ChatterBank1 min ago
GM foods can cause liver damage
http://www.dailymail....er-kidney-damage.html
Was the British government right in refusing the sale of GM foods in the UK?
Was the British government right in refusing the sale of GM foods in the UK?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes but not for that reason.
GM foods have the ability to be used to make areas of the world fertile where previously nobody could grow crops.
In the UK there is really no need for that. They would simply be used to produce foods that increased profits for supermarkets.
Strawberries with longer shelf life etc. It would have restricted the food markets to patented crops controlled by big concerns like Monsanto.
This data does not prove that the effects would be harmful to man, Note the quote from the analyst 'What we've shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity,'
Which did not make it into the headline - funny that.
Remember too that Gilles-Eric Seralini is not exactly impartial he has taken on Monsanto before over other products
There could be all sorts of reasons for it - but we are only given a single sentence from Monsanto - doubtlessly they had more to say about the data but we're not told what that is in case we get confused about the message.
Don't get me wrong I don't like the way GM is being used but before I believe that a major company is deliberately endangering peoples lives for financial gain I'd want to see a heck of a lot more evidence that what is here
GM foods have the ability to be used to make areas of the world fertile where previously nobody could grow crops.
In the UK there is really no need for that. They would simply be used to produce foods that increased profits for supermarkets.
Strawberries with longer shelf life etc. It would have restricted the food markets to patented crops controlled by big concerns like Monsanto.
This data does not prove that the effects would be harmful to man, Note the quote from the analyst 'What we've shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity,'
Which did not make it into the headline - funny that.
Remember too that Gilles-Eric Seralini is not exactly impartial he has taken on Monsanto before over other products
There could be all sorts of reasons for it - but we are only given a single sentence from Monsanto - doubtlessly they had more to say about the data but we're not told what that is in case we get confused about the message.
Don't get me wrong I don't like the way GM is being used but before I believe that a major company is deliberately endangering peoples lives for financial gain I'd want to see a heck of a lot more evidence that what is here
Jake if there is the slightest hint that GM is unsafe its not up to the consumers to prove its OK to eat but for the industry to prove its free of any defects, We take it at face value and if an animal shows toxicity after a prolonged period of 3 months without showing symptoms it is a cause for concern.
Government scientists must know the likely pitfalls of GM as I think it would have been put on our supermarket shelves by now.
Third world countries would undoubtably benefit from GM mainly due to their average life expectancy but even they object because of being locked in.
If the world was suddenly changed to GM and has a monopoly could they ever be dethroned to alternative foods? Maybe not a good anaolgy but oil companies have a vested interest in not having a rival to compete with and if there were would destroy it.
Government scientists must know the likely pitfalls of GM as I think it would have been put on our supermarket shelves by now.
Third world countries would undoubtably benefit from GM mainly due to their average life expectancy but even they object because of being locked in.
If the world was suddenly changed to GM and has a monopoly could they ever be dethroned to alternative foods? Maybe not a good anaolgy but oil companies have a vested interest in not having a rival to compete with and if there were would destroy it.
-- answer removed --
We have no need to mess about with the blueprint for our food, so regardless how large or small the risk, to the planet or to us, it is a pointless thing to do.
As a species we need to learn how to manage our resources and ourselves to properly solve the problems we have, else we are just pushing problems into the future for someone else to deal with.
We can not dictate to other countries to do the right thing, but we should do the right thing in our own.
As a species we need to learn how to manage our resources and ourselves to properly solve the problems we have, else we are just pushing problems into the future for someone else to deal with.
We can not dictate to other countries to do the right thing, but we should do the right thing in our own.
Eddie51 maybe you prefer to get to the real info from a scientific journal
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
Rov there are already pre-existing safety tests - the burden of proof is therefore with those who want to contest this
If you read the journal article you'll see that they acknowledge this claim to be unproven.
I'm not saying it is or it isn't
I'm saying that you and the Mail are jumping to conclusions too rapidly
If you read the journal article you'll see that they acknowledge this claim to be unproven.
I'm not saying it is or it isn't
I'm saying that you and the Mail are jumping to conclusions too rapidly
1 to 15 of 15
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.