the insidious GMO threat (and it affects HFCS two ways ... )

insidiously infiltrating into virtually all prepared foods in the US ...Private video on VimeoThe password is GMOs2014It is about an hour long, time well spent.9 basic foods are almost all GMO (unless organic or certified GMO free), and the top offenders arecorn - especially in HFCS
sugar beets - especially in HFCS
soy - especially in baby formulaAbout 90% of US crops of these plants are GMO.Share with your friends ... (hi friends)Enjoy

Am I supposed to be worried about GMOs, or something?What does the video cover?I'll have to watch the video at home, and hour is too long to watch at work.Would you summarize it a bit?

A host of diseases and birth defects are becoming increasingly associated with GMO tainted food and overall they are showing a dangerous trend.Enjoy

Is there a specific definition of GMO food?
Or, perhaps a specific method of GMO that is associated with the tainted foot?

quote:

---

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.

---

Seems like a very vast scope to me.
Would make it easy to throw the baby out with the bath water.Is it possible that GMO is just fine, and some large possible-close-to-monopoly companies are using poor "genetic engineering techniques" to produce a bad product?
If so, the solution may be to simply govern the "genetic engineering techniques" more tightly as opposed to stopping GMO usage all together.Getting rid of all GMOs because of a lot of tainted food seems like getting rid of all cars because of a lot of bad DeLoreans.

Do they go over any of the actual evidence in the video?Are there publications mentioned that we can look at?

Right off the bat, the video starts making erroneous arguments. It's just the same, tired anti-GMO rhetoric that biotechnologists -- armed with plenty of scientific data -- have consistently eviscerated.I don't know where to begin my critique of this video. How about at 10:27, where the paper "Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide" was referenced? One of the authors of the paper is Gilles-ric Sralini -- of the notorious Sralini affair, and author of numerous retracted papers.Or what about at 12:14, "Toxic pesticides from GM food crops found in unborn babies." The original study is "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada." It's an error-laden paper, and has been critiqued rather extensively. See here: If you record noise, you don't get music - you get nonsense. - Biology Fortified Inc.Might get to more of this video later. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

What tainted food? The only thing tainted here is our culture of ignorance that means much of the public lacks knowledge of how GMOs really work and what the science behind it all really says.People are squeamish about GMO. Often they do not know why. But squeamishness is not grounds for heavily regulating GMOs or banning them altogether. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

I've never fully understood the fuss about this.It seems to me that GMO foods go back to the time of the Agrarian revolution, and GMO foods have dominated our diet ever since.We can still avoid them. One alternative would be to eat ebola infected bats in Africa.

Indeed. I think we need to distinguish crops that produce more nutrients, crops that are neutral to biological needs, and crops that increase the toxic load on food. What I see with Monsanto et a is the production of a product that then allows more of their other products to be used, increasing their profits. That the companies are more driven by profit than by public good, and have engaged in some dubious behaviors to protect that profit rather than look for more neutral solutions. But getting rid of the bad DeLoreans would be a good idea. If farmers cannot sell their GMO produce outside the US -- increasingly the case -- then it certainly looks like GMOs are bad DeLoreans from a market perspective alone.Enjoy.

But are they taking into account ALL the effects on the ecology and long term trends. Are the studies by independent 3rd party research facilities? Retracted by the publishers under pressure from the GMO companies? Glyphosate based products are becoming increasingly scrutinized as being behind some pernicious effects on the overall ecology. Would you drink it? Same comment as above.IF these products are so gosh-darn safe, then why is there any resistance to GMO labeling of products -- shouldn't they be PROUD of their usage?GMOs, genetically engineered crops: Oregon State University scientist Steve Strauss explains how they work -- science Q&A (links, video) - oregonlive.comThis strikes me as insufficient reason to make wholesale changes. Argument from authority rather than facts.OPBThis strikes me as more balanced

quote:

---

But labeling advocates say that GE crops haven’t been around long enough for scientists to know about long-term health effects. They first appeared on a commercial scale in the mid-1990s.

​

They’re increasing the toxic load in the food chain for us, said seed farmer Morton.

​

That’s an accurate statement, considering that most of the commercially grown GE crops are farmed because they are either herbicide-resistant, produce natural pesticides to kill insects or do both. GE crops have allowed farmers to use more herbicides by volume, and those chemicals can appear in food.

---

The studies that show GMO foods have less nutrient value in them are also a concern -- if there is no benefit to the dietary value then what good are they? and if they produce food of lower nutritional value then why should anyone bother with them. If the purpose is not to produce better food then why do we need them?‘Blood test for plants’ boosts crops

quote:

---

Yoder, who sells his crops at farmers markets in Columbus and Delaware County, only recently started cultivating these acres, situated in a generous valley bordering a small creek, which for years had alternated between corn and beans, along with the usual lineup of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer.

​

You have to nurse your crops like a baby, every day, or they will start dying out. We couldn’t do what we needed to do. There were dead spots where the chemical residue was, Yoder said.

---

The soil left behind was poor in nutrients. The soil was not healthy. You have to look at the whole picture.The Amish Farmers Reinventing Organic Agriculture - The Atlantic

quote:

---

Kempf is the unlikely founder of Advancing Eco Agriculture, a consulting firm established in 2006 to promote science-intensive organic agriculture. The entrepreneur’s story is almost identical to Zook’s. A series of crop failures on his own farm drove the 8th grade-educated Kempf to school himself in the sciences. For two years, he pored over research in biology, chemistry, and agronomy in pursuit of a way to save his fields. The breakthrough came from the study of plant immune systems which, in healthy plants, produce an array of compounds that are toxic to intruders. The immune response in plants is dependent on well-balanced nutrition, Kempf concluded, in much the same way as our own immune system. Modern agriculture uses fertilizer specifically to increase yields, he added, with little awareness of the nutritional needs of other organic functions. Through plant sap analysis, Kempf has been able to discover deficiencies in important trace minerals which he can then introduce into the soil. With plants able to defend themselves, pesticides can be avoided, allowing the natural predators of pests to flourish.

​

Zook: Well, there was a big psychological block that I had to get through. I’d see a couple bugs out there and feel like I immediately had to do something about it. But, I learned that if I sit back, things will often take care of themselves. That first summer for instance, we saw a lot of horn worms. Before that, I would have sprayed them right away, but this time I waited and a bunch of wasps came along and killed them. Once I saw that, I started getting really excited.

​

Morin: So, when you use a pesticide you’re killing the predators too, right?

​

Zook: Right. You’re killing the entire ecosystem.

​

Morin: Have all of your problems disappeared?

​

Zook: I wish I could say that, but not entirely. We’re not living in the Garden of Eden yet. The issues I had before have disappeared, but we still have some other issues that we’re working on. One of the main things that has improved is how it feels to farm. Before, if I applied fungicide on my tomatoes, I had to wait three to seven days before I could reenter the area. Now, it’s so nice to just walk in my field any day of the week and not worry a bit. That in itself is huge. The other thing is, when I used to mix these skull-and-cross-bones chemicals to put in my sprayer, I’d have to be suited up. The children would be around and I’d say, Now, get in the house. It’s not safe. Now though, if the children want to help, it’s fine. If I want to mix the solutions better, I’ll just put my hand in a stir it around.

---

Curiously I note how this ties in to discussion on whole biom approach in the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) thread. Please do, but also consider providing information on the actual overall benefits.Indian Farmers Growing Record Yields With No GMO Crops or Pesticides

quote:

---

Indian Farmers Growing Record Yields With No GMO Crops or Pesticides

​

Contrary to claims by Monsanto and government conspirators, we can indeed meet the world’s hunger without the use of genetically modified seed and manufactured chemicals. Bumper crops of rice, potatoes, and wheat are being grown in India using methods of Agroecology.

​

Agroecology is a dynamic agricultural approach that uses scientific information and local knowledge to produce practical methods that are low-cost and ecologically sound. This is quite a contrast to the one size fits all approach of GMO crops and chemical inputs being peddled by Monsanto and friends.

​

A particular kind of agroecology called System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is being applied in India to produce the record-setting yields.

​

SRI is basically a change in the management of plants, soil, water and nutrients for irrigated rice. Seedlings are planted at a younger stage and spaced farther apart to encourage greater root and canopy growth and to increase yield per plant. These principles have more recently been applied to other crops like wheat, sugar cane, and millet, where it is known as System of Crop Intensification (SCI).

---

So we have multiple sources saying that better results are obtained through non-GMO crops.The GMO program on the other hand seems to try to make the ecosystem sterile for all living organisms other than the crop, and it does this by increasing the toxic load both in the plants and in the chemicals sprayed on the plants. While sprayed on pesticides and fungicides can (in theory) be washed off, the ones planted into the crops remain to travel through our digestive system -- where we depend on a jungle of organisms to pre-digest our food.The correlation of intestinal digestive problems and diseases and food allergies and GMO foods done by taking people with problems off GMO products and observing improvements.Especially in one case in S. Africa where farm workers ate GMO corn and had numerous health problems, were taken off the GMO corn and fed non-GMO corn, and the problems went away, then were taken off the non-GMO corn and fed GMO corn, and the problems re-occurred, and then were again taken off the GMO corn to non-GMO corn and again improved. The only variable is whether the corn is (toxic loaded) GMO or non-GMO.Animals given a choice will eat non-GMO seeds/corn/etc over GMO versions sitting side by side.If farmers need to use hazmat suits to tend their crops, how does it become magically safe to consume once it hits the market shelf?Increased toxic load
Reduction in nutritional value
Lower crop yields
Destruction of the ecosystem
Possible digestive ailments and allergiesWhat's the benefit?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

The resistance to label does have some legitimate explanations.1. Whether their reasons are legitimate or not, some want to avoid GMO products. Manufacturer's want to avoid being labeled as icky for reasons that are not scientific.2. GMO stuff is so pervasive, that forcing segregation at this point is a major pain for zero gain. Some "GMO" stuff has only the most tenuous relationship to the GMO process as make segregation meaningless. Is there really any difference at all between sugar from sugar beets and sugar from sugar cane? Yet labeling would require the makers of Super Sugar Crisp cereal to track sources of sugar, segregate them and to make sure that kettles used to prepare non-GMO food never used sugar beet sugar despite the fact that sucrose is sucrose.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There's also the infrastructure argument:Trucks, conveyors, storage vessels, etc. would all have to be segregated as GMO and non-GMO so that none of the GMO stuff comes in contact with the non-GMO stuff.We simply currently lack the infrastructure to maintain that, and who is going to pay for all the new infrastructure if we do decide to legislate that this stuff has to be segregated?With a lack of money to do it, what would happen is that the stuff would not get segregated and all the non-GMO stuff would become "contaminated" and everything would have to be labeled as GMO.Then what kind of access are people going to have to the non-GMO stuff?

And yet it can be done and is being done for products containing peanuts and other allergens with labels that say "may contain peanuts or peanut products" so the infrastructure is already there in that regard.Not that long ago this was not an issue, so I don't see this as a major issue. Again, the same process came into the market place to identify organic products as would apply to non-GMO, and we are seeing products getting certified to be GMO free. So whether they want it or not they can either identify products with GMO or have all products not labeled non-GMO regarded as including GMO.So stalling about labeling is just taken as evidence that they are hiding the effects of products that have questionable value compared to non-GMO foods.It's the way the tobacco industry behaved, where it took years to get to the truth. So said the tobacco industry. It took the Surgeon General of the US to get labels about health effects on cigarettes.People should be able to know what they are eating.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Curiously I can go to my local market a block away and buy products that are labeled either organic or GMO-free. I can also buy cereal that lists cane sugar in their ingredients. Having the information in the labels is not even a minor problem imho.There will be labeling. The question is whether the GMO industry will be willing to provide the information or whether all products not certified non-GMO will be lumped in with them regardless of their content.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

What percentage of the population has that access?What percentage of the population can the current amount of non-GMO foods support?I think that many people do not have that kind of access and the amount of non-GMO food that is currently available is not enough to feed a significant portion of our population.Too, I wonder what the cost differences are... and how many people can afford it. If you don't have the infrastructure to segregate GMO from non-GMO, and we don't, then when the non-GMO stuff comes in contact with the GMO stuff it will all be labeled as GMO.There goes a significant portion of your non-GMO foods and then availability goes down along with the amount of people you can feed, and the price goes up.I don't think that's gonna help.You have to have the segregation infrastructure in place first. So who is going to pay for it?