HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

AP Article About GMO Foods

Support Forums
>
Ulcerative Colitis
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 5/9/2014 11:54 AM (GMT 0)
http://news.yahoo.com/genetically-modified-foods-confuse-consumers-080049528.html
Posted 5/9/2014 12:37 PM (GMT 0)
If GMOs were proven to be absolutely safe then they wouldn't be banned in Europe.

First of all GMO plants in particular are being sprayed with ever increasing amounts of Roundup as weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to the herbicide. As a result, genetically engineered grains tend to have the highest levels of glyphosate residue. In one test, GE corn was found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GE corn.

Glyphosate is associated with multiple chronic diseases such as Alzheimer’s, autism, Crohn’s disease, gluten intolerance, and leaky gut.

Glyphosate is also patented as an antibiotic that preferentially affects beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow and take over. It’s well worth noting that, on May 1, 2013, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doubled the amount of glyphosate allowed in food. Soybean oil may now contain as much as 40 parts per million (ppm) of glyphosate.

Meanwhile, research by Dr. Monika Krueger at Leipzig University shows that a tenth of a part per million is all that it takes to kill your beneficial Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Enterococcus faecalis. So soybean oil is now allowed to contain a whopping 400 times the known limit at which it can impact your health.

The article said...
One French research team raised safety questions, but their much-criticized 2012 study linking genetically modified corn to rat tumors was retracted in 2013 by the scientific publisher, who cited weak evidence supporting the conclusions.


This is the study they are referring to. Those pictures are disgusting. This is the first study to assess GMOs that were fed to rats for two years. Before this safety assessments of GM crops have been based on rat feeding trials lasting only 90 days. But this study was retracted because it was performed with too small a sample size. OK.

In the meantime I will avoid GMOs until there is a valid study with adequate sample size proving their safety for rats consuming GMOs for over two years. If we had labeling of GMOs you guys can consume all you want of the GMOs saturated with Roundup, and we will be able to avoid them.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats--cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html
Posted 5/9/2014 12:42 PM (GMT 0)
Not sure how many of our natural, organic-grown, heritage strains of food products have been "proven to be absolutely safe." I don't even think oxygen has received this designation.

Just a musing.
Posted 5/9/2014 1:04 PM (GMT 0)
Quote from the article:

"Even the food police say they are safe: The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a well-known critic of food companies and artificial and unhealthy ingredients in foods, has not opposed genetically modified foods, on the basis that there's no evidence they are harmful."

While we do a lot of research on mice due to their close genetic makeup to humans, rat studies can often not translate into human applications as expected. Right now maybe they are the best game in town but nothing from rat studies is guaranteed to apply to humans, one way or the other.

Judy makes a good point. It's kind of impossible to prove something is safe, only to prove that something is not safe, which they really haven't done yet for GMO's. Having said this, I see nothing wrong with labeling GMO foods so that people can make their own choices and decisions.
Posted 5/9/2014 1:18 PM (GMT 0)
Sounds like it was written by the industry to be honest. Gene splicing != selective breeding. We've been breeding crops like corn selectively for ages, but inserting the gene of a spider into goat DNA is a whole new ballgame and there are no long term studies showing the safety of these practices. This is kind of why the European Union and other countries refuse to allow and ban the same nonsense that's going on here (see my Apples thread). This is not how it's supposed to be done and profit should never override consumer safety.

As for the labeling, people have the right to know what they are putting in their mouths. It should be a no brainer IMO, but I were the CEO of Monsanto, I'd obviously pour millions to fight against it.

Post Edited (Guardian7) : 5/9/2014 7:34:14 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 5/9/2014 1:37 PM (GMT 0)
I edited out an offensive paragraph... because it's an issue that hits home.

I'll just leave with this and move on-

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Posted 5/9/2014 2:59 PM (GMT 0)
Numerically, GMO equates to RoundUp, yes. But this is because Monsanto used GM to invent a new solution to pest control, combined with aggressive/monopolistic market controls. We often find decades later that pesticides cause downstream (sometimes, literally) problems.

But scientifically, GMO does not equal RoundUp. There are other GMO that have nothing to do with pesticides, and GM technology is going to be increasing important to a future where climate change is mitigated, world food production is addressed, and individual medicines are produced.

Papaya industry saved www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/14.genetically_modified_papayas_virus_resistance.html

Genetically Engineered Probiotics for IBD www.technologyreview.com/news/422571/genetically-engineered-probiotics/

Ending World Hunger. The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/2/487


Currently, people who grow non-GMO crops, or produce GMO-free products, do label these qualities. This labeling is available to guide those who want to avoid GMO.

To my eye, calls for GMO food labeling are disingenuous. It is an attempt to frame the debate and hype GMO fears in a largely science-illiterate public. Like "voter-ID"was ever really about fraud.

I would favor increased testing - OF EVERYTHING. What a great way to promote health & safety, utilize science, and create jobs. But, to single out GMO (no matter what kind, type, or use) is like mob incitement. The overwhelming majority of chemicals used today have never been tested for long term health consequences www.salon.com/2013/04/14/majority_of_chemicals_in_household_products_have_never_been_independently_tested_for_safety/, and widely-used pesticides that have nothing to do with GMO (i.e., neonicotinoids) are killing bees and endangering ecosystems. The tons of chemicals in beauty care products and drugs that we flush down the toilet are measurable in our drinking water (blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/05/07/emerging-contaminants-taint-drinking-water-supply/). Not to mention, the staggering amounts of endocrine-disruptors we flush into our environment (www.herplace.com/hormone-info/gender-benders.htm).

Plastics are turning the pacific Ocean into a sewer, and killing entire species of wildlife (/www.google.com/search?q=plastics+killing+wildlife&client=firefox&hs=evS&rls=com.bing:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Z-dsU7j2GYWpyAT85YDQDw&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=695), and are such a great threat precisely because they do not decompose. GM techniques hold out the promise of mass produced bio-degradable plastics: www.independent.co.uk/news/biodegradable-plastic-grown-on-gm-plants-1123009.html

I am confused by a world where people deny the science of vaccines, see conspiracies in every regulatory agency, call GMO food FrankenFood, - ... BUT use plastic like it is going out of style, won't stop overdosing on fossil fuels, consume cruel factory-farmed meats, and flush sex-hormones into the ecosystem like crazy. Not to mention treat "science" like a dirty word.

The concern about GMO food labels would bother me less if many of the proponents weren't so anti-science, or gave equal attention to clearly more pressing dangers. I am sure there are some folks scientifically well informed, and are also near-saintly environmentalists. I just see a majority that are more of a reactionary joke.

We desperately need to address a few GMO crops (e.g., RoundupReady seeds, and bt-grains) in the context of pesticides, fertilizers, farming practices, and large agribusiness monopolies. I don't see why we have to paint all GM technology/science with the downsides of these Monsanto pest-resistant crops. I think many people (like myself) who see the problems with some widely grown GMO crops, would be more willing to join in coalitions to find solutions, if all GM technology was not lumped into the same basket, and if there was not such an ugly anti-science undertone.

Just saying.

Post Edited (DBwithUC) : 5/9/2014 2:11:56 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 5/9/2014 3:20 PM (GMT 0)
DB, what an excellent response. I like the way you frame this discussion.

I heard an NPR story the other day about testing done on round-up ready soybeans. The study showed in the [small] sample taken that the GMO beans contained a not-so-small amount of glyphosate, the herbicide used in Round-up. It's not surprising, since planting GMO soybeans allows the farmer to use Round-up on his field to prevent growth of weeds and other volunteer crops. I don't know what the issues might be with ingesting glyphosate at these levels over the long term - I don't think there's been enough work done on that (aside from the studies on acute overdose risks). The reporter noted how legal limits of glyphosate in human and animal foods has been raised steadily over the past decade. I'm sure that's not a coincidence. It bugs me.
Posted 5/9/2014 3:41 PM (GMT 0)
Nice post DBwithUC...
Posted 5/9/2014 4:28 PM (GMT 0)
"I am confused by a world where people deny the science of vaccines, see conspiracies in every regulatory agency, call GMO food FrankenFood, - ... BUT use plastic like it is going out of style, won't stop overdosing on fossil fuels, consume cruel factory-farmed meats, and flush sex-hormones into the ecosystem like crazy. Not to mention treat "science" like a dirty word."

Build that(hypocritical) strawman then knock him down. There really is no such person. Talk radio debate tactics 101.

What GMO food does is create the ability to intensify agriculture even more which requires even more use of chemicals..pesticides, herbicides..,and farming methods that are not sustainable. The claim that it will rescue the starving is really nonsense almost as much nonsense as claiming people you disagree with are anti-science and hypocritical rather than debate the actual subject . For every person that is starving because they lack a super crop there are far more that are starving because the land in their country has been destroyed by non-sustainable ag and other forms of human caused problems. F1 hybrids are great in the home garden but agribusiness uses this technology to make rubber tomatoes. It is perfectly legitimate,rational and scientific to oppose GMO crops that allow greater use chemicals and more environmental damage. Recognizing that throwing the GMO food baby, that has few real world benefits, with the bath water given our broken regulatory system might be a good idea.

GMO foods are promoted by ago-business companies that sell chemicals and promote a business model that is based on high production without regard to sustainability. They lobby against labeling laws that allow the consumer to choose, lobby against regulations of dangerous chemicals and don't seem to have the slightest interest in food quality or safety..just more rock hard perfect and perfectly tasteless highly profitable tomatoes.

Oh and GMO for medicine have nothing to do with GMO food just like GMO food isn't going to feed Africa. Africa lacks capital and has environmental issues...they aren't going to use GMO corn anymore than they are going to get modern medicine all by themselves. Introducing high intensity, high capital, mechanized ag into a place with no jobs and no money is probably insane.

Factory farmed meats are the consumers of GMO crops by the way. Animal feed is the market for GMO crops.

PS Nice troll Gary. You knew how this subject went the last time, it's off topic ..but hey your bored and have nothing better to do just like ever other day.
Posted 5/9/2014 4:35 PM (GMT 0)
AZYooper (and others who are generally opposed to GMOs), please tell me how virus-resistant GMO plants are bad. I realize that they're the very small minority of GMO plants, by the way.
Posted 5/9/2014 5:10 PM (GMT 0)
I am not generally opposed to GMO. I am opposed to non-sustainable agriculture and the wholesale use of chemicals to increase production for no real benefit to the general population. If you want me to choose between no papayas and accelerating environmental destruction on a huge scale to save 3 cents a lb on hamburger, I guess no papayas.

You weigh positives and negatives. You look at the players involved and the political realities. I am not the one holding papayas hostage and using sympathy for starving children to protect GMO soybeans and corn. The either or choice is helpful to big ag. They are free to give up on GMO feed crops and limit support of GMO to problems like the papaya virus. They won't do that because papayas are for the most part a subsistence farmed crop with a very limited market. They really want to sell tons of roundup and make billions on seed patents. Farmers will be forced to adopt the new methods and buy the seed or make less money than they did last year. The effect on food prices will be negligible.

I should be asking what positives we get from GMO soybeans and corn and why they are good?
Posted 5/9/2014 5:34 PM (GMT 0)
Before all this GMO stuff farmers used to farm their land to death planting the same things in the same spots year after year after year. It wasn't until we got more educated in science and farming before we realized that there really was a science behind efficient farming and use of land. Many farmers today are college educated. You almost have to be any more if you want to keep up with the Jone's.
Posted 5/9/2014 7:29 PM (GMT 0)
uh, rotating crops has been around hundreds of years - it's not a new concept -
Posted 5/9/2014 7:49 PM (GMT 0)
Oh no way. Before GMO, the entire state of Iowa was nothing but corn and soybean fields behind hog factories. They grow papayas, bananas plus thousands of other crops now, and all the farmers have PhDs .The hippies want to end all that with that evil food labeling and move us back into caves. They hate science and want to take the science out of science. Why do you hate healthy children?
Posted 5/9/2014 9:01 PM (GMT 0)
Straw men are usually crude and dishonestly constructed. Surely I had a more well-crafted edifice (LOL) - but YES, I did quickly pull some selected examples from my recent memory, and YES, maybe AZTooper has a point about balance. I am not sure what my post would look like if I read several books, about 40 research studies, and then went through several drafts and peer-review with "balance" in mind.

But I was not making a straw man to knock down. I did not want to promote or absolve some problematic GMO-crops, and some very problematic business practices. Instead, I wanted people to understand that GM is bigger than some problematic GMO crops.

IMO, There are also lots of phrases like "false equivalence" or "imbalanced argument" or even "incomplete analysis" that might have been more civil than accusations of straw-man manipulation.

... I wanted people to think about what labeling would and would not accomplish. We can't label for every agenda. I would like labels that say when any corporate-welfare was involved, when any child-labor was involved, when any bio-pirating patents were involved, when any exploitative labor was involved, .... and a bunch more.

Besides, just the act of requiring labeling for something implies it is a bad thing. IMO, GMO is too broad a category to facilitate effective labeling.

How do some GMOs affect the environment? One word: Pesticides. Hundreds of millions of extra pounds of pesticides. Would I get on board immediately for labeling of ppm of pesticide residues. YES. In a heartbeat. Just don't ask me to paint with such a broad and un-scientific brush.

I think education and civil dialog, in partnership with science, is the answer. I think cries of "let people know what is in their food" are often from uninformed and scared people. ... and if they get ugly like AZYooper did, I don't have much interest in talking to them.

In any event, I put forth my honest concerns, about the anti-science and anti-GM that often walks hand-in-hand with opposition to some problematic GMO crops that admittedly facilitate overly-intensive agriculture. I gave useful links. I painted shades of gray. I outlined what would let me more readily form a coalition with other people concerned about these crops.

It felt like my genuine and thoughtful contribution was met with derision as a "straw man" and brutally re-framed as "holding papayas and African children hostage" (wow, ugly). This seemed like ad hominem tactics right from the start - such perception bolstered by subsequent personal and viscous attacks upon Gary.

BTW, there are a number of non-niche-market GMO crops that ARE addressing world nutrition. Such as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice or www.acpfg.com.au/index.php?id=16

I agree that this is off-topic, and I'm switching to read-only mode in this thread.

Post Edited (DBwithUC) : 5/9/2014 3:04:49 PM (GMT-6)

✚ New Topic ✚ Reply