Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > GMO issue.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 51
view profile
History
GMO issue.Page 3 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)


Part of me knows this a reasonable request- but part of me also knows that you're attempting to maniplulate the situation- you've made it very, very clear that even if GMO's were perfectly safe, you'd still oppose it, and are constantly calling for the ban of these foods- so you're not attempting to give people freedom of choice- you're attempting to create a target to call for a boycott.


I find it strange that people claim they are for free markets until they wish to cram something down someones throat without their knowing about it. What should it matter to a believer in free markets if people decide to boycott any product for any reason. They are the ones whom should have the choice to buy or not buy but, they should first and foremost ALWAYS know 100% everything they are going to put into their body.

It is simply not safe what they are doing. They are feeding things that have been crossed in a lab with other things that could potentially cause serious problems for people whom have allergies. Food allergies have sky rocketed since the introduction of GMOs into the food supply. No one can say if it is due to or not due to GMOs they are not labeled no one knows if they are eating products containing GMO or not. This is plain wrong.

People should have a choice to put something into their body or not. No matter what they base that choice on. No matter if you agree or disagree or I agree or disagree. You claim that I should let the market decide if these things have a purpose or not. I am saying you should let the market decide if they wish to knowingly ingest these things or not. They should be labeled. In this case I believe soon as they are labeled the market will be able to correct the problem. People will be able to make a choice.

That is what I am here about as well as to point out that the only excuse the industry likes to use is how they believe GMOs will save the world from itself. They claim all these noble goals of saving starving people. Yet, they go about destroying family farmers, and destroying organic farmers then suing them in court after they destroyed the mans farm be cross pollination via the wind of their frankenfood garbage to real plants.


The issue once again being that their is no food shortage to claim a need to take such a crazy drastic step. The cause of malnutrition is one of politics and distribution of already existing and wasted food supply.

Instead of bringing heirloom seed that they can collect seed and replant year after year and teaching them how to sustainably feed themselves without need to worry about the governments or other forces getting in the way, the biotech industry wishes to try to control them yet again by selling them something they will have to buy (with what money) year after year that they cannot collect seed from where they will also have to buy a ton of chemicals (with what money.)


You bring up the market and think that it will fix the starvation situation and then disregard the market where it would correct a problem in so far as the consumer has the right to know every ingredient in a product and to know if it is GMO or not. They should have a choice to ingest it or not. No matter what their reason is. The market is a part of the cause of why people are starving so in that case it is not going to fix that. In this case we need people to go into these areas and supply heirloom (open pollinated seed) So the people in those nations can at least fight off malnutrition without having to rely on "falling food from the sky."

The Biotech merely wishes to cash in on their suffering by, getting anyone to claim their product has some use other than laziness and lack of concern about wanton chemical spraying to make up for laziness and lack of knowledge in regard of how to interact with the organism we call the earth.

If you know how to interact with it instead of always being at war with it, you realize it is not so difficult, that all the obstacles are in your head, placed there so unneeded industries can come set up shop and take advantage of your ignorance as well as try to control the food supply.

That is what this is about my dear brothers and sisters in the end. This industry wants to be in complete control of food. They want you to buy their frankenfoods, their toxic chemicals, seeds from them every year.... They claim they will make farmers more money but, it is a lie. The farmers spend more money than they would have had to if they chose "natural/organic methods" and the yields are no better according to studies done. So the farmers lose money. Ask the farmers of BT cotton in India. Oh wait, I am sure Monsanto would tell you that those farmers drank their poisons and pesticides to celebrate such record breaking yields. Those people obviously did not commit suicide because things went so good by using the biotech industries products. They lost their livelihood because of it. First hand evidence of the damage these frankenfood products cause. They destroy family farmers to be replaced by corporate farms whom care less about making nutritious and sustainable food and only care about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. All to the benefit of the biotech industry and to the loss for the rest of us.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 52
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/4/2009 5:45:16 AM
RE Msg: 52 by Jiperly:
And I feel he is working to undermine all that good, out of a paranoid fear. Some African countries like Zambia have refused to accept GMO aid- which means these people are starving and dying for no reason- that people are dying for a risk that doesn't exist. Better Dead than Fed, it seems.
The African nations have a genuine concern, Jiperly. They already have problems due to famine. As bad as things are, they don't want to make things worse. They only have a few crops that are viable in their countries. They fear that if there is any problem unforeseen by science, such as the problems with Thalidomide, or the problems with Seroxat, or the problems with the introduction of the African bee to make more honey, there might be similar unforeseen problems with GM crops that might cause the few crops they have left to fail, which would cause everyone in those countries to starve to death, rather than just some. That's a good reason to follow our principle of being scientifically cautious, isn't it?

However, our own knowledge of GM crops suggests that they might have a point. AFAIK, GM crops use twice as much water as non-GM crops. That's not a problem for a rich country like America with a temperate rain-filled climate. But for countries in Africa, who don't get a lot of rain, and don't have the money to just import water from countries like Canada, don't you think that's just being prudent? If America had very little rain like African countries, and if America couldn't afford to import large quantities of water like African countries, don't you think using GM crops that would use double the water, and so produce only half the grain, which would slice their food in half, don't you think it would be better to stick with more efficient crops?

Now, when science makes solutions like crop rotation, which have been proved and tested scientifically, then Africans would probably take them up.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 53
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/4/2009 7:05:06 AM
Patents expire and are not enforced in many countries. If you don't like the GM crops, simply don't use them or wiat unitl the patents expire. Most of the crops we have used for centuries have been modified from their wild state through selective breeding. As pointed out early in this thread, that is not natural. The comment that GM crops use more water is not accurate. The modifications could be used to improve drought resistance, yield, and/or disease resistance and insect resistance.

As for some unforseen negative consequence, that is the nature of all human plans. We are not perfect but our population could not be supported without planning ahead and planning cannot be error free. We deal with the consequences when we encounter them. Fear and paranoia are our worst enemies as they deliver us to tyrants. You would think someone who teaches martial arts would realize that. It is the fear of the unknown that is driving this thread and in this case, the unknown is the "corporation". Corporations are the creation of government to pool capitol, technology, talent, and labor to serve society. Part of serving society is the creation of more capitol. One tool for that endevour is the patent.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 54
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/4/2009 7:58:04 AM


Most of the crops we have used for centuries have been modified from their wild state through selective breeding. As pointed out early in this thread, that is not natural.


It is perfectly natural to select something because of like or taste or color or size and through the perfectly natural state of plants method of sex you have the new generation that is different from the old. Perfectly normal relationship with a food plant. It is giving the organisms that feed off of its fruit what it needs by feeding on said fruit humans plant it in their way and animals do so in theirs. This is all natural.

Taking a syringe and through the an use of a virus breaking into the DNA of something and injecting randomly dna alien to the original from another species all together is what they are doing.

What they are doing with this frankenfood is a HUGE difference than selective breeding.

Yes man is having an effect by selecting certain varieties to breed but, it is VASTLY different than injecting DNA from another species randomly, and forcefully into the DNA using a virus and a syringe.

How you cannot see a difference is beyond me.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 55
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/4/2009 11:54:47 AM
>>> What should it matter to a believer in free markets if people decide to boycott any product for any reason.

Because its a legitmate product, and you wish to spread lies and misinformation on it, in the guise of "consumer freedom". People won't be boycotting it because its a flawed product, or because the food will cause them harm- by your own admittion, you cannot even prove that any harm can be caused by GMO's- but thats not going to stop you from claiming they do.

>>>They are the ones whom should have the choice to buy or not buy but, they should first and foremost ALWAYS know 100% everything they are going to put into their body.

Again, I agree, this is a reasonable requestion- and again, I do not believe the reason you are asking for this is to give the consumer the freedom to say no- you're asking for this to make a physical target for your misinformation.

>>>They are feeding things that have been crossed in a lab with other things that could potentially cause serious problems for people whom have allergies.

And thats my problem with your actions- potentially. You have no evidence. You have no interest in proving your claims. You only have interest in fear mongering. Even if GMO's were found to be 100% safe all the time for everyone, you would still reject them, and claim they have the potiental to be killers.

>>> They claim all these noble goals of saving starving people.

Its not a claim. Its a fact- More food has been produced, stronger food has been produced, and in harsher climates, because of GMO's- oddly enough, you accept facts without any evidence, and ignore facts that have evidence.

>>>destroying organic farmers

Exactly- this is an issue of politics to you- you believe YOUR personal preference should be protected, while other cheaper, more effient farming techniques should be condemned. And you're okay with this, because you can afford to not have a more effienct farm.

>>> The cause of malnutrition is one of politics and distribution of already existing and wasted food supply.

Exactly- and if these foods create more effiencent farms, then it will make the issues of distribution not an issue at all, since all local farms can support their local needs.

>>>from where they will also have to buy a ton of chemicals

Actually, GMO's need less pesticides than typical seeds.

>>>so far as the consumer has the right to know every ingredient in a product and to know if it is GMO or not.

Again, I'm not saying the consumer doesn't have the right to know- I'm saying you are misrepresenting your position, since you are not fighting for consumer rights so everyone has the right to know- you are fighting for consumer rights because you want to call for a national ban, and you cannot do that unless they are identified as such.

>>> This industry wants to be in complete control of food.

Again, your unstated premise is showing- you aren't fighting for consumer rights- you are fighting against the big bad evil corporations- your message is not one of individual rights, but a wolf in sheeps clothing- claiming you are fighting for rights, when in reality your intention is being anti-corportation.

>>>The farmers spend more money than they would have had to if they chose "natural/organic methods" and the yields are no better according to studies done.

Source?

And if it earns farmers more, doesn't that mean the cost of food goes up?

--------------

>>>As bad as things are, they don't want to make things worse.

Exactly- you are promoting the ideal of "Better Dead than Fed"

>>> the problems with the introduction of the African bee to make more honey

And weren't the problems in that example instantly noticable? And yet, people are incapible of proving GMO's hold the same threat.

>>>That's not a problem for a rich country like America with a temperate rain-filled climate.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my assertions- African countries are rejecting aid- we aren't offering them seeds- we are offering them food- and they are rejecting it, because people spread lies and paranoid delusions
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 56
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/4/2009 6:46:30 PM
RE Msg: 65 by Jiperly:
>>>As bad as things are, they don't want to make things worse.

Exactly- you are promoting the ideal of "Better Dead than Fed"
Sorry, but I have never heard of such an expression. Do you mean "better to kill your own starving baby child, than give it food that you have plenty of?" I'm sorry, but the people I know who do that, are many supermarkets in the UK, who'd rather chuck out good food that's past its sell-by date, but NOT past its use-by date, rather than give it to the homeless. Looking at the military history of North America, which has had well over 200 conflicts in a little over 200 years, I'd expect to see such an attitude there more than Africa.

>>> the problems with the introduction of the African bee to make more honey

And weren't the problems in that example instantly noticable?
Unfortunately, people DIDN'T notice right these changes right away. It took quite a long while until there was clearly a problem. At the time, many scientists were dumbfounded, and for years, it was a real concern that Anerica would be totally colonised by killer bees, because no-one knew how to stop them.

And yet, people are incapible of proving GMO's hold the same threat.
As I said, rich and obese Americans don't really need to worry about not having enough food, as they have far more than they need, so if they want to play with GM food, no-one is that bothered, and really, no-one wants to fight Americans, not after Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, etc. It's Africans who don't have enough food, and need to play cautious, and they do play cautious.

>>>That's not a problem for a rich country like America with a temperate rain-filled climate.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my assertions- African countries are rejecting aid- we aren't offering them seeds- we are offering them food- and they are rejecting it, because people spread lies and paranoid delusions
Americans could eat their own grain, and just use the money to buy non-GM grain from other countries, and give them that instead. After all, Americans don't believe in forcing other people to eat MacDonalds, and worship Jesus, at the point of a gun, do they? If not, then why should they try to force people to eat GM food? Why not just take a simple option, that costs them nothing, and gives others the one thing that Americans prize above all others, the freedom to live as you want?
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 57
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/5/2009 5:25:07 PM
Jiperly it is you whom is ignoring the evidence. There are numerous studies that point to not only health consequences, but economic, and lower yields. Not to even bring up terminator genes and the potential dangers they pose.

You keep babbling the Biotech industries lines like you are a shill. I do know they hire many people to come into debates like this and spew their propaganda.

Let's be quite frank here shall we?

You keep bringing up the issue in Africa of how they turned down GM food and that some how this in your view made people starve. What you fail to tell is that they bought local grain that was not GM instead with the aid of the UN and Europe. There is more than enough food in the world to feed our human population double. It has never been a lack of natural foods that causes hunger. It is poverty, distribution and political. Part of the politics is the US aid will only support US corporate farms that grow GM food. I do not blame the government of Zambia for not going along with this. There are a whole host of reasons why they should not accept free GMO grain.

First, they may not wish to have GMO grain. It has never undergone human studies ever. It has been proven to cross with natural unmodified plants, there have been no long term tests on what damage this can cause but, already there are super weeds that have sprung up, as well as other farmers whom lost their livelihoods completely due to contamination of their fields through no fault of their own by GMO crops. Some of these farmers were then to add insult to injury sued for having GM crops in their field without buying the seed! They were the victims of cross contamination and already lost everything then they were sued on top of it!

I would not let these thugs nor their poisons and trash into my country either, especially when there is more than enough local food being grown in the nation to begin with.

Second, there is the issue of economics which I do not think you can possibly be so woefully ignorant of. IF a country has some starving people and some not which is the case of Zambia and you flood the nation with free grain, you destroy ALL of your local farmers. Whom is going to buy grain from their farmers if they can get it for free? You have just taken a problem and made it worse. If they took that grain they might have likely destroyed all hope of ever fixing the situation internally. They would have been 100% dependent on foreign corporate GMO aid. I wonder why these thugs wanted to make such a stink about them not taking the bait for their little trap? They try to come across as they are doing this to save the world but, nothing could be further from the truth. Someone needs to save the world from the biotech industry.



They like to say things like better dead than fed but, they dont tell the truth. The truth is the people were fed with locally purchased non-gmo grain, with the aid of the UN, from local farmers, so as not to cause a greater catastrophe economically and politically speaking.

Again the Biotech industry and their shills act like people cant put 2 and 2 together and wont figure this stuff out.


Further



3. How the US violates the Food Aid Convention

The US is a signatory of the 1999 Food Aid Convention, which recognises that food aid should be bought from the most cost effective source, be culturally acceptable and if possible purchased locally so that regional markets do not suffer. Despite this...

*The US is refusing southern African governments loans that are not tied to the purchase of GM contaminated grain from the US.
*The US says it is impossible for it to provide anything other than GM contaminated grain in spite of the fact that 50% of US elevators can and do segregate GM and non-GM grains
*The US refuses to mill the GM grain even though African countries facing famine have requested this
*The US boasts that "The principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance programs has always been the United States"
*The US introduced Public Law 480 to ensure that food aid never interfered with "domestic production or marketing"
*USAID also states one of its roles is to "integrate GM into local food systems."

can be found here
http://ngin.tripod.com/191002a.htm

Further you claim erroneously that organic farming has a higher cost than GM food. That is absolutely false. I have long been opposed to the high costs at the store of organic food. It should be cheaper than conventional not more expensive. The issue is people are so used to paying more that if you try to sell it for less they wont think it is organic.

It is FAR cheaper to farm Organic the thing that drives the prices high is two faceted. First in many locals it is supply and demand the demand outweighs the supply. Second it is what I stated above. I have seen it first hand where local farmers will try to sell organic food for cheaper prices and people start to not believe it is organic.


Tell me how you think organic is more expensive to produce than GM?

Can save your seed. no need for fertilizers nor pesticides no need for herbicide etc. Where do you see the HUGE costs that you can think that GM products save farmers money?

Then there is your constant yield claims which btw have been shown to be false in a Kansas study. In fact it came out that conventional or organic both have higher yields than GM. Yields are not modified in the products they have out there. The area of farming that has the most effect on yields is traditional selective breeding and not the syringe injected frankenplants.

There are many reasons for this but, most importantly is they are not concerned with really making yields higher, they are making herbicide resistant and BT products. This will have nothing to do with yields but, more with "pest" control and weed management.

Scientists and genetics people have said it is unlikely that any improvement to yields will come from GMOs. What they do claim is a good route to go for higher yields is what they call SuperOrganics which is where they study the genes of plants and find the best plants to cross naturally to get better yields. Sounds a lot smarter to me by far with far less potential for ill effects than haphazardly playing with things on the genetic level forcefully stuffing animal, virus and bacteria genes into plants.


Jiperly, I love how you try to tell me what or why I think something. You claim this is all about politics for me. You are wrong. I believe people have the right to choose what they put into their bodies. I believe no matter why they would choose not to eat something that it is their right to choose. Be it religious, health, political, or any other reason they have the right as a consumer to know exactly what they are buying.

I would not be calling for a boycott of anything if they labeled it. The people would do what they felt was right on an individual basis, and since things would be labeled they would be able to make that choice themselves.

Besides you think my one voice is going to be louder than the biotech industries propaganda machine that would claim all manner of lies to make people ok with it?

I am not here at all to fear monger but call for people to look into the history of these corporations. Look at the times they were busted with junk science when they got things like Dioxin, and agent orange allowed and called "safe" at one time.

Look how long it took for science to finally catch up look into these matters and determine they were not at all safe as the companies promised.

The same is going on here with these products. These companies are in no way regulated on this other than they have to prove that their product has the same nutritional value. If they do that it is considered safe! No inspection, no regulation, no long term studies, no long term or short term tests on humans. Nothing..... Just free reign to run amok as usual.

Again I am not opposed to the study of such things at all. I think they should have to find a way to prove that they have effective methods to keep these things from getting into the wild and permit them and regulate them.

It should not at this time be allowed for human consumption until it is proven without a doubt, that not only safety for consumption but, all of the other issues that deal with biodiversity, contamination of other types of farms, economic issues etc.

So far the research has shown serious flaws in the assumptions and promises of the companies responsible.

Google the studies read some of it.

Google the history of monsanto in particular and their getting busted red handed paying a company to do junk science for them with other products. Do you honestly believe they changed their tune and wish to now all of a sudden "save humanity?"



There is also the other issue of terminator genes/traitor genes... Google it!

To sum it up in a nut shell. It is a technology that purposely makes a plant seeds as they ripen die/become sterile on the genetic level...

Basically it further puts a noose around the necks of farmers and adds razor blades to it.


Lets think about this for a moment beyond just how bad of an idea it is to put a plant into the wild that purposefully terminates it's potential to reproduce completely and the probability that it will get into the wild and cause all kinds of havoc. Let's put that potential problem to the side for a second and think only about the farmers...

This sets up a scenario where poor farmers will have no choice but, to reap huge profits in order to be able to afford to buy the seeds every year and all the chemicals they require from the biotech industry whom, reaps the cash on the sales of the poisons as well as the frankenplants that live in the poisoned soil.

If they fail somehow to sell their crops for high enough profits they will not be able to continue the next year. They will loose their farms and in many instances of extremely poor areas and nations die.

Even if there is a spike in surplus food they could lose it all!

They will not being losing their lives because of a bad year and or crop failure but, if they cannot make a good enough profit. ie supply goes up prices crash and pow they cannot buy their seeds from Monsanto next year. The fields which they have likely inundated with round up will not grow other crops not genetically modified to live in the poisoned soil....

All of this makes it possible to kick poorer family farmers off their land because they cannot pay their debts to Monsanto..... This is all being established to benefit only the multinational corporations and the corporate farms.

There are a great many reasons to be opposed to GMO.

Study into it. I listened to both sides. Everything I was promised by people whom own stock in monstanto that I know personally, to people whom worked in the biotech industry that I spoke to have been either lies or broken promises.

I was told early on that there is no way these things will spread to the wild or to infect other farms via cross pollination. That was a lie they told me personally. It has been proven false. A farmer in Canada not only lost his farm and livelihood he was then sued by Monsanto whom won the case when their GM crops infected his farm.

Google it
Monsanto sued Schmeiser for growing Roundup Ready Canola

In a case where the farmer should have been able to sue Monsanto for contaminating his fields and destroying his business, the patent laws made it to where Monsanto sued him.

There is a long list of reasons to be opposed to GMOs and I can think of non to be for them unless you only care about big corporate profits and domination of the food supply.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 58
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/5/2009 6:08:03 PM
One more thing while I am at it. Since I know you will likely harp of Organic price compared to conventional etc. If the US government would subsidize organic farms like they do conventional the price could be as low or lower than conventional..

The price of conventional produce in this country is artificially driven down by government subsidies. The fact of the matter is if the government stop subsidizing conventional farms they would spike in price and come to an equal level or higher than organics. It is a bit of a complicated matter to be sure but, I have always wanted to see Organics sold at a lower rate maybe we will see in the future subsidies of these kinds of sustainable agriculture as opposed to only subsidizing mega farms that use "conventional" and gmo products. Then things will be on a more level economic playing field.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 59
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 6/6/2009 3:26:28 PM
Jip you asking for people whom have been injured or died from GMOs



The Story of the food supplement L-Tryptophan that in 1987 was genetically engineeered for the first time and put on the market without any safety testing, resulting in the deaths of 37 people and permanently disabling 1500 more.


http://www.nwrage.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=468



Tryptophan Summary

November 1997 John B. Fagan, Ph.D.

Food supplements, such as amino acids, are often manufactured by fermentative processes, in which large quantities of bacteria are grown in vats, and the food supplement is extracted from the bacteria and purified. One amino acid, tryptophan has been produced in this way for many years. In the late 1980's the company Showa Denko K.K. decided to use genetic engineering to accelerate and increase the efficiency of tryptophan production. They genetically engineered bacteria by inserting several genes that caused the bacteria to express certain enzymes at much higher levels than normal and to express other enzymes that are not normally present in the original bacteria.

The enzymes expressed in these bacteria through genetic engineering altered cellular metabolism substantially, leading to greatly increased production of tryptophan. These genetically engineered bacteria were immediately used in commercial production of tryptophan, and the product placed on the market in the USA in 1988. According to US law, Showa Denko was allowed to sell the tryptophan produced in genetically engineered bacteria without safety testing because they and other companies had been selling tryptophan produced in non-genetically engineered bacteria for years without ill effects. It was considered that the method of production (whether via natural or genetically engineered bacteria) was immaterial and that, since tryptophan had already been shown to be safe, the new material needed no testing. In effect they considered it substantially equivalent to the tryptophan that had been sold for many years.

This product was placed on the market, and within a few months it caused the deaths of 37 people and caused 1500 more to be permanently disabled (1). It took months to discover that the poisoning was due to toxin present in the tryptophan produced using Showa Denko's genetically engineered bacteria (1, 2). One factor that contributed to this time delay was the fact that the product was not labeled to distinguish it from tryptophan produced through conventional methods.

The disease caused by this toxic product was called eosinophilia myalgia syndrome or EMS, because the initial symptoms were elevated numbers of blood cells called eosinophils and myalgia (muscle pain). Over time many other symptoms developed in patients that led in some cases to death and in many other cases to serious long term disability. These symptoms included paralysis and neurological problems, painful swelling and cracking of the skin, heart problems, memory and cognitive deficits, headaches, extreme light sensitivity, fatigue, and heart problems (3,4).

It was later shown that the tryptophan produced in genetically engineered bacteria contained one or more highly toxic contaminants. The most prominent of these, called EBT, was identified as a dimerization product of tryptophan. It comprised less than 0.1% of the total weight of the product, yet that was enough to kill people (1). Based on fundamental chemical and biochemical principles, scientists have deduced that this compound was probably generated when the concentration of tryptophan within the bacteria reached such high levels that tryptophan molecules or their precursors began to react with each other (5). Thus, it appears that genetic manipulationsled to increased tryptophan biosynthesis, which led to increased cellular levels of tryptophan and precursors. At these high levels, these compounds reacted with themselves, generating a deadly toxin. Being chemically quite similar to tryptophan, this toxin was not easily separated from tryptophan, and contaminated the final commercial product at levels that were highly toxic to consumers.

Significant areas of ambiguity remain even today regarding this incident. Showa Denko has never released the genetically engineered bacterial strain that was used to produce the toxic tryptophan. Thus, independent scientists have been unable to study its characteristics and understand precisely the source of the toxin. Showa Denko claim that they destroyed all stocks of the bacteria when the toxicity problems first began to emerge (2). Such research would not only have provided data useful in assessment of the risks of genetically engineered organisms, but it would also have been useful to victims of tryptophan toxicity and their families, who eventually filed suits totaling over two billion dollars against this company.


I know some have tried to claim that it had to do with filtration to attempt to draw the blame away from the biotech industry but that has been shot down as well by scientists from the very company itself here is the quote of the lawyer whom represented the firm..



"That possibility is discounted by scientists at Showa Denko, says Richard Hinds, a Washington lawyer who represents the Japanese firm. The amount of powdered carbon used for filtration had varied before without ill effect, and it was not unusual for it to dip this low, Hinds says."


Can read a more in depth bit here
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=277


Further another GM product aspartame is well known to cause 92 reported medical issues 2 of those issues include blindness and death.


These GM substances are being allowed with zero oversight. They are letting companies that brought us and did junk science to say that dioxin was safe when we know full well today that it is not, to self regulate. These companies obviously do not care one bit about public safety.




Factsheet: Monsanto's Sordid History
From the Center for Food Safety

Monsanto, best know today for its agricultural biotechnology products, has a long and dirty history of polluting this country and others with some of the most toxic compounds known to humankind. From PCBs to Agent Orange to Roundup, we have many reasons to question the motives of this company that claims to be working to reduce environmental destruction and feed the world with its genetically engineered food crops.

* Headquartered near St. Louis, Missouri, the Monsanto Chemical Company was founded in 1901. Monsanto became a leading manufacturer of sulfuric acid and other industrial chemicals in the 1920s. In the 1930s, Monsanto began producing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs, widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders.
* The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated. Dioxins are endocrine and immune system disruptors, cause congenital birth defects, reproductive and developmental problems, and increase the incidence of cancer, heart disease and diabetes in laboratory animals.
* By the 1940s, Monsanto had begun focusing on plastics and synthetic fabrics like polystyrene (still widely used in food packaging and other consumer products), which is ranked fifth in the EPA’s 1980s listing of chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste.
* During World War II, Monsanto played a significant role in the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb.
* Following the war, Monsanto championed the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture, and began manufacturing the herbicide 2,4,5-T, which contains dioxin. Monsanto has been accused of covering up or failing to report dioxin contamination in a wide range of its products.
* The herbicide “Agent Orange,” used by U.S. military forces as a defoliant during the Vietnam War, was a mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D and had very high concentrations of dioxin. U.S. Vietnam War veterans have suffered from a host of debilitating symptoms attributable to Agent Orange exposure, and since the end of the war an estimated 500,000 Vietnamese children have been born with deformities.
* In the 1970s, Monsanto began manufacturing the herbicide Roundup, which has been marketed as a safe, general-purpose herbicide for widespread commercial and consumer use, even though its key ingredient, glyphosate, is a highly toxic poison for animals and humans. In 1997, The New York State Attorney General took Monsanto to court and Monsanto was subsequently forced to stop claiming that Roundup is “biodegradable” and “environmentally friendly.”
* Monsanto has been repeatedly fined and ruled against for, among many things, mislabeling containers of Roundup, failing to report health data to EPA, and chemical spills and improper chemical deposition. In 1995, Monsanto ranked fifth among U.S. corporations in EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, having discharged 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land, water and underground.
* Since the inception of Plan Colombia in 2000, the US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in funding aerial sprayings of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicides in Colombia. The Roundup is often applied in concentrations 26 times higher than what is recommended for agricultural use. Additionally, it contains at least one surfactant, Cosmo-Flux 411f, whose ingredients are a trade secret, has never been approved for use in the US, and which quadruples the biological action of the herbicide.
* Not surprisingly, numerous human health impacts have been recorded in the areas affected by the sprayings, including respiratory, gastrointestinal and skin problems, and even death, especially in children. Additionally, fish and animals will show up dead in the hours and days subsequent to the herbicide sprayings.
* In the 1980s and early 1990s, Monsanto was behind the aggressive promotion of synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone, approved by the FDA for commercial sale in 1994, despite strong concerns about its safety. Since then, Monsanto has sued small dairy companies that advertised their products as free of the artificial hormone, most recently bringing a lawsuit against Oakhurst Dairy in Maine.
* In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.

Sources:
Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber, Trust Us, We’re Experts (New York, NY: Penguin Putnam, 2002).
Brian Tokar, “Monsanto: A Checkered History,” The Ecologist, Sept./Oct. 1998
CBS News, 60 Minutes: Herbicide Problems, January 14, 2002


http://www.monsantowatch.org/index.php?page=none

Here are a bunch of actual internal FDA documents that were released showing the internal dialog and recommendation of scientists to regulate this industry that were for the most part ignored. This industry is not regulated at all. If they can prove the same nutritional values as a conventionally grown plant it is automatically considered equivalent and "safe."

Have a look for yourself that this was NOT the recommendations of the scientific community at all!

http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/index.html

Here is a document that details how concerns about this industry are scientifically justified.

The name of it is..

WHY CONCERNS ABOUT HEALTH RISKS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ARE SCIENTIFICALLY JUSTIFIED

by Steven M. Druker

http://www.biointegrity.org/health-risks/health-risks-ge-foods.htm

can learn more here.
http://www.biointegrity.org/
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 60
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/13/2009 3:07:42 PM
This movie looks like it will cover the issues well enough..

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

There is a trailer there as well and ways to get involved on political level.

We need to get more involved in knowing what is going on with our food and think films like this that brings up the GMO issue among others is a good step forward to people getting informed enough to be able to make educated choices.. These products must be labeled.



This is what the site for the movie had to say on this issue.



Genetically Engineered Food

The genetic engineering of plants and animals is looming as one of the greatest and most intractable environmental challenges of the 21st Century. Already, this novel technology has invaded our grocery stores and our kitchen pantries by fundamentally altering some of our most important staple food crops.

By being able to take the genetic material from one organism and insert it into the permanent genetic code of another, biotechnologists have engineered numerous novel creations, such as potatoes with bacteria genes, "super" pigs with human growth genes, fish with cattle growth genes, tomatoes with flounder genes, and thousands of other plants, animals and insects. At an alarming rate, these creations are now being patented and released into the environment.

Currently, up to 45 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as is 85 percent of soybeans. It has been estimated that 70-75 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves--from soda to soup, crackers to condiments--contain genetically engineered ingredients.

A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer. As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture could lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material.

Despite these long-term and wide-ranging risks, Congress has yet to pass a single law intended to manage them responsibly. This despite the fact that our regulatory agencies have failed to adequately address the human health or environmental impacts of genetic engineering. On the federal level, eight agencies attempt to regulate biotechnology using 12 different statutes or laws that were written long before genetically engineered food, animals and insects became a reality. The result has been a regulatory tangle, where any regulation even exists, as existing laws are grossly manipulated to manage threats they were never intended to regulate. Among many bizarre examples of these regulatory anomalies is the current attempt by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate genetically engineered fish as "new animal drugs."

The haphazard and negligent agency regulation of biotechnology has had serious consequences for consumers and the environment. Unsuspecting consumers by the tens of millions are being allowed to purchase and consume unlabeled genetically engineered foods, despite a finding by FDA scientists that these foods could pose serious risks. And new genetically engineered crops are being approved by federal agencies despite admissions that they will contaminate native and conventional plants and pose other significant new environmental threats. In short, there has been a complete abdication of any responsible legislative or regulatory oversight of genetically engineered foods. Clearly, now is a critical time to challenge the government's negligence in managing the human health and environmental threats from biotechnology.

CFS seeks to prevent the approval, commercialization or release of any new genetically engineered crops until they have been thoroughly tested and found safe for human health and the environment. CFS maintains that any foods that already contain genetically engineered ingredients must be clearly labeled.





Seems a reasonable and sound approach to the issue.
 membrane
Joined: 8/12/2008
Msg: 61
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/13/2009 3:58:37 PM
i see nothing wrong with geneticaly modifying plants in order to grow food in places that food canot be grown, to have large crop yealds...

but i believe in sustanability, and corparation having a monpoly of food production is a step backward to this, in this time of ressesion, comanies all over are failing and going broke, what if this one did.... would the entier earth be foreced to starve because our crops are unstastainable? i see somthing sieriously wrong with this.

soon i see not even being able to get water without paying for it, most of us allready do.. but emagion being punished for trying to collect rain water because your family is thiersty and you canot afford water food and rent all that the same time

"they give you what you need to get by, but never what you need to get ahead"
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 62
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/13/2009 8:08:44 PM
It makes no difference how the modifications are achieved.


False. Terminator grain would be an impossibility using the ancient technique of selective breeding for traits.

The commonly used "shotgun" approach for genetic modification introduces much more than then the "target" trait and could (theoretically) produce prion proteins in organisms that could be transferred to those who eat such GMOs to devastating effect.

We are all by now familiar with the end result of "recycling" animals as feed for other food animals, so I won't go into "mad cow disease" except to mention that the latency period for a human getting it from eating these prions is ridiculously long (to the point that we may not see an epidimic of it for some years yet, for beef we ate in the 1980s. Unless we are vegetarians, we may well have ingested a time bomb that could go off at any time, killing us horribly.

This is only one of the problems involved when we tamper with the natural order, and all we did there was economize by feeding animals to herbivores in the interests of economy, efficiency and of course, profit.

Considering the projected 60 year mean latency period associated with Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis, the idea that prions that have yet to be detected (because nobody's looking for them) in GMOs could do a similar number on people (to include vegetarians this time) doesn't seem so outlandish. We may have already condemned ourselves to death by eating GMO grain in the 1990s (when it first became generally available).

Considering the risks and the deliberate lack of research into the safety of GMOs, I have long ago personally resolved to eat only certified organic foods. This is no guarantee of safety of course, especially when one considers that it is only in the last five or six years that I've been doing so, but I feel it does help to minimize my risk. The people I feel sorriest for are the ones who are forced to eat GMOs owing to the price of real organic food. If what I think will come to pass happens sometime in the next 10 or 20 years, these will be the people who will suffer most acutely from our society's pursuit of profit at all costs.

For Myself, I'll just be shorting Monsanto and some of the other evil food & drug corporatons. I'll be watching the news, and when the sh!t starts hitting the fan, short them for every nickel I can raise. I expect to make a tidy little bundle off their inevitable downfall.
 membrane
Joined: 8/12/2008
Msg: 63
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/13/2009 8:29:22 PM
"that just depends on how much poop hits the rotaing blades"
 Is too hot
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 64
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/13/2009 11:24:27 PM

False. Terminator grain would be an impossibility using the ancient technique of selective breeding for traits.

Hmmm. So you're saying that all plants generated by cross-breeding were fertile?


Unless we are vegetarians, we may well have ingested a time bomb that could go off at any time, killing us horribly

Nope. You may want to read up on what real prions are before making up fantasy versions.


This is only one of the problems involved when we tamper with the natural order...

Looks like the Luddites are back.

You may want to read up on the science. What you've written is nonsense. First, you apparently don't know what prions are and how they work. Secondly, you don't know enough about genetics to wet the tip of your little finger.

Let's just put it this way: GMO food is not dangerous. The OP has consistently attacked all dissenters with accusations of their being industry shills. He subsequently maintains that he has scientific studies that establish causation of disease by GMO food but has failed to cite such (links to GMO-protest groups are not citations). I would wager that none of it is peer reviewed. Moreover, this is very costly technology. Anyone with half a brain would see from the ever-increasing use of GMO seed that the technology has proven itself. No epidemiological evidence of any harm whatsoever.

Anyway, thanks for playing, guys! This is why people should get their science from scientists and not the terminally perplexed. Tin hats are nice elsewhere but not welcome here.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 65
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/14/2009 3:49:51 AM
So you're saying that all plants generated by cross-breeding were fertile?

No; I'm saying you can't selectively breed infertility as a trait by pollination unless you start with pollen from "sterilized" plants. It's pretty hard to do that with natural pollen which doesn't already carry the "sterility" trait.


You may want to read up on what real prions are before making up fantasy versions.

Are you saying it is physically impossible for GMO plants to contain them; or that all prions are animal proteins?


Looks like the Luddites are back.


I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or an insult. While the industrial revolution lowered the cost of desirable goods, it came at a tremendous hidden cost that I would submit most thinking people of today would rather not pay if they knew. Ted Kazinsky may have been a little off in the brain (made obvious by his method), but many of his observations were right on the money (read his manifesto - quite fascinating).


You may want to read up on the science. What you've written is nonsense. First, you apparently don't know what prions are and how they work. Secondly, you don't know enough about genetics to wet the tip of your little finger.


Now that you've finished your little rant, Let's see if you can provide the biochemical evidence to back up your claims. That's right, I'm calling you out and calling your bluff. Refute my allegations with science, not meaningless rhetoric.


GMO food is not dangerous.

Right there I can see you don't know your a$$ from ahole in the ground. If you did, you'd know that what you said is not a statement of fact at all. It is instead a very dangerous assumption.


The OP has consistently attacked all dissenters with accusations of their being industry shills. He subsequently maintains that he has scientific studies that establish causation of disease by GMO food but has failed to cite such (links to GMO-protest groups are not citations).


That is of course not my assertion, and I did not read that assertion in the OP. So where did it come from?..a lame attempt to discredit that POV with a red herring?


Tin hats are nice elsewhere but not welcome here.

Spoken like a professional "debunker" to discourage further debate. Sorry...I'm not buying it. To phrase it more accurately, I don't wear a tin hat. BTW, you can take the tin pot off your head. As someone playing soldier in the "debunker" army, you couldn't even rank as a "private." You just aren't that good at it. You'll have to call in the reserves.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 66
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/14/2009 4:48:53 AM
RE Msg: 78 by JustDukky:
No; I'm saying you can't selectively breed infertility as a trait by pollination unless you start with pollen from "sterilized" plants. It's pretty hard to do that with natural pollen which doesn't already carry the "sterility" trait.
Not exactly the whole story. It's very possible to breed infertility, if the plants that are cross-bred, are so far apart as species, that their combined DNA suffers too much difference to be capable of reproduction. Such results have been known to occur by artificial selection.

But, provided you choose to cross-breed very similar species, a high level of results are likely to be capable of reproduction.

This is all well-known to farmers and gardeners who have been cross-breeding plants and animals for many years.

I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or an insult. While the industrial revolution lowered the cost of desirable goods, it came at a tremendous hidden cost that I would submit most thinking people of today would rather not pay if they knew. Ted Kazinsky may have been a little off in the brain (made obvious by his method), but many of his observations were right on the money (read his manifesto - quite fascinating).
The Industrial Revolution did help us a lot. But few considered that it might cause undesirable side-effects, like global warming caused by pollution. Everything needs to be in moderation, and not taken to extremes. The problems of the Industrial Revolution resulted from the fact that it looked to be so promising to solve so many of humanity's problems, that people started believing the hype, became over-confident in industrialisation, and stopped even thinking that there might be side-effects, or that if there were, that those side-effects could averted by simple changes in how industries managed themselves. People believed that if there were any side-effects, that they could not be avoided without dismantling industrialisation altogether, thus concluding that the benefits were worth the side-effects, and the ends justified the means.

I was watching the Richard Dimbleby lecture yesterday, when Prince Charles said something very interesting about Henry VIII:
Perhaps it is not so well known that Henry instigated the very first piece of green legislation in this country.

In ordering the building of a great many ships, Henry effectively founded the Royal Navy. But shipbuilding needed vast amounts of wood and there came a moment when Henry realized that creating his new fleet was putting too much strain on the natural supply of wood, particularly oak and if something was not done, the country would run out of timber. And so, in 1543, he created a law, “the Preservation of Woods,” which stated that if any number of mature oak trees was cut down, twelve had to be left standing in the same acre, and none could be touched until each of them was of a certain maturity. It was a simple and rather elegant piece of long-term thinking.
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/index.html

Back in 1543, we had laws that required sustainable resources, by requiring that when trees were cut down, that new trees are planted. Yet we're still not doing this in places like the rainforests.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 67
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/14/2009 7:45:35 AM
@ Art

<div class="quote">Nobody has EVER been harmed by ingesting a GMO.
How about Morgellon's disease sufferers for instance? There is recent evidence to suggest a correlation between it and GMOs. What about a correlation between GMOs (GM corn in particular) and the increase in allergic reactions? Are you going to state categorically that it's all bullsh!t, or will you modify your statement to read: "As yet, there is no confirmed evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by ingesting GMOs."?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 68
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/14/2009 10:41:21 AM

You will all die from the pointless stress you put on yourselves worrying about every little conspiracy theory that comes along. Sheesh.


What makes you think that concern about possible toxicity of the food we all have to live on is a conspiracy theory? Are you against research into GMO safety & efficacy? Do you have shares in Monsanto that you don't seem to care that they are patenting things that should never have been patented, or that they are trying (quite successfully) to get a monopoly on the world's food supply? How do you feel about all the farmer suicides in India resulting from the false promises of GMO cotton?
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 69
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/14/2009 10:43:13 AM
>>>There is recent evidence to suggest a correlation between it (Morgellons Disease) and GMOs. What about a correlation between GMOs (GM corn in particular) and the increase in allergic reactions?

Should we stop growing GMO's because of this possible correlation? Or does that merely warrant increased investgation and the continuation of holding GMO's to a greater stardard of scrunity to that of regular foods, as we are doing now?

Something no one here who opposes GMO's likes to admit, but GMO's have to overcome far greater safety standards than regular goods.

>>>Are you going to state categorically that it's all bullsh!t, or will you modify your statement to read: "As yet, there is no confirmed evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by ingesting GMOs."?

No, because "As Yet" implies there is evidence that has not yet been discovered- which is, in effect, an attempt of predicting the future- that you honestly believe that actual proof is unnessary to condemn the product. If there is evidence of someone being harmed by something, then there is evidence- but don't condemn and chastize people for not making the assumption that something is harmful because you feel it is without any CONCLUSIVE evidence for why. Like other users and myself has said, thats paranoia.

>>>GMOs never harmed anyone: rampant rise in food allergies... just coincidence. Right?

You're saying there are nothing else that could cause this? Unhealthy diets? Chemical Additives? Pollution or Poor Air Quality? Genetic disposition towards allergies? Some doctors even believe that some allergies can be caused by living in a home thats too sterile.

Its been discovered that parasites, in order to survive, weaken our immune system- thanks to our routine chlorination and purification of our drinking water, the chances of parasites has decreased, which increased the sensitivity of our immune system, and thus the body attacks allergins rather than diseases....It certainly would explain many good questions, like why industrialized nations have a greater chance for allergies, and why people living in urban areas have a greater chance of getting allergies rather than the people living in rural areas, who handle tens of thousands of pounds of this apparently dangerous foods

But you wish to wash away all known causes, in fear of the Boogieman. Despite GMO's being overwhelmingly produced and consumed in our country, and a history of allergies that predates genetic manipluation of food, you have the gall to claim that the vast majority of allergies is caused by genetic research of the last 50 years, without so much as a shread of evidence other than possible correlation.

Not that it matters much- the OP of this topic, and constant reviver of it, has made it very clear- the evidence supporting the claims isn't whats important- its the mission to get the food banned that is.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 70
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/14/2009 12:15:08 PM

the continuation of holding GMO's to a greater stardard of scrunity to that of regular foods, as we are doing now?


Why shouldn't they be held to a greater standard of scrutiny? The natural foods have been around for thousands if not millions of years and have demonstrated their safety. For instance, we've known for thousands of years which mushrooms are poisonous and which are good to eat. We also learned long ago that some mushrooms that look like edible ones are actually poisonous, so we learned that what looks like food isn't necessarily food. Just because somebody doesn't drop dead immediately after eating a new GMO food is no reason to consider its safety proved. Maybe after a hundred years of ingestion, we'll be able to look at a specific GMO and say "Yeah, it's good to eat". Anything much less than that time period is bound to reduce our confidence in it as a food. To consider them so safe that they are marketed everywhere and fed to everybody after only a few years is not only foolhardy, it's downright stupid, especially when you consider that the GMO varieties have squeezed the safe, proven, natural foods out of the market to the extent that they are now expensive and hard to find, since few farmers still grow them.


"As Yet" implies there is evidence that has not yet been discovered- which is, in effect, an attempt of predicting the future


That's a false assumption coming from an erroneous interpretation of the term "as yet"; so it doesn't imply that at all. "As yet" is equivalent to saying "to date" and only means that to the present point in time, no confirmed evidence exists. It says nothing about the future, or possible existence of evidence whatsoever. All it does is allow for the possibility in case some shows up in the future. It was actually Art's statement that amounted to a prediction of the future, since it was presented as an established fact that GMOs were perfectly safe and that no evidence would ever come up to contradict that.


You're saying there are nothing else that could cause this? Unhealthy diets? Chemical Additives? Pollution or Poor Air Quality? Genetic disposition towards allergies? Some doctors even believe that some allergies can be caused by living in a home thats too sterile.


Well, I'm not saying that, but let's look at your proposed alternatives. People have been basically eating an unhealthy diet for many decades now, though the case could be made that recent years have shown an increase in healthy eating as the population becomes more health conscious. In either event, it is unlikely that a dietary change to healthier eating would produce an increase in food allergies, just as it is unlikely that no change in overall diet would either, so I think we can rule out dietary habits as a variable likely to cause such a change. Chemical additives? A distinct possibility if we can show the introduction of new ones, or change in allowable amounts occurred when the per capita number of food allergies began to spike. Genetic predisposition is highly unlikely unless we can show a large number of genetic mutations in the population (and hopefully attribute something as a probable cause for that). I'll ignore the "doctors" hypothesis for now, since that generally doesn't pertain to food allergies.

I'm not saying that GMOs are the cause of the increase in food allergies, but if the spike can be seen to start in the early to mid 1990s, GMOs ecome a prime suspect correlationally speaking and should be rigorously investigated. That is not being done however, because it would not be profitable to have to take products off the market when it is so much easier & cheaper just to buy off a few politicians to keep the FDA from looking too closely.


the OP of this topic, and constant reviver of it, has made it very clear- the evidence supporting the claims isn't whats important- its the mission to get the food banned that is.


Whatever the OPs agenda may be, mine is that we shouldn't allow the most evil corporations on earth to get near monopoly positions on the food supply, or to play God with our sustenance. We also should not be patenting life, or even self replicating machines and the laws regarding such patents will have to be replaced with laws more in keeping with the original idea of patent protection.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 71
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/15/2009 12:10:05 PM
>>>Why shouldn't they be held to a greater standard of scrutiny?

Why shouldn't all foods be held to such a high level of scrunity? Couldn't normally produced crops equally hold risks? Why single out GMO's, esspecially when no conclusive evidence for any risks has been identified?

>>>The natural foods have been around for thousands if not millions of years and have demonstrated their safety.

And what of foods that have been manipluated, only not on a genetic level? Idaho Potatoes are just over a 100 years old- why do you not demand they be held to a greater level of scrunity than strains that have been around for 500 years?

>>> Just because somebody doesn't drop dead immediately after eating a new GMO food is no reason to consider its safety proved.

Couldn't that apply to *ANY* food? And, again, why should we fear something like this without any conclusive evidence?

>>>Maybe after a hundred years of ingestion, we'll be able to look at a specific GMO and say "Yeah, it's good to eat"

Odd- you don't seem to hold the same opinion when discussing Russet Burbank potato- Do you believe they were unfit for markets up until the 1970's?

>>>Anything much less than that time period is bound to reduce our confidence in it as a food.

Why?? And, again, without any certified reason as to why we should lose confidence- just paranoia?

>>> especially when you consider that the GMO varieties have squeezed the safe, proven, natural foods out of the market to the extent that they are now expensive and hard to find, since few farmers still grow them.

Because they are better- these "safe proven natural foods" require more pesticides and herbicides, are less productive, and that less production means increased costs t0 the farmer, which is then sent on down to the consumer. They aren't more expensive because they're rare- they're more expensive because its more difficult to grow them.

>>>"As yet" is equivalent to saying "to date" and only means that to the present point in time, no confirmed evidence exists.

Kinda like if I were to say "As Yet, no one has gotten Herpes from buying a used car"

>>>though the case could be made that recent years have shown an increase in healthy eating as the population becomes more health conscious.

The increased number of adults that live with obesity, heart disease and diabetes seems to disagree with this assertion

>>>I'm not saying that GMOs are the cause of the increase in food allergies

It certainly seemed like you have;


What about a correlation between GMOs (GM corn in particular) and the increase in allergic reactions?


>>>we shouldn't allow the most evil corporations on earth to get near monopoly positions on the food supply, or to play God with our sustenance.

When in doubt, blame the evil corporations- not the consumers.

>>>We also should not be patenting life

Again, odd- its been that way since the 1930's.......
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 72
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/15/2009 1:47:41 PM

Why single out GMO's, esspecially when no conclusive evidence for any risks has been identified?

If the evidence was conclusive, there would be no need to investigate.

what of foods that have been manipluated, only not on a genetic level? Idaho Potatoes are just over a 100 years old- why do you not demand they be held to a greater level of scrunity than strains that have been around for 500 years?

50 years ago I would have said they SHOULD be held to greater scrutiny, but I figure if no problems have turned up in about 100 years, the food is probably quite safe.

Couldn't that apply to *ANY* food? And, again, why should we fear something like this without any conclusive evidence?

Yes it should apply to any food; as regards conclusive evidence, see above.

Do you believe they were unfit for markets up until the 1970's

Not unfit for market, but certainly subject to scrutiny. Of course, in no way should they ever have been allowed to replace older (and therefore safer) foods, at least not until they had proved their safety (under scrutiny) over that 100 year period.

Why?? And, again, without any certified reason as to why we should lose confidence- just paranoia?

a shorter time period necessarily entails a higher risk that long term harm could result. Cutting it to about a human lifespan is probably reasonable, but less than that reduces confidence in safety considerably. There is a distinct difference between prudence and paranoia. I suggest you learn the distinction.

Because they are better

No, because they earn royalties through the patents for the corporations that own the rights.

They aren't more expensive because they're rare- they're more expensive because its more difficult to grow them.

That's a false assumption on your part (do you really believe Monsanto's propaganda?), as you'd know if you looked into the marketing of economically inferior (low yield, expensive to grow) GMO crops (as many of them are)

Kinda like if I were to say "As Yet, no one has gotten Herpes from buying a used car"


The increased number of adults that live with obesity, heart disease and diabetes seems to disagree with this assertion

True. The population seems to be breaking into two "camps" those who care about their health enough to exercise & eat right and those who don't care enough to stop eating that poison we call "junk food" with years of daily exposure to "trans fats" that destroy hearts, excess sugars that cause diabetes, excess salt that causes hypertension, etc, etc. Have they banned trans fats yet? Why? "Everybody" was selling them and eating them for several years; weren't they safe?

When in doubt, blame the evil corporations- not the consumers.

The consumers didn't ask for GMOs, they were foisted on to us by corporations making obscene profits at our expense by hiding the fact that they were introducing GMOs into the market without even our consent by ensuring that GMO content would not appear in the labelling of foods. By the time I found out about it, I discovered I'd already been eating them for about three years and didn't even know because I thought it would be in the ingredient labelling. To say I was outraged would be a gross understatement!

Again, odd- its been that way since the 1930's...

Through an oversight, yes, in the US, but not in Canada, though the "free trade" deals and Monsanto's lobbying of the Canadian government soon took care of that, at least insofar as plants are concerned. Fortunately we still don't allow patents on animal life, but that's a far cry from what our patent laws used to be, when they were sensible.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 73
view profile
History
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/15/2009 3:23:23 PM
Jiperly, You continually claim that GMO are held under higher scrutiny than natural foods. You are either purposefully spreading misinformation or woefully ignorant of the severe lack of regulation going on here. All the makers of GMO have to prove is that the nutritional values are identical to natural plants and they are automatically deemed equivalent. There is no regulation no oversight and there has only been a woefully negligent amount of studies done none of which are to be considered long term by any means. You claimed they have been regulated more than orgainic?? Where you get this myth from? To grow Organic you have to be constantly inspected, and certified.. To make a GMO you have to prove it is same nutritionally and it is automatically considered safe...



>>>Why shouldn't they be held to a greater standard of scrutiny?

Why shouldn't all foods be held to such a high level of scrunity? Couldn't normally produced crops equally hold risks? Why single out GMO's, esspecially when no conclusive evidence for any risks has been identified?



You fail to see the difference between plants made through natural reproduction and force injection of foreign DNA via viruses. You are buying into the Substantial equivalence caca they are using to try to get away with not having to prove the overall safety of this stuff. Again people want to say no one has ever been harmed by ingesting GMOs.. This is a bold faced lie. People died in droves from genetically modified Tryptophan. People die and go blind all the time from genetically modified aspartame. People suffer severe allergic reactions to GMO Soy even people whom were not allergic to soy before. Many died or became severely ill for life!

Why is it if they are so safe there are large groups of doctors warning patients not to eat them, when their immune system is compromised, or they have any allergies to food?
Look at rBGH it raises your likelihood for prostate and breast cancer. Most of the bigger stores have banned it, hell even walmart banned the stuff...

This does not even get into the serious issues it causes on an economic and political scale. It destroys family and local farming, to be replaced by more corporate farms.



Because they are better- these "safe proven natural foods" require more pesticides and herbicides, are less productive, and that less production means increased costs t0 the farmer, which is then sent on down to the consumer. They aren't more expensive because they're rare- they're more expensive because its more difficult to grow them.



Again showing your ignorance of natural farming. There is no such thing as plants that "require" pesticide and herbicide. It is called mega farms are too greedy to farm properly and decide to poison their fields instead.

Weeds can be dealt with FAR better with mulch than with herbicide. It's cheaper too..

Pests get dealt with far better by companion planting and inter cropping than pesticide. Pesticide kills not only the pest but, the predator too and it creates the very problem you wish to avoid. The issue is the so called pest reproduces swiftly and the predator does not. Pesticides and bt gmo plants kill every insect it comes in contact with it not just the pest.

It is a capitalists dream because they are both products that by their very use set up the situation to where the product is then needed to maintain a viable growing situation. If you let nature balance this issue and you work together with it instead of being at war with it, one finds things get into the proper balance of predator and pest and losses decrease over time.

There is a serious problem with people overusing both fertilizer and pesticides, this has absolutely nothing to do with necessity it has to do with ignorance. Instead of using these things only as a last resort when needed they spray them if they need it or not. Then OF course the area will grow dependent on the poisonous pesticides and fertilizers to grow anything. It is completely unnecessary.

Further it has been proven without a doubt that people whom grow GMO corn spray FAR more herbicide than those whom dont. Care to guess why?? It is a no brainer...

Real corn DIES when you spray that crap. Again Jip, you either purposefully misinform people and think they are too stupid to put 2 and 2 together, or you are ignorant to the facts.




I'm not saying that GMOs are the cause of the increase in food allergies



I absolutely am saying it, in some cases. Most especially in soy.... I know plenty of people with nut allergies that cannot eat soy because they put the brazil nut gene into the soy. Since the GMO soy is not labeled they cannot be sure they wont die from the shit.



When in doubt, blame the evil corporations- not the consumers.



They both have their blame for sure but, when the majority of the consumers have no idea they are being used as guinea pigs in this it is at the feet of the corporate goons whom forced this through without listening to the scientists whom called for more testing before letting the cat out of the bag to make sure it was safe. I posted the actual documents that were originally used where the scientists recommended to the people in the FDA and USDA, responsible for the Substantial equivalence NOT to go that route. They said they should have to prove them safe before being allowed. These agencies that are responsible for protecting us from fools like this are in bed with them, they did not listen to the scientific communities recommendations, and let them put these experiments out there in the wild if they can just prove it to be the same nutritional value.

The good thing is people/consumers are quickly catching on and people are educating the public that our government is in bed with these corporations and are letting them experiment on us instead of regulating the industry like they are supposed to.

GMO is not the same as natural food it has been tampered with in ways that naturally would not have occurred at all and if it did there would be thousands if not millions of years of adaptation to go along with it. Whenever forcing something like that to happen over night you are basically rolling the dice for things to blow up in your face.

Some people wish to hide their heads in the sand and think that these corporations care, but their history proves without a doubt they only care about stuffing their pockets full of $$ and are actually contemptuous of public safety.

They have been busted paying off scientists to cook the books and call some of their previous now infamous products that killed and maimed for life, many and caused SERIOUS environmental destruction "safe".

Remember dioxin, agent orange etc?? Same people..... So we are somehow supposed to now trust these people with this crazy project that has no purpose but to make them rich and more in control of the food supply?

They claim they made it to help "feed hungry nations." They claim that it is a food shortage that's the problem/cause. There is no food shortage there is more than enough natural food to feed the planet two times over... IT is political why people are starving and inadequate distribution of already existing supplies. Local natural farming is a far better solution than GMO. Also looking at the genetic level and figuring which plants to mix via natural reproduction to make better yields holds FAR more promise than trying to force it Via foreign DNA using viruses and syringes.





The good thing is people are starting to learn about this and the backlash will be strong.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 74
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/15/2009 3:27:09 PM
@ cyke
Thanks for the correction; I was still labouring under the "conventional wisdom" that sustained high sugar intake over several years risked bringing on type II diabetes.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 75
GMO issue.
Posted: 7/17/2009 5:02:55 PM
First and foremost- kabiosile;

You're wasting your time. I no longer read your posts, and I do not intend to bother responding to them any longer. They are shortsighted, filled with unsubstantiated and dubious sources or outright propaganda and slander, that exist solely and completely to push your own agenda, demanding people follow both your political idealogy and your lifestyle choices. If people believe in Capitalism,in your eyes they are wrong and should be condemned- if people believe in eating non-organic food, in your eyes they are wrong and should be condemned- and if people believe in personal responsiblity, in your eyes they are wrong and should be condemned. Quite frankly, you're using this one issue as a means to both control people and chastize them for not doing what you tell them to, and no where in do you consider the individuals right to make their own decisions, even if you do not agree. In your world, there is no room for disagreement- only obedience- and only you should be the one granted the priviliage to decide right and wrong.

Frankly, I find it arrogant, preachy, demanding, and self-rightious to tell the world that they must follow your beliefs, and if they do not they are sinners and they are the ones destorying the world. I find it pious to claim that, since you can afford a more expensive lifestyle, that everyone should.

Your posts no longer merit addressing- which is sad, because you clearly put alot of effort in expressing them.

>>>If the evidence was conclusive, there would be no need to investigate.

If the evidence isn't conclusive, why should it affect our legislation? Isn't that jumping the gun?

>>>50 years ago I would have said they SHOULD be held to greater scrutiny

Even though, by the 60's, that strain of Potato had been spread accross the globe with no known harm or side effects? That if you go into any McDonalds, pick up any McCains product, ect, you would find this kind of potato- that Billions of people ate with no harm- this is what people should fear and money should be spent protecting them from?

>>>Yes it should apply to any food

But thats not what you're asking. You're not asking for all food to have greater scrunity- just GMO's.

>>> they ever have been allowed to replace older (and therefore safer) foods,

What makes you believe older strains are safer? Wouldn't older strains be more likely to hold diseases they've been experiencing for centuries, whereas new strains that were designed to combat these diseases have less chance?

>>>No, because they earn royalties through the patents for the corporations that own the rights.

So? They profit off the food they create. Should you not earn money for the work you do?

>>>(do you really believe Monsanto's propaganda?)

(do you really believe in the anti-corporate propaganda?)

>>>Have they banned trans fats yet? Why?

Because of the right of self-determination.

>>>The consumers didn't ask for GMOs

Consumers asked for better, cheaper foods. They're getting them. If a business offers more expensive or inferior foods, they are less likely to have continued business(unless they have a gimick- like "Organic"- and even then, it's a niche business)

>>>but that's a far cry from what our patent laws used to be, when they were sensible

These laws were created to encourage more plant strains- they are doing exactly what they intended on doing.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > GMO issue.