Rachel Parent is a little girl campaigning for the right to know - which already exists in US but is being circumvented by corporations involved in genetically modifying foods, specifically seeds, so that US is one of the rare first world nations that does not require gm foods to be labeled while Europe bans it altogether.
"14 year old girl picks fight with bully TV host - and WINS! "
is the title for a you tube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIXER_yZUBg&google_comment_id=z13me3gjgyvwzhopr04ccp5zlsjyjlraxlw0k
that features an interesting debate, interesting on more than the obvious level about a debate where one side is a fourteen year old girl.
These are some of the comments, some mine and then long conversations over some others, some illuminaiting on the main topic and then others illuminating on how paid goons harrass those that are concerned about public health, right to life and right to know being adversely impacted by corporate profits at the expense of human life.
Main part, informative comments to begin with, is included in some comments, separated here:-
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
Firstly I am not resisting technology and by all means they should do such tests. They just should not use us as their test subjects.
Secondly there are already many side effects occurring, such as pesticide resistant pests. And if crops are infused with natural pesticides, how is that healthy for us? Also if it is effecting the genes of the bugs, how can we say for sure that it is not affecting us as well.
What bothers me the most about this GMO debacle is the fact that these corporations are forcing everyone to use it. Also the lack of transparency of these corporations are also worrisome, why do they have such a need to hide everything if they are not doing something they know is wrong. How do we know that they did not alter other genetic codes apart from adding more nutrition and the mythological increased yields that they are advertising, such as making seeds usable only once or making sure that the drug resistant bugs can only be killed by their products. These corporations are already selling tons of chemicals to kill these bugs.
The other problem is that once GMO's have been used in a certain area, the biological matter remains in the soil for ever. So if there is a problem with GMO's then there is no way to cleanse that area of land of the GMO's.
I would trust GMO's much more if they were implemented by a transparent non-profit organisation and not a capitalistic for-profit corporation.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
Consumers are not being used as test subjects. The technology has already been tested-- there is no need:
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/
Pesticide resistant pests predate GMOs. It's not a GMO problem. It's a farming problem.
No one is forcing you to purchase food. But OK-- I understand you have to eat it to survive. But there's no reason to discriminate against GE food in the first place because the scientific literature has revealed that GE food is substantially equivalent to non-GE food. All 'GMO' means is that the food has been genetically engineered. Genetic engineering is just one of many methods of breeding, along with selective breeding, hybridization, and irradiation. There's nothing inherently harmful about any of these methods of breeding.
Golden Rice is being implemented by a non-profit organization with complete transparency. Sadly, liberal activist organizations still oppose it. Look it up.
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
"substantially equivalent" that is a contradictory statement. Besides if they are equivalent then why fix something that isn't broken?
"Genetic engineering is just one of many methods of breeding, along with selective breeding, hybridization, and irradiation." That is just a ignorant thing to say. While irradiation probably comes closest, it still does not involve direct genetic modification and if irradiation has proven to cause cancer over time, how can you say that direct altering of genes is safe?
The truth of whether GMO's are harmful can only really be assessed on humans after at least one generation of people are tested including their offspring. If your 90+days missed something, then keep in mind that it is our generation that has condemned and destroyed the lives of our children and their childrens children. Is that really a risk worth taking to supposedly feed some starving foreign children? What has been done can not be undone. If you open pandora's box there is no going back.
Even if the GMO's were implemented and those starving children are fed like the corporations are saying, it will only cause further population expansion and you will further down in time have more starving children and bigger problems like diseases caused by overpopulation, so that argument does not stand.
Also like I said before, what is to stop these corporations to implement a secret part in the code in order to control the future supply of food? That is not a too far fetched theory considering the capabilities and possibilities of GMO's and the fact that the corporations seem to be in overdrive to force it onto the world.
Modern science is unlocking many possibilities, but these possibilities are becoming more and more dangerous. If we are not careful our science will be our undoing and it is the next generation that will pay the price for our ignorance and overeagerness of exploiting knowledge and technology that we have not yet fully comprehended.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
How do you think selective breeding works? All four methods involve the direct or indirect manipulation of the genome. The DNA is being changed.
Genetic engineering is not inherently harmful. Again-- it's just a technique of breeding among many; a wrench in a toolbox. If you're going to claim its potentially more dangerous than selective breeding, you're going to have to have a genetic basis for that assertion. Where are your 5 year studies proving selectively bred food is safe?
There will never be a point where a single business controls the world's food supply because modern anti-trust laws would prevent this.
"Why fix what's not broken" -- that's highly subjective. There are some people who would use that same argument against electric guitars.
John West
1 month ago (edited) +Tyler Hurson
Lol. Back to the guitar argument. Firstly no-one needs guitars to survive. We need food, water and shelter. Secondly a guitar is a instrument for entertainment and does not alter you genetics apart from the micro radiation from the electric fields surrounding the coils at the pick-up section or from the speakers. These magnetic fields have proven to give cancer over a long term. But still that is a far step behind in direct genetic modification.
There is a big difference between cross/selective breeding and direct modification of Genes. They can literally rewrite the entire genome sequence and like I said before there is no way of telling what exactly the corporations have put into the code.
The possibilities of this technology can be ridiculous. Take for example a genetically modified apple that has been created to grow protein, for all you know the code used to create the code could be coming from a pig and in effect while eating a apple you are consuming pork and you would never know, because the way you put it, we can just trust the corporations.
"There will never be a point where a single business controls the world's food supply because modern anti-trust laws would prevent this." You know that is bullshit. Laws are not written in stone and are constantly adjusted to suit the needs of the minority. America of which is the best example of this.
The capitalist system is the breeding ground for monopolies and the too big to fail horse crap and the trickle down economics joke.
The same corporations that have made millions if not billions on food speculation whilst the children that they are now supposedly trying to feed with their GMO's were dying by the millions.
The day the corporations grow a conscious is probably the day all of their CEO's and managers commit collective suicide.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago (edited) +John West
Most genetic modifications only involve 1-8 genes. Genomes contain tens of thousands of genes. How does genetic engineering amount to 'rewriting the entire genome?'
There's a lot of genetic fallacies in your post. For one, apples already contain protein-- as does all biological matter. Also, inserting a pig gene into an apple tree's genome does not make that apple tree's fruit more "porky."
Here's a good e-book on Genetics:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/ebooks/essentials-of-genetics-8/contents
Anti-trust laws prevent monopolies. Anti-trust laws have and will continue to be enforced. There's no reason to believe that anti-trust laws will be abolished in the near future. At best, your claim is speculation.
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson +John West
Tyler, modern wheat is one example of that exact type of manipulation you describe. We have been playing with genetics for quite some time now. Modern wheat also demonstrates the problems we also encounter by screwing with our food. With a much higher gluten concentraton than its historical counterparts we are now seeing a great increase in Crohn's disease which has very strong links to gluten. Correlation is not causation but when these people stop eating gluten and switch to non-allergy causing foods their symptoms frequently improve. We hear that roundup is this safe substance as it doesn't react with human genes yet new research tells us that it does damage to our gut flora. That's a whole subject by itself - we have 10 times more bacteria in our bodies than actual cells! We are truly symbiotic lifeforms and having these herbicide / pesticide residues running through us day in day out really is like playing a game of russian roulette. We know that cancer and autoimmune disease is on the rise dramatically yet we don't know why yet. Our food is quite probably the single greatest cause of the degeneration of our health than we have ever seen in history.
If cross breeding alone can generate more dangerous strains of food then imagine the potential of a gene mutation that is completely unnatural. Sounds like scare tactics or being overdramatic as its just one to eight genes right so not much damage to be done. If we look at genetic predisposition to certain disease however we often find that single genes can be responsible for multiple fold increases in risk! This is not science fiction but reality- single gene mutations do really matter. To take a foriegn gene and insert it into a species at some random location in its genome also carries great risks. We are now finding that single genes can and do carry out multiple different functions and to know how these may affect us is exceptionally difficult to know. Science costs money and when big investments are made, big business want results. We simply don't know how these Frankenfoods affect us today. Our best knowledge is that they don't kill us or make us noticably sick in the short term. Insiduous changes that may not express themselves for several generations may literally be causing changes to our DNA as we discuss the topic.
I personally love science and the amazing future it has to offer us if we apply it correctly but changng the code of a programming language we don't yet fully understand could be devastating in the long run. The potential gains are staggering but the pitfalls are also considerably greater. This progress allows us to cross breeds and create huge variety at an ever growing pace. Australia introduced the cane toad to get rid of beetles eating the crops. Science had an answer but science was wrong. The cane toad didn't much take to eating the beetles and worse still had the unexpected side effect of wiping out many of its indigenous competiors. It was and remains a disaster.
Today we have fields of GMO spreading their pollen to non GMO crops and we can't reverse it! We are changing the face of the planet and we can't change it back. Trying to feed the world is not the soultion to our problems but reducing the population over an extended perod of time. Imagine a planet with half a billion humans. 1/14th the amount of carbon production, the food required, the need to mine etc etc all drastically reduced. We have seen the most amazing and rapid changes in our lifetimes. There won't be many generations to go before something really has to give. We are disease to the place we call home, the single worst lifeform to have ever walked the earth and we have barely got started yet. Antibiotics have created superbugs. We are like the red queen in Alice in Wonderland, always running but not getting anywhere. Nature catches up and we run some more. We have to stop playing with our food. Science? Yes please but lets get to know the programming language before we hit a wrong button and install a virus into the system!
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
Ill admit that I do not know too much about genes, but I do know that corporations can never be trusted as their sole purpose is not the betterment of humanity. They just try at all costs to improve the numbers on the balance sheets, regardless of the consequences on ground level.
+Glenn Carr
Thanks, that was brilliantly written and a very interesting to read.
+SpaceHawk13
I am a electrician by trade, so Im not in the business of selling fish ;).
Just for interest sakes, the guy who thought of the idea of the DNA double helix (forgot his name), actually thought of it while tripping on acid/LSD.
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +John West
Thanks. Great little fact there at the bottom by the way. I always thought it Kekule's discovery of benzene but you are right. Guess you would have to be off your head to concieve such a structure!
d smith
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
There's no need to force un-proven anything on people unless you do not like or respect them. This is evil by it's nature. Prove it 1st then let people see all of the info. If everyone were to see the original aspartame test that it cause tumors on the brains of rats. They may not use it, but this has been hidden now for over 20 years.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
Corporations generally don't make money unless humanity benefits.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +d smith
New studies are much more valuable than old studies, especially if those old studies are methodologically flawed. Aspartame is one of the most studied food ingredients. It has been deemed safe at current levels of consumption by the scientific community.
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
If only it were true. Corporations do make money time and time again through bad products. Al they have to do is to convince us that their product is a good thing. Take margarine for example. It has been outselling butter for many years because low fat / saturated fat in the diet is good for us right? We have the likes of flora pro-active that helps lower cholesterol (at a pretty penny per packet) and low cholesterol is a good thing right? Wrong! Cholesterol is essential for good health - our brains house 1/4 of the cholesterol in our bodies in fact and our livers are capable of producing 400 times more cholesterol than what we typcally eat! Cholesterol is essential for the production of vitamin D when acted on by sunlight in our skin for example. Any product that artificially lowers cholesterol should be used with extreme caution including the widely used statin drugs. Statins actually damage the liver and our ability to produce coenzyme Q10 (an essential powerful antioxidant produced in the body). Some really poor unscientific conclusons have been drawn over time about fat in the diet. Did you know that margarine is a very unnatural fat that our bodies don't know how to process? It is produced by heating vegetable oils in the presence of a catalyst to introduce hydrogen atoms into it to bind fat molecules together and make it a solid at higher temperatures. The end product at that stage is a grey fat that smells bad. They then bleach the product to remove the grey colour, add yellow colouring, stabilisers, flavourings etc to make it look like that product we have safely been consuming for eons - butter! Serously, don't beleve the hype. There is not some large government orginisation sat in the background testing away and doing real scientific research with these products. They get passed and unless some obvious detrimental effects of the product rear their ugly head, we go on consuming this crap in the belief that they are doing us good! If you don't believe the high fat diet thing is actually good for you then look up Dr Peter Attia on here and watch some of his videos or equally, Nora Gedgaudas (taming the carb craving monster) - her book is well worth a read and WILL change your mind on food forever. I now eat a high fat diet and have been doing so for the best part of a year. I have lost a significant amount of body fat, gained lean muscle and feel much better as a result. Still doubt it? Look up Swedens dietary guidelines on google. Last year (2013) they completed a study of over 16000 scientific papers and as a result now recommed a high fat, low carb diet for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity! This is for real - the Sweeds are leading the way ad the popularity of this diet is gaining pace. It has repaired my appetite (I don't eat so much) as I don't get hungry nearly as easily anymore and as a result eat less (enough to fual myself without piling the fatty pounds on). Peter Attia also shares his blood chemistry on his videos which show amazing levels of good cholesterol, low lipids etc - all as a result of a high fat diet.
As for aspartame - again a foriegn molecule that our bodes don't know how to process. The tumors seen in rats etc should be adequate to make us all err on the side of caution or better still to stop eating such crap in our diets. The eskimo's of the world eat a diet packed with saturated fats yet have an almost zero incidence of heart disease! Eat whole foods that are unprocessed, non GMO and preferably organic. Just because we aren't dying quickly be eating what we do does not make it good or healthy. It doesn't mean that we aren't suffereing serious metabolic damage in the long run. We should be more than cautious if you consider the fact that we now eat marginally less fat than we did back in the 70's, a little more protein and considerably more carbs. Compare disease levels from the 70's to today and we see a huge increase in obesity, diabetes, autoimmune disease, athlerosclerosis etc etc. Our diets are killing us slowly. We are simply eating things we did not evolve to eat. Seriously, do take the time to buy 'Primal body primal mind' by Nora Gedgaudas. It is a real eye opener and covers nutrition like no other book I have ever read. It is also backed up by lots of good science and heavily referenced with a large appendix citing many different studies at the rear. You have an opportunity to improve your health / ability to live to a ripe old age in a healthy manner by reading up on this!
d smith
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
How can you prove that new studies are "much more valuable than old studies"? More employees have sold-out today than ever in recent history. More people are afraid to tell the truth now than in recent history. Not to mention when I ask simple questions to all kinds of companies they cannot give me an answer maybe 50% of the time do I receive an answer to my question. Like pepsico They cannot tell me when they 12st started using dead fetuses in the testing of pepsi cola.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +d smith
New data is generally better than old data because science is a cumulative process. Standards and methodologies evolve over time to produce more accurate results. Over time, scientists come to understand the pitfalls that past researchers may have overlooked. Thus, current data is almost always more valuable than older data because it takes these pitfalls into account. This is why scientists tend to choose more recent research when composing a literature review and why most science myths usually rely on scientific experiments performed in the 1970s, 60s, 50s, and earlier (ex. anti-fluoridation movement).
Reply
·
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
I drink filtered water now (have done for around 6 months) which contains no fluoride. I don't think there is such a thing as a safe amount of this in our diets. The halogens (fluorine, chlorine and bromine) bind to receptors in the body for iodine (especially in the thyroid) effectively blocking the natural path for iodine to operate. Disturbingly, it would seem that adding fluoride to water has no effect on the rates of cavities when comparing areas with fluoridated water to those that don't have it. This is one further example of how we have moved away from a more natural diet over time without really having a full understanding of the implications of the changes we have made.
http://www.cheeseslave.com/top-10-dangers-of-fluoride/
Think I'll err on the side of caution dear government but thanks for trying to make us better!
tbizone2002
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
"no long term effects of GE food." ……..because the effects haven't been studied for generations, which is how long it would take to get substantive results.
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
Jyotsna Gokhale
3 days ago
- Absolutely true - comment among replies below -
"These corporations are targeting your emotional side when they make excuses like feeding the poor. They know fully well that just providing food to the poor they are not solving any problems. For a corporation only one thing counts, power and control through money and dependency."
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 week ago
Anyone else think this is a softer, veiled version of Malala shot by Taliban? This repeated bullying, provoking, attempting get her to equivocate or give up with fraudulent arguments, .... Hope this kid lives and succeeds! This guy is presenting the little girl with a Sophie's Choice, what a Nazi! She is smarter fortunately!
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 week ago
Both these adults are sleazy in attempting to present her and to make her see herself as not mature, not caring about poor dying, passionate against science, .... while really she is coming across as the one with logic, information and concern about health, rights and choices.
..........................................................................................
Jyotsna Gokhale
23 hours ago
Some fraud bully is going on with explicit declaration of "The onus is on the one claiming it is dangerous to begin with" - WRONG, as per law, the seller is supposed to list all ingredients on products sold, and the buyer thereby informed; this is only half complied with when genetically modified food is sold under the same label as normal, so that one may buy bread and not know there are flies in it.
Jyotsna Gokhale
2 days ago
Some is trying emotional blackmail by asking me if he should stop working in soup kitchen - here is my reply.
Do what your conscience tells you, and reap as you sow - if you serve gm stuff and are punished it is not my concern and nor is it my role to instruct you when you drive about where to turn or stop. If someone is using feeding poor as an excuse to make money and starve billions via seed must be bought every year policy, it is mass murder of the most horrendous sort ever. This is apart from all the other horrendous possible effects yet unknown.
Once US medicine and pharmaceutical industry collaborated and used pregnant women as guinea pigs without their knowledge or consent to see what thalidomide and other drugs do - if you learn nothing, your future generations have no hope.
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 day ago
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Strange how tables have turned. Once the disfanchised of Europe and later the world found refuge, life, freedom, chance for making it on one's own work and intelligence - in the new nation of US founded on those values. When did that turn around?
Now, Europe and the rest of the world speaks of human life and health and protects it, from the unethical practices of gm in name of science, while US has no warning on food that could be as dangerous as thalidomide was albeit with different dangers but to the same human life and with same policy being the cause of danger - rich corporations, then pharmaceuticals and now gm, need not spend money to experiment to make certain their products are safe; instead they can buy silence of authorities and goons to attack general public if anyone speaks against use of US and whatever other public (usually from poor nations) is being experimented on.
Abusive behaviour is dealt to those cautioning or asking for labeling of food and other products' contents, and proof or evidence is demanded from public about ill effects of experimental food and other products.
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 second ago
Interesting isn't it - how one can safely bet that those fraudulently spouting "science" as a word too holy to touch when it is defending corporate profits are precisely those that go mum about loyalty to science when it comes to evolution vs creation, and other such matters where votes rather than profit is concerned? Pretty much like those that call themselves prolifers on antiabortion platform for politics (of misogyny and convenience of forcing women back to slavery) are suddenly not quite so caring about already born humans when it comes to right to guns and to using weapons indiscriminately without anyone stopping them in the name of humanity or same human life, never mind other life.
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
John West
2 months ago
Linked comment
"Are you anti-science" "No i am for ethical science" Hahaha. That just summed it up perfectly. A fight worth fighting. Respect to that girl she just owned those babbling douche bags. They keep accusing her of wanting to see foreign children starve as if Monsanto and the corporations give a rats ass what happens to the children as long as they can make money. Besides humanity has survived just fine with what gaya provides, infact we have survived so well that we see a need to bomb, shoot, murder etc each other just because we have not starved yet.
Reply
·
Hide replies
Tyler Hurson
2 months ago
Humanity has survived just fine without electric guitars for millions of years too, but that's no reason to ban electric guitars or place restrictions on its importation and/or production.
Reply
·
2
John West
1 month ago
Last time I checked people do not eat guitars...
Anything you eat becomes part of you including the genes and we do not know the long term consequences, but one thing is for sure fcking with nature usually does not end well.
Luckily for us the corporations have decided without our consent to use us as guinea pigs (sarcasm in case you missed it).
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
Fair enough. But there's still no reason to resist technology simply because it is deemed unnecessary.
There are no long term effects of GE food that are not inherit to food. There's no reason to give GE food any special treatment.
Reply
·
2
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
Firstly I am not resisting technology and by all means they should do such tests. They just should not use us as their test subjects.
Secondly there are already many side effects occurring, such as pesticide resistant pests. And if crops are infused with natural pesticides, how is that healthy for us? Also if it is effecting the genes of the bugs, how can we say for sure that it is not affecting us as well.
What bothers me the most about this GMO debacle is the fact that these corporations are forcing everyone to use it. Also the lack of transparency of these corporations are also worrisome, why do they have such a need to hide everything if they are not doing something they know is wrong. How do we know that they did not alter other genetic codes apart from adding more nutrition and the mythological increased yields that they are advertising, such as making seeds usable only once or making sure that the drug resistant bugs can only be killed by their products. These corporations are already selling tons of chemicals to kill these bugs.
The other problem is that once GMO's have been used in a certain area, the biological matter remains in the soil for ever. So if there is a problem with GMO's then there is no way to cleanse that area of land of the GMO's.
I would trust GMO's much more if they were implemented by a transparent non-profit organisation and not a capitalistic for-profit corporation.
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
Consumers are not being used as test subjects. The technology has already been tested-- there is no need:
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/
Pesticide resistant pests predate GMOs. It's not a GMO problem. It's a farming problem.
No one is forcing you to purchase food. But OK-- I understand you have to eat it to survive. But there's no reason to discriminate against GE food in the first place because the scientific literature has revealed that GE food is substantially equivalent to non-GE food. All 'GMO' means is that the food has been genetically engineered. Genetic engineering is just one of many methods of breeding, along with selective breeding, hybridization, and irradiation. There's nothing inherently harmful about any of these methods of breeding.
Golden Rice is being implemented by a non-profit organization with complete transparency. Sadly, liberal activist organizations still oppose it. Look it up.
Reply
·
d smith
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
That is not what this video says. The corporate bought female is saying just that. WE ARE THE TEST RATS. Do you contradict reality all day long?
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +d smith
Parent is incorrect. The tests have already been done. There is no need to use the general consumer as a test subject.
Reply
·
Jimi Jones
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
The 90-day tests?
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago (edited) +Jimi Jones
90+ day tests have been performed as well.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23253614
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
Reply
·
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
"substantially equivalent" that is a contradictory statement. Besides if they are equivalent then why fix something that isn't broken?
"Genetic engineering is just one of many methods of breeding, along with selective breeding, hybridization, and irradiation." That is just a ignorant thing to say. While irradiation probably comes closest, it still does not involve direct genetic modification and if irradiation has proven to cause cancer over time, how can you say that direct altering of genes is safe?
The truth of whether GMO's are harmful can only really be assessed on humans after at least one generation of people are tested including their offspring. If your 90+days missed something, then keep in mind that it is our generation that has condemned and destroyed the lives of our children and their childrens children. Is that really a risk worth taking to supposedly feed some starving foreign children? What has been done can not be undone. If you open pandora's box there is no going back.
Even if the GMO's were implemented and those starving children are fed like the corporations are saying, it will only cause further population expansion and you will further down in time have more starving children and bigger problems like diseases caused by overpopulation, so that argument does not stand.
Also like I said before, what is to stop these corporations to implement a secret part in the code in order to control the future supply of food? That is not a too far fetched theory considering the capabilities and possibilities of GMO's and the fact that the corporations seem to be in overdrive to force it onto the world.
Modern science is unlocking many possibilities, but these possibilities are becoming more and more dangerous. If we are not careful our science will be our undoing and it is the next generation that will pay the price for our ignorance and overeagerness of exploiting knowledge and technology that we have not yet fully comprehended.
Reply
·
3
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
How do you think selective breeding works? All four methods involve the direct or indirect manipulation of the genome. The DNA is being changed.
Genetic engineering is not inherently harmful. Again-- it's just a technique of breeding among many; a wrench in a toolbox. If you're going to claim its potentially more dangerous than selective breeding, you're going to have to have a genetic basis for that assertion. Where are your 5 year studies proving selectively bred food is safe?
There will never be a point where a single business controls the world's food supply because modern anti-trust laws would prevent this.
"Why fix what's not broken" -- that's highly subjective. There are some people who would use that same argument against electric guitars.
Reply
·
1
John West
1 month ago (edited) +Tyler Hurson
Lol. Back to the guitar argument. Firstly no-one needs guitars to survive. We need food, water and shelter. Secondly a guitar is a instrument for entertainment and does not alter you genetics apart from the micro radiation from the electric fields surrounding the coils at the pick-up section or from the speakers. These magnetic fields have proven to give cancer over a long term. But still that is a far step behind in direct genetic modification.
There is a big difference between cross/selective breeding and direct modification of Genes. They can literally rewrite the entire genome sequence and like I said before there is no way of telling what exactly the corporations have put into the code.
The possibilities of this technology can be ridiculous. Take for example a genetically modified apple that has been created to grow protein, for all you know the code used to create the code could be coming from a pig and in effect while eating a apple you are consuming pork and you would never know, because the way you put it, we can just trust the corporations.
"There will never be a point where a single business controls the world's food supply because modern anti-trust laws would prevent this." You know that is bullshit. Laws are not written in stone and are constantly adjusted to suit the needs of the minority. America of which is the best example of this.
The capitalist system is the breeding ground for monopolies and the too big to fail horse crap and the trickle down economics joke.
The same corporations that have made millions if not billions on food speculation whilst the children that they are now supposedly trying to feed with their GMO's were dying by the millions.
The day the corporations grow a conscious is probably the day all of their CEO's and managers commit collective suicide.
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago (edited) +John West
Most genetic modifications only involve 1-8 genes. Genomes contain tens of thousands of genes. How does genetic engineering amount to 'rewriting the entire genome?'
There's a lot of genetic fallacies in your post. For one, apples already contain protein-- as does all biological matter. Also, inserting a pig gene into an apple tree's genome does not make that apple tree's fruit more "porky."
Here's a good e-book on Genetics:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/ebooks/essentials-of-genetics-8/contents
Anti-trust laws prevent monopolies. Anti-trust laws have and will continue to be enforced. There's no reason to believe that anti-trust laws will be abolished in the near future. At best, your claim is speculation.
Reply
·
1
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson +John West
Tyler, modern wheat is one example of that exact type of manipulation you describe. We have been playing with genetics for quite some time now. Modern wheat also demonstrates the problems we also encounter by screwing with our food. With a much higher gluten concentraton than its historical counterparts we are now seeing a great increase in Crohn's disease which has very strong links to gluten. Correlation is not causation but when these people stop eating gluten and switch to non-allergy causing foods their symptoms frequently improve. We hear that roundup is this safe substance as it doesn't react with human genes yet new research tells us that it does damage to our gut flora. That's a whole subject by itself - we have 10 times more bacteria in our bodies than actual cells! We are truly symbiotic lifeforms and having these herbicide / pesticide residues running through us day in day out really is like playing a game of russian roulette. We know that cancer and autoimmune disease is on the rise dramatically yet we don't know why yet. Our food is quite probably the single greatest cause of the degeneration of our health than we have ever seen in history.
If cross breeding alone can generate more dangerous strains of food then imagine the potential of a gene mutation that is completely unnatural. Sounds like scare tactics or being overdramatic as its just one to eight genes right so not much damage to be done. If we look at genetic predisposition to certain disease however we often find that single genes can be responsible for multiple fold increases in risk! This is not science fiction but reality- single gene mutations do really matter. To take a foriegn gene and insert it into a species at some random location in its genome also carries great risks. We are now finding that single genes can and do carry out multiple different functions and to know how these may affect us is exceptionally difficult to know. Science costs money and when big investments are made, big business want results. We simply don't know how these Frankenfoods affect us today. Our best knowledge is that they don't kill us or make us noticably sick in the short term. Insiduous changes that may not express themselves for several generations may literally be causing changes to our DNA as we discuss the topic.
I personally love science and the amazing future it has to offer us if we apply it correctly but changng the code of a programming language we don't yet fully understand could be devastating in the long run. The potential gains are staggering but the pitfalls are also considerably greater. This progress allows us to cross breeds and create huge variety at an ever growing pace. Australia introduced the cane toad to get rid of beetles eating the crops. Science had an answer but science was wrong. The cane toad didn't much take to eating the beetles and worse still had the unexpected side effect of wiping out many of its indigenous competiors. It was and remains a disaster.
Today we have fields of GMO spreading their pollen to non GMO crops and we can't reverse it! We are changing the face of the planet and we can't change it back. Trying to feed the world is not the soultion to our problems but reducing the population over an extended perod of time. Imagine a planet with half a billion humans. 1/14th the amount of carbon production, the food required, the need to mine etc etc all drastically reduced. We have seen the most amazing and rapid changes in our lifetimes. There won't be many generations to go before something really has to give. We are disease to the place we call home, the single worst lifeform to have ever walked the earth and we have barely got started yet. Antibiotics have created superbugs. We are like the red queen in Alice in Wonderland, always running but not getting anywhere. Nature catches up and we run some more. We have to stop playing with our food. Science? Yes please but lets get to know the programming language before we hit a wrong button and install a virus into the system!
Reply
·
SpaceHawk13
1 month ago +John West
So you are against GM foods but you have no problem selling us all fish pumped up on steroids?
Reply
·
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
Ill admit that I do not know too much about genes, but I do know that corporations can never be trusted as their sole purpose is not the betterment of humanity. They just try at all costs to improve the numbers on the balance sheets, regardless of the consequences on ground level.
+Glenn Carr
Thanks, that was brilliantly written and a very interesting to read.
+SpaceHawk13
I am a electrician by trade, so Im not in the business of selling fish ;).
Just for interest sakes, the guy who thought of the idea of the DNA double helix (forgot his name), actually thought of it while tripping on acid/LSD.
Reply
·
5
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +John West
Thanks. Great little fact there at the bottom by the way. I always thought it Kekule's discovery of benzene but you are right. Guess you would have to be off your head to concieve such a structure!
Reply
·
1
d smith
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
There's no need to force un-proven anything on people unless you do not like or respect them. This is evil by it's nature. Prove it 1st then let people see all of the info. If everyone were to see the original aspartame test that it cause tumors on the brains of rats. They may not use it, but this has been hidden now for over 20 years.
Reply
·
5
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
Corporations generally don't make money unless humanity benefits.
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +d smith
New studies are much more valuable than old studies, especially if those old studies are methodologically flawed. Aspartame is one of the most studied food ingredients. It has been deemed safe at current levels of consumption by the scientific community.
Reply
·
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
If only it were true. Corporations do make money time and time again through bad products. Al they have to do is to convince us that their product is a good thing. Take margarine for example. It has been outselling butter for many years because low fat / saturated fat in the diet is good for us right? We have the likes of flora pro-active that helps lower cholesterol (at a pretty penny per packet) and low cholesterol is a good thing right? Wrong! Cholesterol is essential for good health - our brains house 1/4 of the cholesterol in our bodies in fact and our livers are capable of producing 400 times more cholesterol than what we typcally eat! Cholesterol is essential for the production of vitamin D when acted on by sunlight in our skin for example. Any product that artificially lowers cholesterol should be used with extreme caution including the widely used statin drugs. Statins actually damage the liver and our ability to produce coenzyme Q10 (an essential powerful antioxidant produced in the body). Some really poor unscientific conclusons have been drawn over time about fat in the diet. Did you know that margarine is a very unnatural fat that our bodies don't know how to process? It is produced by heating vegetable oils in the presence of a catalyst to introduce hydrogen atoms into it to bind fat molecules together and make it a solid at higher temperatures. The end product at that stage is a grey fat that smells bad. They then bleach the product to remove the grey colour, add yellow colouring, stabilisers, flavourings etc to make it look like that product we have safely been consuming for eons - butter! Serously, don't beleve the hype. There is not some large government orginisation sat in the background testing away and doing real scientific research with these products. They get passed and unless some obvious detrimental effects of the product rear their ugly head, we go on consuming this crap in the belief that they are doing us good! If you don't believe the high fat diet thing is actually good for you then look up Dr Peter Attia on here and watch some of his videos or equally, Nora Gedgaudas (taming the carb craving monster) - her book is well worth a read and WILL change your mind on food forever. I now eat a high fat diet and have been doing so for the best part of a year. I have lost a significant amount of body fat, gained lean muscle and feel much better as a result. Still doubt it? Look up Swedens dietary guidelines on google. Last year (2013) they completed a study of over 16000 scientific papers and as a result now recommed a high fat, low carb diet for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity! This is for real - the Sweeds are leading the way ad the popularity of this diet is gaining pace. It has repaired my appetite (I don't eat so much) as I don't get hungry nearly as easily anymore and as a result eat less (enough to fual myself without piling the fatty pounds on). Peter Attia also shares his blood chemistry on his videos which show amazing levels of good cholesterol, low lipids etc - all as a result of a high fat diet.
As for aspartame - again a foriegn molecule that our bodes don't know how to process. The tumors seen in rats etc should be adequate to make us all err on the side of caution or better still to stop eating such crap in our diets. The eskimo's of the world eat a diet packed with saturated fats yet have an almost zero incidence of heart disease! Eat whole foods that are unprocessed, non GMO and preferably organic. Just because we aren't dying quickly be eating what we do does not make it good or healthy. It doesn't mean that we aren't suffereing serious metabolic damage in the long run. We should be more than cautious if you consider the fact that we now eat marginally less fat than we did back in the 70's, a little more protein and considerably more carbs. Compare disease levels from the 70's to today and we see a huge increase in obesity, diabetes, autoimmune disease, athlerosclerosis etc etc. Our diets are killing us slowly. We are simply eating things we did not evolve to eat. Seriously, do take the time to buy 'Primal body primal mind' by Nora Gedgaudas. It is a real eye opener and covers nutrition like no other book I have ever read. It is also backed up by lots of good science and heavily referenced with a large appendix citing many different studies at the rear. You have an opportunity to improve your health / ability to live to a ripe old age in a healthy manner by reading up on this!
Reply
·
4
d smith
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
How can you prove that new studies are "much more valuable than old studies"? More employees have sold-out today than ever in recent history. More people are afraid to tell the truth now than in recent history. Not to mention when I ask simple questions to all kinds of companies they cannot give me an answer maybe 50% of the time do I receive an answer to my question. Like pepsico They cannot tell me when they 12st started using dead fetuses in the testing of pepsi cola.
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +d smith
New data is generally better than old data because science is a cumulative process. Standards and methodologies evolve over time to produce more accurate results. Over time, scientists come to understand the pitfalls that past researchers may have overlooked. Thus, current data is almost always more valuable than older data because it takes these pitfalls into account. This is why scientists tend to choose more recent research when composing a literature review and why most science myths usually rely on scientific experiments performed in the 1970s, 60s, 50s, and earlier (ex. anti-fluoridation movement).
Reply
·
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
I drink filtered water now (have done for around 6 months) which contains no fluoride. I don't think there is such a thing as a safe amount of this in our diets. The halogens (fluorine, chlorine and bromine) bind to receptors in the body for iodine (especially in the thyroid) effectively blocking the natural path for iodine to operate. Disturbingly, it would seem that adding fluoride to water has no effect on the rates of cavities when comparing areas with fluoridated water to those that don't have it. This is one further example of how we have moved away from a more natural diet over time without really having a full understanding of the implications of the changes we have made.
http://www.cheeseslave.com/top-10-dangers-of-fluoride/
Think I'll err on the side of caution dear government but thanks for trying to make us better!
Reply
·
5
tbizone2002
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
"no long term effects of GE food." ……..because the effects haven't been studied for generations, which is how long it would take to get substantive results.
Reply
·
2
methylphosphatePOET
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
Electric guitars? Are you really that dumb? When was the last time someone was forced to eat electric guitars, stupid?
Reply
·
6
skay n the maybees
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
i'd die with out my elec guitar.i even go thru improv withdrawl if i dont play it for a couple dayz
Reply
·
Black Death 1347
1 month ago
Every time I eat an electric guitar, it's purely voluntary.
Reply
·
3
Colleen Maranda
1 month ago (edited) +Tyler Hurson -
Impressionable young people could wander by here and read your strong encouragement for them to trust the biggest threat to humanity and this planet - corporatism. Pharma Drugs. Tobacco. Processed Foods. Cosmetics. Chemical Agriculture. Corporations peddle toxicity that is sustaining appalling global misery and devastating essential bio-diversity.
Reply
·
3
Colleen Maranda
1 month ago
Global food security could lay in the rescue of abundant, wild varieties of rice with their uncontaminated genes (from native swamps and wetlands in remote, pristine parts of the world). Over-cultivation has displaced many wild populations of food sources; we need them to be located and restored. Traditional people could then be consulted about how they used the rice in the past. It is thought that ancient DNA is crucial in resisting disease. "Diseases in natural environments tend to reach some sort of equilibrium, where the disease doesn't kill the host population but just occurs at a very low level” (Plant pathologist Andrew Geering, QAAF).
GMO = God Move Over
Move Out, Mon$anto -- corrupt corp. & corrupted product.
Reply
·
3
Kiane Lee
1 month ago +Glenn Carr
just read your comments & wanted to acknowledge your wisdom and way of thinking. thank you for all the knowledge you dropped here! you have my respect! & I will definitely be checking out that book you recommended.
Reply
·
Fifty OneFifty
1 month ago
Typical liberal attitude, +John West . If a CEO gets a big salary despite loosing money, you call him incompetent. But any corporation that pays attention to the bottom line for stockholders (as they are required to do) are pirates. Scientific analysis would indicate only a small part of the population should have a sensitivity to gluten, but you seem foresquare behind this anti-gluten hysteria, with a similar unfounded attitude towards GMO's. Labeling would be fine were it not for anti anything new hysteria fueled by advocacy groups. Plenty of people would get behind a "Your food was touched by Muslims" label but you wouldn't stand for it and neither would I.
Reply
·
melogardener
1 month ago
Whoa! Good on you for telling it like it is. This young woman knows and feels the truth of what she is saying and she puts these two bullies to shame for their ugly arrogant lies and all for them chasing the money. We have been buying and building up heritage seeds for years trying to establish others in recognizing the fact that all this GMO'd junk should be labeled and we should all have the choice of knowing what is in our food. It is a long hall but Rachel has just put some fire on the burner for me...she knows the truth and speaks it while these mongers still are in the money...they disgust me because for their age they should know something and know better but they don't!
Reply
·
Kiane Lee
1 month ago +melogardener
agreed.
Reply
·
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
"Corporations generally don't make money unless humanity benefits." You do of course realise that one of the most profitable endeavors is war and that has not exactly benefited humanity, unless you consider depopulation a pro.
+Fifty OneFifty
The whole capitalist system is screwed and the monopolies created by the corporations is the best example of it. Until recently the corporations were making millions on food speculation, whilst millions were starving around the world. That is how much of a conscious these scum have.
"Your food was touched by Muslims" That is just a stupid comparison as most muslims have a far higher standard of food than the corporate mcdonald crap. In fact it is a good idea and is already being used, ever read the logo "Halal supported".
You are obviously not a wealthy corporate, because if you were I highly doubt you would be commenting on here, which makes me believe that you are a ignorant kool-aid drinking sheep. Is it really so hard to understand that I and people like me prefer to know what is on our plates? With your attitude they could be serving you pig shit with artificial flavoring and msg's and you would never know.
Reply
·
ke7inM
1 month ago
i am now dumber for reading this outlandish comment.
Reply
·
John West
1 month ago +ke7inM
Good for you, now please go and be retarded somewhere else.
Reply
·
3
Bill Girard
1 month ago +ke7inM
"I am now dumber for reading this outlandish comment."
1) I think we'd all concede the point that you are dumber… than a box of hair, I'd wager.
2) However, what caused you to be dumber is unclear, and how are we to take the word of someone as dumb as you that it was reading that was responsible? Especially when reading usually works the other way round, yes?
You have a vested interest in ascribing your deepening dumbth to an external cause, and it is this bias that makes your explanation unscientific and wholly untrustworthy.
Just like Monsanto has a vested interest in describing their GMO products as healthy and beneficial because they stand to make (and in fact have already made) billions of dollars off GMO sales. Just like the Koch Brothers' studies criticizing climate change, or the studies by Big Tobacco that showed cigarette smoking to be both harmless to our health and non-addictive. Conflict of interest engenders bias, which makes it unscientific and untrustworthy.
3) I apologize that you had to read this comment, and for the dumberification you may have suffered because of it.
Reply
·
Sineater35
4 weeks ago
LMFAO, "ethical science" is the joke of the century. How many ethical scientists can you think of?!?!? 0. that's right. They wouldn't be in science if they were ethical and moral.
Reply
·
Giorgio W
4 weeks ago
Ethical meaning what's best for humanity and the planet not just themselves, which scientist are.
Reply
·
1
Sineater35
4 weeks ago
No there not,lol all they care about is there own pet project and getting the data they want.....they could give a f%$k less what happens to the rest of us. Case in point: HAARP.
Reply
·
Grig Rasputin
3 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
Is Monsanto paying you to spew that crap or are you really that blind?
Reply
·
Grig Rasputin
3 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
... said the corporate shill...
Reply
·
Nicole Howard
3 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
How can you say w an iota of conviction that "there are no long term effects of GE foods...." when there have been NO LONG TERM STUDIES TESTS of GMO "foods"
Reply
·
AgentNolies
3 weeks ago +Nicole Howard
yes, there has. your ignorance is showing child.
Reply
·
Jason Alsbrook
3 weeks ago
Amen well said
Reply
·
xxoface
3 weeks ago +AgentNolies
What would be an acceptable long term study? Take, ohhhh, 10,000 people from birth, feed 5000 the typical American diet(frosted flakes, McDonald's here and there, processed dinner foods from a box, etc.) and feed the other 5000 immaculate vegetables, some fruit and some meat. Watch both groups for 50 years. I'll take that over "90 day studies" or just stocking the shelves at grocery stores and letting the whole country have at it with absolutely no proof as to what kinds of consumption damage the body. The way people have been eating for the past few decades is not a proper study. I would be dumb to say your disease came from your diet, but I would be dumb to say your disease did not come from your diet. If you can't prove something 100% then your argument isn't good enough. Keep trying.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
3 weeks ago +xxoface
trying to be cute? Its has been done with pigs. An observational report from observations farmers have reported from pigs that have feed exclusively on GMO crops for the last 20 years. Would you like the name of the report so you can read it yourself or are you just gonna continue on with your hyperbole?
Reply
·
AgentNolies
3 weeks ago +xxoface
first of all nothing in science is 100 percent.
You should know that, unless you're ignorant of science that is are you? And you're trying to shift the burden of proof . Come back little girl when you have something other than hyperbole
Reply
·
Sean Henderson
2 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
Golden Rice was a PR campaign by Monsanto because their name was already mud for the way they polluted Alabama, with dioxins and phthalates. So they give away the golden rice to help out their image, and like the girl in the video said, it did not work. Tyler you said,"the scientific literature has revealed that GE food is substantially equivalent to non-GE food" "The scientific literature", like the little girl said, was all provided by the companies that stood to gain from it. Monsanto invented the term "substantially equivalent" to avoid safety testing. This was after they proved that their GMO products were different enough to allow a patent. Monsanto has been patenting the USDA seed bank stock. Genetics that they had no role in and have been in the USDA seed bank for decades are now being patented by Monsanto. Monsanto is buy up mom and pop seed companies and shutting them down. They want to own the food supply. They are not nice.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
2 weeks ago +Sean Henderson
the patent number for those dacades old seeds that Monsanto are supposedly are patenting should be easy to find, please post them. (You won't )
Reply
·
Sean Henderson
2 weeks ago +AgentNolies
How about you do a little research for yourself. You can work Google right? Do you need everything handed to you. Look into it. Maybe start with one of the 20+ documentaries about Monsanto, or just look at their legal battles, who they sue(farmer) vs. how many people/ countries have sued Monsanto. If you ignore what the big media tell you and you look just below the surface(not very deep at all) you will see. If you listen to FOX,ABC,CBS, MSNBC etc. Then Monsanto has the answers to world hunger, bugs, shelf life etc. . . . But then ask the farmers who grow it and how it affects their animals. do your own research.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
2 weeks ago (edited) +Sean Henderson
Documentaries mean nothing. Any documentary is biases towards the makers view (not just Monsanto ones).
Go read the Monsanto lawsuits ( you'll see that those farmers were STEALING the seeds. You won't ). Please post 1 of these lawsuits that justify you.
I dont care What media says, only the science. (Maybe u should try it )
Stop being Vague child.
Reply
·
Sean Henderson
2 weeks ago +AgentNolies
Those farmers fields were contaminated by Monsanto's test plots. That is very different from stealing. Monsanto never had to win any of those cases with the farmers. The farmer would go bankrupt trying to defend himself, that is not the same as winning against the farmer. It is just defeating the farmer financially. Fox news is just as slanted as any documentary. You and I will not agree. You are championing a company that does not want to make the world a better place, it wants to control food.
Reply
·
1
AgentNolies
1 week ago (edited) +Sean Henderson
Which Monsanto has no problem with, but when said farmer harvested and replanted ONLY the Monsanto crop with out proper payment that is stealing as the courts found. Cite the court case we shall see if your "bankruptcy" claim holds water. Those farmer lost via a jury. Not money.
I did not cite fox. Why r u bring them up?
1.000,000,000 lives directly fed do to Monsanto crops
Zero deaths ir injuries connected. Prove your point, present evidence.
Reply
·
Xavier McCloud
2 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
GMO's weren't MADE FOR science or to HELP anyone, they were made so you can't grow the seeds of the plants, they were made so the shelf life is longer, they were made because of money.
Reply
·
1
Xavier McCloud
2 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
Tyler you are obviously a book worm and believe everything you read that is said to be true. GMO's would not be good for you.
Reply
·
1
Xavier McCloud
2 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
LMFAO@ pesticides are harmless! Try spraying some in your eyes or down your throat and see if you sing the same song. This comes from someone who has actually used them before. Some even burn your skin!
Reply
·
1
Jyotsna Gokhale
3 days ago (edited) +John West -
site did not allow a simple thumbs up so here it is -
Reply
·
Max Apitz-Grossman
1 week ago +Glenn Carr
Damn dude, that is a ton of writing. Good work!
Reply
·
1
John West
1 week ago +Tyler Hurson
Wow, seems like the people want to hang you because of your point of view or maybe they are just being racist towards your guitar. At least you are not going along to get along. Respect.
Peace!
Reply
·
1
casualinsomniac
1 week ago
Whats hilarious is the suggestion that children aren't already starving in those countries. This guy acts like all that food is going to the locals, when that couldn't be father from the truth.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
1 week ago +casualinsomniac
We need to get ups on this.
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
6 days ago +casualinsomniac -
He is really sleazy in trying to bully someone who is being reasonable and honest and is right, while he is dodging about to make her look unreasonable (passionate? she is cool throughout!) - as for starvation of children and others of poor lands, not only it has been going on, while it went on rich nations drowned mountains of food just to keep prices up in the world and meanwhile lands in those countries (of Africa and south of US) are used for cultivating produce that is used in rich nations but is not essential (cocoa, coffee, .... bananas, ...) and the land in rich countries is used for not food as much as for other expensive luxuries that can be lived without (vineyards in Europe, corn for fuel in US). As for gm crops, the farmers in poor nations can go into vicious cycle of dire poverty having to buy seed perpetually, so it really is all lose lose for the poor.
Reply
·
1
Ell z
5 days ago
No. No it didn't actually. We barely struggled. We've got some things wrong with how we do things but humans provided by exploiting resources. Not "gaya" or I'm pretty sure it's Gaia.
Regardless either way you look at it, if we continue to support scientists, we'll find a way to be able to produce food without hurting anything. And the only way we can get there is through consumerism funding. Which is OUR fault for supporting it. Or our parents w/e.
If you don't agree with me, ask yourself this, when was the last time you donated money or information in order to better our food technologies?
Reply
·
John West
5 days ago (edited) +Ell z
Thank you for correcting my grammar.
You know the old saying "You are what you eat" and that saying has time and again proven to be correct.
What in your opinion would we become if for several generations we only eat purely modified artificial food? Just imagine the effect that McDonald had on obesity in America and even that had traces of actual food.
I take it that you do not like destroying nature or hurting animals and I can respect that. I do agree with you that it is a project worth investing and studying, but we must approach it with far more cation than making a quick buck for some capitalist corporation at the expense of every ecosystems on the planet.
Reply
·
1
Ell z
5 days ago
Absolutely, but we become hypocritical when we point the finger. I'm not exempt either, but as a world wide community we should be pointing out the real problems which is big rich elites and terrible governments. Not gm food itself. Times are different and we cannot rely on mother nature to stop people from starving in africa
Reply
·
John West
5 days ago (edited)+Ell z
I live in Africa, trust me the fertility of Africa if properly managed could probably feed the world several times over. The only reason why Africans are starving is because they are populating quicker than what the current agricultural techniques can keep up.
Do yourself a favor go onto Google earth and zoom into Central Africa and then you compare it to Europe. Im not that I am saying that all of our jungles should be turned into plantations, but there are other healthier options to the problems of starvation, other than biological monsters designed by untrustworthy people.
Besides by only feeding the African population without teaching Africans modern agriculture, you are only dooming them into further overpopulation that is dependent on foreign aid. If that foreign aid disappears, just imagine the famine and starvation that will take place.
These corporations are targeting your emotional side when they make excuses like feeding the poor. They know fully well that just providing food to the poor they are not solving any problems. For a corporation only one thing counts, power and control through money and dependency.
Reply
·
Ell z
5 days ago
I dont support corporations, but I support engineering food to make it last longer and provide benefits which are unnatural
Reply
·
KbcBerlin
5 days ago +Ell z
The more important issue is; mono culture, which is a great threat to future food supplies.
Also the quest for monopoly of food supply
Private industry seeks monopoly or as near as law will allow. .
Food is already unavailable to poor people ,because of market manipulations for profit.
GM is one more nail in the coffin of diversity, and non monopolised seed supply.
AgentNolies
5 days ago +KbcBerlin
And I always thought it was the local warlord controlling access to food.
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
3 days ago +John West -
Absolutely true -
"These corporations are targeting your emotional side when they make excuses like feeding the poor. They know fully well that just providing food to the poor they are not solving any problems. For a corporation only one thing counts, power and control through money and dependency."
Reply
·
AgentNolies
3 days ago +Jyotsna Gokhale
So I should not work at the soup kitchen?
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
2 days ago +AgentNolies -
Do what your conscience tells you, and reap as you sow - if you serve gm stuff and are punished it is not my concern and nor is it my role to instruct you when you drive about where to turn or stop. If someone is using feeding poor as an excuse to make money and starve billions via seed must be bought every year policy, it is mass murder of the most horrendous sort ever. This is apart from all the other horrendous possible effects yet unknown.
Once US medicine and pharmaceutical industry collaborated and used pregnant women as guinea pigs without their knowledge or consent to see what thalidomide and other drugs do - if you learn nothing, your future generations have no hope.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
2 days ago +Jyotsna Gokhale
So do you have any evidence to show me or are you going to use an argument from fear like a f**** street preacher?v?
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 day ago +AgentNolies -
That was uncalled for rudeness, and this is the last of any possible conversation with you. Evidence of ill effects of thalidomide emerged only after a huge number of children were born in horrible condition and if that is not enough caution for you by all means take thalidomide and gm and whatever else you like, there is plenty to experiment with yourself. If anyone else is injured or ill or damaged due to your intransigence on denying labels on food you will be the one guilty of sin of damaging human lives, perhaps more.
The very way you people are rude and making personal attacks is suspicious enough for anyone sensible to stay away from what you are defending, and demand the labeling of food and all products sold in US. Makes no sense to be behind Europe and many other nations of the world in everything but weapons.
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 day ago (edited)
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Strange how tables have turned. Once the disfranchised of Europe and later the world found refuge, life, freedom, chance for making it on one's own work and intelligence - in the new nation of US founded on those values. When did that turn around?
Now, Europe and the rest of the world speaks of human life and health and protects it, from the unethical practices of gm in name of science, while US has no warning on food that could be as dangerous as thalidomide was albeit with different dangers but to the same human life and with same policy being the cause of danger - rich corporations, then pharmaceuticals and now gm, need not spend money to experiment to make certain their products are safe; instead they can buy silence of authorities and goons to attack general public if anyone speaks against use of US and whatever other public (usually from poor nations) is being experimented on.
Abusive behaviour is dealt to those cautioning or asking for labeling of food and other products' contents, and proof or evidence is demanded from public about ill effects of experimental food and other products.
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Reply
·
AgentNolies
1 day ago +Jyotsna Gokhale
The onus is on the one claiming it is dangerous to begin with ( for that is a positive claim) they've already proved it is safe be at 20 years of research.
How was I rude, by accurately describing your argument technique.
It is not a personal attack at you its one at the argument itself. You did not provide any evidence for your argument only fear and you continue to do so in this coming as well.
Lose the right to life you say? give me 1 verified account of people being hurt by eating gm crops the have past its countries standards for safety.
Reply
·
1
sicDaVid
1 day ago
+AgentNolies What 20 years of research? The modifications very from crop to crop but I do have this to say. Round up was origanly pushed as organic and the label was changed soon there after. My point is Monsanto lies and BTW they do their own studies. They lie about those too. One thing you should know. Monsanto is in Missouri. Look up what part of the world has the lowest sperm count. Yup, It's monsanto's back yard. There is just one of several facts you will dismiss because you are blinded by corporate love. You and Mr wonderful should get a room.
Reply
·
1
Samia Mahammed
20 hours ago +AgentNolies
I love how people listen to some youtube debates, and suddenly they realize all these philosophical debate hacks: the onus is on x, because x claims y, and y is a z-claim. Shut up. Any claim puts an onus on someone in the sense that it must be justified in some way, if it is to be rationally required to accept by anyone. Some of the problems with GMOs depend on patent laws, first, and the spreading of genes from GMO crops to wild plant life. If you claim that there are no risks with spreading a multitude of genes amongst wild plants, then there certainly is an "onus" on you. Especially considering that some of these genes are used to fend of pests etc.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
14 hours ago +sicDaVid
good thing the study I was referring to was not only Monsanto but independent bodies as well.
if the sperm thing is true is that causation or is that correlation one does not equal the other you should know this.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
14 hours ago (edited) +Samia Mahammed
Never claimed their was no risk of gene spreading. So your point is moot, due to it being a fabrication on your part.
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 second ago +Samia Mahammed -
Interesting isn't it - how one can safely bet that those fraudulently spouting "science" as a word too holy to touch when it is defending corporate profits are precisely those that go mum about loyalty to science when it comes to evolution vs creation, and other such matters where votes rather than profit is concerned? Pretty much like those that call themselves prolifers on antiabortion platform for politics (of misogyny and convenience of forcing women back to slavery) are suddenly not quite so caring about already born humans when it comes to right to guns and to using weapons indiscriminately without anyone stopping them in the name of humanity or same human life, never mind other life.
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
My own comments:-
.......................................................
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 day ago
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Strange how tables have turned. Once the disfanchised of Europe and later the world found refuge, life, freedom, chance for making it on one's own work and intelligence - in the new nation of US founded on those values. When did that turn around?
Now, Europe and the rest of the world speaks of human life and health and protects it, from the unethical practices of gm in name of science, while US has no warning on food that could be as dangerous as thalidomide was albeit with different dangers but to the same human life and with same policy being the cause of danger - rich corporations, then pharmaceuticals and now gm, need not spend money to experiment to make certain their products are safe; instead they can buy silence of authorities and goons to attack general public if anyone speaks against use of US and whatever other public (usually from poor nations) is being experimented on.
Abusive behaviour is dealt to those cautioning or asking for labeling of food and other products' contents, and proof or evidence is demanded from public about ill effects of experimental food and other products.
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Jyotsna Gokhale
2 days ago
Some is trying emotional blackmail by asking me if he should stop working in soup kitchen - here is my reply.
Do what your conscience tells you, and reap as you sow - if you serve gm stuff and are punished it is not my concern and nor is it my role to instruct you when you drive about where to turn or stop. If someone is using feeding poor as an excuse to make money and starve billions via seed must be bought every year policy, it is mass murder of the most horrendous sort ever. This is apart from all the other horrendous possible effects yet unknown.
Once US medicine and pharmaceutical industry collaborated and used pregnant women as guinea pigs without their knowledge or consent to see what thalidomide and other drugs do - if you learn nothing, your future generations have no hope.
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
23 hours ago
Some fraud bully is going on with explicit declaration of "The onus is on the one claiming it is dangerous to begin with" - WRONG, as per law, the seller is supposed to list all ingredients on products sold, and the buyer thereby informed; this is only half complied with when genetically modified food is sold under the same label as normal, so that one may buy bread and not know there are flies in it.
Jyotsna Gokhale
3 days ago
- Absolutely true - comment among replies below -
"These corporations are targeting your emotional side when they make excuses like feeding the poor. They know fully well that just providing food to the poor they are not solving any problems. For a corporation only one thing counts, power and control through money and dependency."
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 week ago
Anyone else think this is a softer, veiled version of Malala shot by Taliban? This repeated bullying, provoking, attempting get her to equivocate or give up with fraudulent arguments, .... Hope this kid lives and succeeds! This guy is presenting the little girl with a Sophie's Choice, what a Nazi! She is smarter fortunately!
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 week ago
Both these adults are sleazy in attempting to present her and to make her see herself as not mature, not caring about poor dying, passionate against science, .... while really she is coming across as the one with logic, information and concern about health, rights and choices.
Reply
·
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
"14 year old girl picks fight with bully TV host - and WINS! "
is the title for a you tube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIXER_yZUBg&google_comment_id=z13me3gjgyvwzhopr04ccp5zlsjyjlraxlw0k
that features an interesting debate, interesting on more than the obvious level about a debate where one side is a fourteen year old girl.
These are some of the comments, some mine and then long conversations over some others, some illuminaiting on the main topic and then others illuminating on how paid goons harrass those that are concerned about public health, right to life and right to know being adversely impacted by corporate profits at the expense of human life.
Main part, informative comments to begin with, is included in some comments, separated here:-
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
Firstly I am not resisting technology and by all means they should do such tests. They just should not use us as their test subjects.
Secondly there are already many side effects occurring, such as pesticide resistant pests. And if crops are infused with natural pesticides, how is that healthy for us? Also if it is effecting the genes of the bugs, how can we say for sure that it is not affecting us as well.
What bothers me the most about this GMO debacle is the fact that these corporations are forcing everyone to use it. Also the lack of transparency of these corporations are also worrisome, why do they have such a need to hide everything if they are not doing something they know is wrong. How do we know that they did not alter other genetic codes apart from adding more nutrition and the mythological increased yields that they are advertising, such as making seeds usable only once or making sure that the drug resistant bugs can only be killed by their products. These corporations are already selling tons of chemicals to kill these bugs.
The other problem is that once GMO's have been used in a certain area, the biological matter remains in the soil for ever. So if there is a problem with GMO's then there is no way to cleanse that area of land of the GMO's.
I would trust GMO's much more if they were implemented by a transparent non-profit organisation and not a capitalistic for-profit corporation.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
Consumers are not being used as test subjects. The technology has already been tested-- there is no need:
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/
Pesticide resistant pests predate GMOs. It's not a GMO problem. It's a farming problem.
No one is forcing you to purchase food. But OK-- I understand you have to eat it to survive. But there's no reason to discriminate against GE food in the first place because the scientific literature has revealed that GE food is substantially equivalent to non-GE food. All 'GMO' means is that the food has been genetically engineered. Genetic engineering is just one of many methods of breeding, along with selective breeding, hybridization, and irradiation. There's nothing inherently harmful about any of these methods of breeding.
Golden Rice is being implemented by a non-profit organization with complete transparency. Sadly, liberal activist organizations still oppose it. Look it up.
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
"substantially equivalent" that is a contradictory statement. Besides if they are equivalent then why fix something that isn't broken?
"Genetic engineering is just one of many methods of breeding, along with selective breeding, hybridization, and irradiation." That is just a ignorant thing to say. While irradiation probably comes closest, it still does not involve direct genetic modification and if irradiation has proven to cause cancer over time, how can you say that direct altering of genes is safe?
The truth of whether GMO's are harmful can only really be assessed on humans after at least one generation of people are tested including their offspring. If your 90+days missed something, then keep in mind that it is our generation that has condemned and destroyed the lives of our children and their childrens children. Is that really a risk worth taking to supposedly feed some starving foreign children? What has been done can not be undone. If you open pandora's box there is no going back.
Even if the GMO's were implemented and those starving children are fed like the corporations are saying, it will only cause further population expansion and you will further down in time have more starving children and bigger problems like diseases caused by overpopulation, so that argument does not stand.
Also like I said before, what is to stop these corporations to implement a secret part in the code in order to control the future supply of food? That is not a too far fetched theory considering the capabilities and possibilities of GMO's and the fact that the corporations seem to be in overdrive to force it onto the world.
Modern science is unlocking many possibilities, but these possibilities are becoming more and more dangerous. If we are not careful our science will be our undoing and it is the next generation that will pay the price for our ignorance and overeagerness of exploiting knowledge and technology that we have not yet fully comprehended.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
How do you think selective breeding works? All four methods involve the direct or indirect manipulation of the genome. The DNA is being changed.
Genetic engineering is not inherently harmful. Again-- it's just a technique of breeding among many; a wrench in a toolbox. If you're going to claim its potentially more dangerous than selective breeding, you're going to have to have a genetic basis for that assertion. Where are your 5 year studies proving selectively bred food is safe?
There will never be a point where a single business controls the world's food supply because modern anti-trust laws would prevent this.
"Why fix what's not broken" -- that's highly subjective. There are some people who would use that same argument against electric guitars.
John West
1 month ago (edited) +Tyler Hurson
Lol. Back to the guitar argument. Firstly no-one needs guitars to survive. We need food, water and shelter. Secondly a guitar is a instrument for entertainment and does not alter you genetics apart from the micro radiation from the electric fields surrounding the coils at the pick-up section or from the speakers. These magnetic fields have proven to give cancer over a long term. But still that is a far step behind in direct genetic modification.
There is a big difference between cross/selective breeding and direct modification of Genes. They can literally rewrite the entire genome sequence and like I said before there is no way of telling what exactly the corporations have put into the code.
The possibilities of this technology can be ridiculous. Take for example a genetically modified apple that has been created to grow protein, for all you know the code used to create the code could be coming from a pig and in effect while eating a apple you are consuming pork and you would never know, because the way you put it, we can just trust the corporations.
"There will never be a point where a single business controls the world's food supply because modern anti-trust laws would prevent this." You know that is bullshit. Laws are not written in stone and are constantly adjusted to suit the needs of the minority. America of which is the best example of this.
The capitalist system is the breeding ground for monopolies and the too big to fail horse crap and the trickle down economics joke.
The same corporations that have made millions if not billions on food speculation whilst the children that they are now supposedly trying to feed with their GMO's were dying by the millions.
The day the corporations grow a conscious is probably the day all of their CEO's and managers commit collective suicide.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago (edited) +John West
Most genetic modifications only involve 1-8 genes. Genomes contain tens of thousands of genes. How does genetic engineering amount to 'rewriting the entire genome?'
There's a lot of genetic fallacies in your post. For one, apples already contain protein-- as does all biological matter. Also, inserting a pig gene into an apple tree's genome does not make that apple tree's fruit more "porky."
Here's a good e-book on Genetics:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/ebooks/essentials-of-genetics-8/contents
Anti-trust laws prevent monopolies. Anti-trust laws have and will continue to be enforced. There's no reason to believe that anti-trust laws will be abolished in the near future. At best, your claim is speculation.
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson +John West
Tyler, modern wheat is one example of that exact type of manipulation you describe. We have been playing with genetics for quite some time now. Modern wheat also demonstrates the problems we also encounter by screwing with our food. With a much higher gluten concentraton than its historical counterparts we are now seeing a great increase in Crohn's disease which has very strong links to gluten. Correlation is not causation but when these people stop eating gluten and switch to non-allergy causing foods their symptoms frequently improve. We hear that roundup is this safe substance as it doesn't react with human genes yet new research tells us that it does damage to our gut flora. That's a whole subject by itself - we have 10 times more bacteria in our bodies than actual cells! We are truly symbiotic lifeforms and having these herbicide / pesticide residues running through us day in day out really is like playing a game of russian roulette. We know that cancer and autoimmune disease is on the rise dramatically yet we don't know why yet. Our food is quite probably the single greatest cause of the degeneration of our health than we have ever seen in history.
If cross breeding alone can generate more dangerous strains of food then imagine the potential of a gene mutation that is completely unnatural. Sounds like scare tactics or being overdramatic as its just one to eight genes right so not much damage to be done. If we look at genetic predisposition to certain disease however we often find that single genes can be responsible for multiple fold increases in risk! This is not science fiction but reality- single gene mutations do really matter. To take a foriegn gene and insert it into a species at some random location in its genome also carries great risks. We are now finding that single genes can and do carry out multiple different functions and to know how these may affect us is exceptionally difficult to know. Science costs money and when big investments are made, big business want results. We simply don't know how these Frankenfoods affect us today. Our best knowledge is that they don't kill us or make us noticably sick in the short term. Insiduous changes that may not express themselves for several generations may literally be causing changes to our DNA as we discuss the topic.
I personally love science and the amazing future it has to offer us if we apply it correctly but changng the code of a programming language we don't yet fully understand could be devastating in the long run. The potential gains are staggering but the pitfalls are also considerably greater. This progress allows us to cross breeds and create huge variety at an ever growing pace. Australia introduced the cane toad to get rid of beetles eating the crops. Science had an answer but science was wrong. The cane toad didn't much take to eating the beetles and worse still had the unexpected side effect of wiping out many of its indigenous competiors. It was and remains a disaster.
Today we have fields of GMO spreading their pollen to non GMO crops and we can't reverse it! We are changing the face of the planet and we can't change it back. Trying to feed the world is not the soultion to our problems but reducing the population over an extended perod of time. Imagine a planet with half a billion humans. 1/14th the amount of carbon production, the food required, the need to mine etc etc all drastically reduced. We have seen the most amazing and rapid changes in our lifetimes. There won't be many generations to go before something really has to give. We are disease to the place we call home, the single worst lifeform to have ever walked the earth and we have barely got started yet. Antibiotics have created superbugs. We are like the red queen in Alice in Wonderland, always running but not getting anywhere. Nature catches up and we run some more. We have to stop playing with our food. Science? Yes please but lets get to know the programming language before we hit a wrong button and install a virus into the system!
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
Ill admit that I do not know too much about genes, but I do know that corporations can never be trusted as their sole purpose is not the betterment of humanity. They just try at all costs to improve the numbers on the balance sheets, regardless of the consequences on ground level.
+Glenn Carr
Thanks, that was brilliantly written and a very interesting to read.
+SpaceHawk13
I am a electrician by trade, so Im not in the business of selling fish ;).
Just for interest sakes, the guy who thought of the idea of the DNA double helix (forgot his name), actually thought of it while tripping on acid/LSD.
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +John West
Thanks. Great little fact there at the bottom by the way. I always thought it Kekule's discovery of benzene but you are right. Guess you would have to be off your head to concieve such a structure!
d smith
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
There's no need to force un-proven anything on people unless you do not like or respect them. This is evil by it's nature. Prove it 1st then let people see all of the info. If everyone were to see the original aspartame test that it cause tumors on the brains of rats. They may not use it, but this has been hidden now for over 20 years.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
Corporations generally don't make money unless humanity benefits.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +d smith
New studies are much more valuable than old studies, especially if those old studies are methodologically flawed. Aspartame is one of the most studied food ingredients. It has been deemed safe at current levels of consumption by the scientific community.
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
If only it were true. Corporations do make money time and time again through bad products. Al they have to do is to convince us that their product is a good thing. Take margarine for example. It has been outselling butter for many years because low fat / saturated fat in the diet is good for us right? We have the likes of flora pro-active that helps lower cholesterol (at a pretty penny per packet) and low cholesterol is a good thing right? Wrong! Cholesterol is essential for good health - our brains house 1/4 of the cholesterol in our bodies in fact and our livers are capable of producing 400 times more cholesterol than what we typcally eat! Cholesterol is essential for the production of vitamin D when acted on by sunlight in our skin for example. Any product that artificially lowers cholesterol should be used with extreme caution including the widely used statin drugs. Statins actually damage the liver and our ability to produce coenzyme Q10 (an essential powerful antioxidant produced in the body). Some really poor unscientific conclusons have been drawn over time about fat in the diet. Did you know that margarine is a very unnatural fat that our bodies don't know how to process? It is produced by heating vegetable oils in the presence of a catalyst to introduce hydrogen atoms into it to bind fat molecules together and make it a solid at higher temperatures. The end product at that stage is a grey fat that smells bad. They then bleach the product to remove the grey colour, add yellow colouring, stabilisers, flavourings etc to make it look like that product we have safely been consuming for eons - butter! Serously, don't beleve the hype. There is not some large government orginisation sat in the background testing away and doing real scientific research with these products. They get passed and unless some obvious detrimental effects of the product rear their ugly head, we go on consuming this crap in the belief that they are doing us good! If you don't believe the high fat diet thing is actually good for you then look up Dr Peter Attia on here and watch some of his videos or equally, Nora Gedgaudas (taming the carb craving monster) - her book is well worth a read and WILL change your mind on food forever. I now eat a high fat diet and have been doing so for the best part of a year. I have lost a significant amount of body fat, gained lean muscle and feel much better as a result. Still doubt it? Look up Swedens dietary guidelines on google. Last year (2013) they completed a study of over 16000 scientific papers and as a result now recommed a high fat, low carb diet for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity! This is for real - the Sweeds are leading the way ad the popularity of this diet is gaining pace. It has repaired my appetite (I don't eat so much) as I don't get hungry nearly as easily anymore and as a result eat less (enough to fual myself without piling the fatty pounds on). Peter Attia also shares his blood chemistry on his videos which show amazing levels of good cholesterol, low lipids etc - all as a result of a high fat diet.
As for aspartame - again a foriegn molecule that our bodes don't know how to process. The tumors seen in rats etc should be adequate to make us all err on the side of caution or better still to stop eating such crap in our diets. The eskimo's of the world eat a diet packed with saturated fats yet have an almost zero incidence of heart disease! Eat whole foods that are unprocessed, non GMO and preferably organic. Just because we aren't dying quickly be eating what we do does not make it good or healthy. It doesn't mean that we aren't suffereing serious metabolic damage in the long run. We should be more than cautious if you consider the fact that we now eat marginally less fat than we did back in the 70's, a little more protein and considerably more carbs. Compare disease levels from the 70's to today and we see a huge increase in obesity, diabetes, autoimmune disease, athlerosclerosis etc etc. Our diets are killing us slowly. We are simply eating things we did not evolve to eat. Seriously, do take the time to buy 'Primal body primal mind' by Nora Gedgaudas. It is a real eye opener and covers nutrition like no other book I have ever read. It is also backed up by lots of good science and heavily referenced with a large appendix citing many different studies at the rear. You have an opportunity to improve your health / ability to live to a ripe old age in a healthy manner by reading up on this!
d smith
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
How can you prove that new studies are "much more valuable than old studies"? More employees have sold-out today than ever in recent history. More people are afraid to tell the truth now than in recent history. Not to mention when I ask simple questions to all kinds of companies they cannot give me an answer maybe 50% of the time do I receive an answer to my question. Like pepsico They cannot tell me when they 12st started using dead fetuses in the testing of pepsi cola.
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +d smith
New data is generally better than old data because science is a cumulative process. Standards and methodologies evolve over time to produce more accurate results. Over time, scientists come to understand the pitfalls that past researchers may have overlooked. Thus, current data is almost always more valuable than older data because it takes these pitfalls into account. This is why scientists tend to choose more recent research when composing a literature review and why most science myths usually rely on scientific experiments performed in the 1970s, 60s, 50s, and earlier (ex. anti-fluoridation movement).
Reply
·
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
I drink filtered water now (have done for around 6 months) which contains no fluoride. I don't think there is such a thing as a safe amount of this in our diets. The halogens (fluorine, chlorine and bromine) bind to receptors in the body for iodine (especially in the thyroid) effectively blocking the natural path for iodine to operate. Disturbingly, it would seem that adding fluoride to water has no effect on the rates of cavities when comparing areas with fluoridated water to those that don't have it. This is one further example of how we have moved away from a more natural diet over time without really having a full understanding of the implications of the changes we have made.
http://www.cheeseslave.com/top-10-dangers-of-fluoride/
Think I'll err on the side of caution dear government but thanks for trying to make us better!
tbizone2002
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
"no long term effects of GE food." ……..because the effects haven't been studied for generations, which is how long it would take to get substantive results.
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
Jyotsna Gokhale
3 days ago
- Absolutely true - comment among replies below -
"These corporations are targeting your emotional side when they make excuses like feeding the poor. They know fully well that just providing food to the poor they are not solving any problems. For a corporation only one thing counts, power and control through money and dependency."
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 week ago
Anyone else think this is a softer, veiled version of Malala shot by Taliban? This repeated bullying, provoking, attempting get her to equivocate or give up with fraudulent arguments, .... Hope this kid lives and succeeds! This guy is presenting the little girl with a Sophie's Choice, what a Nazi! She is smarter fortunately!
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 week ago
Both these adults are sleazy in attempting to present her and to make her see herself as not mature, not caring about poor dying, passionate against science, .... while really she is coming across as the one with logic, information and concern about health, rights and choices.
..........................................................................................
Jyotsna Gokhale
23 hours ago
Some fraud bully is going on with explicit declaration of "The onus is on the one claiming it is dangerous to begin with" - WRONG, as per law, the seller is supposed to list all ingredients on products sold, and the buyer thereby informed; this is only half complied with when genetically modified food is sold under the same label as normal, so that one may buy bread and not know there are flies in it.
Jyotsna Gokhale
2 days ago
Some is trying emotional blackmail by asking me if he should stop working in soup kitchen - here is my reply.
Do what your conscience tells you, and reap as you sow - if you serve gm stuff and are punished it is not my concern and nor is it my role to instruct you when you drive about where to turn or stop. If someone is using feeding poor as an excuse to make money and starve billions via seed must be bought every year policy, it is mass murder of the most horrendous sort ever. This is apart from all the other horrendous possible effects yet unknown.
Once US medicine and pharmaceutical industry collaborated and used pregnant women as guinea pigs without their knowledge or consent to see what thalidomide and other drugs do - if you learn nothing, your future generations have no hope.
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 day ago
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Strange how tables have turned. Once the disfanchised of Europe and later the world found refuge, life, freedom, chance for making it on one's own work and intelligence - in the new nation of US founded on those values. When did that turn around?
Now, Europe and the rest of the world speaks of human life and health and protects it, from the unethical practices of gm in name of science, while US has no warning on food that could be as dangerous as thalidomide was albeit with different dangers but to the same human life and with same policy being the cause of danger - rich corporations, then pharmaceuticals and now gm, need not spend money to experiment to make certain their products are safe; instead they can buy silence of authorities and goons to attack general public if anyone speaks against use of US and whatever other public (usually from poor nations) is being experimented on.
Abusive behaviour is dealt to those cautioning or asking for labeling of food and other products' contents, and proof or evidence is demanded from public about ill effects of experimental food and other products.
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 second ago
Interesting isn't it - how one can safely bet that those fraudulently spouting "science" as a word too holy to touch when it is defending corporate profits are precisely those that go mum about loyalty to science when it comes to evolution vs creation, and other such matters where votes rather than profit is concerned? Pretty much like those that call themselves prolifers on antiabortion platform for politics (of misogyny and convenience of forcing women back to slavery) are suddenly not quite so caring about already born humans when it comes to right to guns and to using weapons indiscriminately without anyone stopping them in the name of humanity or same human life, never mind other life.
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
John West
2 months ago
Linked comment
"Are you anti-science" "No i am for ethical science" Hahaha. That just summed it up perfectly. A fight worth fighting. Respect to that girl she just owned those babbling douche bags. They keep accusing her of wanting to see foreign children starve as if Monsanto and the corporations give a rats ass what happens to the children as long as they can make money. Besides humanity has survived just fine with what gaya provides, infact we have survived so well that we see a need to bomb, shoot, murder etc each other just because we have not starved yet.
Reply
·
Hide replies
Tyler Hurson
2 months ago
Humanity has survived just fine without electric guitars for millions of years too, but that's no reason to ban electric guitars or place restrictions on its importation and/or production.
Reply
·
2
John West
1 month ago
Last time I checked people do not eat guitars...
Anything you eat becomes part of you including the genes and we do not know the long term consequences, but one thing is for sure fcking with nature usually does not end well.
Luckily for us the corporations have decided without our consent to use us as guinea pigs (sarcasm in case you missed it).
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
Fair enough. But there's still no reason to resist technology simply because it is deemed unnecessary.
There are no long term effects of GE food that are not inherit to food. There's no reason to give GE food any special treatment.
Reply
·
2
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
Firstly I am not resisting technology and by all means they should do such tests. They just should not use us as their test subjects.
Secondly there are already many side effects occurring, such as pesticide resistant pests. And if crops are infused with natural pesticides, how is that healthy for us? Also if it is effecting the genes of the bugs, how can we say for sure that it is not affecting us as well.
What bothers me the most about this GMO debacle is the fact that these corporations are forcing everyone to use it. Also the lack of transparency of these corporations are also worrisome, why do they have such a need to hide everything if they are not doing something they know is wrong. How do we know that they did not alter other genetic codes apart from adding more nutrition and the mythological increased yields that they are advertising, such as making seeds usable only once or making sure that the drug resistant bugs can only be killed by their products. These corporations are already selling tons of chemicals to kill these bugs.
The other problem is that once GMO's have been used in a certain area, the biological matter remains in the soil for ever. So if there is a problem with GMO's then there is no way to cleanse that area of land of the GMO's.
I would trust GMO's much more if they were implemented by a transparent non-profit organisation and not a capitalistic for-profit corporation.
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
Consumers are not being used as test subjects. The technology has already been tested-- there is no need:
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/
Pesticide resistant pests predate GMOs. It's not a GMO problem. It's a farming problem.
No one is forcing you to purchase food. But OK-- I understand you have to eat it to survive. But there's no reason to discriminate against GE food in the first place because the scientific literature has revealed that GE food is substantially equivalent to non-GE food. All 'GMO' means is that the food has been genetically engineered. Genetic engineering is just one of many methods of breeding, along with selective breeding, hybridization, and irradiation. There's nothing inherently harmful about any of these methods of breeding.
Golden Rice is being implemented by a non-profit organization with complete transparency. Sadly, liberal activist organizations still oppose it. Look it up.
Reply
·
d smith
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
That is not what this video says. The corporate bought female is saying just that. WE ARE THE TEST RATS. Do you contradict reality all day long?
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +d smith
Parent is incorrect. The tests have already been done. There is no need to use the general consumer as a test subject.
Reply
·
Jimi Jones
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
The 90-day tests?
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago (edited) +Jimi Jones
90+ day tests have been performed as well.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23253614
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
Reply
·
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
"substantially equivalent" that is a contradictory statement. Besides if they are equivalent then why fix something that isn't broken?
"Genetic engineering is just one of many methods of breeding, along with selective breeding, hybridization, and irradiation." That is just a ignorant thing to say. While irradiation probably comes closest, it still does not involve direct genetic modification and if irradiation has proven to cause cancer over time, how can you say that direct altering of genes is safe?
The truth of whether GMO's are harmful can only really be assessed on humans after at least one generation of people are tested including their offspring. If your 90+days missed something, then keep in mind that it is our generation that has condemned and destroyed the lives of our children and their childrens children. Is that really a risk worth taking to supposedly feed some starving foreign children? What has been done can not be undone. If you open pandora's box there is no going back.
Even if the GMO's were implemented and those starving children are fed like the corporations are saying, it will only cause further population expansion and you will further down in time have more starving children and bigger problems like diseases caused by overpopulation, so that argument does not stand.
Also like I said before, what is to stop these corporations to implement a secret part in the code in order to control the future supply of food? That is not a too far fetched theory considering the capabilities and possibilities of GMO's and the fact that the corporations seem to be in overdrive to force it onto the world.
Modern science is unlocking many possibilities, but these possibilities are becoming more and more dangerous. If we are not careful our science will be our undoing and it is the next generation that will pay the price for our ignorance and overeagerness of exploiting knowledge and technology that we have not yet fully comprehended.
Reply
·
3
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
How do you think selective breeding works? All four methods involve the direct or indirect manipulation of the genome. The DNA is being changed.
Genetic engineering is not inherently harmful. Again-- it's just a technique of breeding among many; a wrench in a toolbox. If you're going to claim its potentially more dangerous than selective breeding, you're going to have to have a genetic basis for that assertion. Where are your 5 year studies proving selectively bred food is safe?
There will never be a point where a single business controls the world's food supply because modern anti-trust laws would prevent this.
"Why fix what's not broken" -- that's highly subjective. There are some people who would use that same argument against electric guitars.
Reply
·
1
John West
1 month ago (edited) +Tyler Hurson
Lol. Back to the guitar argument. Firstly no-one needs guitars to survive. We need food, water and shelter. Secondly a guitar is a instrument for entertainment and does not alter you genetics apart from the micro radiation from the electric fields surrounding the coils at the pick-up section or from the speakers. These magnetic fields have proven to give cancer over a long term. But still that is a far step behind in direct genetic modification.
There is a big difference between cross/selective breeding and direct modification of Genes. They can literally rewrite the entire genome sequence and like I said before there is no way of telling what exactly the corporations have put into the code.
The possibilities of this technology can be ridiculous. Take for example a genetically modified apple that has been created to grow protein, for all you know the code used to create the code could be coming from a pig and in effect while eating a apple you are consuming pork and you would never know, because the way you put it, we can just trust the corporations.
"There will never be a point where a single business controls the world's food supply because modern anti-trust laws would prevent this." You know that is bullshit. Laws are not written in stone and are constantly adjusted to suit the needs of the minority. America of which is the best example of this.
The capitalist system is the breeding ground for monopolies and the too big to fail horse crap and the trickle down economics joke.
The same corporations that have made millions if not billions on food speculation whilst the children that they are now supposedly trying to feed with their GMO's were dying by the millions.
The day the corporations grow a conscious is probably the day all of their CEO's and managers commit collective suicide.
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago (edited) +John West
Most genetic modifications only involve 1-8 genes. Genomes contain tens of thousands of genes. How does genetic engineering amount to 'rewriting the entire genome?'
There's a lot of genetic fallacies in your post. For one, apples already contain protein-- as does all biological matter. Also, inserting a pig gene into an apple tree's genome does not make that apple tree's fruit more "porky."
Here's a good e-book on Genetics:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/ebooks/essentials-of-genetics-8/contents
Anti-trust laws prevent monopolies. Anti-trust laws have and will continue to be enforced. There's no reason to believe that anti-trust laws will be abolished in the near future. At best, your claim is speculation.
Reply
·
1
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson +John West
Tyler, modern wheat is one example of that exact type of manipulation you describe. We have been playing with genetics for quite some time now. Modern wheat also demonstrates the problems we also encounter by screwing with our food. With a much higher gluten concentraton than its historical counterparts we are now seeing a great increase in Crohn's disease which has very strong links to gluten. Correlation is not causation but when these people stop eating gluten and switch to non-allergy causing foods their symptoms frequently improve. We hear that roundup is this safe substance as it doesn't react with human genes yet new research tells us that it does damage to our gut flora. That's a whole subject by itself - we have 10 times more bacteria in our bodies than actual cells! We are truly symbiotic lifeforms and having these herbicide / pesticide residues running through us day in day out really is like playing a game of russian roulette. We know that cancer and autoimmune disease is on the rise dramatically yet we don't know why yet. Our food is quite probably the single greatest cause of the degeneration of our health than we have ever seen in history.
If cross breeding alone can generate more dangerous strains of food then imagine the potential of a gene mutation that is completely unnatural. Sounds like scare tactics or being overdramatic as its just one to eight genes right so not much damage to be done. If we look at genetic predisposition to certain disease however we often find that single genes can be responsible for multiple fold increases in risk! This is not science fiction but reality- single gene mutations do really matter. To take a foriegn gene and insert it into a species at some random location in its genome also carries great risks. We are now finding that single genes can and do carry out multiple different functions and to know how these may affect us is exceptionally difficult to know. Science costs money and when big investments are made, big business want results. We simply don't know how these Frankenfoods affect us today. Our best knowledge is that they don't kill us or make us noticably sick in the short term. Insiduous changes that may not express themselves for several generations may literally be causing changes to our DNA as we discuss the topic.
I personally love science and the amazing future it has to offer us if we apply it correctly but changng the code of a programming language we don't yet fully understand could be devastating in the long run. The potential gains are staggering but the pitfalls are also considerably greater. This progress allows us to cross breeds and create huge variety at an ever growing pace. Australia introduced the cane toad to get rid of beetles eating the crops. Science had an answer but science was wrong. The cane toad didn't much take to eating the beetles and worse still had the unexpected side effect of wiping out many of its indigenous competiors. It was and remains a disaster.
Today we have fields of GMO spreading their pollen to non GMO crops and we can't reverse it! We are changing the face of the planet and we can't change it back. Trying to feed the world is not the soultion to our problems but reducing the population over an extended perod of time. Imagine a planet with half a billion humans. 1/14th the amount of carbon production, the food required, the need to mine etc etc all drastically reduced. We have seen the most amazing and rapid changes in our lifetimes. There won't be many generations to go before something really has to give. We are disease to the place we call home, the single worst lifeform to have ever walked the earth and we have barely got started yet. Antibiotics have created superbugs. We are like the red queen in Alice in Wonderland, always running but not getting anywhere. Nature catches up and we run some more. We have to stop playing with our food. Science? Yes please but lets get to know the programming language before we hit a wrong button and install a virus into the system!
Reply
·
SpaceHawk13
1 month ago +John West
So you are against GM foods but you have no problem selling us all fish pumped up on steroids?
Reply
·
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
Ill admit that I do not know too much about genes, but I do know that corporations can never be trusted as their sole purpose is not the betterment of humanity. They just try at all costs to improve the numbers on the balance sheets, regardless of the consequences on ground level.
+Glenn Carr
Thanks, that was brilliantly written and a very interesting to read.
+SpaceHawk13
I am a electrician by trade, so Im not in the business of selling fish ;).
Just for interest sakes, the guy who thought of the idea of the DNA double helix (forgot his name), actually thought of it while tripping on acid/LSD.
Reply
·
5
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +John West
Thanks. Great little fact there at the bottom by the way. I always thought it Kekule's discovery of benzene but you are right. Guess you would have to be off your head to concieve such a structure!
Reply
·
1
d smith
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
There's no need to force un-proven anything on people unless you do not like or respect them. This is evil by it's nature. Prove it 1st then let people see all of the info. If everyone were to see the original aspartame test that it cause tumors on the brains of rats. They may not use it, but this has been hidden now for over 20 years.
Reply
·
5
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +John West
Corporations generally don't make money unless humanity benefits.
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +d smith
New studies are much more valuable than old studies, especially if those old studies are methodologically flawed. Aspartame is one of the most studied food ingredients. It has been deemed safe at current levels of consumption by the scientific community.
Reply
·
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
If only it were true. Corporations do make money time and time again through bad products. Al they have to do is to convince us that their product is a good thing. Take margarine for example. It has been outselling butter for many years because low fat / saturated fat in the diet is good for us right? We have the likes of flora pro-active that helps lower cholesterol (at a pretty penny per packet) and low cholesterol is a good thing right? Wrong! Cholesterol is essential for good health - our brains house 1/4 of the cholesterol in our bodies in fact and our livers are capable of producing 400 times more cholesterol than what we typcally eat! Cholesterol is essential for the production of vitamin D when acted on by sunlight in our skin for example. Any product that artificially lowers cholesterol should be used with extreme caution including the widely used statin drugs. Statins actually damage the liver and our ability to produce coenzyme Q10 (an essential powerful antioxidant produced in the body). Some really poor unscientific conclusons have been drawn over time about fat in the diet. Did you know that margarine is a very unnatural fat that our bodies don't know how to process? It is produced by heating vegetable oils in the presence of a catalyst to introduce hydrogen atoms into it to bind fat molecules together and make it a solid at higher temperatures. The end product at that stage is a grey fat that smells bad. They then bleach the product to remove the grey colour, add yellow colouring, stabilisers, flavourings etc to make it look like that product we have safely been consuming for eons - butter! Serously, don't beleve the hype. There is not some large government orginisation sat in the background testing away and doing real scientific research with these products. They get passed and unless some obvious detrimental effects of the product rear their ugly head, we go on consuming this crap in the belief that they are doing us good! If you don't believe the high fat diet thing is actually good for you then look up Dr Peter Attia on here and watch some of his videos or equally, Nora Gedgaudas (taming the carb craving monster) - her book is well worth a read and WILL change your mind on food forever. I now eat a high fat diet and have been doing so for the best part of a year. I have lost a significant amount of body fat, gained lean muscle and feel much better as a result. Still doubt it? Look up Swedens dietary guidelines on google. Last year (2013) they completed a study of over 16000 scientific papers and as a result now recommed a high fat, low carb diet for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity! This is for real - the Sweeds are leading the way ad the popularity of this diet is gaining pace. It has repaired my appetite (I don't eat so much) as I don't get hungry nearly as easily anymore and as a result eat less (enough to fual myself without piling the fatty pounds on). Peter Attia also shares his blood chemistry on his videos which show amazing levels of good cholesterol, low lipids etc - all as a result of a high fat diet.
As for aspartame - again a foriegn molecule that our bodes don't know how to process. The tumors seen in rats etc should be adequate to make us all err on the side of caution or better still to stop eating such crap in our diets. The eskimo's of the world eat a diet packed with saturated fats yet have an almost zero incidence of heart disease! Eat whole foods that are unprocessed, non GMO and preferably organic. Just because we aren't dying quickly be eating what we do does not make it good or healthy. It doesn't mean that we aren't suffereing serious metabolic damage in the long run. We should be more than cautious if you consider the fact that we now eat marginally less fat than we did back in the 70's, a little more protein and considerably more carbs. Compare disease levels from the 70's to today and we see a huge increase in obesity, diabetes, autoimmune disease, athlerosclerosis etc etc. Our diets are killing us slowly. We are simply eating things we did not evolve to eat. Seriously, do take the time to buy 'Primal body primal mind' by Nora Gedgaudas. It is a real eye opener and covers nutrition like no other book I have ever read. It is also backed up by lots of good science and heavily referenced with a large appendix citing many different studies at the rear. You have an opportunity to improve your health / ability to live to a ripe old age in a healthy manner by reading up on this!
Reply
·
4
d smith
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
How can you prove that new studies are "much more valuable than old studies"? More employees have sold-out today than ever in recent history. More people are afraid to tell the truth now than in recent history. Not to mention when I ask simple questions to all kinds of companies they cannot give me an answer maybe 50% of the time do I receive an answer to my question. Like pepsico They cannot tell me when they 12st started using dead fetuses in the testing of pepsi cola.
Reply
·
Tyler Hurson
1 month ago +d smith
New data is generally better than old data because science is a cumulative process. Standards and methodologies evolve over time to produce more accurate results. Over time, scientists come to understand the pitfalls that past researchers may have overlooked. Thus, current data is almost always more valuable than older data because it takes these pitfalls into account. This is why scientists tend to choose more recent research when composing a literature review and why most science myths usually rely on scientific experiments performed in the 1970s, 60s, 50s, and earlier (ex. anti-fluoridation movement).
Reply
·
Glenn Carr
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
I drink filtered water now (have done for around 6 months) which contains no fluoride. I don't think there is such a thing as a safe amount of this in our diets. The halogens (fluorine, chlorine and bromine) bind to receptors in the body for iodine (especially in the thyroid) effectively blocking the natural path for iodine to operate. Disturbingly, it would seem that adding fluoride to water has no effect on the rates of cavities when comparing areas with fluoridated water to those that don't have it. This is one further example of how we have moved away from a more natural diet over time without really having a full understanding of the implications of the changes we have made.
http://www.cheeseslave.com/top-10-dangers-of-fluoride/
Think I'll err on the side of caution dear government but thanks for trying to make us better!
Reply
·
5
tbizone2002
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
"no long term effects of GE food." ……..because the effects haven't been studied for generations, which is how long it would take to get substantive results.
Reply
·
2
methylphosphatePOET
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
Electric guitars? Are you really that dumb? When was the last time someone was forced to eat electric guitars, stupid?
Reply
·
6
skay n the maybees
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
i'd die with out my elec guitar.i even go thru improv withdrawl if i dont play it for a couple dayz
Reply
·
Black Death 1347
1 month ago
Every time I eat an electric guitar, it's purely voluntary.
Reply
·
3
Colleen Maranda
1 month ago (edited) +Tyler Hurson -
Impressionable young people could wander by here and read your strong encouragement for them to trust the biggest threat to humanity and this planet - corporatism. Pharma Drugs. Tobacco. Processed Foods. Cosmetics. Chemical Agriculture. Corporations peddle toxicity that is sustaining appalling global misery and devastating essential bio-diversity.
Reply
·
3
Colleen Maranda
1 month ago
Global food security could lay in the rescue of abundant, wild varieties of rice with their uncontaminated genes (from native swamps and wetlands in remote, pristine parts of the world). Over-cultivation has displaced many wild populations of food sources; we need them to be located and restored. Traditional people could then be consulted about how they used the rice in the past. It is thought that ancient DNA is crucial in resisting disease. "Diseases in natural environments tend to reach some sort of equilibrium, where the disease doesn't kill the host population but just occurs at a very low level” (Plant pathologist Andrew Geering, QAAF).
GMO = God Move Over
Move Out, Mon$anto -- corrupt corp. & corrupted product.
Reply
·
3
Kiane Lee
1 month ago +Glenn Carr
just read your comments & wanted to acknowledge your wisdom and way of thinking. thank you for all the knowledge you dropped here! you have my respect! & I will definitely be checking out that book you recommended.
Reply
·
Fifty OneFifty
1 month ago
Typical liberal attitude, +John West . If a CEO gets a big salary despite loosing money, you call him incompetent. But any corporation that pays attention to the bottom line for stockholders (as they are required to do) are pirates. Scientific analysis would indicate only a small part of the population should have a sensitivity to gluten, but you seem foresquare behind this anti-gluten hysteria, with a similar unfounded attitude towards GMO's. Labeling would be fine were it not for anti anything new hysteria fueled by advocacy groups. Plenty of people would get behind a "Your food was touched by Muslims" label but you wouldn't stand for it and neither would I.
Reply
·
melogardener
1 month ago
Whoa! Good on you for telling it like it is. This young woman knows and feels the truth of what she is saying and she puts these two bullies to shame for their ugly arrogant lies and all for them chasing the money. We have been buying and building up heritage seeds for years trying to establish others in recognizing the fact that all this GMO'd junk should be labeled and we should all have the choice of knowing what is in our food. It is a long hall but Rachel has just put some fire on the burner for me...she knows the truth and speaks it while these mongers still are in the money...they disgust me because for their age they should know something and know better but they don't!
Reply
·
Kiane Lee
1 month ago +melogardener
agreed.
Reply
·
John West
1 month ago +Tyler Hurson
"Corporations generally don't make money unless humanity benefits." You do of course realise that one of the most profitable endeavors is war and that has not exactly benefited humanity, unless you consider depopulation a pro.
+Fifty OneFifty
The whole capitalist system is screwed and the monopolies created by the corporations is the best example of it. Until recently the corporations were making millions on food speculation, whilst millions were starving around the world. That is how much of a conscious these scum have.
"Your food was touched by Muslims" That is just a stupid comparison as most muslims have a far higher standard of food than the corporate mcdonald crap. In fact it is a good idea and is already being used, ever read the logo "Halal supported".
You are obviously not a wealthy corporate, because if you were I highly doubt you would be commenting on here, which makes me believe that you are a ignorant kool-aid drinking sheep. Is it really so hard to understand that I and people like me prefer to know what is on our plates? With your attitude they could be serving you pig shit with artificial flavoring and msg's and you would never know.
Reply
·
ke7inM
1 month ago
i am now dumber for reading this outlandish comment.
Reply
·
John West
1 month ago +ke7inM
Good for you, now please go and be retarded somewhere else.
Reply
·
3
Bill Girard
1 month ago +ke7inM
"I am now dumber for reading this outlandish comment."
1) I think we'd all concede the point that you are dumber… than a box of hair, I'd wager.
2) However, what caused you to be dumber is unclear, and how are we to take the word of someone as dumb as you that it was reading that was responsible? Especially when reading usually works the other way round, yes?
You have a vested interest in ascribing your deepening dumbth to an external cause, and it is this bias that makes your explanation unscientific and wholly untrustworthy.
Just like Monsanto has a vested interest in describing their GMO products as healthy and beneficial because they stand to make (and in fact have already made) billions of dollars off GMO sales. Just like the Koch Brothers' studies criticizing climate change, or the studies by Big Tobacco that showed cigarette smoking to be both harmless to our health and non-addictive. Conflict of interest engenders bias, which makes it unscientific and untrustworthy.
3) I apologize that you had to read this comment, and for the dumberification you may have suffered because of it.
Reply
·
Sineater35
4 weeks ago
LMFAO, "ethical science" is the joke of the century. How many ethical scientists can you think of?!?!? 0. that's right. They wouldn't be in science if they were ethical and moral.
Reply
·
Giorgio W
4 weeks ago
Ethical meaning what's best for humanity and the planet not just themselves, which scientist are.
Reply
·
1
Sineater35
4 weeks ago
No there not,lol all they care about is there own pet project and getting the data they want.....they could give a f%$k less what happens to the rest of us. Case in point: HAARP.
Reply
·
Grig Rasputin
3 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
Is Monsanto paying you to spew that crap or are you really that blind?
Reply
·
Grig Rasputin
3 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
... said the corporate shill...
Reply
·
Nicole Howard
3 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
How can you say w an iota of conviction that "there are no long term effects of GE foods...." when there have been NO LONG TERM STUDIES TESTS of GMO "foods"
Reply
·
AgentNolies
3 weeks ago +Nicole Howard
yes, there has. your ignorance is showing child.
Reply
·
Jason Alsbrook
3 weeks ago
Amen well said
Reply
·
xxoface
3 weeks ago +AgentNolies
What would be an acceptable long term study? Take, ohhhh, 10,000 people from birth, feed 5000 the typical American diet(frosted flakes, McDonald's here and there, processed dinner foods from a box, etc.) and feed the other 5000 immaculate vegetables, some fruit and some meat. Watch both groups for 50 years. I'll take that over "90 day studies" or just stocking the shelves at grocery stores and letting the whole country have at it with absolutely no proof as to what kinds of consumption damage the body. The way people have been eating for the past few decades is not a proper study. I would be dumb to say your disease came from your diet, but I would be dumb to say your disease did not come from your diet. If you can't prove something 100% then your argument isn't good enough. Keep trying.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
3 weeks ago +xxoface
trying to be cute? Its has been done with pigs. An observational report from observations farmers have reported from pigs that have feed exclusively on GMO crops for the last 20 years. Would you like the name of the report so you can read it yourself or are you just gonna continue on with your hyperbole?
Reply
·
AgentNolies
3 weeks ago +xxoface
first of all nothing in science is 100 percent.
You should know that, unless you're ignorant of science that is are you? And you're trying to shift the burden of proof . Come back little girl when you have something other than hyperbole
Reply
·
Sean Henderson
2 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
Golden Rice was a PR campaign by Monsanto because their name was already mud for the way they polluted Alabama, with dioxins and phthalates. So they give away the golden rice to help out their image, and like the girl in the video said, it did not work. Tyler you said,"the scientific literature has revealed that GE food is substantially equivalent to non-GE food" "The scientific literature", like the little girl said, was all provided by the companies that stood to gain from it. Monsanto invented the term "substantially equivalent" to avoid safety testing. This was after they proved that their GMO products were different enough to allow a patent. Monsanto has been patenting the USDA seed bank stock. Genetics that they had no role in and have been in the USDA seed bank for decades are now being patented by Monsanto. Monsanto is buy up mom and pop seed companies and shutting them down. They want to own the food supply. They are not nice.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
2 weeks ago +Sean Henderson
the patent number for those dacades old seeds that Monsanto are supposedly are patenting should be easy to find, please post them. (You won't )
Reply
·
Sean Henderson
2 weeks ago +AgentNolies
How about you do a little research for yourself. You can work Google right? Do you need everything handed to you. Look into it. Maybe start with one of the 20+ documentaries about Monsanto, or just look at their legal battles, who they sue(farmer) vs. how many people/ countries have sued Monsanto. If you ignore what the big media tell you and you look just below the surface(not very deep at all) you will see. If you listen to FOX,ABC,CBS, MSNBC etc. Then Monsanto has the answers to world hunger, bugs, shelf life etc. . . . But then ask the farmers who grow it and how it affects their animals. do your own research.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
2 weeks ago (edited) +Sean Henderson
Documentaries mean nothing. Any documentary is biases towards the makers view (not just Monsanto ones).
Go read the Monsanto lawsuits ( you'll see that those farmers were STEALING the seeds. You won't ). Please post 1 of these lawsuits that justify you.
I dont care What media says, only the science. (Maybe u should try it )
Stop being Vague child.
Reply
·
Sean Henderson
2 weeks ago +AgentNolies
Those farmers fields were contaminated by Monsanto's test plots. That is very different from stealing. Monsanto never had to win any of those cases with the farmers. The farmer would go bankrupt trying to defend himself, that is not the same as winning against the farmer. It is just defeating the farmer financially. Fox news is just as slanted as any documentary. You and I will not agree. You are championing a company that does not want to make the world a better place, it wants to control food.
Reply
·
1
AgentNolies
1 week ago (edited) +Sean Henderson
Which Monsanto has no problem with, but when said farmer harvested and replanted ONLY the Monsanto crop with out proper payment that is stealing as the courts found. Cite the court case we shall see if your "bankruptcy" claim holds water. Those farmer lost via a jury. Not money.
I did not cite fox. Why r u bring them up?
1.000,000,000 lives directly fed do to Monsanto crops
Zero deaths ir injuries connected. Prove your point, present evidence.
Reply
·
Xavier McCloud
2 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
GMO's weren't MADE FOR science or to HELP anyone, they were made so you can't grow the seeds of the plants, they were made so the shelf life is longer, they were made because of money.
Reply
·
1
Xavier McCloud
2 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
Tyler you are obviously a book worm and believe everything you read that is said to be true. GMO's would not be good for you.
Reply
·
1
Xavier McCloud
2 weeks ago +Tyler Hurson
LMFAO@ pesticides are harmless! Try spraying some in your eyes or down your throat and see if you sing the same song. This comes from someone who has actually used them before. Some even burn your skin!
Reply
·
1
Jyotsna Gokhale
3 days ago (edited) +John West -
site did not allow a simple thumbs up so here it is -
Reply
·
Max Apitz-Grossman
1 week ago +Glenn Carr
Damn dude, that is a ton of writing. Good work!
Reply
·
1
John West
1 week ago +Tyler Hurson
Wow, seems like the people want to hang you because of your point of view or maybe they are just being racist towards your guitar. At least you are not going along to get along. Respect.
Peace!
Reply
·
1
casualinsomniac
1 week ago
Whats hilarious is the suggestion that children aren't already starving in those countries. This guy acts like all that food is going to the locals, when that couldn't be father from the truth.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
1 week ago +casualinsomniac
We need to get ups on this.
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
6 days ago +casualinsomniac -
He is really sleazy in trying to bully someone who is being reasonable and honest and is right, while he is dodging about to make her look unreasonable (passionate? she is cool throughout!) - as for starvation of children and others of poor lands, not only it has been going on, while it went on rich nations drowned mountains of food just to keep prices up in the world and meanwhile lands in those countries (of Africa and south of US) are used for cultivating produce that is used in rich nations but is not essential (cocoa, coffee, .... bananas, ...) and the land in rich countries is used for not food as much as for other expensive luxuries that can be lived without (vineyards in Europe, corn for fuel in US). As for gm crops, the farmers in poor nations can go into vicious cycle of dire poverty having to buy seed perpetually, so it really is all lose lose for the poor.
Reply
·
1
Ell z
5 days ago
No. No it didn't actually. We barely struggled. We've got some things wrong with how we do things but humans provided by exploiting resources. Not "gaya" or I'm pretty sure it's Gaia.
Regardless either way you look at it, if we continue to support scientists, we'll find a way to be able to produce food without hurting anything. And the only way we can get there is through consumerism funding. Which is OUR fault for supporting it. Or our parents w/e.
If you don't agree with me, ask yourself this, when was the last time you donated money or information in order to better our food technologies?
Reply
·
John West
5 days ago (edited) +Ell z
Thank you for correcting my grammar.
You know the old saying "You are what you eat" and that saying has time and again proven to be correct.
What in your opinion would we become if for several generations we only eat purely modified artificial food? Just imagine the effect that McDonald had on obesity in America and even that had traces of actual food.
I take it that you do not like destroying nature or hurting animals and I can respect that. I do agree with you that it is a project worth investing and studying, but we must approach it with far more cation than making a quick buck for some capitalist corporation at the expense of every ecosystems on the planet.
Reply
·
1
Ell z
5 days ago
Absolutely, but we become hypocritical when we point the finger. I'm not exempt either, but as a world wide community we should be pointing out the real problems which is big rich elites and terrible governments. Not gm food itself. Times are different and we cannot rely on mother nature to stop people from starving in africa
Reply
·
John West
5 days ago (edited)+Ell z
I live in Africa, trust me the fertility of Africa if properly managed could probably feed the world several times over. The only reason why Africans are starving is because they are populating quicker than what the current agricultural techniques can keep up.
Do yourself a favor go onto Google earth and zoom into Central Africa and then you compare it to Europe. Im not that I am saying that all of our jungles should be turned into plantations, but there are other healthier options to the problems of starvation, other than biological monsters designed by untrustworthy people.
Besides by only feeding the African population without teaching Africans modern agriculture, you are only dooming them into further overpopulation that is dependent on foreign aid. If that foreign aid disappears, just imagine the famine and starvation that will take place.
These corporations are targeting your emotional side when they make excuses like feeding the poor. They know fully well that just providing food to the poor they are not solving any problems. For a corporation only one thing counts, power and control through money and dependency.
Reply
·
Ell z
5 days ago
I dont support corporations, but I support engineering food to make it last longer and provide benefits which are unnatural
Reply
·
KbcBerlin
5 days ago +Ell z
The more important issue is; mono culture, which is a great threat to future food supplies.
Also the quest for monopoly of food supply
Private industry seeks monopoly or as near as law will allow. .
Food is already unavailable to poor people ,because of market manipulations for profit.
GM is one more nail in the coffin of diversity, and non monopolised seed supply.
AgentNolies
5 days ago +KbcBerlin
And I always thought it was the local warlord controlling access to food.
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
3 days ago +John West -
Absolutely true -
"These corporations are targeting your emotional side when they make excuses like feeding the poor. They know fully well that just providing food to the poor they are not solving any problems. For a corporation only one thing counts, power and control through money and dependency."
Reply
·
AgentNolies
3 days ago +Jyotsna Gokhale
So I should not work at the soup kitchen?
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
2 days ago +AgentNolies -
Do what your conscience tells you, and reap as you sow - if you serve gm stuff and are punished it is not my concern and nor is it my role to instruct you when you drive about where to turn or stop. If someone is using feeding poor as an excuse to make money and starve billions via seed must be bought every year policy, it is mass murder of the most horrendous sort ever. This is apart from all the other horrendous possible effects yet unknown.
Once US medicine and pharmaceutical industry collaborated and used pregnant women as guinea pigs without their knowledge or consent to see what thalidomide and other drugs do - if you learn nothing, your future generations have no hope.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
2 days ago +Jyotsna Gokhale
So do you have any evidence to show me or are you going to use an argument from fear like a f**** street preacher?v?
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 day ago +AgentNolies -
That was uncalled for rudeness, and this is the last of any possible conversation with you. Evidence of ill effects of thalidomide emerged only after a huge number of children were born in horrible condition and if that is not enough caution for you by all means take thalidomide and gm and whatever else you like, there is plenty to experiment with yourself. If anyone else is injured or ill or damaged due to your intransigence on denying labels on food you will be the one guilty of sin of damaging human lives, perhaps more.
The very way you people are rude and making personal attacks is suspicious enough for anyone sensible to stay away from what you are defending, and demand the labeling of food and all products sold in US. Makes no sense to be behind Europe and many other nations of the world in everything but weapons.
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 day ago (edited)
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Strange how tables have turned. Once the disfranchised of Europe and later the world found refuge, life, freedom, chance for making it on one's own work and intelligence - in the new nation of US founded on those values. When did that turn around?
Now, Europe and the rest of the world speaks of human life and health and protects it, from the unethical practices of gm in name of science, while US has no warning on food that could be as dangerous as thalidomide was albeit with different dangers but to the same human life and with same policy being the cause of danger - rich corporations, then pharmaceuticals and now gm, need not spend money to experiment to make certain their products are safe; instead they can buy silence of authorities and goons to attack general public if anyone speaks against use of US and whatever other public (usually from poor nations) is being experimented on.
Abusive behaviour is dealt to those cautioning or asking for labeling of food and other products' contents, and proof or evidence is demanded from public about ill effects of experimental food and other products.
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Reply
·
AgentNolies
1 day ago +Jyotsna Gokhale
The onus is on the one claiming it is dangerous to begin with ( for that is a positive claim) they've already proved it is safe be at 20 years of research.
How was I rude, by accurately describing your argument technique.
It is not a personal attack at you its one at the argument itself. You did not provide any evidence for your argument only fear and you continue to do so in this coming as well.
Lose the right to life you say? give me 1 verified account of people being hurt by eating gm crops the have past its countries standards for safety.
Reply
·
1
sicDaVid
1 day ago
+AgentNolies What 20 years of research? The modifications very from crop to crop but I do have this to say. Round up was origanly pushed as organic and the label was changed soon there after. My point is Monsanto lies and BTW they do their own studies. They lie about those too. One thing you should know. Monsanto is in Missouri. Look up what part of the world has the lowest sperm count. Yup, It's monsanto's back yard. There is just one of several facts you will dismiss because you are blinded by corporate love. You and Mr wonderful should get a room.
Reply
·
1
Samia Mahammed
20 hours ago +AgentNolies
I love how people listen to some youtube debates, and suddenly they realize all these philosophical debate hacks: the onus is on x, because x claims y, and y is a z-claim. Shut up. Any claim puts an onus on someone in the sense that it must be justified in some way, if it is to be rationally required to accept by anyone. Some of the problems with GMOs depend on patent laws, first, and the spreading of genes from GMO crops to wild plant life. If you claim that there are no risks with spreading a multitude of genes amongst wild plants, then there certainly is an "onus" on you. Especially considering that some of these genes are used to fend of pests etc.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
14 hours ago +sicDaVid
good thing the study I was referring to was not only Monsanto but independent bodies as well.
if the sperm thing is true is that causation or is that correlation one does not equal the other you should know this.
Reply
·
AgentNolies
14 hours ago (edited) +Samia Mahammed
Never claimed their was no risk of gene spreading. So your point is moot, due to it being a fabrication on your part.
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 second ago +Samia Mahammed -
Interesting isn't it - how one can safely bet that those fraudulently spouting "science" as a word too holy to touch when it is defending corporate profits are precisely those that go mum about loyalty to science when it comes to evolution vs creation, and other such matters where votes rather than profit is concerned? Pretty much like those that call themselves prolifers on antiabortion platform for politics (of misogyny and convenience of forcing women back to slavery) are suddenly not quite so caring about already born humans when it comes to right to guns and to using weapons indiscriminately without anyone stopping them in the name of humanity or same human life, never mind other life.
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
My own comments:-
.......................................................
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 day ago
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Strange how tables have turned. Once the disfanchised of Europe and later the world found refuge, life, freedom, chance for making it on one's own work and intelligence - in the new nation of US founded on those values. When did that turn around?
Now, Europe and the rest of the world speaks of human life and health and protects it, from the unethical practices of gm in name of science, while US has no warning on food that could be as dangerous as thalidomide was albeit with different dangers but to the same human life and with same policy being the cause of danger - rich corporations, then pharmaceuticals and now gm, need not spend money to experiment to make certain their products are safe; instead they can buy silence of authorities and goons to attack general public if anyone speaks against use of US and whatever other public (usually from poor nations) is being experimented on.
Abusive behaviour is dealt to those cautioning or asking for labeling of food and other products' contents, and proof or evidence is demanded from public about ill effects of experimental food and other products.
Surely it should be the other way around, surely the onus is on the seller to provide evidence of safety of the product sold to general public, with labels of contents so buyers are aware? When did the US citizen lose rights to life and right to protect it? Guns are no use against gm food, and nor is the second amendment, surely that is obvious?
Jyotsna Gokhale
2 days ago
Some is trying emotional blackmail by asking me if he should stop working in soup kitchen - here is my reply.
Do what your conscience tells you, and reap as you sow - if you serve gm stuff and are punished it is not my concern and nor is it my role to instruct you when you drive about where to turn or stop. If someone is using feeding poor as an excuse to make money and starve billions via seed must be bought every year policy, it is mass murder of the most horrendous sort ever. This is apart from all the other horrendous possible effects yet unknown.
Once US medicine and pharmaceutical industry collaborated and used pregnant women as guinea pigs without their knowledge or consent to see what thalidomide and other drugs do - if you learn nothing, your future generations have no hope.
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
23 hours ago
Some fraud bully is going on with explicit declaration of "The onus is on the one claiming it is dangerous to begin with" - WRONG, as per law, the seller is supposed to list all ingredients on products sold, and the buyer thereby informed; this is only half complied with when genetically modified food is sold under the same label as normal, so that one may buy bread and not know there are flies in it.
Jyotsna Gokhale
3 days ago
- Absolutely true - comment among replies below -
"These corporations are targeting your emotional side when they make excuses like feeding the poor. They know fully well that just providing food to the poor they are not solving any problems. For a corporation only one thing counts, power and control through money and dependency."
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 week ago
Anyone else think this is a softer, veiled version of Malala shot by Taliban? This repeated bullying, provoking, attempting get her to equivocate or give up with fraudulent arguments, .... Hope this kid lives and succeeds! This guy is presenting the little girl with a Sophie's Choice, what a Nazi! She is smarter fortunately!
Reply
·
Jyotsna Gokhale
1 week ago
Both these adults are sleazy in attempting to present her and to make her see herself as not mature, not caring about poor dying, passionate against science, .... while really she is coming across as the one with logic, information and concern about health, rights and choices.
Reply
·
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
