• 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!

The DNA Protection Act of 2013

Your vote on this proposal would be?


  • Total voters
    40

DNAprotection

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
85
Reaction score
76
Location
cali
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The natural genetics or DNA of the natural world or the commons is under attack.
Corporate interests are working 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks to re-design and or re-sequence the genetic material or DNA of the natural world in effort to patent and own such modified genetic designs or 'blueprints'.
The DNA Protection Act of 2013 will protect the naturally intended genetic designs of the living natural world and or the commons within the state of California from the immanent threat of broken DNA caused by genetic engineering and or genetic modification technologies.
This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come.:peace

"THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013"

This act shall be known as, and may be cited as THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013, and is hereby incorporated to amend and or be added to the California Health and Safety Code as;
DIVISION 123.THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013... 151004,
and is as set forth herein as follows;

section 1. FINDINGS,
The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013 are as follows:

1.(a) whereas the people of the state of California recognize the many different religions and cultures and individuals, including "secular", that all together define and or represent and or make up what is commonly known as "THE PEOPLE" of the state of California, and as such, have different names for that which is ultimately responsible for the creation and or existence of the people and all that exists, as exampled by the following sample:
GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al,
and,
1.(b) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, has endowed unto the people to equally share in dependency on, and responsibility to, what is commonly known as "the commons",
and,
1.(c) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that private and public entities are involved in what is commonly known as "genetic engineering" and or "gene splicing" and or "genetically modifying" all forms of life in effort to redesign the natural creation and or natural world and are applying such technology to 'food crops' and 'farm animals' that then end up in the human food chain,
and,
1.(d) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that said practices and or technologies have unknown side effects and or consequences to the natural world, and or "the commons" in general, and to humans specifically, and that said practices irreparably damage the original and or naturally intended design of life itself, and or specifically that of the commons, and thereby denying the people and the future generations of people of the commons in their naturally intended form and or naturally occurring DNA sequences that were and are naturally designed by and bestowed upon them by GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, and to which the people have relied upon since the dawn of human kind and are inseparably dependent upon in the common struggle to live,
and,
1.(e) whereas said genetic engineering practices result in private and or public corporations and or private individuals owning patents on the genetic design of life forms,
and,
1.(f) whereas the naturally occurring forms of life that inhabit the commons currently have no statutory protections against the inevitable and eminent danger of 'genetic pollution' that results and or can result from genetic engineering,
1.(g) we the people of California therefor find that genetic engineering poses an eminent threat of danger to all the naturally sequenced DNA in the natural world, and by the act of direct or indirect manipulation of naturally sequenced DNA does in itself create the irreparable permanent damage to the original genetic designs of life, and so we do hereby create the urgently necessary DNA protections contained herein as described in section 3 of this ACT.

section 2. DEFINITIONS:

2.(a) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "DNA", (deoxyribonucleic acid), shall mean the complex substance that is the main carrier of genetic information for all organisms and a major component of chromosomes and can be analogized to mean the 'blueprints' that determine what form(s) life takes and is central to the natural function(s) of all life in the common struggle to live.

2.(b) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "the commons" shall mean the natural biological world and all life and ecosystems naturally existing in the natural world in its natural state of genetic design or DNA sequencing, and specifically, but not limited to, naturally occurring varieties of plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof) and insects (including the offspring thereof).

2.(c) For the purposes of this ACT, the terms "genetically engineered" and "genetically modified" shall mean the scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism, and or the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism.

section 3. PROVISIONS, PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS:

3.(a) This ACT does hereby prohibit live genetically engineered and or genetically modified plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such organisms from existing within the boarders of the state of California, and that all living genetically engineered plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such genetically engineered genetically modified organisms have six months from the date of the adoption of this ACT into law to be removed from the state by those individuals or corporate or government entities that brought and or posses such within the state of California, and which shall be done in a manner that does not further the threat of genetic pollution and or genetically engineered DNA contamination exposure to the commons and or natural world.

3.(b) Failure to satisfy the requirements of this ACT, and or anyone who possesses and or sponsors in any way the possession of living genetically engineered organisms within the state of California after the initial six month clearing out period shall be subject to the punishments of fines no less than one million dollars per day for corporations and one hundred dollars per day for private individuals and or shall also be punishable by no less than six months in jail for private individuals and no less than ten years in prison for individuals working for or on behalf of corporate entities, and said penalties are to be paid to, and or, served in the county where said violation(s) has occurred. The penalties imposed by this ACT are to be adjudicated and assessed in the Superior Court jurisdiction of the county where the violation(s) have occurred and are to be determined exponentially based on estimates of damage and or potential damage to the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to which consideration of possible impact of said damage is not limited to the county where the violation has occurred, and further, nothing in this ACT shall in any way be construed to mean limiting, preventing or precluding a California court of proper jurisdiction from increasing any of the stated penalties of this ACT at the courts discretion, and that such increases are to be determined based on estimates of damage(s) and or potential damage(s) to a specific and or the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to, whether directly or indirectly, human beings and their naturally designed genetic inheritance of the commons and their collective dependence on, and responsibility to such.

3.(c) This ACT is not intended to preclude or limit or interfere in any way with medical personnel from applying medical technologies or medical procedures that employ genetic modification technologies in their application(s) and or the research in effort to develop such, and so does hereby exempt such conduct from the requirements of this ACT, but said medical technologies or medical procedures and or research must ensure that they are to be applied in a way that isolates the intended or unintended effects of such to the specific patient(s) and is in no way a broader genetic contamination threat and or in no way can be a possible contaminant to the naturally sequenced DNA of any other living organisms of the commons and or the natural world, further, this ACT is not intended to "exempt" any living plant (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such living genetically engineered and or genetically modified organisms intended for human consumption as "medicine" and or "nutritional medicine" that would be self applied at 'home' by ingestion or topically or any other method and is allowed only in a controlled hospital setting and is to be applied directly by or with the assistance of qualified medical personal.

3.(d) If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
 
I would vote no. Genetic engineering won't harm anything that animal husbandry and selective breeding doesn't. It just does it faster.

And genetically modified food is going to be a big part of what helps feed the rapidly growing population of this planet. That isn't to say it should be completely unregulated, but I wouldn't vote to ban it.

On a side note, you might get more responses to your post if you put a shorter description of what the law does in simpler terms.
 
I am okay with people not being able to claim but a very short IP right over genetic modification, but I don't think we should stop it.
 
i wonder if even one of the bill's proponents have passed a graduate level biotech lab. i'm guessing none. it's sort of like the anti-vaxers who haven't even taken an immunology course, but some blog puts bull**** on the internet and they accept it as gospel.

i work in this field, and i would vote no.
 
There is considerable abuse with regards to biotechnology, (Monsanto) but that is cause for sensible regulation not a blanket ban. The people who created this particular garbage, are ignorant luddites who have no clue what they are talking about. They utterly fail on basic the taxonomy of living organisms, much less actual knowledge about genetics or biology.

The first rule about trying to pass a law about something, regardless of whether its plants or guns, is to be educated about the subject in question. Laws based on ignorance inevitably suck.
 
Ignorant anti-science nonsense. Here's a specific example of genetic engineering: Bananas.

You know what also has unintended consequences?

Everything.


 
Natural selection of naturally occurring mutations or scientist created ones. What really is the difference other than science, when enough is known, can introduce much less harmful mutations that are targeted to end bad genetic traits or, in animals and plants, maybe let them create new drugs that are much better than existing ones.

I would agree that due to the Law of Unintended Consequences that they should not randomly experiment on humans, but other than that, I have no problems with it.

And if a company put forth the funds to do the research, why shouldn't they, at least for a limited time, be the ones to reap the rewards/profits from it?
 
Genetic engineering may hold the key to human survival in outer space/planetary colonization. Not only for creating foods on other planets/moons to sustain us, but to adapt our own bodies for the rigors of space travel and or adaptations to alien environments.
 
I voted undecided, until I see the movie, I'm not sure.
 
I voted undecided, until I see the movie, I'm not sure.

I usually hold off on wielding the quote of destiny, but in this case I will make an exception because all but for the above poster clearly call for being dispatched with prejudice and forthwith, therefore you have sealed your own fate and I must admit I love the smell of biotech defenders in the late afternoon...smells like...victory lol...
I have found that to wield the all powerful Rumsfeld quote of destiny proves the undeniable point much like a simple decapitation or like game over in the video game debate version...once wielded not even the top Monsanto et al scientists can argue against the simple fatal truth of it and even Einstein would in all likelihood argue in defense of its simple equation logic with respect to not having all the numbers to the equations of life itself let alone its symbiotic nature and the possibly devastating chain reactive effects this technology could unleash as we allow the corps/gov to General Custer us all forward redesigning and privatizing the gene pool (we all swim in and come from) for profit...the quote of destiny is awesome and should only be used if ready to behead your opponent. Sometimes its useful to draw your opponent out far enough so as to be naked for their beheading and you folks are there and bare back...
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Donald Rumsfeld




To the one undecided poster I suggest researching some down this red road:
Pirate Television - Thomas Linzey & Katherine Davies: Who Has The Right? - YouTube
" Published on Mar 7, 2012

Expanding the rights of individuals, communities, and nature as a key strategy for sustainability. The rights over a person's genes, tissues, and environmental health is near to non-existent. Over 20% of human genome is patented by corporations and universities. Toxic trespass is a condition where human tissues contain unwanted toxins via unregulated food supply, water supply, air conditions and environmental factors. Lead in blood, mercury in hair, and contamination in mother's milk are examples of toxic trespass. As of now we do not have the right to a healthy environmental living condition. The current activism is not working to stop environmental problems. Although environmental law firms have judicial victories, most permits that were fought against end up being reestablished. Many established environmental issues should be seen as human rights issues."
 
I voted undecided, until I see the movie, I'm not sure.

Moobie at leben. I want genetic engineering confined. Big Corporate cannot be trusted. If there is a profit involved, there will be skullduggery afoot, eh?
 
Moobie at leben. I want genetic engineering confined. Big Corporate cannot be trusted. If there is a profit involved, there will be skullduggery afoot, eh?

The cautious approach is the only path that makes sense for everything but profits and central control...in fact its a play for the most centralized control mechanisms imaginable, controlling the gene pool and the evolution of such, its like springtime for Hitler...and the attempt may be fatal due to unforeseen chain reactive effects...unforeseen because we simply don't have all the numbers to the complicated equations of life.
Those here who have compared genetic engineering or gene splicing and or DNA re-sequencing to anything that happens in the natural sequences of procreation whether manipulated by our influence or not simply don't know what said terms mean and should study up before voting on such a critical issue.
Biotech girl who claims to work in the field seems well propagandized by that which apparently pays her bills.
 
And genetically modified food is going to be a big part of what helps feed the rapidly growing population of this planet.

There's already more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet, and feed them quite well.

The issue has nothing to do with supply of food. It has to do with two things:

1. Distribution. Both lack of it, and doing it inappropriately.

A lot of dictatorial nations, which are theoretically capable of feeding everyone, instead horde the food for the wealthy and powerful.

Just as big of a problem is subsidized foods coming from places like America which flood third world markets with extremely cheap food and put local farmers out of business, resulting in an endless loop of food shortage that requires constant intervention and ever-worsening outcomes.

2. Soil degradation. There is no way for genetic engineering to counteract this, and most make it worse, because they're engineered to grow bigger and thus suck more resources out of the soil.

Artificial fertilizers and nitrogen fertilizers don't help in the long run, because they're quite damaging to the land and the water, as well as requiring huge amounts of fossil fuels in order to process, and can result in dead zones and worsened air and water quality, which is obviously harmful for crops. Also, as the amount needed increases due to loss of viability of the soil, the cost becomes unsustainable for farmers, and ultimately can put them out of business or decrease the amount of land they can afford to farm. Finding more farmers is pretty unlikely, with urban congregation and the ever-shrinking sustainability of farming financially.

GMO's also cause degradation by allowing totally homogenous farm lands without any pestilence. Without diversity to help revive the soil, this speeds up the rate of erosion dramatically. It also makes farms extremely vulnerable to super-bugs. They can wipe out entire harvests at devastating speeds due to the total genetic homogeneity of the crop.

Sooner or later, we're in for another Dust Bowl. Or, when a bad enough bugs develops, a shortage of a given crop CAUSED by GMO's. This has actually already happened with some sensitive crops like bananas.
 
Last edited:
This law would essentially prohibit hybridized plants too.
It's a very stupid law.

Now if it just limited IP ownership of GMO, I'd be cool with that.
And by limit, I mean 5 years or less.
 
This law would essentially prohibit hybridized plants too.
It's a very stupid law.

Now if it just limited IP ownership of GMO, I'd be cool with that.
And by limit, I mean 5 years or less.

First off, careful using the word 'stupid' because such a word hardly has a reason for existing and is the kind of word that reflects more a description of those who use it rather than on those they use it against.

Second, You are quite incorrect about "prohibit hybridized plants", such is not a product of gene splicing in the sense and the proposal would not at all do such.

You would do well to educate yourself on the subject before you go voting on our collective future because you have just voted to run naked into the darkness and to drag us all with you all because you didn't know what GE/GM organisms were and just assumed. Thanks...is that your definition of 'smart'?
 
First off, careful using the word 'stupid' because such a word hardly has a reason for existing and is the kind of word that reflects more a description of those who use it rather than on those they use it against.

Second, You are quite incorrect about "prohibit hybridized plants", such is not a product of gene splicing in the sense and the proposal would not at all do such.

You would do well to educate yourself on the subject before you go voting on our collective future because you have just voted to run naked into the darkness and to drag us all with you all because you didn't know what GE/GM organisms were and just assumed. Thanks...is that your definition of 'smart'?

No, it's stupid.
I understand the risk of GMO, I just think that they're minor when compared to the benefits.

Hybridization does the same thing, that GMO does.
It combines favorable genetics, which produces a superior product.

Although hybrid plants are less specific.
And yes, I know that GMO processes use outer species genes to make the finished product.
All I have to say is, SFW.

Your wanted legislation is just another chicken little, in the science world.
 
I am against any impeding of science whatsoever.

This proposal doesn't do that, it impedes profits that attempt to be gained regardless of the lack of science that exists in this area.
True Science is about learning all the facts, the facts about GE tech is that only a fingertip worth of facts are in our knowledge at this point.
Good science seeks to answer questions, not to market products for profit before the science is complete.
Would probably be more accurate to say that you are against the progress of science because it would impede the corps reach to cash in on incomplete science.
cheers
 
This proposal doesn't do that, it impedes profits that attempt to be gained regardless of the lack of science that exists in this area.
True Science is about learning all the facts, the facts about GE tech is that only a fingertip worth of facts are in our knowledge at this point.
Good science seeks to answer questions, not to market products for profit before the science is complete.
Would probably be more accurate to say that you are against the progress of science because it would impede the corps reach to cash in on incomplete science.
cheers

From the bill you posted:

3.(a) This ACT does hereby prohibit live genetically engineered and or genetically modified plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such organisms from existing within the boarders of the state of California, and that all living genetically engineered plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such genetically engineered genetically modified organisms have six months from the date of the adoption of this ACT into law to be removed from the state by those individuals or corporate or government entities that brought and or posses such within the state of California, and which shall be done in a manner that does not further the threat of genetic pollution and or genetically engineered DNA contamination exposure to the commons and or natural world.

This makes all genetic engineering of any kind completely illegal in california. And you want to try to say it doesn't impede science? Get out of town, clown.
 
There's already more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet, and feed them quite well.

The issue has nothing to do with supply of food. It has to do with two things:

1. Distribution. Both lack of it, and doing it inappropriately.

A lot of dictatorial nations, which are theoretically capable of feeding everyone, instead horde the food for the wealthy and powerful.

Just as big of a problem is subsidized foods coming from places like America which flood third world markets with extremely cheap food and put local farmers out of business, resulting in an endless loop of food shortage that requires constant intervention and ever-worsening outcomes.

2. Soil degradation. There is no way for genetic engineering to counteract this, and most make it worse, because they're engineered to grow bigger and thus suck more resources out of the soil.

Artificial fertilizers and nitrogen fertilizers don't help in the long run, because they're quite damaging to the land and the water, as well as requiring huge amounts of fossil fuels in order to process, and can result in dead zones and worsened air and water quality, which is obviously harmful for crops. Also, as the amount needed increases due to loss of viability of the soil, the cost becomes unsustainable for farmers, and ultimately can put them out of business or decrease the amount of land they can afford to farm. Finding more farmers is pretty unlikely, with urban congregation and the ever-shrinking sustainability of farming financially.

GMO's also cause degradation by allowing totally homogenous farm lands without any pestilence. Without diversity to help revive the soil, this speeds up the rate of erosion dramatically. It also makes farms extremely vulnerable to super-bugs. They can wipe out entire harvests at devastating speeds due to the total genetic homogeneity of the crop.

Sooner or later, we're in for another Dust Bowl. Or, when a bad enough bugs develops, a shortage of a given crop CAUSED by GMO's. This has actually already happened with some sensitive crops like bananas.

You have absolutely no idea what science is and is not capable of. Nobody does. And it'll continue being that way as long as we allow anti-science legislation like this to exist.

Not to mention anti-science legislation that is chock-full of the words "god" and "the creator".
 
You have absolutely no idea what science is and is not capable of. Nobody does. And it'll continue being that way as long as we allow anti-science legislation like this to exist.

Not to mention anti-science legislation that is chock-full of the words "god" and "the creator".

Uh. What the hell are you talking about?

All I said was that he is wrong that we don't have enough food, and why he is wrong, and GMO's aren't going to help with that anyway, even if we WERE short on food.

Unless you can invent a crop that breaks the laws of physics by generating its own matter from nowhere, GMO's can't fix all the soil problems inherent to the way we farm. "Science" as a larger whole may be capable of it, but our current methods are not.

Beyond that, anyone who rejects any limitations on the use of science en masse either hasn't thought about it, or has no ethics and no respect for any kind of life. Would you be ok with science using live human subjects to test the lethality of ammunition?

If you say "no," you are in favor of limiting science.

If you say "yes," I am frightened for those around you.
 
Uh. What the hell are you talking about?

All I said was that he is wrong that we don't have enough food, and why he is wrong, and GMO's aren't going to help with that anyway, even if we WERE short on food.

Unless you can invent a crop that breaks the laws of physics by generating its own matter from nowhere, GMO's can't fix all the soil problems inherent to the way we farm. "Science" as a larger whole may be capable of it, but our current methods are not.

Beyond that, anyone who rejects any limitations on the use of science en masse either hasn't thought about it, or has no ethics and no respect for any kind of life. Would you be ok with science using live human subjects to test the lethality of ammunition?

If you say "no," you are in favor of limiting science.

If you say "yes," I am frightened for those around you.

We're not talking about putting restrictions on research, we're talking about completely eliminating the entire genetic engineering sector, which is exactly what this bill did for the state of California.
 
We're not talking about putting restrictions on research, we're talking about completely eliminating the entire genetic engineering sector, which is exactly what this bill did for the state of California.

And I said nothing about the bill itself, did I? So why are you all Rambo at me?

By the by, methods of research are a vital component of science.
 
And I said nothing about the bill itself, did I? So why are you all Rambo at me?

By the by, methods of research are a vital component of science.

I'm not rambo, I'm just pointing it out. I can understand legislation that limits the methods used in research, but to cut it out altogether because a few people fear we're playing god is outrageous. (I'm not saying you said that, just that this bill is saying that)
 
No, it's stupid.
I understand the risk of GMO, I just think that they're minor when compared to the benefits.

Hybridization does the same thing, that GMO does.
It combines favorable genetics, which produces a superior product.

Although hybrid plants are less specific.
And yes, I know that GMO processes use outer species genes to make the finished product.
All I have to say is, SFW.

Your wanted legislation is just another chicken little, in the science world.

Oh Harry, maybe this will help you not to resemble that word you insist on using in spite of its spot on description of your knowledge on this topic:


Differences Between Hybridization and Genetic Modification
Trevor Caswell
February 12, 2012

The difference between Hybridized and Genetically Modified foods is often confusing for people. Many believe that people have been genetically modifying things for thousands of years when in reality we have only been hybridizing. What is the difference and why are the waters so murky? Does the difference even matter or are we just splitting hairs? People are rightly concerned about the safety and healthiness of their foods as can be seen by the increased demand for organic and in this same way we should be concerned about the differences between hybridization and genetically modified organisms (GMO's). Hybridization is a natural process that can be controlled by man while genetic modification is a completely lab-made process that threatens not only the existence of organic foods and thereby our health, but also the sovereignty of people over their food supply.

Hybridization is a process that has been happening naturally throughout the existence of life on earth. Whenever two plants cross pollinate or when two animals reproduce a form of hybridization occurs. The same process that determines the colour of your eyes or hair is essentially a hybridization. Your DNA remains completely human but dominant and recessive genes that you inherit from your parents produce your specific traits be they tall, short, blue eyed or brown haired. The same thing occurs in nature when two plants from the same family cross pollinate. If a large watery tomato is crossed with a small meaty tomato you mighty luckily end up with a large, meaty tomato. The DNA is still completely a tomato but different characteristics have been triggered. This cross pollination could be made possible by a bee, a backyard farmer with a cotton swab, or even by the wind but as long as the two plants are in the same family it can and does occur naturally. One thing of note about hybridization is that it doesn't always result in a line of the new hybrid that will continue with the same characteristics. For example, seed saved from our new large, meaty tomato may revert to producing plants with the characteristics of it's parents (large, watery or small, meaty) therefore if we continually want our large, meaty tomato we would need to keep cross-pollinating the parents plants in order to get the desired seed. As often as not seed from the hybridized plant will continue to produce the desired outcome and hybridization has led to a great number of the favourite foods we have been growing and eating for centuries.

Genetic Modification is an entirely man-made procedure where as the name implies, the genetic code of the organism is changed. The genetic change can be made between plants of the same family or by inserting DNA information from a completely different plant (or animal) into the DNA of another. Once made the new change is dominant and forever and any descendants from the organism will carry the modification within their DNA. It is important to understand that the changes made in genetic modification become dominate traits and that if a natural cross-pollination occurs via the wind, or by a bee, etc. between the GMO and a non-GMO plant the resulting plant will be genetically modified- there is no going back. How the new genetic information is placed into the DNA is also incredibly important as to do so they need a vector (or carrier) and what they use is either bacteria or a virus and this bacteria or virus remains as part of the new DNA passed down from generation to generation (except in the case of a genetic modification resulting in Terminator Seeds which are completely infertile). If we go back to using tomato's as an example, in order to make a frost resistant type, the anti-freeze transgene from a Winter Flounder (yes, a fish) was placed into the DNA of a tomato via bacteria. Other modifications are made to make plants resistant to certain herbicides but one result has been that the weeds we wanted to rid ourselves of with the herbicides have now also mutated and become resistant Super Weeds. One final note of importance regarding genetically modified seed is that they are patented and owned by corporations, making it no longer legal for individuals to save seed or share seed with their neighbours from one harvest to the next.

It's in the interest of certain corporations to keep the differences between hybridization and genetic modification muddy. The misinformed view that we have been genetically modifying things for centuries helps create an atmosphere of nonchalance. The fact is that there is a huge difference between the two and that genetic modification has the potential to have disastrous effects on our future food health and supplies as well as the loss of food sovereignty from individuals to corporations while hybridized foods pose no hazard to any of these things. Genetically modified seed is sold to us under the guises of higher yields which has proven to be untrue, and less use of pesticides which has also proven to be untrue and as Grandma always says "if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is".
 
Back
Top Bottom