View Poll Results: Your vote on this proposal would be?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    9 20.45%
  • no

    25 56.82%
  • no, but I would vote yes on labeling

    8 18.18%
  • undecided

    2 4.55%
Page 9 of 23 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 224

Thread: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

  1. #81
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Also DNA, it is really unnecessary to talk in legislative or civil legalese, just say plainly what you mean. I was flipping through the thread and I think the constant quoted references to the 'commons' and your associated terminology is unnecessarily cumbersome. If you are worried about natural lifeforms and organisms being patented, and worried that GMO's may result in contamination of public and private land then say so.
    OK then general Sherman let's try it this way...its easy as 123...





  2. #82
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
    The truth is, we don't fully understand the implications of genetic modification. More testing was needed before its practices became mainstream. In fact, Monsanto's GMFs are destroying the natural variety of corn crops and many other crops. Corporate interests are at play here. More caution is needed!

    That isn't true and has no basis in scientific reality. We have conducted thousands of studies, virtually all of which have confirmed what we've known for years which is that there is no measurable health risk associated with genetically modified crops nor consequently with genetically modified food. To quote one of hundreds "The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.""

    In fact the real driver behind the anti-GMO push comes from the organic food industry and smaller farmers who raise and stoke fear in an effort to protect their own corporate and business interests in the face of highly competitive and expensive to enter genetic agriculture, livestock, and food markets. The GMO classification drive in California (which failed) is a classic example of this. The top donors and petition circulators for the effort came from a mix of organic farming corporations, natural food restaurant companies, and alternative medicine & nutrition practitioners all of which is a large industry in California.

    It is protectionism, which misinformed green and consumer advocates latch onto in an effort to defeat an enemy and a problem which doesn't exist.

    Edit: Opposing genetically modified foods and organisms on a scientific basis is the equivalent of denying climate change. It relies on studies by individual scientists and labs conducted on the margins, and heavily publicized single cases often taken out of context and practical understanding. All while ignoring the mountains of studies and evidence that point towards the opposite. It is so extraordinarily similar to global climate change denialists.
    Last edited by Sherman123; 01-21-13 at 01:56 PM.

  3. #83
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    There is also an almost pathological inability for anti-GMO activists to differentiate between business practices and scientific standards and rigors. There is no major scientific body on the planet that has found a harmful link or negative differentiation between 'synthetic' foods and organisms and natural ones.
    Your quote is akin to saying its ok for hungry sharks to be the new lifeguards of the gene pool we all swim in, and the gullible root of it reminds me of a recent Allstate insurance commercial and how the standard language of your corps gov is backwards or Orwellian if you will:

    Sandy Allstate Ad: Company Pulls Advertisement Featuring Couple's Destroyed Staten Island Home

    I'm guessing that all these countries/govs are just paranoid from your view then right?



    By Stephanie Whiteside / current.com / @stephgwhiteside

    Genetically modified foods are foods made from genetically modified organisms. A few weeks ago, California voters turned down Proposition 37, which would have required that GMO foods be labeled as such. Chemical companies and processed-food manufacturers heavily — and successfully — backed a campaign opposing the proposition. Nationwide, GMO crops are prevalent and efforts to label GMO foods have yet to get off the ground.

    But outside the U.S., you can find a different approach.

    Peru has said "no" to genetically modified foods — a 10-year ban on GMO foods takes effect this week. Peru's ban on GMO foods prohibits the import, production and use of genetically modified foods. The law is aimed at safeguarding the country's agricultural diversity and preventing cross-pollination with non-GMO crops. It will also help protect Peruvian exports of organic products.

    Peru isn't the first country to ban GMO foods or place restrictions on their use. Earlier this year, Russia suspended imports of Monsanto's GMO corn after a French study linked the corn to cancer; France also has a temporary ban on the corn. Ireland has banned the growing of GMO crops since 2009. Japan and Egypt also ban the cultivation of GMO crops. In 2010, Switzerland extended a moratorium on genetically modified animals and plants, banning GMOs until 2013.

    Even countries that don't ban GMO crops may place restrictions on them. Germany requires farmers growing GMO crops to maintain a minimum distance from conventional farms and holds them liable for damages if conventional crops are contaminated via cross-pollination. A German court upheld the restrictions, turning down a complaint that claimed the regulations unfairly damaged farmers.

    In some places where GMOs are permitted, labeling is required, enabling consumers to decide if they wish to purchase foods containing GMOs. In 1998, the European Union began requiring labels for food products with more than 0.9 percent of ingredients from genetically modified processes. Other countries, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, India, Chile and South Africa, require labeling for foods containing GMOs.

    The U.S., however, has no such requirements. Efforts to ban GMO foods or require labeling have occurred only on a local level. Most recently, California's Proposition 37 was an attempt to require labeling of food containing genetically modified ingredients. The proposition was defeated at the ballot box after Monsanto and other companies poured money into opposing the effort, including an ad campaign that claimed the labeling requirement would cause the cost of groceries to skyrocket.

    When other countries are taking the step to ban GMO crops outright, the U.S. remains resistant to even allowing consumers to know if they are consuming food made with genetically modified ingredients. America is embracing the cultivation of GMO crops while other countries are taking a more cautious approach — and now thousands of products in the United States contain GMOs, a contrast to Europe, where labeling is required and few products use genetically modified ingredients. Manufacturers of GMOs claim genetically engineered products are safe and well accepted, but the resistance to labeling suggest otherwise. When it comes to consumer choice on GMOs, the U.S. shouldn't be lagging behind.

  4. #84
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Your quote is akin to saying its ok for hungry sharks to be the new lifeguards of the gene pool we all swim in, and the gullible root of it reminds me of a recent Allstate insurance commercial and how the standard language of your corps gov is backwards or Orwellian if you will:

    Sandy Allstate Ad: Company Pulls Advertisement Featuring Couple's Destroyed Staten Island Home

    I'm guessing that all these countries/govs are just paranoid from your view then right?



    By Stephanie Whiteside / current.com / @stephgwhiteside

    Genetically modified foods are foods made from genetically modified organisms. A few weeks ago, California voters turned down Proposition 37, which would have required that GMO foods be labeled as such. Chemical companies and processed-food manufacturers heavily — and successfully — backed a campaign opposing the proposition. Nationwide, GMO crops are prevalent and efforts to label GMO foods have yet to get off the ground.

    But outside the U.S., you can find a different approach.

    Peru has said "no" to genetically modified foods — a 10-year ban on GMO foods takes effect this week. Peru's ban on GMO foods prohibits the import, production and use of genetically modified foods. The law is aimed at safeguarding the country's agricultural diversity and preventing cross-pollination with non-GMO crops. It will also help protect Peruvian exports of organic products.

    Peru isn't the first country to ban GMO foods or place restrictions on their use. Earlier this year, Russia suspended imports of Monsanto's GMO corn after a French study linked the corn to cancer; France also has a temporary ban on the corn. Ireland has banned the growing of GMO crops since 2009. Japan and Egypt also ban the cultivation of GMO crops. In 2010, Switzerland extended a moratorium on genetically modified animals and plants, banning GMOs until 2013.

    Even countries that don't ban GMO crops may place restrictions on them. Germany requires farmers growing GMO crops to maintain a minimum distance from conventional farms and holds them liable for damages if conventional crops are contaminated via cross-pollination. A German court upheld the restrictions, turning down a complaint that claimed the regulations unfairly damaged farmers.

    In some places where GMOs are permitted, labeling is required, enabling consumers to decide if they wish to purchase foods containing GMOs. In 1998, the European Union began requiring labels for food products with more than 0.9 percent of ingredients from genetically modified processes. Other countries, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, India, Chile and South Africa, require labeling for foods containing GMOs.

    The U.S., however, has no such requirements. Efforts to ban GMO foods or require labeling have occurred only on a local level. Most recently, California's Proposition 37 was an attempt to require labeling of food containing genetically modified ingredients. The proposition was defeated at the ballot box after Monsanto and other companies poured money into opposing the effort, including an ad campaign that claimed the labeling requirement would cause the cost of groceries to skyrocket.

    When other countries are taking the step to ban GMO crops outright, the U.S. remains resistant to even allowing consumers to know if they are consuming food made with genetically modified ingredients. America is embracing the cultivation of GMO crops while other countries are taking a more cautious approach — and now thousands of products in the United States contain GMOs, a contrast to Europe, where labeling is required and few products use genetically modified ingredients. Manufacturers of GMOs claim genetically engineered products are safe and well accepted, but the resistance to labeling suggest otherwise. When it comes to consumer choice on GMOs, the U.S. shouldn't be lagging behind.
    1. If you want to regulate business practices that is a COMPLETELY separate issue from attacking the health and viability of GMO's which is not reasonably debatable.

    2. Yes Russia and Peru are ****ty countries and are reacting to domestic political and economic considerations. Duh.

    3. GMO labeling and crop banning is a fear mongering campaign that is mostly designed to suit farming interests and advocates in the organic food industry, and of course their useful but ill-informed allies in the Green and consumer advocacy community. This is really noticeable in Europe where the charge is usually led by subsidized small to medium holding farmers. It is entirely artificial. It is abominable that the Green movement has betrayed its roots and abetted this blatant profit motivated protectionism. It is anti-science and unethical.

  5. #85
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    1. If you want to regulate business practices that is a COMPLETELY separate issue from attacking the health and viability of GMO's which is not reasonably debatable.

    2. Yes Russia and Peru are ****ty countries and are reacting to domestic political and economic considerations. Duh.

    3. GMO labeling and crop banning is a fear mongering campaign that is mostly designed to suit farming interests and advocates in the organic food industry, and of course their useful but ill-informed allies in the Green and consumer advocacy community. This is really noticeable in Europe where the charge is usually led by subsidized small to medium holding farmers. It is entirely artificial. It is abominable that the Green movement has betrayed its roots and abetted this blatant profit motivated protectionism. It is anti-science and unethical.
    Monsanto | Issues and Answers

    Monsanto | Safety and Technical Information

    First general I'm changing your name to Custer because often in these 'debates' the continually parroted 'talking points' that you use get quite boorish and may as well be pasted from Monsanto's own web site...duh lol...so for the sake of boredom reduction and for the training value it has for new troops I dub thee Custer123 before I return for your virtual beheading...this is where you are at this point:




  6. #86
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Monsanto | Issues and Answers

    Monsanto | Safety and Technical Information

    First general I'm changing your name to Custer because often in these 'debates' the continually parroted 'talking points' that you use get quite boorish and may as well be pasted from Monsanto's own web site...duh lol...so for the sake of boredom reduction and for the training value it has for new troops I dub thee Custer123 before I return for your virtual beheading...this is where you are at this point:



    Uh... what?

  7. #87
    ¡Selah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    That isn't true and has no basis in scientific reality. We have conducted thousands of studies, virtually all of which have confirmed what we've known for years which is that there is no measurable health risk associated with genetically modified crops nor consequently with genetically modified food. To quote one of hundreds "The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.""

    In fact the real driver behind the anti-GMO push comes from the organic food industry and smaller farmers who raise and stoke fear in an effort to protect their own corporate and business interests in the face of highly competitive and expensive to enter genetic agriculture, livestock, and food markets. The GMO classification drive in California (which failed) is a classic example of this. The top donors and petition circulators for the effort came from a mix of organic farming corporations, natural food restaurant companies, and alternative medicine & nutrition practitioners all of which is a large industry in California.

    It is protectionism, which misinformed green and consumer advocates latch onto in an effort to defeat an enemy and a problem which doesn't exist.

    Edit: Opposing genetically modified foods and organisms on a scientific basis is the equivalent of denying climate change. It relies on studies by individual scientists and labs conducted on the margins, and heavily publicized single cases often taken out of context and practical understanding. All while ignoring the mountains of studies and evidence that point towards the opposite. It is so extraordinarily similar to global climate change denialists.
    Please watch both videos. The second one explains how they are inserting the rogue genetic material into the plants using virus's and bacteria. The problems which could potentially arise from these practices should be rather obvious. And what about the lack of genetic variation? A single plague could wipe out our entire food supply, not to mention that a few corporations in the world control the word's food supply. Are people really so blinded by propaganda that they cannot see this?

  8. #88
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
    Please watch both videos. The second one explains how they are inserting the rogue genetic material into the plants using virus's and bacteria. The problems which could potentially arise from these practices should be rather obvious. And what about the lack of genetic variation? A single plague could wipe out our entire food supply, not to mention that a few corporations in the world control the word's food supply. Are people really so blinded by propaganda that they cannot see this?
    Something that I always find fascinating about this particular complaint is that the greatest tool to prevent the lateral spread of herbicide resistance or some terrible infection (which has never happened...) is... terminator seeds (GURT)! By preventing by product seeds from being replanted you can kill a generation and prepare a new one very easily and prevent a catastrophic spread. It is in fact partially what GURT was made for.

    Secondly agricultural biodiversity died years ago when we shifted to the modern agricultural standard which emphasized crop uniformity to increase food output and consistency. GMO's are a recent contribution to this mix and in fact are the hoped for answer to the problems caused by the decline of agricultural biodiversity. Why? Because if we are going to have mass modern agriculture (which we will, we have billions to feed) and take that loss, it would be best to experiment and test plant and feed strains that are resistant to various blights and plagues that cause us so much trouble. While constant research and testing offers opportunities offers the chance for future anticipatory protection as well.

  9. #89
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    I am not worried. Terminator seeds do not bother me but they are not necessary. There is plenty of biodiversity on this planet.

  10. #90
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Uh... what?
    Oh my General sorry for the delay, very busy day on the front lines yesir...plenty of time to answer the "Uh what?" in a moment, but for now on that count how about start with this...lol...





    Before we get on with the rest of that business though, I would like to address this new business you have raised in attempt at being rewarded with a pardon I can only suspect:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Something that I always find fascinating about this particular complaint is that the greatest tool to prevent the lateral spread of herbicide resistance or some terrible infection (which has never happened...) is... terminator seeds (GURT)! By preventing by product seeds from being replanted you can kill a generation and prepare a new one very easily and prevent a catastrophic spread. It is in fact partially what GURT was made for.

    Secondly agricultural biodiversity died years ago when we shifted to the modern agricultural standard which emphasized crop uniformity to increase food output and consistency. GMO's are a recent contribution to this mix and in fact are the hoped for answer to the problems caused by the decline of agricultural biodiversity. Why? Because if we are going to have mass modern agriculture (which we will, we have billions to feed) and take that loss, it would be best to experiment and test plant and feed strains that are resistant to various blights and plagues that cause us so much trouble. While constant research and testing offers opportunities offers the chance for future anticipatory protection as well.
    Pardon denied, explanation below:


    Industrial Agriculture

    Today, the majority of American farmland is dominated by industrial agriculture—the system of chemically intensive food production developed in the decades after World War II, featuring enormous single-crop farms and animal production facilities.

    Back then, industrial agriculture was hailed as a technological triumph that would enable a skyrocketing world population to feed itself. Today, a growing chorus of agricultural experts—including farmers as well as scientists and policy makers—sees industrial agriculture as a dead end, a mistaken application to living systems of approaches better suited for making jet fighters and refrigerators.

    The impacts of industrial agriculture on the environment, public health, and rural communities make it an unsustainable way to grow our food over the long term. And better, science-based methods are available.
    Industrial Agriculture Practices: Monoculture

    At the core of industrial food production is monoculture—the practice of growing single crops intensively on a very large scale. Corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton and rice are all commonly grown this way in the United States.

    Monoculture farming relies heavily on chemical inputs such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The fertilizers are needed because growing the same plant (and nothing else) in the same place year after year quickly depletes the nutrients that the plant relies on, and these nutrients have to be replenished somehow. The pesticides are needed because monoculture fields are highly attractive to certain weeds and insect pests.
    Learn more:

    Expanding Monoculture: Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture

    Industrial Agriculture Practices: Meat Production

    In the industrial system of meat production, meat animals are "finished"—prepared for slaughter—at large-scale facilities called CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations), where their mobility is restricted and they are fed a high-calorie, grain-based diet, often supplemented with antibiotics and hormones, to maximize their weight gain. Their waste is concentrated and becomes an environmental problem, not the convenient source of fertilizer that manure can be for more diverse, less massively scaled farms.
    Learn more:

    CAFOs Uncovered (2008)
    They Eat What? The Reality of Feed at Animal Factories

    Impacts of Industrial Agriculture: Environmental Damage

    No matter what methods are used, agriculture always has some impact on the environment. But industrial agriculture is a special case: it damages the soil, water, and even the climate on an unprecedented scale.

    Intensive monoculture depletes soil and leaves it vulnerable to erosion. Chemical fertilizer runoff and CAFO wastes add to global warming emissions and create oxygen-deprived "dead zones" at the mouths of major waterways. Herbicides and insecticides harm wildlife and can pose human health risks as well. Biodiversity in and near monoculture fields takes a hit, as populations of birds and beneficial insects decline.
    Learn more:

    Increasing Herbicide Use: Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture
    Hidden Costs of Industrial Agriculture

    Impacts of Industrial Agriculture: Evolutionary Wars

    Whenever we attack a population of unwanted organisms (such as weeds or bacteria) repeatedly with the same weapon, we give an evolutionary advantage to genes that make the organism less vulnerable to that weapon. Over time, those genes become more widespread, and the weapon becomes less useful—a phenomenon called resistance. Industrial agriculture has accelerated resistance problems on at least two fronts.

    Overuse of antibiotics in meat production (in the U.S., more antibiotics are consumed each year by healthy animals than by sick humans) has contributed to a growing problem of antibiotic resistance that is having a serious impact on the treatment of infectious diseases.

    And a similar over-reliance on the herbicide glyphosate (marketed by Monsanto Co. as Roundup) has spawned a burgeoning population of Roundup-resistant "superweeds" that has become a scourge for farmers in many areas of the U.S., especially the South and Midwest.
    Learn more:

    Prescription for Trouble: Using Antibiotics to Fatten Livestock
    Promoting Pesticide Resistance: Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture

    See also: Industrial Agriculture | Pesticide Action Network

    "Humans have been farming for 10,000 years. Sixty years ago, after World War II, we started industrializing U.S. farming operations through a mix of policy decisions and accidents of history. This method of farming is neither inevitable nor efficient. More to the point, it can't be sustained.

    Industrial agriculture treats the farm as a factory, with "inputs" (pesticides, fertilizers) and "outputs" (crops). The end-objective is increasing yields while controlling costs — usually by exploiting economies of scale (i.e. making a lot of one thing, or "monocropping"), and by replacing solar energy and manual labor with machines and petro-chemicals like pesticides and fertilizers.

    In relying on chemical "inputs," we have un-learned how to farm.

    This model of farming is inefficient and does not represent the cutting edge of modern farming. In 1940, we produced 2.3 food calories for every 1 fossil fuel calorie used. By industrializing our food and farming systems, we now get 1 food calorie for every 10 fossil fuel calories used — a 23-fold reduction in efficiency. Following this path we have become dependent on cheap, abundant oil, and on quick chemical "fixes" for agro-ecosystem challenges that are complicated and require deep, local and hands-on knowledge. In relying on chemical inputs, we have un-learned how to farm.
    Hidden Costs of Chemical Dependence..." read the rest here: Industrial Agriculture | Pesticide Action Network

    We will now proceed with the rest of the "Uh what?" question in the following post...General...

Page 9 of 23 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •