From what i remembered when this all came about, they had sued something like 120 farms across the USA along these lines. The one farm they claimed the farmer saved seeds from one season to the next, then switched to a violation of their trademark when that started to fall apart.
and the unknown is that this stuff was never tested long-term on the affects to the human biology.
I don't push one side or the other but I do know this..
I'm in my mid-40's. GMO and Roundup wasn't used in the foods I ate as a kid.
I don't remember any kids with Autism
I don't remember any kids with food-allergies
I don't remember any kids with gluten-intolerance or Celiac's
I don't remember any kids with Aspberger's/ADD/ADHD
Look at the statistics now. Something in our environment has changed.
and the unknown is that this stuff was never tested long-term on the affects to the human biology.
I don't push one side or the other but I do know this..
I'm in my mid-40's. GMO and Roundup wasn't used in the foods I ate as a kid.
I don't remember any kids with Autism
I don't remember any kids with food-allergies
I don't remember any kids with gluten-intolerance or Celiac's
I don't remember any kids with Aspberger's/ADD/ADHD
Look at the statistics now. Something in our environment has changed.
- RoundUp has been in use since 1973.
- Kids/adults have always had autism.
- Kids/adults have always had food allergies.
- Celiac disease (CD) was first described in the second century, but the cause wasn't identified until the 20th century. Terminology has changed as research confirmed that celiac disease diagnosed in children was the same disease as non-tropical sprue diagnosed in adults. The term "celiac disease" is now most commonly used. Another term for the same condition includes "gluten sensitive enteropathy."
- Asperger's/ADD/ADHD are essentially different conditions and have been occurring pretty much forever.
Whether or not you remember these items is hardly germane. It looks like you're trying to say one thing and are actually saying the opposite. Out with it; do you think that RoundUp is an enabler of these conditions?
Why must it be something in the environment has changed?
do you mean good as in a communal concept because more people are able to get food or do you mean it is better healthwise for an individual than non-GMO food?
do you mean good as in a communal concept because more people are able to get food or do you mean it is better healthwise for an individual than non-GMO food?
Why should a GMO be any different than any hybridized plant?
Side note: start manufacturing something, anything and label it 'organic' and charge a premium for it. Maybe "Organic, gluten free, GMO free, pet rocks!" (or would that be too obvious?)
You forgot to mention "fair trade, ethical, green". People hate to realize that marketing occurs on the GMO and "other" side. Buzz words rule the day, no definitions are needed. Just make the product sound healthy, conscientious, and ethical and the masses will love it. GMOs only have science on their side, they should have courted more marketing buzz words and good feelings, science hasn't seemed to do them any good with the public.
do you mean good as in a communal concept because more people are able to get food or do you mean it is better healthwise for an individual than non-GMO food?
Round-up tolerant/insect tolerant unintended consequences aside (which absolutely should not be dismissed- but certainly should not be as overblown as they've been made out to be)- I'm speaking in terms of communal. Which is a gigantic thing: It isn't just about feeding people- it's about using less land to do so- meaning less impact on the ecosystem- which means less unforeseen and unintended (think dust bowl) negative consequences.
I don't know health wise, but considering life expectancy and the most sedentary lifestyle the world has seen outside of Wal-E, I'd lay my money on any long term health consequences of consuming GMO's as being minimal.
I'm not aware of any studies that show anything conclusively one way or another, but am more than willing to look at any evidence.
RE: RE: RE: Fertilizer run-off is a bigger environmental issue
Side note: start manufacturing something, anything and label it 'organic' and charge a premium for it. Maybe "Organic, gluten free, GMO free, pet rocks!" (or would that be too obvious?)
You forgot to mention "fair trade, ethical, green". People hate to realize that marketing occurs on the GMO and "other" side. Buzz words rule the day, no definitions are needed. Just make the product sound healthy, conscientious, and ethical and the masses will love it. GMOs only have science on their side, they should have courted more marketing buzz words and good feelings, science hasn't seemed to do them any good with the public.
Meh- yeah, people don't like to be fooled.
I don't think there are any "sides" though. Sure, there's a social status aspect to organic/green/whatever you want to call it- but I think for the most part (even when the main reason is status) people like to feel like they're doing good and making a difference- I would never fault anyone for that.
I also try not to fault anyone for being misinformed (although it's something I need to work on)- we are all misinformed by marketing/media/news every single day.
I do so very much hate to see folks unable or unwilling to question or investigate their beliefs, though. That if anything is what leads us down the road to the idiocracy we're evidently headed for.
Rob, did some checking into those 2 cases i was talking about
Looks like you were correct. The one case was about Monsato beginning a lawsuit regarding carry over seeds from the year before (which i actually see Monsato's side with regards to that), Both sides handled it before going to court.
The other from what i have gathered was the farm itself arguing that they wanted Monsanto to pay if their seeds crossed into their field from a neighboring one. I do see the Farms side in that but i don't see how that can be stopped from happening to a degree.
So i came back on to let you know you were indeed correct
I don't push one side or the other but I do know this..
I'm in my mid-40's. GMO and Roundup wasn't used in the foods I ate as a kid.
I don't remember any kids with Autism
I don't remember any kids with food-allergies
I don't remember any kids with gluten-intolerance or Celiac's
I don't remember any kids with Aspberger's/ADD/ADHD
Look at the statistics now. Something in our environment has changed.
We've just gotten better at diagnosing and started to include a wider breadth of previously undiagnosed people into the spectrum.
I don't push one side or the other but I do know this..
I'm in my mid-40's. GMO and Roundup wasn't used in the foods I ate as a kid.
I don't remember any kids with Autism
I don't remember any kids with food-allergies
I don't remember any kids with gluten-intolerance or Celiac's
I don't remember any kids with Aspberger's/ADD/ADHD
Look at the statistics now. Something in our environment has changed.
- RoundUp has been in use since 1973.
- Kids/adults have always had autism.
- Kids/adults have always had food allergies.
- Celiac disease (CD) was first described in the second century, but the cause wasn't identified until the 20th century. Terminology has changed as research confirmed that celiac disease diagnosed in children was the same disease as non-tropical sprue diagnosed in adults. The term "celiac disease" is now most commonly used. Another term for the same condition includes "gluten sensitive enteropathy."
- Asperger's/ADD/ADHD are essentially different conditions and have been occurring pretty much forever.
Whether or not you remember these items is hardly germane. It looks like you're trying to say one thing and are actually saying the opposite. Out with it; do you think that RoundUp is an enabler of these conditions?
Why should a GMO be any different than any hybridized plant?
All evidence shows no discernible difference in nutritional value between GM and non GM crops.
Though there could come a time when GM crops will yield more nutrition by yield.
You forgot to mention "fair trade, ethical, green". People hate to realize that marketing occurs on the GMO and "other" side. Buzz words rule the day, no definitions are needed. Just make the product sound healthy, conscientious, and ethical and the masses will love it. GMOs only have science on their side, they should have courted more marketing buzz words and good feelings, science hasn't seemed to do them any good with the public.
I had misread your earlier question. Sorry about that.
Round-up tolerant/insect tolerant unintended consequences aside (which absolutely should not be dismissed- but certainly should not be as overblown as they've been made out to be)- I'm speaking in terms of communal. Which is a gigantic thing: It isn't just about feeding people- it's about using less land to do so- meaning less impact on the ecosystem- which means less unforeseen and unintended (think dust bowl) negative consequences.
I don't know health wise, but considering life expectancy and the most sedentary lifestyle the world has seen outside of Wal-E, I'd lay my money on any long term health consequences of consuming GMO's as being minimal.
I'm not aware of any studies that show anything conclusively one way or another, but am more than willing to look at any evidence.
Quote:
Side note: start manufacturing something, anything and label it 'organic' and charge a premium for it. Maybe "Organic, gluten free, GMO free, pet rocks!" (or would that be too obvious?)
You forgot to mention "fair trade, ethical, green". People hate to realize that marketing occurs on the GMO and "other" side. Buzz words rule the day, no definitions are needed. Just make the product sound healthy, conscientious, and ethical and the masses will love it. GMOs only have science on their side, they should have courted more marketing buzz words and good feelings, science hasn't seemed to do them any good with the public.
Meh- yeah, people don't like to be fooled.
I don't think there are any "sides" though. Sure, there's a social status aspect to organic/green/whatever you want to call it- but I think for the most part (even when the main reason is status) people like to feel like they're doing good and making a difference- I would never fault anyone for that.
I also try not to fault anyone for being misinformed (although it's something I need to work on)- we are all misinformed by marketing/media/news every single day.
I do so very much hate to see folks unable or unwilling to question or investigate their beliefs, though. That if anything is what leads us down the road to the idiocracy we're evidently headed for.
The other from what i have gathered was the farm itself arguing that they wanted Monsanto to pay if their seeds crossed into their field from a neighboring one. I do see the Farms side in that but i don't see how that can be stopped from happening to a degree.
So i came back on to let you know you were indeed correct