Kelloggs And Kraft GMO

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.

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......)

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.

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.

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.

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).

Lel don't care. If I can eat a whole can of tobacco in one sitting and a pinecone I can take some GMO.

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.