GMO, NWO....eugenica it is all conected
lol, what? Even if you do think that GM stuff is dangerous, why does it have to link in with all that conspiracy theory shite?
That's the problem with "activists" like you, although you speak some truths, you lose your credibility when you start linking everything together with no proof or evidence. It's one thing to say it's dangerous, another thing entirely to start saying it's some master NWO eugenics plan....
I personally think that GM food is perfectly safe if it's done carefully - I would say the main danger is cross-pollination, that could cause for example some sort of strain of super-plants (triffids if you will) that could upset the local eco-system. Unlikely though.
I don't agree with these hugely powerful corporations basically doing what the hell they like, however, with no regard for anything/anyone else. Also don't agree with the french dude going to prison, but that case has nothing to do with GMO as far as I can see?
conspiracy?
are you living on earth??
google eugenica bill gates
i think that you dont need google for nwo (nsa etc...)
I'm aware of Bill Gates' comments re: world population and that his grandfather was into eugenics. That doesn't make him a eugenicist. And it certainly doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy whereby Gates/Monsanto are cultivating GM crops to purposefully cause sterilization in any group of people.
Yes, he has invested heavily in sterilization and contraception programmes, as he believes (quite rightly IMO) that the world population is rising uncontrollably. His comments about population control are often taken out of context. For example, he said:
"Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [world population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent”
He does not mean that vaccines will kill off 10-15% of people (they would not be very good vaccines if they killed people rather than saving them). His opinion is that saving more children will cause many people in poor countries to give birth to LESS children, as their children will be far more likely to live until adulthood.
It is a well known fact that currently, poor countries have a much higher birth rate than developed countries.
Anyway, back on topic, here is a really informative article trying to look at both sides of the GMO debate, it's worth a read whether you're pro or anti GMO:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/A couple of quotes from the article:
Critics often disparage U.S. research on the safety of genetically modified foods, which is often funded or even conducted by GM companies, such as Monsanto. But much research on the subject comes from the European Commission, the administrative body of the E.U., which cannot be so easily dismissed as an industry tool. The European Commission has funded 130 research projects, carried out by more than 500 independent teams, on the safety of GM crops. None of those studies found any special risks from GM crops.
Some scientists say the objections to GM food stem from politics rather than science—that they are motivated by an objection to large multinational corporations having enormous influence over the food supply; invoking risks from genetic modification just provides a convenient way of whipping up the masses against industrial agriculture. “This has nothing to do with science,” Goldberg says. “It's about ideology.” Former anti-GM activist Lynas agrees. He recently went as far as labeling the anti-GM crowd “explicitly an antiscience movement.”
Ever heard of "Golden Rice"? This is a genetically modified strain of rice which contains large amounts of vitamin A. Millions in poor countries die and go blind from vitamin A deficiency every year, so some clever people thought they'd make GM rice to try to help these people cheaply and effectively.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24515938Unfortunately, anti-GM activists (like Greenpeace) have spread so much misinformation regarding this strain of rice, that crops are readily destroyed by locals, as they believe that they are dangerous. There has been no scientific evidence to show this, but groups like Greenpeace seem to think they know better.
Again, I don't like the idea that huge multinational corporations like Monsanto are so powerful that they can basically do what they want, filing patents and planting crops with no regard for local farmers etc. And I think they do need to be careful with issues like cross-pollination.
But this idea that GM crops are inherently dangerous simply hasn't been proven - there is overwhelming evidence that they are safe.
And this idea that GM crops are part of some kind of global sterilization conspiracy is laughable - please show some real evidence for this if you can.
By the way, I try to eat as much organic, locally sourced food as I can. I think it generally tastes better and I like to support local farmers, even if it does cost me a bit more, and I don't like the idea of too many pesticides being used as it can affect the local eco-system, and supports huge chemical companies. But on the other hand I have no problems whatsoever with eating GM food. I have found that shitty processed food (like cheap white bread, and crap burgers/pizza/"meat") doesn't seem to agree with me, but this is down to how the food is manufactured and processed, not whether it contains GMO or not.
) wont fix problems. 
