As anti-GMO protests pop up
Birth defects are on the rise in Hawaii, leaving many to wonder if pesticides are to blame – including some pediatricians who are witnessing a spike in birth defects in babies.
In the town of Waimea, pediatrician Carla Nelson has seen at least 9 severe heart malformations in babies in the last five years, 10 times more than the national average. For the past three years, Nelson and other local doctors have found themselves at the center of a controversy over whether a cash crop of GM corn modified to withstand pesticides on four of the six main islands is the cause of an economic boom, or the source of the birth defects and illnesses. [1]
Hawaiians have attempted four times to rein in GMO manufacturers over the past two years, to no avail. On August 9, 10,000 people marched through Honolulu’s Waikiki tourist district, some of them holdings signs reading, “We Deserve the Right to Know: Stop Poisoning Paradise” and “Save Hawaii – Stop GMOs.” [1]
“The turnout and the number of groups marching showed how many people are very frustrated with the situation,” says native Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte of the island of Molokai.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
10 comments:
They complain about GM corn, they complain about the pesticides, and they complain about people being hungry. Pick one to complain about and quit complaining about the others. No such thing as a free lunch.
The Hawaiian people are under the very mistaken impression that their lives are more important than profits.
And dontcha just hate it when people complain about pesticides, birth defects, deformities, etc.?
Now that stock are bouncing UP, the world is just peachy now for the cheerleaders.
Their time for complaining is coming too. I can hear them now --- "Don't hang me! I didn't realize how bad it was for everyone else!!"
Noooooooooo!
Just the type of complainer I'm talking about. If it wasn't for genetic modification and pesticides half of the population alive today wouldn't be here at all. Never would have been born. Good chance that if it wasn't for the advances in food production most of the things we enjoy today such as computers, the internet, electricity, automobiles etc. might not exist.
We also might not have the astronomical cancer rates we see, either.
Go to Johns Hopkins and watch the thousands of children with cancers that used to NEVER be seen. Withering away, screaming in pain, and DYING.
Then, come back and talk about the "complainers". Who, by the way, also probably complained about thalidomide, asbestos, and lead paint.
And yeah, everyone can see how the internet wouldn't be here without pesticides.
My God. The low IQ of some of you cheerleaders is stunning.
Keep cheering.
Imclain it is amazing that you can make the connection between pesticides and cancer(which by the way has existed long before pesticide) but not make the connection between increased agricultural productivity(partially caused by pesticides, fertilizers and hybridized seed) and innovations in science and industry. Any well read person knows that an agriculural revolution preceded the industrial revolution by about 2-3 generations and it is thought that the increased agricultural production helped lead to the industrial revolution which created our modern society. If you doubt me look it up. So yes an argument can easily be made that the internet wouldn't have existed without pesticides while cancer would still exist even if pesticides never existed. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but please refrain from trying to insult my intelligence. Also asbestos(along with DDT and other pesticides) saved many more lives than it took, lead paint was only harmful if ingested and thalidomide was taken by complainers.
A generalized and vague retort.
Yes, cancer has existed since time began, but you cannot seriously say that the cancer rates haven't changed because of pesticides, food additives, and fertilizers (how do you like the taste of the water on the Eastern Shore???).
Fifty years ago, cancer was pretty rare. NOW, there are entire complexes and treatment centers devoted to ONLY treating cancer. And cancers in children (numbering in the hundreds of thousands) are certainly EXTREMELY higher than they were 50 years ago. And before you go there, its NOT due to "better diagnosis".
Sorry, the link between the internet and pesticides is nebulous
and a reach, at best.
Further, if your argument is that asbestos, DDT, and lead paint (there are many other equally destructive chemicals and products; I just listed those three) that killed (AND continue TO KILL)hundreds of thousands, but that's the sacrifice we have to make and shouldn't complain about them, well, now you're insulting MY intelligence (and yes, I am VERY well read). Thalidomide, by the way, was RECOMMENDED by doctors and by the government itself. And, was continued well past the point where other doctors saw its real effects. Look THAT up.
Lastly, apparently being well-read yourself, you must be aware of the "Law of Unintended Consequences", which has already reared its head with regard to GMO foods. It doesn't seem to bother advocates of pesticides (kill some birds and animals off, so what?), fertilizers (who cares about algae blooms, red tides, and 'dead zones' bigger than some states?), and, a little off the subject --- but you mentioned it (science) -- nanoparticles, which have been released into our environment before we even knew their effect. Which isn't very pleasant.
Take a trip to Hopkins (Sadly, I have been there many, many times) and tell those thousand upon thousands of parents how they shouldn't complain about their kid dying at 6 years old of multiple cancers because we have such a wonderful life thanks to science and increased yields.
Back at ya....
I can easily make an argument pertaining to the higher cancer rates both overall and in children compared to just 50 years ago. It is partly because even 50 years ago a lot of children and people died before they were even old enough for cancer to develop. You miss my point that though it is sad about those unfortunate children(and believe me my heart goes out to them and their parents which is why I give substantial money to shriners and childrens hospital) a lot of them wouldn't exist if it wasn't for those pesticides and other innovations. Also part of the reason for development of GM corn and other GM food(besides making a profit for their developers) is to make plants that are more pest and drought resistant so we can cut back on pesticides and fertilizers. This goes back to my original point about people complaining and there ain't no free lunch which of course is a major part of the law of unintended consequences. Also with the amount of abortions that happen in this country we as a country don't really value life especially young lives.
This is from the ACS website: "Childhood cancers make up less than 1% of all cancers diagnosed each year. About 10,380 children in the United States under the age of 15 will be diagnosed with cancer in 2015. Childhood cancer rates have been rising slightly for the past few decades."
"Cancer is the second leading cause of death in children (after accidents). About 1,250 children younger than 15 years old are expected to die from cancer in 2015."
4:14....good points.
And good work with the donations.
I suppose my big complaint is that even when the complaint is valid, PROFITS are the main concern of those in charge (including our "representatives"), and concern for human life comes in around 5th or 6th place. It usually takes a class action lawsuit or some really embarrassing revelations to make a corporation stop killing people for profit.
4:22....I really like the "about 10,380" stat. Are they sure it's not 10,385??? Aren't people under the age of eighteen still considered "children"? Was it more convenient (from a statistical viewpoint) to exclude those kids?
And what was the "second leading cause of death" in children 30 years ago?
Imclain our world as we know it would not exist except for profit. Take out the profit motive and we would still be living in a feudal society. I agree with you about your points but I believe it will be another 5-6,000 years before we evolve enough to live in a world that you would like. Fortunately we live in a country where there is a judicial system in place to redress some of the injustices that come about when greedy people search to maximize profits.
Post a Comment