, without animal testing, this is not possible. How do we solve this dilemma? human volunteers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Monsanto is also responsible for exposing all of us that served at Ft. McClellan to massive amounts of PCBs. Nasty ****. There is a bill in house committee right now to get us all presumptive exposure recognition (which means we don't have to prove our individual cases) and award 100% service-connected disability. I would tell you what I think about the company and it's "leadership," but I value my ES membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 http://myscienceacademy.org/2012/09/21/the-gmo-debate-is-over-gm-crops-must-be-immediately-outlawed-monsanto-halted-from-threatening-humanity/ (NaturalNews) The GMO debate is over. There is no longer any legitimate, scientific defense of growing GM crops for human consumption. The only people still clinging to the outmoded myth that “GMOs are safe” are scientific mercenaries with financial ties to Monsanto and the biotech industry. GMOs are an anti-human technology. They threaten the continuation of life on our planet. They are a far worse threat than terrorism, or even the threat of nuclear war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I still have no clue what constitutes GM food. People have been creating new plant species through hybridization for hundreds years. I would say the difference between selective breeding and test tube babies...simply the level of outside intervention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I would say the difference between selective breeding and test tube babies...simply the level of outside intervention Pretty much. Making round up a natural part of the seed, the seed having the ability to grow plants that pollinate other plants turning them into round up crops. seeds that are not regenerative and need to be bought and planted again every year, containing more and more poisons in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I would say the difference between selective breeding and test tube babies...simply the level of outside intervention Understood. However, what makes "ordinary" hybridization fine, but GM food not fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Understood. However, what makes "ordinary" hybridization fine, but GM food not fine? Google the term "round up ready" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 http://myscienceacademy.org/2012/09/21/the-gmo-debate-is-over-gm-crops-must-be-immediately-outlawed-monsanto-halted-from-threatening-humanity/(NaturalNews) The GMO debate is over. There is no longer any legitimate, scientific defense of growing GM crops for human consumption. The only people still clinging to the outmoded myth that “GMOs are safe” are scientific mercenaries with financial ties to Monsanto and the biotech industry. GMOs are an anti-human technology. They threaten the continuation of life on our planet. They are a far worse threat than terrorism, or even the threat of nuclear war. My grandfather was a food scientist who taught food science at an Ivy League university. He devoted his life to try to find ways to make food easy to grow and safe to eat. He was probably the most honest man I've ever known. When I raised the GM food issue with him, he turned beat red and something to the effect, " those anti-science regressives don't what they are talking about, or how to get food to millions of starving people." Now, I didn't take my grandfathers words as a defense of all GM food. I think that, as a scientist, he was just annoyed with uniformed, knee-jerk reactions (or those based on "extensive Internet research") to anything other than 100% naturally grown plants (whatever that means). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChampSkinsFan Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I first heard about Monstanto while watching Food Inc. on Netflix. Heres a clip of how wicked they can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asoccerplayer99 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I'm so glad I read this study. Now I know that drinking Roundup is potentially bad for my health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Food Inc was depressing. Interesting, though. We're now feeding cows GM corn, which is unnatural (rather than grass) and has been linked to killing livestock while contributing to mad cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Now, I didn't take my grandfathers words as a defense of all GM food. I think that, as a scientist, he was just annoyed with uniformed, knee-jerk reactions (or those based on "extensive Internet research") to anything other than 100% naturally grown plants (whatever that means). Are scientists and more or less revered as a profession than all the medical doctors and specialists that are dealing with the results of such science? Are we going to discredit all the doctors coming forward giving first-hand experience treating the results? These are hardly uninformed, knee-jerk people that you seem to be alluding too. Or should we reserve that stereotype for all the victims/patients of GMO whose lives have been affected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 It is a conspiracy theory that GMO is bad for you! (Sorry, had to ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Understood. However, what makes "ordinary" hybridization fine, but GM food not fine? Ignorance? I find the embrace of science and tech advances a good thing in all areas and fear drugs/human gene manipulation much more than GMO. people are odd acceptable losses Die-Hard, nothing comes w/o a cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.