Gmos Quotes

Any politician or scientist who tells you these [GMO] products are safe is either very stupid or lying.

The long-term study of GMO foods is going on in real time and in real life. Not in a lab.

The position I took at the time was that we hadn't really examined any of the potential environmental consequences of introducing genetically modified organisms.

Simply because my people are hungry, that is no justification to give them poison, to give them genetically modified food that is intrinsically dangerous to their health.

rBGH poses an even greater risk to human health than ever considered. The FDA and Monsanto have a lot to answer for. Given the cancer risks, and other health concerns, why is rBGH milk still on the market?

But Fascism cannot continue in a modified form.

All that is needed to set us definitely on the road to a Fascist society is war. It will of course be a modified form of Fascism at first.

My father was always getting excited about something. It's genetically inside me somewhere.

I believe in the science. When you think about GMOs, I spend a lot of time on them, and I understand them. But I understand that my telling people on faith may not carry the day. They need to see it, understand it, [and we need to] arm them with facts, educate them, and let them make their choices.

But I majored in Drama, modified with Psychology.

An ecosystem, you can always intervene and change something in it, but there's no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another.

If you look at all the lobbyists in Washington, this is not a democracy. This is ruled by special interest groups. That includes the military, the pharmaceutical industry, the people who produce mechanized debt, GMO foods. We are prisoners.

The words of a dead man are modified in the guts of the living.

GMO herbicide-tolerant crops have led to a 527 million pound increase in herbicide use in the U.S. between 1996 and 2011.

The public should know that the liability issues here have yet to be resolved, or even raised. If you're a farmer and you're growing a genetically engineering food crop, those genes are going to flow to the other farm.

Fairness forces you - even when you're writing a piece highly critical of, say, genetically modified food, as I have done - to make sure you represent the other side as extensively and as accurately as you possibly can.

There doesn't seem to be any other way of creating the next green revolution without GMOs.

The World Health Organization recently concluded that glyphosate, the main ingredient in the most-used herbicide on GMOs, is "possibly carcinogenic to humans." What's even scarier is that more than 3,200 elementary schools are within 1,000 feet of genetically modified corn or soybean fields. Drift is a very real thing in agricultural communities, so the proximity of these toxic substances to children is terrifying.

GMOs are found in nearly 80% of processed food in the United States. Currently, up to 92% of U.S. corn is consumed what are you eating GMO with zoe lister-jonesgenetically engineered, as are 94% of soybeans and 94% of cotton. In short, they are everywhere.

I think a big misconception about GMOs is that there is a scientific consensus on their safety.

I frequently compose out the entire metric structure of a piece in modified cyclic form, where each cyclic revolution undergoes some form of 'variation' much as if measure lengths were concrete musical 'material.'

The present Luddism over genetic engineering may die a natural death as the computer-illiterate generation is superseded.... I fear that, if the green movement's high-amplitude warnings over GMOs turn out to be empty, people will be dangerously disinclined to listen to other and more serious warnings.

I see worries in the fact that we have the power to manipulate genes in ways that would be improbable or impossible through conventional evolution. We shouldn't be complacent in thinking that we can predict the results.

The FDA has received over a million comments from citizens demanding labeling of GMOs. 90 percent of Americans agree. So, why no labeling?

When it comes to owning the seed for collecting royalties, the GMO companies say, 'it's mine.' But when it comes to contamination, cross-pollination, health problems, the response is we're not liable.

I think the dangers of the impact of GMOs on the environment are undebatable. Genetically modified crops are tied to the chemicals sprayed on them.

We hear, "Oh, we need to patent GMOs and develop new strains and new chemicals because Nature can't provide what we need." I have to debate people all the time who say that Nature can't provide enough.

Because GMOs aren't labeled, it's very hard to prove causality in terms of health effects. It's even more difficult because the seeds are patented, so independent researchers have a hard time gaining access to them.

All of us, whether guilty or not, whether old or young, must accept the past. It is not a case of coming to terms with the past. That is not possible. It cannot be subsequently modified or undone.

There is no reason why a company like Monsanto, for example, that is pushing GMOs, cannot go to Kenya, partner with the university, partner with the research institutions, and try to promote - in a responsible way - advanced techniques to help farmers. But this should be done in such a way that the farmers' livelihoods are not undermined because the government is irresponsible or careless, or because it is compromised.

American consumers are not saying they will not buy GMO foods. What they're saying is "I want to know. I want to know." EU consumers are much happier because they know what they're buying, and they've seen a continued increase in sales.

The entire EU has labeling for GMOs, and is simply saying let's let consumers know what they're buying, let's let them choose. I think it's a huge mistake by the food manufacturers of America not to be saying let's let consumers know. Let's let them know, let them decide.

Therefore I feel that the aforementioned guiding principle must be modified to read: If you desire peace, cultivate justice, but at the same time cultivate the fields to produce more bread; otherwise there will be no peace.

Middle-income countries are the biggest users of GMOs. Places like Brazil.

But the newest research is showing that many properties of the brain are genetically organized, and don't depend on information coming in from the senses.

About 90 percent of all soy is genetically modified (GMO). Soy is also one of the top seven allergens, and is widely known to cause immediate hypersensitivity reactions. While in the last forty years soy has occupied an important place in the transition from an unhealthy meat-based diet to vegetarian and vegan cuisine, it is time for us to upgrade our food choice to one having more benefits, and fewer negative possibilities. In 1986, Stuart Berger, MD, placed soy among the seven top allergens - one of the "sinister seven." At the time, most experts listed soy around tenth or eleventh.

There are plenty of publicly-funded organizations and nonprofits that are trying to develop GMO crops that could help feed people in developing nations by producing disease-resistant or drought-resistant strains of staple crops like cassava or bananas.

It's not like I want to hop on a bandwagon, because I said it 15 years ago - bringing a child into your life who is not genetically yours is one of the most beautiful things you can do. But I'm also interested in having my own baby, too.

The fact is, some of the most respected scientific bodies in the world, including Codex Alimentarius (jointly run by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), the American Medical Association, the British Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association, have stated that more research needs to be done on GMOs through premarket safety assessments before we can truthfully determine their safety.

To argue that we need some technology in order to produce food to tackle hunger is completely blind to the facts on the ground. Actually, what we need is the exact opposite of what GMOs give us. We have to empower farmers to grow food for themselves and plant and grow their own seeds and use practices to deal with weeds and the need for fertility, not from purchased products like a seed or a chemical, but from their own farms, from their own knowledge and skill sets.

I think [GMO] is one area where the is a need for legal regulations to make sure that companies - because at the moment, companies are the ones that have this technology - will not use this technology in a way that could adversely affect the people.

Back in 1983, the United States government approved the release of the first genetically modified organism. In this case, it was a bacteria that prevents frost on food crops.

Cows given genetically modified growth hormones make more milk, but have painful swollen udders, have ulcers, joint pain, miscarriages, deformed calves, infertility, and much shorter life spans. Their milk contains blood, pus, tranquilizers, antibiotics, and an insulin growth factor that can cause a fourfold increase in prostate cancer and sevenfold rise in breast cancer. This is the milk used in our school lunch programs and served to our children. This is the milk that you buy every day. This is the milk used in all cheeses, yogurts, butter, and cream.

Europe will not accept genetically modified foods. It doesn't make any difference in the final analysis what Brussels does, what Washington does, or what the World Trade Organization does.

The 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime.

GMO agriculture will probably save the world in this century. But in the developed world, where few people are haunted by the specter of famine, people are free to fetishize heirloom tomatoes and worry about the provenance of what sits on their dinner tables.

For me, the overarching issue here is that we need regulatory agencies that are standing up for us, that do not have a revolving door between, you know, Monsanto, and then suddenly Monsanto lobbyists are in charge of, you know, telling us whether GMOs are, you know, good for our food or not.

My worry is that other advances in science may result in other means of mass destruction, maybe more readily available even than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a possible area, because of these dreadful developments that are taking place there.

We are eating hybridized and genetically modified (GMO) foods full of antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, and additives that were unknown to our immune systems just a generation or two ago. The result? Our immune system becomes unable to recognize friend or foe - to distinguish between foreign molecular invaders we truly need to protect against and the foods we eat or, in some cases, our own cells. In Third World countries where hygiene is poor and infections are common, allergy and autoimmunity are rare.

There are still hungry people in Ethiopia, but they are hungry because they have no money, no longer because there is no food to buy... we strongly resent the abuse of our poverty to sway the interests of the European public.