Toggle sidebar

Milk is bad for you

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ssssuper
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 129,062
  • Replies Replies 1,421
  • Likes Likes 6
  • Like
Reactions: loco365
All I will say about GMOs is that:

1 they have not stood the test of time as in wether the genetic changes affect future generarions of parents who have ingested GMO products.
2 They have been proven to alter genes of other plants of the same species, for example a bee that fertilized a natural female tomato plant with pollen from a gmo variant will take on altered genes of varying levels resulting in horribly mutated plants and or plants that cannot reproduce (will have to buy more gmo seeds as they are the only seeds for sale in some states/countries).
3 GMOs are only around for the reason that they are the only breeds immune to Roundup pesticide which kills any plant that doesn't contain a certain gene that Monsanto (Company behind both products)
 
1) Humans have modified plants and animals for thousands of years. Is there any evidence that this newest method of more targeted changes has effects like you mention? I am sure I (well maybe someone more versed in the particular area) could make something that could do that but has the stuff that is out there got anything like that against it?
2) You might be blending various issues, quite valid ones, especially in places with curious takes on patents, but blending never the less. The plants that can not reproduce thing was usually seen as with the block on seed harvesting and the blending was seen when crops escaped their fields and the companies sued for that. I have not seen worry with the non reproduction thing mixed with blended crops.
3) I have said it before and I will say again that Monsanto are a bunch of cunts and I hope some of the people responsible for the directions they have taken have unpleasant things happen to them. However to say they are only around for ensuring pesticide sales is insane
 
FAST6191 said:
1) Humans have modified plants and animals for thousands of years. Is there any evidence that this newest method of more targeted changes has effects like you mention? I am sure I (well maybe someone more versed in the particular area) could make something that could do that but has the stuff that is out there got anything like that against it?
2) You might be blending various issues, quite valid ones, especially in places with curious takes on patents, but blending never the less. The plants that can not reproduce thing was usually seen as with the block on seed harvesting and the blending was seen when crops escaped their fields and the companies sued for that. I have not seen worry with the non reproduction thing mixed with blended crops.
3) I have said it before and I will say again that Monsanto are a bunch of cunts and I hope some of the people responsible for the directions they have taken have unpleasant things happen to them. However to say they are only around for ensuring pesticide sales is insane
Click to expand...


Well, the method they used before is called hybridisation, a method in which you breed male and female plants and select from the offspring the plants that grow the best or show growing traits that suit your needs, the oldest known example is growing grass that holds it's seed rather than drop them when it likes so it would be easier to harvest it all at once, but this method takes 7 generations or more depending on the species of selecting the specific offspring you choose before the final seeds of the 7th generation of plant where all the seeds will contain the same traits that you were selecting every generation of plants, this can legally then be given it's own name, be copyrighted or whatever you want, it's rather hard to explain but it's along those lines..

Now what GMOs are are plants which have had dna cut and placed directly into the seed or plant's genetic code through whatever means they use in the lab, and it's definately not done by natural means of selection..

Anyone remember how they added genes taken from the humble pig to the tomato plant? That stops them decaying like they would naturally within the usual 4 5 days thus increasing shelf life, as an experiment take a tomato from a shop and watch how it decays or in this case doesn't, about 20 days it will turn pitch black but won't lose it's shape or integrity and moulds will not even take hold.. Cool eh?
 
If you want to try and "convert" milk drinkers to a life of non-dairy righteousness like Pete Evans intended, then you should probably start off by not including a heavily biased video. Usually, unbiased sources are more reliable. Say, a scientific study, or some form of non-biased research.

I'm not gonna stop drinking milk because some guy on YouTube called it shit. Then again, I never drank milk to begin with.
 
Who cares no one lives forever. the sooner i leave the better.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Ssssuper said:
Even though this one is not serious, you can drink almond, coconut or soya milk.
Click to expand...
I love soy milk. Oh and Lewis Black says "Theres no such thing as soy milk because theres no soy tit"
 

Site & Scene News

Go to forum More news

Popular threads in this forum