Over 100 Nobel laureates urge Greenpeace to stop opposing GMOs Watch

FriendlyPenguin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Edit: Sorry, wrong thread
4
reply
username2176541
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Greenpeace are justified there have been no long term i.e. >50 years sound and reliable studies.
1
reply
TheCryingRemain
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Try and force GMOs on us, I don't want em, does that mean I have no right to Normal Natural food?
0
reply
Konahagakure
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by TheCryingRemain)
Try and force GMOs on us, I don't want em, does that mean I have no right to Normal Natural food?
It is natural food. It's not some organisim from outer space.
0
reply
BaconandSauce
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Xenon17)
You're assuming these 100 nobel laureates are scientists and that they aren't being paid off. You're funny.
this post makes me sad
2
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by TheCryingRemain)
Try and force GMOs on us, I don't want em, does that mean I have no right to Normal Natural food?
What do you even mean by natural? You do realise that most food we eat is a result of a long process of artificial selection? Artificial selection is not natural, but rather entails the interference of humans. One only needs to look at the history of the banana. The 'natural' ancestor of the banana was largely inedible and the banana in its natural state would not feed humans.

2
reply
TheCryingRemain
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by The Epicurean)
What do you even mean by natural? You do realise that most food we eat is a result of a long process of artificial selection? Artificial selection is not natural, but rather entails the interference of humans. One only needs to look at the history of the banana. The 'natural' ancestor of the banana was largely inedible and the banana in its natural state would not feed humans.

Organic
0
reply
username2176541
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
And what exactly are your credentials?
Never claimed to have any. Please think long and hard before you reply as you are only serving to embarrass yourself.
0
reply
Galaxie501
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
Im an absolute centrist with some conservative and libertarian leanings, and I absolutely oppose the use of GMO's, unless absolutely necessary. GMO's should only be used in regions with bad climatic and environmental conditions and wherever there is famine. Another major problem is that food with genetically modified content will not be labled accordingly unless a very strict law is passed. And even then it would make it very difficult to spot GMO content in foods consisting of many different ingredients.


Thats another reason to oppose TTP by the way. I dont want that GMO **** in my food (even though it probably already is in Europe).
1
reply
Galaxie501
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
Just like with climate change we should use the pre-cautionary principle. Better safe than sorry.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Galaxie501)
Im an absolute centrist with some conservative and libertarian leanings, and I absolutely oppose the use of GMO's, unless absolutely necessary. GMO's should only be used in regions with bad climatic and environmental conditions and wherever there is famine. Another major problem is that food with genetically modified content will not be labled accordingly unless a very strict law is passed. And even then it would make it very difficult to spot GMO content in foods consisting of many different ingredients.


Thats another reason to oppose TTP by the way. I dont want that GMO **** in my food (even though it probably already is in Europe).
Do you have any reasons or justification for this standpoint? Why should GMOs be restricted, if they are proven to be entirely safe?
1
reply
troubadour.
Badges: 18
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Xenon17)
You're assuming these 100 nobel laureates are scientists
I very much doubt they were Peace or Literature laureates.

and that they aren't being paid off.
I take it you consider Greenpeace (or any other organisation whose expertise you take more seriously) to be incapable of corruption and/or ulterior motives?
0
reply
Galaxie501
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Dez)
Do you have any reasons or justification for this standpoint? Why should GMOs be restricted, if they are proven to be entirely safe?
1) Endangerment of biodiversity.
2) Possibility of negative long term effects on the human body.
3) Way too young of a research field to subject the results on millions of people.
4) Possibility of allergens and toxins.
0
reply
Galaxie501
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
We should apply the precautionary principle to itself, and be cautious with our application of the precautionary principle
Yeah, let's be cautious about being cautious, and cautious about being too cautious about caution.

On a serious note: The real question is how cautious we should be. We can not be too cautious, and neither can we afford to not be cautious.
0
reply
Galaxie501
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
The precautionary principle is too often the paralysing principle when it is over-zealously and lopsidedly applied
I agree, I edited my last post and said something along those lines.

We cannot be too cautious to not limit research, but we cannot afford to not be cautious. Especialy in this young of a research field.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Galaxie501)
1) Endangerment of biodiversity.
Artificial selection has already done more for this than GMOs could ever hope to achieve. In fact GMOs might actually help promote biodiversity in plants that have become too monocultural.

(Original post by Galaxie501)
2) Possibility of negative long term effects on the human body.
Such as not starving? Yeah, that's going to be a real bugger.

(Original post by Galaxie501)
3) Way too young of a research field to subject the results on millions of people.
That's not an argument against a total ban. Suitable restrictions yes; I don't think anyone's suggesting we suddenly start modding every single crop on Earth.

(Original post by Galaxie501)
4) Possibility of allergens and toxins.
Applies equally to conventional farming methods.
0
reply
RobML
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
Anyone with a basic understanding of biology should not give in to the GMO scaremongering. I'd support Greenpeace if it weren't for their anti-gmo and anti-nuclear nonsense.

Also, here's one of the best studies I've seen yet: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2...food/84458872/
0
reply
Kim-Jong-Illest
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
Golden Rice is a myth, its an unproven and not required solution to the problem of vit A deficiency. Not against GMOs but they haven't been proven to be entirely safe on the long term except by companies who directly benefit from their sale.
1
reply
Galaxie501
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
Dez


I've never even closely suggested a ban on GMO's, so I dont know where you're getting this from.


"Applies equally to conventional farming methods."
Not to the same degree.

"Such as not starving? Yeah, that's going to be a real bugger."
If you read my first post you'd remember that I said GMO's should be used to prevent starvation in certain areas of the world.


Pretty snarky.
0
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
GMOs could save millions of lives if there was less pressure against them.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (190)
24.05%
Pop (192)
24.3%
Jazz (30)
3.8%
Classical (46)
5.82%
Hip-Hop (150)
18.99%
Electronic (53)
6.71%
Indie (129)
16.33%

Watched Threads

View All