Topic you won't see discussed by the candidates

general35

5,000+ Posts
I once did a thesis about 10 years ago on the dangers of genetically modified organisms and the potentially hazardous health problems that could result. At the time, I was left with the impression that monsanto and the fda would study the issue carefully....why i thought a large corporation and the us government would look out for our best interest is beyond me. very few tests have been conducted and what has been discovered is not good. unfortunately, the harm of GMO's is not only limited to our health but also the destruction of other crops, ecosystems, potentially strengthening bacteria, viruses, etc.

This could explain a lot when you see prematurely developed children, rises in cancer rates, allergies, etc.

It is scary to think that we are continually faced with failures in government at every level yet more and more each election cycle continue to be drawn in to politicians that want more...
The Link

The FDA only requests of firms that they conduct their own tests of new GM products in what Vice President Quale back in 1992 referred to as a "regulatory relief program." The FDA makes no review of those tests unless voluntarily requested by the company producing the product. Companies present their internal company records of tests showing a product is safe - essentially having the "fox oversee the chicken coup." As Louis J. Pribyl, an FDA microbiologist explained, companies tailor tests to get the results they need. They further relinquish responsibility as Pjil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications expressed it "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech foods. Our interest is in selling…Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." But the FDA has not assumed the responsibility. Essentially it is "like playing Russian roulette with public health," says Philip J. Regal, a biologist at the University of Minnesota. In his contacts with the FDA, he noted that in the policy of helping the biotech industry grow "government scientist after scientist acknowledged there was no way to assure the health safety of genetically engineered food… [yet] society was going to have to bear an unavoidable measure of risk." The situation was summarized by Richard Steinbrecher, a geneticist working for the Women's Environmental Network "To use genetic engineering to manipulate plants, release them into the environment and introduce them into our food chains is scientifically premature, unsafe and irresponsible."
 
Hasn't the EU done any studies on GMO food? They seem to be the most concerned about it outright banning it in most of their countries thus it would be rational to believe they've heavily study it. Have they?
 
The EU has banned GMO foods for the last few years. The US is putting pressure on them to lift the bans because no much of the US agricultural business is devoted to them..I believe a 1/4 but im not sure. Regardless, this whole thing burns me up to no end. Frankly, I hope the EU holds up its ban. At the very least, they are strongly enforcing labeling. GMO foods are not required to be labeled in the US. FWIW, although I disagree with Obama on many issues, I believe he is the only candidate to pledge to require mandatory labeling on GMO foods in the US.
The Link
 
In another shocking development, I agree with General35, although that may end as of this question:

General, what should Monsanto's legal liability be should their product injure/kill/mutate a class of humans?

BTW- you know what's awesome? Combining large-scale monoculture and broad spectrum herbicide into one delicious package So you get the benefits of herbicide residue AND the GM food- they go hand in hand! But there's more- since the herbicide kills everything but the corn (and whatever about that corn that makes it resistant to roundup must be wholesome), the native seedbank is reduced, turning that plot of land into a moonscape that will go on killing amphibians and polluting the water table for decades to come even as it washes away. So basically once you start that program, you have to stay on it, which is after all, the idea.

And here's the best part: that seed is the intellectual property of Monsanto, meaning the farmers could face prison or financial ruin should they replant a kernel of that corn. That's right, they have to buy new corn every year, meaning a treadmill of economic slavery to a single source vendor to buy what nature produces for free. but he's not alone. Because corn is such a heavily subsidized crop, you get to pay more for it than it actually costs, so that you can pay less for it in your car when it shows up as ethanol, at mcdonalds when it shows up as your beef and it your Coke when it shows up as the type-II diabetes inducing blood poison high fructose corn syrup, because it was "cheaper" than actual sugar, because you already paid for it.

**** you, taxpayer!
 
Growth hormones in the food supply (dairy, meats, etc.) accounts for some of that too.
__________________________________________________

Interesting to note that the reason why many of these growth hormones are showing up and being passed on is because the hormones are genetically modified. they have found that the current pasturization process is not killing all of them off at the same tems because the GMO's become "super."

this could be a scary domino effect.
 
Wired magazine did a big article on Monsanto recently. The premise of the article is that Monsanto is no longer persuing GMO seed for human consumption but rather for other purposes. This change in strategy has eliminated much of the controversy and greatly increased their bottom line. It seems people aren't as concerned when GMO corn is grown and fed to cattle as when that corn shows up on the grocery store shelves. So, Field corn and soy beans (used as a filler for nearly everything) are making a lot of money for Monsanto. This is in direct contrast when they were focused on making the perfect GMO tomato.

I wonder if that is why the controversy has greatly lessened from its high ~2000.
 
In another shocking development, I agree with General35, although that may end as of this question:

General, what should Monsanto's legal liability be should their product injure/kill/mutate a class of humans?
__________________________________________________

Although I may have a reputation as a right wing *** on this board, i am actually left on a few issues and in no way do i support/excuse the actions of the last two administrations. considering the technical and environmental advances over the last 16 years, the last 2 presidencies have done nothing to regulate or protect the people of this country. my big beef is with big government and entitlements and nothing pisses me off more when a corporation puts its profits ahead of consumers. monsanto's liability should be limitless with officers and board of director members held to criminal charges...just my opinion fwiw...
 
The current FDA policy appears to violate the First Amendment of the Constitution….the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which requires that added substances to food be labeled…and mandates disclosure of material facts. All I am saying is that the FDA should require the labeling of foods.

Further, there is still a danger from the planting of only GM feed supplies. those plants can contaminate other crops and plats and alter them as well.
 
Aren't a lot of the vegetables/fruits we eat nowadays "genetically modified" in a sense anyways?

By, that, I mean by selective breeding, cross pollination, etc...
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

Predict TEXAS-ARIZONA STATE

CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread


Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl website

Recent Threads

Back
Top