Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Furthermore, the incidence of child food allergies have sky-rocketed since the introduction of GM food, and that rate has not tracked in the countries where GMOs are banned. People have to ignore common sense to say GMOs have nothing to do with it.

---

 

Why have food allergies reached epidemic levels since GMO foods have been introduced to our food supply?

Dr. Stephen Taylor: "The prevalence of food allergies in children has increased considerably over the past 20 years. While this increase is partially coincident with the introduction of GMO foods into the American marketplace, the increasing prevalence of food allergies in children actually began 5-7 years before the introduction of GMOs. Furthermore, the food allergies that have increased the most including peanut, tree nut, egg and milk allergies are foods that are not GMO. The primary GMO foods in the U.S. are soybeans and corn. Corn allergy is and always has been rarely identified. Soybeans are among the most commonly allergenic foods but no evidence exists to suggest that the prevalence of the soybean allergy has increased over the past 20 years."

Why is Europe not seeing the numbers of food allergies that the USA is seeing?

Dr. Stephen Taylor: "Europe, at least northern Europe, is seeing the exact same increased prevalence of food allergies as encountered in the USA even though GMOs are largely banned from their marketplaces. The prevalence of food allergies in some southern European countries e.g. Greece and in the eastern European countries is lower than in northern Europe (Germany, Netherlands, France, Denmark, etc.). Currently, this difference in prevalence is well documented but not yet explained."

http://www.bestfoodfacts.org/food-for-thought/gmo-food-allergies

Well, I'll take my science from scientists and not lawyerladies.

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Friday 18th of September 2015 05:21:01 PM

Husker is our go-to expert in THIS field.

 

ed11563 wrote:

---

Husker is our go-to expert in THIS field.

 

---

 That's what Mansanto thinks about themselves, too.  He can be an expert all he wants in selling a product, but you have to remember that is what he does.

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Well, I'll take my science from scientists and not lawyerladies.

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Friday 18th of September 2015 05:21:01 PM

---

 Me, too.  Only I prefer the scientists that don't have anything to gain by the study.

---

 Well sure, because the head of the science department of McGill University is being paid off by Monsanto. You run with that.

---

 Why not?  You discount every scientist who doesn't agree.

Besides - I'd be interested in knowing how much money that school received from GMO proponents. It's in Canada, so it's not as easy for me to find. But THIS is an interesting little article -

documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/PublicResearchPrivateGain.pdf


And this one -

www.salon.com/2012/05/14/monsantos_college_strangehold/

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

ed11563 wrote:

---

Husker is our go-to expert in THIS field.

 

---

 That's what Mansanto thinks about themselves, too.  He can be an expert all he wants in selling a product, but you have to remember that is what he does.

---

I see you can't answer any of my questions.  Ignorance.   

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

You eat what you want.

I don't have to - and I want it labeled.

---

You are eating GMO's.  You have been for nearly 20 years. 

 

However, most GMO crops are not used for human consumption.   

---

 You say that like it's a good thing.  It's not, for many reasons.  Not just the food itself, but the corporate practices behind it. 

Modern day "farming" is not better.  Why do you think we have higher outbreaks of e coli and salmonella?  Bad food management and less oversight.  You do know that recent leaders of the USDA and the FDA came straight from Monsanto, don't you?  They are like the food mafia, and it ain't pretty.  None of it is.

 

But, I'm going to thank you.  The additional research I've done on this subject has educated me greatly.  From being simply concerned about too many GMOs and the lack of labeling, to now pretty much hating the modern food industry and their tactics all around.  My household is about to make a lot of changes in how we eat, and that's only going to be for the better.

huskerbb wrote:

---

 

MOST of the outbreaks of E. Coli have come from ORGANICALLY grown leaf crops which use manure for fertilizer.

 

You haven't educated yourself.  You continue to bask in your ignorance.  You have not been able to refute even ONE of my points.

Plus, if we go to organically grown food--wildlife habitat will all but disappear as humans will be forced to plow under every acre--even marginal ones--to produce food, not to mention the devastation to our already over-fished oceans.

It's simply a matter of math.  If you start using a food system that produces LESS food for MORE people--it will not work. 

---

How does this impact water usage? 

ed11563 wrote:

---

Husker is our go-to expert in THIS field.

 

---

What the hell makes YOU the expert? Why should we take our cues from a lawyerlady?  

And LEAFY GREENS don't produce e coli - it comes from elsewhere. Like say......water washed in from manure fields.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

ed11563 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

 

MOST of the outbreaks of E. Coli have come from ORGANICALLY grown leaf crops which use manure for fertilizer.

 

You haven't educated yourself.  You continue to bask in your ignorance.  You have not been able to refute even ONE of my points.

Plus, if we go to organically grown food--wildlife habitat will all but disappear as humans will be forced to plow under every acre--even marginal ones--to produce food, not to mention the devastation to our already over-fished oceans.

It's simply a matter of math.  If you start using a food system that produces LESS food for MORE people--it will not work. 

---

How does this impact water usage? 

---

 MOST?  Do you ever get tired of being wrong?  This is all public knowledge, Husker.

 

From the CDC's website -

 

Reports of Selected E. coli Outbreak Investigations

 

Recommend on Facebook Tweet

2014

• Raw Clover Sprouts – E. coli O121
• Ground Beef – E. coli O157:H7

2013

• Ready-to-Eat Salads – E.coli O157:H7
• Farm Rich Brand Frozen Food Products – E.coli O121

2012

• Organic Spinach and Spring Mix Blend – E. coli O157:H7
• Unknown Source – E. coli O145
• Raw Clover Sprouts at Jimmy John's Restaurants – E. coli O26

2011

• Romaine Lettuce - E. coli O157:H7
• Travel to Germany - E. coli O104
• Lebanon Bologna - E. coli O157:H7
• In-shell Hazelnuts - E. coli O157:H7

2010

• Bravo Farms Cheeses - E. coli O157:H7
• Shredded Romaine Lettuce from a Single Processing Facility - E. coli O145
• Beef from National Steak and Poultry - E. coli O157:H7

2009

• Beef from Fairbank Farms - E. coli O157:H7
• Beef from JBS Swift Beef Company - E. coli O157:H7
• Prepackaged Cookie Dough - E. coli O157:H7

2008

• Beef from Kroger/Nebraska Ltd - E. coli O157:H7

2007

• Totino's/Jeno's Pizza - E. coli O157:H7
• Topp's Ground Beef Patties - E. coli O157:H7

2006

• Taco Bell - E. coli O157:H7
• Fresh Spinach - E. coli O157:H7

---

 LOL!!!   What?????

 

SIX of those instances cite ground beef.  The rest are EXACTLY what I said they were. Well more than a majority.  Thanks for proving me right.

Saved me from looking up information I already knew to be true.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 19th of September 2015 12:15:39 PM

-- Edited by huskerbb on Saturday 19th of September 2015 12:16:21 PM

Husker - leaf or beef? You can't even read what you wrote.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Mary Zombie wrote:

---

Well....in a catastrophic situation with a shortage of food....I am sure the non organic food will be just fine to most people ;)

---

 Let me know when America has one of those. 

---

We won't.  We could isolate ourselves and produce enough food for our population, probably even organically.

 

The problem is that much of the rest of the world would starve--but not before they plough up all the land they have left, destroy millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and harvest the oceans past the point of sustainability.

 

We are going to add 2 BILLION people, more than the entire population of the world as of the year 1900--in the space of about just 35 more years or so.

Do you suppose those people will just say--"well, dammit, I guess we don't have enough to eat, and it's too expensive to buy food from nations such as the U.S., so I guess we'll just starve?"

No.  They will try like heck to produce enough food--and wildlife habitat from rainforests to the African Savannah to our oceans will disappear.  

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Mary Zombie wrote:

---

Well....in a catastrophic situation with a shortage of food....I am sure the non organic food will be just fine to most people ;)

---

 Let me know when America has one of those. 

---

We won't.  We could isolate ourselves and produce enough food for our population, probably even organically.

 

The problem is that much of the rest of the world would starve--but not before they plough up all the land they have left, destroy millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and harvest the oceans past the point of sustainability.

 

We are going to add 2 BILLION people, more than the entire population of the world as of the year 1900--in the space of about just 35 more years or so.

Do you suppose those people will just say--"well, dammit, I guess we don't have enough to eat, and it's too expensive to buy food from nations such as the U.S., so I guess we'll just starve?"

No.  They will try like heck to produce enough food--and wildlife habitat from rainforests to the African Savannah to our oceans will disappear.  

---

 And yet that is a projection and one that isn't even projected to happen for quite some time.  There was and is plenty of times for long-term studies to determine safety and long term affects.  There is no reason to flood America NOW with hastily modified and tested product and certainly no reason to push for NINETY percent of corn and soy to be this GMO.  Why the takeover?  Why not just some?  Why not do this in Africa where it is needed instead of here? 

And most importantly - why fight on telling people what is in their food?  Why make it difficult for the consumer to choose?  Why take away choice by making almost EVERY ITEM on the shelves GMO when it is not necessary?  Those are important questions.  And the answer is money.  Which is crap.

---

Quite some time?  We are talking a period of less than 4 decades.  That is a VERY short time.

MOST food items are, in fact, NOT GMO.  It enters the food stream at very few points and in very small amounts, if at all.

Africa DOES import vast amounts of food from the U.S.

If we quit producing said food for export--then the very thing I said will happen--will.   

For most of my lifetime, the United States has produced ONE SIXTH of the world's food supply.

 

In 1973, when the Arabs embargoed oil, causing long lines at gas stations, and alternate day gas rationing,

We COULD HAVE starved them out fairly quickly.We still could, since most of our food production goes to export. 

Genetically modified plants can use less land, less water, less pesticides, and less fertilizer.

The fact that there has been and still is massive starvation in parts of Africa and the Middle East, is caused by politics and power madness in those countries. There CURRENTLY is enough food.

 

BUT weather patterns are changing, and areas that used to have adequate rainfall are now having drought conditions during the best growing seasons.

So grains that need less water are needed.

 

Listen to Husker. He DOES know what he's talking about.

 

Organic farming has made leaps and bounds in yield increases over the last decade, as people learn about different tillage and fertilizing techniques. To say that the world will starve if it starts producing more organic food is simply not accurate.
This was talked about fairly in depth during a nutrient management class this spring, and the take away message is that overall, there is a 2% yield difference between conventional and organic yields.
A much bigger problem, IMHO, is that Monsanto is a bully that has quietly sued dozens of small farmers out of business after their crops were contaiminated by GE crops.
Quite apart from any debate about their safety, I can't stand GMO crops for this very reason. They are not containable. Not to mention even with a buffer some of our fields get pesticide runoff and such that impact our crops.

However, Dona, you do bring up a good point I forgot to mention.

The #1 pollution problem in agriculture--by FAR--is soil erosion.

In the past 2 decades, farmers have done a good job of trying to control this by using "no-till" methods of farming by which the soil remains undisturbed and the organic matter in and on the soil keeps it from eroding.

Organic farming has to rely on tillage for weed control. There is simply no other option. This would take us back to the 1930's in terms of soil erosion control. We all know what happened in the Midwest and Great Plains in the 1930's--the Dust Bowl.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Mary Zombie wrote:

---

Well....in a catastrophic situation with a shortage of food....I am sure the non organic food will be just fine to most people ;)

---

 Let me know when America has one of those. 

---

We won't.  We could isolate ourselves and produce enough food for our population, probably even organically.

 

The problem is that much of the rest of the world would starve--but not before they plough up all the land they have left, destroy millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and harvest the oceans past the point of sustainability.

 

We are going to add 2 BILLION people, more than the entire population of the world as of the year 1900--in the space of about just 35 more years or so.

Do you suppose those people will just say--"well, dammit, I guess we don't have enough to eat, and it's too expensive to buy food from nations such as the U.S., so I guess we'll just starve?"

No.  They will try like heck to produce enough food--and wildlife habitat from rainforests to the African Savannah to our oceans will disappear.  

---

 And yet that is a projection and one that isn't even projected to happen for quite some time.  There was and is plenty of times for long-term studies to determine safety and long term affects.  There is no reason to flood America NOW with hastily modified and tested product and certainly no reason to push for NINETY percent of corn and soy to be this GMO.  Why the takeover?  Why not just some?  Why not do this in Africa where it is needed instead of here? 

And most importantly - why fight on telling people what is in their food?  Why make it difficult for the consumer to choose?  Why take away choice by making almost EVERY ITEM on the shelves GMO when it is not necessary?  Those are important questions.  And the answer is money.  Which is crap.

---

Quite some time?  We are talking a period of less than 4 decades.  That is a VERY short time.

MOST food items are, in fact, NOT GMO.  It enters the food stream at very few points and in very small amounts, if at all.

Africa DOES import vast amounts of food from the U.S.

If we quit producing said food for export--then the very thing I said will happen--will.   

---

 In a decade, GMO corn and soy went from 2% to 90%, so no, in comparison, it is not a very short time. 

We are the GMO test subjects - Americans  and Canadians.  We don't need it, don't do it here.  And last I checked, Africa is bigger than we are land wise.  We SHOULD be teaching them to grow their own food and use their own land.  And yes, if it came down to starving vs. GMO - I can see where the GMO would be better for Africa.  But it is NOT necessary here, and more and more Americans, as they become aware of it - DO NOT WANT IT.  We should have the choice.

huskerbb wrote:

---

However, Dona, you do bring up a good point I forgot to mention.

The #1 pollution problem in agriculture--by FAR--is soil erosion.

In the past 2 decades, farmers have done a good job of trying to control this by using "no-till" methods of farming by which the soil remains undisturbed and the organic matter in and on the soil keeps it from eroding.

Organic farming has to rely on tillage for weed control. There is simply no other option. This would take us back to the 1930's in terms of soil erosion control. We all know what happened in the Midwest and Great Plains in the 1930's--the Dust Bowl.

---

 Well, if you really and truly think that's a more pressing concern than injecting our food dna with bacteria that kills insects when they eat it (but it's FINE for humans), or making the food resistant to higher and higher levels or herbicides that are sprayed on them,  then you also have no one but Monsanto to blame for the increased demand in organic farming.  Conventional food and farming vs. organic - the conventional won.  Mess with the food supply and piss people off - more and more are going organic. 

 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Mary Zombie wrote:

---

Well....in a catastrophic situation with a shortage of food....I am sure the non organic food will be just fine to most people ;)

---

 Let me know when America has one of those. 

---

We won't.  We could isolate ourselves and produce enough food for our population, probably even organically.

 

The problem is that much of the rest of the world would starve--but not before they plough up all the land they have left, destroy millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and harvest the oceans past the point of sustainability.

 

We are going to add 2 BILLION people, more than the entire population of the world as of the year 1900--in the space of about just 35 more years or so.

Do you suppose those people will just say--"well, dammit, I guess we don't have enough to eat, and it's too expensive to buy food from nations such as the U.S., so I guess we'll just starve?"

No.  They will try like heck to produce enough food--and wildlife habitat from rainforests to the African Savannah to our oceans will disappear.  

---

 And yet that is a projection and one that isn't even projected to happen for quite some time.  There was and is plenty of times for long-term studies to determine safety and long term affects.  There is no reason to flood America NOW with hastily modified and tested product and certainly no reason to push for NINETY percent of corn and soy to be this GMO.  Why the takeover?  Why not just some?  Why not do this in Africa where it is needed instead of here? 

And most importantly - why fight on telling people what is in their food?  Why make it difficult for the consumer to choose?  Why take away choice by making almost EVERY ITEM on the shelves GMO when it is not necessary?  Those are important questions.  And the answer is money.  Which is crap.

---

Quite some time?  We are talking a period of less than 4 decades.  That is a VERY short time.

MOST food items are, in fact, NOT GMO.  It enters the food stream at very few points and in very small amounts, if at all.

Africa DOES import vast amounts of food from the U.S.

If we quit producing said food for export--then the very thing I said will happen--will.   

---

 In a decade, GMO corn and soy went from 2% to 90%, so no, in comparison, it is not a very short time. 

We are the GMO test subjects - Americans  and Canadians.  We don't need it, don't do it here.  And last I checked, Africa is bigger than we are land wise.  We SHOULD be teaching them to grow their own food and use their own land.  And yes, if it came down to starving vs. GMO - I can see where the GMO would be better for Africa.  But it is NOT necessary here, and more and more Americans, as they become aware of it - DO NOT WANT IT.  We should have the choice.

---

I know you don't want it.  You would rather continue in ignorance than to believe anything science has to offer. 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Sunday 20th of September 2015 08:11:53 PM

Wow, love the name calling.

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

Wow, love the name calling.

---

 Of course he's name calling.  Whatever he says does not matter.  He's part of the process. 

He can call me ignorant all day long and it won't change the fact that I have a right to buy and eat what I want, and that the people who make the food they are selling should have to tell me what they have done to it.  Period.

It will not change the fact that the food industry is the most corrupt and ill-regulated in the country.

Of course - the name calling is against the rules. You trying for another ban, Husker? The next one is six months. This is the only warning you will get.