The US Supreme Court, for the first time,
has heard a case on GMO foods -- the question is not whether GMOs are safe to eat, but whether they ruin the environment, namely, the environment of organically grown alfalfa nearby. If you were on the Supreme Court, how might you rule?
After reading the link I found it completely unprofessional and honestly ignorant for Justice Antonin Scalia to say that this isn’t a big deal. GMO’s are completely controversial. This is a huge deal especially for those people who take honor in their organic (or even non- GM) farms. If these round-up ready seeds contaminate (yes contaminate) organic soil, this land is no longer organic, and if found, this very proud farmer can ruin their organic license. Or this non-GM farmer can lose their integrity. Furthermore there are extremely strict rules and regulations surrounding organic farms, specifying how close an organic farm can be to any non-organic land.
ReplyDeleteOkay so maybe there aren’t any studies that “prove” that GMO’s are completely harmful, but in my opinion a consumer and a farmer should have the choice of eating or grown organic foods. If this Monsanto business continues there may be no organic soil left; leaving us with no freedom of food choice in America. So if I was the Supreme Court I would not rule in favor of Monsanto or round-up ready seeds.
G.M.O is a one of modern technique that obtaining one gene from one species and insert it to different gene. The problem of G.M.O is we cannot always get result that we want and expect. In other words, there are potential hazard factors in G.M.O technology. Above all, nowadays science technology does not well developed to get successful result 100%. So, there is a chance that some important genes in G.M.O product might be destroyed or disappeared. So, unstable G.M.O products might have toxicity. Furthermore, G.M.O product could be harmful to ecosystem by influencing to wild lives.
ReplyDeleteSince Monsanto company starts selling G.M.O products, there are almost eleven kinds of G.M.O products are in America now. However, herbicide resistance and harmful insects resistance G.M.O products will cause serious problems to human and ecosystem. Herbicide resistance G.M.O products will have more agriculture pesticides because. And, harmful insects resistance G.M.O products will destroy ecosystem because as they make own toxin, they will kill good insects and other useful lives.
So, I think it is not proper period that let company sell and make G.M.O products to us.
"The most it does is make it difficult for those farmers who want to cater to the European market, which will not accept genetically engineered alfalfa, it makes it more difficult for them to have a field of 100 percent non-genetically engineered," he continued. "But that's not the end of the world." Justice Scalia
ReplyDeleteAll I want to say is that A LOT of things can count as "not the end of the world". The supreme court, after ruling that corporations can openly finance and support presidential campaigns, has lost its last ounce of credibility.
So if I was to be a Supreme Court Judge, I would 1) table this issue and conduct a proper scientific peer-reviewed study. 2) then after those results rule on anything.
But as of now, given Monsanto's track record, I would be disinclined to rule in favor of the GMOs.
Hopefully, this summer Obama will decide to appoint competent judges to the supreme court.
PS: Plato in his book the Republic, argues (along with Socrates) that people should be excluded from the City (their version of the state) after 50 years of age. This means that no decision making concerning the society should be done by seniles. Supreme Court is a beautiful example of why this is true.
GMO's can be used to fix an issue that is at hand, but mostly it is used as a money-maker- using the good it's done as a buffer zone from the bad. That's why it must be looked at deeper, with a spectator's heart and an emphasis on environments. Monsanto has created a product that may be far more superior with regards to taste, amount of fruit, and a greater ease to take care of; however with this good, we have to look at the bad. The good is here subjective. Yes, people may be getting a better rice product in India, but their environment is in a falling out around them. All habitats have a natural adherence to what is around them. It is a spectacle of flora and fauna that drives their ecosystem. Monsanto takes out one plant that is overrun by their 'superior' product, and some rare bug that only can survive with that indigenous plant may go extinct. Some bird might need that bug. The dodo surely did in Madagascar. Take away eucalyptus, and you lose the koala.
ReplyDeleteMonsanto says that this seed is stronger than the other. You put this seed here, this species dies out, and boom- you have the superior plant. But that's not how it works. Life on planet Earth was created by whatever has created it with a certain beauty that shines through reproduction and adaptation. We are changing how we look at adaptation and reproduction based on what we need now. This change towards immediate thinking is suicidal and practices poor planning.
I wish there was a way for Africa and India to eat better. If I could suggest an easier way for this, I'd be the first to profess it. Maybe we should just stick to our roots. Maybe we should just forget technology, live off the land we have, forget money, greed, and republics. Nature has everything we need. Why don't we slow down, realize what we've done to our world- to its flora and fauna and to ourselves and stop and think about how beautiful it is. But that's unrealistic and quite extreme. Maybe, just maybe, that's how it's meant to be.
You know, before cigarettes came with a warning label, people thought they were harmless. When fast food popped up all over the country, people thought it was convenient, and further more, that convenience was for the better. Has anyone stopped to think of what mass producing food and breaking the laws of nature has done to us in the past? Are we just waiting for a warning label and an apology later? Why is bringing back sustainable food and farms anything but an obvious need? Would our health and economy not prevail? Will American's get a chance at quality of life?
ReplyDeleteInteresting that this is just now becoming a real issue. the fact is that we don't really know how harmful (or as the case may be, not harmful) GMO's are to us. They shouldn't be illegal, and we shouldn't freak out that they're doing something "nature would never do" it's science and leaps are made in technology via the study of science. however, the fact that GMO's aren't labeled (the 8 on the end of a UPC doesnt count) is not ok. Consumers should have the right to know that what they are purchasing is genetically modified before they ingest it or feed it to their kids. they're already labeled in Europe due to public pressure, that could happen here too if enough people started to care.
ReplyDelete-Scott Johnson
the surpreme court should rule in favor of.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the videos and doing some readings about Gmo’s I stand a little bit more on the fence as far as my opinion than I did before. We watched Deconstructing Supper in Gastronomy and that let me see actually how genes are being put into our food, which made me a think that it was more harmless than it sounds. Yes, we are changing the gene structure of these plants which is unsettling however it does have as much less evidence that its bad than that its good. Over all it seems really that more are benifiting from this surplus of food than thoes that are hurt which makes me rule in favor for, but I am no judge.
Shaye Kwiecinski said...
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article about GMOs, i can't believe Jutice Scalia thinks GMOs are not a big deal. They are definelty a big deal and after the 1960's, America started having more problems with cancer and disease. Also how it impacts our economy and life in general.
When i was in community college i wrote a paper on sustainable agriculture. In the midst of writing this paper i decided to interview my Grandma. I always wondered why at 90 years of age she is in great shape, perfect health, and her mind is in tact. She hasn't been in the hospital since the 90s and is on no medication. I knew she grew up a dairy farm in Rockland county NY but my real wonder was; "what was her diet like?"
As i talk to her i found out what it was, was what her family farm produced is what she ate, from the chickens her grandfather butchered, to the cows milk, and fresh vegetables. They rarely went to the convience store for food maybe for a loaf of bread but even that they produced. Telling my Grandma about GMO's, she to was wondering why we have so many problems with the food system in America.
When my Grandma was living on the farm there was no such thing as Monsanto or any big seed company. What they grew is what they ate. It's kind of scary to think how america went from mostly farms small meat companies to only a select few corporations controlling everything and putting the lone farmer out of business.
It would seem logical to request a scientific review of the specific type of RR alfalfa seed and the specific farmland that was being brought before the court before a ruling could be made. Until you realized that the study would most likely be done by the EPA or the USDA. Why is this a problem, you ask? This is a problem because of the long history of Monsanto employees being appointed in prominent positions in both of these organizations.
ReplyDeleteJustice Clarence Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto in the 1970s. Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 2001 Supreme Court case that ruled in favor of the patenting of organic life in the form of GMO crops. This ruling is the basis that allows companies like Monsanto to sue small farmers who, through no fault of their own, end up with GMO seed in their non-GMO fields, through wind, cross contamination, etc.
Michael Taylor was an assistant to the FDA commissioner until he left to work for a law firm on gaining FDA approval of Monsanto's new growth hormone. He later became deputy commissioner of the FDA from 91-94. He was reappointed under President Obama.
Dr Michael Friedman was deputy commissioner of the FDA before being hired as Monsanto's Senior VP.
Linda Fisher worked for the EPA, then jumped to Monsanto as vice-president then back to the EPA as deputy administrator.
So I'm not sure if even the Supreme Court could do much to stop this machine at this point. The GMOs are out there. GMO corn has reached all the way into Mexico and other crops have reached north to Canada where they aren't welcomed, and the farmers unlucky enough to have their crops supplanted with the GMOs against their will are getting sued for their trouble.
JS859367
I believe that it is time to bring GMOs into the limelight in front of the government. I believe that its wrong to cross species that would never naturally cross like a strawberry and a fish. There are no natural forces to keep some of these GMOs in check. These may get out of hand and end up in places where they were not intended to go. This has already started happening. There is still no proof that GMOs are safe to eat and they are still so new that we won't know for many years. I do believe there are some benefits, but they are outweighed by dangers.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, it seems that GMO's have only fattened the people who arent impoverished. I think GMO's are worthless and that the world would be better without them, but I do think they are in accordance with the constitution. The agency thought the enviromental impact was acceptable, so I would have to abstain.
ReplyDeleteAny chance of cross-pollination could be devastating to the plant with GMO’s. Although I understand the seed companies view. They are trying to protect their business. And perhaps, think generating a bigger, better product could feed the world.
ReplyDeleteI come from an area, and have close friends and ties that rely on farming for their livelihood, I believe the seed companies are primarily concerned with financial wealth, not creating a better world.
I do question, what health effects will GMO’s have for humans consuming these products? What will the long term affect be? Just because we have the technology doesn’t mean we have to use it.
I would vote NO on GMO’s
Jacquie Palmer jp847779
I rule that GMO's need to be taken off the market and be tested until we know the complete long term effects it may have on the enviroment, animals, and people. Since GMO's are brand new, nothing has been recorded over a long period of time so it is still inconclusive. It could end up causing some crazy cancer that would not be sited until 30 years of ingested the GMO. That is why i believe GMO's should not be on the market until it is conclusive about them.
ReplyDeleteKO783872