GMOs are an experiment being carried out by unscrupulous, greedy, sociopathic lunatics who irresponsibly endanger the entire ecology. Animals experience birth defects, intestinal problems and sterility. What they do to people is being denied by the maniacs who fund and profit from the production of GMOs, and there has been a long campaign to silence all research that shows how insanely risky these products are to human health.
At least 38 nations, including Russia, Italy, Venezuela, Scotland and Austria have banned them.
If you love GMOs, then you are very sadly either ignorant or part of the problem.
Since there are paid trolls on this site who would flock to defend their corporate interests, bad luck you lying little shills, I'm not going to provide you with a platform to waste my time upon. The stuff is pure poison and harmful to human life. It should be banned worldwide.
6 comments
There is no special risk with GMOs, or even any mechanism by which they could potentially pose a special health risk. GMOs undergo extensive safety tests, while normal crops do not. And no, GMO seeds are actually highly profitable for, and well-received by, those poor Third World small farmers anti-GMO activists like to claim to champion - GMO hysteria is pretty much a pure First World, and in particular European, phenomenon. And there is so much good GMOs can do for us, especially considering just how much crops are lost to disease and spoilage.
GMO hysteria is a manufactruversy born from technophobia, with a good helping of lobbying and FUD from the established agriculture industry and the health woo industry.
You know, a study here in Germany showed that about 90 percent of all Germans are against genetic manipulation. Of those 90 percent only 40 percent were actually able to answer very basic questions about genetics and genetic manipulation correctly. Basic ones. And nearly all failed when asked specific questions about the methods involved and the potential risks.
Are there risks associated with genetic manipulation of crops? Well of course. But I would argue that all these issues are even worse with traditional breeding efforts. You do know that nowadays crops are put through radioactive mutagenesis to get new gene variations for richer crops before the cross breeding starts? And that is not counted as genetic manipulation by the same people and states who forbid GMOs. Why? Because the mutations are at least ‘naturally’ inserted into the genome? The ecological damage is the same if these new breeds are allowed to spread. Should I remind anyone that simple crossing of two bee species, no genetic manipulation involved caused the appearance of killer bees? Potential unwanted gene interactions are just as possible whether you breed or manipulate the genome directly (in fact the genetic manipulation is much more controllable). The only difference seems to be ’that’s what we’ve always done’ and the naturalistic fallacy. And that’s simply not enough.
This a rant about genetically modified crops? There’s vigorous testing before any practice becomes widespread so drumming up wild scares that don’t take any of that into account is just stupid. I’d go as far as saying it’s inherently dishonest as well. If concerns were legitimate and born of even the slightest actual knowledge they’d be firmly directed at the mechanisms of study, reporting, and finally approval rather than trying to fill as many pants with shit as you can before throwing it all up at a fan. While it’s impossible to say every experiment anyone will ever try will have universally positive results because it’s ludicrous to think we can predict the future, scientific unknowns, or what even goes through the heads of people in general and what experiments they might do just to see what happens I don’t see life imitating Attack of The Killer Tomatoes even if somebody really crazy tries really hard. And even if any one study does go wrong in the worst possible way and somehow makes it past the approval process - which is different in each country - it would hardly be grounds to blanketly condemn the science especially when what’s been done so far has been promising. One major accomplishment that’s been made has been the production of rice, a relatively inexpensive staple of many diets, with a nutritionally significant amount of iron and other supplements for the purpose of combating dietary deficiency among poverty stricken peoples. Despite how much good that can do right now it’s still in testing after more than a decade to make absolutely sure there are no harmful effects. That’s the kind of institutional caution you’re flagrantly trying to convince people doesn’t exist so you have an excuse to fly into hysterics. And it’s exactly that kind of blind, baseless hysteria that keeps these things from getting approved even after decades of testing turns up no problems. If you think you’re doing anyone any kind of favours by scaring the world out of fields of study that can potentially put an end to hunger and malnutrition everywhere you are sadly mistaken. Also quite possibly in need of alternating backhands and open-palm bitchslaps.
What everyone else here said, I say and they say it even better.
Technophobia is stupid and technology can help Nature, not hurt it.
Time to end the “Tech is evil!” nonsense.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
