Bill would require labeling of GMO foods

[level.eleven]

It becomes a partisan issue when some can make obscene profits selling us a product we presume to be the standard product in circulation throughout history when it is in fact a product manufactured by splicing and dicing genes.

What is this circulation throughout history line of thinking you keep repeating?

Your corn is on the left. The rest of the world we be eating the one on the right. Humans have now mapped the entire maize genome.

Zea (genus) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This thread is exactly why I oppose unnecessary, costly, fear and ignorance driven labeling. Hell, one guy's motivation is driven by revenge against Monsanto with no regard to science and public policy.

 

[spectre327]

While I am opposed to the FDA in general, I do believe this would even the playing field for those who don't have the FDA in their back pocket.

Label our ingestion sources and allow us to make the decision. For once, a new bill actually has some merit. Virutally all of the foods we eat have some sort of GMO or chemical additive constructed to simulate something our needs when in fact it has some negative impact on our bodies.

While I am not a vegan or vegetarian, I do support natural eating, the way our bodies were meant to be supported.

Take the Flu shot for instance. No a far off tangent but indulge me here.

The influenza virus "conveniently" changes, modifies itself, or adapts every single year. Every year. No bars, no incubation time, nothing. It simply adapts and changes EVERY year, and the FDA "conveniently" has a vaccine for it ALWAYS. EVERY YEAR.

Of all the common illness to be caught, the flu virus shows the most signs of genetic modifications by a well funded source. obviously CDC and FDA.

Now, if the FDA has such a strong hand in the release of vaccines and antidotes for illnesses and also has a hand in our food delivery, exactly why should be so trusting of their GMO's?

Lack of labeling, allows them to input damn near anything they want into our food without us knowing even in the slightest.

Label the food so we can at least have a bit of information on what we are eating. After-all, we cannot legally eat "whatever", unless hunting is "in-season", so we must rely on what the FDA allows us to have.

 

[BigMatt]

Label our ingestion sources and allow us to make the decision. For once, a new bill actually has some merit. Virutally all of the foods we eat have some sort of GMO or chemical additive constructed to simulate something our needs when in fact it has some negative impact on our bodies.

While I am not a vegan or vegetarian, I do support natural eating, the way our bodies were meant to be supported.

Take the Flu shot for instance. No a far off tangent but indulge me here.

The influenza virus "conveniently" changes, modifies itself, or adapts every single year. Every year. No bars, no incubation time, nothing. It simply adapts and changes EVERY year, and the FDA "conveniently" has a vaccine for it ALWAYS. EVERY YEAR.

Of all the common illness to be caught, the flu virus shows the most signs of genetic modifications by a well funded source. obviously CDC and FDA.

Now, if the FDA has such a strong hand in the release of vaccines and antidotes for illnesses and also has a hand in our food delivery, exactly why should be so trusting of their GMO's?

Lack of labeling, allows them to input damn near anything they want into our food without us knowing even in the slightest.

Label the food so we can at least have a bit of information on what we are eating. After-all, we cannot legally eat "whatever", unless hunting is "in-season", so we must rely on what the FDA allows us to have.

Huh?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

If we're talking about truth in labeling of our foods, why do so many food packages include pictures and graphics of quaint little farms with grassy pastures, little red barns, and happy farmers in overalls and straw hats? We all know that most of our food comes from places that are considerably less "picturesque", don't we?

Shouldn't we require that the pictures on the package be of the actual farms that the food came from?

 

[spectre327]

If we're talking about truth in labeling of our foods, why do so many food packages include pictures and graphics of quaint little farms with grassy pastures, little red barns, and happy farmers in overalls and straw hats? We all know that most of our food comes from places that are considerably less "picturesque", don't we?

Shouldn't we require that the pictures on the package be of the actual farms that the food came from?

Part of the indoctrination of the public. Who would say otherwise to those picturesque farms when they already believe their government won't do any harm to them?

reality is a harsh truth. For instance mechanically separated meats or hot dogs/bologna

 

[steveh_131]

The fact remains that people have been eating GMO foods for decades now and are living longer than ever.

I'm not certain that I agree with this. I agree that life expectancy has increased, but in my opinion this is a result of improved medical interventions. People are fatter and more malnourished than ever. Diabetes among children has skyrocketed.

We are killing ourselves then counting on medical interventions and daily doses of pharmaceuticals to bring us back to life. I am well aware that GMO's and herbicides/pesticides are not the sole cause of this, but I have serious doubts that they aren't contributing.

 

[spectre327]

I'm not certain that I agree with this. I agree that life expectancy has increased, but in my opinion this is a result of improved medical interventions. People are fatter and more malnourished than ever. Diabetes among children has skyrocketed.

We are killing ourselves then counting on medical interventions and daily doses of pharmaceuticals to bring us back to life. I am well aware that GMO's and herbicides/pesticides are not the sole cause of this, but I have serious doubts that they aren't contributing.

Agreed.

Show proof that GMO's lengthen life expectancies. These are chemicals that are not naturally found in foods that we consume. How is it then that these chemicals can lengthen our lives when they were designed, key word designed, to eliminate other forms of life just to preserve the aesthetic of the foods we claim are the same as naturally grown.

 

[steveh_131]

ScienceDirect.com - Food and Chemical Toxicology - Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

^ Study showing the harmful effects of Monsanto corn on the liver and kidneys, as well as weight gain and other issues indicative of diabetes.

 

[rambone]

There is no health risk in consuming genetically engineered food.

Source?

Natural food sellers get swat teams through their windows.

Think that will ever happen to Monsanto?

Neither do I.

No bro. That's a conspiracy. The playing field is perfectly even.

 

[BogWalker]

If it worries you so much just grow a garden and take up hunting. If the public were so worried about GMO foods then manufacturers would take it upon themselves to label things non-GMO to take advantage of the fears. Just look at how things are labeled organic

Personally, I like the fact that GMO foods are allowing farmers to feed more people per acre than ever before.

People are generally uneducated about this. Label things GMO and they'll all freak and stop buying. Gonna be quite the shortages considering how common GMO foods are.

And why is everyone on the Monsanto hate wagon? They aren't the only company that makes GMO foods. Their most significant dealing is the ownership and patenting of round-up.

 

[BigMatt]

I'm not certain that I agree with this. I agree that life expectancy has increased, but in my opinion this is a result of improved medical interventions. People are fatter and more malnourished than ever. Diabetes among children has skyrocketed.

We are killing ourselves then counting on medical interventions and daily doses of pharmaceuticals to bring us back to life. I am well aware that GMO's and herbicides/pesticides are not the sole cause of this, but I have serious doubts that they aren't contributing.

How are GMO foods contributing to people being fat - besides the fact that there is more to eat? This doesn't make any sense.

You could also argue that we should outlaw butter pecan ice cream because some lab rats that ate nothing but butter pecan ice cream got fat and developed diabetes. I could have told you that would happen.

Agreed.

Show proof that GMO's lengthen life expectancies. These are chemicals that are not naturally found in foods that we consume. How is it then that these chemicals can lengthen our lives when they were designed, key word designed, to eliminate other forms of life just to preserve the aesthetic of the foods we claim are the same as naturally grown.

I never said GMO foods increase life expectancy. I am just pointing out that we are eating GMO foods, and we are living longer then ever. I understand that most if not all of this is due to medical advances. My point is simply that GMO foods are not killing us off.

ScienceDirect.com - Food and Chemical Toxicology - Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize



A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

^ Study showing the harmful effects of Monsanto corn on the liver and kidneys, as well as weight gain and other issues indicative of diabetes.

Did you even read the papers in these links? These papers are by serious crazies against GM foods. If you read all of the PDF's in the first link, there are several that indicate all of the problems with the data that was used in the paper you are touting.

 

[level.eleven]

Did you even read the papers in these links? These papers are by serious crazies against GM foods. If you read all of the PDF's in the first link, there are several that indicate all of the problems with the data that was used in the paper you are touting.

He didn't read them. If he did, and found them to be sound, he would the first person to do so since they were written. They didn't even bother to include how much food and water they gave the rats. Part of the anti-GMO game is disinformation. These jokers were even called out by The Daily Kos and Mother Jones for producing absolute junk. Funny though, one of them has a degree in homeopathy and accupuncture.

 

[IndyDave1776]

We have such a lovely debate about the relative merits/risks of GMO food. This is interesting but entirely irrelevant to the fundamental issue that we have a right to know what we are being fed and make our own decisions for our own reasons.

 

[arthrimus]

Labeling has to serve a purpose or it becomes worthless. There is no health risk in consuming genetically engineered food. It is the current crusade of organic/enviro crowd that anti-vax/conspiracy crowd has latched on to. Fear and disinformation are driving the bus usually with some Monsanto hate sprinkled in. Those groups have convinced people that GMO=Bad. That is all this boils down to. Putting a GMO label on an ear of corn doesn't do anything to educate the consumer, but does wonders for reinforcing his current beliefs which likely lack empirical evidence. This isn't how decisions are made. If there is a demand for non-GMO food allow the producer of that food to label his product accordingly. The labeling is just a dishonest attack from a fringe group.

I agree wholeheartedly. No good can come from a government mandate for labeling GMO foods. All it will do is hurt perfectly safe and beneficial food products in the eyes of the fearful and ill informed masses. I'm sure the "organic" food producers are ecstatic over this proposal, as it will no doubt help them out a great deal.

Newsflash, everything we eat is genetically modified. It has happened both naturally and unnaturally since the dawn of time. Labeling a product as GMO tells the consumer absolutely nothing about the product. If you want to inform the people, then get some empirical data that shows that a particular product is in fact dangerous, then smear the crap out of it. If you can't find a problem with it then just leave it be.

 

[steveh_131]

You could also argue that we should outlaw butter pecan ice cream because some lab rats that ate nothing but butter pecan ice cream got fat and developed diabetes. I could have told you that would happen.

Slow down, now. I never said we should outlaw anything.

I said it bothers me that GMO foods are given the green light based on crony capitalism instead of science, while raw food providers get swat teams through their windows. I'd rather there was zero government intervention outside the prosecution of fraud on both sides. Unfortunately, our government is bought and paid for.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Slow down, now. I never said we should outlaw anything.

I said it bothers me that GMO foods are given the green light based on crony capitalism instead of science, while raw food providers get swat teams through their windows. I'd rather there was zero government intervention outside the prosecution of fraud on both sides. Unfortunately, our government is bought and paid for.

Neither outlaw nor label. The goal should be to educate the consumer. If you are eating prepackaged foods, you don't need a label. If it says corn on the ingredients list then you can bet that it contains GMO. Just look at exactly what types of foods that have been genetically modified and then don't buy those products unless they are labeled organic. That is the easiest way to avoid GMOs.

For the people saying that GMOs are healthy, you need to look further into it. You aren't even supposed to use treated wood around your garden area because it can leach into your food. Monsanto's products are grown with high levels of round up in the soil (Note: not leached into the soil like treated wood). Monsanto's warning label tells you to avoid contact with it, wash your hands if you do, do not consume it, etc.

In sum, I don't know what the modification of genetics will do to your body and whether it is safe, but it does not take a scientist to figure out that crops treated with round-up is not good for your health.

 

[rambone]

How much water and corn do you have to consume to get giant tumors? I'd like to have these questions answered before I subject my family to under-researched science experiments.


GM Corn Causing Tumours

 

[rambone]

The FDA wants the food marketplace to be as ambiguous as possible. Not only are they against labeling genetically-modified foods, but they go as far as to take legal action against companies for advertising "GMO-free" products. They PREVENT consumers from knowing what they eat. Consumers you aren't SUPPOSED to know the difference, even if you are diligently looking for it.

The FDA is owned and operated by multi-national corporations for the purpose of creating virtual monopolies on food and medicine, and stifling the competitive alternatives. Its all about crony politics and money, not health.

Perhaps more surprising, conventional food makers say the FDA has made it difficult for them to boast that their products do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

The labeling matter is further complicated because the FDA has maintained a tough stance for food makers who don't use genetically engineered ingredients and want to promote their products as an alternative. The agency allows manufacturers to label their products as not genetically engineered as long as those labels are accurate and do not imply that the products are therefore more healthful.

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use "Hormone Free" labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase "GMO-free" on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words "GMO," saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.

"This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has introduced legislation that would require labeling for genetically engineered food. "They are clearly protecting industry and not the public."

source: Washington Post

 

[level.eleven]

How much water and corn do you have to consume to get giant tumors? I'd like to have these questions answered before I subject my family to under-researched science experiments.


GM Corn Causing Tumours

A perfect example of the lies and disinformation upon which the anti-science, anti-gmo, conspiracy crowd relies. Did you bother to try and read the link in the post? No, you didn't. It doesn't exist anymore. The "study" to which it refers was laughed out of town. Yet, the ignorant plod forward spreading their lies and causing harm to society.

This post would be embarrassing to all but the extremely, willingly, ignorant. Shame on you. Steve, are you embarassed to have posted the same study?

Here is the thing, Rambone, you don't read or understand science. If you did, you would realize how ignorant your question is. The study from which those pictures originated didn't publish how much they did feed the rats. You are embarrassing yourself. Not exactly a new phenomenon for you, I realize, but this time you have the potential to cause actual harm to others.

 

[steveh_131]

The study from which those pictures originated didn't publish how much they did feed the rats. You are embarrassing yourself. Not exactly a new phenomenon for you, I realize, but this time you have the potential to cause actual harm to others.

I'm confused.

In your opinion, what caused the giant tumors that are pictured?