Skip to comments.Look Who's 'Anti-Science' Now
Posted on 07/01/2016 5:45:57 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
Green Wars: It takes a lot of gall to accuse people of being anti-science dunderheads while ignoring science yourself. Yet that's precisely what Greenpeace is doing when it comes to the safety of "genetically modified" foods.
More than 100 Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine and other sciences this week signed a blistering letter attacking Greenpeace's "fact-challenged propaganda campaign against innovations in agricultural biotechnology."
"Greenpeace and their allies have claimed falsely that GMOS are dangerous, untested and inadequately regulated," the letter states. "But the science telling us GM crops and foods are safe has been confirmed by vast experience."
The letter goes on to point out that "As we have shown elsewhere, we know that GMOS are at least as safe as crops produced with other breeding methods. The only time a safety difference has been found the GMOs have been safer."
Worse, the latest target of Greenpeace's anti-GMO campaign is a type of rice called Golden Rice that would "reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by vitamin A deficiency, which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeastern Asia."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
The real problem with GMO foods is not that they are dangerous but that they are patented and they are engineered so they cannot perpetuate themselves.
Monsanto (or whoever holds the patent) can have entire crop fields seized and destroyed if one of their "products" cross-pollinates with one of God's.
Farmers are then held hostage to the patent owners because they have to purchase new seeds or seedlings every season.
Okay. Those of you who missed the point, commence flaming.
Just tell them that the science is settled and that scientific consensus is all that matters. Just like global warming...
Totally different issue which has nothing to do with the science. Although it does need to be addressed in some fashion that still respects the patent holder, it has nothing to do with the issue of whether they are safe or not.
The safety aspect is just one part of the science.
> Okay, I’m going in. Somebody cover me.
Cross species GMO are a problem, imo
Hungry cows will not eat GMO corn, nor will I.
The big mistake is to believe the lies we are told. In this case we are told GMOs will create food that will save lives. Who could be against that? But it is foolish to believe that saving lives is a concern of big government or big business... In the near future, when spring comes and it is time to plant and the last year’s seeds have been modified to grown sterile fruit, if you want to eat, you have to buy new seeds. If the government took control over the distribution of seeds, you would be forced to conform to the people in power or starve.
It is as if the a new form of energy is being developed and we are told it will improve life for millions only to find out it has been developed only for warfare.. against us!
Remember when the government endowed us with ‘The Clean Water Act’? Who could no want that? Only trouble was, it had nothing to do with clean water. Ever hear of the Affordable Care Act?
With GMOs, we are placing a powerful tool in the hands of people with no morals or scruples and plenty of designs....
Corn being grown by American farmers GMO or not is all produced through the use of hybrid seed. You don’t want to harvest the seed produced by that corn as it will not reproduce that hybrid but rather the parent components if it is not a “mule” being sterile.
One potential aspect is not the GMO itself, but what some of them have been engineered for, and that is, the ability to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate. There is at least some evidence that excessive use can be harmful.
I hadn’t considered that angle.
That’s a scary thought
Judging by your nick, I’m assuming you have personal experience with this?
Genetically modified food is part of the ongoing technological progress that allows us to have 7 billion people on the planet, and will easily allow another 7 billion more, against the doomsday predictions of the Club of Rome and other unscientific dunderheads who claim we must limit the human population to 2 billion.
Yeah, kinda like ignoring that life begins at fertilization and instead pushing an agenda that life begins, << POOF >>, when the mother decides not to kill her baby.
>>Genetically modified food is part of the ongoing technological progress that allows us to have 7 billion people on the planet, and will easily allow another 7 billion more, against the doomsday predictions of the Club of Rome and other unscientific dunderheads who claim we must limit the human population to 2 billion.
The unscientific claptrap of the Fearful Left has killed untold millions in Africa and other food-challenged places. it amazes me how many people think their opinion is a replacement for science, no matter how uneducated.
There is a HUGE difference between the science of GMOs and the pseudoscience of AGW. There is a specific list of criteria that defines science AGW meets exactly zero. The science behind GMOs meets them all.
They are engineered that way so that the newest generation of GMOs cannot interbreed with wild stocks--in other words, because of a concession to fear-mongers who predicted dire consequences if some GMO should start reproducing in the wild.
As someone else already pointed out, every seed company protects its intellectual and financial investment through the use of hybrid seeds.
I should mention that every food grown on a farm or ranch is, in fact, GMO. A number of methods for genetically modifying organisms have been developed over the last few thousand years. The only difference is that using modern methods allows us to target the modifications. So, instead of haphazardly crossing or radiating organisms causing random and unpredictable effects on the genome, we can target one single gene and change that one gene without touching the tens of thousands of other genes in that organism. If changing the genome of an organism is potentially hazardous, then modern methods have introduced a level of safety that was never before possible.
I had a client once who was a Japanese scientist. He was so proud that his outfit had engineered honeybees to have underdeveloped stingers, so people could harvest without fear of stings. When I pointed out that stingers are what the bees used for the protection and survival of their hives, he was befuddled. Nature and its laws were not a factor in his engineering.
The danger lies in a patent owner seizing crops and/or suing a farmer out of existence.
But you probably don't believe there are people out there who want to control the world. What's the best way to control the world? Control the food supply.
I see no moral issue with a company protecting its intellectual property. Research is not cheap, and no one would be willing to invest the millions it takes to develop a new product if they did not have the legal protection of patents.
What's the best way to control the world? Control the food supply.
The food supply is not, and has never been, controlled by seed companies in a highly competitive market. Food supplies are controlled by politicians. Whenever you see people starving, look at the government: Venezuela, the USSR, China, any number of African despotic countries--the story is always the same. The politicians control the food distribution, and the people starve.
Furthermore, the fact that seed companies sell purposely non-propagatable seeds to large scale farmers does not prevent you from buying true-breeding "heirloom" seeds. There are seed companies that specialize in those, too. May I suggest Johnny's seeds?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.