General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs What You're Eating One Of These 15 High-Risk GMO Ingredients?
As the old saying goes, you are what you eat.
Found on MoveOn.org
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
roody
(10,849 posts)Except for the corn, the other stuff is easy to avoid.
RC
(25,592 posts)And I mean everything.
roody
(10,849 posts)Have to say no to many products. I don't eat palm oil either.
RC
(25,592 posts)Lots of otherwise good stuff stays on the shelf.
high fructose "corn" syrup. And it is disguise by some many different words. We try to make as much of what we eat from scratch from organic sources. It is somewhat more expensive, but not as bad as a person would think. Eat more veggies (organic of course). Stay away from dairy and sugars. One doctor who had a syndicated column in the paper I read said "no sugar, no wheat". Good way to live. We have just finished a detox diet, only three weeks but can seem longer, and have come out feeling better, with lower BP by more than 20 points and the side effect of loosing weight. I lost about 20-25 pounds. That is not the purpose but it is a great side effect. It is from a book called Clean by a Dr. Alejandro Junger. He said you could stay on the diet but to add a little more food. We found a ton of good recipes that we liked and are going to stay with. Lots of chicken, fish and lamb. A power shake for breakfast, a regular meal at noon and a salad dinner. This is how we see ourselves dealing with food from now on. And he said to not let a good night out stop you from enjoying yourself. Making the next day a mostly liquid day (I don't mean wine and beer) is the way over that.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)inadvisable food 'additives' we should all avoid.
Other bad or dangerous "food" ingredients include:
• hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils (most of us cannot digest these oils, so they become plaque in our blood vessels)
• aspartame (note that products containing this poison artificial sweetener must sport a warning for sufferers of Phenylketonuria)
• sugar, particularly in foods that don't *NEED* sugar, like vegetables (yes, I know it's delish, but it's also directly linked with diabetes and obesity)
• maltodextrin (an additive enzymatically derived from a starch, usually corn, and said to "improve mouth feel" -- which suggests this is yet another addictive ingredient...and it's in virtually everything!)
• preservatives (why do you think manufacturers use these? It's not for our health, but for their ability to store their product for longer periods in warehouses -- until there's room on the shelf for more)
• artificial colors and flavors (why do you think manufacturers have started touting "all natural ingredients"?)
I am about three weeks away from a juice fast (have to eat the perishables I have now). I have been Vegan for sixteen months now. Love how great I feel, and I'm getting to a healthy weight without changing how much I eat or how often. I hope to be mostly raw by my two year 'anniversary.'
timdog44
(1,388 posts)do all those things. It is amazing to look back and see how bad we felt, and how good we feel now.
My brother used keep a jar of aspartame at his house to use like sugar. He then started in with adult onset seizures for which had the million dollar workup. I told him it was the aspartame. You can lead a horse to water. My wife and I are both RNs. Very progressive in our eating and advise on eating. He would still not conform. He is still on anti-seizure medicines. It would take me pages to explain my brother. I love him and hate to see how he treats his body. But it is not my body.
Good luck to you on your new way of eating. I avoid the word diet. Diets don't work. Life style changes do. Period.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I thought you'd remember. I chided you about fat prejudice, do you recall?
I no longer diet. I have lost over 55 lbs since becoming a Vegan, without changing how much I eat or how often. I think that's important to note, since many of my friends who struggle with excess weight do not eat a lot of food; they eat addictive, fattening, non-nutritional foods.
I love how I eat now. I feel great, and my food TASTES great! I have a garden started--wish you and Ms timdog could see it.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)year old gray cells are on the outside of my head now. If I offended you, I am truly sorry. And now that I look at your name, I do have a remembrance. I never intended my statements to be a fat prejudice. I sometimes have a hard time in the way I word my statements and I get too fast in posting instead of reading what it might mean. I am getting better.
I wish to see your garden. I have not taken the courses and so can not claim the title, but many consider me to be a master gardener. I have two acres with about 1200 sq ft in veggies and herbs. It is so fun and so good to eat your own. I can only wish you good luck with your garden. If you need any advice, and I hope I am not being presumptuous, just get in touch with me. Sad to say that with my back condition and continuing age we are having to sell our place for a smaller more manageable place. I will not be without my garden of fresh foods and organic. We freeze lots instead of canning, and have a dehydrator for other things. Also a juicer is an essential.
I really feel bad at the way we started. Please forgive me.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I appreciated then, and still do now, that you are so tender-hearted, and ready to make amends.
I will try to get some pics. A good digital camera is on my "wish" list.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)understand the wish list thing. Fortunately they are coming down in price.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)and was laying there thinking. I remember a bad combination of words, that I spewed. Got raked over the coals for it too. And deservedly so for the way I worded it. Seems I said that obesity was a life style. Duh. Eating a certain way is a life style is what I intended. You have changed your life style and so have I. I have not lost as much as you, only about 25 pounds, but it is the health benefits I was going for, and so to are you.
And I do mean it when I say I wish Mrs. timdog and I could see your garden. Gardening has been a passion of mine since I did it with my father over 40 years ago. If you are anywhere in the Midwest we could come and see what you have done. And I hope I did not come across as arrogant in saying I would be willing to give you any advice on things. I am sincere in that offer. I just hope that where we end up has a big enough sunny area where I can do my veggies. I love any kind of gardening but the veggies a lot of the time don't even make it out of the garden. I know I should wash them, but I just have to bite into a good cuke or radish or bush beans. And I love the smell of the herbs as I am crawling around on my hands and knees doing the weeding.
I really do feel bad the way we started. I was so insensitive, even though unintentional. I have always said if you don't learn a few things each day, it has not been a good day. And I learned to think better after our first encounter. Thanks for helping me to learn.
cprise
(8,445 posts)1. The product-finder on their website has some photos of non-GMO products, all of which seem to have "USDA Organic" stamped on their packaging. I would guess that much more than half of their database happens to be organic.
2. Food labeled simply "Organic" must be GMO-free, because that label translates into "100% Organic"
3. Their Non-GMO label isn't even legal in many places
4. Organic labeling *IS* legal everywhere
5. If public and environmental safety were foremost in these peoples' minds, then they would be advising us to look into organic options at least until the labeling/free speech issue is cleared up. But its really the latter that is driving their campaign (and that's fine
Organic is about working with nature whenever possible to raise the health of the crops and the surrounding environment... i.e. better natural defenses against weeds and pests.
OTOH, the "Non-GMO" movement may be as much about going back to the old "conventional" practices as anything else, and that would mean chemical use on a vast scale (whereas with GMOs, industry gave us a temporary respite from larger chemical doses that is now wearing off).
roody
(10,849 posts)led to less pesticide use? I thought it led to more since the GMO plants can withstand the pesticides and herbicides.
cprise
(8,445 posts)...have included arguments that GMOs result in less pesticide/herbicide/fungicide use and an associated environmental benefit.
And then there's the reality:
http://grist.org/food/frankenfoods-good-for-big-business-bad-for-the-rest-of-us/
djean111
(14,255 posts)And - correct me if I am wrong - but one GMO enthusiast says that the GMO genes are gone after processing.
Can you process out genes? I would not have thought so.
And then there is the old faithful, GMO's are just as nutritious - when that is not the point.
RC
(25,592 posts)To say nothing about introducing, strange unnatural genes into our bodies. We just do not know.
What gets me are those that think hybrid and GMO are the same thing and we have been doing GMOfor thousands of years. 
timdog44
(1,388 posts)all to often. What Mendel did and what the evil empire, Monanto does, are opposite poles. The thing I hate is that Monsanto has been allowed to put a copyright on life itself. And they are buying out all the seed companies around the world. The evils of this company are legion. I know I can hate because of this company.
I live in farming country and Roundup is used extensively. It no longer works and so they are now doing a new herbicide and put the genes for it in the crops that they used to do Roundup. Perverted genes that are antithetical to other life. The dirty bastards. And they have convinced the farmers of the United States that they "feed the world". I hear that all the time from the crop growers. I don't like to call them farmers anymore.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)timdog44
(1,388 posts)He is actually a seed dealer. I have tried to inform him to no avail. I think he is finally realizing that Roundup no longer works. More than 30% of the weeds are not affected by it anymore.
Interesting story about another neighbor. What happens in these most fertile soils of Illinois, or they used to be, there are a lot of people who like to go into farmer fields and grow marijuana. They wait until the corn is grown. And then they wait for the Roundup to be sprayed. Then they travel well into the fields and plant several rows of marijuana. Problem is at the end of the season the corn ripens and turns golden. The marijuana is still green. A fly over with a plane locates the plots of marijuana. the neighbor and her son-in-law were driving by one of their fields and there were some official cars parked at road side. So they stopped and it turns out to be DEA agents. There were about 500 marijuana plants will back in the corn field. I always wondered how many of the 500 were destroyed, knowing a lot of the police force around here.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... and his property will become the property of the state. Is that how it is in your state? Even if he is totally innocent of having planted it there.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)I like this lady, despite her farming practices. The real problem is I could not get any of the confiscated marijuana. Oh, well, I will have to wait for the Illinois medical marijuana law to take effect.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... so close, but yet so far! 
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)
Berlum
(7,044 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Try to have sprouts when produce isn't available:
Most of the stuff on the chart I won't eat.
Sigh...
timdog44
(1,388 posts)There is more to you than I think.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)I'm very much against allowing corporations to patent genomes. That to me seems like the fastest road to plutocracy I can imagine.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The whole reason the companies are coming up with the GM foods are so they can have a patent on life. To me, it seems they will end private property with that one.
The Canadian Court that ruled against Percy Schmeiser already let the public know that they view it legally like this: if a farmer's crops contain even one percent of GM patented seeds as part of his crop, that farmer must pay every penny he earns from that crop to Monsanto! And it doesn't matter if the crops came into that field inadvertently, without the farmer participating in that happening. So even if the field is contaminated by the GM crops, then the farmer has lost.
This means private property can be abolished.
There are even more hideous things afoot, but can't mention them here.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)Or at least making the patents very restrictive giving huge multinational corporations just enough to protect their property but not enough for them to own life on the planet.
I do think the two issues are separable. With 7 billion humans on the planet and counting we had better come up with some good science to feed all those folks coming into existence. I'm not against genetic engineering scientifically this does not mean that I want to give Monsanto ownership over life on earth (which seems to be the current situation.)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Ability to provide food for all seven billion. The big problem is getting it to those who need it. For instance,w hen an area has starving people, people in the developed world attempt to send them food, but the thieves at the top take most of it.
Rather than tinker with life itself, we need to have our scientists help poorer communities achieve enough water to sustain the crops they plant. There are very do-able projects that allow folks in communities in India to save the abundance of water that comes their away during monsoon season, so that they have reservoirs of water to use during the arid times of year.
Much of what has been touted about GM foods has proven false. The crops are stripped of minerals, so we now see far more prevalent immune disorders, some of which might be coming about because the copper has been chelated from the plants. (A human needs very small amounts of copper to be healthy, but that copper is definitely needed.) The ailment "fibromyalgia" didn't exist several decades ago; now everyone knows someone who has it. Multiple sclerosis is on the rise; and acid reflux. (It is interesting that the symptoms of MS and of copper deficiency in a human being are almost identical.) The crop yields are not what they should be, and the whole situation is much worse if you believe what the Univ of Caens researchers found out about the effect of GM foods on organs. (Not too many people I know can survive without a working kidney or liver.)
Formaldehyde contamination of American grown wheat is a big problem. All because American wheat is sprayed with RoundUp.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)We face a population bomb. The likes of which are just now becoming apparent. The 7 billion will very soon grow to 9 and then 14... it isn't clear but we're going to need science. I'm not convinced that genetic engineering doesn't have to be part of the solution. Not the only solution certainly but part of it.
Furthermore as a Ph.D. scientist myself (though I am not a biologist) I find the claims of organ damage due to genetically engineered crops to be highly suspect. It is an extraordinary claim. When we break down food our bodies break it down to amino acids, proteins sugars and fats. I can't imagine a pathway in which genetically modified food would be problematic. If you can find a legitimate scientific article on this I'll read it but I remain highly skeptical of this particular claim.
I'm not trying to be belligerent. I simply disagree. I am alarmed by the patent claims but not so much by the genetic engineering which is and will continue to be a fact of modern life.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I am starting to realize that almost invariably, it is people with that PhD after their names that will never be convinced of anything, except the information handed to them by the corporate or governmental hacks. Even a friend of mine since childhood, she helps run a university back in the MidWest, she told me my fears of our government being fascist were silly because of the fact that "don't you think the media would tell us before that happened?" I have to confess that I really think most of the people I know with PhD's have a lot of naivete.
I will pose one last question, for you, though. Here goes:
Now the study that was undertaken in Cannes France involved scientists looking at animals for years, not mere months, but years, to examine the problems that might arise. Now the Monsanto apologists can say all they want to, well , that study was problematic. Look, they will say, It failed here and here and here.
Now I have no way of knowing - I am not a biologist. I do know that even thirty years ago, there were already dozens of ways to conduct a study and then dozens of ways of reading the results, so that you have a huge number of methods in terms of examining any research. It would be impossible to look at anything and not choose a method that someone else somewhere would dislike.
So I lay down the gauntlet. Why the heck doesn't Monsanto friggin' develop a study that does what the scientists in France were attempting to achieve? That is, a multi-year research project examining health of animals over a much longer time period than what they normally bother with? It must be fun for them to critique the scientists from Caens - but why the hell don't they do research that has some depth to it?
Why is it acceptable to have "science by proclamation?" which is all we have here. Mike Taylor said the stuff was similar in nutrition and safe, and so it was! Almost as pathetic as when in medieval times, the Church would decree what was science. Why is it that the scientists and government officials in other countries crack up laughing at the expression "American science." Our major corporations don't even use International Protocols to set up their experiments! Our "science" is a JOKE!
I have been looking into GM foods since the mid-nineties. (My first published article about RoundUp came out in 1999.) All the many many many times that people did research and came to a conclusion about the risks of RoundUp, and Monsanto usually would dismiss that research, by saying, well, the study was too small.
To me that smacks of a lack of ethics. if I had a product out on the market place and someone else found fault with it, and I had such huge monetary resources at my behest, I would set up a study that was larger than that one, to see if maybe that study was telling me something significant that I needed to know about my product. But Monsanto could care less about being ethics. Of course, Monsanto lacks ethics - witness the Canadian scientists that were offered a million bucks to "Fudge" research on the bovine growth hormone!
Since then, I found out that Monsanto failed to even tell the truth about what the product contained when they applied for their EPA licensing to sell it over the counter.
We are the only nation on earth whose agencies allow the corporation making a product to tell the licensing agencies what is in the product! All the other countries use gas spectography to examine the products and the governing agency then knows what is in it. We don't. (Hmm, couldn't be Corporate Control, could it? Or the revolving door between industry and the governing agencies.)
jimlup
(7,968 posts)I'll look more carefully at your post later today and give you my take.
In summary, I'm guessing that said counter studies have already been done. Science works by finding fault with others work so Monsanto would be correct to seek fault with the French study. You are quite right though, they should then seek to produce science which substantiates their counter claims. Again I'm a physics Ph.D. and not a biologist but I would be surprised if this area of science consists of only one research study. I'm guessing that there are mountains of evidence. If we (you or I) had the time we could become experts and decide for ourselves. As it stands because of our limited time/energy we have to rely on the work of others.
Also, I didn't mention my science Ph.D. for any other reason than full disclosure. I don't want you to think that I'm thinking trivially about the science.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Dream on...
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)A Democrat in the Oval Office, then we won't have all these Monsanto people appointed to positions at the Department of AG, and FDA, and CDC, and
[h2][font color=blue]
Oh, wait, we do have a Democrat in the Oval Office.
[/h2][/font color=blue]
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Grocery stores have too many problems with their food.
roody
(10,849 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)has a policy that if it has GMOs, they won't carry it. They just stopped carrying a product after learning it had GMOs.
But apparently not all co-ops do that. They're democraticly run so it anyone who was a part of a co-op could try to have theirs adopt a similar policy.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)But -- because of corporate occultism -- they cannot avoid it altogether.
Still, coops have been leaders in the effort to avoid GMOs, and to demand labeling of GMOs.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)First of all, nobody eats cotton; if you did, you coudn't digest it.
Potential GMO contamination of honey? From what?
Good luck finding sugar beets. They're out there, but not eating them would be a simple task of not killing yourself trying to find them.
Congrats to everyone who rec'd this thread -- you're breathing rare air.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I know a food chemist who says that these oils--soy, canola, & cottonseed are found in lots of processed foods. Soy fiber is used as filler in baked goods, bread & other stuff.
Beekeepers often augment their bees with beet sugar or HFCS. Here is a beekeeper conversation:
Okay then, lets start that conversation... Those commercials on TV have peaked my interest in feeding HFCS instead of sugar syrup. They claim it is "nutrionally the same" as sugar, but does it work as well for the bees? Sure seems attractive to be able to pour HFCS directly into the feeder instead of mixing sugar water. Bizzybee
03-04-2009, 06:58 AM
I can only offer this. In all of my yards, set the two side by side any day and the bees will take the cane sugar over HFCS every time. I tend not to try to second guess the bees myself. But to each his own......
sqkcrk 03-04-2009, 09:15 AM
03-04-2009, 09:55 AM
Sugar is sugar....... I feed beet sugar because I can get it fairly cheap. If cane sugar were cheaper, I'd
feed that. If HFCS were cheaper, I'd likely go that route.
-------
--Sugar beets are in a lot of foods to replace more expensive cane sugars, and they don't put this on the label.
Do some research Buzz so you can know what your ingesting on a daily basis.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I, too, have read studies that HFCS is bad for bees, but it had nothing to do with GMOs.
Yeah. I'll remember that. I need to read some science stuff so I can avoid eating food with proteins, amino acids, and vitamin C.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)but it's an eye opener once you start learning about what exactly is in processed foods. And if you eat farm fish they feed these GMO products to them, too--not only beef and pork.
It makes sense to cut down on GMOs in your diet, even if just to thwart Monsanto & their Domination of agriculture. But you might one day be glad you did. Monsanto has worked so hard to suppress research and information. We really don't know enough about the effects, though preliminary studies show changes in lab results anyway (GMO eaters vs non). The fact that Europe bans GMOs tells you that they are less willing to let their people become guinea pigs.
Response to marions ghost (Reply #23)
mother earth This message was self-deleted by its author.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)know your beekeeper.
Beekeepers do use beet sugar and HFCS--see my post #23.
And beet sugar is found in other foods--they just label it "sugar."
chervilant
(8,267 posts)you're such a ..... kidder!
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
zeeland
(247 posts)I grow most of my own veggies and keep chickens. Maybe it's time to
get a goat?...geez.
C_eh_N_eh_D_eh
(2,205 posts)Seriously, any plant or animal whose reproduction is controlled by humans with the intent to produce particular traits is "genetically engineered". That includes just about every agricultural product over the last several thousand years, as well as pets and labour animals.
Yes, it is the same thing. Just because we've cracked the means for doing it without slow trial-and-error breeding programs, doesn't make it inherently bad. Unless, y'know, you're afraid of science.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)And I shouldn't have to point out that pests have stomachs, too.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)Thanks for your precise paraphrasing of the talking points.
a fact is a fact, whether it is a "talking point" or not.
C_eh_N_eh_D_eh
(2,205 posts)I'm not saying there's not the potential for abuse, that exists for everything, but there's plenty of potential for good, too. People talk about staying away from genetically modified foods, but they don't say why, other than "because they're genetically modified".
You're worried that genetically modified foods are low in nutrition, or cause cancer like every other scientific achievement does? Push for more thorough inspections, so we can screen out the bad stuff and encourage the products that are actually improved. Don't write off the idea wholesale just because it's not done the God-fearin' way.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
RobinA
(9,903 posts)It's a question I'm still waiting for an answer to.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)I prefer to eat Japanese rice...
You ask too much!
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)they probably avoid GMOs? Just guessing.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)My mom recently went to Osaka with my dad for a visit. She is used to eating brown rice here in the states, cause she was told its more healthy. So, of course while in a restaurant she asked if they had any brown rice. The waiter frowned and said, "No, have the chicken, it eats brown rice!"
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)
AllyCat
(16,260 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)you're eating cottonseed oil pretty regularly more than likely.
Response to Playinghardball (Original post)
mother earth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)High yield, larger grain heads, pest resistant, shorter sturier stems...they've not naturally evolved over the last 25+ years.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Wheat Belly. I have lots of friends who are going wheat free, and they feel great!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I've lost general age related aches and joint stiffness, balance has improved, digestion improved, no more hormone related symptoms (hot flashes), and I've lost 10 lbs. For me the proof is in the pudding.....I haven't substituted much other grains except for rice. But rice is on the list in the OP...now WTF am I supposed to eat to feel satisfied after a meal?
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I think quinoa is delish. And, teff is quite good. Spelt and amaranth come to mind.
You have a lot of choices!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)she was off the wheat, dairy and added a host of other things for several weeks for her stomach to heal and has done well. She had been throwing up since January almost daily, missed 40 days of school. Finally 3 consecutive weeks of feeling absolutely *normal*. She is not sure if she wants to attempt returning to the old way...this experience was *that* bad.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Where I live they sell spelt and a grain that is like the ancient wheat, called faro, I think. It does not have the proteins that cause the problems.
It does not look like wheat, it looks more like a form of rice, with different color. It has a nutty taste and good texture when cooked to use a wheat. Here a lot of people use rice, oat and almond flour instead of wheat.
Things are labeled in the stores to say if they don't have dairy, wheat, soy, gluten, BGH, or GMO. Our state is not as blue as it once was, strictly from the outslaught of propaganda on radio, television and now the newspapers.
They are determined to wrest power away and they are very close to achieving that. Some legislators are trying for labeling laws but the big money is coming in.
Still, we have a lot of people who are voluntarily labeling for us.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Start here: http://gmoevidence.com/location/news/ (I'd avoid homepage photos, accurate but graphic).
ABOUT
The GMO Evidence project is run by a group of citizens who have no direct connection with the organisations or scientists who have carried out the research we have included in our project. We are part of a group of sites which includes: Sustainable Pulse (News), GMO Seralini and GMO Judy Carman.
The purpose of this project is to provide citizens, the media, and scientists with a one-stop resource for information about research and information from scientists and the general public on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides.
The studies we have investigated are conducted by scientists from countries across the globe and they all have serious implications for public health and the environment and should be addressed rationally and on scientific grounds. We aim to address and correct many of the misleading statements
Database of GMO Evidence gives worldwide picture of harm
Friday, 07 June 2013 21:59
GMO Evidence (http://gmoevidence.com) has released a new resource showing the harm that GMOs and Roundup herbicide have caused in countries worldwide. Most GMOs are engineered to tolerate Roundup herbicide.
Evidence of the harm caused by GMOs and Roundup has until now been hidden deep in thousands of pages of information. The owners of the new GMO Evidence site have ploughed through them to create an easy-to-use database that was set up by the owners of Sustainable Pulse (http://sustainablepulse.com/).
GMO Evidence has located lab-based scientific research papers and "field" cases, all from published sources, to create a library that puts all the facts regarding the harm caused by GMOs and Roundup in one place.
GMO Evidence includes the work of respected scientists like Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini and his colleagues from CRIIGEN and the University of Caen, including their latest landmark research papers on GMOs and Roundup. Other scientists whose work is featured include authors Arpad Pusztai, Jack Heinemann, and Andres Carrasco.
Field cases of special interest include the birth defects in piglets fed on GM soy recently publicized in Denmark, illness allegedly from GM pollen in the Philippines, alleged infertility in pigs in Iowa, and human birth defects that have been associated with the spraying of herbicides on GM soy in Argentina.
womanofthehills
(8,807 posts)I raise my own chickens and feed them organic food and will only buy grass fed chicken and beef. If you don't eat junk, you will not consume cottonseed oil. As far as milk goes, go with "Organic Valley" - and support local organic family farms.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I have learned more about this important issue. It's threads like this that make DU great.
Thanks to all who posted great info!
Julie
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Everything.
I think GMO's should go through testing as we test drugs before they are allowed on the table. If they are successfully tested by scientists not affiliated with the company that developed the genome, put in a jar and sell it.
Texasgal
(17,049 posts)EGADS! I buy honey from my local farmers market to stave off allergy season here in Central Texas. Am I screwing myself?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Plant produced insecticide is the issue for most people. Insecticides as we now think of them, other than arsenic, were used for warfare. Example, it's long been known DDT will kill a person in the same way it does a bug through respiratory collapse in sufficient quantity:
Hydrocarbons (Organochlorines) - DDT
Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, such as chlordane, DDT, toxaphene, aldrin and dieldrin were the main family of insecticides used following their introduction after World War II. Many of these chemicals originated from attempts to develop agents of chemical warfare, but were found to be lethal to insects...
Problems associated with DDT, as well as many chlorinated hydrocarbons, involved their tendency to concentrate in the fat of humans, livestock, aquatic foodchains, and wildlife. This latter phenomena, called bioaccumulation, has had, and continues to have, severe adverse effects on many forms of wildlife.
Many predatory birds were heavily impacted by DDT. DDT was a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle in North America in the 1950s and 1960s as well as the brown pelican and the peregrine falcon. DDT and its metabolites (breakdown products), DDD and DDE, are toxic to embryos and disrupt calcium absorption,**** thereby impairing eggshell quality. Studies in the 1960s and 1970s failed to find a mechanism for the hypothesized thinning. However, more recent studies in the 1990s and 2000s have laid the blame at the feet of DDE. Some studies have shown that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically, eggshell thickness remains 10–12 percent thinner than before DDT was first used. In addition, DDT, DDE and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, can affect the parents behavior during incubation and can result in death of unhatched embryos and eagle chicks.
DDT is also highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages...
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/info/ddt.html
We are not talking about DDT, but instead, plant produced poisons. We already know some plants naturally make hormones that can be used in the human body to good effect. Some plants have been GMO'd to produce other substances of value, such as drugs that are new, but plants have always been the source of drugs through history.
Many consider them superior to those made by pharmaceutical industry, but there isn't a that clear a line. Vascular drugs such as digitalis and belladona can cure or kill. A look at older versions of the United States Pharmacopeia covers herbal preparations. After all, opium, cocaine, and other such items were once widely prescribed and used. But some information on it is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Pharmacopeia
You can see that they are still in the business of regulating herbals. But one contention is that GMOs are all poison designed to kill people slowly to reduce world population. Obviously they are not doing an efficient job of killing us, as we keep on mulitiplying. EPIC FAIL on the part of The Powers That Be.
Next bogeyman is from the dreaded United Nations, Codex Alimentarius. Commentators claim to have fled the USA as they'll be killed for revealing the plan to deny us natural foods, make us eat Soylent Green, take drugs and walk around like zombies. It's either that or the microchipping, which we all know, is another plot to control our minds to make us submit to tyranny:
The controversy over the Codex Alimentarius relates to a perception that it is a mandatory standard for the safety of food, including vitamin and mineral supplements. Supporters of the Codex Alimentarius say that it is a voluntary reference standard for food and that there is no obligation on countries to adopt Codex standards as a member of either Codex or any other international trade organization. From the point of view of its opponents, however, one of the main causes of concern is that the Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.[3][4] Proponents argue that the use of Codex Alimentarius during international disputes does not exclude the use of other references or scientific studies as evidence of food safety and consumer protection.[citation needed]
It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs.[6] The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation.[6] The 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was subsequently held July 4–9, 2005.[7] Among the many issues discussed were the Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements,[8] which were adopted during the meeting as new global safety guidelines: The guidelines state that "people should...be encouraged to select a balanced diet from food before considering any vitamin and mineral supplement. In cases where the intake from the diet is insufficient or where consumers consider their diet requires supplementation, vitamin and mineral food supplements serve to supplement the daily diet."[9][10] This text has been the subject of considerable controversy among proponents of dietary supplements. Many countries regulate such substances as therapeutic goods or pharmaceuticals or by some other category, without requiring them to be shown to be medically useful.[citation needed] The text does not seek to ban supplements, but subjects them to labeling and packaging requirements, sets criteria for the setting of maximum and minimum dosage levels, and requires that safety and efficacy are considered when determining ingredient sources. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) will implement these criteria with "labelling to stop consumers overdosing on vitamin and mineral food supplements." The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has said that the Guidelines call "for labelling that contains information on maximum consumption levels of vitamin and mineral food supplements." The WHO has also said that the Guidelines "ensure that consumers receive beneficial health effects from vitamins and minerals."[10]
In 2004, similarities were noted between the EU's Food Supplements Directive and the Codex Alimentarius draft guidelines for vitamin and mineral supplements'.[11] Additional controversy has been expressed by proponents of ecologically and socially sustainable agriculture and food systems, such as the Slow Food movement,[12] although the Slow Food movement has become more closely aligned with the EU.[13] In addition, the Manifesto on the Future of Food stated that "bureaucracies like the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Codex Alimentarius have codified policies designed to serve the interests of global agribusiness above all others, while actively undermining the rights of farmers and consumers".[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alimentarius#Controversy
Lot of EVIL names in that article if one wants to indulge in B&W thinking. But all bullshit aside, there are studies that make sense. As an organic gardener, rancher, etc. myself (made no money) I could buy similiar insecticides to what are claimed to be within corn now. The now infamous BT in GMOs, that is:
Bacillus thuringiensis
Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt) is a Gram-positive, soil-dwelling bacterium, commonly used as a biological pesticide; alternatively, the Cry toxin may be extracted and used as a pesticide. B. thuringiensis also occurs naturally in the gut of caterpillars of various types of moths and butterflies, as well on leaf surfaces, aquatic environments, animal feces, insect rich environments, flour mills and grain storage facilities.[1][2]
During sporulation, many Bt strains produce crystal proteins (proteinaceous inclusions), called ?-endotoxins, that have insecticidal action. This has led to their use as insecticides, and more recently to genetically modified crops using Bt genes. Many crystal-producing Bt strains, though, do not have insecticidal properties...[3]
There are controversies around GMOs on several levels, including whether making them is ethical, whether food produced with them is safe, whether such food should be labeled and if so how, whether agricultural biotech is needed to address world hunger now or in the future, and more specifically to GM crops—intellectual property and market dynamics; environmental effects of GM crops; and GM crops' role in industrial agricultural more generally.[37]
B. thuringiensis was first discovered in 1901 by Japanese biologist Ishiwata Shigetane.[3] In 1911, B. thuringiensis was rediscovered in Germany by Ernst Berliner, who isolated it as the cause of a disease called Schlaffsucht in flour moth caterpillars. In 1976, Robert A. Zakharyan reported the presence of a plasmid in a strain of B. thuringiensis and suggested the plasmid's involvement in endospore and crystal formation.[4][5] B. thuringiensis is closely related to B.cereus, a soil bacterium, and B.anthracis, the cause of anthrax: the three organisms differ mainly in their plasmids. Like other members of the genus, all three are aerobes capable of producing endospores.[1] Upon sporulation, B. thuringiensis forms crystals of proteinaceous insecticidal ?-endotoxins (called crystal proteins or Cry proteins), which are encoded by cry genes.[6] In most strains of B. thuringiensis, the cry genes are located on a plasmid (in other words, cry is not a chromosomal gene in most strains).[7][8][9]
Cry toxins have specific activities against insect species of the orders Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies), Diptera (flies and mosquitoes), Coleoptera (beetles), Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants and sawflies) and nematodes. Thus, B. thuringiensis serves as an important reservoir of Cry toxins for production of biological insecticides and insect-resistant genetically modified crops. When insects ingest toxin crystals, the alkaline pH of their digestive tract denatures the insoluble crystals, making them soluble and thus amenable to being cut with proteases found in the insect gut, which liberate the cry toxin from the crystal.[7] The Cry toxin is then inserted into the insect gut cell membrane, forming a pore. The pore results in cell lysis and eventual death of the insect.[7][10] Research published in 2006 has suggested the midgut bacteria of susceptible larvae are required for B. thuringiensis insecticidal activity.[11]
In 2000, a novel functional group of Cry protein, designated parasporin, was discovered from non-insecticidal B. thuringiensis isolates.[12] The proteins of parasporin group are defined as Bacillus thuringiensis and related bacterial parasporal proteins that are non-hemolytic but capable of preferentially killing cancer cells.[13] As of January 2013, parasporins comprise six subfamilies (PS1 to PS6).[14]
Use of spores and proteins in pest control[edit]
Spores and crystalline insecticidal proteins produced by B. thuringiensis have been used to control insect pests since the 1920s and are often applied as liquid sprays.[15] They are now used as specific insecticides under trade names such as Dipel and Thuricide. Because of their specificity, these pesticides are regarded as environmentally friendly, with little or no effect on humans, wildlife, pollinators, and most other beneficial insects and are used in Organic farming.[16]
Bacillus thuringiensis serovar israelensis, a strain of B. thuringiensis is widely used as a larvicide against mosquito larvae, where it is also considered an environmentally friendly method of mosquito control.[17]
Formulations of Bt that are approved for organic farming in the US are listed at the website of the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI)[18] and several university extension websites offer advice on how to use Bt spore or protein preparations in organic farming.[19][20]
Use of Bt genes in genetic engineering of plants for pest control[edit]
The Belgian company Plant Genetic Systems (now part of Bayer CropScience) was the first company (in 1985) to develop genetically engineered (tobacco) plants with insect tolerance by expressing cry genes from B. thuringiensis.[21][22]
There are also issues specific to Bt transgenic crops.
Lepidopteran toxicity
The most publicised problem associated with Bt crops is the claim that pollen from Bt maize could kill the monarch butterfly.[38] This report was puzzling because the pollen from most maize hybrids contains much lower levels of Bt than the rest of the plant[39] and led to multiple follow-up studies.
The initial study apparently was flawed by faulty pollen-collection procedure; researchers fed nontoxic pollen mixed with anther walls containing Bt toxin.[40] The weight of the evidence is that Bt crops do not pose a risk to the monarch butterfly.[41] Monarch butterflies have no innate relationship to maize crops in the wild, and are not believed to consume maize pollen (or pollen of related plants) in either life stage.
Wild maize genetic mixing
A study published in Nature in 2001 reported that Bt-containing maize genes were found in maize in its center of origin, Oaxaca, Mexico.[42] In 2002 Nature "concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper."[43] A significant controversy happened over the paper and Nature's unprecedented notice.[44][45]
A subsequent large-scale study, in 2005, failed to find any evidence of genetic mixing in Oaxaca.[46] A 2007 study found that "transgenic proteins expressed in maize were found in two (0.96%) of 208 samples from farmers' fields, located in two (8%) of 25 sampled communities. Mexico imports a substantial amount of maize from the US, and due to formal and informal seed networks among rural farmers, there are many potential routes of entrance for transgenic maize into food and feed webs."[47] A study published in 2008 showed some small-scale (about 1%) introduction of transgenic sequences in sampled fields in Mexico; it did not find evidence for or against this introduced genetic material being inherited by the next generation of plants.[48][49] That study was immediately criticized, with the reviewer writing that "Genetically any given plant should be either non-transgenic or transgenic, therefore for leaf tissue of a single transgenic plant, a GMO level close to 100% is expected. In their study, the authors chose to classify leaf samples as transgenic despite GMO levels of ?0.1%. We contend that results such as these are incorrectly interpreted as positive and are more likely to be indicative of contamination in the laboratory."[50]
Disproven link to colony collapse disorder
As of 2007, a new phenomenon called colony collapse disorder (CCD) began affecting bee hives all over North America. Initial speculation on possible causes ranged from new parasites to pesticide use[51] to the use of Bt transgenic crops.[52] The Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium published a report in March 2007 that found no evidence that pollen from Bt crops is adversely affecting bees.[53] The actual cause of CCD was unknown in 2007, and scientists believe that it may have multiple exacerbating causes.[54] A leading theory as of January 2013 was that neonicotinoids may be the cause.[55][56]
Beta-exotoxins
Some isolates of B. thuringiensis produce a class of insecticidal small molecules called beta-exotoxin, the common name for which is thuringiensin.[57] A consensus document produced by the OECD says: "Beta-exotoxin and the other Bacillus toxins may contribute to the insecticidal toxicity of the bacterium to lepidopteran, dipteran, and coleopteran insects. Beta-exotoxin is known to be toxic to humans and almost all other forms of life and its presence is prohibited in B. thuringiensis microbial products. Engineering of plants to contain and express only the genes for ?-endotoxins avoids the problem of assessing the risks posed by these other toxins that may be produced in microbial preparations."[58]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis
The reason I used BT was to get rid of an extreme infestation of grasshoppers. They were happily munching away and destroyed my garden, ate the leaves off my trees and then began eating the bark off of the younger ones. It was hellish, I could hear the little bastids chewing outside my window day and night.
The mechanism for their destruction was simple. I purchased through an organic supply house, oats that had BT. Since the grasshoppers weren't picky, they ate that and it made them sick at their stomach, essentially. They didn't eat and died and their friends ate them, as I said, they are not picky eaters. I had a variety of these monsters, some reminiscent of frogs. The chickens and dogs were both unwilling to do anything with them. Within a week my infestation was gone.
I do not want this in MY gut, though. Look at the examples above, and you can see this can be a bad thing if it's overdone. I am a conservative when it comes to conserving nature - not the kind that says nature is my to abuse and destroy because I was god-given smart and opposable thumbs and can do it. That's not pro-life, and I look at this in the bigger sense of what we can be conserving for the future.
I have never, ever used a herbicide or pesticide and always had healthy plants despite plant stressors. My opinion is that good growing practices do not require this measures. I learned in my college entomology classes that plants can sense when they are being eaten, and if they are healthy, send foul tasting chemicals to deter being eaten. They also send things through the soil, is it's the good soil an organic grower creates, and not the dead, non-friable hardpan man-made chemicals create. Those plant chemicals are its form of chemical warfare. You could be an organic grower with GMOs, but likely not these.
And honestly, we cannot tell with all the contamination that has occured. CA lost some of its certification and so has OR due to the cross pollination. There's a cost to this stuff that is being addressed in the states affected. The get rich quick, I don't know no better stupidity that has afflicted industrialized agriculture and before that short sighted actions that led to the Dust Bowl, are no longer viable. I don't believe the disclaimers in the Wikipedia article. I go by what I know, and I'm not feeding anyone. That's the rub, I depend on farmers I don't know. The effect of BT in crops is overdone in GMO seeds. Not all, but some.
IMHO.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)or at least for me.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)...where this shit has to be labelled.
