GMOs
Replies
-
An interesting video...NSFW, this guy swears a lot....but he explains a lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulq0NW1sTcI 0 -
Plus the idea of the European Union banning them sounds just as much 'our farmers need revenue, let's make sure we can't buy from America' as concern over how healthy the food is.
Bingo.
Protecting their own economic interests in the guise of public health isn't beneath any country. It doesn't prove that the EU truly thinks GMOs are unhealthy, they just want to keep food prices higher.
You do appreciate that the EU isn't a country don't you? The various constituent countries all have very different incentives for their positions.
I'd also note that "the EU" is broadly meaningless when talking about regulation, as each member state enacts regulations individually. More complex again if one is discussing the European Commission or the Secretariat.
But to the point, there is a dearth of reliable data on GMO, in part because its too broad a term to be useful. There are a number of principles that do give rise to concern, with respect to propagation and cross boundary effects, but the research hasn't gone on long enough to be useful. Essentially there is some effect,but the persistence isn't known.0 -
Plus the idea of the European Union banning them sounds just as much 'our farmers need revenue, let's make sure we can't buy from America' as concern over how healthy the food is.
Bingo.
Protecting their own economic interests in the guise of public health isn't beneath any country. It doesn't prove that the EU truly thinks GMOs are unhealthy, they just want to keep food prices higher.
You do appreciate that the EU isn't a country don't you? The various constituent countries all have very different incentives for their positions.
I'd also note that "the EU" is broadly meaningless when talking about regulation, as each member state enacts regulations individually. More complex again if one is discussing the European Commission or the Secretariat.
But to the point, there is a dearth of reliable data on GMO, in part because its too broad a term to be useful. There are a number of principles that do give rise to concern, with respect to propagation and cross boundary effects, but the research hasn't gone on long enough to be useful. Essentially there is some effect,but the persistence isn't known.
Yes, I am aware the EU is an economic union, not a political one. I'm not retarded. The EU is comprised of a lot of European COUNTRIES that ban GMOs, which is what I said in the first place.0 -
Anybody know where there's any real evidence that GMOs are bad or is it just another 'this food is bad' paranoia?
First - let's look at what GMOs actually are.
GMO = Genetically Modified Organism. One organism has been manipulated to include some amount of genetic material from another organism. The new genetic elements are established into the organism such that they can "breed true", or you'd have to do it every generation. The new DNA is generally going to be inserted via a random approach, and then organisms which contain the desired traits will be selected and the best of these (by whatever criteria you define "best") will be taken for further use.
In practice, what does this actually mean?
GMO soy - one of the main "culprits" here - has been altered genetically to make it "Roundup Ready" (RR). Roundup is a glyphosate herbicide that kills broad leaf plants by way of inhibiting an enzyme the plants absolutely need to make certain amino acids. This is useful in killing most weeds, but can also kill the crop plants themselves, which isn't good.
So what scientists did was take a version of the same enzyme from a common bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which is not inhibited by Roundup, and put this gene (along with expression elements) into the genome of soy. The soy express the bacterial protein as well as their own protein. When treated with Roundup, the normal plant protein stops working but the bacterial can keep on trucking, making amino acids, so the RR plants live.
So what does this mean for our health?
If you consume soy oil, very little. The bacterial protein, being a protein, is unlikely to be found in significant quantities in the oil. Basically, in making oil, you are going to be purifying it away from contaminating stuff like proteins.
If you eat the soy beans, there will be some bacterial protein present. So what you are looking at is ONE added protein to the several thousand the soy already actually make. The rest of the proteins are going to be essentially identical (it is possible there could be small perturbations in the levels of a few of the soy proteins, but these would be small and highly unlikely to be significant) And, basically, a protein is a protein and will be treated as such by your body: i.e. you will digest it and use it as you would any other protein. There is a very small chance (as with any specific protein) that one could develop an allergy to it.
Other crops - corn, alfa and some others, have also been made RR in the same way.
So, bottom line, as far as health concerns go, I think that RR crops are going to be virtually indistinguishable from non-RR varieties. Scares over the safety of GMO crops from this point of view are, I think, baseless.
Other GM crops include rice. Rice has been made RR (but I don't think it is marketed?) and has also been modified so that it provides more nutrition, which could be a definite advantage in poor countries where rice is a staple.
Note - I'm not addressing environmental, labeling, or other concerns. Just health. And my conclusion is that there is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about GMO crops. My personal opinion is that (a) people should understand the science behind them so they can make an informed choice and (b) they should be labeled, so people can carry that informed choice into the store.0 -
Yes, I am aware the EU is an economic union, not a political one. I'm not retarded. The EU is comprised of a lot of European COUNTRIES that ban GMOs, which is what I said in the first place.
Perhaps you meant something different to what you actually said. The European Commission position is that there is insufficient evidence, hence the ongoing research in a number of member states. Some member states do have bans, some are waiting for more information.
Economic protectionism takes many forms; import bans, import levies, subsidy, imposition of unreasonable controls or conditions of sale. Most are used in some ways by most states. Some have a devastating effect, some merely lead to cost growth for the consumer or frustration over availability. All lead to perverse incentives.
What's been interesting recently is a resurgence of interest in how the farming industry influences biodiversity, with an emerging view that the consequences of monocultures are increasingly undesirable.0 -
Monsanto is the worst, with over 30 of their executives in the United states parliament system, they have so many strings to pull they dont have enough puppets.
Their "single yield" crops allow for one season of growth and do not produce any seeds due to genetic manipulation. This has caused 600,000+ Farmers in India (and in some cases their families) to commit suicide to prevent lose of their homes due to insane debt due to Monsanto.
Think about that. 600,000+ suicides...... And rising every day.
Can I have a source for 30 Monstanto executives in the US "parliament" (I assume you mean Congress)?
And I REALLY need a source for 600k+ suicides in India because of actions taken by Monsanto. You would think that would make the news. Some legitimate news station.
So, I really need a source before you make any more claims. Otherwise I will start making claims like "I know GMOs are safe because Jesus came down and turned my natural, organic, chemical free, fluoride free water into GMO wine and he said 'GMOs are totes cool, yo.' and then rode off on his Harley."0 -
In addition, bio-engineering companies are mixing the DNA of plants with desireable traits from ANIMALS. Not to mention all of the pesticides that are being grown into the plant, not just sprayed on.
I really like this film: http://www.foodmatters.tv/ It explains it very well. You can watch the first 40 minutes for free, otherwise I think there is a small price you can pay to watch the whole thing.0 -
0
-
In addition, bio-engineering companies are mixing the DNA of plants with desireable traits from ANIMALS. Not to mention all of the pesticides that are being grown into the plant, not just sprayed on.
I really like this film: http://www.foodmatters.tv/ It explains it very well. You can watch the first 40 minutes for free, otherwise I think there is a small price you can pay to watch the whole thing.
OMG!!!! Plants and animals sharing DNA!? How scary! Of course, it would be less scary if you knew that sharing DNA isn't uncommon. Actually, your DNA is 50% identical to a banana. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/what-is-the-evidence/morphology/dna-molecules/
Also pesticides aren't being grown in the plant, they are given them a sequence to make them less desirable for insects to eat (essentially), because of GMOs, pesticide use has down DOWN.0 -
No the actual spread of pesticides has INCREASED by genetically being sequenced into GMO products! Better listen to these broadcast that aren't backed by MILLIONS of dollars from those corporations who only care about making money off of what they sell... http://gmosummit.org/broadcasts/0
-
Anybody know where there's any real evidence that GMOs are bad or is it just another 'this food is bad' paranoia?
First - let's look at what GMOs actually are.
GMO = Genetically Modified Organism. One organism has been manipulated to include some amount of genetic material from another organism. The new genetic elements are established into the organism such that they can "breed true", or you'd have to do it every generation. The new DNA is generally going to be inserted via a random approach, and then organisms which contain the desired traits will be selected and the best of these (by whatever criteria you define "best") will be taken for further use.
WOO HOO!! FInally someone with some knowledge of what GMO really is!! Well said!
In practice, what does this actually mean?
GMO soy - one of the main "culprits" here - has been altered genetically to make it "Roundup Ready" (RR). Roundup is a glyphosate herbicide that kills broad leaf plants by way of inhibiting an enzyme the plants absolutely need to make certain amino acids. This is useful in killing most weeds, but can also kill the crop plants themselves, which isn't good.
So what scientists did was take a version of the same enzyme from a common bacteria Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which is not inhibited by Roundup, and put this gene (along with expression elements) into the genome of soy. The soy express the bacterial protein as well as their own protein. When treated with Roundup, the normal plant protein stops working but the bacterial can keep on trucking, making amino acids, so the RR plants live.
So what does this mean for our health?
If you consume soy oil, very little. The bacterial protein, being a protein, is unlikely to be found in significant quantities in the oil. Basically, in making oil, you are going to be purifying it away from contaminating stuff like proteins.
If you eat the soy beans, there will be some bacterial protein present. So what you are looking at is ONE added protein to the several thousand the soy already actually make. The rest of the proteins are going to be essentially identical (it is possible there could be small perturbations in the levels of a few of the soy proteins, but these would be small and highly unlikely to be significant) And, basically, a protein is a protein and will be treated as such by your body: i.e. you will digest it and use it as you would any other protein. There is a very small chance (as with any specific protein) that one could develop an allergy to it.
Other crops - corn, alfa and some others, have also been made RR in the same way.
So, bottom line, as far as health concerns go, I think that RR crops are going to be virtually indistinguishable from non-RR varieties. Scares over the safety of GMO crops from this point of view are, I think, baseless.
Other GM crops include rice. Rice has been made RR (but I don't think it is marketed?) and has also been modified so that it provides more nutrition, which could be a definite advantage in poor countries where rice is a staple.
Note - I'm not addressing environmental, labeling, or other concerns. Just health. And my conclusion is that there is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about GMO crops. My personal opinion is that (a) people should understand the science behind them so they can make an informed choice and (b) they should be labeled, so people can carry that informed choice into the store.
Well said!!0 -
Here is a video about India problems with GMO crops... including reports about suicides taking place among the farmers there ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFF96-wrtUM 0 -
Here is a video about India problems with GMO crops... including reports about suicides taking place among the farmers there ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFF96-wrtUM
Actual pesticide use in the US: http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/larson/Slide1.JPG As you can see, pesticide use has gone down since 83. Herbicides are on a downward trend, and are almost at 83 levels. Granted this data is a little old, but here is a more recent report by the Washington Post showing that use is in fact doing down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/18/the-world-uses-billions-of-pounds-of-pesticides-each-year-is-that-a-problem/
And when I said a reliable news source, I wasn't asking for a crappy documentary. I'm talking real, reliable, verifiable news. You can also check out this site that does a decent job debunking everything in that clip: http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/0 -
I haven't personally been able to do much research into GMOs yet (but it's on my list!), but the way I look at it is that, even without any conclusive proof that it's bad for you, I'd rather eat the natural foods than something that's been tinkered with by humans specifically because we DON'T know if it's bad for you. For example, look at cigarettes; for a long time it was commonly believed they were good for you (or at the very least not harmful); now they're pretty much at the top of everyone's list for number 1 thing you can do to make yourself healthier by avoiding.
My personal opinion is that if you can avoid them then why not do so. If you can't and it's not possible to get the kind of research that would let you come to your own conclusions, then eat the GMO products and wait until there is enough research.0 -
Here is a report on the alarming rate of obesity and health issues in America since the 1990's where GMOs were allowed to be added to the US food manufacturing process! ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0QRCqZMIf8 and start using common sense that something is definitely going wrong in the countries that allow GMOs in the food supply without letting its consumers know that GMOs are IN their food supply Oh, and that happens to be mainly in America where many chemicals and additives in its food supply have been illegal to use in other countries!
GMO advocates say it is because alarmist in all these other nations have made such it such a political issue that they have forced these governments to enforce labeling of their foods to include identifying that products that have GMOs be clearly stated? I have to agree I like to know if I am eating food that has been genetically altered myself. SO, I have to ask why are they hesitant about letting the public know what foods are made or mixed with GMOs ... especially if their scientific findings prove GMOs are better for us.. WHERE is their PROOF??? You won't find it here in America.. we are getting sicker NOT healthier!!0 -
Here is a report on the alarming rate of obesity and health issues in America since the 1990's where GMOs were allowed to be added to the US food manufacturing process! ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0QRCqZMIf8 and start using common sense that something is definitely going wrong in the countries that allow GMOs in the food supply without letting its consumers know that GMOs are IN their food supply Oh, and that happens to be mainly in America where many chemicals and additives in its food supply have been illegal to use in other countries!
GMO advocates say it is because alarmist in all these other nations have made such it such a political issue that they have forced these governments to enforce labeling of their foods to include identifying that products that have GMOs be clearly stated? I have to agree I like to know if I am eating food that has been genetically altered myself. SO, I have to ask why are they hesitant about letting the public know what foods are made or mixed with GMOs ... especially if their scientific findings prove GMOs are better for us.. WHERE is their PROOF??? You won't find it here in America.. we are getting sicker NOT healthier!!
You... really think GMOs caused obesity? That's hilarious. 1990s you say? Hm... this chart http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/USObesityRate1960-2004.svg says otherwise. Looks like obesity rates started to rise significantly before 1990.
Can you PLEASE cite something more credible than youtube? News articles would be great. I get it, youtube is great for crazy conspiracy theories, which is why people love it. But it's not great for things like "facts" and "science".
And you want to know why they are hesitant? Because of the fear of GMOs (right or wrong) here in the US. Because if they force companies to list "THIS HAS GMOS!!!!" on their labels, people will assume that they are being warned about them and avoid them (right or wrong). Essentially, these companies that produce these products are worried about their bottom line, which isn't surprising. HUNDREDS of scientific studies have been done on the safety of GMOs. You can google them. In fact, I can help you out with that! http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gmo+safety+studies Or you can check out this helpful forbes article! http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/0 -
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/15/opponents-of-third-world-gm-crops-are-wicked-says-uk-environment-secretary/#.UmqsMBClrFw "Vitamin A deficiency affects 40% of children in the developing world and can cause serious health issues. Golden Rice, which is fortified with beta-carotene, is said to be able to provide 60% of daily required intake of vitamin A. Though there have been efforts to combat the widespread deficiency with better farming practices and food distribution, a solution using biotechnology is strongly supported by the scientific community."Here is a report on the alarming rate of obesity and health issues in America since the 1990's where GMOs were allowed to be added to the US food manufacturing process! ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0QRCqZMIf8 and start using common sense that something is definitely going wrong in the countries that allow GMOs in the food supply without letting its consumers know that GMOs are IN their food supply Oh, and that happens to be mainly in America where many chemicals and additives in its food supply have been illegal to use in other countries!
GMO advocates say it is because alarmist in all these other nations have made such it such a political issue that they have forced these governments to enforce labeling of their foods to include identifying that products that have GMOs be clearly stated? I have to agree I like to know if I am eating food that has been genetically altered myself. SO, I have to ask why are they hesitant about letting the public know what foods are made or mixed with GMOs ... especially if their scientific findings prove GMOs are better for us.. WHERE is their PROOF??? You won't find it here in America.. we are getting sicker NOT healthier!!
But you know that additives aren't the same as GMOs....right? I'm pro-GMO...but I make my own almond milk and buy natural yogurt because almost all brands contain carageenan...an additive that is a carcinogen as well as an inflammatory additive that are linked to IBS as well as inflammation around the heart.
You need to separate the two...GMO is not weird chemical crap that they add to food.0 -
And when I said a reliable news source, I wasn't asking for a crappy documentary. I'm talking real, reliable, verifiable news. You can also check out this site that does a decent job debunking everything in that clip: http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/
[/quote]
Academic Review .. isn't a "reliable" news source either, sorry to tell you.. their opinions give no validation of GMOs being safe or proving their use isn't harming crops, livestock, or humans either... and don't adequately refute the potential dangers that GMOs may produce when used or consumed...
I guess it is a matter of do you trust NOT knowing what is in your food and eating it when there is NO evidence that it IS safe, which is the backbone of the debate about labeling and the lack of published studies proving their claims the big food and bio technologies are making ... or TO know what is in your food to make your own decision of what to ingest, which in my opinion, the smartest consumer is the one who KNOWS what they are consuming and therefore I am for at least GMO labeling as I don't want to be a part of some blind experiment which on the surface of the RELIABLE NEWS SOURCES here in America leads me to believe that Americans are having MORE health issues than ever before since the 1990's when GMOs were allowed by the FDA to be used in our food supply!0 -
Not ALL additives are GMO, I admit and still need to be avoided to as they have no health or nutritional value and only serve to make the food taste better or be more palatable to make you want to eat more of it .. but many are derivatives from GMO food, so yes, in that sense many additives are now GMO products.0
-
And when I said a reliable news source, I wasn't asking for a crappy documentary. I'm talking real, reliable, verifiable news. You can also check out this site that does a decent job debunking everything in that clip: http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/
Academic Review .. isn't a "reliable" news source either, sorry to tell you.. their opinions give no validation of GMOs being safe or proving their use isn't harming crops, livestock, or humans either... and don't adequately refute the potential dangers that GMOs may produce when used or consumed...
I guess it is a matter of do you trust NOT knowing what is in your food and eating it when there is NO evidence that it IS safe, which is the backbone of the debate about labeling and the lack of published studies proving their claims the big food and bio technologies are making ... or TO know what is in your food to make your own decision of what to ingest, which in my opinion, the smartest consumer is the one who KNOWS what they are consuming and therefore I am for at least GMO labeling as I don't want to be a part of some blind experiment which on the surface of the RELIABLE NEWS SOURCES here in America leads me to believe that Americans are having MORE health issues than ever before since the 1990's when GMOs were allowed by the FDA to be used in our food supply!
[/quote]
See, the thing about the site I linked is that it links every claim it makes to different peer reviewed studies, so it's in fact more reliable than some random youtube video with 0 sources.
And there is a ton of evidence it is safe. Once again, let me link this Forbes article that links to several sites that talk about the safety of GMOs and even aggregates a list of over 1700 studies on GMOs for you. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/
Seriously, the evidence is out there. What you are claiming is that light doesn't exist yet you refuse to flip a light switch or open a window.0 -
[
This has NEVER happened. Monsanto has never sued a farmer for GMO seeds spreading to other crops. In fact, if they find that their seeds have spread, they will pay to have that farmers crop cleaned up.On top of that there are concerns about the damage to biodiversity that results from seed companies' business practices, which include suing farmers who aren't their customers for patent infringement if their fields get invaded by seeds or cross-pollinated from a neighboring GMO-using farmer.
I don't normally chime in on these debates, however, I have to correct you on this one. Growing up in farm country in the Midwest, I know for a fact that Monsanto has sued countless farmers for just this. My sister-in-law's father represented many a farmer in lawsuits brought on by Monsanto.0 -
I'm really sorry that you feel that ONLY scientist can warn us of the growing dangers in the world! ANY study can be biased and scientist are only human and can be wrong too! You need to open your eyes to many other experts that have studied the issue way far more than you or I ... and have heard testimonies by actual PEOPLE whose health got better when removing GMO laced foods from their diets from weight loss and getting over afflictions such as asthma, diabetes, autism, high blood pressure, ulcers, etc. etc... Maybe they aren't scientific enough for you but their lives are better AFTER getting off GMO foods. The same is true when it comes to livestock which has less other environmental factors than our "human" diet than being fed GMO products. SO, it begs to say who is really OPEN to the evidence about GMOs ... and why does Monsanto try and block studies about their GMO products by outside scientific research facilities... I have lived long enough to NOT trust just one because of a title or profession ... and why should I trust someone who won't be transparent and tell the people what they are doing or what they are putting into MY FOOD!!
Jeffery Smith. Institute For Responsible Technology .. Saying NO to GMOs... http://instantteleseminar.com/?eventid=45884631
Dr. Thierry Vrain, former Pro - GMO research scientist refuting the GMO claims ... http://gmosummit.org/former-pro-gmo-scientist/
Why does Monsanto try and block research studies over its GMO produced products???
http://www.criticalunity.org/news/food-drugs/1279-monsanto-blocks-research-on-gmo-safety.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15720.cfm
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Monsanto-threatens-to-sue-EFSA-over-publication-of-maize-GM-data0 -
Here you go:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/08/29/are-gmos-safe-global-independent-science-organizations-weigh-in/
http://esciencenews.com/search/GMO
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130110075358.htm
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/controversy-behind-elles-conspiracy-laden-gmo-story
http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2013/09/golden-rice-not-so-golden-tufts
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/home/
http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/10/10/genetically-modified-organisms-among-the-most-studied-subject-in-science/0 -
More broadcast today with speakers talking about GMOs! http://gmosummit.org/broadcasts/0
-
I don't normally chime in on these debates, however, I have to correct you on this one. Growing up in farm country in the Midwest, I know for a fact that Monsanto has sued countless farmers for just this. My sister-in-law's father represented many a farmer in lawsuits brought on by Monsanto.
Where? I went through the first 10 pages on google for "Monsanto sues farmers for cross pollination" and I can't find a single article with an actual case I can look up. I see Monsanto has sued roughly 13 farmers a year (since 2001) for breaching their contracts... but those farmers signed the contracts...and didn't comply with them...Monsanto won every case. So...I'm not sure what cases you're talking about. I'd love an example. A name I can google...something.0 -
Here is an excerpt from the following article from the The New York Times by Michael Pollan and published on October 25, 1998 .. the whole article can be read here ... http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm ... please note the quote at the end of the excerpt by Phill Angell, Director of communications for Monsanto ... SAY WHAT????????
Yet even in the case of those biotech crops over which the F.D.A. does have jurisdiction, I learned that F.D.A. regulation of biotech food has been largely voluntary since 1992, when Vice President Dan Quayle issued regulatory guidelines for the industry as part of the Bush Administration's campaign for ''regulatory relief.'' Under the guidelines, new proteins engineered into foods are regarded as additives (unless they're pesticides), but as Maryanski explained, ''the determination whether a new protein is GRAS can be made by the company.'' Companies with a new biotech food decide for themselves whether they need to consult with the F.D.A. by following a series of ''decision trees'' that pose yes or no questions like this one: ''Does. . .the introduced protein raise any safety concern?''
Since my Bt potatoes were being regulated as a pesticide by the E.P.A. rather than as a food by the F.D.A., I wondered if the safety standards are the same. ''Not exactly,'' Maryanski explained. The F.D.A. requires ''a reasonable certainty of no harm'' in a food additive, a standard most pesticides could not meet. After all, ''pesticides are toxic to something,'' Maryanski pointed out, so the E.P.A. instead establishes human ''tolerances'' for each chemical and then subjects it to a risk-benefit analysis.
When I called the E.P.A. and asked if the agency had tested my Bt potatoes for safety as a human food, the answer was. . .not exactly. It seems the E.P.A. works from the assumption that if the original potato is safe and the Bt protein added to it is safe, then the whole New Leaf package is presumed to be safe. Some geneticists believe this reasoning is flawed, contending that the process of genetic engineering itself may cause subtle, as yet unrecognized changes in a food.
The original Superior potato is safe, obviously enough, so that left the Bt toxin, which was fed to mice, and they ''did fine, had no side effects,'' I was told. I always feel better knowing that my food has been poison-tested by mice, though in this case there was a small catch: the mice weren't actually eating the potatoes, not even an extract from the potatoes, but rather straight Bt produced in a bacterial culture.
So are my New Leafs safe to eat? Probably, assuming that a New Leaf is nothing more than the sum of a safe potato and a safe pesticide, and further assuming that the E.P.A.'s idea of a safe pesticide is tantamount to a safe food. Yet I still had a question. Let us assume that my potatoes are a pesticide -- a very safe pesticide. Every pesticide in my garden shed -- including the Bt sprays -- carries a lengthy warning label. The label on my bottle of Bt says, among other things, that I should avoid inhaling the spray or getting it in an open wound. So if my New Leaf potatoes contain an E.P.A.-registered pesticide, why don't they carry some such label?
Maryanski had the answer. At least for the purposes of labeling, my New Leafs have morphed yet again, back into a food: the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act gives the F.D.A. sole jurisdiction over the labeling of plant foods, and the F.D.A. has ruled that biotech foods need be labeled only if they contain known allergens or have otherwise been ''materially'' changed.
But isn't turning a potato into a pesticide a material change?
It doesn't matter. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act specifically bars the F.D.A. from including any information about pesticides on its food labels.
I thought about Maryanski's candid and wondrous explanations the next time I met Phil Angell, who again cited the critical role of the F.D.A. in assuring Americans that biotech food is safe. But this time he went even further. ''Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,'' he said. ''Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job.''0 -
This made me laugh because one of my friends just posted this on fb:
Also, you don't understand ANYTHING if you think autism and GMOs have any relation, at all. You are an idiot.
It is so funny because these are the exact arguments many anti-GMO people cite when saying that GM foods cause cancer, or any number of diseases. Say it with me people, "correlation does not imply causation", if it did, organic foods would definitely be causing autism, as this graph shows.0 -
This made me laugh because one of my friends just posted this on fb:
Also, you don't understand ANYTHING if you think autism and GMOs have any relation, at all. You are an idiot.
It is so funny because these are the exact arguments many anti-GMO people cite when saying that GM foods cause cancer, or any number of diseases. Say it with me people, "correlation does not imply causation", if it did, organic foods would definitely be causing autism, as this graph shows.
I really hate when people blame autism on random stuff (GMOs Vaccines, etc). I have a couple friends who have high functioning autism. They are close friends of mine. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of it. It's not something you can catch or whatever. It doesn't make sense. I think it's a dishonor to those who have it.0 -
First, the forums are NOT the place to toss insults at others regardless of their viewpoints .. and secondly don't go putting words into others mouths that they DID NOT say.. I would hope members here would be more cool headed and rational when trying to debate an issue. Everyone has a right to their opinion and I post the information they find on whatever subject at hand. Don't let your personal feelings dictate what you say and how you treat people. I am not responsible for what OTHERS have reported in their research and interviews, I am merely passing the information on. SO everyone please post your ideas or links and leave it at that or MFP will pull the thread!0
-
This made me laugh because one of my friends just posted this on fb:
Also, you don't understand ANYTHING if you think autism and GMOs have any relation, at all. You are an idiot.
It is so funny because these are the exact arguments many anti-GMO people cite when saying that GM foods cause cancer, or any number of diseases. Say it with me people, "correlation does not imply causation", if it did, organic foods would definitely be causing autism, as this graph shows.
I really hate when people blame autism on random stuff (GMOs Vaccines, etc). I have a couple friends who have high functioning autism. They are close friends of mine. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of it. It's not something you can catch or whatever. It doesn't make sense. I think it's a dishonor to those who have it.
Thank you! My son has high functioning Autism. I did not give it to him by vaccinating him, I am not making him worse by letting him have gluten and GMO's and pretty much what he wants to eat (within reason), and I am not going to buy your ISAGENIX crap to "heal" him. rant over0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions