English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-14 17:00:16 · 13 answers · asked by hardartsystems 3 in Politics & Government Politics

13 answers

Yes. I think it is potentially dangerous to be combining genetic material from species that are in no way related, not even of the same phylum. Sure, people have crossbred animals and crosspolinated plants for centuries. But growing apples on a pear tree is a far cry from having fly DNA in your tomato.

I just don't think it is wise to take a science still in its infancy (genetics) and allow commercial interests to run amok with it.

Also, when I hear of some of the things Monsanto and other GMO producers are alleged to have done in the market place, it scares the beejezus out of me.

Final thought: if GMOs are not dangerous, why is it that we can't be allowed the freedom to choose to consume them or not? Why aren't they labelled? What is there to hide if they are so good for us?

2006-07-14 17:43:49 · answer #1 · answered by Rory McRandall 3 · 1 0

Yes. I am a farmer. The 'green revolution' of the 50's and 60's enabled the farming communities to be replaced by agribusiness conglomerates who used petroleum and petroleum-based products to replace the drudgery of farming labor with fuels and chemicals. GMO crops allow more of the same. The problem with this 'efficiency' is that it removes the people from the land, and allows the wholesale destruction of diversified ecosystems which build soils and provide a buffer against climate changes and invading plant species. Industrialization of agriculture only looks good on a profit sheet if you don't subtract the decay in the soils from oversized machinery, chemical sanitization of microrhizomes and beneficial insects and bacteria, and the subsidization costs of government programs which generally help the large commodity farms, not the local seasonal market farms.
You can learn more about the patent stealing issues, the dangers of GMO foods to digestive systems, and the buildup of pesticide resistance from lots of web sites whenever you have the time.
"GMO" should stand for "Give Money to Overlords", because that is what it does.
It also makes farmers into fat, lazy tractor drivers instead of land husbanders.

2006-07-14 17:12:55 · answer #2 · answered by auntiegrav 6 · 1 0

N O ; Genetically modified (switching some genes around) how in the world could that be harmful. Genome research has been around for centuries. Listen to the alarmists and you will believe that if you cut a tree down another one won't grow back. Trees have been growing back for centuries right before there eyes and they still haven't seen them. While they are puffing away on there cigarettes they are running around worrying about something as harmless as genetic modification.

Can you believe it, comparing bees with rutabagas !!

2006-07-14 17:17:40 · answer #3 · answered by meimmoody 3 · 0 0

It would only be an issue for me if the DNA were altered to code for a protein or substance which is toxic. Otherwise, if the food provides the desired nutrients, I have no problem with its being genetically engineered.

2006-07-14 17:14:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If it means losing the flavor of produce than yes. I can't stand plants that has been modified to create bigger produce. Have you had a tomato that tastes like cardboard, however was big enough to feed a family of four. What's the point?!

2006-07-14 17:07:19 · answer #5 · answered by maanderz 1 · 0 0

We have been genetically modifying food for centuries. It is called selective breeding.

2006-07-14 17:02:39 · answer #6 · answered by redunicorn 7 · 0 0

I want to believe but...

a long time ago in South America they were crossing bees to produce more honey,they said the labs made it impossible for anything to escape
after the six or seven? queen bees escaped they said that the local habitat was not suitable for them and they would die off
after the local farmers complained about their cattle being stung continuesly by swarms they said the bees would only survive in certain climates...
as the U.S. southern states now share this problem they said that they can't breed with other bees.
the last I heard was that the aggresiveness would weaken as the strain mixed with other bees as they move further north.

yet we will need these foods in the near future

2006-07-14 17:16:31 · answer #7 · answered by ostrom57 4 · 0 0

Yes,

Families in other countries who have worked the land for thousands of years, would save the seed for their crop......

Genetically Mod crops that only last one crop without seed is intermixing with the normal crops forcing farmers to have to buy their seed from these Jerks.

2006-07-14 17:06:05 · answer #8 · answered by nefariousx 6 · 0 0

lower than are some factors of interest so that you could view. One is about a movie from 1973. study it very carefully, then you definately will be in a position to attraction to close the which technique of the different web pages. do no longer purchase any wise seeds. devour Romaine Lettuce, it truly is the authentic lettuce . the different one has been chemically engineered. i'm hoping it truly is of assistance to you on your analyze.

2016-12-06 12:19:06 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Well, for one thing, we've been adjusting to our foods for millinea, and by adding new genes (lol, not selective "breeding" that totally DIFFERENT) BUT by adding bioflourescence, genes to prolong shelf life and other selective genes, we've CHANGED how our crops behave inside of us. So I'd rather not, thanks but no thanks. After everyone else has been guinea pigs for 2 decades we'll see.

2006-07-14 17:13:27 · answer #10 · answered by AdamKadmon 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers