• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gmo

Are you for or agains GMO?


  • Total voters
    20

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Are you for or against GMO?
Do you think it should be banned or the other way round?
Do you trust politicians and "experts" regarding this matter?

:peace
 
Are you for or against GMO?
Do you think it should be banned or the other way round?
Do you trust politicians and "experts" regarding this matter?

:peace


I am against GMO!
I think it should be banned!
Itrust neither the politicians or the experts. Both are bought and sold commodities.
I am fully aware of possible benefits as regards feeding the world, but the Corporations that control GMO are weasels. Monsanto, Union Carbide perhaps. It's like the Global Warming debate. There is really no debate, the consensus amont experts is that it is a real threat, yet the big carbon profiteers and polluters can buy experts to publish papers suggesting Global Warming is a fraud. The papers are frauds and the financiers and authors should both be arrested, except it's not illegal. Unethical, immoral, wrong, evil, etc., but not illegal.
 
I assume you are talking about

GMO - Genetically Modified Organisms

and not

GMO - General Moly, Inc.

and not

GMO - GMO LLC


Right?
 
I am against GMO!
I think it should be banned!
Itrust neither the politicians or the experts. Both are bought and sold commodities.
I am fully aware of possible benefits as regards feeding the world, but the Corporations that control GMO are weasels. Monsanto, Union Carbide perhaps. It's like the Global Warming debate. There is really no debate, the consensus amont experts is that it is a real threat, yet the big carbon profiteers and polluters can buy experts to publish papers suggesting Global Warming is a fraud. The papers are frauds and the financiers and authors should both be arrested, except it's not illegal. Unethical, immoral, wrong, evil, etc., but not illegal.

The issue is not global warming.The issue is man made global warming.Trying to lump in man made global warming fairy religion in with natural climate change suggest that you are trying to paint everyone who doesn't believe in man made global warming fairy tale like you do is a climate change denier.Funny how when a anti-man made global warming fairy tale study comes out its always, You man made climate change religious nuts claim they're funded by big oil. But somehow its perfectly acceptable if a pro-man made global warming fairy tale study is funded by people who believe in the man made global warming fairy tale religion. There is no consensus among all the scientists in whether or not man is the cause. If anyone should be arrested it should be all the people trying to push this man made global warming fairy tale on all of us and create laws that influence our pocket books. Trying to claim there is no debate is dishonest.
 
Are you for or against GMO?
Do you think it should be banned or the other way round?
Do you trust politicians and "experts" regarding this matter?

:peace

If its genetically modified diseases it should be banned.Scientists should never be allowed to create a more dangerous strain of the bird flue and those that do create more dangerous strains of diseases should be thrown into prison for it and permanently banned from their field of study. The world doesn't need mad scientists. Scientists Make Killer Flu Virus Even Deadlier - Truthdig

I am not sure I am comfortable with genetically modified food either.There could be unknown effects on people, as well as overtaking the natural wild life should the plants and animals get into the wild.Scientists are not the most ethical people on the planet who care if their discoveries have a negative impact and just like politicians are influenced by who ever is paying them.
 
I am against it personally. That being said, I'm not sure it should be banned, because we have an increasing need for food supplies due to a growing consumption. Sometimes, pragmatism trumps ideology.
 
The issue is not global warming.The issue is man made global warming.
You mean this year it's man-made global warming. Last year it was just "global warming is a ghost/specter/fairy tale". Yes, when their own experts publicly turned against them and said global warming was real they had no choice but to concede the point. Of course, it took a decade and who knows how many billions of dollars for us to get that far.
There is no consensus among all the scientists in whether or not man is the cause.
And thank goodness there will never be a "consensus among all the scientists" about anything because on that day science becomes religious dogma and ceases to be science. A very small few will continue to question even the most obvious. Personally, I still think there is no gravity - the Earth sucks.
 
Last edited:
I am against GMO!
I think it should be banned!
Itrust neither the politicians or the experts. Both are bought and sold commodities.
I am fully aware of possible benefits as regards feeding the world, but the Corporations that control GMO are weasels. Monsanto, Union Carbide perhaps. It's like the Global Warming debate. There is really no debate, the consensus amont experts is that it is a real threat, yet the big carbon profiteers and polluters can buy experts to publish papers suggesting Global Warming is a fraud. The papers are frauds and the financiers and authors should both be arrested, except it's not illegal. Unethical, immoral, wrong, evil, etc., but not illegal.

There is such a thing as "public image"..
Only the truth will do, NOT ADVERTISING !!!!
But I am for GMO, at this point in time and I do trust my... our government, but they too must work on their public image..
I tend to agree with the rest...the uneducated conservatives are a problem,IMO...
 
I assume you are talking about

GMO - Genetically Modified Organisms

and not

GMO - General Moly, Inc.

and not

GMO - GMO LLC


Right?
Having Googled....I was about to post the same thing.....
Beginning of rant...

Another problem in our society , the over use of acronyms and poor communications.
English must be taught in our schools, this is not being done as well as it could be, IMO.
In my opinion, it is disrespectful of other readers to use gibberish, acronyms, poor spelling, grammar, on and on..
End of rant..
 
The issue is not global warming.The issue is man made global warming.Trying to lump in man made global warming fairy religion in with natural climate change suggest that you are trying to paint everyone who doesn't believe in man made global warming fairy tale like you do is a climate change denier.Funny how when a anti-man made global warming fairy tale study comes out its always, You man made climate change religious nuts claim they're funded by big oil. But somehow its perfectly acceptable if a pro-man made global warming fairy tale study is funded by people who believe in the man made global warming fairy tale religion. There is no consensus among all the scientists in whether or not man is the cause. If anyone should be arrested it should be all the people trying to push this man made global warming fairy tale on all of us and create laws that influence our pocket books. Trying to claim there is no debate is dishonest.

Disagree !
And why do you think this is a "fairy-tale" ??
I for one ,have more faith in the scientists than I do with right-wing politicians....and the Becks and Rushes of this nation...
 
Disagree !
And why do you think this is a "fairy-tale" ??
I for one ,have more faith in the scientists than I do with right-wing politicians....and the Becks and Rushes of this nation...

You have faith in the scientist promoting your political beliefs, not scientist in general.
 
We already have GMO's. Scientists take a fruit fly and make it grow a leg where an antenna should be. Germs have been modified who knows how long at the government's behest and that started with the DoD, not the CDC. The next questions after that start talking about usage, not whether they should be allowed or not.

Should we modify plant genetics for release "into the wild"? I'd wouldn't exactly call hybrids "genetic modification" but they sure don't exist in nature. I see no way naval oranges can survive in nature past one generation. And who ever saw a tangelo until we made one? As I assume they're being referred to here, "GMO's" are simply the next step down that road. IF we continue to make small steps, and pause after each one to access possible long-term consequences, we should be fine. Field testing has been at the core of plant modifications for years. We switch this gene, turn off that gene, then plant a few acres and see what happens - it's been going on for decades. Unless we start taking huge steps I fail to see the problem.

Now, if you want to talk labeling or personal risk taking by consuming them that's a different subject.
 
Last edited:
I say leave my food alone, so yes we should ban GMO's as soon as possible. I've heard theories that GMO's have made mice infertile, weather or not these theories are true or not I still don't want people messing with my food.
 
This thread is about Genetically Modified Organism (GMO). Sorry, I didn't think it was necessary to clarify that.

That said, I don't mind selection and hybrids, but GMO is another beer. I don't think we should mess up with Nature.
Please, don't turn this topic in an AWG rant.

:)
 
Are you for or against GMO?
Do you think it should be banned or the other way round?
Do you trust politicians and "experts" regarding this matter?

:peace

for or against isn't specific enough.

for example, am i for technology that will maximize food production in a growing / developing world? yes.

am i also for thoroughly testing new food products? yes. it's always wise to test new food products for the presence of allergens / toxins.

will i eat those foods myself? yes.

while i don't claim to be the foremost expert in the field, i work in molecular / microbiology, i have worked in food safety r&d, and i stayed at a holiday inn express. what i can tell you is that if we all want to keep reproducing, a large percentage of the additional food needed for a growing population is going to have to come from technology. not to mention that this isn't something new; genetically manipulated / modified foods go back thousands of years.
 
You have faith in the scientist promoting your political beliefs, not scientist in general.
No true scientist promotes anything political, they are above that, most are, I'm sure, those who are not, I'll try to ignore.
 
GMO's are occurring in nature all the time. We should stop it, right?
 
That said, I don't mind selection and hybrids, but GMO is another beer. I don't think we should mess up with Nature.
Selection is simple enough. You keep the biggest seeds from this year's crop to plant next years crop and, over time, the plants will tend to have a higher yield for that environment. This is simply speeding up the evolutionary process.

Hybrids mix two species together that, in nature, could never happen or might happen only once in (literally) a million years. In short, hybrids are not "natural". So, what exactly do you think they do with GMO's that makes them more dangerous?
 
Last edited:
There is ZERO scientific evidence that genetically-modified foods cause any sort of negative health risks. None. Zilch. Nada. Furthermore, genetically-modified foods are the way of the future whether you like it or not, so there's really not much to debate here. As the population of the earth continues to grow and plateau mid-century around 10 billion people, and as more of those people become wealthier, we are simply going to need more food. And the only way to get there is with genetically-modified foods.

Furthermore, GMO crops have lots of advantages that regular crops don't. You could modify them to carry medical treatment or other health benefits (think of getting your flu vaccine by eating an apple, or think of eating carrots with the nutritional content of broccoli or vice versa). You could modify them to grow in climates and regions where they currently cannot grow (think of growing coffee in Canada, or growing rice in the Sahara Desert). You could modify them so they are less environmentally harmful (think of growing corn that uses 80% less water and takes up 50% less land).
 
This thread is about Genetically Modified Organism (GMO). Sorry, I didn't think it was necessary to clarify that.

That said, I don't mind selection and hybrids, but GMO is another beer. I don't think we should mess up with Nature.

Virtually everything we eat is "messing with nature" in the extreme. For evidence of that, just compare the appearance of modern-day corn with teosinte, from which it descended. Corn is an entirely human creation.
 
for example, am i for technology that will maximize food production in a growing / developing world? yes.

Yes. How about optimizing existing agriculture and/or abolish "harmful" cultures, such as tobacco? :)

what i can tell you is that if we all want to keep reproducing, a large percentage of the additional food needed for a growing population is going to have to come from technology.

Thousands of tons of food are dumped around the world every day. How about a more efficient distribution system? Hm, no, we need new social-economic system altogether, imho. :)


GMO's are occurring in nature all the time. We should stop it, right?

There is a difference between natural and human GMO.

Hybrids mix two species together that, in nature, could never happen or might happen only once in (literally) a million years. In short, hybrids are not "natural". So, what exactly do you think they do with GMO's that makes them more dangerous?

Directly manipulate DNA?
 
Directly manipulate DNA?
I think we already do that and have been doing it for some time, though it's rather crude at this point. We're not building DNA from scratch or anything. As far as I know we're just pushing around some already existing sequences and controlling which genes cross over to the next generation.

But I'll yield to Helix for details, I'm an amateur at best.
 
Last edited:
I think we already do that and have been doing it for some time,
That's the problem. I think we shouldn't, it's too risky 'cause we don't know how that may end (mutations, viruses, etc).
 
Most things that I have heard about GMO's are negative...


But then, the only sources I've heard from are probably somewhat biased.


Has anyone done a serious scientific study to discover whether any possible negative effects exist?

Because most of what I’ve heard seems like “well this is a possible side-effect, ZOMG TEH HORROR, ban it now!!!!”.
 
That's the problem. I think we shouldn't, it's too risky 'cause we don't know how that may end (mutations, viruses, etc).
The same could be said of most things that, sometimes literally, change the world.

Taking risk is what we do to advance. There are ways to reduce risk and we usually do that. The trick is to take a step, test your footing to make sure it's solid, then take another step. If the risk is bigger the steps are made smaller. If the risk is small the steps get bigger. But you can't eliminate risk if you want to advance because you never know what's over the next hill. Somewhere along the line you've got to be a silhouette on the hilltop if you're going to see what's over that hill.
 
Back
Top Bottom