09-30-2012, 06:33 AM
You did claim it was settled, PaulW. A few pages back. And it is not settled. And until it is settled, how did this stuff get into 90% of Americas food supply? And why do you suppose most of Europe is banning GMOs? I consider American's guinea pigs on this front in a very big way.
I don't understand the logic of, "Let's allow something that is controversial from the start, out into the public's daily food supply and keep it there unless/until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be dangerous". If a company wants to corner the market of grown food by modifying the genes of plants through radiation and implementation of genes from other species, doesn't it seem more logical to demand that THEY prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is safe? And not just for 5 - 10 years, but over a long term study with independent backing?
The logic of "safe until proven dangerous" has been proven to be a dangerously greedy model. Think DDT. Toxic flame retardants on things like pillows (!!!), pills in the 70s that caused mass birth defects but were marketed to help pregnant mothers with morning sickness. GMOs have not been proven to be safe, far from it. The research done by the perpetrators is equivalent to a millisecond in the timeline of their inception and their release to the public, and effects are proving to be quite long lasting.
Why keep ignoring the evidences brought to attention? Massive tumor growths, research on ill effects on bee populations (or Monsanto BUYING the bee research leaders OUTRIGHT?!?). Cross populating of super strains that are working toward elimination of important biodiversity. Stirring evidence has been and continues to be presented, but people who don't want to believe are just going to continue to stick their fingers in their ears and say, "lalalalalalaaaaa, not happening.... I can't hear you..."
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
I don't understand the logic of, "Let's allow something that is controversial from the start, out into the public's daily food supply and keep it there unless/until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be dangerous". If a company wants to corner the market of grown food by modifying the genes of plants through radiation and implementation of genes from other species, doesn't it seem more logical to demand that THEY prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is safe? And not just for 5 - 10 years, but over a long term study with independent backing?
The logic of "safe until proven dangerous" has been proven to be a dangerously greedy model. Think DDT. Toxic flame retardants on things like pillows (!!!), pills in the 70s that caused mass birth defects but were marketed to help pregnant mothers with morning sickness. GMOs have not been proven to be safe, far from it. The research done by the perpetrators is equivalent to a millisecond in the timeline of their inception and their release to the public, and effects are proving to be quite long lasting.
Why keep ignoring the evidences brought to attention? Massive tumor growths, research on ill effects on bee populations (or Monsanto BUYING the bee research leaders OUTRIGHT?!?). Cross populating of super strains that are working toward elimination of important biodiversity. Stirring evidence has been and continues to be presented, but people who don't want to believe are just going to continue to stick their fingers in their ears and say, "lalalalalalaaaaa, not happening.... I can't hear you..."
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973