Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

[ensho]

http://blogs.healthfreedomalliance.org/blog/2009/07/01/doctors-warn-avoid-genetically-modified-food-2/


On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”<1> They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.


Pregnant women and babies at great risk


-snip-
---------------------

reading the snips will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up

[CountAllVotes]

1. Four most common GMO'd foods

1. corn
2. potatoes
3. tomatoes
4. soy

Good luck avoiding GMO'd food. Our food chain is entrenched/contaminated with this crap!

Try avoiding it you say by buying organic - good luck on this too.

Anything that is canned/processed and labeled "organic" may or may not be so.

I have no link for this info. However, I studied and practiced macrobiotics for many years and still do to a point. That is why I know about these 4 deadly foods that are found in everything you eat just about.

:(

:kick:

[Javaman]

3. That is why you have to support farmers markets.

A good farmers market will have agreed upon standards that everything sold at the market has to be organic. From the soil to the water to the seeds. And every practice in between. No pesticides, no herbicides, etc.

They are expanding every year, every season and that is what is freaking out big ag. They so want to be a part of this because there is big bucks in it, but they have effectively painted themselves into a corner.

People who shop at farmers market are more educated about the food they eat and actually ask the farmers questions about their farming practices. That is something big ag does not like.

[Pacifist Patriot]

150. We also have to be careful with markets that present themselves as farmer's markets.

Sadly, several in my area are just essentially outdoor grocery-store produce sections. A really good farmer's market in Florida should not be selling bananas from central America, cherries from Washington state, red peppers from Canada and lettuce from California. I was very very disappointed.

[Javaman]

168. Very good point. nt

[Obama2012]

247. That sucks -- the ones by me only sell local produce/eggs/meat (even fish)

[tantric nun]

188. My farmer's market has been around for over 30 years

I went there a couple of years ago and overheard the word 'Round Up,' in relation to the string beans he was selling. So, no, not all of these 'good' fms have solely organic stuff. But there IS a kick-azz organic farm stand within the market that sells their produce at semi-reasonable prices!

(I am just waiting for the tomatoes to arrive...They said early August but that seems awfully late to me.)

[Pacifist Patriot]

192. Depends on where you are. We'll be getting local tomatoes in late September / early October.

[ContinentalOp]

243. Organic does not necessarily mean it's not genetically modified -nt-

[truedelphi]

5. People do not realize that soy is in almost every processed item out there

If you look at a package of almost anything, soy oil is in there.

Trying to avoid the GMO stuff, M. and I started a semi-raw foods diet. We only eat veggies and fruit - and after two weeks, our waistlines are thanking us, and we feel better.

[CountAllVotes]

9. you are quite right

it is even in canned tuna now. Read the label and you'll see I am right. The only type that doesn't have soy in it is about $2.00+ a can at least.

Buying at a farmer's market can be a good idea. However, the one near where I live has just as many non-organic foods as organic and the foods being sold are often more expensive that the ones at the local Co-op (natural food store). They call the organic foods here "home growed". :eyes:

[pnwmom]

142. But how are you getting enough protein with only veggies and fruit? n/t

[Javaman]

169. Shhhh don't spoil their buzz...

don't ask them about how they get their omega-3 either.

[Pacifist Patriot]

196. Flaxseed

It is possible to have a healthy vegetarian diet. It takes a good understanding of nutrition, but it's not impossible. I have introduced meat back into my diet (family-farmed, grass fed, etc.) but my nutrients were being met on a mostly plant-based diet. I was an ovo-lacto vegetarian.

[Pacifist Patriot]

181. Every living organism consists of protein. That's the basis of life.

The herbivores that human omnivores eat are built on the protein they get from their plant diet. Unfortunately, we've been educated to think meat=protein when the real equation is organism=protein.

Okay, I can't really speak for the monist and protist kingdoms, but I think it probably holds for anything we'd find on our plates in bulk quantities.

[yellowcanine]

209. It is the quality of the protein that is the concern. Most plants do not contain all of the

essential amino acids needed for meat eating animals. That is why a vegetarian cannot just eat beans or corn and get all of the amino acids they need. Eat beans AND corn or beans AND rice and yes, they can fulfill the requirement. Eat tofu - no. Mix the tofu with rice and vegetables - OK.

[Pacifist Patriot]

211. Which is exactly why I said elsewhere that eating a healthy vegetarian diet..

requires a level of nutritional education. One that probably exceeds average knowledge regarding nutrition.

[pnwmom]

223. But humans aren't herbivores. We require amino acids that they don't.

So my question stands. How do you meet your protein requirements -- with the full range of amino acids -- on veggies and fruits alone?

[ContinentalOp]

244. Educate yourself...

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/protein.html

[Pacifist Patriot]

152. Corn syrup

That is virtually impossible to eliminate if you eat any processed food whatsoever. I had to break down recently and buy a bag of frozen diced chicken. (I opt for family-farmed / free-range if at all possible) Considering it was supposedly unflavored chicken one should be able to assume the only ingredient is chicken. Nope, it had an ingredient list and the second ingredient after chicken was corn syrup. WTF?

[abumbyanyothername]

10. Try this diet

Fresh fruit and vegetables only. As for tomatoes, I buy only heirloom varieties at the local farmers' market. I don't eat corn, potatoes or soy. A typical day:

1/2 Watermelon
1 Cantaloupe
Large salad consisting of: 2 Romaine Hearts, 1/4 of a Celery (bunch, plant, whatever you call it), 6 carrots, 4 radishes, sprouts.
4 Mangoes
1 pound of grapes
1 Romaine Heart (straight, snack)
2 ounces Cashews.

If I need more calories, I throw in some dates or pineapple or bananas.

[CoffeeCat]

16. Are you getting the foods that you eat...

...from the grocery store?

I know you mentioned that you only purchase heirloom tomatoes from your farmers' market--are the
other fruits and veggies that you're eating from the farmers' market or local grocery store?

Cashews, that's interesting. Is that how you get a good protein source. I also love almonds.

Thanks for this list.

[abumbyanyothername]

20. We buy the lettuce at CostCo, Cashews at Trader Joe's

Most of the other fruits (melons, mangoes, bananas, pineapple, grapes) at costco.

Try to buy at local farmers' markets, but I am not going to pay triple price to do so.

I grow my own lettuces and tomatoes also in season.

[greenbird]

88. I have to take issue with this:

"Try to buy at local farmers' markets, but I am not going to pay triple price to do so."

Why not? I'm a market gardener and my prices are higher than the grocery store. My food is worth it. It's hand-grown with no chemicals or fertilizers, hand-harvested and as fresh as it can possibly be. I can also stand there and answer any questions you have about it. I'll give you a recipe to go with it. Think about the hidden costs of food produced by big agribusiness - pollution, fossil fuel depletion, harm to other forms of life - we all pay those costs. So, you DO pay more for your less-expensive produce at the store - just not up front. And there's no comparison in taste and nutrition . . . but you know that since you grow your own tomatoes and lettuce!

[tbyg52]

118. Amen. nt

[sendero]

151. The problem is...

.. buying at a "farmer's market" isn't any different than buying at a grocery store as far as I can tell.

The produce at the Dallas farmer's market comes from all over, and it's easy to tell - it's still in the boxes labeled California, Chile and everywhere.

If I knew you personally and knew of your farm I'd be willing to pay more for your produce, but I'm not falling for that "farmer's market" bullshit, it's just a big specialty grocery store.

[Pacifist Patriot]

153. Same as the farmers' markets here, but not all farmers' markets are created equally.

There are some that are vastly different than buying at a grocery store. Not in all areas of the country however.

[NorCalDem]

190. I can't pay 3x the price either

"Try to buy at local farmers' markets, but I am not going to pay triple price to do so."

Why not?

Because not everyone can afford it. Many will go the farmers market when they can, but quite frankly, i can not afford to get all of my food organic or at local markets. Quite simply too expensive.

[MISSDem]

112. Why would someone go to the trouble to eat a diet like that and

not make sure that the stuff is organically grown. By the way, I would starve if that was all I could eat!!

[Javaman]

171. The people in this nation have no idea how highly subsidized

the food is in this nation. If they cut the subsidies and the food was priced what it really cost, it would be far less expensive to buy it at a farmers market then at the supermarket.

buying food via big retail supermarket only contributes to the further approval of big Ag.

[Pacifist Patriot]

185. I know this doesn't hold everywhere, but the food at farmers' markets...

in my area is about the same as a grocery store or a little less. That includes both the disappointing ones that are essentially outdoor grocery store produce sections and the ones that are based on local farming. I've never really understand the gripe about farmers' market prices because the ones I go to in Florida, Georgia, Virginia and Massachusetts are not remotely exorbitant.

[Javaman]

195. I think it's a regional issue..

here in Austin, I consider the prices just a bit higher than in the supermarkets only because we are in a major drought. So the costs to the local farmer goes up.

But if you live in areas of the nation that have plenty of water and hay, I would think the prices would be much more competitive.

[Pacifist Patriot]

154. I've always wondered why people balk at paying higher prices for quality food.

You literally are what you eat. I know people who will shell out obscene amounts of money for the latest fashions they sport on the outside of their body, but refuse to pay anything but rock bottom prices for crap that barely qualifies as food to shovel into their bodies. Our buying priorities as a culture are ass backwards.

[customerserviceguy]

163. There's a boutique market for everything

You will always find people who are willing to pay way too much for everything, cars, clothes, and cosmetics, for example.

And food. The people who buy it tell themselves constantly that "it's worth it", but not all of us agree.

Food snobbery is no different from any other kind of "more money than brains" kind of spending.

[Javaman]

172. "Food snobbery"?

The food sold at farmers market is probably the farthest thing from "food snobbery".

Food snobbery is someone buying an "organic" apple out of season at Whole Foods.

The food that is bought in the supermarkets is so heavily subsidized that it's actual price is purposely hidden from the public.

Me, being a "food snob" by buying organically grown in season food from a farmers market means, that I care about our environment, I disapprove of monocroping, I know where my food comes from, how far it has traveled and support local commerce, growers and businesses.

I vote with my fork. My "food snobbery" is my voice in supporting the right to clean healthy non-pesticide contaminated food.

How the hell is that snobbery, when I watch what I eat and am careful that I don't ingest heavy metals and other garbage that is infused into the produce that is spewed out via big ag food factories?

[customerserviceguy]

230. Hey, most of us do it

I'm that way about my beer. I'll gladly pay twice as much for a six-pack of craft brewed ale as my friends will for their Budweiser or Coors. And I can make the same sort of points that you do, citing the use of cheap corn and rice adjuncts in the mass marketed beers, for instance. I can also make points about less fuel used to transport local craft brew over tankerloads of yellow fizzy piss water being dragged over from St. Louis, etc.

The OP asked, "why people balk at paying higher prices for quality food," and the answer is the same: My friends just don't perceive a quality difference that they are willing to pay more for, and I do. The same is true about your food choices. You may actually perceive a difference in what you taste, but in the end, you, like me, are buying something that makes us feel good for having bought it.

The difference between us is, I'm willing to admit I'm a beer snob.

[Javaman]

240. You infer I'm a food snob because I care about what I put in my body?

So therefore, if I eat shitty food, I'm a regular american?

THAT is sad.

[customerserviceguy]

245. I care about what beer I put into my body

and for pretty much the same reasons as you do on your boutique food.

The point is, a large majority of the population disagrees with me on beer (preferring Miller Lite) and with you (preferring non-organic), as measured simply by sales figures. To them, we are both "picky" about what we want, what makes us feel good.

The difference is, I'm willing to acknowledge that I look like a snob to those folks, and you go into indignation mode. And that's because you think that food is different from anything else that there are expensive and cheap versions of, when it's simply a case of taste and preference over anything.

While I'll use the term "shitty beer" to describe Miller-Coors-Bud, I won't go as far to state that they're "poison". Food snobs will do that about what they call shitty food.

[Javaman]

249. So by me growing my own food, buying my meat from a farmer

that is boutique food?

I could go into rant mode, but I can see you have an odd belief system, so I will leave it at that.

And I will agree to disagree with you.

And enjoy your boutique beer.

[customerserviceguy]

252. And if I made my own beer in the garage

that would be boutique beer. Most people in the US buy it already made. Hell, I feel like a rebel around here because I grind my own coffee beans every day.

Thanks for avoiding rant mode. To that I say: :toast: Cheers!

[Pacifist Patriot]

180. I am not remotely talking about food snobbery.

Food snobbery is buying things out of season shipped from the other side of the world. Food snobbery is eating rare delicacies you think taste disgusting just because they are expensive and chic.

I am talking about an entire culture focused on minimizing the grocery bill without once considering what is being introduced into the body.

[NashVegas]

191. Most People Perceive Food Snobbery As Looking Down At People Who Eat Velveeta

Hamburger Helper, etc.

[Pacifist Patriot]

197. I'm not addressing food snobbery at all.

I'm talking about a widespread cultural practice of minimizing the proportion of our budget we spend on food. Am I making any sense whatsoever? I fear I may not be communicating well on this point.

[NashVegas]

201. You Are Making Sense When You Talk About Minimizing the Budget

It's just that you and Javaman both, basically, had the same reply what your idea(s) of food snobbery is(are) that struck me as a switch or addition to what most people - among those who see themselves on the receiving end of that snobbery - perceive.

[Javaman]

250. I'm not really understanding what you are saying here...

I don't look down upon people who can afford what is available to them. Neither do I look down on people who can afford better food and don't.

Me eating what I grow and getting my meat from a farmer where I know how it's grown is my choice.

If people want to knowing or unknowing eat crap food, more power to them, but I don't care for being called a "food snob" because I like to know where my food is grown and how it's grown. That's just being an educated consumer.

I will never understand the hostility people have shown in this thread toward people who want to eat fresh food. I mean, what the fuck?

[customerserviceguy]

232. Snobbery is something that somebody else does, right?

Frankly, to me, it's any situation where you pay more for alternative A than for alternative B, when the two alternatives are really not that much different to a majority of outside observers.

See what I wrote to Javaman about beer snobbery. There are a lot of people really pumped up about their choices, which serves to take away the sting of paying for those choices. I have my own reasons for my snobbery, and I'm willing to be honest and admit that I'm out on a limb (when compared to others) about my beer selections.

[Javaman]

251. You know what?

Bite me.

I buy my food that I buy because I do research into it. I don't buy packaged stuff because of HFCS and MSG(which I'm highly allergic too). I don't shop at whole food stores or stores of that nature because, the highest form of "food snobbery" comes form ordinary people by buying fruit and veggies out of season. Strawberries in the middle of the winter? Christ, I could go on and on.

I want to know that the beef that I eat wasn't fed dead downer cows or they drink water that contains feces and heavy metals.

We have a grossly under educated populous regarding where our food comes from, I choose to be educated. That makes me a snob? Fuck, that's along the same type of arguments those mouth breather birthers use against people that don't support pailin.

You really have a colossally distorted view.

And if that's the case, then fuck it, there will be no getting through to you. You want to drink good beer from clean water but you don't want to feed your body with clean food. That is fucked up.

I don't support corporate based agriculture. So I get that makes me a fucking snob, right?

I don't support GMO's and monocroping that destroys the land, so that makes me a fucking snob, right?

damn it, you wish to live in such colossal ignorance as to where our food comes from and how it's produced, fine, that's your right, but don't condemn peoples choices for not wanting to buy into madison avenues line of bullshit about the Cargils, ADM or Monsantos.

it's not snobbery to want to have good clean healthy food.

jesus christ.

[tabatha]

18. The best nuts are almonds and walnuts.

[abumbyanyothername]

21. I eat almonds and I am going to add walnuts to the mix. nt

[CountAllVotes]

41. a macrobiotic consultant

would agree with this statement.

Also, hazelnuts too! :D

[8 track mind]

30. speaking of watermellon,

two weekends ago, i was out working on my van in 105 degree heat. I was keeping hydrated the best i could but after a while it just started getting to me. I came inside and the lovely wife served me up 1/4 of a chilled watermelon. I felt better in no time. There is something to be said about chilled fruit.

[tblue37]

134. Watermelon has a lot of water in it--much more than most other fruits. nt

[Javaman]

173. It's also one of the more nutrious foods along with honey that a person can eat. nt

[Patiod]

187. Any suggestions about honey?

Every morning I have a kashi granola bar (which does have soy protein isolate, damnit) with Greek yogurt and Trader Joe's honey.

Given the frequency with which I eat it, I'd like it to be better honey. I don't have allergies, but is local honey better for a person overall?

[Javaman]

194. The generally accepted concept regarding local honey is...

if you have allergies, eating local honey will help in your allergies from getting worse.

I have noticed, just via my own consumption, that my allergies have decreased.

And also, it helps out the local bee keepers.

[trotsky]

65. Cooking fruits & vegetables generally makes their nutrition more available to us.

For instance, a raw tomato has just a fraction of the bioavailability of nutrients like lycopene that cooked tomatoes do. Cooking carrots in just a little bit of oil greatly increases the bioavailability of its nutrients due to the number of fat-soluble vitamins they contain.

[yellowcanine]

96. Not to mention that it may be why we are human in the first place.

At least according to Richard Wrangham of Harvard University.

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13139619

[trotsky]

101. Absolutely.

Add in the benefit of freeing us from constantly foraging and gathering, and you've got leisure time - time to invent tools, language, you name it.

Throw another steak on the grill for me!

[yellowcanine]

105. And don't forget, less farting also when the veggies and beans are properly cooked.

Breaks down all of those digestive inhibitors that the plants have evolved to foil the herbivores.

[Mojorabbit]

144. Doesn't seem to have enough protein for a long term diet.

but looks yummy.

[AlbertCat]

174. If I need more calories,

After the 1/2 a watermelon and 4 mangoes plus 1lb of grapes...you need more calories? Sugar sugar sugar! (fructose y'know)


There's no need to give up meat in the "right" quantities. All those things you eat are delicious! But I'm not giving up a little beef, lamb and chicken. Of course one need not eat a 12 oz. steak every meal. Meat twice a week is enough. Or used as a flavoring...like the Chinese do with pork.

I'm also not giving up cheese. Life's not worth living without it.

Please be sure to take a multi-vitamin of some kind and have your blood work done regularly.


The best diet is to eat a large variety of things....all in moderation. That's what your system is designed for.

[Obama2012]

248. You seriously need more protein in your diet

I hope that "diet" is just a short term thing.

[B3Nut]

31. I knew a lot of corn was...

makes me wonder about wheat, rye, and malted barley. Hey Monsanto! Quit genetically pissing in my whiskey!!! :D

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[cognoscere]

89. Ya, hey der

I'm from farther south, down by the Cheddar Curtain near Kenosha - so close I could be mistaken for a FIB.

[B3Nut]

114. Cheddar Curtain...LOL!

I've been up here since '02 and haven't heard that one yet...haaaaa! I'm up outside o' Madtown. Good state to live in, all in all....

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[Tumbulu]

140. soy, cotton, corn, and canola are the major gmo crops in N. America

Not potatoes or tomatoes in general. And organic standards in the US and Europe are very strict.

I am an organic farmer and an organic seed breeder and have been warning people about gmo crops since the late 80's.

[omega minimo]

146. So it helps to eat the freshest food possible. Not "canned/processed"

[Cha]

147. I only buy organic for the last

several decades and work in a natural foods co-op where we have big slashes through GMO labeling on prepacked food.

We have no gmo in our store..there's a whole subculture out here that doesn't put up with processed food..especially containing gmo.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. American Academy of Environmental Medicine- Questionable organization of considerable distrust.

http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html

[SpiralHawk]

6. Like the GMO megacorps?

I think not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. I like them better than crazy ass scientifically illiterate liars and fear mongers.

Sure.

[truedelphi]

32. Enjoy your life now - coming soon - stomach cancer, diabetes

And other nefarious illness. All of which would not occur so readily on a normal diet free of GMO crapola.

RoundUp ready crops have the formaldehyde or aldehyde of that herbicide at many times the rate one should experience.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Suuuuuure.

It's going happen any minute now.

"RoundUp ready crops have the formaldehyde or aldehyde of that herbicide at many times the rate one should experience."

You're probably thinking about nutrasweet, and getting that all backwards in the process.

Again, scientific illiteracy.

[truedelphi]

44. Sorry but I spoke with a man who was a forensic witness

He worked on behalf of families who thought a family member had been poisioned by RoundUp. And in this one case, he was testifying about the known dangers of the known components of RoundUp.

Monsanto decided to settle, and revealed in secret papers that RoundUp contains formaldehyde.

The formula might have been changed since that time, but RoundUp's glyphosate still requires an "aldehyde" as a liquifying agent, or RoundUp would not be liquid, but rather, a dry ingredient. One that would not be possible to spray.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Yeah, there are no dangers of Roundup, its safe for humans.

The "guy you spoke to" was a fraud, of course you didn't really talk to him though, did you?

"The formula might have been changed since that time, but RoundUp's glyphosate still requires an "aldehyde" as a liquifying agent, or RoundUp would not be liquid, but rather, a dry ingredient."

Glyphosate's got a carboxylic acid, a secondary amine, and a phosphate.

Perfectly soluble in water.

Again, more scientific illiteracy.

[truedelphi]

52. Then why did Monsanto settle?

And I spent close to fifteen years dealing with unlocking the "proprietary" information on RoundUp.

Again, the mixture of glyphosate and polyoxyethalenamine (POEA) is not soluble in water without some type of liquifying agent. And then and only then is it soluble.

What Monsanto told me that RoundUp contains is the following:
Glyphosate 41%
POEA 15%
water 44%

But just as they lied to the EPA about their formula, so too have they been lying to me and everyone else.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. I figure you're making that up too.

If courts could decide that Round-up was dangerous, Monsanto'd be shit out of luck, wouldn't they?

"What Monsanto told me that RoundUp contains is the following:
Glyphosate 41%
POEA 15%
water 44%"

You just said it had formaldehyde and aldehyde (sic). Make up your mind.

POEA is less soluble in water than glyphosate. It's there to help the glyphosate penetrate the waxy coating on the leaves of plants.

[yellowcanine]

107. That info is about as useful as "I read somewhere," or "I saw on TV",

"I heard on the radio," or "I read on the internet". Sorry, but it is just not credible information for debating purposes.

[truedelphi]

227. I am not making it up.

The scientists name was Dr Bob Simon. He was a forensic witness for decades.

[yellowcanine]

229. Still hear say so not good enough. Who the heck is Dr. Bob Simon?

Actually I doubt this account. A real forensic witness would not be talking about details of major cases in casual conversation with strangers - particularly about a case involving a major company like Monsanto. Judges tend to frown on that sort of behavior and opposing lawyers find out about it and have a field day at the expense of the client who hired the blabby forensic witness. He would not be an expert witness for long.

[truedelphi]

236. I can find out from the individual in

Question if he wants his information given to you.

Other than that, if you think up some pertinent keywords and use his name and rank (PhD) you can probably find himyourself.

[yellowcanine]

246. Never mind. It was a rhetorical question to make a point which was apparently missed.

Hear say, no matter how many degrees are behind the sayer's name or the hearer's name, is still hear say.

[NickB79]

53. Roundup replaced much more toxic herbicides used for decades

Ever looked up the health effects of atrazine and 2,4 D? While no herbicide is perfectly safe for human use, Roundup does appear to be an improvement over the previous generation.

[truedelphi]

62. Apples to oranges. RoundUp was not brought about to replace atrazine.

It was invented to do what it soon became - the most popular over the counter herbicide for the suburban weekend gardener. Licensed in the early 1970's, it soon became a household favorite. And many people thought that all it was was a combination of water and salt!

The average household is the niche that RoundUp occupied for a very long time. It was the most used and most popular over the counter herbicide ever. No other herbicide brought about the market shares that RoundUp did.

Atrazine is something that only licensed pesticide applicators can use. It was not intended, as RoundUp was, for the occasional gardener.

I don't know how you would compare atrazine to RoundUp. The studies on RoundUp are not totally valid, as the studies never take into account the addition of the aldehyde used in RoundUp. These days, with the switch to RoundUp ready GM crops, there are many reports of people being seriously hurt, especially in places in So America where it is being used at very heavy levels on the crops. The ratings of RoundUp's health have all been determined in laboratories that separately look into Glyphosate's dangers, or POEA's dangers. While no lab out there has considered that they should do a gas chromatographic analysis of the product and find out what the product REALLY contains.

[yellowcanine]

104. Regardless of origins, glyphosate CAN reduce atrazine applications in Round-up Ready corn.

Sorry, but that is a fact. And environmentally, glyphosate is way more benign than atrazine, particularly in terms of potential ground water contamination. All pesticides, including the ones cleared for organic production, pose some risk to applicators and label precautions should be strictly followed. The biggest risk for widespread use of glyphosate - and the development of glyphosate resistant crops has increased this risk greatly - is the selection for glyphosate resistant weeds. Also the non selectivity and systemic action of glyphosate means that non target plants can be damaged or killed if it gets on the foliage. This is probably the biggest risk for homeowner use. Injury to applicators or bystanders is relatively easy to avoid if one takes even minimal precautions. Gramaxone (Paraquat), the chemical that glyphosate mostly has replaced for all homeowner and most agricultural uses, is way more toxic to humans and other mammals. By the way, in case you are wondering, I get no monetary gain from the sale of any chemical pesticide, including glyphosate. I get the same salary as an Agricultural Extension Educator regardless or whether I recommend a chemical pesticide, an organic pesticide, or no pesticide at all.

[FarCenter]

72. Plants metabolise formaldehyde -- it doesn't accumulate

Actually, the RoundUp ready plants do not make more than normal amounts of formaldehyde.

Any formaldehyde in the RoundUp herbicide would be diluted before it is sprayed on the fields, so there is a small amount applied.

Formaldehyde biodegrades readily in water and damp soil, so it would be gone before the plants mature.

And, as noted in the subject line, plants have enzymes that break down formaldehyde.

[truedelphi]

221. Plants normally metabolise formaldehyde. However,

These plants have been genetically manipulated, in such ways that we have not even studied all the various aspects of what the genetic manipulation has done to them over all.

See this URL to see what implications there are when one section of a gene is manipulated (The law of unintended cosequences)

http://tinyurl.com/mdds4l


Also, plants that are healthy metabolise a certain amount of formaldehyde. But it is noted that GMO crops are often yielding less per acre. The plants are not as healthy. And the soil, which is supposed to be a living breathing medium on which life grows, ends up so oversprayed with RoundUp that it does not have much of its normal nutrition to pass on. Remember in the early days of using industry-produced fertilizer, farmers still added potash, lime and other ingredients to the fields that were used year in and year out. The indutrial-produced fertilizer COMBINED with the organic nutrients yielded healthy plants. Now farmers have been moved away from these practices to depend only on the industrial additions.

American soils lack nitrogen, calcium, potasium, phosphorus etc. And the soils are more depleted each year.

Additionally each year that passes brings more polluted ground water with which to irrigate the crops. Combine this with the fact that much of the rainfall taking place in the USA is acid rain, and plants have further problems.

So I don't know what effect that has on the ability of plants to metaboilise the formaldehyde but I bet there is significant inability for plants to do that. An inability that is growing every year.

[glitch]

123. Add pancreatic cancer - not a good way to go. nt

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[get the red out]

33. Thank you for that link

While I wish genetically modified food would be labeled, I abhor some of the scare tactics used by very questionable organizations. If I followed all the recommendations of these orgs I would die of starvation because every item I would normally consume would be considered poison; but then it wouldn't matter because I would not be able to chew the "poison" because I would have removed all my teeth due to their fillings.

[semillama]

176. You win the thread!

Awesome Post, Great Job!

[redqueen]

74. Interesting link, thanks! (nt)

[KT2000]

241. That link is to a joke

Are you familiar with the man who runs that site? Talk about questionable.
Please inform yourself of his background, how he makes money, the status of his medical license, his medical specialty and possible corporate connections. Read about his involvement in numerous lawsuits and how willing he is to settle for cash to go away.

See if you can dig up a video interview - pretty shaky guy in my opinion.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. I've never heard of AAEM.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. That's because they're crazy mercury/vaccine/autism nutjobs. n/t

[Orsino]

26. That would explain their not being aware...

...that pretty much everything we can eat has been genetically modified.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

137. That's exactly right

The ancient Egyptians were genetically modifying the grains they grew by artificially selecting the most edible versions for the reproduction of the plant. Even though it took a lot longer for the Egyptians to modify a plant over many generations, the concept is the same. Some Native Americans did the same thing with corn - originally, corn grew in short dry stalks like wheat, but over time, the Native Americans altered the genetics to make the corn more edible.

Beyond that, plants that evolve over time are being genetically modified by nature. If we were to take this group's advice, there literally wouldn't be anything left to eat.

[Pacifist Patriot]

162. Breeding and genetic modification aren't the same thing.

From one of my other posts:

the genetic tinkering agriculturalists have engaged in over the centuries involved intra-species breeding to bring out desired traits in their offspring. Offspring that are in turn capable of reproduction. Breeding coaxes evolution, but it doesn't control it at the genetic level. Once the farmer has selected the parents, plant or animal, nature takes over and the resulting offspring have higher probabilities for selected traits, but no guarantees.

GMO often involves inter-species genetic manipulation. For example, spider genes might be introduced to a tomato plant with the intention of making the tomato more pest resistant. Generally, in such cases, the daughter plants are infertile. The seeds of the fruit cannot be used to grow more food the next season.

Breeding involves gradual intra-species genetic modification of the organism through a natural process of probabilities with each generation capable of reproduction. Genetic modification involves immediate inter-species genetic modification of the organism through a process of specificity with the subsequent generation not necessarily capable of reproduction. In fact, infertility is preferrable in the case of GM seed. At least in the eyes of the companies selling the seed over and over again each year.

Note, that I make no comment regarding the nutrition of the end product. I am simply pointing out that breeding and GM are not truly analogous. Its misleading to assume they are.

[N7255Q]

108. They are the PETA of the vegetable kingdom

...

[glitch]

125. With an endorsement like that coming from you -- I'll give them a look. Thx. nt

[tabatha]

7. How to avoid GMO foods

http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Foods

[Stephanie]

11. Very helpful, thanks

Recognize fruit and vegetable label numbers.

If it is a 4-digit number, the food is conventionally produced.

If it is a 5-digit number beginning with an 8, it is GM. However, do not trust that GE foods will have a PLU identifying it as such, because PLU labeling is optional. <6>

If it is a 5-digit number beginning with a 9, it is
organic.

[glitch]

12. Excellent resource, thanks for posting. nt

[truedelphi]

34. Thanks Tabatha n/t

[marions ghost]

203. good source

thanks :thumbsup:

[FarCenter]

8. Avoid all products containing wheat - the wheat currently in food has 6 sets of chromosomes!

Wild wheat never has more than 2 or 4 sets of chromosomes.

However, all wheat products in your local supermarket are made from wheat containing 6 sets of chromosomes.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. I've been avoiding wheat...

...ever since the death toll from eating wheat reached thousands per month. Wait, you mean it hasn't? What?

Nobody is dying from eating wheat. You know what people die from on this planet? Not having enough wheat, or corn, or beans, or rice. But hey, I guess people in a country so spoiled that it has an "obesity epidemic" need to find something to be scared of.

[tabatha]

24. Actually grains (carbs) add to the obesity.

It would be wise to avoid them and follow the diet suggested in one of the posts above.

There is also an epidemic of gluten (wheat) problems - that is why there are so many gluten-free foods.

Also, people with celiac disease (like Thom Hartmann) have to avoid wheat.

SO, your sarcasm is highly misplaced.

[conscious evolution]

29. Don't waste your time

with shills.
Its like trying to awaken a person who is pretending to be asleep.Can't be done.You would be better off trying to teach a pig to sing.

[kimmerspixelated]

231. Excellent! I'm glad you said it!

They lurk everywhere, these shills. They must be paid handsomely to troll around on this forum and many others! Their employers don't realize how much overtime they are really putting in and how much sarcasm and disrespect they throw in there too, for free! And so quickly!- Like stink on shit!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

47. That diet looks like it's providing about 800 calories max, no protein, and little fiber.

Thanks, but I'll stick to eating a well rounded diet.

[Jim Sagle]

139. NO carbs? BS.

[Pacifist Patriot]

157. That is incorrect. It is not carbs that add to obesity.

It is the proportion of high-glycemic index calories to other types of calories. Not to mention the portion size of the carbs. A carb is not a carb. Some have a higher glycemic index than others. Minimally processed carbs eaten with proteins are essential for good health.

I do thank you for your input regarding gluten as I'm scheduled for an endoscopy on Tuesday to confirm the GI's tentative diagnosis of celiac disease. I had no idea Thom Hartmann had celiac.

[tabatha]

35. Btw your hero Palin and family

are probably very healthy because of salmon in their diet.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

45. My hero Palin?

Oh, you are too funny.

[gabby garcia]

48. eating wheat = love of Palin?

ad hominem attack much?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. I think it was referring to my username...

...which is something I came up with in a list of "potential Palin baby names." Which apparently means I love her, because I am a Freeper or something, and don't hate six chromosome wheat.

[tabatha]

99. not at all.

Salmon is a very healthy food.

[FarCenter]

60. Well, eating wheat and other grains is thought by some to be harmful

Allegedly, the study of skeletal remains show that pre-agricultural Paleolithic people on the hunter-gatherer diet were taller, more robust, and had less disease than the later agricultural Neolithic people. This is thought to have been due to the adoption of a high-carbohydrate diet based on various grains, a diet to which humans were ill-adapted by evolution, and which was unbalanced compared with the hunter-gatherer diet of game, fish, nuts, and fruits and vegetables in season.

See also the Paleodiet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

[Vilis Veritas]

200. Maybe they had less disease because they died at 30?

Just saying...average lifespan of paleolithic people = 33

Went down to 20 in the neolithic and is up to a whopping 70 AVERAGE for current.

Live long and suffer the consequences??? Just a thought I had...

[omega minimo]

124. Wheat causes inflammation in the body, associated with disease and death. Not the best grain.

[pnwmom]

141. "Nobody is dying from eating wheat"? Do you honestly think that?

What about people who have anaphylactic reactions from unknowingly eating wheat?

What about people whose lymphoma is caused by years of exposure to wheat and other forms of gluten? (i.e., people with Celiac disease who go on to develop lymphoma)

[Pacifist Patriot]

156. There actually is a death toll from eating wheat.

People with celiac disease (notoriously difficult to diagnose because of the wide range of symptoms and silent presentation) who continue to eat wheat can and do die from the disease and the substantially increased cancer risks associated with it. No, they aren't dropping like flies because the effects are cumulative and take years. This isn't a gluten allergy or intolerance. The gluten in wheat, rye and barley destroys the intestines preventing appropriate absorption of nutrients. But approximately 1 out of 100 Americans have celiac, so wheat is indeed a serious health issue. Sorry it isn't a spectacular enough disease and/or death to warrant attention, but your assertion that people are not dying from eating wheat is factually incorrect.

[kimmerspixelated]

233. Thanks for posting this.

Just like the food pyramid for years heralded meat and dairy at the top, grains were up there as well, and although the wheat debate is a valid one, are all grains bad? People have to rethink all their current eating habits. WHen you're given the choice of white or wheat bread when ordering a sandwich, which is better, really? I've heard good things regarding rye and spelt. But Subway doesn't have spelt as far as I know. I don't order take-out often, but I guarantee most people think they are eating healthier when they say they will take the wheat over the white.

[kegler14]

179. If I had continued eating wheat I'd have been dead 8 years ago.

I have celiac and was dying of malnutrition. So your statement is flat out WRONG.

[TwilightGardener]

40. And...this means what, when it goes through your digestive juices

and is broken down into carbs and proteins? What do the "extra chromosomes" mean then? Are they somehow changing something inside your body, more than the original two or four sets?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

46. No.

It's wheat. It's not going to turn you into a mutant. You don't incorporate its chromosomes into your DNA.

[FarCenter]

54. Well the extra chromosomes must do something -- else why would Neolithic farmers have selected them

The extra chromosome copies affect gene dosage, the regulation and expression of genes, etc. to cause different phenotypes.

[TwilightGardener]

56. Well, gee, that's some real science, right there, on which to base

a sweeping proclamation of "AVOID ALL WHEAT!!" If you can't point to a valid scientific study on the harmful changes the chromosomes produce in the human body, then you're basing your advice to us all on the "science" of your own random brain squeezin's.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

121. I wasn't aware that Neolithic farmers knew about chromosomes.

Also...

The extra chromosome copies affect gene dosage, the regulation and expression of genes, etc. to cause different phenotypes.

This statement is utter bullshit. You blatantly don't even understand the terms that you're using.

[pnwmom]

143. And you're comfortable knowing that no one knows the answer? n/t

[Pacifist Patriot]

161. There are two ways to interpret your question.

Are they somehow changing something inside your body

Are they tinkering with our DNA?

I don't know the answer to that question and I'm not sure how much the scientific community knows at this point. From an evolutionary perspective, it could impact our DNA through subsequent generations if GMOs are linked to infertility.

Are they generating an autoimmune reaction?

That could very well be the case. We are seeing an increase in autoimmune disorders since the advent of GMOs. It's very difficult to establish causation because of the almost infinite environmental variables. The world itself is very different from what it was twenty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand years ago. Also, autoimmune disorders are being diagnosed more successfully in the past because of increased awareness.

[yellowcanine]

113. Not true. Pasta is made of durum wheat - has 4 sets of chromosomes.

Durum is a domesticated tetraploid wheat used to make pasta, flat breads, couscous, tabbula, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durum

[CoffeeCat]

13. Is there a list of foods we can eat?

I'd love to see a good list/bad list, if anyone knows if these exist.

I'm looking around our kitchen, and it's pretty daunting. We eat a lot of breakfast
cereal, and I can only imagine how bad that stuff is.

Thanks for any additional info. I'll hunt around too, and post any findings.

[CountAllVotes]

15. you have to read labels

there is no magic "list" that I am aware of. You must read read read read read the labels. They sneak all sorts of crap into food.

Even salt crackers (Nabisco) have high fructose corn syrup in them believe it or not! :mad:

Difficult to avoid all the shit they dump into our food. Very difficult no matter what sort of diet you are on.

If you go macrobiotic, you immediately get rid of all of it if you do the diet properly. However, warning: Do not attempt to begin a macrobiotic diet without consulting with someone that is highly knowledgeable about it first. You can get very sick on this diet as in the beginning, it flushes all of the toxins out of your system and whoa, do you ever get sick! :puke:

Book re: this subject: The Sugar Blues by Dufty

:kick:

[tabatha]

22. see #7

[marions ghost]

206. I'm beginning to think that breakfast cereal is Human Kibbles

It's really all much the same except for more or less sugar content. So much of it is oat bran and they are adding a lot of soy fiber (GMO's?) to most of it. I'd like to see a breakfast cereal factory.

I think we are guinea pigs for this (all too convenient) food product. It's Human Chow.

[Dora]

23. Recommending because this is about PUBLIC HEALTH.

Thanks for the great post.

[Johonny]

25. who cares what these people think?

So a group with an official sounding name that is based on the theory that exposure to certain chemical agents can result in physical damage, causing multiple chemical sensitivity and other disorders claims this stuff. What a shock. Next the flat Earth society will tell me the Earth is flat?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Genetic Modification 101

Genetic modification of food takes place through the injection of special particles known as jee-yems into living organisms. Jee-yems cause mutations, throughout an organisations lifespan. They also hang around and build up, like DDT. So eating food with jee-yems in it will cause you to mutate, too.

[Echo In Light]

37. Ever look into the CODEX Conspiracy re making vitamins/supplements illegal?

Google it ...interesting data.

[trotsky]

42. Yes, that's a very good thing to link with this.

Because both are paranoid delusional conspiracy bullshit.

[Echo In Light]

57. When data pisses off smug naysayers I immediately lend it further credence.

You know, general principles and all ... even if it's only speculation.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TZ]

66. Maybe it pisses people off BECAUSE ITS BLATANTLY STUPID

You do know that there are very few regulations for vitamins and supplements right? People could put chopped up rat droppings in a bottle and market it as vitamin C or the cure for the swine flu or a cancer preventative and as long as they label it is "not been evaluated by the FDA" its NOT ILLEGAL.
The supplement industry is everybit as profitable as the pharamaceutical and has FAR FAR LESS regulation.
These paranoid shits don't seem to understand that regulation doesn't equate with "banning".
Sometimes it amazes me how the tinfoil hat crap on the left sounds alot like RW lunacy....

[Echo In Light]

69. So I'm supposed to take seriously some dick who uses "Greyskull" in his sig line?

Hysterical

[redqueen]

76. What's hysterical is that you ignore the facts... and focus on a sig line.

Do you think that ignoring the comment, and instead making a snarky comment about something in a sig line somehow bolsters your argument?


Also "he" is a she, and a scientist, too.

[Echo In Light]

79. Get over yourself

Anyone can selectively source their own "scientist" to back up their preferences as a way of shouting someone else down. Anyone w/any degree of wherewithal realizes we exist within an era under constant deluge of various info/data, making many such online interactions a tug-of-war re whose and which sources. Funny though how someone mentions CODEX and a few people go apeshit. All I suggested was a Google search as one reminded me of the other. Don't like it? Fuckin lump it.

[redqueen]

80. *roffle*

Someone needs a nap.

[Echo In Light]

82. No, my co-workers and I are too busy laughing at you

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

85. *rofflemayo*

Some outfit that must be!

But hey, at least your insults no longer have the air of spittle-flecked outrage... so maybe you don't need to have a lie down after all. :)

[BuddhaGirl]

98. first part of this statement is false

"The supplement industry is everybit as profitable as the pharamaceutical and has FAR FAR LESS regulation."

Yes, there is less regulation, but the supplement industry is much, much less profitable. We're talking 100's of billions vs. 10's of billions.

Ever hear of GMP supplements? You won't find "chopped up rat droppings" in those - so I suggest you only buy them. :-)

[trotsky]

115. profitable: yielding advantageous returns or results

When you look at the costs of research, testing, regulations, production, and distribution, hell yeah the manufacture of supplements is a hell of a lot more profitable. It doesn't cost nearly as much to earn $1 profit selling herbs as it does to earn $1 selling pharmaceuticals. ESPECIALLY when you don't even have to put a significant quantity of the active ingredient in your product anyway!

[BuddhaGirl]

119. look up GMP

for reply to:

"ESPECIALLY when you don't even have to put a significant quantity of the active ingredient in your product anyway!"

[trotsky]

120. If you have a point to make, make it.

Don't send me on a Google errand. Because you totally ignored the focus of my post to try and point to one little requirement that you haven't even attempted to demonstrate is followed by even a majority of supplement makers.

[BuddhaGirl]

122. the point is, look up GMP

there are standards for supplement manufacturers who follow GMP.

No, I didn't ignore the focus, but if you think so, okay.

[trotsky]

149. No, the point is, are all supplement companies *required* to follow those guidelines?

Not to mention the different GMP standards for food (i.e. supplements) and pharmaceuticals. (http://www.nutritional-supplement-truths.com/nutritional_supplement.html)

THAT'S the point, and naturally you are running away from it because you probably know the answer.

[pmorlan1]

158. Not nearly enough regulation on supplements

I remember watching Congressional hearings (I think they were last year) where they had a Q & A with some guy who owned one of the largest supplement companies. It was truly frightening to hear about all of the crazy stuff in the supplements and watch this guy unable to answer basic questions about his products. He also had quite a criminal record.

[Patiod]

193. Thanks for the sanity check, TC

You saved me from posting it.

The key phrase is "regulation doesn't equate with banning"

[glitch]

135. Some naysayers are excellent, highly recurrent, indicators

Quite useful if pattern matching.

[kimmerspixelated]

234. Touche'!!!

Well, look in the dungeon . My post about codex was deemed "crazy"(kicked downstairs).. Whatever. Better safe than sorry. Sign the petition.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

116. ...damn

When I say "organisation", I of course mean "organism"...

[Zodiak]

27. This article misrepresents the science it cites.

I only looked up one paper cited (because I am at work and do not have the time), but the one paper that I did read did not say what the article says. The article clearly states that humans will pick up the Bt toxin in their gut flora and then become factories for making more Bt, which will hurt their health even more.

The scientific article says differently....here is the abstract:

The inclusion of genetically modified (GM) plants in the human diet has raised concerns about the possible transfer of transgenes from GM plants to intestinal microflora and enterocytes. The persistence in the human gut of DNA from dietary GM plants is unknown. Here we study the survival of the transgene epsps from GM soya in the small intestine of human ileostomists (i.e., individuals in which the terminal ileum is resected and digesta are diverted from the body via a stoma to a colostomy bag). The amount of transgene that survived passage through the small bowel varied among individuals, with a maximum of 3.7% recovered at the stoma of one individual. The transgene did not survive passage through the intact gastrointestinal tract of human subjects fed GM soya. Three of seven ileostomists showed evidence of low-frequency gene transfer from GM soya to the microflora of the small bowel before their involvement in these experiments. As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment.

I picked this article because it was one of the only cited articles from a decent journal, and it was not a "pers comm" which is about as scientifically useful as "he said, she said".

Not that I think the article has no merit at all, but I cannot stand it when people deliberately misrepresent the science they cite. Anyone peddling fear of this nature should be taken with a grain of salt, and I am glad I looked.

[BlooInBloo]

71. Thanks for looking.

[ThomWV]

38. How are genetics altered in the lab inferior to genetics altered in the natural state?

No plant or animal that we eat today is what it was yesterday - in an evolutionary sense. I don't see how or why it would make any difference if the vegetable that finds its way to my table - let is say a potato - got to the genetic state it enjoys today by way of a Monsanto laboratory or the lucky find of a seed collector in the backyard garden. Every variety of potato has its own pecular genetic makeup, what do I care what its origin was?

[truedelphi]

55. Very simplified explanation:

Since farming began, people have tinkered with the genetics of their livestock and their crops.

But when a farmer decides to breed the top cow from his herd of Angus with the top bull from the Hereford breed, he is not allowing for anything but cattle genes to be involved.

When genetic engineering occurs in the laboratory, a scientist might "splice" a gene from a flounder into a tomato. This is revolutionary.

On the cable science channel the other day, there was a scientist describing how his lab was investigating nerve impulses. They were genetically altering the nervous structure of flies. And to have a "marker" identifying the altered flies -- they tinkered with the gene for the eye color in the flies. They deliberately created flies with "white" eyes.

Now what they thought would happen is that they simply would have their nerve structure-altered flies with these funny looking white eyes. No other difference was expected.

But the difference that they ended up getting was that the white-eyed flies were not interested in mating with female flies. Only with other males, and not single couplings, but in multi member couplings, sort of like fly gang rape.

This is one small example of how the genetic tampering that is occurring has massive ramifications. Which for the most part are not expected.

Here is an example related to GMO food: Pusztai was hired by the GMO industry to study the introduction of GMO altered potatoes. He found out that with the GMO leptin in the potatoes that the animals eating the potatoes had irritated stomach linings. (Of hen this type of irritation is a precursor to cancer.)

When he revealed his findings, the industry blacklisted him and made him a pariah. Even though just several months earlier they had trusted him with this multi million dollar study, they now claimed that he was senile and incompetent.

[yellowcanine]

64. Cross species gene transfer is not as dangerous as one might think.

For the simple reason that even between species that are widely variant, many of the genes are exactly the same. So the genetic difference between a flounder and a tomato is not so great as one might imagine. The only thing that is revolutionary is the ability to identify specific genes and move them across widely variant species. Nothing revolutionary at all about tomatoes having genes identical to flounder genes. And actually, this is why genetic engineering works. Genetic mechanisms work the same way in bacteria, fungi, plants, animals and many of the genes, particularly for biochemical pathways, are identical.

[truedelphi]

73. Well if tomatoes were an item we used in floral

bouquets, but not something we ate, your dismissal of this would not be so short sighted.

But the number one reason why people are opposed to genetic modifying the foods we eat is for the reason that so many people have allergies.

If flounder genetic material is introduced into tomatoes to help tomato crops withstand cold, and then someone who is allergic to fish eats the tomato, what happens then?

People with allergies are getting nervous that the day will come when there will not be anything at all that they can eat.

[yellowcanine]

77. What happens then? Probably nothing, It depends on what gene was transferred.

Transfer the gene that codes for the protein causing the allergy, then yes there would be a problem. But the point is with genetic engineering it is actually possible to know more precisely what gene or group of genes is being transferred - and what genes are there in the first place. So it should be possible to certify foods to be free of certain genes/proteins - something which is not possible with conventional plant breeding because in conventional plant breeding one cannot always be sure what genes are being transferred along with the desired ones. One can only get rid of undesirable genes by a lengthy back crossing program - a complicated, lengthy and imprecise process. It is one or the reasons why we have so many food allergies in the first place - because unhealthy proteins hitched a ride with the desirable traits that the plant breeders were trying to incorporate. It is way more complicated than what the anti-GMO activists would have us think. They are essentially operating out of ignorance of how genetic improvement of crops actually works. And natural selection is even worse than conventional crop breeding in giving us foods containing poisons - because plants naturally have evolved to produce poisons as defenses against herbivores - and guess what, when the herbivores eat them they sometimes have violent allergic reactions.

[FarCenter]

81. The flounder-allergic person is very unlikely to be alleregic to a tomato with a flounder gene

The allergy would move with the gene, only if the flounder gene introduced to the tomato produced the specific proteins that the person was allergic to.

But both tomatoes and flounder contain a very large number of proteins, so the probability that the specific gene was an allergen producing gene is very, very low.

[yellowcanine]

95. I agree. Also, in most cases, the allergenic gene has been identified, making it even less likely

that it is going to be transferred utilizing gene transfer technology.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. That's not an explanation, that's an obfuscation.

"But when a farmer decides to breed the top cow from his herd of Angus with the top bull from the Hereford breed, he is not allowing for anything but cattle genes to be involved."

He's allowed to use any cow genes, or any genes the cow may acquire through random mutation.

"This is one small example of how the genetic tampering that is occurring has massive ramifications. Which for the most part are not expected."

And the same thing happens in nature.

[Johonny]

59. Got me

but apparently if god himself didn't make it 6000 years ago then don't eat it. Oh and don't eat some of the stuff he did make like shellfish because... just because. Hemlock on the other hand is ok by god to eat and perfectly natural organic BPA free so eat up and enjoy.

[ThomWV]

63. I vaguely remember some words by Grace Slick, to paraphrase ...

so, you think you're Mr. Natural, well, go eat some poison ivy, its organic.

I just don't see why it makes any difference where the living thing was when its code changed. Its kind of like if I have my car painted red. It doesn't make much difference if I had it painted at shop A or shop B, if a guy named Bill painted it or a guy and Juan, I still get a red car.

Now I've got a seed of corn, it has some genetic sequence that is particular to it and not the same as the ancestor of that seed of corn. So, do I care if whatever caused the difference came as the result of some random event in a farmer's field or if it happend in a carefully controlled and man-made facility?

[yellowcanine]

67. Castor beans are perfectly natural and organic. Enjoy.

Of course if you don't want to die you better do something unnatural to the beans and process the poison out of them. Same with cassava root.

[TZ]

68. thank you.

antime people here genetically modified they leap to astounding and wrong headed assumptions.

[yellowcanine]

78. Answer - they aren't. Potentially they are superior if done correctly. See my other posts.

[Pacifist Patriot]

159. You ask an excellent question and there are several reasons why.

1. As mentioned above, the genetic tinkering agriculturalists have engaged in over the centuries involved intra-species breeding to bring out desired traits in their offspring. Offspring that are in turn capable of reproduction. Breeding coaxes evolution, but it doesn't control it at the genetic level. Once the farmer has selected the parents, plant or animal, nature takes over and the resulting offspring have higher probabilities for selected traits, but no guarantees.

GMO often involves inter-species genetic manipulation. For example, spider genes might be introduced to a tomato plant with the intention of making the tomato more pest resistant. Generally, in such cases, the daughter plants are infertile. The seeds of the fruit cannot be used to grow more food the next season.

2. Following on that, GM seeds can be patented. If the company sells seeds that can result in produce that can grow again the next season they lose revenue over time. So seeds are genetically modified to self-terminate after a single growing season forcing the farmer to purchase seed again every year.

Farmers who have had their heirloom crop fields invaded by the genetically modified crops in neighboring fields, have been successfully sued by corporations for patent-infringement. When natural seed drift caused the contamination. Very famous case in Canada over this.

3. Personally, I think the above information is enough to give pause for an ethical discussion regarding the use of GMOs before we even get to the health implications. Which hopefully will be decided by the application of sound scientific principles rather than the profit motive.

Eat an heirloom tomato out of someone's garden and then bite into a GM tomato from the grocery store. I don't have the wherewithal to evaluate the nutritional content, but I don't have to be a PhD to tell the difference in taste.

If you're interested, there is an excellent book by Barbara Kingsolver and her family called, "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year in Food Life." There is a section that gets into genetic modification, but really is a wealth of all sorts of information about the food we eat.

[NashVegas]

+ 35

The pro-GM/GE crowd relies on anti-GM people using "Frankenfood" and similar arguments than can be ridiculed, dismissed, equivocated and parsed, but when you start talking about how GM takes an inherited, race-wide practice, fueled by the simple handing down of knowledge and methods**, when you make it perfectly clear the GM lobby is motivated by profit and control at the expense of the race, you kick their ass to the curb.

** hey Sherlock! I KNOW hemlock is poisonous. I know because that knowledge was given to me by someone whose elders, in turn, gave him that knowledge. Just like he taught me how to take a cutting of a plant and start a new one. So your folks spent 90k so you could learn how to do it in the lab, doesn't give you any business taking the primitive method, and the rights to it, away from future generations.

[Pacifist Patriot]

184. One of the things I resent in the debate is the paradox of...

"dumbed" down science and scientific arrogance.

Asserting GM is essentially the same as breeding is a meme so widespread it's scary. That's dumbed down science because it depends upon knowledge readily grasped and depends upon people not bothering to ask why and how they are the same.

It's scientific arrogance because those who do seek to understand are often patted on the head and told it's too complicated for the ordinary person to grasp.

Bottom line though is that it is pure unadulterated greed. Corporations who don't care about what they shovel into people's mouths as long as they control it and profit from it. That right there should give anyone pause even if they have no fears over the safety of GMOs.

[NashVegas]

186. Then You'll Love This

thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3140165

[Pacifist Patriot]

189. Oi!

I could have gone all day without seeing that. But I did notice one person made a very very good point that applies here as well. "a loss of biodiversity" THAT is something that warrants thorough ethical debate in the public arena. I don't fancy a handful of corporations dictating what limited spectrum of biomass we're permitted to grow, buy and eat.

[yellowcanine]

208. Most grocery store tomatoes are not GMO, in the sense we are discussing here.

They ARE likely hybrids that have been bred for long transportability and shelf life and not allowed to vine ripen. That is the reason for the crappy taste. Has nothing to do with being GMO or not.

I believe your assertion about the terminator gene is incorrect also. No commercial seed currently marketed contains terminator genes as far as I know. If you have information to the contrary I would like to see it. Monsanto agreed in 1999 not to use the technology and it would be a huge deal/news story if they had gone back on that agreement or if someone else employed the technology.

[Pacifist Patriot]

214. Monsanto's public statements ten years ago were a response to outrage...

Scroll down to "terminator technology" here http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v3/n2/4/

By 2001 there were already international concerns about Monsanto's actions. http://www1.american.edu/TED/thairice.htm

Why? Because after the furor died down, Monsanto did go ahead and buy D&PL and it's terminator patents. A promise made ten years ago by an unethical company? Not worth the paper the press release was written on.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3082

In 2001, the USDA and Delta & Pine executed a Commercialization Agreement for Terminator, its infamous Patent No. 5,723,765. The Government and Delta & Pine Land were not at all concerned about worldwide outcry against Terminator.

That announcement came two years after Monsanto had dropped its planned takeover of D&PL, with its Terminator patents.

The world was left with the (misleading) impression that Terminator was dead. Reality was it was anything but dead. Seven years later, long after public outcry against Terminator technology had died down, Monsanto re-entered and bought Delta & Pine Land and its Terminator patents.

Because we have no viable labeling laws, there is no telling what is on the grocery store shelves, and you are absolutely correct. Breeding for long distance transportability has definitely contributed to the decline in tomato color, taste and nutrient value.

[yellowcanine]

220. Owning the patents does not equal implementing the technology. You need to document

your assertion that the technology is being used. Seed companies have lots of patents they never use and in some cases never intend to use. Sometimes they get or buy patents to prevent someone else from using the technology. Besides, Monsanto bought the whole company - not just the terminator gene patent. There are a lot of reasons other than that why Monsanto might want to own Delta Pine - other patents, distribution systems, etc. What crops? I don't know of a single instance so I am curious. I work in agriculture and I think I would have heard about this. This is not something a company could keep secret. If commercial seed is out there with a terminator gene some plant breeder or grad student somewhere is going to figure it out and publish the information. Those guys live for a discovery like that.

[soothsayer]

39. Too bad the guv won't let you label them so we can avoid them

[yellowcanine]

110. Problem with that nearly every processed food has some GMO in it.

And in most cases, it would be impossible to tell. The best we could do would be to say, "Main ingredient is GMO-free" or "Main ingredient may contain GMOs". It essentially would be useless except for unethical processors willing to lie.

[jmondine]

51. Do they also tell us to avoid drinking Windex and shoving metal spikes through our chests?

[yellowcanine]

58. All the food we eat has been genetically modified. Only question is how and when.

Crop breeding has been around since the beginning of agriculture. And before that, nature did it.

Actually, genetic engineering allows more precision in inserting desirable genes into crop plants than conventional crop breeding - thus genetically engineered crops are less likely to have unknown undesirable proteins that may cause a problem allergy wise. So if (and it is a big if) seed companies are upfront about how a variety was developed - it should be easy to tell when a particular product might be a problem.

[FarCenter]

83. It actually seems safer than the old way

Which was to treat a batch of seed with a mutagenic chemical or ionizing radiation and then screen the mutant plants for phenotypes that might be useful in plant breeding programs.

[yellowcanine]

94. Mutation breeding hardly ever resulted in useful traits in plant breeding programs.

Plant breeding programs mostly utilize genetic material from other programs and countries (#1), crop plant seed collections (#2), and wild relatives (#3). Mutation breeding is highly unreliable and rarely yields useful genes. Mutagenic breeding is mostly used in basic genetic research.

[Odin2005]

97. This biochemistry major says +1

Hell, lateral gene transfer happens a lot in nature via viruses and bacteria, so the "they are putting X genes in Y and that doesn't happen in nature so this cannot be compared to traditional breeding" people are simply wrong.

Anti-GMOism is nothing but paranoid technophobia mixed with religious BS about "playing God is bad".

[Orwellian_Ghost]

238. So uh

using viral promoters to insert flounder genes into strawberries is part of nature too?

C'mon your schtick has become a caricature.

[Odin2005]

239. genes hitch rides on viruses all the time.

That was the point of my post.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

160. Total lie

Genetic engineering is completely novel has no relation to plant breeding.

Breeding does not manipulate genes; it involves crossing of selected parents of the same or closely related species. In contrast, GE involves extracting selected genes from one organism (e.g. animals, plants, insects, bacteria) and/or viruses, or synthesising copies, and artificially inserting them into another completely different organism.

[yellowcanine]

210. Not a lie at all. Genetic engineering is a form of genetic modification or plant breeding.

A plant breeder who utilizes backcrossing to insert a single gene or small group of genes into a plant would dispute your assertion that plant breeding does not manipulate genes. Anyway much genetic engineering involves moving genes within the same species or closely related species - it is not just used for introducing genes from distantly related species. Most modern plant breeding programs utilize genetic engineering to some degree so to say there is "no relation" is just wrong and speaking out of ignorance of modern plant breeding.

[Odin2005]

237. Read my post just above yours.

Lateral gene transfer is surprisingly common in nature

[Pacifist Patriot]

183. A few things to consider.

It's a very big "if" as seed companies consider their work proprietary information and directly relevant to their profit margins.

The ethical discussion was never in the public domain prior to the introduction of GMOs into our food supply.

Breeding and genetic modification are two entirely different things. Please look at my other posts in this thread if you are interested what the differences are.

[Odin2005]

100. Aren't these bozos one of the groups pushing the "vaccines cause autism" BS?

:eyes:

[truedelphi]

102. In future years, should society continue despite the odds against it,

The current era wil be seen as one in which the Powers that be deliberately killed off scientific rationale.

Over ten thousand people took healthy babies into their physicians for the MMR vaccine and ended up regretting it because: The shot was administrered, and then moments later, the toddler is crying, convulsing, and begins running a fever.

Over ten thousand people have come forward with this scientific observation. And yet, "Science as Owned By Big Pharma" says that the parents' observations are not valid.

Something is very wrong here.

Edward Jenner came up with the entire notion of vaccination based on his observations of less than fifty cowmaids.

And his observations are considered among the great moments in science.

So on the one hand, Edward Jenner's observations are scientifcally sound. But the throngs of people who watched their children deteriorate after a vaccination are just witless morons, in terms of their observations.

Something is very twisted here.

[Odin2005]

106. The MMR claims have been 100% completely refuted. And as someone on the autism spectrum...

...I find that BS insulting. I AM NOT "POISONED", I DO NOT NEED TO BE "CURED"! The people peddling that nonsense, Jenny McCarthy, David Kirby, and the Geiers, are all fraudulent bastards who can all go to hell! It goes to show how emotionally distraught parents can become easily victims of their own cognitive biases more than anything else and that's why the parents' "evidence" is not valid, THE PLURAL OF ANECDOTE IS NOT DATA!

[truedelphi]

225. It was not completely refuted. There was one court case in which

The witnesses for the the position that MMR caused autism were not strong witnesses.

That does not mean much. It is one court case.

Our society does not base science on a single court case. (Well big industry does base science on that, but real independent scientists do not.)

[kimmerspixelated]

235. If vaccines upset you so much,

then I would avoid them.

[trotsky]

109. Masterful use of the false dichotomy!

Been a while since I've seen such expert wielding of that logical fallacy. Nicely done!

[ImOnlySleeping]

164. Correlation

Here's where the problem with "Over ten thousand people"'s observations.
MMR vaccinations actually prevent M,M&R in approximately 100% of cases, but the percentage of people that try to link it to Autism is very small relative to the number of vaccinations. Additionally, there are millions of babies that cry when they get a needle for very obvious reasons that aren't chemically related and a fever is a very common reaction to a vaccination.

[Hekate]

103. Aside from growing all your own food safe from even cross-pollination: How?

:argh:

[truedelphi]

111. Pollination is the trump card that the bio tech, Big Agro Firms hold.

They know it is inevitable that no matter whether we wake up the legislators soon or not, just the fact that the wind exists means they will eventually win.

I can't see any way out of that GMO future.

:shrug:

[yellowcanine]

117. Eh, soybeans are nearly 100% self pollinated, as is wheat.

The flower is pollinated before it is even opened so cross pollination is unlikely.

Corn, yes is cross pollinated by wind so the GMO pollen could potentially spread quite rapidly in corn.

[glitch]

136. The important word in your subject line is "nearly" -- in complex systems it matters. nt

[yellowcanine]

204. Soybean fields are not "complex systems". They are monocultures. Think about it.

First you have to have some outcrossing. The soybeans being pollinated by the gmo gene are in another field and soybean pollen is not easily transported - a Brazil study found zero transport beyond 10 meters. http://www.funpecrp.com.br/GMR/year2007/vol2-6/gmr0322_full_text.html

Then the seed produced by that outcrossing has to be saved and planted and progeny from that saved seed would have to be planted for a number of generations (probably at least 6 or more) in order to fix the gmo gene in the population. And even then only a small number of individuals in the population would be gmo so the chances of the gmo gene being lost are great if those seeds are eaten instead of being saved for seed. All the while keep in mind that most soybeans are eaten or processed, they are not saved for seed. At each step of the way the exact seed containing the gmo gene would need to be saved. It just is not going to happen by chance.

[Pacifist Patriot]

182. It's less a problem of cross-pollination than seed drift.

Most GM seed is created to self-terminate after a growing season. So the contamination is not an intermingling of genetics, but entire GM plants growing within a non-GM field.

[yellowcanine]

205. GM seed is not created to self-terminate after the growing season. If so, Monsanto would not

have to have farmers sign "technology agreements" agreeing not to save crop seed for planting. With corn, farmers don't even try to save the seed because it is a hybrid which doesn't "breed true" but the seed would be viable.

[Pacifist Patriot]

212. It's not 100% but they do indeed create GM seed to self-terminate.

[yellowcanine]

216. Please submit a reference to support that.

[Pacifist Patriot]

219. See below. They purchased the technology in 2001.

The last public statement from Monsanto that I can find is dated 1999, two years before they purchased the technology. The closing paragraphs are wiggle room if I've ever seen it.

"Monsanto sees both the positive and negative aspects of GURT (gene use restriction technology) and understands there are some uses which would not involve sterile seeds but which would be beneficial for small landholder farmers. For instance, it may be possible to create varieties where farmers can save and plant seeds, but the offspring seed does not carry the biotech trait.

If Monsanto should decide to move forward in the area of GURTs, we would do so in consultation with experts and stakeholders, including NGOs. Our commitment to protecting smallholder farmers and our promise not to commercialize sterile seed technology will carry forward with these developments, should they occur."

Everything I can find on their site regarding terminator technology sends you back to this pre-purchase press release.

India and Brazil have banned Monsanto's technology and Ecuador is in the throws of a political battle over it. Or at least they were a few months ago.

Which begs some questions.

1. Why do you buy a patent for something if you aren't going to use it?

2. Why do you ban something that isn't being used?

3. Why has Monsanto issued no statements about its use of the technology since acquiring the patent?

4. Why are farmers and writers (reference Barbara Kingsolver) asserting the technology is indeed in use?


ETA: I will grant some bias here. I think this company is highly unethical, greedy as hell and wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them. I want them to open up and flat out state they are NOT using the technology they acquired and are being acknowledged internationally as using. I want them to submit their product for independent confirmation.

[yellowcanine]

224. Owning the technology does not equal implementing the technology.

1)Monsanto bought the company, they didn't just buy that particular patent. In another post I go into that a bit but it is somewhat self evident that companies acquire other companies for lots of reasons.

2)Obviously they stated they weren't going to use it because they were getting a lot of pressure and bad publicity. Big companies hate bad publicity, particularly when it feeds into ill will already generated in this area - i.e. Monsanto technology agreements for Round-Up Ready Crops.

3)If they aren't using it why on earth would they talk about it? Raise a sore subject just to get kicked again?

4) People assert all sorts of crap. I deal in scientific findings, not assertions. As I stated elsewhere, scientists and would-be scientists (AKA graduate students) live and die on discoveries like this. You can be sure that someone somewhere would figure out quite quickly if a commercial seed release contained a terminator gene. And they wouldn't be asserting it. They would be publishing the findings in Crop Science or Science and sorting through the job offers from major universities, seed companies, environmental groups, etc. Barbara Kingsolver cut her eyeteeth on writing FICTION, by the way. I love her writing and am sure she is a nice lady and means well but she is no scientist.

I am no fan of Monsanto. I think they are greedy, unethical and I do not trust them. But because they may be capable of evil things is not evidence that they perpetuated this particular evil. I would still like to see the proper scientific reference.

[omega minimo]

126. Rec +32/ Important discussion. Not enough proof IF they are safe. For us OR the environment.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. What's your standard of proof for safety?

[omega minimo]

129. stay far, far away from

you

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. Haven't got an answer?

No surprise there.

[omega minimo]

131. See how that works? It's like stepping in toxic bubblegum. Can't get the shit off your shoe.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

132. It's not my fault you dodged the question, OM.

That's not my petard you're hanging from.

[omega minimo]

133. I did answer the question. It's a sick game you play. That's why the answer is

[Rex]

127. Too late.

Like global warming.

[Cid_B]

138. Pretty ballsy to put your bias right in your name...

nt

[omega minimo]

145. What's your bias?

[provis99]

148. the AAEM only has 400 worldwide members?

Heck, I could find more than 400 doctors worldwide who claim that drinking your own urine is a healthy practice. Do these AAEM people have any credibility?

[Pacifist Patriot]

155. Why must credibility based upon numbers rather than...

the underlying science. I'd be more interested in having a better look at the data than concerning myself with the size of the organization. The 400+ doctors who claim drinking urine is a healthy practice wouldn't have the scientific evidence to back it up. Maybe these doctors do. :shrug:

[flyarm]

165. I posted this in May and it was ignored ..I also said look at the corn you are eating this summer

I noticed it last summer..when the so called summer corn came in..it has a pointy thing at the tip of the cob..i never ever remember seeing that until last summer..on any corn..throughout my life..and i have always loved summer corn..but even at the local markets..all the corn has a pointy hard thing at the tip of the cob..I won't eat it..and it makes me sad..as i have always loved corn on the cob..but this must be something new..that i never ever remember seeing before..and i believe it is GM corn..
my local market always had fresh corn on the cob..but one morning i was there and they just stocked the corn..and it was all real "cold"..refrigerated cold..not like fresh farm corn..that is usually room temp..but i am seeing this corn with the hard pointy thing everywhere..and in all the "FRESH Produce " markets.

Beware and look for it..I now pull the husks down and look for the hard pointy thing ..and i won't buy it..which means ..I am not getting corn..unless someone brings it in fresh from a farm in Pa. that doesn't have GM corn.

[kjackson227]

166. I'll avoid it if I'm able to recognize it. The labeling is most definitely needed.

[Sultana]

167. I read the title as Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Mortified Foods

I am proud of the Africa nations that have turn down GM foods.

Isn't most of the food we eat in America GM'd?

[truedelphi]

217. It is said that all the wheat is, it is said that 60% of all the soy is

And they say that even if you purchase long grain ORGANIC rice, 55% of that is GMO.

Also, soy oil is in almoist all packaged and canned and jarred items. Someone up thread pointed ou t that soy oil is not in cans of tuna fish.

I don't see a way of turning back the clock. :-(

[yellowcanine]

228. Who says all the wheat is GMO? "It is said"???? Please....references?

Wheat is the one major crop with no commercial GMO varieties that have been released. Do you know something that plant breeders do not know?

If you read this article you will note that the discussion is about why no GMO wheat varieties have been released. Article is from June, 2009.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5560KI20090607

[truedelphi]

253. Use the Google and find information out for yourself

I am not about to spend time listing things for you only to have you tell me I am making it up.

If I could find many interesting articles and films to inform me, using google, and assuming that you have the same IQ as me -- then you shouldn't have any problem.

And since you act so Superior to me, it should even be easier!!

There are several very well made documentaries that describe the economic downside of GMO, that describe what is happening to the GMO genetic takeover of the crops similar in nature to GMO products, and that are now becoming adulterated due to GMO contamination, and the documentaries also describe what amounts of the GMO stuff is currently inside our grocery stores.

The anatagonism that you and others of your ilk have shown while supposedly debating an issue make me wonder who didn't get their nap time recently!

[edc]

170. Want to predict the future?

Just answer one simple question. Who funnels bigger bribes to Congress, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine or Monsanto?

[barbtries]

175. as many of the comments noted,

where does one go to make sure they are not eating modified food?

[ohheckyeah]

213. Here's a pdf

file that is a brochure to help identify GM and non-GM foods:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/144.pdf

[jberryhill]

177. The Official Resource On Global Associations Of Scientific Management

...has not accredited the AAEM to speak on this subject.


I just appointed myself founder and chairman of ORGASM, and they are not on my list.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

178. Here's a big problem with "organic only" and "no GM"

If everyone lived solely on organic and non-GM crops, the best estimate I've seen is that the earth could comfortably support about 4 billion people. We're nearly at 7 billion now.

[Pacifist Patriot]

199. I've seen conflicting figures on this. Does your estimate take into account the...

a) acreage currently being used by GM crops switching to conventional agriculture?

b) supposed higher nutrient/caloric content of non-GM crops?

c) loss of biodiversity with GM/factory farming adversely impacting agricultural productivity in environments requiring different biomass?

I am not saying your figures are wrong, I'm just curious what that is based upon because I have heard arguments that claim reverting to traditional agriculture will either help feed more or contribute to a natural stabilization of population (not through war or starvation). It sounds like an argument that might come from those who profit most from non-organic/GM factory food production.

[yellowcanine]

215. There is no evidence that non GM crops are more nutritious or have more calories.

Where does that come from? I don't follow the reasoning here. You ask the poster to back up his numbers but then you make assertions that aren't supported by research - it confuses me. The whole argument is kind of squishy anyway because terms such as GM, organic, conventional agriculture, traditional agriculture are being thrown around with no definitions as to what exactly is meant.

When most people in agricultural science use "conventional agriculture" they mean agriculture as it is currently practiced - which in the U.S. includes GM crops.

Non organic is not equivalent to production using GM. Avoiding GM use is only one part of organic agriculture. Actually not the main part. The main part is not utilizing certain pesticides and fertilizers.

What I do know is correct is that the basic premise of what the poster said is right - we would have a great deal of difficulty producing the same amount of food using only USDA certified organic methods (only certain pesticides and fertilizers, no GMOs). Could we eventually get to that using something similar to proposed perennial grain/oil seed systems being researched at Wes Jackson's Land Institute in Salina Kansas? It's possible, but even Wes would tell you we are no where near that now. As it is now, I shudder to think what would happen if we were to go all organic with major field crops for example. Besides the lower yields, we would lose almost all of our ability to do no-till production of annual grain crops - because herbicides are essential to that technique. No-till is currently one of our best defenses against soil erosion - and one of the best ways to sequester carbon in the soil - levels of carbon in the form of organic matter increase greatly in no-till systems (from < 2% in tilled production to as high as 6% in continuous no-till production). So the global warming situation is going to be worse without no-till. We could plant all of the acreage in grass and graze animals - actually we SHOULD do much more of that anyway - but of course that is not much of a solution for vegetarians in places like India and they do need to eat also.

[Pacifist Patriot]

218. I'm actually not disputing the claim. I'm curious because as I said...

I have seen it argued both ways. I also said "supposed" with respect to nutrients. I'd like to know that apples are being compared to apples. I'm still trying to get my brain around the issue. I claim no superior knowledge whatsoever with respect to crop yields and population support.

I am very interested in the relative nutrient value of produce, however.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86972.php

This seems fairly even-handed:
http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Organic-More-Nutritious-WorthingtonNov01.htm

Last I saw, the Mayo Clinic is playing it safe and saying there is "No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food." Which of course begs the question, what are the studies showing and exactly who is doing the research. Seems to me there might be conflicts of interest at play in many cases.

Though this is interesting coming out of the University of California-Davis http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/319226/organic_tomatoes_more_nutritious_10year.html?cat=5

[yellowcanine]

222. "No conclusive evidence" does not beg the question. In science it means you have nothing.

It is not just big companies doing these studies. You have government labs like the USDA Nutrition Lab in Beltsville MD as well as university labs - the studies are peer reviewed which means other scientists look at the data and methods and judge them. Anyone who tries to "cook the books" will get their comeuppance in a hurry. Besides there are groups who are promoting organic food and non-GMO - whole countries, actually in the case of non GMO - most of Europe. Don't you think if they found a conclusive link between non GMO or organic and nutrition they would make darn sure it got published? Of course they would.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

242. Sorry, it's been too long since I read the articles

I don't recall the specifics. And I should concede the articles did not deal with GM crops so much as non-organic crop improvements such as chemical fertilizers and insecticides, as well as development of new strains via selective breeding. But the focus was on the per-acre yield of crops grown organically and with modern technology.

[WeDidIt]

198. I love the smell of tinfoil in the morning

Smells like a conspiracy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

202. I have to wonder if genetically modified wheat is in part responsible

for the 400% increase in gluten sensitivity over the past 20 years.

[yellowcanine]

226. What GMO wheat are you referring to? As of June, 2009 there havn't been any

commercial varieties of GMO wheat released.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5560KI20090607

Wheat is the one major crop which doesn't have any GMO varieties.
Anyway, conventionally bred wheat has lots of gluten so why would that be so?
Sorry but I do not follow the logic. Gluten is gluten. And nearly all food allergies and food sensitivities have increased over the past 20 years - my personal hypothesis is that it is partly better diagnosis but also because we keep people alive who might have died of allergies in the past and so we have increased allergies in the whole population as a result of people with allergies reproducing and passing on the bad genes.

[havocmom]

207. .