TOTALLY GEEKED!

Man Spends 6 Months Making One $1,500 Sandwich ‘From Scratch’

www.yahoo.com/makers/man-spends-6-months-making-c1258347491631158.html

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

There’s a reason why 26 countries have banned GMOs.[iv] In a nutshell:[v]

Genetic modification may disturb the function of neighboring genes, leading to toxic or allergenic tendencies

Bt toxin used in GM corn, which wasn’t supposed to transfer to humans, was detected in pregnant women and their babies, with unknown consequences

GM crops inevitably contaminate non-GM crops around them; the effects of genetic contamination in the environment are unknown

GM crops, and the widespread use of Roundup, have been instrumental in the decline of monarch butterflies and other animal species

GM crops have been overhyped; they don’t lead to increased crop yields and have lead to an increased risk of pesticide use (not a reduced usage, as promised), superweeds and super pests

GM crops are touted as being “substantially equivalent” to conventional crops, but research shows significant nutritional differences between the two[vi]

Further, one of the most pressing issues is the widespread use of Roundup on GM crops. Earlier this year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, a “probable carcinogen” (Class 2A),[vii] which means eating GM foods contaminated with it could potentially be also.

Glyphosate residues are known to exist widely on GM foods, yet the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not test for such residues in your food, claiming the tests are “too expensive” to do on a regular basis.[viii]

And cancer is just one of the concerning aspects of glyphosate. It’s also been show to interfere with metabolic processes, disrupt the endocrine system, alter the balance of gut bacteria and more. Quite simply, consuming GM foods truly is an ongoing experiment that is being hoisted upon the American public, much of whom are unaware that they’re acting as human guinea pigs …

---

Wow.  More false information.

 

I don't even know where to start.

 

First of all, glyphosate doesn't lead to the decline of Monarch butterflies.  That is simply and idiotic statement.  Glyphosate is a herbicide and has nothing to do with insects. 

Second, GMO's did NOT result in more pesticide use--it resulted in greatly DECREASED use of pesticides.  That is a FACT.  Powerful insecticides such as organophosphates and carbamates (I know you have no clue what those are, so look them up) which were once regulary used to control corn borer and other corn pests are no longer needed with Bt crops.  Further, as far as glyphosate goes, farmers were ALREADY USING PESTICIDES. What, you think pesticide use just started with GMO's????  More ignorance.  Before glyphosate was able to be widely used in crops, farmers used atrazines, trifluralins, and other chemicals in much heavier amounts.  All glyphosate did was make them switch what chemicals they were using to that chemical--which is less dangerous to humans than the ones mentioned.  Atrazine, especially can leach into groundwater.

Finally, there has been NO LINK proven between glyphosate and cancer.  The study you mention has fatal flaws that were found when INDEPENDENT scientists reviewed it.  The rats were exposed to rates THOUSANDS of times higher than would ever be in the food chain--and even then, not all specimens even got cancer, so the link was tenuous, at best.

---

 Where is that statement?

 

The pesticides are IN the food, Husker.  That is a FACT.  That is what they are modifying the food with - bt.  You are only paying attention to the exterior pesticides and not the interior.  More GMO propaganda.

And I'm not even against pesticides.  I'm against LYING.

 

hat is Bt?

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a spore forming (flash animation) bacterium that produces crystals protein (cry proteins), which are toxic to many species of insects.

Where is Bt found?

Bt can be found almost everywhere in the world. Surveys have indicated that Bt is distributed in the soil sparsely but frequently worldwide. Bt has been found in all types of terrain, including beaches, desert, and tundra habitats.

How many kinds of Bt are there?

There are thousands of different Bt strains, producing over 200 cry proteins that are active against an extensive range of insects and some other invertebrates.

What type of bacteria is Bt?

Bt belongs to the family of bacteria, Bacillus cerus (B. cerus). B. cerus strains produce toxins that cause gastroenteritis (food poisoning) in humans. Bt is differentiated from B. cerus because it contains a plasmid (flash animation) that produces the protein crystals that are toxic to insects. Bt does not cause food poisoning.

Where is Bt used?

Bt is largely used in agriculture, especially organic farming. Bt is also used in urban aerial spraying programs, and in transgenic crops. To learn more about each of these topics, click on the corresponding link on the left.

 

 

 

And quite obviously - the governments of over 60 countries disagree with you.  Of course, they have government agencies that are not controlled by the very company that controls BOTH the GMO and the pesticides for it.  I'm pretty sure they have their own scientists to rely upon, too.  You are just regurgitating the industry line.

---

If you are against lying--then why are you continually doing it?

 

Tinydancer wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Wow. You people are defensive. You own stock in Monsanto or what? Husker is part of the food industry and part of the problem. I have no idea what your issue is, Welts.



So, let's take the most important points in the film for me because it is not actually the ---gasp! animal treatment - , and you tell me if they are untrue-


Monsanto sues independent farmers if their seed gets infected with Monsanto seed even without their knowledge. ( I verified this independently - and farmers do not have the money to defend against that big company - it's legal intimidation at its finest).

Monsanto has a monopoly on soybean seeds and sues its own farmers if they keep them. (That's true, too).

E coli and salmonella outbreaks occur much more frequently in today's food processing. (Well, that's just common knowledge, now isn't it).

FDA and USDA officials have ties to Monsanto, some of them, such as Margaret Miller coming straight from there and approving their own "studies". Former Monsanto lobbyist are helping to write food policy. (That's public knowledge, too, if you look). The FDA's own website will tell you that Michael J. Miller, Deputy Commissioner of Foods was a former vice-president at Monsanto. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas used to work for Monsanto as their attorney and DOES NOT recuse himself when a case comes up to the Court involving Monsanto - that is wrong on way too many levels.

There are food libel laws and one of them is criminal (Colorado). Holy crap. And yes - Oprah was SUED for saying she wouldn't eat another hamburger on the air when learning of how the meat was processed. SUED. Luckily, she won. But, good flipping grief. Free speech does not apply to the food industry. www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm



So, those are THE most important points for me in that film. And those points are NOT untrue and are all independently verifiable. Yes, the animal parts are graphic and are propaganda - I certainly don't buy into the "everything organic" argument, either. But, GMOs are created by a company that has the government regulatory agencies that are supposed to regulate them in their hip pocket. There is no real accountability there and that is frightening.

---

 For someone who eats Chef Boyardee Crap-in-a-Can, I don't know what your deal is, either. That's stuff is absolute garbage, but feel free to pontificate about good food and tell everyone else what to eat.

---

 LL didn't tell anyone else what they should eat. What she actually said was she doesn't believe it's good for you (general you) and that it should require labeling. I'm still waiting to hear why husker is against labeling it GMO if there's nothing wrong with GMO's. I'm with LL on this one.

---

I gave you an entire article to read.  I'm not going to write it all again.  You are a big girl.  You can read it.   

huskerbb wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Husker, I recognize that you are an expert here. So can you please explain why the EU, who have the same access to the studies and/or created the studies don't follow them? No GMOs, no Antibiotics for the cow, etc.

Honestly, I would kill to drink Danish milk again. Partly because of the huge difference in how they pasteurize but also because the milk just tastes better due to the cows it comes from. I honestly don't drink it here in the states.

---

 I don't know where you live, but do you have any access to Canadian milk? No hormones and no antibiotics.

---

Ilumine--I'm sorry I didn't see your post until now.  I do apologize.

Yes, the EU has access to the same information--but, like LL, a large portion of their electorates in the various countries continue to follow nonsense and conjecture rather than science.  Nearly ALL of the leading scientists in the EU are on board with GMO's, and even lobby against nonsense regulation and outright bans--but it's political.  Too many of their electorate, similar to here in the states--are dumbasses.

 

---

 LOL!  Says the guy who makes his living off the food industry in this country.  I get why you have to defend it, I really, really, really do.  But the CORRUPTION in our government and the food industry is rampant.  You may think them dumbasses.  I think of our as sleeze who care about money more than facts and the health of Americans.  If that wasn't the case - they would have required more and proper testing. 

 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ilumine wrote:

---

Husker, I recognize that you are an expert here. So can you please explain why the EU, who have the same access to the studies and/or created the studies don't follow them? No GMOs, no Antibiotics for the cow, etc.

Honestly, I would kill to drink Danish milk again. Partly because of the huge difference in how they pasteurize but also because the milk just tastes better due to the cows it comes from. I honestly don't drink it here in the states.

---

 I don't know where you live, but do you have any access to Canadian milk? No hormones and no antibiotics.

---

Ilumine--I'm sorry I didn't see your post until now.  I do apologize.

Yes, the EU has access to the same information--but, like LL, a large portion of their electorates in the various countries continue to follow nonsense and conjecture rather than science.  Nearly ALL of the leading scientists in the EU are on board with GMO's, and even lobby against nonsense regulation and outright bans--but it's political.  Too many of their electorate, similar to here in the states--are dumbasses.

 

---

 LOL!  Says the guy who makes his living off the food industry in this country.  I get why you have to defend it, I really, really, really do.  But the CORRUPTION in our government and the food industry is rampant.  You may think them dumbasses.  I think of our as sleeze who care about money more than facts and the health of Americans.  If that wasn't the case - they would have required more and proper testing. 

 

---

You have ZERO clue what testing is even done.  It takes more than a DECADE of testing and MILLIONS of dollars to bring a GMO event to the marketplace.  They ARE properly tested. 

If you are going to criticize farmers--don't do so with your mouth full.   

Tinydancer wrote:

---

husker!!!!! Why can't we just label it and be done with it? Oh yeah because it's bad for you and people won't buy it if you do. Do you work for Monsanto or are you just worried an educated public will put GMO's out of business? Or is that that you just know what's better so why bother labeling?

---

No.  I'm worried an uneducated and ignorant public will stop us from using the very tools it will take to feed the growing world population.   

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

Anyone who thinks the government really cares about what you eat is insane. They are bought by big business every day.

---

It's not even about government, at its core.  It's about science.  GMO's have been demonstrated by HUNDREDS of studies to be safe. 

 

The government actually throws up WAY more roadblocks than necessary.   

GMO free Cheerios aren't spiking in sales because people who care about GMO free food aren't eating Cheerios anyway. They are eating something more healthy than boxed cereal for breakfast.

General Mills has not labeled Cheerios as non-GMO verified. People who care are looking for that badge.

Furthermore, General Mills still supports the NON-LABELING movement, so many people are just not willing to give them their money in any form when this is an issue for them. And non-GMO Cheerios are EASY because oats are not GMO. Honey Nut Cheerios, on the other hand, would be more difficult to make non-GMO because of the added sweetness.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

husker!!!!! Why can't we just label it and be done with it? Oh yeah because it's bad for you and people won't buy it if you do. Do you work for Monsanto or are you just worried an educated public will put GMO's out of business? Or is that that you just know what's better so why bother labeling?

---

No.  I'm worried an uneducated and ignorant public will stop us from using the very tools it will take to feed the growing world population.   

---

 Bull.  If they cared about the world population - they'd be focused on the best way to grow crops in Africa and China - not here.  This is about MONEY, plain and simple.

Can we be reasonable for a minute?

Exactly how much labeling are we talking?

The side of the box or can or somewhere on the product is a nutrition information thingy. Complete with ingredients and possible allergens.

But you want a badge on the front of the thing.

Ok.

What else should be on the front?

I'd think possible life threatening things would be more important than dietary choices.

So things like nuts and food coloring should get a badge on front.

And diabetics should have an easy to see badge too.

I need to watch my sodium intake. So a badge for that on front.

And glutenjoy free things are being marked so there is another badge.

Carbs, sugar, cholesterol need a badge each as well.

And how do you label and put badges on fresh fruits and vegetables?

Honeys_Mom wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

Boy, was I fooled by the thread title.

I thought we were going to be talking about what we ate for lunch.

Carry on.

---

 LOL that makes two of us, Czech...

 

---

 I like cheese.

flan

Antibiotic-free? Hormone-free?

ed11563 wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Can we be reasonable for a minute?

Exactly how much labeling are we talking?

The side of the box or can or somewhere on the product is a nutrition information thingy. Complete with ingredients and possible allergens.

But you want a badge on the front of the thing.

Ok.

What else should be on the front?

I'd think possible life threatening things would be more important than dietary choices.

So things like nuts and food coloring should get a badge on front.

And diabetics should have an easy to see badge too.

I need to watch my sodium intake. So a badge for that on front.

And glutenjoy free things are being marked so there is another badge.

Carbs, sugar, cholesterol need a badge each as well.

And how do you label and put badges on fresh fruits and vegetables?

---

Now that everything has a bar code (UPC code) on the package, soon we will be able to just scan the code with a smart phone or tablet, and immediately get a read out of everything there is to know about the contents of the package. 

Then the shopper can stand there for 40 minutes reading all about it.

 

---

 There are already several apps that do this. Some even give the item a grade so you know how healthy the item is. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

husker!!!!! Why can't we just label it and be done with it? Oh yeah because it's bad for you and people won't buy it if you do. Do you work for Monsanto or are you just worried an educated public will put GMO's out of business? Or is that that you just know what's better so why bother labeling?

---

No.  I'm worried an uneducated and ignorant public will stop us from using the very tools it will take to feed the growing world population.   

---

 Bull.  If they cared about the world population - they'd be focused on the best way to grow crops in Africa and China - not here.  This is about MONEY, plain and simple.

---

Wow.  Not only are you completely ignorant about agriculture--you are completely ignorant about world markets, as well.

First of all, they ARE focused on those countries, as well.  Monsanto and the other large agricultural companies have a huge presence in South American, Southeast Asia, Europe, and Africa.  They have breeding programs there focused on those areas, so your comment on that is just plain stupid.

Beyond that, we are in a world market.  If we produce less food in the U.S. it will produce a ripple effect across the world, driving up food prices in those areas, some of which can ill afford it.  Stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.  You seem to have the idea that what happens within our borders has no effect on the world--that is simply ignorant.   

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Anything you ADD or CHANGE should be put on the product - like anti-biotics, hormones, and if it is GM.

We have a RIGHT to know what we are buying. What is so f'ing difficult about that?

---

 Because it's ridiculous.  It would be FAR easier to label stuff non-GMO.  There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. 

Beyond that, again, I don't want ignorance and fear to stop us from using the tools of science to feed the world. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Anything you ADD or CHANGE should be put on the product - like anti-biotics, hormones, and if it is GM.

We have a RIGHT to know what we are buying. What is so f'ing difficult about that?

---

 Because it's ridiculous.  It would be FAR easier to label stuff non-GMO.  There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. 

Beyond that, again, I don't want ignorance and fear to stop us from using the tools of science to feed the world. 

---

 So, basically, your argument is that consumers are too stupid for you to tell them what is in the food?

 

Nice argument. 

---

LOL!!!  That is EXACTLY the argument.  You've been proving it to be true over and over.   

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Anything you ADD or CHANGE should be put on the product - like anti-biotics, hormones, and if it is GM.

We have a RIGHT to know what we are buying. What is so f'ing difficult about that?

---

 Because it's ridiculous.  It would be FAR easier to label stuff non-GMO.  There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. 

Beyond that, again, I don't want ignorance and fear to stop us from using the tools of science to feed the world. 

---

 So, basically, your argument is that consumers are too stupid for you to tell them what is in the food?

 

Nice argument. 

---

LOL!!!  That is EXACTLY the argument.  You've been proving it to be true over and over.   

---

 No.  You are party of the greedy food industry that cares more about money than people. 

---

Then fine.  Get rid of the food industry and see how long you will last. 

I am part of a proud tradition of people who have been working the land for more than a century in this nation.  Each American farmer feeds nearly 200 people EACH. 

If you want to denigrate an entire profession, we can start in on lawyers.   

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Anything you ADD or CHANGE should be put on the product - like anti-biotics, hormones, and if it is GM.

We have a RIGHT to know what we are buying. What is so f'ing difficult about that?

---

 Because it's ridiculous.  It would be FAR easier to label stuff non-GMO.  There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. 

Beyond that, again, I don't want ignorance and fear to stop us from using the tools of science to feed the world. 

---

 So, basically, your argument is that consumers are too stupid for you to tell them what is in the food?

 

Nice argument. 

---

LOL!!!  That is EXACTLY the argument.  You've been proving it to be true over and over.   

---

 No.  You are party of the greedy food industry that cares more about money than people. 

---

Then fine.  Get rid of the food industry and see how long you will last. 

I am part of a proud tradition of people who have been working the land for more than a century in this nation.  Each American farmer feeds nearly 200 people EACH. 

If you want to denigrate an entire profession, we can start in on lawyers.   

---

 I am not trying to denigrate farmers.  As far as I can tell, farmers are actually slaves to the industry. 

And organic farmers are having to put up with the attitude you have about them.

---

 Another ignorant statement.  You can't tell very much.

I am astounded by the arrogant ignorance about farming.

Unless YOU can grow and process ALL of your family's food, shut up.

YOUR bellies rely on farmers and ranchers, period. Because, really, you are helpless.

What YOU think you know, you don't.

The general public knows less about where their food comes from today, then they knew 30 years ago. I don't see that improving anytime soon. City people are to far removed from the "actual" work and knowledge.

My gosh, you all would die within a month or two without well stocked shelves in the stores.

And since your lives are so cushy, why don't you grow some or most of your own food so you don't have to worry about where it comes from? Oh, wait.. you would have to hire someone to do that for you, since, well, you don't know how.

Yeah, I'm ticked.

I have a quarter acre garden as well as chickens and a pig. I have bunnies, bees, and ducks. Just because farmers farm doesn't mean they are the be all and end all of food safety. I adore you Czechs but GMO's are bad and my cushy life will last much longer without them. Again I ask if they are so safe why the billions (yes billions) of dollars spent by Monsanto to prevent labeling of these products? Because farmers grow my food and they are in the business of making money by selling what they produce I refuse to take their word for it no matter how much they fill my BELLY.

Or the word of a hundred other independent scientist. Please answer the damn labeling question. I think you've been dancing around it long enough...lol

I don't want an article all prepared by Monsanto, I want your personal opinion unless of course you don't have one...lol

huskerbb wrote:

---

Also, I have no problem with any individual organic farmer. I do have an issue with the industry as a whole, and there is NO WAY we can feed the world with low yield agriculture, either.

Besides, where do you think Wal-Mart gets its organic produce? Small mom and pop operations? BS. They are supplied by some of the biggest corporate farms in the U.S., Mexico, and several other nations. Most organic produce is produced by huge corporate farms.

There may be a lot of small organic farms--but they aren't supplying the big grocery stores.

---

 It is not our responsibility to feed the world, Husker. 

 

And in 3 days, I've sourced local chickens, eggs, produce, grass-fed beef, and pork.