Save our honey!

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 09/02/12, 19:08

antoinet111 wrote:
Sen-no-sen, I didn't say what I thought, but that I hadn't read or heard that. don't distort my words.


I have not distorted anything it seems to me?
I just reacted to your answer.

the reapers break research and studies, they are terrorists.


It is through the lack of debate, and I speak of a citizen debate that certain people have come to carry out illegal mowing.
When there is no more debate what to do?
Compared to wheat reapers and suicide bombers, it's a bit strong!

do your referendum, you would have the same result as for the death penalty.,


40% of French people would be in the most extreme cases favorable to the death penalty, for GMOs it is more than 70% ...
The death penalty (slowly) is precisely what we eat GMOs! : Lol:

it's sad to see you in the crowd rather than wanting to have reliable and unbiased information.


I am not biased, simply, it has been more than 100000 years that our species has been walking on the soil of this planet and it is nourished with what nature has given it.
It is not because a band of unscrupulous promoters decided to create a vein of several billion for their simple profits that we should comply with its dictates!

Natural production has enough to feed the entire planet, it is an established fact.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 09/02/12, 19:37

Antoinet111 you write:
it's sad to see you in the crowd rather than wanting to have reliable and unbiased information.

It is one of the (im) postures of science and technology to display oneself as neutral and purely rational in order to better admit the interests to which they are linked.
As if everything was a matter of expert! In the name of what an expert of such or such specialty is competent to say what is good for each of us?
Let him produce his analysis and then decide whether it is an attractive option for us, as citizens, or not.
In the case of GMOs, one can quibble endlessly, with more or less in good faith, on purely technical questions, that would only hide what condemns this kind of enterprise: its liberticidal will.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 09/02/12, 20:24

Ahmed wrote:In the case of GMOs, one can quibble endlessly, with more or less in good faith, on purely technical questions, that would only hide what condemns this kind of enterprise: its liberticidal will.


Didn't you mean herbicide will? : Mrgreen: (ok I'm going out ...)


As if everything was a matter of expert! In the name of what an expert of such or such specialty is competent to say what is good for each of us?
Let him produce his analysis and then decide whether it is an attractive option for us, as citizens, or not.


Absolutely, more than after investigations, its so-called "experts" are often members of the boards of directors of large multinationals and in exchange for their "expertise" receives very large compensation ...
For the purely scientific debate, everything demonstrates the uselessness of GMOs as solutions to the problems of hunger in the world.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 09/02/12, 20:51

For the purely scientific debate, everything demonstrates the uselessness of GMOs as solutions to the problems of hunger in the world.

Absolutely! What I wanted to say is that even (which is not the case) if it were possible to demonstrate the harmlessness of GMOs, they would still be condemned by the hegemonic will that they harbor.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 09/02/12, 21:16

I strongly invite antoinet111 to read the book:

"The World according to Monsanto" by Marie Monique ROBIN, which must be found on the net or on you tube.

Arte editions even in paperback!

And in the same spirit, contempt for industrial trusts which despise their customers, in secret, concealment and manipulation, ultimately killing them by diseases (cancers, diabetes and heart attacks), he must read the books:

Our daily poison Ed Arte Monique Robin
http://robin.blog.arte.tv/category/notr ... quotidien/
http://notre-poison-quotidien.arte.tv/

and "the black book of the drug"by Corinne Lalo and Patrick Solal editions Plon
which traces the entire history of drugs and their Lobbies, which killed and injured tens of thousands, long before the Mediator !!!


Example of a total lie on GMOs to understand, which made it possible to delete any valid study !!
The elements that most annoyed the institutional promoters of GMOs were my demonstration that the famous "principle of equivalence in substance" which founds the (non) regulation of transgenic plant pesticides from Monsanto, was not based on any scientific study and was a concocted invention by the Saint Louis firm, with the complicity of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to prevent GMOs from being seriously tested.
These diplomatic cables confirm what I have described at length in my book, namely that GMOs and related patents are a tool used by the United States and American multinationals to control the world seed market, and therefore the food chain. They are proof of the extreme "proximity" (not to say "collusion"!) Between Monsanto and the American government.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that France Info distributed today a paper on documents of American diplomacy, revealed by Wikileaks, which show that the representatives of the Washington administration organized the response to neutralize the impact of my film and book The world according to Monsanto especially in France (see on this Blog).



I invite antoinet111 to read and understand this problem, a real scam, planetary, allowing to sell food poisoned by toxins, simply because they are at the start, before becoming GMO, perfectly edible and harmless !!
Last edited by dedeleco the 11 / 02 / 12, 12: 56, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
stipe
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 224
Registration: 07/01/11, 14:36
Location: Oise (60)




by stipe » 10/02/12, 10:14

Ahmed wrote:
For the purely scientific debate, everything demonstrates the uselessness of GMOs as solutions to the problems of hunger in the world.

Absolutely! What I wanted to say is that even (which is not the case) if it were possible to demonstrate the harmlessness of GMOs, they would still be condemned by the hegemonic will that they harbor.


I quite agree that GMOs do not necessarily provide solutions to nutrition problems, and that it is certainly a tool of big companies to make money, but basically, I wonder question compared to those who shout at the ecological risk of seeing a species invade regions at the risk of no longer being able to get rid of it:

Basically what is the difference between a "bad GMO" and a "pretty" species obtained by crossing and selection, which in the same way will be patented, introduced in regions where it did not exist etc ...? what we have been doing (except the patent aspect which must be more recent) for decades already.
0 x
"the goal of every life is to end" !.
User avatar
stipe
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 224
Registration: 07/01/11, 14:36
Location: Oise (60)




by stipe » 10/02/12, 10:17

In the same way (I certainly beat around the bush ...) I find the subject of this petition a little inappropriate, since in the end, what seems to disturb, it's more a pesticide that we put on the fields planted with GMOs than GMOs themselves, right?

In other words, the day or monsanto will obtain by crossing and selecting one but which supports about as well pesticides as these GMOs, nobody will see any inconvenience to introduce it in France?
0 x
"the goal of every life is to end" !.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 10/02/12, 11:42

Chatelot hello
I am less opposed to GMOs, the aim of which is to produce useful drugs or proteins: it is high-tech research that will be monitored by people who are safer than field crops.

The question is also there. If GMOs are not justified for plants because of their dangers: why would they be completely harmless when they stick the other label "medicine".
there is something that deserves a reaction in principle: information: it seems logical to me to impose the placement of a sign around the GMO fields to clearly inform the population and beekeepers

still we should teach pollinating insects, birds and other animals to read the signs!
: Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Paul
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 72
Registration: 29/06/11, 09:49
Location: France southwestern Ariege
x 1




by Paul » 10/02/12, 11:56

In the same way (I certainly beat around the bush ...) I find the subject of this petition a little inappropriate, since in the end, what seems to disturb, it's more a pesticide that we put on the fields planted with GMOs that the GMO itself, not


It is, as clarified by deleco or che pu which, GM plant producing their own pesticide. therefore no need to spread any more since it is found directly in the plant (leaves, roots, flower, pollen ...)
And as bees (and not that, there are also butterflies, finally all are questioned anyway ...) feed on pollen, nectard, it is simply very effective since the poison is in their ad-vitam and ternam food (good rain no longer rinses plants, etc ...).


I am less opposed to GMOs, the aim of which is to produce useful drugs or proteins: it is high-tech research that will be monitored by people who are safer than field crops.



In fact, there is no need for GMOs at all, since industrial drugs are poisonous (nothing is really measured, even if it is what they want us to believe).
Most "modern" diseases, current, are the consequence of the past, it is all the chemical product used, (pesticide, weedkiller, detergent soaps, shampoos, medication .....) which are responsible.

bisphenol has been controversial for some time, but you should know that it is the same for millions of similar molecules, used in household products, plastics, packaging, and even in food, for smoothness, conservation, color ....

All that to say that Ayurvedic medicine, Chinese medicine, are largely capable of treating us, chemistry has nothing more, except that it makes us even more sick. And GMOs, let's not even talk about it, its can only be worse.

The useful proteins as you say, are at our disposal in nature, it is enough to nourish it healthily, to have some. more if we fed better, (therefore less) there would be more people!

finally it's another debate ...
0 x
With patience, the orchard becomes jam.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 10/02/12, 12:45

It's not that these plants create their own "pesticide"(Absolutely all the plants in the world do this naturally, they even change their formula according to their stage of maturation !!! But it's just that there is no reason to call it a pesticide in this case) but rather that they have been specially designed to resist the pesticide expressly sold and developed in the laboratory by the planner (or those he has mandated to do so ...) who de facto hold the peasant captive, since he is obliged to supply himself in the pesticide in question ...! Thus we see that genetic manipulation is above all a marketing and unfair commercial sham ... before even considering that it is beneficial regarding the increase in productivity gains!

Besides, this industry has only stopped producing and selling sterile seeds, always with the aim of keeping the peasantry captive, and to go in the same venal, greedy and Machiavellian design.

stipe wrote:
Ahmed wrote:
For the purely scientific debate, everything demonstrates the uselessness of GMOs as solutions to the problems of hunger in the world.

Absolutely! What I wanted to say is that even (which is not the case) if it were possible to demonstrate the harmlessness of GMOs, they would still be condemned by the hegemonic will that they harbor.


I quite agree that GMOs do not necessarily provide solutions to nutrition problems, and that it is certainly a tool of big companies to make money, but basically, I wonder question compared to those who shout at the ecological risk of seeing a species invade regions at the risk of no longer being able to get rid of it:

Basically what is the difference between a "bad GMO" and a "pretty" species obtained by crossing and selection, which in the same way will be patented, introduced in regions where it did not exist etc ...? what we do (except the patent aspect which must be more recent) for decades already [...]
In the same way (I certainly beat around the bush ...) I find the subject of this petition a little inappropriate, since in the end, what seems to disturb, it's more a pesticide that we put on the fields planted with GMOs than GMOs themselves, right?

In other words, the day or monsanto will obtain by crossing and selecting one but which supports about as well pesticides as these GMOs, nobody will see any inconvenience to introduce it in France?

But Stipe, this is already precisely what is happening!
I'm just going to talk about reasoning, without taking a position for or against GMOs.

Your position is pure syllogism. Nor is it because we may have been in error since that time that we should continue.

Now why should we admit authorizing modification of the genome in other living organisms and not in humans? Do plants not have the right to ethics? If this ethics is a bulwark against the madness of certain men, would plants be absolved from it?

You have to be a little obtuse, not to want to understand, that it is economic interests that guide the operating mode, and not the best interest of public health, or worse betrayal still the "law of the market", since consumers them, especially do not want it on their plate for their immense majority. So always, in terms of reasoning, are we ready to leave our health - potentially at risk - in the huts of these Dr 'Jé_kill'?

For my part, if GMOs can possibly be the solution to famines, I know nothing about it and I would not be against in the event of harmlessness. But I am like Ahmed, as long as it is the industry which will lead the ball, it will be wary of it like plague and cholera.
Last edited by Obamot the 10 / 02 / 12, 12: 49, 1 edited once.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 152 guests