You may have heard about the You may have heard about the genetically-modified salmon that the FDA is set to approve as a food source. This would be the first genetically-modified animal that would be approved for human consumption. Of course, there has been no testing to see if the thing is safe to eat. The FDA is likely to approve it and then use us all as a giant laboratory experiment to see what happens. I hope I never accidentally eat this abomination.
I think if more people knew how GMOs were created, they wouldn’t eat them. The companies who create these franken foods actually use the E. coli virus to clone the genetically modified DNA.
GMO plants are already in the food supply. The pollen from GMO plants tends to infect the pollen of non-GMO species. Corn grown in Mexico has been found to have been infected with GMO pollen even though GMOs were never approved there. Monsanto has actually sued farmers who thought they were growing non-GMO plants when it was discovered that the non-GMO plants the farmer was growing had actually been infected with GMO pollen. Of course, Monsanto won.
Researchers speculate that the many allergies suffered by people today are a result of the new genetically modified proteins that are proliferating in our environment. Of course, the GMO companies dare not allow human testing, so we can’t know for sure.
I also recommend watching ‘The World According to Monsanto’ and ‘Food, Inc.’. Prepare to be disgusted.
scaredyclassic
September 30, 2010 @
6:42 AM
also king corn also king corn
UCGal
September 30, 2010 @
9:15 AM
walterwhite wrote:also king [quote=walterwhite]also king corn[/quote]
+1
I’ve been avoiding foods with HFCS, and other corn products since watching this. It is challenging, to say the least – since GMO corn is everywhere.
NotCranky
September 30, 2010 @
9:39 AM
I have negative concerns, I have negative concerns, some positive or optimistic views too. I think they are going to be big in the future of foods. I lean towards thinking it is more likely to be productive in the long run than not.
I think there could be huge potential for good to come of it. What about creating new plants that can grow in environmental conditions that generally stop food production or limit it extremely? Extremes of heat, cold, day length, solar angle, soil salinity or or chemical issue, humidity ect. could be overcome, making “locally grown” much easier gardeners and farmers including those in regions of starving people.
You could go sci-fi and imagine growing GMO in beneficial ways… in space or in a lab or on another planet.
It is highly probable that humans are going to eat or kill nearly every wild thing or find ways to not need them for food or both. Increased food production due to the intelligent use of GMO’s could help someday.Maybe they can even come up with a farm raised salmon worth eating,rather than a terrible tasting one that grows faster.
ucodegen
September 30, 2010 @
9:12 AM
Look up hepatoxicity with Look up hepatoxicity with respect to GM product, particularly if the GM product cross breeds a plant that is toxic to a particular insect to make it resistant to that insect.
There is also suspected hepatoxicity w/ respect to GM corn that is resistant to the herbicide RoundUp.
Eventually you won’t have a Eventually you won’t have a choice unless you grow it yourself.
briansd1
September 30, 2010 @
10:50 AM
I’ll let other people eat it I’ll let other people eat it and test it first.
blahblahblah
September 30, 2010 @
11:09 AM
Given that people invented Given that people invented computers yet can’t produce bug-free software for them, why does anyone think they’ll be able to successfully modify the code for biological machines that they didn’t invent and don’t fully understand without introducing problematic and perhaps even dangerous side-effects?
It’s an interesting dilemma. It’s an interesting dilemma. I look at roundup resistant corn – which is basically inedible but great for turning into feed, ethanol, and HFCS. It has changed farming – and IMO not for the better.
But other genetic modification could be fantastic for medical reasons… The work Chris Voigt is doing “programming” bacteria with other dna to make the bacteria be a cancer killer. That type of breakthrough sounds exciting and good.
So like some of the others – there’s some optimism with genetic modification… but I’m not thrilled about genetic modification of food.
blahblahblah
September 30, 2010 @
2:47 PM
UCGal wrote:
But other [quote=UCGal]
But other genetic modification could be fantastic for medical reasons… The work Chris Voigt is doing “programming” bacteria with other dna to make the bacteria be a cancer killer. That type of breakthrough sounds exciting and good.[/quote]
Sounds like a nightmare to me. Any mistakes and he’s got a bacteria (which can reproduce) that will target and kill normal dividing cells. Does your computer ever crash? Ever have problems with your phone, your TV, etc…? Now imagine what sorts of bugs these genetic “therapies” might have. It’s truly frightening. Oh well I guess we’re all supposed to assume that these people are perfect and will never make mistakes…
Rich Toscano
September 30, 2010 @
3:32 PM
Sounds like we are just a Sounds like we are just a couple years away from an instantly-transmissible rage virus.
</zombie threadjack>
blahblahblah
September 30, 2010 @
5:26 PM
Sounds like we are just a Sounds like we are just a couple years away from an instantly-transmissible rage virus.
Exactly!
Brrrrraaaaaaaaaiiiiins!
ucodegen
September 30, 2010 @
10:16 PM
Rich Toscano wrote:
Sounds [quote Rich Toscano]
Sounds like we are just a couple years away from an instantly-transmissible rage virus.
[/quote]
Someone may have watched “Serenity” too many times! ☺
outtamojo
October 1, 2010 @
10:29 AM
ucodegen wrote:Rich Toscano [quote=ucodegen][quote Rich Toscano]
Sounds like we are just a couple years away from an instantly-transmissible rage virus.
[/quote]
Someone may have watched “Serenity” too many times! ☺[/quote]
I believe the rage virus is from “28 days Later”.
poorgradstudent
October 1, 2010 @
10:17 AM
“I think if more people knew “I think if more people knew how GMOs were created, they wouldn’t eat them. The companies who create these franken foods actually use the E. coli virus to clone the genetically modified DNA.”
I assume then, if most diabetics knew where their insulin came from, they wouldn’t inject it? Prior to genetic engineering of E. Coli to produce insulin, the main way of getting it was from pigs. Pigs of course don’t actually have that much in them per animal, making insulin treatment very expensive; using e. coli made insulin treatment practical and has improved the lives of many diabetics. My point is, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with recombinant genetics. As someone who has actually purified DNA and proteins, trust me, there is NOTHING dangerous about the product extracted, and purified proteins are functionally identical to their native cousins.
“Researchers speculate that the many allergies suffered by people today are a result of the new genetically modified proteins that are proliferating in our environment. Of course, the GMO companies dare not allow human testing, so we can’t know for sure.”
Conjecture. GMO is a possible suspect, but far from sufficient to explain the rise in allergies. Toxins in the air and water that have nothing to do with GMOs are actually a more likely suspect. Also, like ADHD, part of the rise is probably just increased diagnosis.
-I don’t like how Monsanto uses GMOs. In theory, genetic engineering could create a food supply that needed less land, less water, and produced more food per acre with LESS chemical spraying. As it’s used in practice, there’s actually more spraying with Round-up ready corn. It’s not the tool that is flawed, it’s the application.
I do support labeling and consumer choice; the free market can’t function when relevant information is withheld from the consumer. Personally I would have no problem consuming the new salmon, but I know people who are very against it and respect their choice.
BigGovernmentIsGood
October 1, 2010 @
1:53 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:
My [quote=poorgradstudent]
My point is, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with recombinant genetics. As someone who has actually purified DNA and proteins, trust me, there is NOTHING dangerous about the product extracted, and purified proteins are functionally identical to their native cousins.
[/quote]
Trust you? Why should I trust you? I don’t know you. I don’t trust you, Monsanto, or any other purveyor of frankenfoods. How about showing me the human studies that show that GMOs are safe? Oh, that’s right, you can’t because the GMO companies like Monsanto (maker of Agent Orange and other deadly poisons) won’t allow them.
[quote=poorgradstudent]
-I don’t like how Monsanto uses GMOs. In theory, genetic engineering could create a food supply that needed less land, less water, and produced more food per acre with LESS chemical spraying.
[/quote]
Great theory. Please cite one instance where GMO foods have made things better.
[quote=poorgradstudent]
As it’s used in practice, there’s actually more spraying with Round-up ready corn. It’s not the tool that is flawed, it’s the application.
[/quote]
It’s much worse than that. Non-GMO crops get contaminated by GMO pollen from GMO-crops. Then when the farmer uses the seed from that contaminated crop next year (thinking it is non-GMO), Monsanto will sue the farmer for planting GMO seeds. Of course, our corrupt courts have been siding with Monsanto. Farmers in the U.S. basically have two choices now: (1) pay Monsanto so that they can continue farming using frankenseed or (2) go bankrupt fighting Monsanto in court. This evil business practice is laid bare in the documentary ‘The World According to Monsanto’.
Monsanto is currently trying to force GMOs on Italy and other countries where GMOs are banned by having farmers plant it which results in the contamination of non-GMO crops:
A judge in the town of Pordenone issued the ruling after a scientific confirmation that Monsanto’s MON 810 maize had been cultivated on a plot of land in the north-eastern region of Friuli Venezia Giulia and had contaminated some nearby fields, although within accepted levels in the European Union.
Monsanto is one of the most evil companies in the world. In respect to evility, I would put them just ahead of banks and on par with oil and gas companies.
[quote=poorgradstudent]
I do support labeling and consumer choice; the free market can’t function when relevant information is withheld from the consumer. Personally I would have no problem consuming the new salmon, but I know people who are very against it and respect their choice.[/quote]
How gracious of you that you support my right to know what I’m eating. You sound just like every other pretentious I-think-I-know-it-all-yet-know-nothing in the GMO industry.
Unfortunately, the current reality is that GMO companies are fighting to not only prevent labeling of GMOs, but they also want to prevent non-GMO food producers from labeling their food as non-GMO:
BGIG, thanks for posting the BGIG, thanks for posting the article about the Italy courts findings. I am surprised to read that, since many people I know in Italy seem vehemently against modified foods.
BigGovernmentIsGood
October 1, 2010 @
5:30 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:
In [quote=poorgradstudent]
In theory, genetic engineering could create a food supply that needed less land, less water, and produced more food per acre with LESS chemical spraying.
[/quote]
Here are some more facts that show what BS your theory is. Monsanto is currently working on a terminator gene. The terminator gene makes all seed from GMO crops sterile. An expert on the subject described the dangers of the terminator gene:
Camila Montecinos, an agronomist with the Chilean organization, CET, has another concern, “We’ve talked to a number of crop geneticists who have studied the patent,” she says. “They’re telling us that it’s likely that pollen from crops carrying the Terminator trait will infect the fields of farmers who either reject or can’t afford the technology. Their crop won’t be affected that season but when farmers reach into their bins to sow seed the following season they could discover – too late – that some of their seed is sterile. This could lead to very high yield losses. If the technology is transmitted through recessive genes, we could see several years of irregular harvests and a general – even dramatic – decline in food security for the poorest farm communities.”
In contrast to all the flowery BS about how GMO food is going to end famine, it will actually result in more — many more — people starving to death. Buy hey, who cares so long as Monsanto keeps making money?
Aecetia
September 16, 2012 @
7:53 PM
Here is another good link on Here is another good link on GMO food: geneticroulettemovie.com/
jpinpb
September 16, 2012 @
9:00 PM
Whether people think it’s Whether people think it’s good or bad, I think labeling it is really important. 50 countries in the world label GMOs. Other countries have banned it, like France and Hungary. Yet an advanced, industrialized country like America, and we can’t even label it. At least give people the option of knowing if it’s GMO. If it’s so good, as they claim, wear it like a badge and tell us it’s GMO. Not spend millions fighting the labeling.
CA renter
September 17, 2012 @
2:00 AM
Could not agree more, jp! Could not agree more, jp!
jpinpb
September 17, 2012 @
8:59 AM
So everyone is voting Yes on So everyone is voting Yes on 37 !!
poorgradstudent
September 17, 2012 @
11:03 AM
jpinpb wrote:So everyone is [quote=jpinpb]So everyone is voting Yes on 37 !![/quote]
Leaning yes, but I’ll have to study the actual wording, as California Propositions have a bad history of being poorly written and having unintended consequences. Genetically Modified is a terrible term from a technical standpoint (like Organic… seriously, as a scientist, that made me cringe the first time I heard it and still does). I actually think the end result will be almost everything gets the label and people just don’t notice it except for fanatics who are already buying food from non-GMO stores anyways. In general more consumer information and choice is a good thing, which is why I do lean yes.
Aecetia
September 17, 2012 @
12:00 PM
I hope you let us know what I hope you let us know what you find out by studying the wording and yes, many of our propositions are written to confuse the voter(s).
I have heard that the GMO’s are modifying the gut bacteria of the host. Is that true and can it be reversed?
Fearful
September 17, 2012 @
12:48 PM
jpinpb wrote:So everyone is [quote=jpinpb]So everyone is voting Yes on 37!![/quote]
No.
Propositions are just about the worst way to make new laws.
Thanks to proposition 65, I now have to look at those idiotic warning stickers everywhere I go. Who was the knucklehead that thought that one up?
However you feel about the issue, the proposition system is a stupid way to deal with it.
While we’re at it, let’s put citizens in charge of writing all laws, and do away with the concept of representative democracy entirely.
CA renter
September 17, 2012 @
5:29 PM
Fearful wrote:jpinpb wrote:So [quote=Fearful][quote=jpinpb]So everyone is voting Yes on 37!![/quote]
No.
Propositions are just about the worst way to make new laws.
Thanks to proposition 65, I now have to look at those idiotic warning stickers everywhere I go. Who was the knucklehead that thought that one up?
However you feel about the issue, the proposition system is a stupid way to deal with it.
While we’re at it, let’s put citizens in charge of writing all laws, and do away with the concept of representative democracy entirely.[/quote]
While not perfect, I prefer everyone to have a voice vs. representative government because that is one of the best ways to minimize corruption.
Representatives can be bought by the minority with the most money/power. We need an **educated** population and a system where every individual has an equal voice.
IMHO, representative governments — and those who control the representatives — always strive to keep voters from being educated and informed. This enables them to write all the laws that benefit the few at the expense of the majority. This needs to change.
SD Transplant
September 19, 2012 @
8:05 AM
This is hot off the press This is hot off the press today:
Study finds tumors in rats fed on Monsanto’s GM corn
a little snippet”In a study that prompted criticism from other experts, French scientists said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller suffered tumors and multiple organ damage.”
“Approximately 2/3 of the “Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as ‘natural.’ 2/3 of WFM’s $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called “natural” processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs.”
jpinpb wrote:Whether people [quote=jpinpb]Whether people think it’s good or bad, I think labeling it is really important. 50 countries in the world label GMOs. Other countries have banned it, like France and Hungary. Yet an advanced, industrialized country like America, and we can’t even label it. At least give people the option of knowing if it’s GMO. If it’s so good, as they claim, wear it like a badge and tell us it’s GMO. Not spend millions fighting the labeling.[/quote]
Absolutely, we need to be able to make an informed choice. Those charts in the link show the rise in so many medical problems. So first the GMO’s make us sick, then Big Pharma gives us meds as long as we have insurance from Big Government. It is crazy. Save us from Big Brother.
jpinpb
April 29, 2013 @
10:56 PM
There is going to be a march There is going to be a march against Monsanto on May 25 at 11 am. Meeting at Balboa Park at the fountain near the Ruben H. Fleet Space Museum.
September 30, 2010 @ 6:26 AM
You may have heard about the
You may have heard about the genetically-modified salmon that the FDA is set to approve as a food source. This would be the first genetically-modified animal that would be approved for human consumption. Of course, there has been no testing to see if the thing is safe to eat. The FDA is likely to approve it and then use us all as a giant laboratory experiment to see what happens. I hope I never accidentally eat this abomination.
I think if more people knew how GMOs were created, they wouldn’t eat them. The companies who create these franken foods actually use the E. coli virus to clone the genetically modified DNA.
GMO plants are already in the food supply. The pollen from GMO plants tends to infect the pollen of non-GMO species. Corn grown in Mexico has been found to have been infected with GMO pollen even though GMOs were never approved there. Monsanto has actually sued farmers who thought they were growing non-GMO plants when it was discovered that the non-GMO plants the farmer was growing had actually been infected with GMO pollen. Of course, Monsanto won.
Researchers speculate that the many allergies suffered by people today are a result of the new genetically modified proteins that are proliferating in our environment. Of course, the GMO companies dare not allow human testing, so we can’t know for sure.
This video is long, but it explains the dangers of GMO foods very well:
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/MediaCenter/Videos/index.cfm
I also recommend watching ‘The World According to Monsanto’ and ‘Food, Inc.’. Prepare to be disgusted.
September 30, 2010 @ 6:42 AM
also king corn
also king corn
September 30, 2010 @ 9:15 AM
walterwhite wrote:also king
[quote=walterwhite]also king corn[/quote]
+1
I’ve been avoiding foods with HFCS, and other corn products since watching this. It is challenging, to say the least – since GMO corn is everywhere.
September 30, 2010 @ 9:39 AM
I have negative concerns,
I have negative concerns, some positive or optimistic views too. I think they are going to be big in the future of foods. I lean towards thinking it is more likely to be productive in the long run than not.
I think there could be huge potential for good to come of it. What about creating new plants that can grow in environmental conditions that generally stop food production or limit it extremely? Extremes of heat, cold, day length, solar angle, soil salinity or or chemical issue, humidity ect. could be overcome, making “locally grown” much easier gardeners and farmers including those in regions of starving people.
You could go sci-fi and imagine growing GMO in beneficial ways… in space or in a lab or on another planet.
It is highly probable that humans are going to eat or kill nearly every wild thing or find ways to not need them for food or both. Increased food production due to the intelligent use of GMO’s could help someday.Maybe they can even come up with a farm raised salmon worth eating,rather than a terrible tasting one that grows faster.
September 30, 2010 @ 9:12 AM
Look up hepatoxicity with
Look up hepatoxicity with respect to GM product, particularly if the GM product cross breeds a plant that is toxic to a particular insect to make it resistant to that insect.
There is also suspected hepatoxicity w/ respect to GM corn that is resistant to the herbicide RoundUp.
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
Monsanto’s behavior:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
September 30, 2010 @ 9:36 AM
Eventually you won’t have a
Eventually you won’t have a choice unless you grow it yourself.
September 30, 2010 @ 10:50 AM
I’ll let other people eat it
I’ll let other people eat it and test it first.
September 30, 2010 @ 11:09 AM
Given that people invented
Given that people invented computers yet can’t produce bug-free software for them, why does anyone think they’ll be able to successfully modify the code for biological machines that they didn’t invent and don’t fully understand without introducing problematic and perhaps even dangerous side-effects?
Here’s an example from this week. Apparently some of this GMO corn actually produces pesticides internally and they’re finding it in the runoff from streams adjacent to where it’s grown.
We are all doomed.
September 30, 2010 @ 1:44 PM
It’s an interesting dilemma.
It’s an interesting dilemma. I look at roundup resistant corn – which is basically inedible but great for turning into feed, ethanol, and HFCS. It has changed farming – and IMO not for the better.
But other genetic modification could be fantastic for medical reasons… The work Chris Voigt is doing “programming” bacteria with other dna to make the bacteria be a cancer killer. That type of breakthrough sounds exciting and good.
So like some of the others – there’s some optimism with genetic modification… but I’m not thrilled about genetic modification of food.
September 30, 2010 @ 2:47 PM
UCGal wrote:
But other
[quote=UCGal]
But other genetic modification could be fantastic for medical reasons… The work Chris Voigt is doing “programming” bacteria with other dna to make the bacteria be a cancer killer. That type of breakthrough sounds exciting and good.[/quote]
Sounds like a nightmare to me. Any mistakes and he’s got a bacteria (which can reproduce) that will target and kill normal dividing cells. Does your computer ever crash? Ever have problems with your phone, your TV, etc…? Now imagine what sorts of bugs these genetic “therapies” might have. It’s truly frightening. Oh well I guess we’re all supposed to assume that these people are perfect and will never make mistakes…
September 30, 2010 @ 3:32 PM
Sounds like we are just a
Sounds like we are just a couple years away from an instantly-transmissible rage virus.
</zombie threadjack>
September 30, 2010 @ 5:26 PM
Sounds like we are just a
Sounds like we are just a couple years away from an instantly-transmissible rage virus.
Exactly!
Brrrrraaaaaaaaaiiiiins!
September 30, 2010 @ 10:16 PM
Rich Toscano wrote:
Sounds
[quote Rich Toscano]
Sounds like we are just a couple years away from an instantly-transmissible rage virus.
[/quote]
Someone may have watched “Serenity” too many times! ☺
October 1, 2010 @ 10:29 AM
ucodegen wrote:Rich Toscano
[quote=ucodegen][quote Rich Toscano]
Sounds like we are just a couple years away from an instantly-transmissible rage virus.
[/quote]
Someone may have watched “Serenity” too many times! ☺[/quote]
I believe the rage virus is from “28 days Later”.
October 1, 2010 @ 10:17 AM
“I think if more people knew
“I think if more people knew how GMOs were created, they wouldn’t eat them. The companies who create these franken foods actually use the E. coli virus to clone the genetically modified DNA.”
I assume then, if most diabetics knew where their insulin came from, they wouldn’t inject it? Prior to genetic engineering of E. Coli to produce insulin, the main way of getting it was from pigs. Pigs of course don’t actually have that much in them per animal, making insulin treatment very expensive; using e. coli made insulin treatment practical and has improved the lives of many diabetics. My point is, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with recombinant genetics. As someone who has actually purified DNA and proteins, trust me, there is NOTHING dangerous about the product extracted, and purified proteins are functionally identical to their native cousins.
“Researchers speculate that the many allergies suffered by people today are a result of the new genetically modified proteins that are proliferating in our environment. Of course, the GMO companies dare not allow human testing, so we can’t know for sure.”
Conjecture. GMO is a possible suspect, but far from sufficient to explain the rise in allergies. Toxins in the air and water that have nothing to do with GMOs are actually a more likely suspect. Also, like ADHD, part of the rise is probably just increased diagnosis.
-I don’t like how Monsanto uses GMOs. In theory, genetic engineering could create a food supply that needed less land, less water, and produced more food per acre with LESS chemical spraying. As it’s used in practice, there’s actually more spraying with Round-up ready corn. It’s not the tool that is flawed, it’s the application.
I do support labeling and consumer choice; the free market can’t function when relevant information is withheld from the consumer. Personally I would have no problem consuming the new salmon, but I know people who are very against it and respect their choice.
October 1, 2010 @ 1:53 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:
My
[quote=poorgradstudent]
My point is, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with recombinant genetics. As someone who has actually purified DNA and proteins, trust me, there is NOTHING dangerous about the product extracted, and purified proteins are functionally identical to their native cousins.
[/quote]
Trust you? Why should I trust you? I don’t know you. I don’t trust you, Monsanto, or any other purveyor of frankenfoods. How about showing me the human studies that show that GMOs are safe? Oh, that’s right, you can’t because the GMO companies like Monsanto (maker of Agent Orange and other deadly poisons) won’t allow them.
[quote=poorgradstudent]
-I don’t like how Monsanto uses GMOs. In theory, genetic engineering could create a food supply that needed less land, less water, and produced more food per acre with LESS chemical spraying.
[/quote]
Great theory. Please cite one instance where GMO foods have made things better.
[quote=poorgradstudent]
As it’s used in practice, there’s actually more spraying with Round-up ready corn. It’s not the tool that is flawed, it’s the application.
[/quote]
It’s much worse than that. Non-GMO crops get contaminated by GMO pollen from GMO-crops. Then when the farmer uses the seed from that contaminated crop next year (thinking it is non-GMO), Monsanto will sue the farmer for planting GMO seeds. Of course, our corrupt courts have been siding with Monsanto. Farmers in the U.S. basically have two choices now: (1) pay Monsanto so that they can continue farming using frankenseed or (2) go bankrupt fighting Monsanto in court. This evil business practice is laid bare in the documentary ‘The World According to Monsanto’.
Monsanto is currently trying to force GMOs on Italy and other countries where GMOs are banned by having farmers plant it which results in the contamination of non-GMO crops:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68R4VD20100928
Monsanto is one of the most evil companies in the world. In respect to evility, I would put them just ahead of banks and on par with oil and gas companies.
[quote=poorgradstudent]
I do support labeling and consumer choice; the free market can’t function when relevant information is withheld from the consumer. Personally I would have no problem consuming the new salmon, but I know people who are very against it and respect their choice.[/quote]
How gracious of you that you support my right to know what I’m eating. You sound just like every other pretentious I-think-I-know-it-all-yet-know-nothing in the GMO industry.
Unfortunately, the current reality is that GMO companies are fighting to not only prevent labeling of GMOs, but they also want to prevent non-GMO food producers from labeling their food as non-GMO:
http://www.naturalnews.com/029833_non-GMO_foods_FDA.html
October 1, 2010 @ 4:36 PM
BGIG, thanks for posting the
BGIG, thanks for posting the article about the Italy courts findings. I am surprised to read that, since many people I know in Italy seem vehemently against modified foods.
October 1, 2010 @ 5:30 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:
In
[quote=poorgradstudent]
In theory, genetic engineering could create a food supply that needed less land, less water, and produced more food per acre with LESS chemical spraying.
[/quote]
Here are some more facts that show what BS your theory is. Monsanto is currently working on a terminator gene. The terminator gene makes all seed from GMO crops sterile. An expert on the subject described the dangers of the terminator gene:
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml
In contrast to all the flowery BS about how GMO food is going to end famine, it will actually result in more — many more — people starving to death. Buy hey, who cares so long as Monsanto keeps making money?
September 16, 2012 @ 7:53 PM
Here is another good link on
Here is another good link on GMO food: geneticroulettemovie.com/
September 16, 2012 @ 9:00 PM
Whether people think it’s
Whether people think it’s good or bad, I think labeling it is really important. 50 countries in the world label GMOs. Other countries have banned it, like France and Hungary. Yet an advanced, industrialized country like America, and we can’t even label it. At least give people the option of knowing if it’s GMO. If it’s so good, as they claim, wear it like a badge and tell us it’s GMO. Not spend millions fighting the labeling.
September 17, 2012 @ 2:00 AM
Could not agree more, jp!
Could not agree more, jp!
September 17, 2012 @ 8:59 AM
So everyone is voting Yes on
So everyone is voting Yes on 37 !!
September 17, 2012 @ 11:03 AM
jpinpb wrote:So everyone is
[quote=jpinpb]So everyone is voting Yes on 37 !![/quote]
Leaning yes, but I’ll have to study the actual wording, as California Propositions have a bad history of being poorly written and having unintended consequences. Genetically Modified is a terrible term from a technical standpoint (like Organic… seriously, as a scientist, that made me cringe the first time I heard it and still does). I actually think the end result will be almost everything gets the label and people just don’t notice it except for fanatics who are already buying food from non-GMO stores anyways. In general more consumer information and choice is a good thing, which is why I do lean yes.
September 17, 2012 @ 12:00 PM
I hope you let us know what
I hope you let us know what you find out by studying the wording and yes, many of our propositions are written to confuse the voter(s).
I have heard that the GMO’s are modifying the gut bacteria of the host. Is that true and can it be reversed?
September 17, 2012 @ 12:48 PM
jpinpb wrote:So everyone is
[quote=jpinpb]So everyone is voting Yes on 37!![/quote]
No.
Propositions are just about the worst way to make new laws.
Thanks to proposition 65, I now have to look at those idiotic warning stickers everywhere I go. Who was the knucklehead that thought that one up?
However you feel about the issue, the proposition system is a stupid way to deal with it.
While we’re at it, let’s put citizens in charge of writing all laws, and do away with the concept of representative democracy entirely.
September 17, 2012 @ 5:29 PM
Fearful wrote:jpinpb wrote:So
[quote=Fearful][quote=jpinpb]So everyone is voting Yes on 37!![/quote]
No.
Propositions are just about the worst way to make new laws.
Thanks to proposition 65, I now have to look at those idiotic warning stickers everywhere I go. Who was the knucklehead that thought that one up?
However you feel about the issue, the proposition system is a stupid way to deal with it.
While we’re at it, let’s put citizens in charge of writing all laws, and do away with the concept of representative democracy entirely.[/quote]
While not perfect, I prefer everyone to have a voice vs. representative government because that is one of the best ways to minimize corruption.
Representatives can be bought by the minority with the most money/power. We need an **educated** population and a system where every individual has an equal voice.
IMHO, representative governments — and those who control the representatives — always strive to keep voters from being educated and informed. This enables them to write all the laws that benefit the few at the expense of the majority. This needs to change.
September 19, 2012 @ 8:05 AM
This is hot off the press
This is hot off the press today:
Study finds tumors in rats fed on Monsanto’s GM corn
a little snippet”In a study that prompted criticism from other experts, French scientists said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller suffered tumors and multiple organ damage.”
full article
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-gmcrops-safety-idUSBRE88I0L020120919
April 29, 2013 @ 5:59 PM
“Approximately 2/3 of the
“Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as ‘natural.’ 2/3 of WFM’s $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called “natural” processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs.”
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm
September 17, 2012 @ 10:11 AM
jpinpb wrote:Whether people
[quote=jpinpb]Whether people think it’s good or bad, I think labeling it is really important. 50 countries in the world label GMOs. Other countries have banned it, like France and Hungary. Yet an advanced, industrialized country like America, and we can’t even label it. At least give people the option of knowing if it’s GMO. If it’s so good, as they claim, wear it like a badge and tell us it’s GMO. Not spend millions fighting the labeling.[/quote]
Absolutely, we need to be able to make an informed choice. Those charts in the link show the rise in so many medical problems. So first the GMO’s make us sick, then Big Pharma gives us meds as long as we have insurance from Big Government. It is crazy. Save us from Big Brother.
April 29, 2013 @ 10:56 PM
There is going to be a march
There is going to be a march against Monsanto on May 25 at 11 am. Meeting at Balboa Park at the fountain near the Ruben H. Fleet Space Museum.