Posts: 4,819
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
I believe that someone already posted the opinion that those of you who are worried about GMO,should consider all food to be GMO unless you grow it yourself or trust the person who grew it !!
Why do you need labeling ???
I come from a farming family and GMO has been going on for years!
Unless you can find a way to plant heritage seeds and overcome all of the problems that led to GMO you will either end up eating GMO food or you will starve to death.
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
Why bring up Ron Paul? Because you quote him with every post.
So, I thought it was pertinent to point out that he is against labelling. Do with it what you will.
I won't ask how his election campaign is going!
I am not against choice. I don't care what people eat. What I am against is non-scientific ignorance being forced on everyone.
beejee, thanks for your response. Can I deduce that you in fact agree that GMO food has *not* been shown to be dangerous?
If so, then surely you agree that there is no need for labels to warn against food that is perfectly safe.
Posts: 806
Threads: 50
Joined: May 2006
Here's a three minute news feature from RT, about Monsanto and unintended consequences of this technology. We shouldn't assume too much. What was it Shakespeare said about pride and hubris? Better to be cautious, imho.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sClQzTtBc7U>
Lee Eisenstein
http://members.cruzio.com/~lionel/event
"Be kinder than necessary, as everyone you meet is engaged in some kind of strudel."
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
If you want to be cautious then maybe you'd better stop using the internet, it may cause finger cancer.
Posts: 4,819
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
As I said before,I come from a farming background.
The chemicals that were used before anyone knew better were many times more harmful than anything Monsanto puts out today !!
If you want to grow anything that is not tainted by horrible chemicals,you better do it somewhere other than the Big Island.
All of the soil on the Big Island is tainted with arsenic,lead,and an entire litany of horrible chemicals!!
We used to put corn seeds in creosote to keep the crows from eating the seeds.
Google creosote !!
LONG LIVE ROUNDUP!!!!
Posts: 806
Threads: 50
Joined: May 2006
The RT piece discusses insects and "super weeds", adapting to Roundup Ready crops. Obie, the operative phrase you post is, "before anyone knew better".
Lee Eisenstein
http://members.cruzio.com/~lionel/event
"Be kinder than necessary, as everyone you meet is engaged in some kind of strudel."
Posts: 319
Threads: 27
Joined: Jun 2011
quote:
beejee, thanks for your response. Can I deduce that you in fact agree that GMO food has *not* been shown to be dangerous?
If so, then surely you agree that there is no need for labels to warn against food that is perfectly safe.
Logic and logical thinking tells us that one can not assume that a thing is safe based on an assumption that it isn't bad (DDT comes to mind). Conversely, one can not assume that a thing is bad based on an assumption that it isn't safe. Think about it. How about we switch gears and look at drugs instead of food. Do you believe drug companies should be allowed to sale their wares to the American people free and clear up until it is scientifically proven that the drug is dangerous? Do you believe food should come under the same scrutiny as drugs? Who is the arbiter of scientific findings? Do you believe the FDA serves the people or the corporations that lobby and pay political contributions?
Your argument is, show me it's bad, until then, I'm gonna bury my head in the sand assume it safe - and while I'm at it I'm going to point my finger at you and say ridiculous things like "maybe you should stay away from the internet so you don't get finger cancer". Seriously Paul? I'm of the opposite opinion, I think one should assume GMOs are bad until proven otherwise.
Have you read the FDA stance on GMOs? Do you agree with the FDA stance? Have you looked at, and do you agree with the FDA scientific research that is the basis of their stance? Have you researched the existing non-FDA scientific findings on GMO foods and made a decision yourself as to whether they are safe? In my opinion the existing research is inconclusive.
You ask for scientific proof that GMOs are bad. I in turn ask you for scientific proof that GMOs are safe.
We're arguing about something we as humans put into our body - we are what we eat. Better safe than sorry if you ask me. Label the damn food so people can make a choice what they eat and hence what they are until we really know whether GMOs are safe.
Years humans have been eating non-GMO food: 200,000
Years humans have been eating GMO food: 18
Edited: for grammar and readabilty, added statistic
Posts: 806
Threads: 50
Joined: May 2006
quote:
Originally posted by beejee
quote:
beejee, thanks for your response. Can I deduce that you in fact agree that GMO food has *not* been shown to be dangerous?
If so, then surely you agree that there is no need for labels to warn against food that is perfectly safe.
Logic and logical thinking tells us that one can not assume that a thing is safe based on an assumption that it isn't bad (DDT comes to mind). Conversely, one can not assume that a thing is bad based on an assumption that it isn't safe. Think about it. How about we switch gears and look at drugs instead of food. Do you believe drug companies should be allowed to sale their wares to the American people free and clear up until it is scientifically proven that the drug is dangerous? Do you believe food should come under the same scrutiny as drugs? Who is the arbiter of scientific findings? Do you believe the FDA serves the people or the corporations that lobby and pay political contributions?
Your argument is, show me it's bad, until then, I'm gonna bury my head in the sand assume it safe - and while I'm at it I'm going to point my finger at you and say ridiculous things like "maybe you should stay away from the internet so you don't get finger cancer". Seriously Paul? I'm of the opposite opinion, I think one should assume GMOs are bad until proven otherwise.
Have you read the FDA stance on GMOs? Do you agree with the FDA stance? Have you looked at, and do you agree with the FDA scientific research that is the basis of their stance? Have you researched the existing non-FDA scientific findings on GMO foods and made a decision yourself as to whether they are safe? In my opinion the existing research is inconclusive.
You ask for scientific proof that GMOs are bad. I in turn ask you for scientific proof that GMOs are safe.
We're arguing about something we as humans put into our body - we are what we eat. Better safe than sorry if you ask me. Label the damn food so people can make a choice what they eat and hence what they are until we really know whether GMOs are safe.
Years humans have been eating non-GMO food: 200,000
Years humans have been eating GMO food: 18
Edited: for grammar and readabilty, added statistic
Exactly.
Lee Eisenstein
http://members.cruzio.com/~lionel/event
"Be kinder than necessary, as everyone you meet is engaged in some kind of strudel."
Posts: 1,096
Threads: 6
Joined: Nov 2010
quote:
Originally posted by LeeE
Yes. Here's what the article says about that.
""We're less concerned about naturally occurring fructose in fruits, which also contain important antioxidants," explained Gomez-Pinilla, who is also a member of UCLA's Brain Research Institute and Brain Injury Research Center. "We're more concerned about the fructose in high-fructose corn syrup, which is added to manufactured food products as a sweetener and preservative.""
That was already in your post, and it's irrelevant. Fruit doesn't have that much sugar, and as they say, it has other benefits. My point is that simply replacing high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener with honey or agave nectar does nothing because they are chemically the same or worse than HFCS. The answer is to stop eating any sweetened things, not to pretend that certain ones are better because they're "natural".
Posts: 806
Threads: 50
Joined: May 2006
Midnight Rambler, I'm sure you raise a good point, in urging people avoid excessive sweetners. Perhaps the researchers focused on HFCS because it is one of the top sources of calories for Americans and is ubiquitous in their processed food diets.
Here's a review of a study by the University of Canterbury, that discusses potential dangers of GM wheat.
"Professor Judy Carman, biochemist and director of the IHER, Flinders University, Adelaide, added: "If this silences the same sort of gene in us -- as it silences in the wheat -- then, well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five. And adults with this problem, just kind of get more and more sick, and more and more tired, until they get very very ill indeed."
She continues, "Before this comes near any human feeding studies, you need to undertake thorough animal safety assessments, where you actually look to see if the animals get sick. So you need to see if this genetic modification survives digestion and gets into the bodies of the animals. You need to see what effect it has on them. You need to do proper long-term toxicology studies... you need to check for cancer, you need to see if there are any reproductive problems, and you need to check for allergies..."
It would be the height or irresponsibility to take a casual attitude towards food safety, as well as any threats of monopolization, imho.
Lee Eisenstein
http://members.cruzio.com/~lionel/event
"Be kinder than necessary, as everyone you meet is engaged in some kind of strudel."
|
