|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the insidious GMO threat (and it affects HFCS two ways ... ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
insidiously infiltrating into virtually all prepared foods in the US ...
Private video on Vimeo The password is GMOs2014 It 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 are corn - especially in HFCSsugar beets - especially in HFCS soy - especially in baby formula About 90% of US crops of these plants are GMO. Share with your friends ... (hi friends) Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
RAZD writes: A host of diseases and birth defects are becoming increasingly associated with GMO tainted food and overall they are showing a dangerous trend. Is there a specific definition of GMO food?Or, perhaps a specific method of GMO that is associated with the tainted foot? quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
A host of diseases and birth defects are becoming increasingly associated with GMO tainted food and overall they are showing a dangerous trend. Do they go over any of the actual evidence in the video? Are there publications mentioned that we can look at?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
A host of diseases and birth defects are becoming increasingly associated with GMO tainted food and overall they are showing a dangerous trend. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
Or, perhaps a specific method of GMO that is associated with the tainted food? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is there a specific definition of GMO food? Or, perhaps a specific method of GMO that is associated with the tainted foot? quote: Seems like a very vast scope to me. 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.
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? 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.
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. 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.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. 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?
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. 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?
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. 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.com This strikes me as insufficient reason to make wholesale changes. Argument from authority rather than facts. OPB This strikes me as more balanced
quote: 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: 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: Curiously I note how this ties in to discussion on whole biom approach in the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) thread.
Might get to more of this video later. Please do, but also consider providing information on the actual overall benefits. Indian Farmers Growing Record Yields With No GMO Crops or Pesticides
quote: 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 loadReduction in nutritional value Lower crop yields Destruction of the ecosystem Possible digestive ailments and allergies What's the benefit? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
IF these products are so gosh-darn safe, the why is there any resistance to GMO labeling of products -- shouldn't they be PROUD of their usage? 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.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
IF these products are so gosh-darn safe, the why is there any resistance to GMO labeling of products -- shouldn't they be PROUD of their usage?
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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... 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. 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.
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. 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.
The resistance to label does have some legitimate explanations. 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, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Then what kind of access are people going to have to the non-GMO stuff? 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. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Curiously I can go to my local market a block away and buy products that are labeled either organic or GMO-free. 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.
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. 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024