GMO'd Vegetable seeds?

flowAjen - they propose to substitute aspartame for the sugar. They claim it's more nutritious!

http://www.naturalnews.com/039244_milk_aspartame_FDA_petition.html

and we all know it probably just saves them $

Actually it is an effort to retain sales while accomodating the War on childlhood obesity. The artificial sweeteners are actually more expensive than natural sugars. Started with "diet " soft drinks, coffee sweeteners and is now being extended to all types of "diet" foods. Low carb and sugar free is a good selling point at the moment. As the old folks say; "this too shall pass"

I don't know if this helps clarify or just confuses us more!

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5296.cfm

Care to share them?

I have always thought that aspartame should not just be on the label - it should have a warning label. It can cause headaches &/or diarrhea in some people. I knew one Mom who didn't know why her kids kept getting diarrhea until she told the doctor about giving them beverages with aspartame. And it is not just kids - my adult sister is one of the ones that gets headaches.

Rjogden-The last rat poison happened use was a lethal dose of vitamin D, so? I'm trying to see what point your trying to make. Does that mean an anticoagulant is not used in rat poison? Or that YOU using vitamin D negates anyother poison. If you read my other posts I did mention a very good book called the The Dose Makes the Poison.

Why don't you add to the discussion instead of picking apart what others have posted.

Pollen-it would be very hard to put warning labels on products bc everybody has different reactions to things. There has to come a point where people are responsible for the own choices. I can't imagine feeding my kids anything with Aspartame in it. I can't eat MSG. BUT I can read the lable and make my own choices. I really recommend the book I mentioned above.

"We don't know in advance if the protein produced by bacteria, which has never been part of the human food supply, will provoke a reaction."

That's a pretty sweeping statement. If they are talking about bacteria in general, they are clearly incorrect. Bacteria play the key role in a number of natural foods, from yogurt and cheeses to sauerkraut, Kimchee and fruit or malt vinegars - and while some modern products contain cultured organisms, in most cases the native products contains whatever bacteria happen to flourish in that area. Even the bacteria that are currently cultured are all wild somewhere. Bacteria in dairy products, in particular, make it more digestible. My father, who could never drink milk without severe effects on his digestive system, was able to eat yogurt without any ill effects.

As far as the fear of ingesting bacterial protein, the cells in our bodies that contain our own DNA are far outnumbered by cells that do not. Most of them (in a healthy gut, anyway) are bacteria.

I was referring to your own remark that what poisons rats is used by us as a medicine. The effect is entirely dose-dependent. In this case, the same substance used to prevent a vitamin deficiency and aid in calcium absorption and metabolism is capable of killing under other circumstances. I was agreeing with you.

Because I prefer actual science to quotes from non-scientific sources that set out to make a political point.

Let me say that I really wish we could find a way to produce enough food to provide for the needs of what I firmly believe is a ridiculously overpopulated planet by some means other than the use of genetic modification and herbicides, if for no other reason than that is has NOT been thoroughly studied and we DO have the means to do so. OTOH, unless we are willing as a WORLD to reverse population growth, we are fast running out of choices.

It is in all likelihood going to get a lot worse. At the present rate of exploitation, it is just a matter of time before we run out of the last remaining traditional sources of food from the sea. After the collapse of the North Atlantic cod fishing industry and subsequent bans on cod fishing over large areas, most experts expected the cod populations to recover. They did not. Despite what we have learned, we are still busily removing fish at rates far greater than their reproduction can support, and in addition we are directly impacting their genetics by improving the chances for survival and reproduction of the smallest members of the populations.

Anyone for jellyfish?

We have known for MANY years that we need to stop paving over good farmland, and actively work to preserve what is left. Instead our public policies have supported economic "growth" at the expense of agricultural sustainability. The move to GMO seeds owes it's growth at least in part to the need to squeeze more food out of fewer acres.

OK, rant mode off...

I'm not the type to look online to find information (propaganda) to back my beliefs but I don't see any reason to be condiscending. I'm unwatching,

rjogden,
Yes, the actual science sources you speak of, could you share those with us also. I am not even sure what the topic those science sources are refering to anymore. I can't even tell what point rjogden is trying to make yet! But I would be interested in knowing. I am not even sure he was disagreeing with 1lisac except on one point.

The nut allergy info was something I read in a health newsletter I got awhile ago, I don't keep them, will try to find the info again but I know it wasn't talking about the study with the Brazil nut

There is enough food on the planet, it is politics and greed that keeps the distribution away from the hungry

totally agree Nancy

Well, you sure showed me...something.

Bingo! You got it. I was agreeing with 1lisac.

I've been reading and hearing about famines and uneven distribution of food around the world my entire life - about 63 years so far - and there seem to be two recurring themes, both rather "common-sensical".

First is that food shortages occur primarily in areas subject to recurring droughts or other bad weather, or areas of marginal soil, when the population outstrips the ability of the land to produce adequate food. Reliable European records from the colonial period, starting around 1665, indicate famines were already occurring in areas of Africa subject to periodic weather cycles.

The second major cause of widespread hunger is certainly politics. In Africa for example a number of famine events have coincided with revolutions or other armed conflicts, and restricting access to food has been and is used as a weapon (e.g. the War in Darfur, in Sudan, which has been going on intermittently since 2003). In China during the Maoist regime uncounted people (some say up to 45 million) starved during the Great Chinese famine (1958-1961) which coincided with the Cultural Revolution - a completely political event that served no purpose except to support the Communist government (which it ultimately failed to do). Remember the Gang of Four? I do. They took the fall for Chairman Mao's abysmally poor centralized planning.

Greed is a bit more difficult to quantify, but I suppose the political leaders in those areas could spend more money on food production and less on the military. There always seems to be enough money to pay for weapons and soldiers...

Does anybody here do anything to participate in organizations that redistribute food? There are plenty of local opportunities around the country. Aside from donating our garden excess to local food pantrys we pick up and deliver more than a ton food each month that is a part of providing more than eight hundred meals a day in our city. Be a part of the solution.

I watched this, today, and am so glad I did. There are those out there who are actually trying to make things better, using common sense. http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

Solace,
I almost didn't watch the video, the man started off speaking so slowly. I ended up watching it all, very interesting indeed. It does give hope, and it seems like such a simple solution.

Yep. The Publix stores in this area have an ongoing program that allows customers to buy food and contribute to the local food bank for distribution to the needy/hungry. That's all the time. Then some times of the year they accept cash donations that are used to supply local charities. My understanding is that that allows the charities to tell them what they need for their kitchens. I try to chip in something every week.

Solace - thank you for the TedTalk link. I found the information astounding!

I dropped out of the GMO discussion a long time ago, because all of the apparently unfounded fear and hysteria was distressing me. I say "unfounded" because i have not seen one reference to anyone actually dying from GMO.

But i want to thank Lisa, Farmer Dill, Rick Corey and a few others that stay in the discussion trying to add a little bit of common sense to it all.

And personally, i am glad my ancestors were Genetically Modified, because at my age, it would be very difficult to still be climb[ng around in the trees.

And as far as the references to Greed goes, The Business of Business is Making Money, and the same thing that drives that, is what drives people on pensions trying to get as large a pension as they can, or people trying to get as much pay for their work or produce as they can. The difference is in the amount but not in the desire, so Greed seems to be something we all share equally.

Now, let's get back to fhe F and H,.

Ernie

How exactly were your ancestors genetically modified? Were they test tube babies?

Flowajen, If our genes had never been modified, we would never have evolved, and become human beings. This is such a basic concept it is difficult for me to know how far back i will need to go to help you understand. But the reason Plants, animals, and all other living organisms change is because our genes get modified, and that happens quite frequently. So, now we have both people and tomatoes of many different colors and characteristics, and instead of waiting for nature or an accident to modify soybeans, Monsanto stepped in and and pushed the trait they wanted along.

I do hope your question was meant to be sarcastic, and does not reflect your actual knowledge.

Ernie

I'm sure Flowajen was being sarcastic. The term "genetically modified" refers to changes imposed through scientific intervention which insert traits into organisms that would never develop there through natural evolution, such as adding Bt to corn or genes from one species into the DNA of another. I'm surprised you're not aware of this distinction, but it's the in-the-lab DNA meddling that people are concerned about, not the sort of breeding programs that produce different strains of dogs or petunias, nor the sort of natural evolution that produced Homo sapiens.

Trying not to get into a discussion on the beliefs of evolution

but no one is going to tell me I came from a monkey!


and yes, thank you greenhouse_gal

when talking about gmo we speak of science messing with our food, not something that naturally occurs

GG,
You sound very knowledgeable, but you are speaking of a distinction without a difference.
The definition of Genetically Modified is when one organism receives genetic material from another organism that alters its behavior. That transfer is not limited to the Laboratory, as i personally have accidentally genetically modified trees when chip budding. Some modifications are beneficial and some are detrimental. But until danger is observed, it should not be assumed.

Ernie

Once again to clarify when speaking about GMO veggies fruits and grains we are talking about changes made in a LAB


The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content.


Talk about damages to humans
A new study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology proves once again that there really is no safe level of exposure to Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide formula for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). According to the new findings, Roundup, which is applied by the tens of thousands of tons a year all around the world, is still toxic to human DNA even when diluted to a mere 0.02 percent of the dilution amount at which it is currently applied to GM food crops.

Personally, I'm not willing to wait the next 10, 15, 20 years for Big Ag to find out that - Oooops, sorry we were wrong!

Testing should be done for the next 10, 15, 20 years in the lab BEFORE it is FORCED on us!

Humans have not been genetically modified - we are what we are because of Natural Selection - survival of the fittest.

GG - I could not have said this better myself.

Exactly Honeybee, there was a comment made by one of the food organizations in England that the US is using us as human guinea pigs
Sometimes it takes years to know what effect something is going to have and yes testing should have most certainly been done WAY before forcing mutant foods on us
You can already see the effects that hormone and antibiotic filled meats and dairy are having on the children, that didn't take that long

Exactly! The Europeans take a different approach - they are much more likely to prove something is NOT harmful, before approving it for human consumption.

Incidentally, I AM European. If my husband was not in such failing health, I would pack up my family and move back to my roots!

CEO of Stonyfield talking about truth in labeling, GMOs

55 countries around the world require the labelling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGyOwnqpCKk

Flo,
You are arguing with the dictionary, not with me, about the definition and meaning of the words and phrase.

But to get back to my original post on this, i was not discussing the pros or cons of glysophate, i was questioning the benefit of all the unreasonable Fear and Hysterics. When the first person dies or can prove harm from any thing, we will be well informed by the Lawyers and the Media.

I do not have anymore to say on this.

Ernie

FlowAjen, thanks for that link. I actually watched the whole talk, he was so compelling! I think most of us here are on the same page - Primum non nocere, which means First, do no harm. If there is any chance of causing a problem, the wisest course is to do nothing. In this case we have no idea whether we're causing a problem; it will take generations to know.

I also liked the speaker's point that the question of whether to label has gotten mixed up with the question of whether GMOs are safe. But whether they are or not, people have a right to know what's in their food if the inclusion of that substance or use of that practice isn't obvious from visual inspection. Therefore people are informed whether seafood is wild-caught or farm-raised, and whether food is irradiated, and whether guar gum is added to ice cream or other foods as a thickener, to offer a few examples. Why NOT label GMOs? And if that many people would be resistant to eating food that they know includes GMOs, maybe this is something that our government needs to take into account before approving its use in more and more foods?

GG - did you now that some fish marked "wild" is actually "farmed" raised in pens in the ocean?

How can they label it as wild caught?

No, I didn't. I assumed that if it said "wild-caught" that's what it meant. But farm-raised in pens in the ocean is a bit better than farm-raised in some inland operation where there are PCBs and other pollutants in the water, which is the main concern re farm-raised as I recall.

It's a whole new ballgame, now, after Fukushima, though. Researchers have detected elevated radiation in some crops (and I think livestock) in California, so it's probably much worse out in the ocean between us and Japan. Debris has already reached the west coast, too. I won't eat ocean fish anymore. If you could find an organic fish farm, that would be the safest route, imho, these days. The Atlantic/Gulf is affected by that awful incident that messed up the beaches and fishing industry, too. How do we honestly know what's poisoned and what's not unless the fish is actually tested? They don't test everything.