New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

WTF?! A new NAFTA? How the hell?

"I don't want GMO" re #2
Do you have a rational reason for this? Are you aware that gene-swapping occurs naturally? GMO merely compresses the time scale, and filters out the dead-ends.

There are many examples. But GMO reduces food prices. And GMO reduces terrible human afflictions such as blindness. Many 3rd world children lose eyesight for lack of pennies worth of vitamin A. GMO enables native crops (such as rice) to have enough vitamin A to spare them this needless impairment. GMO is a modern miracle.
 
Do you have a rational reason for this? Are you aware that gene-swapping occurs naturally? GMO merely compresses the time scale, and filters out the dead-ends.

There are many examples. But GMO reduces food prices. And GMO reduces terrible human afflictions such as blindness. Many 3rd world children lose eyesight for lack of pennies worth of vitamin A. GMO enables native crops (such as rice) to have enough vitamin A to spare them this needless impairment. GMO is a modern miracle.
I've ran an electrophoresis gel or two. I know.
 
Do you have a rational reason for this? Are you aware that gene-swapping occurs naturally? GMO merely compresses the time scale, and filters out the dead-ends.

There are many examples. But GMO reduces food prices. And GMO reduces terrible human afflictions such as blindness. Many 3rd world children lose eyesight for lack of pennies worth of vitamin A. GMO enables native crops (such as rice) to have enough vitamin A to spare them this needless impairment. GMO is a modern miracle.


There is controversy over GMOs, especially with regard to their use in producing food. The dispute involves buyers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, nongovernmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to GMO food are whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of GM crops for farmers, and the role of GM crops in feeding the world population.

The Organic Consumers Association, and the Union of Concerned Scientists,[216][217][218][219][220] and Greenpeace stated that risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. Some health groups say there are unanswered questions regarding the potential long-term impact on human health from food derived from GMOs, and propose mandatory labeling[221][222] or a moratorium on such products.[223][224][225] Concerns include contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply,[226][227] effects of GMOs on the environment and nature,[223][225] the rigor of the regulatory process,[224][228] and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs,[223] or concerns over the use of herbicides with glyphosate.[229]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism#Controversy

Those are some of the concerns. It is like Global warming 136 years of data on a planet that is 4.6 billion years old doesn't provide really enough data.
 
"I've ran an electrophoresis gel or two. I know." re #7
So what?
The most dangerous thing about that is the resultant black lines look a little like a UPC bar-code.
Rarely do I see hordes of shoppers fleeing Wal~Mart in terror 'cause of that.

The current state of GM tech. is mainly a re-ordering of genes, not the creation of new genes.
 
So what?
The most dangerous thing about that is the resultant black lines look a little like a UPC bar-code.
Rarely do I see hordes of shoppers fleeing Wal~Mart in terror 'cause of that.

The current state of GM tech. is mainly a re-ordering of genes, not the creation of new genes.

I am not sure there has been enough research done.
 
"Global warming 136 years of data on a planet that is 4.6 billion years old doesn't provide really enough data." Dc #8
Your "136 years" reference applies to only one specific type of data. But there are many other sources of data, some of which go back hundreds of thousands of years.

The evidence for global warming is not extrapolated from one data point.
The trend is unmistakable, and the human contribution is beyond dispute.

Did you know an automobile can add more pounds of Carbon to the atmosphere than the number of pounds of fuel it consumes?
 
Do you have a rational reason for this? Are you aware that gene-swapping occurs naturally? GMO merely compresses the time scale, and filters out the dead-ends.

There are many examples. But GMO reduces food prices. And GMO reduces terrible human afflictions such as blindness. Many 3rd world children lose eyesight for lack of pennies worth of vitamin A. GMO enables native crops (such as rice) to have enough vitamin A to spare them this needless impairment. GMO is a modern miracle.
There’s GMO and then there’s GMO.

The GMO that sticks vitamin A into rice is good GMO. Unfortunately it gets lumped in with the bad GMO which is Monsanto GMO. That GMO is genetically modified rice, corn, wheat, barley, soy and other commodity crops that have been modified to resist Roundup. So farmers can drench crops in cancer causing pesticide, kill weeds and sell you pesticide laden crops. Yum, right?

That’s the big thing about bad GMO.
 
Clearly, the left are awaiting instructions from KGB/DNC Hq on how to respond to this terrible, terrible news, and the resultant massive stock market jump...:rolleyes:
 
C #13

Excellent point well made.

My personal pet peeve is how Monsanto makes their grain fertile, but the offspring grain sterile, so farmers must re-purchase their crop seed every planting season.

Bill Gates has seen to it we have a reserve of bio-diverse seed, so that we may attempt to reconstitute, if necessary.

My example of such mono-culture disaster is the Irish potato famine.

IIRC it was Kruschev* that stopped his motorcade at an un-preselected grocery store, just to see if the Western boasts of plenty were true.
If it had been a ruse, the U.S. could have culled plenty from a starving nation, and presented the Potemkin Village impression of prosperity, with a vast backdrop of unseen poverty (North Korea).

So the supermarket was chosen at random. And the Soviet leader got an eye-full.
That might have been the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

We have plenty.
I'm retired, on Social Security & pension. I have never known famine, or much hunger for that matter.
But we don't have much food supply buffer.
And a confluence of misfortune, a massive hoof & mouth outbreak in tandem with a staple agricultural crop problem would be a disaster.

* Brezhnev?
 
Clearly, the left are awaiting instructions from KGB/DNC Hq on how to respond to this terrible, terrible news, and the resultant massive stock market jump...:rolleyes:

They really only have two options here; crickets, or the tired, unbelievable "Thanks, Obama!"(tm) canard. Any guesses?
 
C #13

Excellent point well made.

My personal pet peeve is how Monsanto makes their grain fertile, but the offspring grain sterile, so farmers must re-purchase their crop seed every planting season.

Bill Gates has seen to it we have a reserve of bio-diverse seed, so that we may attempt to reconstitute, if necessary.

My example of such mono-culture disaster is the Irish potato famine.

IIRC it was Kruschev* that stopped his motorcade at an un-preselected grocery store, just to see if the Western boasts of plenty were true.
If it had been a ruse, the U.S. could have culled plenty from a starving nation, and presented the Potemkin Village impression of prosperity, with a vast backdrop of unseen poverty (North Korea).

So the supermarket was chosen at random. And the Soviet leader got an eye-full.
That might have been the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

We have plenty.
I'm retired, on Social Security & pension. I have never known famine, or much hunger for that matter.
But we don't have much food supply buffer.
And a confluence of misfortune, a massive hoof & mouth outbreak in tandem with a staple agricultural crop problem would be a disaster.

* Brezhnev?

You're right, it was Kruschev, and he reportedly remarked that if pictures of American grocery stores ever reached Soviet citizens, it would incite a revolution.
 
They really only have two options here; crickets, or the tired, unbelievable "Thanks, Obama!"(tm) canard. Any guesses?

It would be difficult to attribute this deal to Obama, since he took no part in it whatsoever.

However, I can't say that it would shock me entirely.....
 
Back
Top