Does anyone know of anyother sites that may help me? the project is on the negitive and positives about gmo.

Thank you!

As soon as the first human learned that planting two apple trees with large fruit next to each other caused the offspring of the trees to produce even larger fruit, genetically modified fruit was being consumed. Yes, it has taken huge leaps and bound forward as science advanced, (remember the flavrsavr tomatoes?) however, I find it INCREADABLE hard to believe that the FDA would allow a product to be distributed on a national scale if it caused all the side effects that you claim. If you look hard enough, almost anything is bad for you. Drinking too much water, pure, untainted water, will kill you. As will any non GM food, if you happen to be allergic to it. There is no scientific proof that GM foods are harmful to your health and there IS proof that it can be good for you. Golden rice is one example. The rice can be considered a particular advantage to poor people in underdeveloped countries. They eat only an extremely limited diet lacking in the essential bodily vitamins, causing many people to die or become blind. This is particularly true in areas of Asia, where most of the population live on rice from morning to evening. Golden rice has been genetically modified to contain extra Beta Carotene, which the body converts into vitamin A. Vitamin A plays a role in a variety of functions throughout the body, such as:
• Vision
• Gene Transcription
• Immune Function
• Embryonic Development and Reproduction
• Bone Metabolism
• Haematopoiesis
• Skin Health
• Reducing Risk of Heart Disease and Cancer
• Antioxidant Activity
Additionally, reasearch into GM foods is benifiting the world of medicen as well, helping researcers discover new sources of treatment for a whole varitey of illnesses. The advantages they offer in terms of production scale and economy, product safety, ease of storage and distribution cannot be matched by any current commercial system; they also provide the most promising opportunity to supply low-cost drugs and vaccines to the developing world. However, despite the promised benefits, the commercialization of plant-derived pharmaceutical products is overshadowed by the uncertain regulatory terrain, particularly with regard to the adaptation of good manufacturing practice regulations to field-grown plants. The success of such products also depends on careful negotiation of the intellectual property landscape, particularly the achievement of freedom-to-operate licenses for use in developing countries. There are at least 119 plant-derived compounds used in medicine today, including but not limited to analgesics, (aspirin,) taxol, (treatment for cancer,) L-dopa, (treatments for Parkinson’s,)m and so on. Additionally, using plants as a way of manufacturing pharmaceuticals can significantly cut production costs, making the treatments more available to the general public. Why you would want o take away an opportunity like this I will never understand.
I believe that you should fully research a topic before mouthing off about it, and if, after researching both viewpoints and com ing to your own conclusion not moticvated by fear but by eduacation, you still decide that GM foods just aren’t for you, then I encourage you to persue whatever lifestyle you chose.

The only place that animal genes are crossed with plant genes is in labs.

“These genetically engineered crops are actually the most highly tested crops that we’ve ever had. They’re regulated by the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA. The EPA regulates them if there’s a pesticide involved. The USDA for where they’re grown and how it will effect the environment and the FDA for food safety. They go through millions of dollars worth of testing and many years to be able to be approved as a commercial crop.”
Terri L. Lomax Ph.D. Professor of Botany & Plant Pathology at OSU

“We can’t start getting picky because we’ve got enough food, that’s just self-centered and racist. Unless you and yours are starving, you need, to shut, the f*ck, up.”
Penn Jillette

Just those quotes and my little snippet say what I wanted to convey.

this technology CAN end a great deal of human suffering by providing cheap, germ and insect resistant(which REDUCES PESTICIDE USE) plants which grow much larger and in harsher conditions.

forget eating a fruit fly’s genes. that’s nothing. how about a strawberry flavored banana? square watermelon anyone? subzero – growth tomato that tastes like steak?!

grow up, be open minded, the only way the technology will ever get better in the society we have is if people demand it.

gtfo there and demand it.

We have starvation running rampant in significant portions of the world and food prices skyrocketing due to supply not keeping up with demand in even the most developed countries, and you guys are still that concerned with HOW food is being made when the only real question should be “how much”. If you are fortunate enough to have the money to purchase food grown/raised specifically to your tastes, then you are one of the privileged few and should be grateful for that. Expecting everyone else to conform to that way of thinking, regardless of financial or ethical differences (read: people that don’t actually care) is unreasonable. The world needs more food, and since there is profit in meeting demand, there are people looking for ways to increase the supply. Arguing that their motivation is for profit rather than some more noble goal is irrelevant, as that is how virtually all technological advances are achieved, and we still reap the benefits of these advancements regardless.

Simply put: arguing for a return to farming methods that produce fewer crops amid a growing global food crisis has to be the most selfish thing I’ve heard in quite some time, especially when the argument comes from the same spoiled first-world-citizens who will be the ONLY ones still able to afford food after a further drop in production.