As far as documentaries go - it's pretty bad. It definitely falls into propaganda, but even if 1 of the things stated are true it upsets me that the world (read US) has allowed it to go so far without any independent study or oversight. View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL0iWlQDM0U
Whoa! Hey now! Before you start slandering the US, you might want to ask yourself a few questions: A: How much oil does Australia even have? B: How much of a fight would Australia's military put up against the US' military? We've stolen oil for less hateful words, you know!
Are you really going to flag my spelling? It was sent from my phone - I feel like a certain level of abbreviation is allowed under those circumstances. But if it's a war you're after, WAR YOU SHALL HAVE, White Glint!
Yada yada For all the talk of studies, I'm still waiting on the cancer study you mentioned. I'm not saying we need to go all in. And I get your fears of letting the genie out of the bottle before we're ready. But I feel very strongly that there's a good chance that we will need this technology to survive as a species at some point in the future, so I try hard to make sure people aren't demonizing it. It's a loosing battle unfortunately. And here's where I talk out my ass a bit, but my gut says I'm right here, and I challenge you to tell me with a straight face that I'm wrong -- There's absolutely no reason why an organism should be dangerous simply because it is GMO. Can it be? Sure. That's why we need to sue Monsato into oblivion and make sure we're using rigorous testing of new organisms before they can get in the wild. But the method that an organism came into being has no bearing on risks associated with it.
I don't disagree with your fantasy. Unfortunately Monsanto is what we have, so I will demonize until the gmo cows come home. sent through the air using science
I hope it's fantasy. But even without GMO, or food crops are frighteningly vulnerable to new, resistant bugs. It'll be nice to have the know how to create new species faster than the bugs mutate. You keep campaigning for over watch and I'll keep going for the tech. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
EDIT: I forgot to post this earlier and just noticed you replied. I'm a hippy activist from way back - I've got your suburban back ;p If science was allowed to actually settle this without ex Monsanto employees being FDA employees and other such insanely conflicting scenarios being allowed to exist - fine. But to pin the future health and genetic make up of our species on the word of a company like Monsato is pure lunacy. The published paper linking cancer growth to the roundup ready corn has since been retracted, citing inconclusive data (not a reason for retracting a paper). Further reading shows a cluster fuck of conflict of interests on all sides, but the arguments most loudly spouted against the study included the use of a rat species more prone to cancers and having too small a number of rats. Given Monsanto's own "studies" used the same species, less of them and were only for 90 days I fail to see how we can dismiss this study yet champion the safety of the technology based on Monsanto's "studies". My resistance isn't so much for developing a sustainable food tech, but for companies like Monsanto and the lack of true oversight and management surrounding one of the most important things in our lives - food. Also seemingly dismissed is the impact on the environment this type of farming presents and the potential for creating an irreversible monoculture. I'm a fan of Limiting our growth until we can manage it better - not destroying the entire planet attempting to satiate ourselves.
