The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The case for GM food > Comments

The case for GM food : Comments

By David Tribe, published 22/11/2005

David Tribe argues that GM foods deserve a fair hearing.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 72
  7. 73
  8. 74
  9. Page 75
  10. All
I’m with agronomist, Safe. Roush asked for any evidence you had that would hold the safety assessment of conventional foods to the same standards as GM. You’ve replied again with an assertion about labeling. Can you prove the safety of anything you eat, and how? Do you know that raw mushrooms are full of carcinogens called hydrazines? Have you ever seen a risk assessment on mushrooms? How do you know which foods to avoid?

If not the GM companies, who would you have pay for the safety assessments? The public? In fact, much of the data for submission to FSANZ is done by other private companies, paid for by the GM company.

The results could be falsified, but there are severe criminal and civil penalties for doing so. On the other hand, Greenpeace can make misleading claims to persuade you that GM is dangerous without any penalties at all.
Posted by Rebel, Friday, 3 November 2006 6:35:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am asking for my rights as a consumer to not eat your product. You are not giving me those rights and are forcing me to eat it due to contamination that the farmers cannot avoid and what about the rights of the farmers that would have to pay because of GM contamination. You are giving me no opportunity to stay alive and look after my health because I am a minority. You say that my non-GM status is a religion. Good grief someone pay me so that I can be called a religion.

You are bullying yet again. When I say show me the research as per my previous statements you say "We don't want to do that because normal food has not been put through these trials". Well neither was tobacco when it came in and it should have been. Show me in the stores, the products that do not have a form of grain in them then say that I will be safe. It's a lie. I cannot as a consumer avoid GM grain as it is mixed in too many things.

I hereby finish up with your bullying tactics so you go play with yourselves. I will always, due to this debate see GM as a biohazard until it is proven beyond doubt that it is safe and you mob have not proven anything, just the manipulation of the GM companies and their supposed research. It reminds of the whaling research of the Japanese as per recent documentaries. You have made me feel an idiot in your research and yet you fail to read the words "I am not a scientist just a consumer". You fail to answer my questions on the oil research from Monsanto which is the GM grains which I believe is money driven not health driven.

So I as a consumer deem your product unworthy to eat and a biohazard.
Posted by Is it really safe?, Friday, 3 November 2006 4:05:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Safe:

Your opportunities to avoid foods from GM crops are already preserved by Australian labeling, buying organic produce, buying non processed foods, and for that matter, by buying anything other than with ingredients of cotton seed oil, canola, corn, and soy. You’d have a pretty rich diet even without these. Wheat, barley, oats, etc are grains for which there is still no GM crops anywhere.

Where and who are these farmers who have to pay because of GM contamination, and why/how do they have to pay? Julie Newman couldn’t offer any documented examples.

We are asking you to defend your views (and even to show how the are not essentially spiritual), but that hardly constitutes bullying. Julie Newman and friends threaten to sue people who have the temerity to raise inconvenient facts or statements from others; that’s bullying and suppression of free speech.

Tobacco is an interesting example. Completely natural, used for at least 400 years, still very unsafe, but it took modern scientific research in the last century to prove it. Given that history, even for a powerful carcinogen and cardiopulmonary poison, how do you know that anything you eat every day is “safe”? Our point is that safety is relative, not absolute (nothing can be proved without a doubt to be safe), and GM is far more rigorously assessed than conventional food. So why do you assume that it is more risky?

I am sorry if you feel an idiot, but you are making judgments that require an extensive knowledge of science, even quoting supposed research, and then defend your opinions when challenged on the grounds that you are “not a scientist just a consumer". You have the right to remain ignorant, but not to create your own facts or science.
Posted by Rebel, Saturday, 4 November 2006 6:50:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 72
  7. 73
  8. 74
  9. Page 75
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy