Kelloggs And Kraft GMO
Options
VeggieKidMandy
Posts: 575 Member
http://www.undergroundhealth.com/boycott-kelloggs-kelloggs-loves-gmo-contamination-of-organic/?fb_ref=recommendations-bar
Organic Consumers Association and allies warned Kellogg’s, if they used sugar from genetically engineered sugar beets in their foods, they would face a consumer boycott.
Kellogg’s responded, claiming that, even though they don’t use genetically engineered ingredients in Europe, in the U.S., “consumer concerns about the usage of biotech ingredients in food production are low.” Does that sound true to you?
Now, Kellogg’s is telling consumers that they might as well eat their GMO-laced products because, “Even organic ingredients can contain biotech ingredients due to cross-pollination.” cancer flakes
This is an outrageous lie!
– For one, Kellogg’s admits it doesn’t use GMOs in the products it sells in Europe (which doesn’t tolerate GMO contamination of imported foods).
– More importantly, while it is true that GMOs threaten the organic seed supply with contamination, the USDA National Organic Program rules include residue testing requirements that would prevent contaminated products from being sold as organic.
Tell Kellogg’s you’ll be boycotting their products until they stop lying about GMO contamination of organic, start labeling their genetically engineered foods, and quit using GMOs in the products they sell in the U.S. Make sure you tell them that this includes a boycott of their so-called “natural” brands, Morningstar Farms, Kashi, Bear Naked, and Gardenburger! You can be sure that any products under these brands which aren’t certified organic do contain GMOs.
Source: Organic Consumers Association
Kraft Mac And Cheese:
What’s considered the most respected newspaper in the world today published the Kraft warning label that a Food Babe reader found in the UK on an imported US box of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese. I want to thank the NY Times for investigating and broadcasting this label to the world and millions of Americans in their newspaper and online for everyone to see. This is a huge victory in food awareness!
Given all the media coverage since March, it is now becoming blatantly apparent that there are serious concerns with the ingredients in Kraft Mac & Cheese. Everyone who reads the NY Times today will see the 2 warnings:
Warning #1: This Product May Cause Adverse Effects On Activity And Attention In Children (This warning label is required because The US version of Kraft Mac & Cheese has artificial food dyes yellow #5 and yellow #6 which are proven to be linked to hyperactivity in children.)
Warning #2: GMO Declaration: Made from genetically modified wheat. (May contain GMO) (This warning label is required because the US version of Kraft Mac & Cheese contains GMOs.)
http://www.undergroundhealth.com/kraft-mac-cheese-warning-label-published-by-ny-times/
Also Trader Joes is selling GMOs
http://www.undergroundhealth.com/what-is-trader-joes-hiding/
Organic Consumers Association and allies warned Kellogg’s, if they used sugar from genetically engineered sugar beets in their foods, they would face a consumer boycott.
Kellogg’s responded, claiming that, even though they don’t use genetically engineered ingredients in Europe, in the U.S., “consumer concerns about the usage of biotech ingredients in food production are low.” Does that sound true to you?
Now, Kellogg’s is telling consumers that they might as well eat their GMO-laced products because, “Even organic ingredients can contain biotech ingredients due to cross-pollination.” cancer flakes
This is an outrageous lie!
– For one, Kellogg’s admits it doesn’t use GMOs in the products it sells in Europe (which doesn’t tolerate GMO contamination of imported foods).
– More importantly, while it is true that GMOs threaten the organic seed supply with contamination, the USDA National Organic Program rules include residue testing requirements that would prevent contaminated products from being sold as organic.
Tell Kellogg’s you’ll be boycotting their products until they stop lying about GMO contamination of organic, start labeling their genetically engineered foods, and quit using GMOs in the products they sell in the U.S. Make sure you tell them that this includes a boycott of their so-called “natural” brands, Morningstar Farms, Kashi, Bear Naked, and Gardenburger! You can be sure that any products under these brands which aren’t certified organic do contain GMOs.
Source: Organic Consumers Association
Kraft Mac And Cheese:
What’s considered the most respected newspaper in the world today published the Kraft warning label that a Food Babe reader found in the UK on an imported US box of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese. I want to thank the NY Times for investigating and broadcasting this label to the world and millions of Americans in their newspaper and online for everyone to see. This is a huge victory in food awareness!
Given all the media coverage since March, it is now becoming blatantly apparent that there are serious concerns with the ingredients in Kraft Mac & Cheese. Everyone who reads the NY Times today will see the 2 warnings:
Warning #1: This Product May Cause Adverse Effects On Activity And Attention In Children (This warning label is required because The US version of Kraft Mac & Cheese has artificial food dyes yellow #5 and yellow #6 which are proven to be linked to hyperactivity in children.)
Warning #2: GMO Declaration: Made from genetically modified wheat. (May contain GMO) (This warning label is required because the US version of Kraft Mac & Cheese contains GMOs.)
http://www.undergroundhealth.com/kraft-mac-cheese-warning-label-published-by-ny-times/
Also Trader Joes is selling GMOs
http://www.undergroundhealth.com/what-is-trader-joes-hiding/
0
Replies
-
Fearmongering at its best.
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."
Also the marketing term organic most deffinately doesn't mean what you think it does.
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=70 -
Here's a, partial, list of substances allowed by the USDA to be used on food and still be labeled "Organic", which includes pesticides:
(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems.
(1) Alcohols.
(i) Ethanol.
(ii) Isopropanol.
(2) Chlorine materials—For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.
(i) Calcium hypochlorite.
(ii) Chlorine dioxide.
(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.
(3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(4) Hydrogen peroxide.
(5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.
(6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material.
(7) Soap-based algicide/demossers.
(8) Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (CAS #-15630-89-4)—Federal law restricts the use of this substance in food crop production to approved food uses identified on the product label.
(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable.
(1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops.
(2) Mulches.
(i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.
(ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)).
(c) As compost feedstocks—Newspapers or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.
(d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of crop.
(e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control).
(1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil.
(2) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.
(3) Boric acid—structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops.
(4) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(5) Elemental sulfur.
(6) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide.
(7) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.
(8) Soaps, insecticidal.
(9) Sticky traps/barriers.
(10) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.
(f) As insect management. Pheromones.
(g) As rodenticides. Vitamin D3 .
(h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045-86-0).
(i) As plant disease control.
(1) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.
(2) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides.
(3) Copper sulfate—Substance must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil.
(4) Hydrated lime.
(5) Hydrogen peroxide.
(6) Lime sulfur.
(7) Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.
(8) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria.
(9) Potassium bicarbonate.
(10) Elemental sulfur.
(11) Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014.
(12) Tetracycline, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014.
(j) As plant or soil amendments.
(1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than hydrolyzed)—Extraction process is limited to the use of potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide; solvent amount used is limited to that amount necessary for extraction.
(2) Elemental sulfur.
(3) Humic acids—naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali extracts only.
(4) Lignin sulfonate—chelating agent, dust suppressant.
(5) Magnesium sulfate—allowed with a documented soil deficiency.
(6) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing.
(i) Soluble boron products.
(ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt.
(7) Liquid fish products—can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5.
(8) Vitamins, B1 , C, and E.
(9) Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782-99-2) for on-farm generation of substance utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
(k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene gas—for regulation of pineapple flowering.
(l) As floating agents in postharvest handling.
(1) Lignin sulfonate.
(2) Sodium silicate—for tree fruit and fiber processing.
(m) 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) EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity—for use only in passive pheromone dispensers.
(n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen chloride (CAS # 7647-01-0)—for delinting cotton seed for planting.
(o) As production aids. Microcrystalline cheesewax (CAS #'s 64742-42-3, 8009-03-08, and 8002-74-2)-for use in log grown mushroom production. Must be made without either ethylene-propylene co-polymer or synthetic colors.0 -
Here's a, partial, list of substances allowed by the USDA to be used on food and still be labeled "Organic", which includes pesticides:
(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems.
(1) Alcohols.
(i) Ethanol.
(ii) Isopropanol.
(2) Chlorine materials—For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.
(i) Calcium hypochlorite.
(ii) Chlorine dioxide.
(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.
(3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(4) Hydrogen peroxide.
(5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.
(6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material.
(7) Soap-based algicide/demossers.
(8) Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (CAS #-15630-89-4)—Federal law restricts the use of this substance in food crop production to approved food uses identified on the product label.
(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable.
(1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops.
(2) Mulches.
(i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.
(ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)).
(c) As compost feedstocks—Newspapers or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.
(d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of crop.
(e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control).
(1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil.
(2) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.
(3) Boric acid—structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops.
(4) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(5) Elemental sulfur.
(6) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide.
(7) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.
(8) Soaps, insecticidal.
(9) Sticky traps/barriers.
(10) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.
(f) As insect management. Pheromones.
(g) As rodenticides. Vitamin D3 .
(h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045-86-0).
(i) As plant disease control.
(1) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.
(2) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides.
(3) Copper sulfate—Substance must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil.
(4) Hydrated lime.
(5) Hydrogen peroxide.
(6) Lime sulfur.
(7) Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.
(8) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria.
(9) Potassium bicarbonate.
(10) Elemental sulfur.
(11) Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014.
(12) Tetracycline, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014.
(j) As plant or soil amendments.
(1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than hydrolyzed)—Extraction process is limited to the use of potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide; solvent amount used is limited to that amount necessary for extraction.
(2) Elemental sulfur.
(3) Humic acids—naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali extracts only.
(4) Lignin sulfonate—chelating agent, dust suppressant.
(5) Magnesium sulfate—allowed with a documented soil deficiency.
(6) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing.
(i) Soluble boron products.
(ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt.
(7) Liquid fish products—can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5.
(8) Vitamins, B1 , C, and E.
(9) Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782-99-2) for on-farm generation of substance utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
(k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene gas—for regulation of pineapple flowering.
(l) As floating agents in postharvest handling.
(1) Lignin sulfonate.
(2) Sodium silicate—for tree fruit and fiber processing.
(m) 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) EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity—for use only in passive pheromone dispensers.
(n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen chloride (CAS # 7647-01-0)—for delinting cotton seed for planting.
(o) As production aids. Microcrystalline cheesewax (CAS #'s 64742-42-3, 8009-03-08, and 8002-74-2)-for use in log grown mushroom production. Must be made without either ethylene-propylene co-polymer or synthetic colors.
Its all scary! I feel like i cant eat anymore lol0 -
while im still kind of on the fence about GMO - i know for a fact that artificial colors make my kids hyper as ****. i avoid them whenever possible (colors, not my kids lol though some days......)0
-
Could you cite some credible (peer reviewed sciency stuff, not the tinfoil hat gang's anecdotes) sources that demonstrate the dangers of GMO products?0
-
Could you cite some credible (peer reviewed sciency stuff, not the tinfoil hat gang's anecdotes) sources that demonstrate the dangers of GMO products?
No, of course not.0 -
Could you cite some credible (peer reviewed sciency stuff, not the tinfoil hat gang's anecdotes) sources that demonstrate the dangers of GMO products?
No, of course not.
Exactly.
Also....who the hell didn't think that Kraft Mac and Cheese had bad stuff in it? It has _powdered orange "cheese"_. And it calls for half a stick of butter.
I get confused why the general American people express concerns about the healthiness of GMOs (which are created to reduce the need for pesticides and increase the yield of produce in less than desirable soil conditions to [ahem] feed the world) and then eat fat free Pringles, cheese whiz, and a Big Mac without concerning themselves about the health of those foods. Weird.0 -
Could you cite some credible (peer reviewed sciency stuff, not the tinfoil hat gang's anecdotes) sources that demonstrate the dangers of GMO products?
No, of course not.
Exactly.
Also....who the hell didn't think that Kraft Mac and Cheese had bad stuff in it? It has _powdered orange "cheese"_. And it calls for half a stick of butter.
I get confused when people express concerns about GMOs (which are created to reduce the need for pesticides and increase the yield in less than desirable soil conditions to feed the world) and then go eat fat free Pringles, cheese whiz, and a Big Mac.
To be fair, there's probably a high overlap between the people who have concerns about GMO and people who won't eat the pringles, cheese whiz, big mac, etc. I'd guess that your example is probably in the minority.
As it relates to GMOs in general, I think it's a good thing when people take a critical eye to what they take into their bodies, and the policies that our governments have toward those substances. Whether or not GMOs are the boogey man that people want to make them out to be, I think there is benefit to be gained from that awareness and we're better off because of it.
As for the science behind it -- coming from a science background, I try to keep in mind a couple things:
1. Science changes. Frequently. What we believe now, we will likely not believe in a hundred years.
2. Studies and trials are often used as evidence in a wider variety of circumstances than they were initially conceived as. As a thought experiment, consider the following (extremely simplified example): a group of scientists want to study whether or not a substance is harmful for human beings. The average human intake of the substance is 500mg/d. So they dose the person at 1000mg/d for 6 months, and observe to see if any negative health outcomes occur. None occur. Now, the rub -- does this mean the substance is "safe"? Not really -- what it means is that you're not likely to see negative health impact in 6 months at a 1000mg/d dosage level. Further study at 6 years, 20 years, etc., or research into levels around 2000mg/d, etc., are warranted. Good science should be limited in the scope of its conclusions. For instance, we thought asbestos was harmless for a long time, too.
3. Science in the realm of public health is very expensive if you want to design it properly. Much of the scientific findings that are released are observational or have questionable methodologies. The papers that come out are written for other scientists who can read and dissect that information with a critical eye -- it's one of the things that are lacking when people read abstracts and throw papers at each other for evidence on the internet.
None of the above mean that GMOs are harmful -- nor do I take that position, for what it's worth.0 -
The fact that they produce a version free from all that crap to distribute to other countries is ridiculous. If you make a version that doesn't contain franken-foods why can't you use THAT version for all distribution?.... :noway:0
-
The fact that they produce a version free from all that crap to distribute to other countries is ridiculous. If you make a version that doesn't contain franken-foods why can't you use THAT version for all distribution?.... :noway:
^Exactly.
For those that claim this is all just fear-mongering or that they must see only peer-reviewed information, why don't you think about this (if you already didn't know, which I think is pretty common information for anyone who has done some research on GMOs on both sides of the debate):
1. The FDA does not use independent companies to test their foods, and uses their own scientists. This is a HUGE and VERY OBVIOUS conflict of interest, and also explains why there is more peer reviewed available information for GMOs being safe - obviously the food industry wants to make money, so why would they publish results from test that prove that it's not 100% safe and 100% nutritious? Scientists can also easily mess around with numbers in control groups and the length of testing to make it seem like it's safe when it's not.
2. I think at least 20 other countries in the world ABSOLUTELY BAN GMO products - why do you think that is?
Take everything with a grain of salt, some openness, and perhaps some common sense. Human bodies are not made to properly process man-made chemicals (which I think is pretty obvious as well), thus avoiding anything that is chemically/genetically altered seems a lot safer to me. But to each their own I guess.0 -
The fact that they produce a version free from all that crap to distribute to other countries is ridiculous. If you make a version that doesn't contain franken-foods why can't you use THAT version for all distribution?.... :noway:
^Exactly.
For those that claim this is all just fear-mongering or that they must see only peer-reviewed information, why don't you think about this (if you already didn't know, which I think is pretty common information for anyone who has done some research on GMOs on both sides of the debate):
1. The FDA does not use independent companies to test their foods, and uses their own scientists. This is a HUGE and VERY OBVIOUS conflict of interest, and also explains why there is more peer reviewed available information for GMOs being safe - obviously the food industry wants to make money, so why would they publish results from test that prove that it's not 100% safe and 100% nutritious? Scientists can also easily mess around with numbers in control groups and the length of testing to make it seem like it's safe when it's not.
2. I think at least 20 other countries in the world ABSOLUTELY BAN GMO products - why do you think that is?
Take everything with a grain of salt, some openness, and perhaps some common sense. Human bodies are not made to properly process man-made chemicals (which I think is pretty obvious as well), thus avoiding anything that is chemically/genetically altered seems a lot safer to me. But to each their own I guess.
Tinfoil hat much?
Do you eat bananas? What about products containing cyanocobalamin?0 -
For those that claim this is all just fear-mongering or that they must see only peer-reviewed information, why don't you think about this (if you already didn't know, which I think is pretty common information for anyone who has done some research on GMOs on both sides of the debate):
1. The FDA does not use independent companies to test their foods, and uses their own scientists. This is a HUGE and VERY OBVIOUS conflict of interest, and also explains why there is more peer reviewed available information for GMOs being safe - obviously the food industry wants to make money, so why would they publish results from test that prove that it's not 100% safe and 100% nutritious? Scientists can also easily mess around with numbers in control groups and the length of testing to make it seem like it's safe when it's not.
The way this is phrased makes it seem like there are only two funding paths for science -- the FDA and the food companies themselves. While the second one does happen, and we should obviously be wary of anything with a potential conflict of interest (which should be pointed out within the paper itself, for the record). The FDA actually performs very little of its own science, relying on the scientific community quite heavily (this also varies widely by industry).
Where you generally see the science of this stuff coming from are universities with research grants or organizations devoted to specific concerns. For this to happen, there usually needs to be a public interest case made for the money to be made available. A lot of politics goes into play here.2. I think at least 20 other countries in the world ABSOLUTELY BAN GMO products - why do you think that is?
There are about 1000 different reasons. As a corollary, cocaine is a schedule II drug in the US. Marijuana is a schedule I. Why do you think that is?
Governments do things for many reasons that aren't necessarily "because the science leads us to believe this."Take everything with a grain of salt, some openness, and perhaps some common sense. Human bodies are not made to properly process man-made chemicals (which I think is pretty obvious as well), thus avoiding anything that is chemically/genetically altered seems a lot safer to me. But to each their own I guess.
I agree with this, actually. The safer thing is likely eating natural stuff -- but at the public health policy level, I think we have better things to focus on (like eating more vegetables and healthful foods in general).0 -
Tinfoil hat much?
Do you eat bananas? What about products containing cyanocobalamin?
[/quote]
I might have on my "tinfoil hat", but at least I have my eyes open.
But I'm not here to argue - just wanted to add my 2 cents. People can believe what they want to believe, by whatever sources they come by, and ignoring other sources for whatever reasons they like. It is clearly impossible to avoid everything, but with informed decisions at least some of it can be cut out of your diet if you so choose.
Like I said, take everything with a grain of salt.0 -
Lel don't care. If I can eat a whole can of tobacco in one sitting and a pinecone I can take some GMO.0
-
I'm genuinely confused as to how GMOs supposedly cause cancer. What is the proposed mechanism by which this occurs? Movement of genes from one organism to another somehow changes it into a cancer causing frankenfood? Or is this just arm waving because it is 'unnatural'? You can't just 'decide' that something must cause cancer...0
-
Very few of the "natural" foods we eat are all that natural to begin with. Cows don't produce milk like this when left to their own devices. The apples that existed before human intervention were barely palatable and useful only for making cider. Meat animals didn't spend their days lollygagging around getting plump, they were lean and constantly in flight response from potential predators.
Etc etc etc.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions