GMO linked to Leukemia

11 years ago

I'm scared for my son. This is the result of Monsanto and all of its enablers in government. Funny enough, even a GMO scientist begged people not to equate Monsanto's unethical practices with the science.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421280].message }}

Craig Paulson

11 years ago

My homegrown tomatoes, cucs, and onions never tasted so good.

Amen to that. My first garden this year. Going to expand next year!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Craig (not the list)
iMetaSearch - Deep Keyword Research

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421291].message }}

jimbo13

11 years ago

Home grown does taste nice but GMO doesn't give you leukemia so don't worry.

Billions upon billions of GMO meals have been eaten. ie some part of the meal has GMO in the food chain. Guess what? No one is dropping down like flies.

Dan

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421317].message }}

thunderbird

11 years ago

Originally Posted by jimbo13

Home grown does taste nice but GMO doesn't give you leukemia so don't worry.

Billions upon billions of GMO meals have been eaten. ie some part of the meal has GMO in the food chain. Guess what? No one is dropping down like flies.

Dan

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421322].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Jimbo - 1 out of 3 people are getting cancer now. Are you sure they aren't dropping like flies? I would think statistics disagree with that one.

This isn't the first study done on GMO or the first type of cancer linked to it. It will sterilize within 3 generations, though, so it's a good thing anyhow, right.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421355].message }}

jimbo13

11 years ago

Cancer is perfectly natural unfortunately. Only one mammal has been found not to have had cancer. Some sort of bald rat thing. Naked Mole Rat it is called. Even fish get and die of cancer.

And we eat animals and fish so we eat cancer every day.

The 1:3 is simply a diagnosis that would occur in a lifetime which is rising (life expectancy that is) in most of the world.

So you can expect this to move to 1:2 at some point as more and more of the world reach 80 as a life expectancy.

Number of people with arthritis and dementia will also increase. Quite normal.

That doesn't mean I think everything is hunky dory but your link is not correct.

As I said billions of GM meals have been eaten across the world for quite some time now. Yet we live longer.

GM technology just speeds up what humans have been doing for thousands of years.

Dan

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421474].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by jimbo13

Cancer is perfectly natural unfortunately. Only one mammal has been found not to have had cancer. Some sort of bald rat thing. Naked Mole Rat it is called. Even fish get and die of cancer.

And we eat animals and fish so we eat cancer every day.

The 1:3 is simply a diagnosis that would occur in a lifetime which is rising (life expectancy that is) in most of the world.

So you can expect this to move to 1:2 at some point as more and more of the world reach 80 as a life expectancy.

Number of people with arthritis and dementia will also increase. Quite normal.

That doesn't mean I think everything is hunky dory but your link is not correct.

As I said billions of GM meals have been eaten across the world for quite some time now. Yet we live longer.

GM technology just speeds up what humans have been doing for thousands of years.

Dan

Though we may (or may not) live longer many diseases have increased as the amount of GMO's in our foods have increased.
Autism has gone from a rarity 30 years ago to being common today, and don't give me that bull about it being better diagnosed today. Alzheimer has increased, cancer has increased, leaky bowel syndrome has increased, all as gmo's have increased.
Now that studies are finally being done by scientist's who aren't controlled by the bio-tech giants, gmo's are being linked to all those diseases. To top it off, because most of our animals that are used for food are feed gmo's, they are given increasingly larger doses of antibiotics which in turn makes those antibiotics less effective when humans take them.
Then there is the damage they do to our planet through increased pesticide use. Our lakes, rivers, and ground water have become contaminated with Glyphosate and our natural pollinators are dieing at a massive rate thanks in large part to the pesticides used on those gmo crops. When a farmer grows gmo's they get locked into what is called monoculture farming which relies heavily on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. This practice kills the 'living' elements in the soil and creates things like super weeds and super bugs that then need more toxic chemicals to be killed.
So it comes down to this. If you support gmo's then you're against mankind and the planet. Because you can't have a healthy planet or healthy human race and gmo's, it's one or the other.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8422193].message }}

tagiscom

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

Why do I find more and more often that I am embarrassed to be an American? I wish most Americans demanded organic overall as well. It seems though that they are content to be sheep being led to the slaughter.

In a perfect world, those that created GMO foods and those that approve them would be forced to eat them while the rest of us eat healthy organic.

Terra

Well, yes, and no!

Unfortunately, especially in Victoria, (the state at the bottom of AU, more or less) is pretty docile as well, and will take considerable crap from the unmentionables, or socialpaths.

Most of the other states will kick up a stink about something like this, but we tend to grin and bear it, (the rampant Fluoride in our drinking water is probably one reason, or the cold weather).

But even with that, short sighted P,......(socialpaths) are trying to push this S*** into mainstream food in AU, but as said before most don't want it.

I can guarantee you the rich or SEO's wouldn't eat this s***. It is like during war years, where the wealthy are relatively unaffected by restricted supply's, and the majority continue to suffer or have something to do.

It seems that they are pushing this crap, as a means of continuing to generate massive Phar, profits, especially when it is becoming obvious that more and more people, who have cancer, etc are refusing to mortgage their homes for a cure!

Shane

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8422533].message }}

serryjw

11 years ago

Dan, Do you work for Monsanto? There is nothing 'natural' about cancer. Type 2 diabetes is in epic proportion in the US...direct link to HFCS. We don't EAT food, we eat chemicals.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8423053].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by serryjw

Dan, Do you work for Monsanto? There is nothing 'natural' about cancer. Type 2 diabetes is in epic proportion in the US...direct link to HFCS. We don't EAT food, we eat chemicals.

I'm always amazed that people don't see a link between what we eat and the diseases we get. I like to use cars for an analogy. If you put the proper fuel in a car it will run fine. If you put the improper fuel in a car, it will still run but very poorly.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8423090].message }}

serryjw 11 years ago

Truer words were never spoken..Doesn't your car run better after a bath?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8423170].message }}
- ThomM 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by serryjw
  
  Truer words were never spoken..Doesn't your car run better after a bath?
  
  Don't know I tend not to wash my car or bike very often.
  I like to think the dirt keeps the grease and oil in place
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8423234].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

I've been following the studies and don't agree. Cancer is not natural - it's chemical induced - and yes, any animal can get it -- but it comes from toxins. Some toxins are natural - most are not.

I do agree that people freak at the word cancer a little too hard, though. Most cancers will heal themselves before you even know you have them. When they are toxin induced, though, it's rarely from a toxin here or there - it's the long-term stew of them - that and the human immune system has been attacked by a lot of factors.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421515].message }}

jimbo13

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Cancer is not natural - it's chemical induced - and yes, any animal can get it -- but it comes from toxins. Some toxins are natural - most are not.

Sal

Depends what you mean by chemicals. Everything is chemicals.

We are just a bag of chemicals ourselves.

Prior to the Industrial revolution where we started pumping huge quantities of rubbish into the air, soil and water cancer was still prevalent.

Everything they ate and drank was technically organic.

I think that most of us in The Western world are now thinking more about the environment and how we treat animals and this is a good thing.

You may differ on that which is fine. Each to their own.

TB

You're better than that.

Dan

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421572].message }}

tagiscom

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

I've been following the studies and don't agree. Cancer is not natural - it's chemical induced - and yes, any animal can get it -- but it comes from toxins. Some toxins are natural - most are not.

I do agree that people freak at the word cancer a little too hard, though. Most cancers will heal themselves before you even know you have them. When they are toxin induced, though, it's rarely from a toxin here or there - it's the long-term stew of them - that and the human immune system has been attacked by a lot of factors.

Hmmmm, scary stuff, l always thought that alien components that killed certain pests in GMO crops was a nightmare waiting to happen.

Perfectly safe, sounds like the Japanese Nuclear company, talk before the earthquake and tidal wave knocked out their reactor.

And Titanic, and...........

Bottom line don't play God unless you test it to death, even then l wouldn't touch it, because it is unnecessary!

This should also be a warning to WF members who think that conspiracy theory's, are not real!

Good call Sal!

And l was wondering about children, any ideas why they get Cancer, etc?

Shane

PS AU is testing this crap, and we have already found the bumble bee as well as others, disappearing because of these Frankenstein crops.

And most Aussies don't want it, they want Organic overall.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421674].message }}

MissTerraK 11 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

...And most Aussies don't want it, they want Organic overall.

Why do I find more and more often that I am embarrassed to be an American? I wish most Americans demanded organic overall as well. It seems though that they are content to be sheep being led to the slaughter.

In a perfect world, those that created GMO foods and those that approve them would be forced to eat them while the rest of us eat healthy organic.

Terra
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421904].message }}
- serryjw 11 years ago
  
  Terra darlin'...you're the best
  
  It seems though that they are content to be sheep being led to the slaughter.
  
  RFLOL!!! :-)
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8423077].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Originally Posted by jimbo13

Sal

Depends what you mean by chemicals. Everything is chemicals.

We are just a bag of chemicals ourselves.

Prior to the Industrial revolution where we started pumping huge quantities of rubbish into the air, soil and water cancer was still prevalent.

Everything they ate and drank was technically organic.

I think that most of us in The Western world are now thinking more about the environment and how we treat animals and this is a good thing.

You may differ on that which is fine. Each to their own.

TB

You're better than that.

Dan

I think you know what I mean by chemicals - and, no, cancer wasn't always just a common disease. It was very rare at one time. It is hitting over 1/3 of the population right now -- and those kind of figures are NOT normal for anything but a plague or pandemic.

Actually - maybe your body is primarily chemicals, mine is primarily water. Put enough man-produced chemicals in that water, though, and stuff is going to start functioning very badly.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8423422].message }}

tagiscom

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

I think you know what I mean by chemicals - and, no, cancer wasn't always just a common disease. It was very rare at one time. It is hitting over 1/3 of the population right now -- and those kind of figures are NOT normal for anything but a plague or pandemic.

Actually - maybe your body is primarily chemicals, mine is primarily water. Put enough man-produced chemicals in that water, though, and stuff is going to start functioning very badly.

Hmmmm, maybe you should start drinking more Fluoridated water, it should kill any nasties in the water, he, he!

Shane

Thanks

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8424462].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

... cancer wasn't always just a common disease. It was very rare at one time. It is hitting over 1/3 of the population right now --

Right now 1/3? In 2009 about 12.5 million people had cancer in the US. Out of about 300 million. That's closer to 4/100 of the population. You are looking at lifetime risk of developing cancer.

I'm not downplaying how bad cancer is, because I personally think it's terrible that our country has only spent $200 billion on cancer research since 1971, and that includes money invested by public and private sectors and foundations. By contrast, we spent five times as much on a war in Iraq in the past decade!

Of course, having our federal government spend money on trying to find a cure for cancer is now days looked upon as "socialism" by the misinformed and easily persuaded. Unnecessary wars? No problem apparently.

Regarding how common and rare cancer has been, that is hard to say since science hasn't been keeping track of how most deaths occurred in the centuries past quite as closely as we do now. However, there is evidence that cancer has been around for thousands of years:

It is obvious that cancer did not suddenly start appearing after modernization or industrialization. The oldest known description of human cancer is found in an Egyptian seven papyri, writing written between 3000-1500 BC. Two of them, known as the "Edwin Smith"3 and "George Ebers"4 papyri, contain details of conditions that are consistent with modern descriptions of cancer.

Edwin Smith Papyrus is assumed to be the oldest medical literature available. Written approximately in 3000 BC, Edwin Smith Papyrus contains 48 case reports that are written on a thin roll of papyrus 15 feet long. This contains description regarding 8 cases of tumors or ulcers of the breast. The writer concluded that bulging tumor of the breast was a grave disease with no significant curative options. The Edwin Smith Papyrus recommended cauterization (the fire drill) as a palliative measure.

The Ebers Papyrus dated 1500 BC, describes a soft-tissue tumor, a fatty tumor and recommends that this should be excised. However, if the tumor is large or livid and on a limb, the author recommends that this be left alone untouched. The Ebers Papyrus also contains descriptions suggestive of cancers of the skin, uterus, stomach, and rectum. Additional descriptions regarding enlarged thyroids, polyps were also available in the text. In addition to description of the medical conditions, the author also describes pharmacological, mechanical, and magical treatments for these disorders.

History of cancer from MedicineWorld.Org

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8424602].message }}

AeroBuilders 11 years ago

There is nothing "good" in the proliferation of GMO foods. ALL THE HEALTH TRENDS in the world are going in the wrong direction and that is not an accident imo, most likely by design. Even GMO crop yields are starting to collapse for another BIG NEGATIVE when it comes to GMO's. Don't forget, 5 major corporations control most all major US media sources so you will not hear the REALITIES of GMO foods in the mainstream media.

» Former GMO Engineer Drops Biotech and Goes Organic Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

GMOs explained - a public service announcement from the Health Ranger / Natural News - NaturalNews.tv
- Thanks
Signature

Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8424663].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Right now 1/3? In 2009 about 12.5 million people had cancer in the US. Out of about 300 million. That's closer to 4/100 of the population. You are looking at lifetime risk of developing cancer.

I'm not downplaying how bad cancer is, because I personally think it's terrible that our country has only spent $200 billion on cancer research since 1971, and that includes money invested by public and private sectors and foundations. By contrast, we spent five times as much on a war in Iraq in the past decade!

Of course, having our federal government spend money on trying to find a cure for cancer is now days looked upon as "socialism" by the misinformed and easily persuaded. Unnecessary wars? No problem apparently.

Regarding how common and rare cancer has been, that is hard to say since science hasn't been keeping track of how most deaths occurred in the centuries past quite as closely as we do now. However, there is evidence that cancer has been around for thousands of years:

History of cancer from MedicineWorld.Org

Tim - 1 out of 3 is lifetime, - one of three during their lifetime - not yearly or right now stats. I had a little touch of it once, but no longer fit into those stats. My grandmother died of it, not in your stats - my sister had it - not in the current stats. Ken died of it - not in the "has" stats. The stats you are looking at are as different as looking at umemployment stats - the official and raw data stats are very different.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8425645].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Tim - 1 out of 3 is lifetime, -

I know, that is what I was pointing out. That rate is likely to go up as our population ages also, even though cancer incidence is decreasing slightly. The two biggest reasons for the increase of cancer deaths from 1900 to now seem to be the increase in life expectancy because cancer affects seniors much more and tobacco smoking.

As the population ages, many diseases that predominantly affect older individuals will become more prevalent. Moreover many conditions that affect the elderly will occur in combination, thereby complicating care for any specific condition (5,6). Advancing age is a high risk factor for cancer, with persons over 65 accounting for 60% of newly diagnosed malignancies and 70% of all cancer deaths (7,8). The age adjusted cancer incidence rate is 2151/100,000 population for those over 65 compared to 208/100,000 for those under 65 (7,8). Similarly, the age adjusted cancer mortality rate for those over 65 is 1068/100,000 compared to 67/100,000 for those under 65 (7,8). Thus, the incidence of cancer in those over 65 is 10 times greater than in those younger than 65 and the cancer death rate is 16 times greater in patients over 65 compared to younger patients. More than 70% of the mortality associated with many cancers including prostate, bladder, colon, uterus, pancreas, stomach, rectum and lung occur in patients 65 and older (7,8). Even with a progressive decrease in the cancer incidence and death rate, aging of the population will be accompanied by a marked increase in the total number of patients with cancer...

Cancer in the Elderly

During the first decades of the 20th century, lung cancer was rare; however, as cigarette smoking became increasingly popular, first among men and later among women, the incidence of lung cancer became epidemic (Figure 1). In 1930, the lung cancer death rate for men was 4.9 per 100,000; in 1990, the rate had increased to 75.6 per 100,000 (1).

Annual per capita cigarette consumption increased from 54 cigarettes in 1900 to 4345 cigarettes in 1963 and then decreased to 2261 in 1998 (10,11).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4843a2.htm

Regarding the study about GMOs, the study doesn't show a link between GMOs and Leukemia. It's conclusion is "...our results suggest that further studies are
required to clarify the mechanism involved in the hematotoxicity found
in mice, and to establish the toxicological risks to non-target organisms,
especially mammals, before concluding that these microbiological
control agents are safe for mammals." They are suggesting more studies should be made before saying these agents are safe to humans. they do not say there is a link to Leukemia among humans. There's also articles about how this study is flawed.

I'm not a defender of Monsanto. In fact I think they are a bad company ( Roundup is one product that should be banned right now ), but that headline is sensational and not true.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8426950].message }}

AeroBuilders

11 years ago

No way in HELL will I eat GMO's!

Common sense is just common sense.............

Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early

Debunking the French GMO tumor study is a tsunami of lies

Side effects of GMOs - Ask your doctor if CANCER is right for you

GMOs Create Incredibly Toxic Colons

NO FRANKENFOODS in my body!

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8427007].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by AeroBuilders

No way in HELL will I eat GMO's!

Common sense is just common sense.............

Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early

Debunking the French GMO tumor study is a tsunami of lies

Side effects of GMOs - Ask your doctor if CANCER is right for you

GMOs Create Incredibly Toxic Colons

NO FRANKENFOODS in my body!

But according to Monsanto and the USDA, they are sustainable agriculture:rolleyes:

There's also articles about how this study is flawed.

Tim every time a study is done that shows any relationship between gmo's and human health the bio-tech industry is right there to put out articles debunking those studies.
There are already many studies done by scientist with no ties to the industry that show a link between Bt g.e. crops and Autism, leaky gut syndrome, etc. It's less of a stretch to see there could very well be a link between them and leukemia then there not being a link. This study points to the potential for that link.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8427242].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Exactly. Potential link is a long way from "GMO Linked to Leukemia".

Originally Posted by ThomM

This study points to the potential for that link.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8432549].message }}

Kay King

11 years ago

For example taking the chromosome that makes certain varieties of corn drought resistant and placing it in a variety of corn with a better flavor or yield.

Gardeners and farmers have had ways to combine varieties for years. Grafted plant stock is a "mutation" that works for many plants....selective breeding has been part of livestock farming for generations.

For most people I don't think the idea of "better" grain or crops is frightening - it's the link to Monsanto and the public knowledge about that company that leads to fear.

I've never been totally against "GMO" - but I think it needs to be labeled, regulated and closely studied...not just thrown out there to increase profits.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8433325].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Gardeners and farmers have had ways to combine varieties for years. Grafted plant stock is a "mutation" that works for many plants....selective breeding has been part of livestock farming for generations.

For most people I don't think the idea of "better" grain or crops is frightening - it's the link to Monsanto and the public knowledge about that company that leads to fear.

I've never been totally against "GMO" - but I think it needs to be labeled, regulated and closely studied...not just thrown out there to increase profits.

I know Kay, I've studied and practiced different forms of plant propagation and breeding for years

Like I said in my post, if they where just taking the dominant genes or chromosomes from one variety of (say) corn and putting them in another variety of corn it would be a different story. To get a new cultivar it takes roughly 10 back crosses to the original parent for it to be stable. So if the particular plant takes a year to mature, you're looking at 10 years. Plants like apple trees can take a life time which is why they are normally done through grafting and propagated by tissue culture.
It's when you take genes from an entirely different species and as in what Monsanto does a different Kingdom that you run into problems.
For example the Bt crops. With them you are inserting a gene from a Bacteria into the dna of corn, cotton, or soy. So you are crossing two Kingdoms (EUBACTERIA and PLANT Kingdoms). In order to verify the cross works they have to add a protein that activates the Bacteria gene (CryAb1 or 2). The finished product now has an active toxin in every cell of the plant. When we eat that plant the same protein that activated the bacteria toxin along with the toxin mixes with our gut bacteria and mutates them, causing them to stay active and eat through our intestine walls. Hence leaky gut syndrome. Naturally this leads to other health problems.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8433485].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

For example the Bt crops. With them you are inserting a gene from a Bacteria into the dna of corn, cotton, or soy. So you are crossing two Kingdoms (EUBACTERIA and PLANT Kingdoms). In order to verify the cross works they have to add a protein that activates the Bacteria gene (CryAb1 or 2). The finished product now has an active toxin in every cell of the plant. When we eat that plant the same protein that activated the bacteria toxin along with the toxin mixes with our gut bacteria and mutates them, causing them to stay active and eat through our intestine walls. Hence leaky gut syndrome. Naturally this leads to other health problems.

Yeah, that toxin is self replicating in the human system so what's going on is we're being turned into walking pesticide factories. That toxin is supposed to explode the stomachs of bugs that eat it, yet for some reason they think it's okay for us? They got over putting that one on the market by calling it "natural". It is natural - for another species and then it's still toxic.

There seem to still be a large number of people who don't understand the difference between hybrid and Monsanto injected frankenfoods.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8433881].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Yeah, that toxin is self replicating in the human system so what's going on is we're being turned into walking pesticide factories. That toxin is supposed to explode the stomachs of bugs that eat it, yet for some reason they think it's okay for us? They got over putting that one on the market by calling it "natural". It is natural - for another species and then it's still toxic.

There seem to still be a large number of people who don't understand the difference between hybrid and Monsanto injected frankenfoods.

Thanks in large parts to the bio-tech and govt. propaganda machines.:rolleyes:
My favorite is when they try to say it all ready happens in nature and use the Tulip Virus as an example.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8433961].message }}

AeroBuilders

11 years ago

Too bad that Monsanto hires companies like Blackwater/XE to run their "nasty" ops around the world - can't say I can at all trust a company like that. Hell no!

Another MAJOR problem I have with GLOBALIST DIRECTED GMO foods - they have said in their own think tank group documents they intend for the GMO foods to help ALTER HUMAN DNA and to SLOW POPULATION GROWTH. That is just pure insanity in my book!

BTW, go see the ties between Hillary Clinton and Monsanto from her Rose Law Firm days! ;-)

Originally Posted by Kay King

Gardeners and farmers have had ways to combine varieties for years. Grafted plant stock is a "mutation" that works for many plants....selective breeding has been part of livestock farming for generations.

For most people I don't think the idea of "better" grain or crops is frightening - it's the link to Monsanto and the public knowledge about that company that leads to fear.

I've never been totally against "GMO" - but I think it needs to be labeled, regulated and closely studied...not just thrown out there to increase profits.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8433952].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Originally Posted by AeroBuilders

Another MAJOR problem I have with GLOBALIST DIRECTED GMO foods - they have said in their own think tank group documents they intend for the GMO foods to help ALTER HUMAN DNA and to SLOW POPULATION GROWTH. That is just pure insanity in my book!

-)

If you ask me, the population control is the only thing that is good about that crap. Nations whose people are existing soley because of foreign aid need to stop their population growth - fast. What happens when 30 million people are alive solely because of aide and that aide is cut off? Unfortunately - those populations are increasing rapid fire, doubling and tripling populations in just a generation.

It makes me absolutely sick to see a woman with her stomach bulging, ready to drop another kid when she's got 4, 5, or even more kids standing beside her in various stages of starvation. I'm sorry, but I've heard all I care to hear about human urges, only thing they can do, yadda yadda yadda that I want to hear. It is a travesty of humanity to have more kids when the ones you already have are dying because you can't feed them. That has been my ONLY support for GMO from day one.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8434336].message }}

tagiscom

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

If you ask me, the population control is the only thing that is good about that crap. Nations whose people are existing soley because of foreign aid need to stop their population growth - fast. What happens when 30 million people are alive solely because of aide and that aide is cut off? Unfortunately - those populations are increasing rapid fire, doubling and tripling populations in just a generation.

It makes me absolutely sick to see a woman with her stomach bulging, ready to drop another kid when she's got 4, 5, or even more kids standing beside her in various stages of starvation. I'm sorry, but I've heard all I care to hear about human urges, only thing they can do, yadda yadda yadda that I want to hear. It is a travesty of humanity to have more kids when the ones you already have are dying because you can't feed them. That has been my ONLY support for GMO from day one.

Hmmmm, yep, with no pension, churning out children is their only course of action, eventhough it is ridiculous to see some of them suffer to keep their parents well off in retirement years.

No doubt they might reason, well some are starving so we had better churn out some more to compensate.

What we really need is for a anomalous Billionaire to churn out free energy black boxes and leave them on the doorsteps or the poor.

Barring that one, getting rid of our currency setup, and distributing wealth or resources evenly.

Although it would probably take a third world war or first contact to bring that one into action.

Shane

PS could explain why GMO has the strongest hold in these countries to help curb the rampant population explosion?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8434984].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Here's some pros and cons of having gmo foods labeled:

Pro-labeling Arguments
* Consumers have a right to know what's in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised (Raab and Grobe, 2003).
* Mandatory labeling will allow consumers to identify and steer clear of food products that cause them problems.
* Surveys indicate that a majority of Americans support mandatory labeling. (However, such surveys often do not specify the effect on food prices.)
* At least 21 countries and the European Union have established some form of mandatory labeling (Gruere and Rao, 2007; Phillips and McNeill, 2000).
* For religious or ethical reasons, many Americans want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA.

Anti-labeling Arguments
* Labels on GE food imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GE and conventional foods have been detected. If a nutritional or allergenic difference were found in a GE food, current FDA regulations require a label to that effect.
* Labeling of GE foods to fulfill the desires of some consumers would impose a cost on all consumers. Experience with mandatory labeling in the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand has not resulted in consumer choice. Rather, retailers have eliminated GE products from their shelves due to perceived consumer aversion to GE products (Carter and Gruere, 2003).
* Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GE ingredients.
* The food system infrastructure (storage, processing, and transportation facilities) in this country could not currently accommodate the need for segregation of GE and non-GE products.
* Consumers who want to avoid animal products need not worry about GE food. No GE products currently on the market or under review contain animal genes. (However, there is no guarantee that this will not happen in the future.)

Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

Seems like there are good arguments on both sides.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8436416].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Here's some pros and cons of having gmo foods labeled:

Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

Seems like there are good arguments on both sides.

Both arguments have some facts wrong.
Over 60 countries have mandatory labeling not just 21 and the E.U.

* Labels on GE food imply a warning about health effects, whereas no significant differences between GE and conventional foods have been detected. If a nutritional or allergenic difference were found in a GE food, current FDA regulations require a label to that effect. False. It's the very industry that produces them that are saying that. The people who want labeling simply want to be able to choice what they eat. Also seeing how there is a lack of testing on their safety, labeling what help either prove or disprove if they are responsible for any bad health effects.
* Labeling of GE foods to fulfill the desires of some consumers would impose a cost on all consumers. Experience with mandatory labeling in the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand has not resulted in consumer choice. Rather, retailers have eliminated GE products from their shelves due to perceived consumer aversion to GE products (Carter and Gruere, 2003).Another lie. Labeling gmo's wouldn't raise the cost in any way and grocers are not going to remove brands like Kelloggs from their shelves unless people stop buying them. In which case the food producer will just change to non-gmo like they used before gmos existed.
* Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GE ingredients.Which do already exist, but as more gmo's are grown the risk of cross contamination also grows. Organic corn is already becoming near impossible to grow in the corn belt or in other areas with heavy corn products. Organic soy as following close behind as is cotton and beets.
* The food system infrastructure (storage, processing, and transportation facilities) in this country could not currently accommodate the need for segregation of GE and non-GE products. Yet they already do to a large extent. Even corporations like General Mills have products and subsidiaries that are organic.
* Consumers who want to avoid animal products need not worry about GE food. No GE products currently on the market or under review contain animal genes. (However, there is no guarantee that this will not happen in the future.) No they have bacteria genes. Also the animal products we eat are fed gmo's and they are releasing a genetically engineered salmon soon.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8437618].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Over 60 countries have mandatory labeling not just 21 and the E.U.

Thom, do you have a link to a current list of countries that have mandatory? I found this one from 2007. It has 13 countries that have mandatory laws that are enforced, 12 that have "Countries with partially enforced or non-enforced labeling policies" and 21 others who were going to add some sort of labeling policy. Four countries have voluntary labeling policy including the US. The site also shows the different "Characteristics of national labeling systems in major countries as of February 2007 divided into three groups according to the degree of stringency of their regulation." Interesting info:

AgBioForum 10(1): A Review of International Labeling Policies of Genetically Modified Food to Evaluate India’s Proposed Rule

I guess I don't see why having voluntary labeling policies isn't enough at this point. I do agree we should keep testing and doing studies on GMOs though and basically that is what this report in the OP concluded also.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8438085].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Thom, do you have a link to a current list of countries that have mandatory? I found this one from 2007. It has 13 countries that have mandatory laws that are enforced, 12 that have "Countries with partially enforced or non-enforced labeling policies" and 21 others who were going to add some sort of labeling policy. Four countries have voluntary labeling policy including the US. The site also shows the different "Characteristics of national labeling systems in major countries as of February 2007 divided into three groups according to the degree of stringency of their regulation." Interesting info:

AgBioForum 10(1): A Review of International Labeling Policies of Genetically Modified Food to Evaluate India’s Proposed Rule

I guess I don't see why having voluntary labeling policies isn't enough at this point. I do agree we should keep testing and doing studies on GMOs though and basically that is what this report in the OP concluded also.

Labeling Around the World |

Name one company that is labeling their foods as having gmo's in them voluntarily.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8439355].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Name one company that is labeling their foods as having gmo's in them voluntarily.

Well, my point is if there is demand for non GMO foods, which there seems to be, then that market will be successful and labels showing food products GMO free will do well. I would think Whole Foods is doing really well right now with the interest in "organic" and non GMO foods.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8439721].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, my point is if there is demand for non GMO foods, which there seems to be, then that market will be successful and labels showing food products GMO free will do well. I would think Whole Foods is doing really well right now with the interest in "organic" and non GMO foods.

Yes there is demand for non-gmo foods and companies that produce them are doing well. Still doesn't change the fact that by not labeling gmo's you're taking away the choice of consumers to buy or not buy them. Still doesn't change the fact that growing gmo's is destroying our environment. Seems to me if gmo's where what they claim they are, they would proudly label them and use that as a selling point.
Name another industry where they "claim" their product is safe and a boom to the industry, yet fight tooth and nail to deny the consumers the right to know they are consuming their product.
Keep in mind we're talking about a product that every human in the world uses, food. When your feeding or attempting to feed every human from new born babies to adults gmo's they should be proven to be safe 100%. How is it right to feed a baby pesticides? How is it right to feed adults pesticides? All not labeling gmo's does is protect the profits of the corporations that produce them at the expense of the environment and our health.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8440041].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

I don't know Thom. I've read articles where they say GMOs help the environment and reduce the use of pesticides. In the case of tobacco it was a clear case of the product killing millions of people. I don't see that with GMOs. Why would they fight it? Well, because they feel GMOs are safe and having labels creates the impression that they aren't.

Originally Posted by ThomM

Yes there is demand for non-gmo foods and companies that produce them are doing well. Still doesn't change the fact that by not labeling gmo's you're taking away the choice of consumers to buy or not buy them. Still doesn't change the fact that growing gmo's is destroying our environment. Seems to me if gmo's where what they claim they are, they would proudly label them and use that as a selling point.
Name another industry where they "claim" their product is safe and a boom to the industry, yet fight tooth and nail to deny the consumers the right to know they are consuming their product.
Keep in mind we're talking about a product that every human in the world uses, food. When your feeding or attempting to feed every human from new born babies to adults gmo's they should be proven to be safe 100%. How is it right to feed a baby pesticides? How is it right to feed adults pesticides? All not labeling gmo's does is protect the profits of the corporations that produce them at the expense of the environment and our health.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8440100].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I don't know Thom. I've read articles where they say GMOs help the environment and reduce the use of pesticides. In the case of tobacco it was a clear case of the product killing millions of people. I don't see that with GMOs. Why would they fight it? Well, because they feel GMOs are safe and having labels creates the impression that they aren't.

Tim lets use a little logic. If a crop is genetically engineered to be immune to a pesticide, is that so you can use less of that pesticide or more? If less why has the USDA crop reports shown an increase of pesticide use that correlates with the increase of growing gmo's? GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide, Not Less - Forbes
Why is that pesticide showing up in almost all bodies of water in the U.S.?

Glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural and urban areas of the United States. The greatest glyphosate use is in the Mississippi River basin, where most applications are for weed control on genetically-modified corn, soybeans and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007. USGS Release: Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in Rain and Streams in the Mississippi River Basin (8/29/2011 8:19:35 AM)

You don't see the problem with gmo's effecting peoples health because without labeling it's close to impossible to track them.
If they are convinced they are safe, then why not support labeling to help prove they are right? The labels they are so worried about would simply state that an item in that food is genetically engineered. It's not a warning label. If a person thinks eating gmo's is fine it will do nothing but inform them they are eating gmo's and allow them to support products that use them. Just like it will allow people who don't want to eat them the information they need to avoid that product. In other words it allows free will and free choice about what we eat for everyone. How is that a problem?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8440289].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Tim lets use a little logic. If a crop is genetically engineered to be immune to a pesticide, is that so you can use less of that pesticide or more? If less why has the USDA crop reports shown an increase of pesticide use that correlates with the increase of growing gmo's?

I think crops that are engineered to be immune to herbicides probably use more herbicides, while crops that are engineered to be resistant to insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses etc... would need less insecticides, fungicides, bactericides and virucides. That article you posted shows how herbicides increased.

You don't see the problem with gmo's effecting peoples health because without labeling it's close to impossible to track them.

With tobacco there was a huge increase in lung cancer and heart disease. Plus, there were scientific studies to connect these stats. There doesn't seem to be the same thing going on regarding GMOs from what I can tell, although some products do worry me such as Roundup.

GMOs that reduce the use of pesticides shouldn't be lumped together with GMOs that are resistant to herbicides and increase their use. That's why it seems to make more sense to have labels saying products are GMO free and/or perhaps banning products like Roundup if they are proven to be harmful.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8440517].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I think crops that are engineered to be immune to herbicides probably use more herbicides, while crops that are engineered to be resistant to insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses etc... would need less insecticides, fungicides, bactericides and virucides. That article you posted shows how herbicides increased.

With tobacco there was a huge increase in lung cancer and heart disease. Plus, there were scientific studies to connect these stats. There doesn't seem to be the same thing going on regarding GMOs from what I can tell, although some products do worry me such as Roundup.

GMOs that reduce the use of pesticides shouldn't be lumped together with GMOs that are resistant to herbicides and increase their use. That's why it seems to make more sense to have labels saying products are GMO free and/or perhaps banning products like Roundup if they are proven to be harmful.

How is tobacco a good comparison? You either use tobacco or you don't. If you do you know you do, if you don't you know you don't.
The people who use or don't use tobacco don't need to do an enormous amount of research to know if they do (or don't). When I buy a pack of cigs. I know there is tobacco in them. When I buy a box of cereal, unless it is labeled I don't have a clue if it contains gmo's unless I contact the company who makes it and asks. What if that company doesn't know?
Crops that are genetically engineered to be resistant to insect and other problems, create their own set of problems.
Bt corn is engineered to be resistant (read kill) root worm. But instead the root worm has adapted and is becoming immune to the corn. Plus the corn has become an indiscriminate killer as it also kills beneficial insects.
So now root worm has become a huge problem because of it's immunity and because growing gmo's relies on a monoculture type of agriculture.
Yet for years root worm was only a minor problem mainly because farmers used crop rotation as part of it's controls.
By the way an additional problem with the crops that are suppose to be immune to insects is that we are now ingesting the poison that the whole plant has become.
I know you (and TL) like the Daily Kos, so here's an article from them on gmo's.
Daily Kos: Updated: GMO Crops Yield Suicides, Hunger, Pesticides, Superbugs, Superweeds & Profits for Monsanto
Also Tim there is a reason I tend to understand the relationship between gmo's and their effects.
1. I grew up working on the farms surrounding my house at a time when organic farming was just called farming. It was a time when I could drink cow's milk straight from the udder and never suffered any bad health effects and could walk through a corn field without worry of pesticide poisoning from eating the corn raw.
2. I studied nutrition while going to college for my Culinary Arts degree.
3. I studied numerous plant science subjects while going to college, well to study plant science. Some of those subjects included Botany, Fruit Science, Vegetable production, Entomology, Plant Pathology, Weed Control, and 3 Soil Science courses.
4. I've worked in the landscaping field for over 20 years and was a certified pesticide applicator.
5. I've worked as a volunteer with a few of the local Cooperative Extensions educating farmers on sustainable agriculture and Integrated Pest Management as well as soil and water conservation.
In other words, I don't just read articles and base my views of gmo's on those articles.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8440643].message }}

ThomM 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Exactly. Potential link is a long way from "GMO Linked to Leukemia".

Not that long. In fact it's close enough that at the least a ban should be placed on them until further studies can be done. In fact there is ample evidence that gmo's are causing many diseases and health problems. Not to mention how they are destroying our agricultural system. But instead of doing the right thing and trying to protect our health and the health of our farmlands our government puts the very people responsible for gmo's in charge of the agencies that are suppose to protect us.
- Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8433514].message }}

Auxi

11 years ago

Underground health sounds like conspiracy project for vegans and UFO fans

How the smart ppl know the source of cancer but they cant discover the cure?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8427262].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Tim -- old didn't used to mean disabled and sick. I grew up in a town where people were NOT sick or debilitated just because they were old - and we had MEGA old people around.

Cancer is declining a bit and I fully believe it's because people are waking up and changing their lifestyles. Excercise, organic food choices, going back to natural cleaners, etc. There is also a lot less water fluoridation going on now - and that is a biggie in the degenerative diseases category. Still - the body used to fight cancer off in most cases, and it's not anymore. Too much gunk weighing down our immune systems.

As far as GMO - it should be a no brainer. GMOs kill lifeforms in the fields - bugs, soil producing bacteria, rodents and other wildlife -- yet it's safe for us? Um.........that just goes against even the simplest logic. If food kills anything that eats it, it shouldn't be eaten by anything.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8427573].message }}

thunderbird

11 years ago

I think there are legitimate avenues for GMO research and it needs to involve long-term research. Monsanto was decidedly unscientific in releasing improperly tested GMO's on ma massive scale into the general population -- and could only do so with rigged legislation. The general population is now unwittingly serving as "human guinea pigs" for Monsanto GMOs.

Now it is a challenge to find food that isn't GMO and it is hard to know what is what since it isn't labelled. That said, food that isn't GMO is likely to include the information on labeling as a selling point.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8429073].message }}

tagiscom 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Auxi

Underground health sounds like conspiracy project for vegans and UFO fans How the smart ppl know the source of cancer but they cant discover the cure?

Give them a chance, they have only been doing research on Cancer for 100 years and spent a trillion dollars!!!

Although it does seem ridiculous by now that they couldn't at least tell us what is the main trigger!

Seems like with Chinese studies that dairy is a big one!

Doctors always put it down to genetics, mainly because we are sitting ducks, and have to take what they dish out, Phar, wise.

One family member keeling over, and then others in their family following, could just be outright fear!

Further studies need to be done, to determine the ratio of fear against genetics!

Shane
- Thanks
Signature
Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8429123].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

I think there are legitimate avenues for GMO research and it needs to involve long-term research. Monsanto was decidedly unscientific in releasing improperly tested GMO's on ma massive scale into the general population -- and could only do so with rigged legislation. The general population is now unwittingly serving as "human guinea pigs" for Monsanto GMOs.

Now it is a challenge to find food that isn't GMO and it is hard to know what is what since it isn't labelled. That said, food that isn't GMO is likely to include the information on labeling as a selling point.

The problem with that is, there are maybe a half dozen corporations that own most of the companies that sell food.
They are not going to hurt their sales or profits of one brand by labeling another brand as non-gmo.
On the other hand there are many smaller companies that are trying to sell non-gmo foods and are labeled as such through the non-gmo verified project.
America's Biggest Food Companies - Forbes
Non-GMO Project
http://www.nongmoproject.org/find-no...ting-products/

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430363].message }}

AeroBuilders

11 years ago

NON GMO Project Rocks! They are a GREAT RESOURCE to see what foods are non gmo by BRAND (a table with links on their site).

Originally Posted by ThomM

The problem with that is, there are maybe a half dozen corporations that own most of the companies that sell food.
They are not going to hurt their sales or profits of one brand by labeling another brand as non-gmo.
On the other hand there are many smaller companies that are trying to sell non-gmo foods and are labeled as such through the non-gmo verified project.
America's Biggest Food Companies - Forbes
Non-GMO Project
Verified Products | The Non-GMO Project

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430401].message }}

ThomM 11 years ago

Originally Posted by AeroBuilders

NON GMO Project Rocks! They are a GREAT RESOURCE to see what foods are non gmo by BRAND (a table with links on their site).

I agree. I actually learned about them when I first saw their label on one of my favorite companies product.
Amys Kitchen : Natural and Organic Foods

The grocery store I shop at recently remodeled and now has (labeled) sections in almost every isle for organic products.
They carry a large selection of Amy's products as well as products from another company I support, Annie's.
Annie's Products
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430571].message }}
- ThomM 11 years ago
  
  Here's a short video that takes care of the 5 biggest myths the bio-tech industry spreads.
  
  5 GMO Myths Busted - YouTube
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430599].message }}

AeroBuilders

11 years ago

I am sorry, but mixing insect and animal DNA with my crops is not anything I want to eat - no thanks.

Originally Posted by thunderbird

I think there are legitimate avenues for GMO research and it needs to involve long-term research. Monsanto was decidedly unscientific in releasing improperly tested GMO's on ma massive scale into the general population -- and could only do so with rigged legislation. The general population is now unwittingly serving as "human guinea pigs" for Monsanto GMOs.

Now it is a challenge to find food that isn't GMO and it is hard to know what is what since it isn't labelled. That said, food that isn't GMO is likely to include the information on labeling as a selling point.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430387].message }}

thunderbird

11 years ago

Originally Posted by AeroBuilders

I am sorry, but mixing insect and animal DNA with my crops is not anything I want to eat - no thanks.

I agree with you. But GMOs research is not the same thing as introducing GMO food into the general population. GMOs -- a genetically modified organisms -- in a lot of cases are not related to food but for other areas of research.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431285].message }}

AeroBuilders

11 years ago

Right - but I have been talking about "foods" since this thread has been in that direction for the most part.

Originally Posted by thunderbird

I agree with you. But GMOs research is not the same thing as introducing GMO food into the general population. GMOs -- a genetically modified organisms -- in a lot of cases are not related to food but for other areas of research.

Thanks

Signature

Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431304].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

I agree with you. But GMOs research is not the same thing as introducing GMO food into the general population. GMOs -- a genetically modified organisms -- in a lot of cases are not related to food but for other areas of research.

I agree T. Genetic research should be continued and could have beneficial results. I think most of us do agree that they have simply gotten it wrong with our food though. When you start mixing different species and even kingdoms, I think you find out pretty quickly why it doesn't happen in nature.
The proper way to do it with our food would of been similar to simple cross breeding. For example taking the chromosome that makes certain varieties of corn drought resistant and placing it in a variety of corn with a better flavor or yield. If they could do something like that and it worked, they could cut the amount of time it takes to breed in those traits drastically.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431568].message }}

socialentry

Banned 11 years ago

The X files - Intro - Opening theme - Orginal HQ...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8430030].message }}

Patrician

11 years ago

I guess that's how the cows got Leukemia MANY YEARS AGO -

Got Milk? HELL NO.

Where's the Beef? NOT HERE.

(i have other reasons for this and the incidence of danger to humans is 'small' - but who can believe what the USDA says?)

Bovine leukemia virus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leukemia in bovein fluids

http://ans.oregonstate.edu/sites/ans...ension-BLV.pdf

Humans have antibodies reactive wi... [AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Thanks

Signature

Patricia Brucoli
Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431198].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

If GMO is healthy - why are the GMO corporations fighting so hard against labeling?

Realize that Monsanto and a few others were sued for using the FDA logo illegally on their disinformation campaign that kept 37 from passing (by a small enough margin that it may have been vote fraud) in California. So they got a smack on the hand - and we still didn't get the labeling.

There has been approval of NON-GMO labeling and companies who are now using that labeling are reporting huge gains in product sales.

Meanwhile - the FDA is run by a Monsanto exec. The supreme court has a Monsanto exec - and not ONE piece of legislation against the company has won against this judge, who should be deseated for not removing himself from the cases for conflict of interest. Monsanto has also infiltrated other areas of government. The wealth of the company has kept it going. When an independent research firm came out with the conclusion that Glysophate is killing bees, Monsanto just bought them up to shut them up. Simple as that. Right now the super-wealthy are dumping off Monsanto stock as if it were a radiation risk, though, so word is spreading that they are a complete and unmitigated risk to the whole planet and the future food security.

If people want to ignore the risks and eat GMO food. Let them. They should not be allowed to take MY right to eat local organic produce, though. There's not one valid excuse for the attack on organic farmers, or for hiding the fact that a food is GMO.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8431572].message }}

AeroBuilders 11 years ago

The PROBLEM with Globalist Infiltrated Government!
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8432333].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

ALL of the "cons" about labeling are just attempts by the manufacturers of GMO foods to avoid the labels.
If GMO is so damned safe -- why are these companies spending $$ 10's of millions to nat have to label them? If GMO is so wholesome and harmless, they should be proud to label them.

Like Thom has pointed out -- there is already a No-GMO label that was just approved. It seems that people want non-GMO foods, because sales of those products are increasing very rapidly since the companies have been allowed to label their products. The reason the GMO companies don't want their food labeled is because they are going to go broke now that people are waking up and understanding the difference between Monsanto and Syngenta foods and hybrid.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8437668].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Tim - here's a map of countries with label laws - complete GMO ban in a few countries, so no need for labels there. Jealous.

Breakdown of GMO Labeling Laws by Country (Global Map) | True Activist

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8439215].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

Well, I for one, will not eat anything with GMOs and will eat organic only whenever humanly possible.

Ya see, in fields of Monsanto corn - which is corn that has been injected to replicate glysophate in it's cells, nothing survives. It kills the bacteria that produces soil. There are no insects, rodents who eat the corn die. Other animals who eat the corn fall sick. Corn fields are not meant to be sterile. If that corn is killing everything in the wild that is planted in the field, or goes into the field to eat, how is it that we are supposed to be able to eat it with any safety? That doesn't make sense.

Why did Monsanto have to lie in its campaign against prop 37 to get it through? They showed the FDA logo over and over again in their ads - without permission or right/reason to do so. They got sued for it - but when a company has the profits that they do, a little couple million dollar fine is just part of the game. People get brainwashed into thinking GMOs are good and keep buying the products so there is no loss in the long run.

If you actually looked for the info, you would find tons of it. France was able to sue Monsanto for poisoning - - yet we can't even get a label on our food? Really. Why is it that many companies use GMOs here, but have to make the same foods without GMOs for the stuff they export - and they have to label the food, yet it's going to cost them too much to label what they don't export? Another jump away from logic to illusion. Even that food award one of the Monsanto people won not too long ago is a sham -- Monsanto PAYS for those awards. No conflict of interest there, eh? The whole company is one evil grandiose sham, scam, and danger.
Here's a few links that you might want to see.

Food That Kills - Full Documentary - YouTube

Monsanto's GM Corn Nutritionally Dead...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8440871].message }}

AeroBuilders

11 years ago

Monsanto is almost untouchable in this country.

Don't forget, Hillary Clinton's connections to Monsanto go way back to the Rose Law Firm where she worked......

Monsanto and Hillary Clinton's Redemptive First Act as Secretary of State

Obama LOVES Monsanto.....

Obama's signing of Monsanto Protection Act proves he will betray progressives, too

More PROOF we have a Globalist infiltrated US Govt at all levels!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Seeking JV partners for Forex Trading products

Forex Trader & Trade System Builder / Health & Wellness Expert / Sport Aircraft Builder

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8440889].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Tim remember this from my post no. 53?

* Consumers who want to buy non-GE food already have an option: to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GE ingredients.Which do already exist, but as more gmo's are grown the risk of cross contamination also grows. Organic corn is already becoming near impossible to grow in the corn belt or in other areas with heavy corn products. Organic soy as following close behind as is cotton and beets.

Well I just came across this article. Please keep in mind, I'm not saying this article is the total truth. but I believe there is some truth in it.
Time to

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8441501].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Tim remember this from my post no. 53?

Well I just came across this article. Please keep in mind, I'm not saying this article is the total truth. but I believe there is some truth in it.
Time to

I believe there's some truth also. I think that's why other countries use percentages in regards to labeling. Plus, when I was looking into the original article one of the issues someone pointed out was that they were testing stuff used in organic foods, not GMOs. Here's one quote:

The strangest thing about the rush by OCA and other anti-GMO folks to call this the latest “GMO” scandal is that the study didn’t test Bt toxins expressed by biotech crops. It didn’t even test the Bt toxins expressed in bacteria then purified. Instead, the paper says they used “spore-crystals Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac and Cry2Aa from B. thuringiensis var. kurstaki were obtained in lyophilized form”. Some Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria can go dormant, forming a spore, and form crystals around the outside of the bacteria to protect themselves.

In other words, this study used the whole bacteria – the exact same thing that is used in organic Bt sprays. According to Organic Consumers Association, Bt sprays are used by “at least 57 percent of organic farmers” and “does not have detrimental effects on mammals, birds or non-target insect species and microorganisms. In addition, Bt sprays leave no poisonous residue on crops or trees and are readily degraded into the environment.” ...

So, I have to wonder – are the authors worried about organic farming? To reiterate, genetically engineered plants have only the Bt toxin, not the whole bacteria, while organic farmers use the whole bacteria as a spray.

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/05/leukemia/

By the way, I wasn't using tobacco to show a similarity. I was using tobacco to show why I am not convinced labeling GMOs is necessary. You make great points though and definitely know your stuff. Hey, I'm still on the fence about this issue. As a progressive I am suspicious of big business and think government intervention into and regulation of big business is usally required. It's kind of funny, most libertarians are against government mandated labeling from what I understand. We seem to have switched sides on this issue for now.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8441570].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I believe there's some truth also. I think that's why other countries use percentages in regards to labeling. Plus, when I was looking into the original article one of the issues someone pointed out was that they were testing stuff used in organic foods, not GMOs. Here's one quote:

By the way, I wasn't using tobacco to show a similarity. I was using tobacco to show why I am not convinced labeling GMOs is necessary. You make great points though and definitely know your stuff. Hey, I'm still on the fence about this issue. As a progressive I am suspicious of big business and think government intervention into and regulation of big business is usally required. It's kind of funny, most libertarians are against government mandated labeling from what I understand. We seem to have switched sides on this issue for now.

Tim could you post a link to the article with that quote in it? Either because it's late here or my eyes aren't working well at the moment (or both

) I can't find it.
In some insistences when corporations refuse to regulate themselves and put the health and welfare of the country and people in jeopardy, it's the responsibility of the government to step in and protect the interests of the people. Regulation isn't in itself a bad thing, but over regulation is.
Libertarians believe we have the right to protect ourselves from harm. The other side of that is I don't have a right to harm someone else unless it's in self defense. I can take care of that myself on a micro level. But when the harm being inflected is on the nation as a whole and that includes our soils and water it is the governments responsibility to protect us.
Another "angle" is freedom of choice and a right to know. I have a right to know what I am putting in my body and only by knowing the exact ingredients of the food I'm buying do I have that freedom to make my choice. Just because a company is concerned about their 'bottom line' it doesn't give them the right to withhold that information from me.
I think Libertarians are somewhat misunderstood, and I think it is mostly the fault of Libertarians. I don't want to turn this thread into something about political philosophies and get it nuked so I won't go into detail.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8441765].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

So now since Monsanto's Bt corn that was suppose to kill root worms has done nothing but create worms that are immune to it we have this.
UPDATE 1-GMO corn failing to protect fields from pests -report | Reuters
For years and years crop rotation was an important tool in controlling pests that where crop specific. Now even it doesn't work. So when a bio-tech crop causes a bigger problem then it was meant to address whats the answer?

Rodney Williamson, director of research and development with the Iowa Corn Growers Association, said there have been reports of resistance problems in Iowa, but not to the level of concern seen in Illinois.
He stresses that farmers do not want to stop using the biotech corn because it helps reduce pesticide use, and added that there was an effort underway to pursue various field and crop management practices to try to mitigate crop losses tied to rootworms.

They may reduce sprayed pesticides in the short term ,but instead every cell of every plant in the field IS a pesticide.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8448660].message }}

HeySal

11 years ago

The companies that are using the new No-GMOs labeling are seeing a rapid and solid increase in sales. Frankly - as long as companies are allowed to label No-GMO, the rest is a moot point. Since the companies that are now labeling No-GMOs are seeing profit margins rise sharply and quickly, we might not even have to fight Monsanto and Syngenta, etc on our own. You think corporations seeing great profit from the No-GMO label are going to let those corps take the labels away from them? They have more power than we do unless we actually wage an actual war (as in militia action) against Monsanto. Looks like we might have to pretty soon if we intend to survive. That damn company is now going to International court to sue countries that have banned poisons that kill bees. Profits before a whole planet. Gee, how smart is that?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8448716].message }}

TimPhelan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

The companies that are using the new No-GMOs labeling are seeing a rapid and solid increase in sales. Frankly - as long as companies are allowed to label No-GMO, the rest is a moot point. Since the companies that are now labeling No-GMOs are seeing profit margins rise sharply and quickly, we might not even have to fight Monsanto and Syngenta, etc on our own.

That has been my point. Good to hear.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8448753].message }}

HeySal 11 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That has been my point. Good to hear.

Isn't it something how many posts it sometimes takes to say what we could in one sentence? LMAO.

This is a new development, though - they were not allowed to do so before, so it was necessary to wage a battle to get there.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8448789].message }}

GMO linked to Leukemia

Trending Topics

Any thoughts on golf's latest phenom...Scottie Scheffler??

The Twilight Zone

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?

best high quality crypto traffic.

Some interesting stats about brand comms