10 Comments

• 

  Anonymous

  7 years ago

  It makes no sense to prohibit availabilty of genetically modified food because every new sort of food-organism is a genetical modifation in comparison to the former one. I would bet I only misunderstand you because of a different understanding of the term "genetically modified"
  What you want is to prohibit the availabilty of genetic engineered food. In general I agree. But not in all cases long-term testing with humans is necessary. For example if only the number of the genes from one organism is changed, a gene promotor in a known genetic pathway or so on - than short time testing with animals is the adequate way. Toxic effects can be ruled out in many cases. This is not the case after transforming a organism with the genes of another species, here human-studies should be the norm.
  But also if there are no toxic effects, there can be effects on the environment, too. Tho avoid this damage studies are necessary: better, more and other studies than those funded by the genetic engineering industry.
  I said in gerally I would agree your opinion. But in one go i would encourage the scientific reasearch in this field with financial help and governmental influence. The present situation is that capitalistic monopolists lead the industry. Whoever have the presure to sell a product cannot wait and study everything that might become a problem in future. The sozial impact is more worse than the toxical and economical effects together, I believe. Genetic engineering should not be in the hands of one or few profit-seeking companies.
  Says a ecology/botanic and genetic student.

  1 0

• 

  JaealEscoe

  Germany | 7 years ago

  Why is my text signed with "Anonymous"? Strange.
  Supplemental: The best note to genetic engineering I ever heard was "the researches of today are the solution approach of tomorrow". It seems to be necessary to maintain better food organisms to feed th 10 billion people in 2050. But if the density of humans would not be as high as it is, a lot of problems would not stand. That means it is more a political problem, the science cannot solve it, only reduce the effects.

  0 0

• 

  Anonymous

  7 years ago

  hmm... thiiknng out loud here...If Jonathan Miller donated personal income to the Foundation For Kentucky's Future Inc., aka BGR (the blog he created) wouldn't that be in violation of Kentucky Constitution Sections 151 & 150? After all, BGR is a political blog who admits in court documents that ""A major purpose of Plantiff's website is to influence state policy, and a critical part of his audience is therefore state government employees." - 30,000 taxpaid state employees are also admits in same court document that state employees are Nickolas' "target audience."Secondly, if Stein donated $$ to the Foundation and then tried to pass legislation that would allow 30,000 state employees to channel into the Miller created political blog wouldn't she also be in violation of Kentucky Constitution Section 151 & 150?Thirdly, if Miller tried to influence the taxpayer, via the CJ article, "Treasure fights blockage and criticizes governor" june 23, 2006, and leaves out the critical information that he created the blog and possibly donated his own money or taxpayer money, wouldn't he again be in violation of KY. Constitution Sections 150 & 151?

  0 0

• 

  Anonymous

  7 years ago

  Thanks for including my blog, Secrets to Health and Aging.I work hard to give eedarrs reliable information. I received a post masters in gerontology 25 years ago and aging remains my passion.Resurrecting an old blog, Upside of Aging, in a week or two. This will focus on aging and the aging brain/mind. I'm constantly amazed at how much we learn about what goes on from the neck up and how much we still don't know!Thanks again.Ruthan Brodsky

  0 0

• 

  Anonymous

  7 years ago

  1. The 7 areas that Greenpeace think can be negatively ecffeted are Genetic Manipulation, Cultivation, Propaganda, Environment, Mono-cultures, Food, and Health.2. Health and Food are kind of hand in hand topics in this situation. Paying attention to the now , you may think its okay but in the long run things could take a turn for the worse. So are the foods we eat today going to slowly deteriorate our health? Could the consumption of one thing too many times be detrimental to our bodies deeper than we think; possibly making its way into are cells to create a new? Could they cause disease rather than being healthy and helping prevent them? (Apple a day keeps the doctor away theory).3. Yes, I agree because too many potential problems arise with genetic manipulation. No one person really knows what happens to every gene in every persons body. This topic alone is risky for every living thing on the planet. One mistake or mutation could change the whole world sowly or rapidly. Its things like that in which we wont know untill it happens and when (if) it happens we wont know how to fix it back.4. In actuality, there may be no societal benefits this point is still being debated over. But what is true is that there are many medical, agricultural, and personal advantages to genetic engineering. For example, animals can be engineered for leaner meat, there can be more ecologically friendly products, productivity of crops can be increased, and bacteria can be engineered to produce drugs needed for livestock. These benefits can be seen in the commercial success, which shows how these products are needed and are used. Other benefits include DNA tests helping newborn screening and used for forensic/identity testing. Cloning can be used to reverse heart attacks. Some of the benefits just help increase production, while others help ease the treatment of diseases or save lives. Here's a closer look at some of these important pros.

  0 0

• 

  GD000001982

  United Kingdom | 7 years ago

  gm saves lives especially in the third world

  0 0

• 

  Joyeux

  United Kingdom | 7 years ago

  I object because GM increases crop yields and there is little evidence that it harms people.

  0 0

• 

  Anonymous

  6 years ago

  Hey there! Stunning posting! I'm a frnqeeut visitor to your site (far like addict ) of your website though I had a problem. I'm so not necessarily quite totally sure if its the right site to question, but you've got no spam comments. I get comments every day. Could you assist me? Thanks a bunch!

  0 0

• 

  GD000010252

  Austria | 5 years ago

  I object because the population of humanity grows up and if we will not use GMO-products we will die of starvation. GMO is only genetically modified products, the genes are modifying constantly, without any help, just slower. The changes of genes cannot harm people.

  0 0

• 

  amerie.garrett

  United Kingdom | 4 years ago

  I object because you clearly havent done your research. Food has been genetically modified by humans for many years now it simply has only been publicised recently. It has saved millions of lives by breeding disease resistant and drought resistant crops in famine ridden countries

  0 0