list of MONSANTO GMO companies

JMfan

Actually, farmers don't always have a choice. Monsanto is suing farmers for having their GM product, even though the farmers didn't plant it (transfered via wind, bees, etc.). There is a documentary on Netflix, called Food, Inc which talks about this.

I have no issues with GM products that are clearly labeled. But Monsanto is against this because then we'd see that our corn may be modified with fish genes, etc. People with food allergies have no idea what they are putting into their bodies.

I'd like to see if anyone could link the increase in genetically modified food to the increase in food allergies, the decline in bee population, etc.

well said and agreed.

kingtermite

There is now an app (at least for iPhone and Android) called "Buycott". I tried it yesterday and it works great.

You can sign up for "campaigns" (such as NO GMO) and use the app to scan a barcode and see who the parent company is and if they conflict with campaigns you care about.

It's a teeny bit buggy, but a great tool.

magerum

http://rameznaam.com/2013/04/28/the-evidence-on-gmo-safety/


"A Scientific Consensus

All together, the scientific consensus around the safety of genetically modified foods is as strong as the scientific consensus around climate change. These foods have been studied more than any other, and everything tells us that they’re safe."

Pixi_Rex

~RUNS AROUND FLAILING ARMS SCREAMING~ UNCLEAN UNCLEAN


Seriously though Monstanto is the Kony of 2013.. give it a few months and there will be something new..

Phoenix_Rising

There's a big difference between selective breeding vs. intentionally swapping out strands of DNA containing genes completely foreign to the species using bacterial vectors. Just FYI.

^^ What they said.
Cause I don't do science but that sounded really smart and well informed!
:drinker:

I don't know a damn thing about Monsanto or GM except everyone hates 'em.
Personally, I think radiation from the microwave is what's killing everyone.
Too bad I can rarely make a meal without using it in some way, shape or form!
CHEERS!:drinker:

monicarcaro

FOR THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE GMO FOOD AND THINK YOU'RE EATING & PAYING MORE FOR ORGANIC SO CALLED HEALTHY FOODS YOU MAY BE IN FOR A SURPRISE IF YOU LIVE IN THE USA!

"Conveniently, organic food is not subject to testing or to the 0.05% rule either. While organic may not be grown with GM seeds and farmers must take steps to prevent cross pollination, there is no federal rule that organic must be GM free..

Genetically engineered seeds are an “excluded method” for certified organic farming. However, organic foods may contain genetically engineered ingredients as long as efforts to exclude them have been made."

Have a nice day:flowerforyou:

^^ Truest story I've ever heard. Thanks for posting and getting the word out there!

Ang108

Unilever? All I can think about is taking a big bite of soap. Does Unilever make food items?

.

I don't know about the US and Canada, but the rest of the world consumes Unilever food products daily. They are everywhere.
The products I know they make is Knorr, Pfanni, Maizena, Bovril, Ragú, Red Rose Tea, Slim-Fast, Ben & Jerry's, Wish-Bone, Blue Band and Colman's Mustard. But the list is much , much longer.
I do not avoid them all, but I do read labels when I buy a new product. For example, I love their Red Rose Tea.
For me it is no surprise that companies that in the past where known for one product line( like Unilever for soap ) now are in the food market, because that is where they can unload much more/many of the chemicals than in their original line of business. They don't branch out in construction, aviation or development.....no, it's food and they know why and most of us don't think twice why a cereal for example that is on the shelf for a year or more does not go stale, clumpy or attracts fungus and the fruit in it looks fresh .... most of us don't care that this is achieved through several different chemicals , which we ingest day after day.
I don't think that companies like Monsanto, Unilever, P & G can be avoided alltogether if one lives a normal average life, but I think it is important to be well informed and make choices based on our life circumstances and that information.

kikilita

To the original poster -- you do understand that everything you eat has been genetically modified over the last 2000 years or so of farming and domestication don't you? Or perhaps its just "evil" corporations that you dislike.

As you said tinfoil meet head -- head meet tinfoil.

Regardless of whether you have problems with GMO foods, Monsanto is a company with poor ethics. I shun their products where I find them for this reason only.

I'm unaware of any ethics issues with the company. If you mean they make money and are good at what they do (i.e. sell lots of products at market sustainable prices) and deliver results for consumers and investors then I again repeat my assertion -- its not Monsanto that you dislike its "evil" corporations.

Uh, Monsanto has serious ethic issues. Just google it or watch a documentary or two on them. I don't have a problem with GMO as I know most of it has been modified over the years and there is probably not really any going back. But I do have a problem with Monsanto. A LOT of people have had a problem with them for years, it's not anything new. People are paying more attention now and a bill was recently signed by Obama that involved them.

My biggest issue is that their farms' seeds will blow in the wind, land on a non-Monsanto owned, non GE farm, turn that farmer's crops to GE and then Monsanto will try to sue them for "stealing" their product. How is this ethical!? They have put people out of business.

magerum

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/998983-misconceptions-of-organic-food-s

Read the links below. I pulled out the more important ones. Stuff labeled "Organic" isn't what you think.

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3f34f4c22f9aa8e6d9864cc2683cea02&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr205_main_02.tpl


§ 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9bfd46a9344e3e012d60638859ce1ded&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7.354.2&idno=7

§ 205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9bfd46a9344e3e012d60638859ce1ded&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7.354.4&idno=7

§ 205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).”

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9bfd46a9344e3e012d60638859ce1ded&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7.354.6&idno=7

§ 205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic.”

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9bfd46a9344e3e012d60638859ce1ded&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7.354.7&idno=7

magerum

§ 205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production.
In accordance with restrictions specified in this section the following synthetic substances may be used in organic livestock production:

(a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable.

(1) Alcohols.

(i) Ethanol-disinfectant and sanitizer only, prohibited as a feed additive.

(ii) Isopropanol-disinfectant only.

(2) Aspirin-approved for health care use to reduce inflammation.

(3) Atropine (CAS #-51-55-8)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian; and

(ii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 56 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 12 days after administering to dairy animals.

(4) Biologics—Vaccines.

(5) Butorphanol (CAS #-42408-82-2)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian; and

(ii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 42 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 8 days after administering to dairy animals.

(6) Chlorhexidine—Allowed for surgical procedures conducted by a veterinarian. Allowed for use as a teat dip when alternative germicidal agents and/or physical barriers have lost their effectiveness.

(7) Chlorine materials—disinfecting and sanitizing facilities and equipment. Residual chlorine levels in the water shall not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

(i) Calcium hypochlorite.

(ii) Chlorine dioxide.

(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.

(8) Electrolytes—without antibiotics.

(9) Flunixin (CAS #-38677-85-9)—in accordance with approved labeling; except that for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires a withdrawal period of at least two-times that required by the FDA.

(10) Furosemide (CAS #-54-31-9)—in accordance with approved labeling; except that for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires a withdrawal period of at least two-times that required that required by the FDA.

(11) Glucose.

(12) Glycerine—Allowed as a livestock teat dip, must be produced through the hydrolysis of fats or oils.

(13) Hydrogen peroxide.

(14) Iodine.

(15) Magnesium hydroxide (CAS #-1309-42-8)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian.

(16) Magnesium sulfate.

(17) Oxytocin—use in postparturition therapeutic applications.

(18) Parasiticides—Prohibited in slaughter stock, allowed in emergency treatment for dairy and breeder stock when organic system plan-approved preventive management does not prevent infestation. Milk or milk products from a treated animal cannot be labeled as provided for in subpart D of this part for 90 days following treatment. In breeder stock, treatment cannot occur during the last third of gestation if the progeny will be sold as organic and must not be used during the lactation period for breeding stock.

(i) Fenbendazole (CAS # 43210-67-9)—only for use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian.

(ii) Ivermectin (CAS # 70288-86-7).

(iii) Moxidectin (CAS # 113507-06-5)—for control of internal parasites only.

(19) Peroxyacetic/peracetic acid (CAS #-79-21-0)—for sanitizing facility and processing equipment.

(20) Phosphoric acid—allowed as an equipment cleaner, Provided , That, no direct contact with organically managed livestock or land occurs.

(21) Poloxalene (CAS #-9003-11-6)—for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires that poloxalene only be used for the emergency treatment of bloat.

(22) Tolazoline (CAS #-59-98-3)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian;

(ii) Use only to reverse the effects of sedation and analgesia caused by Xylazine; and

(iii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 8 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 4 days after administering to dairy animals.

(23) Xylazine (CAS #-7361-61-7)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian;

(ii) The existence of an emergency; and

(iii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 8 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 4 days after administering to dairy animals.

(b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable.

(1) Copper sulfate.

(2) Formic acid (CAS # 64-18-6)—for use as a pesticide solely within honeybee hives.

(3) Iodine.

(4) Lidocaine—as a local anesthetic. Use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals.

(5) Lime, hydrated—as an external pest control, not permitted to cauterize physical alterations or deodorize animal wastes.

(6) Mineral oil—for topical use and as a lubricant.

(7) Procaine—as a local anesthetic, use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals.

(8) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s-42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.

(c) As feed supplements—None.

(d) As feed additives.

(1) DL-Methionine, DL-Methionine-hydroxy analog, and DL-Methionine-hydroxy analog calcium (CAS #'s 59-51-8, 583-91-5, 4857-44-7, and 922-50-9)—for use only in organic poultry production at the following maximum levels of synthetic methionine per ton of feed: Laying and broiler chickens—2 pounds; turkeys and all other poultry—3 pounds.

(2) Trace minerals, used for enrichment or fortification when FDA approved.

(3) Vitamins, used for enrichment or fortification when FDA approved.

(e) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances.

(1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.

(2) [Reserved]

(f) Excipients, only for use in the manufacture of drugs used to treat organic livestock when the excipient is: Identified by the FDA as Generally Recognized As Safe; Approved by the FDA as a food additive; or Included in the FDA review and approval of a New Animal Drug Application or New Drug Application.

Brad805

Step 1 in the health problem is to convince people to eat less. I am quite positive I got fat from eating way too much crap and not the GMO's. It would be nice if we could prioritize things in order of importance for society as a whole and not just some well to do portion that can afford organic.

If you want GMO stickers, all of your food will have them unless you only buy raw products or can afford to shop only at places like Whole Foods. Corn is in everything and that has been GM.

Monsanto is against labels because 75% of the population does not read. They get their health news from Fox or Dr. Oz and do little of their own research. Look at the gluten free craze. How many have actually been tested or just jump on the band wagon that it must be bad? I would fight darn hard too if I was in that position.

Monsanto is a monster company, true and they do fight because of what they have invested. You cannot fault them for that. Risk v. reward is part of what business is about. The scientists they hire that do the research and sign the patents are not the devil nor are the farmers that seed them. All but a very small number really do care and have a conscience. Those people are just like your doctor and your dentist when it comes to not wanting to harm people.

Monsanto makes far less with their GMO seeds now than when it first came out. They have had to relax their rules as more competitors have entered the market. There are some good things with GMO that are always overshadowed by the incomplete science studies out there. The plants have been engineered to grow much shorter, yield better and require less chemicals because of resistances built into the plant. As a result farmers do not cultivate or spray their crops as much anymore. This leads to less passes over the fields with equipment, hence less fuel is burned. Obviously the yield is the most important to the farmers at the end of the day, but the other things do help with that. When we first started raising canola (lots of years ago) the best yield was typically 30bu/acre. Now with the new seeds they get over 50bu/acre in our area. The math does work for GMO.

As for the arguments it is killing the farmers, well that group is just plainly confused. I grew up on a farm, and still have brothers that farm. Farming has evolved into big business. The little mom and pop farms just cannot make ends meet. All your little organic farmers do not bring enough product to market to hardly even count in the global economy. It is a tough business and is not getting any easier. Just like every other business, times have changed. My oldest brother and his family seed 15,000acres each spring. He drops about $1-2mil into the ground each spring hoping for enough rain so he gets a good crop. That seeding of the land requires about $2mil in equipment, $10mil in land, and 1000gal of diesel each morning while he is seeding. In the fall he rolls out onto the fields with equally as much equipment to harvest. None of that is for a small family farm. In our community where there used to be 20farmers, there is less than 10 now and they farm exactly the same number of acres. I assure you the changes were out of necessity to survive and not greed. That is all okay.

ryry_

My problem with Monsanto is not the GMO foods, but the fact that they are killing local farmers.

If the government keeps up their alliance with Monsato, there will eventually be no more famrers, just a centralized US farm company called Monsato.. :explode:

You do know many farmers in the US buy from Monsanto right?. Monsanto does not own all of the farmland, they sell the seed to farmers who plant and till and harvest the seeds. Farmers buy from Monsanto because their seeds have been improved to be drought resistant and other advantages. I'm in the midwest, farmers here love monsanto (edited to add that I'm sure not ALL farmers in the midwest have universal love for monsanto). Monsanto does require you sign an agreement that says you will not replant seeds, but have to buy from them for next years crop. You can use seeds for feed and stuff, but not for crops, that infringes on the patent. Thats why people get sued, because they violate the agreeement and try to replant.

Excerpt from a farmer who is so scared of monsanto

George Wherry, a Washington County farmer and member of the farm bureau's state board of directors, said he supports the Supreme Court's decision to protect Monsanto and its investment in providing high-quality seeds.

"We're fortunate to have a company in this country willing to do this," Wherry said. "It's not at our expense as farmers trying to develop or do this. We're not all rocket scientists. We're tillers of the soil, really."

Wherry said the seeds are not only resistant to weed killers but stand up to drought, so crops can survive with a minimal amount of water.

shining_light

1, why is this a surprise to anyone? and 2) If you eat fresh, whole foods, what are you so up in arms about? It's easy to avoid this when you buy fresh and prepare your own meals, and if you don't, you pretty much deserve whatever cheap crap someone else decides to throw in whatever you're eating. It's your responsibility to do the research and put in the effort to make sure you eat properly. For any business, whether large or small, making the most profit is their primary concern, so you shouldn't be the least bit surprised by any of this.

I'd also like to mention that I am in no way opposed to "genetic modification" if it means that fewer pesticides and herbicides are being sprayed on my food because they don't need the help to protect themselves. That's fantastic! And I know this type of modification is happening and I am 100% on board with it. Humans have been "genetically modifying" crops for as long as there has been agriculture. Canola came about as a cross-breeding plant experiment. It's fake, it's a mongrel plant. I don't hear a lot of people demonizing canola, and it's used in everything. I can't eat canola oil, which means I'm kind of shooting myself in the foot with this example, but my point is that we've always been modifying crops to suit our needs. We've just become more efficient about it lately. If you can feed more people with less impact on the environment via chemicals, why SHOULD'NT we? It's almost an ethical duty at that point.

Carnivor0us

My problem with Monsanto is not the GMO foods, but the fact that they are killing local farmers.

If the government keeps up their alliance with Monsato, there will eventually be no more famrers, just a centralized US farm company called Monsato.. :explode:

You do know many farmers in the US buy from Monsanto right?. Monsanto does not own all of the farmland, they sell the seed to farmers who plant and till and harvest the seeds. Farmers buy from Monsanto because their seeds have been improved to be drought resistant and other advantages. I'm in the midwest, farmers here love monsanto (edited to add that I'm sure not ALL farmers in the midwest have universal love for monsanto). Monsanto does require you sign an agreement that says you will not replant seeds, but have to buy from them for next years crop. You can use seeds for feed and stuff, but not for crops, that infringes on the patent. Thats why people get sued, because they violate the agreeement and try to replant.

Excerpt from a farmer who is so scared of monsanto

George Wherry, a Washington County farmer and member of the farm bureau's state board of directors, said he supports the Supreme Court's decision to protect Monsanto and its investment in providing high-quality seeds.

"We're fortunate to have a company in this country willing to do this," Wherry said. "It's not at our expense as farmers trying to develop or do this. We're not all rocket scientists. We're tillers of the soil, really."

Wherry said the seeds are not only resistant to weed killers but stand up to drought, so crops can survive with a minimal amount of water.

If a farmer deliberately violates their agreement with Monsanto, then yes, Monsanto should be able to protect their investment. I'm personally not talking about that - what I don't like is when their GMO pollen or seeds gets transported to a non-Monsanto-using farmers fields, due something beyond their control, and the farmer gets sued for that.

fbmandy55

My problem with Monsanto is not the GMO foods, but the fact that they are killing local farmers.

If the government keeps up their alliance with Monsato, there will eventually be no more famrers, just a centralized US farm company called Monsato.. :explode:

You do know many farmers in the US buy from Monsanto right?. Monsanto does not own all of the farmland, they sell the seed to farmers who plant and till and harvest the seeds. Farmers buy from Monsanto because their seeds have been improved to be drought resistant and other advantages. I'm in the midwest, farmers here love monsanto. Monsanto does require you sign an agreement that says you will not replant seeds, but have to buy from them for next years crop. You can use seeds for feed and stuff, but not for crops, that infringes on the patent. Thats why people get sued, because they violate the agreeement and try to replant.

Excerpt from a farmer who is so scared of monsanto

George Wherry, a Washington County farmer and member of the farm bureau's state board of directors, said he supports the Supreme Court's decision to protect Monsanto and its investment in providing high-quality seeds.

"We're fortunate to have a company in this country willing to do this," Wherry said. "It's not at our expense as farmers trying to develop or do this. We're not all rocket scientists. We're tillers of the soil, really."

Wherry said the seeds are not only resistant to weed killers but stand up to drought, so crops can survive with a minimal amount of water.

I do understand that some farms buy from them willingly.. BUT they are still suing and taking crops from farmers who do NOT buy their seeds. Whether they are transferred from neighboring fields or any other reason they can come up with.. They have sued farmers who purchased seeds in the past for crops several years later with NO evidence that they were saved or replanted Monsanto seeds. They have sued farmers who did not purchase their seeds at all but took samples from others farmer's fields to use against them...

Believe me, I am all for the free market. But our president signed a bill, written in part by Monsanto, protecting a private company from judicial review, (whose board of directors have held federal government positions including one of Obama's advisers) to manipulate the free market and collect ridiculous profits, there is a major problem and conflict of interest. . Monsanto is already supplier of a huge percentage of seeds and now bankrupting farmers who do NOT buy their seeds while the government backs them. Or leaving farmers with no alternative to purchasing other seeds.

Most disturbing, their seeds have never been questioned by the FDA/USDA. Shocking, considering two Monsanto directors have held positions within those agencies....There are many other sources for GMO seeds but require millions of dollars and years of testing to be approved, Monsanto was never held to that standard.

Monsanto=government run agriculture.

ryry_

My problem with Monsanto is not the GMO foods, but the fact that they are killing local farmers.

If the government keeps up their alliance with Monsato, there will eventually be no more famrers, just a centralized US farm company called Monsato.. :explode:

You do know many farmers in the US buy from Monsanto right?. Monsanto does not own all of the farmland, they sell the seed to farmers who plant and till and harvest the seeds. Farmers buy from Monsanto because their seeds have been improved to be drought resistant and other advantages. I'm in the midwest, farmers here love monsanto. Monsanto does require you sign an agreement that says you will not replant seeds, but have to buy from them for next years crop. You can use seeds for feed and stuff, but not for crops, that infringes on the patent. Thats why people get sued, because they violate the agreeement and try to replant.

Excerpt from a farmer who is so scared of monsanto

George Wherry, a Washington County farmer and member of the farm bureau's state board of directors, said he supports the Supreme Court's decision to protect Monsanto and its investment in providing high-quality seeds.

"We're fortunate to have a company in this country willing to do this," Wherry said. "It's not at our expense as farmers trying to develop or do this. We're not all rocket scientists. We're tillers of the soil, really."

Wherry said the seeds are not only resistant to weed killers but stand up to drought, so crops can survive with a minimal amount of water.

I do understand that some farms buy from them willingly.. BUT they are still suing and taking crops from farmers who do NOT buy their seeds. Whether they are transferred from neighboring fields or any other reason they can come up with.. They have sued farmers who purchased seeds in the past for crops several years later with NO evidence that they were saved or replanted Monsanto seeds. They have sued farmers who did not purchase their seeds at all but took samples from others farmer's fields to use against them...

Believe me, I am all for the free market. But our president signed a bill, written in part by Monsanto, protecting a private company from judicial review, (whose board of directors have held federal government positions including one of Obama's advisers) to manipulate the free market and collect ridiculous profits, there is a major problem and conflict of interest. . Monsanto is already supplier of a huge percentage of seeds and now bankrupting farmers who do NOT buy their seeds while the government backs them. Or leaving farmers with no alternative to purchasing other seeds.

Most disturbing, their seeds have never been questioned by the FDA/USDA. Shocking, considering two Monsanto directors have held positions within those agencies....There are many other sources for GMO seeds but require millions of dollars and years of testing to be approved, Monsanto was never held to that standard.

Monsanto=government run agriculture.

Every suit i have seen is people who violate the patent. Not them randomly suing them. Not saying it's not there, I just haven't seen it. The bill you reference has been largely sensationalized, making claims saying it prevents anyone from suing monsanto, which is completely false.

Do any current or former farmers who don't work for or use Monsanto products hold positions with FDA and USDA? If so, then they are probably evil people with huge conflicts of interest as well.

mojohowitz

For your lunch hour...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1JL41GPBrU

RushBabe214

To the original poster -- you do understand that everything you eat has been genetically modified over the last 2000 years or so of farming and domestication don't you? Or perhaps its just "evil" corporations that you dislike.

As you said tinfoil meet head -- head meet tinfoil.

ALL of this!!!

TrailRunner61

99% of their food is processed crap anyway. The only 2 things I saw on the list that I eat are Quaker oats and Uncle Ben's rice and I can switch to organic.

Something else you all may want to know is that Stokelys, Green Giant, Del Monte and Libby's spray the CRAP out of their vegetables with pesticides, ALL summer long, with crop dusters. I know this because they grow them in my back yard. That would include peas, green beans, sweet corn, creamed corn, pumpkins, oh and Pop Weaver's popcorn, fritos corn chips and Lays potato chips.

However, if they didn't use them, there would be no crops and not enough food to feed the world. Genetically modified foods have been eaten for years. What is concerning people is that the crops are made to be resistant to round up, an herbicide, so the fields can be rid of weeds, without damaging the crop. When you're growing 1,000's of acres, how else do you get rid of weeds? We do not have the manpower to do that and produce the amount of food that our world requires. What other choice do we have? When they didn't use round up, they used something else. It's been going on for YEARS.

What can you do? Grow your own food. Start a local community garden. Buy from a local organic farmer. Buy FRESH, not processed foods and WASH them before eating. Know what the 'dirty dozen' includes!

Aross83

bump!