GMOs - Continued

bird,,

It continually amazes me how those of you that are so consuumed with envy towards successful companies never check the facts before you make the blind accusations. I do not own any stock in Monsanto, but i do like to support the truth with actual facts. so i just checked.
Monsanto's profifits that upset you so much follow. In the last nine years they have lost money 3 years and made a small profit the other six. The past year they made a profit of $3.15 on each share that costs $114.18 cents, or 2.75% return, The owners of the company, which are mostly Pension funds and Widows and such, made up of ordinary people across the country, received a dividend on their investment of $1.47 , which looks like it is between 1.25% and 1.50% return, with the remaining share of the earnings being retained by the company for re investment and research. With inflation of just under 3%, they actually just about broke even or lost money.

But without the nonsense of Monsanto making unreasonable profits, i think you have the absolute right to not eat GMO products, so just seek out sources that sell non GMO products and buy your food there. Just do not make foolish claims about unreasonable profits without checking your facts.

Ernie

Good points, Ernie. I noted a few weeks ago (some thread somewhere) that Monsanto's stock has lagged the S&P for some time. Not that that will curb the "ungodly profits" crowd. Only Starbucks and Trader Joe's can make a legitimate profit.

I'm pretty sure that to assert that Monsanto owns most heirloom seeds is pure poppycock. Monsanto does own most big seed companies as measured by sales volume. That doesn't mean my Brandywine tomatoes or Blue Lake beans are Monsanto owned. Please, do real research.

Ernie,
Not consumed by Monsanto's profits at all. Their modification of food sources however does concern me and the quote on Monsanto's earnings came directly from Snopes while verifying info on the Monsanto Protection Act. I don't understand why Monsanto should need legislation for protection if, in fact, what they are doing is "harmless".

Bird,
i have heard, but never bothered to confirm, that Snopes is not impartial.. But frivolous lawsuits can drain a companies assets and hinder progress in areas where we need new methods and products to increase the food supply. As far as i know, no actual damage has ever been shown to be caused by GMO or GE. And if it was dangerous, i would think it would be well known by now.

And to go back to your prior post, where you suggested GMO should be considered dangerous until proven harmless. isn't that similar to being considered guilty until we can prove we are innocent?, That is not the American way;

Ernie

Ernie said "And to go back to your prior post, where you suggested GMO should be considered dangerous until proven harmless. isn't that similar to being considered guilty until we can prove we are innocent?, That is not the American way;"

So you don't think that drug companies should do extensive testing before releasing a product for sale? After all, the products are innocent until proved guilty, according to your reasoning. But thankfully no one applies the same standards to pharmaceuticals as they do to someone accused of a crime. The point of drug testing is to ensure that products are safe. The difference between drugs and GMOs, however, is that people with ties to the GE industry have promoted the concept that GMOs are not substantially different from regular foods and therefore don't need the same sort of rigorous and longitudinal testing that pharmaceuticals undergo. But 90-day trials aren't sufficient to show subtle or insidious long-term effects, and that's what people who don't want to eat GMOs are concerned about.

With the proliferation of GMO food products it is becoming more and more difficult for organic farmers to retain their certification due to the cross-contamination that GMO companies insisted would never happen. In that case there will be no other choices but GMOs available to the consumer. That is a true disservice to those of us who wish not to consume them. We have rights, too.

G G,

That is stretching what i said so far that it sounds like a desperation move on your part.

Nothing i said in any way refers to products not being tested. Every human and every animal that has ever eaten a bite of GMO food has been a test. None of them have been shown to be harmed. And i am sure Monsanto did tests of their own, the nuts on your side of the fence have tested and tested an not found anything dangerous yet. So, i do think GMO products should be considereed safe until at least a little bit of proof that they are unsafe is documented.

And comparing GMO plants which are combinations of plant material or combinant chemicals, none of which have been proven dangerous, to Drugs, which are often combinations of known dangerous components is another desperate stretch.

A Doctor told me that most medical drugs are designed to kill somethiing, and taking too much of any of them may kill a personl, So it is perfectly sensible to do extensive testing on Drugs to be sure the right dosage is used.

Keep hoping and searching though, and maybe GMOs will eventually do some damage and then you will have a usable argument.

Ernie

Ernie, drop the sarcasm. It has no place on this thread; if you can't be courteous please don't post. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Dear GG,

Please Practice what you Preach.

Sincerely,
Ernie

This message was edited Apr 5, 2014 6:39 PM

A couple thoughts on GMO contamination of neighboring fields.

1) I doubt very much that any sane person or company would declare that pollen from one corn field would not or could not contaminate a neighbor's corn field. No one who grows corn would ever believe that claim. It's like claiming that Monsanto told someone the Easter Bunny was real. This assertion has all the earmarks of legend to me.

2) Everyone who has EVER planted corn knows that an adjacent crop of corn, whether a neighbor's or simply another variety in the same garden, can easily pollinate a corn crop and cause it to not come true. This has nothing to do with GMO and everything to do with the fact that corn is wind pollinated. Cross contamination is and always has been an issue with corn.

3) If it is true that Monsanto sues farmers whose crops were contaminated by pollen from Monsanto GMO crops, Monsanto should shoot their CEO and legal staff. That's just plain lousy PR and stupidity as well.

Willy,

All i know about GMO is what I have learned from GG, but what you say makes sense, since birds and bees, along with the breeze can certainly spread the pollen.

But as i dimly recall, Monsanto was suing farmers that kept seed from GMO plants for planting the next year, to save money by not buying new GMO seed, Protecting expensive patents seems to make sense, even to Apple and Micosoft.

And with the cost of Lawyers, I would doubt anyone with any sense would sue over small amounts of stray pollination.

Ernie

Claims like those made by ncredbird (above) are why I am slowly becoming disenchanted with the whole organic/environmental movement. Let me stress here that my entire heart and mind WANT to believe that organic agriculture and groups like the Sierra Club are 100% right. Unfortunately, far too much of what the “greens” say is total, unsupported BS.

Snopes is a reliable site in my experience. Interestingly, Snopes does not confirm what ncredbird claims. First, Snopes gives this claim a rating of “mixture”, which is to say it is partly true (and therefore also partly misleading or false).

Just to be clear, there is no bill called “The Monsanto Protection Act”. Snopes explains that an agriculture bill included a rider technically called Section 735 that detractors have labeled “The Monsanto Protection Act” (also the “Farmer Assurance Act”). The rider, according to Snopes, either allows (per the rider’s pro-GMO sponsors) “that the Farmer Assurance Provision prevents activists from manipulating the court system to force farmers to abandon or destroy genetically modified (GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) crops that have already received U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) safety approval” or (per the GMO opponents) “Congress kowtowed to big business by sneaking into an appropriations bill a provision that allows large biotech companies like Monsanto to do an end run around the court system and avoid legitimate legal challenges to the safety of their products”.

In any event, President Obama signed the bill into law—jeez, the Prez in in Monsanto’s pocket, too!!!

Also, a careful reading of the info on Snopes does not confirm that: “The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds — which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company — and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.” The preceding quote actually comes from an unspecified opponent of the rider, it is not a statement of fact by Snopes. If you want to read part of the text of the bill, it is on the Snopes site (here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp). Note once again, the sleezy “outrageous profit-type” claims, which are not borne out by the facts as represented by Monsanto’s stock price history.

To summarize quickly, the rider says that the courts cannot prevent use of AN ALREADY APPROVED GMO just because a court case is/has been filed or is being adjudicated. An analogy—let’s say your neighbor sues you to prevent you from engaging in a lawful act on your own property and the neighbor claims your actions are negatively affecting him/her. You disagree. Per the anti-GMO crowd logic, you should be forced to stop your actions JUST BECAUSE the neighbor filed suit. Per the intent of the bill, you should be allowed to continue whatever it was you were doing UNTIL the judge rules. What do you think is right here? BTW, who could reasonably believe that a company that sells a product that is causing health damage could ever be protected in perpetuity from law suits?! Asbestos manufacturers?

If the information on Snopes is still correct, the provisions of the rider expired on 15 December, 2013.

And another point—GMOs ARE tested, thoroughly—to the tune of roughly $250 million and ten years of testing PER GMO crop. No GMO is released for use without extensive testing. There is NO testing required for any other crop or breeding method, including crops that are chemically mutated (can you say Bob’s Red Mill triticale?) or those that are mutated via radiation.

My creationist experience once again applies. If you EVER see a claim of science on a creationist (or, it appears, an anti-GMO) website, assume it is at best a distortion and most likely an outright lie. Research the claim—do not ever assume it is true.

Speaking of anti-GMO claims, I see that Zen Honeycutt of Mom’s Across America still insists the “stunning corn comparison” is valid (Google it if you don’t know what I’m talking about), despite its inanity and obvious untruth. I guess if one already knows the truth, facts don’t matter.

Willy,

I do not have the patience to research and point out a lot of the nonsense, but I, and i am sure a lot of others appreciate your taking the time to do it.

I have seen the claim about the Monsato Protection Act many times and assumed it was not true, so you did confirm what commonsense and a fair understanding of how the laws work had indicated.

Ernie

What has been called "The Monsanto Protection Act" has expired. Obama was forced to approve it because it was tied inextricably to a general budget bill which couldn't be postponed without doing serious harm to people and programs. However, he did promise when he was elected that he would push for GMO labelling, and supporters are upset that this hasn't happened.

GG, Are yuou sure Obama signed a budget? It seems to me we have been operating with a continuing resoloution for his term because the Senate has not passed a budget for several years.

I think he has failed tto keep some of his other promises too, that were even more important than GMOs/

Ernie

From Snopes.com:

"On 26 March 2013, President Obama signed into law a bill passed by the House and Senate earlier that month known as the "Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013" to provide funding for various federal agencies through the end of the 2013 fiscal year. One of the provisions included in that bill in the section for "Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related agencies" was Section 735, variously dubbed the "Farmer Assurance Provision" or the "‘Monsanto Protection Act," an inclusion which reignited a clash between the agribusiness industry and food safety groups. The former maintains that the Farmer Assurance Provision prevents activists from manipulating the court system to force farmers to abandon or destroy genetically modified (GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) crops that have already received U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) safety approval; the latter assert that Congress kowtowed to big business by sneaking into an appropriations bill a provision that allows large biotech companies like Monsanto to do an end run around the court system and avoid legitimate legal challenges to the safety of their products:
Not only has anger been directed at the Monsanto Protection Act's content, but the way in which the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed — little wonder food activists are accusing lobbyists and Congress members of backroom dealings.

The Food Democracy Now and the Center for Food are directing blame at the Senate Appropriations Committee and its chairman, Sen. Barbara Mikulski. According to reports, many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the "Monsanto Protection Act" even existed within the spending bill, HR 933; they voted [for the bill] in order to avert a government shutdown.
The "Farmer Assurance Provision" is not new to 2013: it was also part of the initial draft of a FY2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill in June 2012. The text of the provision (Section 735) states that:
In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
The provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary deregulation status to allow growers to continue the cultivation of biotech crops that had previously been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) while legal challenges to the safety of those crops are underway, and it prevents courts from interceding in the review process — a situation which critics contend unconstitutionally bars the court system from taking part in ensuring the safety of food products:
The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds — which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company — and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.

But many anti-GMO folks argue there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of this new class of crop. Well, now it appears that even if those studies are completed and they end up revealing severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods, the courts will have no ability to stop the spread of the seeds and the crops they bear.
The American Soybean Association (ASA) and other major agricultural associations expressed support for the provision in 2012, stating that it "addresses a costly vulnerability in the regulatory process for biotechnology that is discouraging innovation in agriculture and unnecessarily putting farmers at financial risk" by allowing biotech opponents to mount challenges to GE crop approvals based on procedural, rather than scientific, issues:
Opponents of agricultural biotechnology have repeatedly filed suits against USDA on procedural grounds in order to disrupt the regulatory process and undermine the science-based regulation of such products. These lawsuits have also created tremendous resource constraints for
USDA and have resulted in significant delays in approval of new, innovative products that will help growers provide Americans with an abundant and economical food supply while remaining competitive in the world market.

[This provision] provides certainty to growers with respect to their planting decisions. If enacted, growers would be assured that the crops they plant could continue to be grown, subject to appropriate interim conditions, even after a judicial ruling against USDA. The inclusion of [this provision] is a positive step to ensure that U.S. farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops. This legislative solution ensures that national agricultural policy is not being decided by the court system while providing a level of certainty that is critical to ensure that our agricultural producers continue to lead the world.
Dozens of food and consumer groups opposed the provision on the grounds that it was unnecessary and undermined the judiciary's authority to regulate the growing of genetically engineered crops:
Reeling from federal court decisions that have found approvals of several genetically engineered (GE) crops to be unlawful, the biotech industry has quietly slipped a policy rider into the FY 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill now being debated in the House Appropriations Committee. The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards. Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks. Far from safeguarding farmers, the only parties whose interests are "assured" by this rider are those of GE crop developers.

The "farmer assurance provision" has very little to do with farmers and everything to do with the developers of GE crops. It would strip the Judiciary of its authority to fully adjudicate violations of law by USDA and compel USDA to take actions that might harm farmers and the environment — all to "assure" the profits of a handful of biotech companies, including Monsanto, Dow and Bayer CropScience.

Every court that has reversed a USDA decision to approve a GE crop has carefully weighed the interests of all affected farmers, as is already required by law. No farmer has ever had his or her crops destroyed. USDA already has working mechanisms in place to allow partial approvals, and the Department has used them, making this provision completely unnecessary.
The provisions of this bill (including the "Monsanto Protection Act") were originally to remain in effect for six months, until the end of the fiscal year on 30 September 2013. The bill was later extended to expire on 15 December 2013.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp#E4C4Pf8PPX9oydCr.99"

And from CBS News:

"Seeking a "balance" to the newly minted law, Food Democracy Now has shifted its tactics to encouraging supporters to sign and send letters to Mr. Obama, chiding him for signing the legislation despite that refusal to do so would have expired the federal budget and triggered a government-wide shutdown this week."

Ernie--to clarify. This bill was not a "budget". Someone else may have more details than I know, but I am pretty sure that this White House has never submitted a budget on time and that Congress has not passed a budget for at least several years. Instead, they do "continuing resolutions" and such in place of doing a true budget. I don't really understand it well and should do more research. Corrections to my comments are welcome and probably necessary.

GG--the Snopes article contains excerpts from organizations who opposed the legislation. The excerpts are indented and are not part of the "Snope's opinion"; they are, for lack of better words, "supporting info" for the Snopes' decision to say the original claim (printed below) was only partly true. I wish Snopes had made more clear who the writers were. There is a list of sources at the bottom of the Snopes page, but attribution is missing for the specific excerpts.

The Snopes "claim": "I received an email regarding The Monsanto Protection Act is this true? On March 21st, Congress passed The Monsanto Protection Act that was slipped into a short term budget resolution. This dangerous rider found in Section 735 of the bill would create a precedent-setting limitation on judicial review of genetically-engineered crops, allowing them to be planted without federal safeguards in place that protect our environment, family farmers and citizens. Call President Obama today; tell him to strike section 735 from the 2013 Continuing Resolution. Add your voice to the groundswell in response to this dangerous bill! Together we WILL be setting right this gross imbalance!"

So the above claim is what Snopes says is partly true.

I'm sure it's true that Obama would rather not have signed that particular rider into law. It's true for pretty much every bill that passes Congress that riders are attached, which is why some keep saying we need a line item veto. Every President signs bills that contain parts he wishes weren't present.

I just did a bit of research on the claim that Monsanto sues farmers whose crops were accidentally cross pollinated by a Monsanto GMO. It turns out that the claim is not true. It is also not true that Monsanto sells "Terminator" seeds. Again, the anti-GMO literature and websites are often full of misinformation.

One more note: My earlier comment about Obama signing the bill and being in Monsanto's pocket was a dig at those who think Monsanto controls "everything".

Willy,
We have exactly the same understanding. Since it was politically ujnpalatable for the Senate to produce a Budget while so much over spending was being done, in order to keep the Government operating each year they would agree to continue the funding without preparing a new budget.. There is slight truncation apparently of the the terminology, and what I referred to as a "Continuring Resolution", is perhaps more exact to say the Senate passed a Resolution to Continue the existing Appropriations.

But the term promoted by the Anti GMO group, "Monsanto Protection Act" is similar to pejorious terms some groups use, like Eco Nuts, and as such, that only serves partisan postions.

So, the only commment i have after reading the full article posted by GG, is that it does, in fact, protect thousands of Farmers, and only one Monsanto, as the farmers would be devastated, since that is their sole income, while GMO is only one of many income sources Monsanto has.

Ernie

Willy, I got that Snopes was quoting. I just pasted the whole thing in the Reply box because I thought it was clearer that way.

GG--OK, sorry to assume otherwise, but I just wanted to be sure. Good idea on your part.

I do think once the article is pasted into DG that the fact that the indentations disappear makes interpretation harder. I actually tried to bold and indent a section and, when pasted, it all went bye-bye.

There are lots of problems posting on this site that i do not have normally. When i am replying to an intricate post like some of Rick's i like to do my typing on Office Word, but when i paste it on to here, it all mushes together, and makes it easier to misunterstand.

Ernie

Ernie--Amen! And on top of that, the written word is harder to pick up nuances from than face-to-face speech. Thank goodness for lols and such.

Willy,
For sure, misunderstandings are far too common. Kind of a toss up between writing it out and face to face, because the verbal misunderstandings are harder to resolve, At least when it is written down, you can go back and see where the trail was lost. And the misunderstandings seem more frequent when feelings run high like they do in some of the discussions.

Ernie

Good points Ernie and Willy.

Can you imagine if a judge ordered that no GMO's could be planted? Thats like 80-90% of the corn and soybean crops left unplanted. Just think of what would happen to the price of those commodities, the shortages, the chaos. The legislation had very little to do with aiding Monsanto. And that is why Obama signed it.

I understood that Obama signed it because he couldn't separate that provision from the rest of the bill which was necessary to maintain vital programs. I didn't see anything which would have suggested that he signed it because he approved of the GMO piece. Maybe I missed something.

I do not believe Presidents ever have the power to add or remove items from any legislation. That was decided by the Supreme Court's decisiion on the Line Item Veto. But on a Continuing Resolution , maybe no one can change anything, as the agreement presumably just continues paying the bills as before.

But allowing the entire farming industry to be shut down until something that has not been shown to be harmful can be proven safe would have to be one of the dumbest things that ever came out of Washington..GMO is a small part of Monsanto's income, but modern farms usually have one main crop, so that would put a lot of farmers out of business.

It seems when movements like the Spotted Owl or the Anti GMO, the proponents become so foused on their narrow concerns they do not give any thought to the damage they may be causing to everyone else. It seems so unreasonable to me. WHERE is the common sense?

Ernie

GG/Ernie--I agree with you that Obama "had" to sign the bill and that it is not possible to separate out sections that he disagreed with because we have no line item veto. Again, this is something every president faces on probably almost every single bill that is signed. Riders that may have little chance of passing on their own, or that might put a sponsor in a bad light if considered on their own, get attached to a larger bill that "must" be passed.

I can't bring to mind any good examples right now, but this situation is often used to target a politician who voted for or signed a bill that contains a rider like this. In this case, say, someone could target Obama--or anyone who voted for the bill--as being "pro-GMO" or "in Monsanto's pocket" because the bill contained this rider. Anytime one hears that a politician voted for something that seems unlikely, look to see if the item in question was a rider like this. Sadly, politicians know no shame.

Having said the above, this particular rider seems sensible to me.

Whew--I just did a quick Google search for "Obama position on GMOs". The "green" element is certainly lambasting him for signing the bill. I scanned through three pages of hit results without finding a reasonable sounding article to read. Based on the articles I did look through, my gut feeling is that Obama is probably not a serious objector to GMOs (he is likely fine with GMOs imo), but has stated he favors labeling as a way of straddling the fence so as not to anger anti-GMO supporters without actually doing anything about the issue. As Prez, he has certainly not made labeling an issue.

No, and people are upset because he campaigned on labeling GMOs. However, I have seen lots of information on why he had to sign the bill, often on sites run by environmental groups. People do try to be fair, although that may not come up on a quick Google search.

Unfortunately for our Country, Obama, and too many other politcians do not care whether GG dies from eating GMO, or thousands of farmers go broke because GMOs are banned. His only concern about people is how they vote and how much money they donate to his Party's campaign.

So he will make a few promises and then count the votes, and the Anti GMO group, being outnumbered, do not get much sympathy or help from him.

Too bad, but it is our fault because we elect our Presidents on what they promise and not on what they do.

Remember that perfume advertisement, "Promise Her Anything, but Give her Arpege" . Politicians do that but give us something else that does not smell like Arpege.

Ernie

If Obama had wanted to do anything about GMO or anything else, his only way as President, would have been by LEADING the Congress to enact the legislation he wanted passed.

And there are many things much more important than GMO, Like the Economy and the Debt, that need leadership, so while the GMO matter is of importance to some people, it is relatively small among the problems we have as a Country, that are not being taken care of.

Ernie

I'm pretty sure Obama supports GMO's and understands the significant benefits the technologies provide. Though I agree he is probably for labeling. Would be nice to have something official on his policy.

Again he hasnt proposed any bill to my knowledge to change anything from they way it is currently.

Curses to you all for getting me started on this subject!!! :«)

Anyway, in my random meanderings around the web in search of GMO thoughts, I stumbled into the "Food Babe", another collection of inane, anti-science presented as sensible health concerns. The topic here is actually her objection to microwave ovens and the source is a web site mocking her (here: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/scam-stud/), but it seemed somewhat relevant to our GMO topic, so I thought I'd post a Food Babe thought regarding microwaves ovens, which, it turns out (or not) affect the way that water molecules freeze (I am not making this up). Anyway, the quote from the Food Babe:

"Last by not least, Dr. Masaru Emoto, who is famous for taking pictures of various types of waters and the crystals that they formed in the book called “Hidden Messages in Water,” found water that was microwaved did not form beautiful crystals – but instead formed crystals similar to those formed when exposed to negative thoughts or beliefs. If this is happening to just water – I can only imagine what a microwave is doing to the nutrients, energy of our food and to our bodies when we consume microwaved food. For the experiment pictured above, microwaved water produced a similar physical structure to when the words “satan” and “hitler” were repeatedly exposed to the water. This fact is probably too hokey for most people – but I wanted to include it because sometimes the things we can’t see with the naked eye or even fully comprehend could be the most powerful way to unlock spontaneous healing."

Enjoy!

Willy

hahaha....she doesn't watch Mythbusters.
I'm sure you've heard the 'fact' that microwaved water won't sprout seeds. Very easily tested but many people would repeat the fact and not test it out first.

"Unfortunately for our Country, Obama, and too many other politcians do not care whether GG dies from eating GMO, or thousands of farmers go broke because GMOs are banned. His only concern about people is how they vote and how much money they donate to his Party's campaign."

agreed

I confess to having fun mocking folks who are anti-science and afraid of everything that smack of modern technology, but I have a reason (many reasons, actually) for this. Anti-science kills. A neighbor came down with cancer a few years ago. He was inclined to frequently disparage "Big Pharma" and Big Medicine" (big money-grubbing business in general), so, with some encouragement from an acquaintance of his, instead of seeking medical help from the actual medical community--those who spend their lives learning about real facts and actually try to cure people, he chose to go to Mexico to see an "alternative" doctor (an herbalist, I think, but am not sure). I understand he paid $5,000 to this "doctor". You can see where this is heading--he did not get well and, in the end, he went back to a "real" doctor. It was too late and he died a few months later. He was over age 65, so you and I paid for his belated (wasted) medical bills after the Mexico quack failed. To make the story even worse, the "friend" who encouraged the quack remedy came down with cancer soon after. Apparently chastised, this "friend" immediately sought real medical care in this country--no trips to Mexico--and is now in remission.

To be clear, this IS NOT an attack on Mexican medicine. The particular quack in question just happened to live in Mexico. We have plenty of quacks in America. Food Babe and Zen Honeycutt come immediately to mind.

Willy,

On "Your curses to all, for getting you involved", I frequntly ask my self why i waste so much time just trying to add a little bit of reason and common sense on some of these discussions, when it is obvious they are not looking for the truth, just confirmation.

And all i have been able to come up with for an excuse is, I just have too much time on my hands.

Ernie

well Ernie, there are few people I am connected to in real time that care about these issues enough for prolonged discussion. And this method allows a prolonged discussion, which could not happen in my real life, unless I found a similar group and made time for lunch once a week with them. Even then, I tend to listen more than talk, and would not get my 2 cents in ever. Till that happens, I think this is a fine way to exercise our skills of persuasion, communication, analyzing written material etc. A good brain game , maybe.

I think many people have already identified themselves internally (Skeptic, Free Thinker, Logical, etc) and then choose a side on many issues which supports that position. This identity could and probably does change over lifetime, I know as a 20 yr old I thought I 'knew better!'

By the way, a Hopkins doctor was on our local radio saying brain games like Lumosity don't work. He does take DHA and tells his family to also.

Sally,

Lack of Discussion gets worse as you get older and outlive not only your enemies, but also your friends. So you are correct, these discussions do keep our minds working.

What is DHA?

Ernie

A serious and sincere question: What is the nature of the threat by which the technology known as GMO inherently produce a dangerous or unhealthy product? Or, why would being a GMO automatically equal "not safe"? All life shares many genes--we have much in common genetically with even plants.

Somewhat off topic: Occasionally at times through several of these somewhat related threads, comment has been made as to how it can be that intelligent people can have such different beliefs, especially with regard to politics and religion. I read an interesting book entitled "The Righteous Mind" a year or so ago by a social psychologist named Jonathan Haidt who documents how people process information differently and how they have certain "value" differences that explain political leanings. I thought the book was interesting and worth reading. Just yesterday, I heard of a book by John Hibbing (and others) called "Predisposed" wherein they discuss their findings that there are actually biological differences between "liberals" and "conservatives". I am going to get a copy and read it, then I'll maybe know why so many of you think wrong. LOL--just kidding