3 ms·

"Monsanto recently said that it had made significant progress in the development of herbicide-tolerant wheat." Plain English Translation: "We want to soak the

"Monsanto recently said that it had made significant progress in the development of herbicide-tolerant wheat." Plain English Translation: "We want to soak the soil with even more chemicals, to harm even more people and wildlife with various known effects that we won't admit to, & unknown effects that we'll try to suppress to stay unknown." I can see the argument with having lower-water consuming variants. But why not grow one of the 100s other grains that can grow in such soils?

spikels 13y ago
Plain english tanslation of comment above: I don't care if there is a scientific consensus that GMOs are safe or if millions of people would starve without them but I won't change my opinion despite new information.
- georgebarnett 13y ago
  There's a really simple solution here. Force produce that's GMO to be labelled as such and let the consumer decide. Many will decide they're happy to eat GMO foods and many will decide they're not. It should be left to an individual to make the decision themselves.
  - reporter 13y ago
    I agree. Why doesn't every organic company just label their food as GMO-free. Then people can assume all others may have GMOs, because most do. The GMO-free business can stand out to the customers who are needing them and thrive. Oh wait. That is how our food is labelled at the moment. Now we can save the millions of dollars on the cost of regulation of labeling, that could go to say, education. Phew.
- tomByrer 13y ago
  First, you assumed incorrectly that I was stating above GMOs themselves were unsafe. I echoed their statement of a GMO 'benifit' was to get/force farmers to use more chemicals (herbicides & insecticides) on crops, which many scientists ARE claiming to be unsafe for humans and the general ecosystem. (Not to mention using fossil fuels, but that's another topic) Second, 'scientific consensus' have been wrong many times before. Eg when they said cigarette smoking was not bad. Third, there is plenty of food out there now. The mains issues with starvation is logistics, greed, & power struggles.

spikels 13y ago

Plain english tanslation of comment above: I don't care if there is a scientific consensus that GMOs are safe or if millions of people would starve without them but I won't change my opinion despite new information.

georgebarnett 13y ago
There's a really simple solution here. Force produce that's GMO to be labelled as such and let the consumer decide. Many will decide they're happy to eat GMO foods and many will decide they're not. It should be left to an individual to make the decision themselves.
- reporter 13y ago
  I agree. Why doesn't every organic company just label their food as GMO-free. Then people can assume all others may have GMOs, because most do. The GMO-free business can stand out to the customers who are needing them and thrive. Oh wait. That is how our food is labelled at the moment. Now we can save the millions of dollars on the cost of regulation of labeling, that could go to say, education. Phew.
tomByrer 13y ago
First, you assumed incorrectly that I was stating above GMOs themselves were unsafe. I echoed their statement of a GMO 'benifit' was to get/force farmers to use more chemicals (herbicides & insecticides) on crops, which many scientists ARE claiming to be unsafe for humans and the general ecosystem. (Not to mention using fossil fuels, but that's another topic) Second, 'scientific consensus' have been wrong many times before. Eg when they said cigarette smoking was not bad. Third, there is plenty of food out there now. The mains issues with starvation is logistics, greed, & power struggles.