Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
problems with genetic engineering
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:37:13 -0700, Walter Epp
posted: "Moosh:}" wrote: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:17:07 -0700, Walter Epp posted: Have you got ANY evidence of any problems? Here's a start: http://www.purefood.org/ge/btcomments.cfm "Possible Human Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Bt Crops" ^^^^^^^^^ If you had bothered to read past the first line, I did, but didn't quote all I read. I underlined the first word of the title. That's the clincher. There is NO demonstrated damage, just POSSIBLE scenarios. you would have noticed that it documents case after case where biotech blind presumptions and conventional wisdom on which their safety arguments are based were proven wrong, and it cites peer-reviewed evidence that consuming genetically modified food harms mammals. One instance of harm, from a GE product's GE difference, thanks http://www.foxbghsuit.com/exhibit%20r.htm Milk from cows given rBGH is no different from milk from cows given any other BGH. Whether we should treat cows at all ia the point here. Not a GE matter. What is your evidence there is no difference? No difference to the consumer. There IS to the farmer. If there is no difference how did Monsanto get a patent and trademark on it? See above. Where are cows being fed non-GMO BGH and what are the methodologies and results of comparative studies of their health and the health of animals who eat their milk products? Ask a dairy farmer. Cows produce their own BGH, you realise, I hope. Where is the proof there were no byproducts or contaminants, as occurred with GE tryptophan? GE'd bacteria produced tryptophan is fine if you quality control and remove any contaminants, like *any* manufacturing process. There was no problem from it being from GE'd bugs per se. http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm Propaganda site about rBGH milk again. So it's your position that the New England Journal of Medicine is "propaganda". Very interesting. Read the site. It is written by psrast, not NEJM. You keep confusing propaganda sites with the references they cite. You are very vulnerable if you do this. http://www.preventcancer.com/press/july8,98.htm More propaganda about "Monsanto milk" So now the Lancet is "propaganda" too. Again, wanna buy a bridge? http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/cancer091302.cfm More milk and hormone treatment of cows. http://www.factoryfarm.org/docs/rBGH-Hudson.doc http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm http://www.egroups.com/message/corp-ethics/1104 http://www.biotech-info.net/beneficials2.html http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/070903_ge.cfm http://www.bwf.org/gedebate.html#5 http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/frankenfish.cfm http://www.psrast.org/superwee.htm http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Superweed-Canola-Canada.htm http://www.organicconsumers.org/pate...nger090401.cfm http://www.psrast.org/soilfertfact.htm http://www.idiom.com/~for7gen/i/gecatast.htm and links therein, especially http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php http://www.i-sis.org.uk/unstable.php http://www.vshiva.net/aticles/gmo_failure.htm http://www.psrast.org/prhortra.htm http://www.i-sis.org.uk/camvrecdis.php http://www.i-sis.org/CaMV.shtml http://www.i-sis.org/camv-mehd.shtml http://www.i-sis.org/terminsects-pr.shtml http://www.vshiva.net/aticles/risks_...nd_science.htm http://www.psrast.org/jftrypt.htm I've looked at the first five and not found any evidence of damage from GE. Have you actually got any? I really don't want to blow my download allocation on more empty URLs An attention span of longer than 5 seconds is needed to grasp these issues. Well I tried the first five and found NO evidence of damage. It is reasonable to assume that the others probably don't. Could you point to one or two that definitely DO have evidence of GE damage? It is rather ineffective to give many examples of things that don't have evidence of what you claim. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science | United Kingdom | |||
Genetic engineering of plants | Plant Science |