Top 39 Gmos Quotes & Sayings

The input of Idle No More has been a lightning rod for people who were already thinking this way. We are reaching clarities on bigger issues like fracking and GMOs and climate change.

Corporate totalitarianism means total control by corporate interests. If they want a war, they get a war. If they want GMOs, they get GMOs. If they want fracking, they get fracking. If they want big banks to control our monetary policy, big banks control our monetary policy.

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.

As a scientist I cannot say we don't want to hear anything about GMOs, because these are advances in science. But I think its also important, especially when you are dealing with food, to be cautious.

'Basmati Blues' deals with a great social issue, GMOs, but it's told through love and song and dance.

Any scientist who tells you they know that GMOs are safe and not to worry about it, is either ignorant of the history of science or is deliberately lying. Nobody knows what the long-term effect will be.

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.

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

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.

Because we aren't certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.

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

Because there are so many factors when considering the potential impacts of GMOs on our health and environment, we wanted to make a film that could unpack complex subject matter, while taking the audience on an entertaining ride. It is a very powerful tool because it allows viewers to understand the nature of these very complicated issues in a digestible format, and then hopefully engage in a dialogue about them in their respective homes and communities.

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

I have been intimately involved in the techniques of genetic modification as a scientist since GMOs were first conceived. In that time, hundreds of studies and tests have been done on GMO safety - and we've seen no scientific evidence that GMOs are inherently more dangerous than crops produced by traditional plant breeding.

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.

By calling GMOs 'poison' and 'evil,' Bill Maher poisons the well of reasoned scientific discussion with ideologically driven fear mongering.

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.

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.

So GMOs, who knows? Maybe GMOs will come, they will get maize that produces double. But who knows what else may happen to the maize?

We believe GMOs are safe.

The Transatlantic and Transpacific Trade and Investment Partnerships have nothing to do with free trade. 'Free trade' is used as a disguise to hide the power these agreements give to corporations to use lawsuits to overturn sovereign laws of nations that regulate pollution, food safety, GMOs, and minimum wages.

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

The battle over genetically modified crops is rife with business interests and political opportunism. When GMOs were first produced in laboratories around the world, they were rightly heralded as a tremendous leap forward in our ability to supplement nature by providing high-nutrient foods.

GMOs play a central role in meeting the challenge of providing affordable and nutritious food to consumers all over the world.

For families, for parents that don't want to feed their kids GMOs, in the private marketplace there has grown up an abundant market.

GMOs could really land us in trouble

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.

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.

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.

Modern genetic engineering makes producing GMO food products relatively easy. GMOs can improve crop yield and greatly enhance the nutritional value of those same crops.

Orange juice from concentrate is labeled. Food coloring Red #5 is labeled. Fish are labeled as to whether they've been previously frozen. To a consumer, there's no plausible reason why these factors should be on a food ingredient label while the presence of GMOs shouldn't be.

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.

I support GMOs. And we should label them. We should label them because that is the very best thing we can do for public acceptance of agricultural biotech. And we should label them because there's absolutely nothing to hide.

We must learn to set our emotions aside and embrace what science tells us. GMOs and nuclear power are two of the most effective and most important green technologies we have. If - after looking at the data - you aren't in favour of using them responsibly, you aren't an environmentalist.

Genetically modified organism (GMO) foods are feared and hated by environmentalists and the public alike. Yet the scientific assessment of GMOs is remarkably different. Every major scientific evaluation of GMO technology has concluded that GMOs are safe for human consumption and are a benefit to the environment.

Fur is a contentious issue. Meat is a contentious issue. GMOs are a contentious issue. I think this whole thing going on about whether or not products should be labeled if they have GMOs in them - I, as a consumer, would like to know if I'm eating GMO food. If I choose to buy it then it's my choice.

GMOs are linked to digestive problems, among other things. Antibiotics and growth hormone are other additives being excessively pumped into the animals we are eating, which means we're then consuming these excess antibiotics and hormones. And some processed foods actually contain toxic chemicals, often used to prevent spoilage and enhance flavor.

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.

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.