Fight for Non-GMO Foods and Proper GMO Labeling

[Midnight Rambler]

liskir: When you're citing uber-quack Mike Adams to support your case, you've already lost.

[jerry]

All these GMO posts got me interested in doing a little research. First, calling for a GMO label seems incorrect. It should be for a "transgenic" label. Pretty much every food is GMO. Take corn. Corn as we know it today would not exist if it weren't for the humans that cultivated and developed it. It is a human invention, a plant that does not exist naturally in the wild. It can only survive if planted and protected by humans. It is a product of GMO.

Transgenic is done in a lab. Instead of crossing two plants with thousands of possible outcomes, a particular gene is manipulated for a particular reason. The problem I see is not the process but the reason. I have read that close to 70% of transgenic seeds were made to resist a particular pesticide, resulting in a large increase in pesticide usage.

The problem is not the transgenic process, which is just a more exact way to do what humanity has been doing since the birth of agriculture. The problem is the reason is it being done--to sell more pesticides and make a bigger profit.

Jerry

[YurtGirl]

Sounds like someone figured out that radiation is, lo and behold, used quite often in genetic modification. I've already pointed out the Bee research firm being bought, along with a huge long list of other companies that went against Monsanto's agenda and got bought out by them. These things are posted, but evidently ignored by anyone who has their proverbial fingers in their ears. The basics get posted and reposted. Label it.

Seems to me the earlier POINT about cancer etc. changed only in the recent post to be about the DEATH rates from cancer, heart disease and diabetes, not incidents. Ahhh, I thought that card might be played, DEATH vs. INCIDENCE, but then I thought, 'No way would someone try to make the argument that it's all okay now because, while we are riddled with more sickness now than ever before, at least the chemo and other pharmaceuticals keep us living long enough for something else to kill us!" But enough, whatever, the arguments are getting silly.

Jerry, as near as I can figure, the problem is only in part the reasoning or intention behind the manipulation. The biggest problem is that the outcomes and effects on life and ecology are a big fat question mark when dealing with the unethical corporations who push their genetically manipulated organisms.

Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973

[Kapohocat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jerry

All these GMO posts got me interested in doing a little research. First, calling for a GMO label seems incorrect. It should be for a "transgenic" label. Pretty much every food is GMO. Take corn. Corn as we know it today would not exist if it weren't for the humans that cultivated and developed it. It is a human invention, a plant that does not exist naturally in the wild. It can only survive if planted and protected by humans. It is a product of GMO.

Transgenic is done in a lab. Instead of crossing two plants with thousands of possible outcomes, a particular gene is manipulated for a particular reason. The problem I see is not the process but the reason. I have read that close to 70% of transgenic seeds were made to resist a particular pesticide, resulting in a large increase in pesticide usage.

The problem is not the transgenic process, which is just a more exact way to do what humanity has been doing since the birth of agriculture. The problem is the reason is it being done--to sell more pesticides and make a bigger profit.

Jerry

---

Thanks Jerry! "transgenic" says it! My hubby and I were discussing the semantics of "GMO" vs "hybrid".... but the transgenic process is a much better description. (Now before any says we need more stimulating discussions - conversation was over a beer and a swim!)

[dwedeking]

The devil is in the details. I just read the details of California's Prop 37 which is sold as labeling for GMO's. There are a number of ways around the law (exemptions such as not having to label meat that is fed GMO corn). Also you could easily use the law to close down competitors if you had a staff of lawyers. The "punishment", according to that law, is enough to shutter a small business but will just be the cost of doing business for a large corporation.

I'm anti-GMO without proper testing. I want to know what I eat is safe, not "they haven't proved it's bad yet". But I don't think, looking towards the government is a solution (it rarely is).

"Government is good at one thing: it knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, 'See, if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk." - Harry Browne

[hikatz]

Kapohocat I agree, the transgenic process is much better description. Thanks Jerry!

Dwedeking, there are a lot of flaws in California's Prop 37, but it is a step in the right direction. NYTimes says it best!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/magazi...wanted=all.
I have my doubts it will pass, as Monsanto and other companies have donated over 34 million to defeat the measure!

The links below are about GMOs used in health and food products in Canada over the last 30 years.

http://www.musee-afrappier.qc.ca/en/index.php?pageid=3372&page=

http://www.musee-afrappier.qc.ca/en/index.php?pageid=3371&page=

[YurtGirl]

Seems like the government only needs to be involved for enforcement of enacted laws. Without the laws in place and consequences, what stops corporations from doing whatever they want? I agree we shouldn't expect a govt. agency to create the laws (People should), nor should government agencies be responsible for regulating, etc. All that just leads to more convoluted corruption sucking money from yet another area.

Genetically modified seems different to me than what our ancestors have done for centuries. If you are modifying specific genes using chemicals, radiation or other genes... that sounds like more of a hands on manipulative approach than selective breeding. It also sounds like much more can go wrong.

The term 'transgenic' makes it even more clear though. And gets rid of the deceptively mild sounding acronym, GMO.

Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973

[PaulW]

hikatz, thanks for that NYT link, good to see something from a real newspaper.
I found it to be fairly typical of the campaign. There are no facts, just a
vague feeling of unease about a new technology with a tendency to believe
in shadowy conspiracies.

Yurtgirl, so soon? Welcome back!! Someone said death rates are increasing, I replied that they are not.
Your contribution: "Diabetes is on the decline??" Wow, thanks for that. In any case, whether the death
rate is rising or declining or if the incidence is rising or declining, there is still no link to GM.
That was the whole point.

"Sounds like someone figured out that radiation is, lo and behold, used quite often in genetic modification"
You said radiation was used to insert foreign genetic material into another cell, displaying that you
really have no idea what you are talking about.

Okay, you mentioned the bee company which you claimed that Monsanto was buying in order to
cover something up - then it was pointed out that the bee company was actually working on
a theory which would exonerate Monsanto. Oops. Now you claim that there are many other companies
for which this is the case. That's great, but would you mind naming some? I can't find them.

Still waiting for that long list of victims of GM papayas, Yurtgirl. Anyone?

[YurtGirl]

Yes, THAT was the point; That incidents of major diseases are increasing and there is the very real possibility that GMOs are related, especially in light of the results of recent studies. So further testing is certainly indicated.

Um... ??? Where did you come up with that statement that I supposedly said, "You said radiation was used to insert foreign genetic material into another cell..."? If I wrote that, then that was a grand typo. But I suspect you just didn't actually read what I wrote... I don't recall ever saying that radiation was used to insert foreign genetic material into another cell. What does that even mean? Why or how would you even use radiation in that method? I said radiation was a technique sometimes used to genetically modify foods, as is using genetic materials from other species and sources.

The bee company was working to determine whether GMOs, specifically certain Monsanto varieties, had any affect on the bee populations. If they were about to exonerate them, why would Monsanto buy them and screw that up? Hmmm? And Monsanto BOUGHT, PAST TENSE, the company already, in 2011,so the actual findings are long gone, you can bet on that. If the companies research exonerated Monsanto, sense would clearly have led Monsanto to keep distance from the company so it could reveal their findings and make Monsanto look good. Instead they tainted all that work by having the very company they were researching buy them out.

I gave a link to a long, partial list of companies that Monsanto bought to you already. Find the link. Clink the link. Enjoy. Or do a google search. Really Paul, it isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be.

I don't see anyone claiming that all GMO's will have ill effects. Most are claiming that the potential is there for some to, and because of that, sufficient testing should be done before it is spread in countless ways to the human population and world at large.


Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973

[Oregon Woodsmoke]

[[[[[........Thus, they are being denied their freedom to practice their religion. I'm not talking about minor sects of pagans, here, but world religions (including Christianity,......]]]]]]]

What I am hearing you say is that it wouldn't matter so much if minor sects of Pagans got their freedom to practice religion denied?

Religions that have food restrictions can buy food that is specially prepared and labeled just for them. I can go into the market and purchase food labeled as Kosher or Halal. Catholics can walk into the market and buy fish for Friday. A Muslim has no problems buying a chicken that is not injected with pork.

If any kind of religion, small or large, has a religious prohibition against GMO foods, then the members of that church can certainly walk into a store and buy foods that are not GMO. It's not that difficult to avoid GMO. There are many types of plants where GMO is not even available. I've seen labels that already say "do not contain GMO". They happen to cost a lot more, but they are out there if you want them.

I'm sorry, but GMO is not a religious issue.

What does GMO have to do with Hawaii, anyway? Except, that there are some modified papaya trees, which I intend to buy and plant in my garden. If you (generic you, not aimed at anyone specific) don't want a gift of papaya off of my GMO trees, then turn down the offer.