Genetically Modified Organisms

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by RUFFLZ, Nov 29, 2011.

  1. first off im not sure if this is supposed to be in this thread so sorry if its in the wrong place haha
    but im doing a arguement speech on how GMO's are bad for us (didnt choose the side or topic so please try not to persuade me theyre good)
    im trying to refute some claims for the opposing side.
    if u guys can help me come up with some points to make thatd be great

    Opposing claim 1: GMO's create bigger better quality food
    Opposing claim 2: its cheaper and faster to produce GMO's

    im kinda stuck :(
    thanks!
     

  2. I can't do all the work for you but, look into how GMOs are made. How do they insert the new genes into the DNA? A hint is viruses. If they alter the genetic chemistry isn't there the chance of altering nutritional value? If GMOs are good then why are companys like Monsanto fighting to keep GMO off of the labels of its crops?

    As for your specific questions. 1) bigger doesn't equal better.
    2) It is only cheaper in the short run for the farmer. GMOs are not able to produce viable seeds(or maybe monsanto makes them that way) So every year the farmer has to buy new seeds instead of just using the ones he would get from harvest.

    Also every action has unintended consequences, could playing around with mother nature have harmful effects on the environment?
     


  3. ya i put how GMO's are created from foreign DNA from viruses and bacteria.
    i also said that higher prices=higher quality and organic is more expensive than GM.
    and for youre last point i didnt no that!! thanks!
     
  4. oh you forgot #3

    3 - No long term study on the effects of GMO being consumed has ever been done...so they have no idea if the GMO's will cause mutations, cancer, sterilize children.

    they are only worried about PROFITS, not feeding the starving populations of the world.

    (if they were worried about producing more, better food, they why the fuck are they paying farmings to not grow, and to DESTROY crops, just to control prices of the food...destroyed food and food never grown doesn't feed anyone does it?):devious:
     

  5. organic should not cost more...it is cheaper to produce really.
    Put seed in dirt, add water, let the sun shine down, plant grows.
    Need ferts and nutes...mix dirt with animal waste, leaves, cut grasses, mix, let rot, add to soil...it last a lot longer then chemicals.
     
  6. I havent read it but Ive heard the book "Seeds of Deception" has some great info on GMO's. Ive also read that in the few tests they did on GMO's, the results were not good. I think it was a majority of the test rats that developed lesions in the stomach.
     

  7. ya that went into my claim about its health risks.
    claim 1. health risks
    claim 2. environmental risks
    claim 3. big corporations motives and the monopoly they have created
     
  8. you cant do a speach on how gmos are bad for us, because no clinical trials have proved it
     


  9. gewd wan
     
  10. the point of gmo is to increase yield. people argue that it doesnt, but they are short sighted.

    gmos are made to resist things like fungus, that would inhibit the plant even growing to begin with. gmos produce more successful crops.

    that is not to say they are not good or bad, just pointing at your specific arguement.

    im against GMOs in our main streem food supply because we havnt doen enough studies on them.

    but the science of geneticaly modifying organisms, shows much promise, and shouldnt get as much rap as it does
     
  11. huh? no really, clinical trials are important, that how you persuade the intilectual community
     

  12. ive found some cases that show that some GMO's have not been properly tested and have caused damage to consumers. i no that GMO's have not been tested enough to prove or disprove that they are good. in my original post i said that i didnt choose this topic or the side, just trying to come up with ideas to counter some arguments from the pro side
     

  13. wanna explain? i found some research done in 2008 and 2009 that GE corn and soy beans did not produce more yield and that soy bean farmers using this Roundup Ready seed use 2-5 times more herbicide(roundup spray) that organic farmers. it seems as though these huge corporations are making it seem as tho GMO's are good just to make some money.
    but i could be wrong haha not a pro at this shit
     
  14. Humans are genetically modified.
     

  15. lolwut
     
  16. its not the gmo plant that has higher yield, its the gmo crop

    the population as a whole is more diseas resistant, and thus more plants survive and flourish.

    i did however hear about some research suggesting that gmos can cause allergic reactions. this intersted me greatly because i have some fucking bad allergies. all my food must be made from home from scratch, because 99.9% of products on the market contain things im allergic to. (ironically not wheat :hello:)
     
  17. i really didnt feel like reading through all of these posts, but i have heard that in lab tests that mice fed gmo products were unable to reproduce by like the 3rd generation
     
  18. right now this entire thread is speculation. nothig has been presented. so ill do the honors

    Doctors Warn Avoid Genetically Modified Food
    "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation," as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies."

    Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health? (ActionBioscience)

    Stanislaw Burzynski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    research this dr burzynski vs texas state medical board for info about how the plutocracy runs the FDA.

    in short, the FDA pressured texas to revoke dr bersynskis liscence, because it posed a threat to the pharmacy companies, who are profiting off of the fake cancer drugs they sell.

    so you have to ask yourself what it means when
    1.there are no clinical trials on gmos
    2.gmos are in the interst of big buisness
    3.big buisness owns the FDA
     
  19. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D-HMQEp6X4]Infowars Special Report With Mike Adams: The Huge Secret GMO Cloning Program 1/4 - YouTube[/ame] if you start watching at 4.20 thats when they start talking about gmos
     
  20. Im just guessing but if you use Alex Jones as a reference point your teacher is going to give you a big fail.

    To OP. Awesome, you are on the right track. You know more then I thought you would. You can make the argument that creating GMOs with viruses and bacteria is not a proven safe practice. Maybe a correlation between an increase of farmers using GMOs and an increase in bacterial break outs in crops such as ecoli and samanela? I don't think there is evidence of this but the research has not been done. Im sure if you bring it up after talking about how GMOs are made ppl will make the connection. You can also talk about how GMOs pollinate regular crops and turn the regular crops into GMOs that Monsanto will try to claim they own so the farmer who never even purchased GMO seeds is still having to pay royalty's to Monsanto(true story).

    There was a really good documentary on GMOs I can't recall the name though. I think it was either "The Future of Food" or "Food Inc" If my memory serves correctly one of those films is great and the other is crap, I just don't recall which is which.
     
Loading...

Share This Page