Continuing on with this silliness. GMO.

Ok just to get you guys back on track. http://news.yahoo.com/lightbox/grand-avenue-slideshow/20130430-gr130430-gif-photo-050436957.html

This message was edited May 2, 2013 7:03 AM

w_r_ranch, you are very new here, compared to many of us who have been here 10 years or more. Here we have learned to roll with the punches, and there are NO written rules that say a thread must stay focused on the original statement. And actually, that's very freeing, and opens up avenues for thoughts previously undiscovered.

Plus, this thread was needlessly getting bogged down with "he said, she said" and frankly I think gardeners should be friends, like the farmers and the cowboys in the musical "Oklahoma"...


This message was edited May 2, 2013 9:24 AM

This message was edited May 2, 2013 7:03 AM

Darius, I got a very thoughtful letter from one of my representatives responding to an online letter I sent to him about GMOs. I'm sure he has a standard statement that he sends to everyone who contacts him about this issue, but this one acknowledged the concerns and mentioned other pending legislation intended to addressed similar food-related issues. It was a huge improvement over the impersonal "Thank you for your letter. I will keep your concerns in mind." that I'm more accustomed to receiving.

Yes, I get those same blanket form letters occasionally too, in response to my calls to their offices in my state.

"Pending Legislation"
Boxer-DeFazio Bill to label GE Food

Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Peter DeFazio have introduced the "Boxer-DeFazio Bill to label GE Food" in both houses of Congress.

Supported by 30 other Senators and Representatives, this is a bi-partisan bill that finally gives us the right to know what's in our food. In the U.S. there is overwhelming public demand, consistently near 95%, for the labeling of GE foods.

The U.S. remains a stark outlier among developed and developing nations with sixty-four countries already having mandatory labeling policies for GE foods including South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, China, South Africa, Australia, the entire European Union, and many others.

52 bills have already been introduced this year in 26 states, including Hawaii, Washington, Indiana, Missouri, and Vermont, with many more expected by year's end.

There's already a list of over 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes that are already required to be labeled by the FDA.

white rose ranch, I wasn't trying to scare you away, or even to be offensive. Sorry.

I thought I already posted a link to that legislation. And I don't know that anyone scared white rose ranch away; maybe he or she just decided that the conversation in general wasn't to his liking. I was happy that you explained a little more about how DG works.

Well, it looks like Senator Boxer wants to do to the entire country what her and her friends have done to California.

But i guess the only way to change this downhill path we are on, is to continue until all this Overspending bankrupts the Country and then it will force a change, whether people want it to or not.

But there is no Free Lunch. Labels are worthless without strict and continuous inspection, supervision, enforcement, and forced accountability, all of which will require millions of dollars in indirect expense added to the cost of food, along with millions of dollars of additional Government bureaucracy added to either our accumulated debt or our tax bills.

So, perhaps the best thing is too just let it happen, and let our descendents clean up our mess.

Ernie

I read that Del Monte has genetically engineered a tangerine with a pineapple. Personally, I find this scary because I'm allergic to all citrus fruit. If companies keep combining this with that and don't label the changes, people who have life-threatening allergies will be dropping dead.

Go Del Monte They pay my retirement.

Honey,

I would certainly not want you to drop dead, just to save the country several million dollars, but very, very seldom do people die from what ever they worry about or expect. An example is that there are more people that have smoked, that die of causes other than smoking, like car wrecks, heart attacks, etc.

I would also not want you to drop dead from eating something that had a label that was not absolutely true and correct. And to be accurate, every pineapple from all over the world and every tangerine would have to be tracked and traced from the time it was planted as tree to the time it was canned and labeled.

Ernie

Honeybee, nothing you say is going to convince Ernie or Country Gardens, even if you're typing it from your deathbed due to an allergic reaction to an unlabeled pineapple/citrus cross. LIkewise, nothing they say is going to convince us that this isn't a real threat to biodiversity, health, and conventional agriculture. I think we should just give up, although I definitely appreciate reading your input.

This message was edited May 3, 2013 11:02 AM

Ernie, only the cross-bred tangerine/pineapple would need to be labeled. All the other tangerines and pineapples would grow as Mother Nature intended.

I'm glad you would not like me to drop dead. ^_^

If you had experienced the agony of accidentally consuming something to which you have been allergic since birth, you might think differently about labeling. I nearly died many years ago because I drank something without first reading the label. Put yourself in someone else's moccasins for a while!

Greenhouse,

I agree 100% that life is full of both known and unknown risks, including poisoned peanut butter,so i do not need convincing that. Life is dangerous right up until the day we all die.

The thing you will never be able to convince me of, is that a paper label, or anything else, is going to remove risk from our lives, and enable us to live safely and happily ever after. I am pretty sure the poisoned peanut butter that did kill people had a label stating what was in it. So, think about that.

I agree we should give this up, so i will be glad to stop if you nice ladies cease campaigning for worthless, and expensive, labels.

Ernie

GG - Although I feel as though I'm tilting at windmills:

Honey,

While i did not feel the physical agony you may have suffered, i did share the mental agony, believing i would either be blind or dead when my mouth, nose and eyes were shot full of very strong Roundup under 70 pounds of pressure from a large spray gun 2 feet from my face.

That fear lasted until i could reach the house and flush my face and mouth out, and found out no harm was done. So I do sympathize with your allergy problems, but to make the tangerine labels safe, if they looked alike, they would need to be tested, to be sure they did not contain the cross.

To be sure a product is exactly as the label says, someone must know what is not in it, as well as knowing what is in it.

I find it odd that many people that to not trust corporations, will put their faith in labels the corporation places on a product.

Ernie

Suppose years from now the only food available has been genetically engineered, and all the conventional seeds are no longer viable.

More intelligent individuals than I are saying these GE food plants have not been proven to be safe.

Honey,

Your anology is apt, even if it is a bit self deprecating, since as i recall, the Don was fighting imaginary or illusionary dangers.

Since you have described the object of your efforts so well, i do think this is the perfect place to stop.

Ernie

Ernie - the cross-bred tangerines/pineapples are a separate breed of fruit. They will be called "Rosa" (I think that's the correct name - if not, it's something similar). You will be able to purchase a pineapple that looks like a pineapple, but it has been cross-bred with a tangerine.

No need to label individual tangerines and pineapples - only the ones called "Rosa". A simple label saying that "Rosa" has been produced by crossing a tangerine with a pineapple is all that is needed. Then individuals like myself would know to avoid it because it contained citric acid.

Incidentally, my brother has the same allergy.

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:41 AM

CG - This is why there are no labels that say "GMO free"

Honeybee, actually there are labels that say that. For instance I have before me a box of Hodgson Mill's bran muffin mix with a small label in the lower righthand corner that says "Non GMO Project Verified," with the logo of the NonGMO Project imprinted. I do look for that label; it's on a number of foods. The other day I wanted to buy corn chips and they no longer had the organic type; the ones they carried said "Organic Corn," but the oil wasn't organic, so it was probably GMO since it was canola. I didn't buy them. I'll have to ask the manager what happened to the totally organic line.

If we're winding down, I'll gather my op0inions into a summary and try to keep it under two pages.

>> real threat to biodiversity,

I agree that Monsanto's near-monoply is a huge threat to crop diversity.
The way they use lawyers and legislators as intimidators and leg-breakers should be criminal.
If they are deliberately making it harder for Third World and small-scale fasrmers to save their own seed or have c ommerical access to fairly priced OP seed, that should be criminal.

I think the intrinsic commercial value of hybrid seed causes a pretty big risk to sustainabiltiy and divertsity of commercially-available OP seeds. Independently of any semi-legal monopolistic shenanuigans! And yet, hybrid seed IS commercially valuable, often more proftable, can reduce pesticide usage, and probably sometimes mitigates famines when it is cheaper than OP crops would have been.

All of those issues probably apply to GE crops. They support monopolistic practices and encourage loss of affordable crop genetic diversity, deter seed saving, but also have large commercial value, feed the poor, and reduce use of persistant and REALLY toxic pesticieds and herbicides by enabling the use of less toxic herbicides or no opesticide (bt gene).

Many people differ in how far they go to keep untraditional foods and chemicals out of their diet.

There are also many different opinions about long-term and subtle effects of herbicide residue and GE plants in diet. I guess even differen t opinions about nearly-chemically pure ingredients like corn oil, soy oil, canola oil and corn syrup or cane sugar made from GE plants.

There are also some different opinions (I think) about possible short-term toxic effects about fodder or food "drenched in" RoundUp residue.

Probably most people agree that agricultural cheemicals should not be abused in gross and unecessary excess, or applied closer to harvest than necessary.

Many people disagree about how toxic Roundup formulations are to humans and farm animals in concentrations found in typical fodder and supermarkets, when applied "according to directions" and within llegal limits. .For example, is there some little-known long term subtle damage from chronic consumption at 5 ppm, or is it completely harmless when force-fed at 70 PSI?

Most people strongly distrust and disbelieve scientists and journals that report results or conclusions they don't want to hear.

Some people try to reserve their distrust for scientists and journals that display obvious bias.
Maybe a few of us even succeed a little bity bit, now and then.
I try, but I distrust my own impartiality.
Fortunately for me, I'm biased differtent ways on different days.

There are many strong feelings about the rightness, effectiveness, and costs of government regulations applying to labelling and food safety public policy.

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w437uQf_A7c

These are the voices that truly care about life. They are not asking for a cadaver and autopsy results before they see a threat in GMOs, nor are they peddling GMO products in grocery stores or corn to unsuspecting young families at farmers markets. They're looking at it with unbrainwashed eyes and a love of life, not only of human beings, but of soil, natural organisms, insects, wildlife/birds - the whole earth and its ecosystem that we all rely upon. If you watch this, you'll recognize where these people are coming from. That is, unless your soul is so far gone down the path of no return, having believed the mega-corporate years of indoctrination to several generations, now, despite what death and destruction we've already seen in the bio and pharmaceutical industries (agent orange and the thousands of Vietnam veterans whose lives were ruined by it, Vioxx, and the 60,000+ people who died because they were too trusting in the big corporations). How many families did these (only two of countless harmful constituents sold by corporations who had incredible political influence to enable them market these deadly things) destroy? How much misery was inflicted? Those who promote the use of GMO and trumpet the large corporate interests over safety, do not care about life. They care about their own opinions, to their own detriment. They are certainly free to have those opinions, but no corporation should be allowed to force products/organisms into the marketplace without them being labeled and before that, being tested for long-term implications.

Thousands of people voted for labeling in California. Had it not been for corporate campaigning, that state's citizens would be safer today. At least there are positive things happening. There is now a movement to force the removal of GMO soy from Similac baby formula. Babies shouldn't be drinking soy, anyway - nobody should - due to the health issues, but this is a good start.

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:42 AM

Solace, there's no "like" button here but I like your post. Can't watch the youtube video because I have a data cap, but I get the point...

rjogden - no, I'm not sure. I always assumed citric acid was the culprit. Must be something else in citrus that's problematic.

Solace - I like your post, too.

I watched the video, and thank you for the link.

I suspect that in another 50 to 100 years this planet will have an entirely different ecosystem.

If I recall, Agent Orange is a cocktail containing both an hebricide and a defoliant. I may remember in correctly!

I sure hope that our grandchildren will have a nice planet left. There are so many things wrong with our society it is hard to say which needs fixing first.

"

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:44 AM

Here's what a spokesperson for the chemical industry is saying about GMOs now that he's retired. Interesting.

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/may/6/former_pro_gmo_scientist_talks_dangers_of_GMOs/

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:45 AM

CountryGardens, I agree.

Wikipedia:
"Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX,
"A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D,"
"The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was later discovered to be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), an extremely toxic dioxin compound."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

>> At least all the reports you find are one sided.

LOL! That does reduce the need to think, especially if you decide ahead of time which half to trust.

I apologize, but that link made me cranky. He m ay be sincere, but he sure isn't scientific in this little bit of preaching to the choir.

"I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe."

Did he DO research, or was he a PR flack, as suggested by the rest of his bald-assertions-sermon?


"There is, however, a growing body of scientific research "

He doesn't name anything so it could be checked. That's really sleazy.

"I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world."

Where's the list? Joseph McCarthy used the wave blank pieces of paper during screeds and bellow
"these documents RIGHT HERE in my hands PROVE that ..."
... "this is a LIST of proven COMMUNISTS ..."

Also, he capitalizes "Journals"? ? Oh, well.

"All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely."

He doesn't name any so they can be checked. At least he didn't call them Scientific Studies, right here in my hands.

"Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.

OK, that's hypocrisy. All he offers is personal opinion and scary assertions. He CLAIMS things about "scientific studies" and imploies that he knows of evidence, but doesn't cite them.

Calls them "prestigious" but doesn't think it's relevant to tell anyone else what they are.

BZZZT.

He used up all MY presumptions of innocence and sincerity. Or, he never really did have a scientific inclination, and his PR job taught him that "science" was saying anything you can get away with saying, if it makes people emote the way you want them to,

And I shouldn't fault his sincerity if he thinks that the way he FEELS is the correct basis for judging something's truth or falsity.

He FELT one way 10 years ago when one group paid his salary - and he thought that a "research scientist" was someone who did public speaking to push a pre-determined point of view.

Now he feels a different way, and thinks that science is being like Joe McCarthy. That could possibly still be "sincere", it just isn't science and doesn't make me think anything new about the facts of the matter.

Nothing worng with emoting and feeling strongly - with or without evidence - but EXPECTING to convince other people on that basis?? Then sanctimoniously drawing the mantle of "scientific evidence" around himself? We used to call that what is now called being a ho.

"I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies ..."

Again, no facts. This isn't "refuting" anything, this is just reverse propaganda. "Refute" means "disprove". He's just emoting and trying to make other people emote the same way without evidence e, and in ways that draw his own understanding of science and logic into question.

Even if he were correct, and specific enough that you say he WAS c orrect, he weakens the case to anyone who does make decisions based on facts offered b y someone who trusts them enoguh to let you find the alleged FACTS so you can evaluate them for yourself.

Of course, when Agriculture Canada paid him to ENDORSE the claims, he endorsed them. Maybe it's a case of "PR flacks will say anything". The way he blathers and alludes unspecified "studies" that "question" things does not suggest scientific integrity to me.

To be fair, his rant should not weaken the anti-GMO case. That argument ad hominem : just because yet one more guy makes an emotional rant and calls it science, doesn't prove or disprove X. For me, it always weakens the c ase a little, because if he WAS well-informed and DID want to present facts for his side, he kind of suggests that his best facts are so weak, he doesn't want to expose them to scrutiny.

But maybe he just thinks the best way to convince people is to tell them what to feel and not confuse them with facts. It just alienates me and at best reminds me that people on the other side might be as unscrupulous or unscientific as he is, but just better at hiding it.

Most rats only live 2 years, at the most. The ones that live long enough will get cancer.

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:46 AM

Not me! I smoked one cigarette 50 years ago, and never did it again! My husband, who will be 81 in August, has never smoked, and my two adult children have never smoked. My mother has never smoked - she will be 95 in August. My brother and his wife have never smoked - they are vegetarians and grow their own organic vegetables.