“Genetic engineering can provide higher crop yields. But the projected disadvantages are enough to turn me against it:
-Irreversible AND UNPREDICTABLE genetic and ecological effects.
-Harmful toxins in food from possible plant cell mutations.
-New allergens in food. (Our bodies could attack the genetically engineered crops because they are unnatural)
-Increased evolution of pesticide-resistant insects and plant diseases.
-Creation of herbicide-resistant weeds.
-Harm to beneficial insects.
-Lower genetic diversity.
(Living in the Environment; G. Tyler Miller)
And is there really a shortage of corn? Obviously each year the crop yield varies, but if the U.S. society as a whole would be willing to switch to a diet with less meat in it, the corn needed as feed for livestock would greatly decrease.
If genetically engineered crops are introduced into the agriculture business, I hope the government at least has the decency to mandate labeling of these foods so that people who care about the environment can avoid supporting this industry by purchasing these foods.”
K August on Apr 26, 2012 at 19:28:46
“What we need to do is to assure that former Monsanto (and other companies) people DO NOT get jobs working for Government agencies that regulate this stuff.
It is clearly a massive conflict of interest....... but it happens all the time!
We have the fox guarding the hen house....”
“It's the speed of the change that becomes the issue. Adaptability cannot happen when global warming occurs too quickly, therefore causing numerous harmful effects on biodiversity, human quality of life, disease, etc. etc. (see comments below, I highly agree with them).”
“I am not a big fan of personal attacks on article comments such as yours, but I accept the fact that some people are angry because they don't know the facts and base their opinions off of what they already know.
-The World Health Organization says that 1.1 billion people live in urban areas where outdoor air is unhealthy to breathe.
-On October 29, 1948, in Donora, Pennsylvania, pollutants from the area's coal-burning industries became trapped in a dense fog that remained for 5 days. 6,000 of the town's 14,000 inhabitants became sick, and 22 died.
-In 1963, high concentrations of air pollutants accumulated over New York City, killing 300 and injuring thousands.
-Pollution in the air can reduce the amount of sunglight able to reach earth, affecting harvest yields.
-Air pollution causes respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and asthma, and can leach toxic metals into drinking water.
-Air pollution damages statues, monuments, buildings, metals, and car finishes. Large amounts of money is spent each year to repair these things.
-The World Health Organization claims that each year, at least 3 million people worldwide die prematurely from the effects of air pollution-an average of 8,200 deaths a day.
(Living in the Environment, G. Tyler Miller, JR.)
I would also like to make it clear that I am a vegetarian, and exercise everyday, therefore I am in great shape. No twinkies here.”
4) Re: corrosion: Nothing compared to the salt they put on the road. We should be thanking the CO2 emitting industries for warming the planet so that we don't have to replace our cars every five years.
5) They also define "Premature" as any length of time greater than a day. Dig into that statistic and you'll find the majority of those premature deaths are less than two months in length. I would gladly trade the last two months of my life for the ability to power my electric toothbrush.”
Andrew Harvey on Apr 27, 2012 at 04:52:10
“You don't have to worry about the coal. The twinkie that you downed for lunch today is going to do you in far faster than anything coming out of a coal fired plant.
It would not be difficult to construct a list of hundreds of thousands, nay millions, who died premature deaths because they didn't like to eat their greens. How many folks die from coal fired plants? Is it even in the same order of magnitude?”
Education is the key in this issue. The costs of this industry are absolutely something that need to be addressed before this can be a working and efficient industry, but in the eyes of many, it is something worth investing time and energy in, as the output may outweigh the input.”
“A horse lover and avid trainer for years myself, I strongly believe that the "80 percent of American voters" who are "opposed to the slaughter of U.S. horses for human consumption" (ASPCA, 2012) may not all necessarily be educated on the economic benefits of horse slaughter in the U.S.
The environmental costs and inhumane treatment of horses sent to slaughter is something that can be regulated given federal priority, and therefore slaughter is not necessarily something that needs to be banned in the U.S. In my opinion, banning horse slaughter in the U.S. will only worsen conditions for U.S. horses that will be in turn sent to neighboring countries that do not require or enforce humane treatment of horses before and during slaughter. If horse slaughter were to be allowed in the U.S., but new regulations were put into place, environmental costs, contamination of meat for human consumption (like phenylbutazone), inhumane treatment of horses, etc., could all be eliminated, providing a safer and more beneficial industry.
Another thing to remember is that when analyzing data from polls, often times the questions can be misleading. The fact that "American voters are opposed to the slaughter of U.S. horses for human consumption" (ASPCA, 2012) is most likely because it is a food that is rarely consumed on U.S. dinner tables. Some of these Americans may not understand its value in other countries and its potential for providing an economic benefit for the U.S.”
CanAmFam on Apr 10, 2012 at 22:00:49
“From the perspective of economists, there are no economic benefits to horse slaughter - it's actually an economic depressor. It's pretty simple actually - a LIVE horse in the US contributes between $1,500 and $4,000 on average per year into the regional economy in fees to caretakers, barns, vets and farriers, and purchase of feed, bedding, medications, etc. A slaughtered horse by contrast puts $50 to $200 into the owner's pocket and removes a productive asset from the local economy.
In addition, hosting a local slaughter plant has been proven to reduce local property values, halt local development and increase municipal financial burdens for sewage treatment and emergency health care. It also increases local crime rates, including violent crimes, and employs 95% foreign (and often undocumented) workers, as admitted recently by the Belgian slaughter plant operators. Nothing there provides "economic benefits".
And claiming we can make horse slaughter in the US humane is fantasy. We have the budget for two - only two - people to oversee the entire country and horse slaughter pipeline from auction to transport to feedlot to plant operations. There is neither the taxpayer money to waste, nor the will of Americans to subsidize a notoriously inhumane foreign-owned industry. Even the state-of-the-art Temple Grandin-designed plant in Canada showed gross humane infractions from recent undercover footage. It is simply not possible to make factory horse slaughter humane. That claim ignores emotional and physical characteristics of horses and the extent of inhumane practices in the slaughter pipeline.”