TOTALLY GEEKED!

huskerbb · Guru

RE: S/O - What are you eating?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
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.
Fine--but when the world feeds itself--wildlife habitat will disappear as poor countries plow up every acre just to raise enough food to keep their populations from starving, not to mention fish our oceans beyond the point of sustainability, which, for some species of fish, has already happened.

We're not going to have an over-population problem when everyone is dying from cancer and diabetes. WHO and the State of California have declared Roundup a likely carcinogen, and they are spraying it more and more on our food. Type 2 diabetes in children used to be unheard of (before 1995) - it was actually called "adult onset diabetes" and now it has become a major health issue.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
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.
Fine--but when the world feeds itself--wildlife habitat will disappear as poor countries plow up every acre just to raise enough food to keep their populations from starving, not to mention fish our oceans beyond the point of sustainability, which, for some species of fish, has already happened.
We're not going to have an over-population problem when everyone is dying from cancer and diabetes. WHO and the State of California have declared Roundup a likely carcinogen, and they are spraying it more and more on our food. Type 2 diabetes in children used to be unheard of (before 1995) - it was actually called "adult onset diabetes" and now it has become a major health issue.

Our average life expectancy is higher than it has ever been and climbing. California is a bunch of fruits and nuts. They dont look at science, either. diabetes is being caused because our kids are too fat. It has nothing to do with any chemical other than sugar.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

And the World Health Organization? Are they just a bunch of fruits and nuts, too?

Here's the thing, Husker - the only ones advocating GMOs are those that benefit from it.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

And one thing you can't deny - they are purposely changing the food they feed to animals to make them fatter faster, and then we eat those animals.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

How do you propose to feed the billions of people on this planet without GMO's? Without destroying what's left of the natural environment?

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
And the World Health Organization? Are they just a bunch of fruits and nuts, too?

Here's the thing, Husker - the only ones advocating GMOs are those that benefit from it.

The WHO has said GMO's are safe. the link is in the article I cited.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
And one thing you can't deny - they are purposely changing the food they feed to animals to make them fatter faster, and then we eat those animals.

I do deny it. WTF are you even talking about? There is no "fat" GMO.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 23rd of September 2015 11:36:05 AM

huskerbb · Guru

just Czech wrote:
How do you propose to feed the billions of people on this planet without GMO's? Without destroying what's left of the natural environment?

It cant be done. She's not worried about wildlife, though, or even people who would starve. As long as her belly is full, nothing else matters.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And one thing you can't deny - they are purposely changing the food they feed to animals to make them fatter faster, and then we eat those animals.
I do deny it. WTF are you even talking about? There is no "fat" GMO.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 23rd of September 2015 11:36:05 AM

Seriously? That isn't even something they are denying. They are CHANGING the diet of animals to GM corn to provide faster growth, together with injecting growth hormones and growth inducing anti-biotics. Cows are supposed to eat grass - not be force fed corn. They are feeding corn to FISH now.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

just Czech wrote:
How do you propose to feed the billions of people on this planet without GMO's? Without destroying what's left of the natural environment?

GMO crops are not living up to their bigger yield hype and the cons FAR outweigh those PROMISES. I capitalized promises because that is what they are - together with fear-mongering to justify something that has NOT been proven safe. And they are not even coming to fruition.

Furthermore - you CANNOT discount the scientists in over 60 countries, including RUSSIA, who do not think GMOs have been properly tested.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

And the more INDENPENDENT research that is done - the less and less support there is for GMOs worldwide.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And one thing you can't deny - they are purposely changing the food they feed to animals to make them fatter faster, and then we eat those animals.
I do deny it. WTF are you even talking about? There is no "fat" GMO.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 23rd of September 2015 11:36:05 AM
Seriously? That isn't even something they are denying. They are CHANGING the diet of animals to GM corn to provide faster growth, together with injecting growth hormones and growth inducing anti-biotics. Cows are supposed to eat grass - not be force fed corn. They are feeding corn to FISH now.

You have no clue what you are even talking about. Animals have been consuming GMO corn for 20 years. there is NO GMO in corn that promotes faster growth. I know every GMO trait on the market and what it does. you are wrong.

What, pray tell, GMO trait do you think promotes animal growth? There isn't one.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
And the more INDENPENDENT research that is done - the less and less support there is for GMOs worldwide.

Wrong again. There is no independent research that says GMO'S are bad or harmful that has not ben thoroughly discredited.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And the more INDENPENDENT research that is done - the less and less support there is for GMOs worldwide.
Wrong again. There is no independent research that says GMO'S are bad or harmful that has not ben thoroughly discredited.

By whom? Monsanto? Or the universities they pay to do the studies? Bwaaaahaaahaaaahaaaa!

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And the more INDENPENDENT research that is done - the less and less support there is for GMOs worldwide.
Wrong again. There is no independent research that says GMO'S are bad or harmful that has not ben thoroughly discredited.
By whom? Monsanto? Or the universities they pay to do the studies? Bwaaaahaaahaaaahaaaa!

actual scientists who do actual research

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And one thing you can't deny - they are purposely changing the food they feed to animals to make them fatter faster, and then we eat those animals.
I do deny it. WTF are you even talking about? There is no "fat" GMO.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 23rd of September 2015 11:36:05 AM
Seriously? That isn't even something they are denying. They are CHANGING the diet of animals to GM corn to provide faster growth, together with injecting growth hormones and growth inducing anti-biotics. Cows are supposed to eat grass - not be force fed corn. They are feeding corn to FISH now.
You have no clue what you are even talking about. Animals have been consuming GMO corn for 20 years. there is NO GMO in corn that promotes faster growth. I know every GMO trait on the market and what it does. you are wrong.

What, pray tell, GMO trait do you think promotes animal growth? There isn't one.

Husker - it is the entire picture of how animals are raised and treated - it all goes hand in hand. How do chickens get such large breast? Through genetic manipulation. How do animals get so big so fast? Through growth hormones and antibiotics. What are they feeding them? GM Corn and LOTS of it - even if that is not their natural diet.

And then people eat it. You can't think for a second that it has no effect on people.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And the more INDENPENDENT research that is done - the less and less support there is for GMOs worldwide.
Wrong again. There is no independent research that says GMO'S are bad or harmful that has not ben thoroughly discredited.
By whom? Monsanto? Or the universities they pay to do the studies? Bwaaaahaaahaaaahaaaa!
actual scientists who do actual research

paid and/or funded by the food industry.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And one thing you can't deny - they are purposely changing the food they feed to animals to make them fatter faster, and then we eat those animals.
I do deny it. WTF are you even talking about? There is no "fat" GMO.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 23rd of September 2015 11:36:05 AM
Seriously? That isn't even something they are denying. They are CHANGING the diet of animals to GM corn to provide faster growth, together with injecting growth hormones and growth inducing anti-biotics. Cows are supposed to eat grass - not be force fed corn. They are feeding corn to FISH now.
You have no clue what you are even talking about. Animals have been consuming GMO corn for 20 years. there is NO GMO in corn that promotes faster growth. I know every GMO trait on the market and what it does. you are wrong.

What, pray tell, GMO trait do you think promotes animal growth? There isn't one.
Husker - it is the entire picture of how animals are raised and treated - it all goes hand in hand. How do chickens get such large breast? Through genetic manipulation. How do animals get so big so fast? Through growth hormones and antibiotics. What are they feeding them? GM Corn and LOTS of it - even if that is not their natural diet.
And then people eat it. You can't think for a second that it has no effect on people.

LOL!!!! That's what is said in the first place. Mankind has been manipulating genetics since the beginning of civilization and you argued with me that was not the same thing as GMO's. Can't you even remember the crap you post?

again, there is no GMO in either animals or what they eat that makes them grow faster. You have no clue what you are even talking about.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And the more INDENPENDENT research that is done - the less and less support there is for GMOs worldwide.
Wrong again. There is no independent research that says GMO'S are bad or harmful that has not ben thoroughly discredited.
By whom? Monsanto? Or the universities they pay to do the studies? Bwaaaahaaahaaaahaaaa!
actual scientists who do actual research
paid and/or funded by the food industry.

Not nearLY all of them. Many, if not most, are not.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Whatever, Husker. I'm not going to take your word for it over the dozens of articles I can find on the internet.

Long-term Study: GMOs Cause Weight Gain

According to Norwegian scientists, there is a positive link between genetically modified corn and obesity.

Results from studies carried out over a ten-year period showed that animals fed a diet of genetically modified corn (which comprises 80-90 percent of the current U.S. crop and is banned in several other nations) got fatter quicker and retained the weight compared to those on a non-GMO diet.

GMOs cause weight gain according to long-term animal feeding studies.

The animals studied included rats, mice, pigs and salmon, who all showed the same results.

Researchers from the nations of Austria, Hungary, Ireland, Turkey and Australia participated in the study, which is still not widely known in the United States despite its important conclusions due to media blackouts.

In a perfect world such a study would launch more investigations on a wider scale with even more controlled variables, but instead, Americans have been kept in the dark and continue to consume GMOs without regard for the many likely side effects.

Some of these were also demonstrated in the study, including inflamed intestines, digestive system damage and significant changes in the animals’ major organs.

“The ones who had fed on GM corn were slightly larger, they ate slightly more, their intestines had a different micro-structure, they were less able to digest proteins, and there were some changes to their immune system,” said professor Ashild Krogdahl, who led the study, conducted at the Norwegian Veterinary College.

The inability to digest protein is often a precursor to major diseases as well.

You can read more about the GMO fat gain study from The Cornucopia Institute’s website here.
- See more at: althealthworks.com/1020/gmo-food-and-weight-gain-why-do-so-few-see-the-link/

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Obesity, Corn, GMOs
July 24th, 2012

Brattleboro.com
Anthony Samsel

If you want to avoid obesity, then avoid eating genetically engineered ( GE ) corn, corn based products and animals that are fed a diet of GE grain. Scientists in Norway have released results from experimental feeding studies, carried out over a ten year period. The results show a positive link between GE corn and obesity. Animals fed a GE corn diet got fatter quicker and retained the weight compared to animals fed a non-GE grain diet. The studies were performed on rats, mice, pigs and salmon achieving the same results.

The animals were fed a diet of GE corn and soy which contained toxic proteins from the bacteria Bt or Bacillus thuriengensis. Bt is an insecticide that works by killing larval insect pests which damage corn, soy, cotton, canola and other crops. By inserting and gene stacking various Bt toxins along with herbicide resistant gene sequences, the plants DNA is altered or genetically engineered for a specific purpose.

In the case of industrial agricultural GMO crops (genetically modified organisms), like those mentioned above, the entire plant is made into a pesticide factory which is also resistant to herbicides. Roundup, a Monsanto product is a glyphosate herbicide used to kill weeds. It is the most popular herbicide used on herbicide tolerant GE crops.

Researchers also found that rats, fed a diet of fish who consumed GE grain, had the same result – both got fatter faster. Translated to humans, the study suggests: if you dine on meat from an animal which was fed GE grains or consume products made from GE grains like corn, you could get the same adverse life altering effects. You could get fatter faster and retain the weight. These GE foods transfer their effects to you.

The purpose of professor Åshild Krogdahl and her collaborators study, at the Norwegian Veterinary College, was to determine if eating genetically modified grain had any adverse effects on animals which included rats, mice, fish and pigs. The work was a multi-national collaboration with researchers from Austria, Hungary, Ireland, Turkey and Australia.

The project did not just focus on weight gain but looked at the effects on organ changes too. Researchers found distinct changes to the intestines of animals fed GMOs compared to those fed non-GMOs. This confirms other studies done by US researchers. Significant changes occurred in the digestive systems of the test animals major organs including the liver, kidneys, pancreas, genitals and more.

Krogdahl notes: ” The ones who had fed on GM corn were slightly larger, they ate slightly more, their intestines had a different micro-structure, they were less able to digest proteins, and there were some changes to their immune system.” This fact that ‘they were less able to digest proteins’ has huge implications in the biochemistry of amino acids necessary for all life processes. This not only may relate to a rise in obesity, but to increases in many modern diseases. These diseases include diabetes, digestive disorders, inflammatory bowel disease, colitis, autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (ADD), autoimmune diseases, sexual dysfunction, sterility, asthma, COPD and many more.

The proper digestion of protein is necessary for many biological functions which include providing the body with amino acids. Some amino acids, like essential amino acids, cannot be synthesized by the body and must be obtained from other sources. Other sources of amino acids include milk, eggs, fish, meat, corn, soy, whole grains and other plant proteins. Disruption and lack of amino acids is directly responsible for many diseases. A GMO food source like genetically engineered corn, soy and products made from GMOs, which interferes with the bodies biochemistry, is not only dangerous to human health, it is dangerous to all life feeding on it. This includes farm animals, wild animals, honey bees, other pollinators, birds, amphibians, fish and bacteria.

Professor Krogdahl explains: “It has often been claimed that the new genes in genetically modified foods can’t do any damage because all genes are broken down beyond recognition in the gut. Our results show the contrary that genes can be taken up across the intestinal wall, is transferred to the blood and is left in the blood, muscle and liver in large chunks so that they can be easily recognized.”

The professor later again emphasized: “A frequent claim has been that new genes introduced in GM food are harmless since all genes are broken up in the intestines. But our findings show that genes can be transferred through the intestinal wall into the blood; they have been found in blood, muscle tissue and liver in sufficiently large segments to be identified ….. The biological impact of this gene transfer is unknown.”

This is a very important finding which disproves Monsanto’s and other bio-tech seed producing company claims that GE food is harmless.

There are no laws in the USA requiring genetically engineered food, or GMOs to be labeled. The biotech corporations which include Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, BASF, Syngenta and Bayer don’t want you to know. The sales of their seeds, herbicides and other industrial farm chemicals depend on you not knowing what you are being exposed to. Studies have shown given a choice most consumers would not buy GMOs or products derived from GMOs.

The varieties of GE food, many of which contain bio-pesticides and herbicide resistance include: corn, maize, soy, canola, cotton, alfalfa, barley, rice, sugar beets, cabbage, sugar cane, wheat, zucchini, yellow summer squash, papaya, bananas, grapes, potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant, groundnut, chicory, cantaloupe, cucumber, melon, plum, apple… and counting! Many varieties are currently undergoing field trials so their pollen is already being shared in the environment corrupting honey bees and other pollinators destroying the planets naturally occurring biodiversity.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Growing fatter on a GM diet

July 17, 2012 - 07:15
.

.

Rats being fed genetically modified food eat more and grow fatter than those on a non-GM diet.
.

Keywords: Diets, Food, GMO, Obesity .

SendPDFPrint .
..

.

By: Arild S. Foss
.

As part of the study, a group of rats were fed corn which had been genetically modified for pest resistance. (Photo: iStockphoto)

Since genetically modified (GM) food started to appear in shops in the early nineties, large quantities have been sold for human consumption – without any harmful effects, as far as we know. But is there a risk of a long-term impact?

An international research project is exploring the effects of GM food, studying the impact on rats, mice, pig and salmon. The wide-ranging study includes researchers from Hungary, Austria, Ireland, Turkey, Australia and Norway.

“We are trying to identify which indicators we need to measure in order to explore unintentional effects from GM food,” explains Professor Åshild Krogdahl of the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science.

“The findings could give us some understanding of the potential effects for these animal species as well as for humans.”

Rats fattening up

As part of the project, a group of rats were fed corn which had been genetically modified for pest resistance. Over a period of 90 days they became slightly fatter than the control group of rats fed non-GM corn. The same effect occurred where rats were fed fish which, in turn, had eaten GM corn.

“If the same effect applies to humans, how would it impact on people eating this type of corn over a number of years, or even eating meat from animals feeding on this corn?”, he asks.

“I don't wish to sound alarmist, but it is an interesting phenomenon and worth exploring further.”

Different microstructure

Examining the effects on salmon, the researchers found distinct differences between fish being fed GM food and those on a non-GM diet.

“These were not major changes; all were within a normal range and the fish appeared healthy,” says Krogdahl.

“But the ones who had fed on GM corn were slightly larger, they ate slightly more, their intestines had a different microstructure, they were less able to digest proteins, and there were some changes to their immune system. Blood samples also showed some change in the blood.”

Wide range of organs

These subtle changes were observed in a wide range of organs, including the digestive organs, liver, kidneys, pancreas, adrenal glands and reproductive organs.

Krogdahl points out that there's nothing inherently unusual about physiological changes after food consumption, as this happens with non-GM food as well. The question is whether changes with a GM diet could be of a different category – potentially causing harm over the long term.

As well as examining salmon intestines after GM food consumption, the researchers also looked at the intestines of rats eating the salmon. The rats turned out to eat slightly more and grow faster than their GM-free counterparts, as well as being slighty affected in the immune system, but otherwise they seemed to thrive.

GM genes transferring into tissue

However, one important pro-GM argument has been disproved by the research.

“A frequent claim has been that new genes introduced in GM food are harmless since all genes are broken up in the intestines. But our findings show that genes can be transferred through the intestinal wall into the blood; they have been found in blood, muscle tissue and liver in sufficiently large segments to be identified,” Krogdahl explains.

“The biological impact of this gene transfer is unknown.”

Read the full story in Norwegian at forskning.no
.

Country Norway .

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Whatever, Husker. I'm not going to take your word for it over the dozens of articles I can find on the internet.

Long-term Study: GMOs Cause Weight Gain

According to Norwegian scientists, there is a positive link between genetically modified corn and obesity.

Results from studies carried out over a ten-year period showed that animals fed a diet of genetically modified corn (which comprises 80-90 percent of the current U.S. crop and is banned in several other nations) got fatter quicker and retained the weight compared to those on a non-GMO diet.

GMOs cause weight gain according to long-term animal feeding studies.

The animals studied included rats, mice, pigs and salmon, who all showed the same results.

Researchers from the nations of Austria, Hungary, Ireland, Turkey and Australia participated in the study, which is still not widely known in the United States despite its important conclusions due to media blackouts.

In a perfect world such a study would launch more investigations on a wider scale with even more controlled variables, but instead, Americans have been kept in the dark and continue to consume GMOs without regard for the many likely side effects.

Some of these were also demonstrated in the study, including inflamed intestines, digestive system damage and significant changes in the animals’ major organs.

“The ones who had fed on GM corn were slightly larger, they ate slightly more, their intestines had a different micro-structure, they were less able to digest proteins, and there were some changes to their immune system,” said professor Ashild Krogdahl, who led the study, conducted at the Norwegian Veterinary College.

The inability to digest protein is often a precursor to major diseases as well.

You can read more about the GMO fat gain study from The Cornucopia Institute’s website here.
- See more at: althealthworks.com/1020/gmo-food-and-weight-gain-why-do-so-few-see-the-link/

Yeah. Some nut job's internet blog.

huskerbb · Guru

The study linking GMO's to cancer was retracted. www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
The study linking GMO's to cancer was retracted. www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/

LOL! That article is from 2013. WHO's findings were released in March of this year.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:

Yeah. Some nut job's internet blog.

I knew you'd say that - which is why I posted 3 different articles, and the link directly to the Norwegian study came from a scientific site. Of course, I don't think you can read Norwegian.

huskerbb · Guru

Also, faster growth is a good thing. It means less feed needed to get the animals to market. Less fossil fuels consumed to do so--but it doesn't have anything to do with any GMO trait.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
The study linking GMO's to cancer was retracted. www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
LOL! That article is from 2013. WHO's findings were released in March of this year.

The WHO did not find a link between GMOs and cancer. That's not even what you posted earlier.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Every time I see WHO I think of the music group.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
The study linking GMO's to cancer was retracted. www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
LOL! That article is from 2013. WHO's findings were released in March of this year.
The WHO did not find a link between GMOs and cancer. That's not even what you posted earlier.

They found a link between the herbicide you have to use on GMOs and cancer. The same herbicide you are having to use more and more of and GM crops create superweeds.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

You keep ignoring the OVERALL impact of GMOs.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
The study linking GMO's to cancer was retracted. www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
LOL! That article is from 2013. WHO's findings were released in March of this year.
The WHO did not find a link between GMOs and cancer. That's not even what you posted earlier.
They found a link between the herbicide you have to use on GMOs and cancer. The same herbicide you are having to use more and more of and GM crops create superweeds.

like I said--you cant even keep track of your nonsense. You say one thing and then another. basically it's because you have zero clue what GMOs are, what they do, how they are made, or how they are used.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
You keep ignoring the OVERALL impact of GMOs.

No I dont. GMO's have had a very positive impact in agriculture.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
The study linking GMO's to cancer was retracted. www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
LOL! That article is from 2013. WHO's findings were released in March of this year.
The WHO did not find a link between GMOs and cancer. That's not even what you posted earlier.
They found a link between the herbicide you have to use on GMOs and cancer. The same herbicide you are having to use more and more of and GM crops create superweeds.
like I said--you cant even keep track of your nonsense. You say one thing and then another. basically it's because you have zero clue what GMOs are, what they do, how they are made, or how they are used.

What I said was...and I quote: "WHO and the State of California have declared Roundup a likely carcinogen, and they are spraying it more and more on our food."

Which is absolutely and completely true and easily verifiable by anyone with a quick Google search. You are talking in circles because you can't defend against the facts.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
The study linking GMO's to cancer was retracted. www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
LOL! That article is from 2013. WHO's findings were released in March of this year.

Then later you said this which has NOTHING to do with the WHO findings which were not about any GMOs.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
The study linking GMO's to cancer was retracted. www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
LOL! That article is from 2013. WHO's findings were released in March of this year.
Then later you said this which has NOTHING to do with the WHO findings which were not about any GMOs.

The WHO's findings were about ROUND-UP and GMOs are ROUND-UP ready seeds. The chemicals that are having to be sprayed more and mroe. Really, Husker? You have already admitted the superweeds are a problem. You are just dancing around so you don't have to admit the obvious.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
The study linking GMO's to cancer was retracted. www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
LOL! That article is from 2013. WHO's findings were released in March of this year.
Then later you said this which has NOTHING to do with the WHO findings which were not about any GMOs.
The WHO's findings were about ROUND-UP and GMOs are ROUND-UP ready seeds. The chemicals that are having to be sprayed more and mroe. Really, Husker? You have already admitted the superweeds are a problem. You are just dancing around so you don't have to admit the obvious.

Only ONE GMO trait has anything to do with roundup. Not all GMO's are roundup, and roundup is not used exclusively on GMO's. Again, you seem to not know what GMO's are, what they do, how they get them, or how they are used.

resistant weeds are a problem, but they are not an exclusive problem to GMO crops. Again, do you know what pursuit is, Dicamba, atrazine? do they have resistant weeds? What weeds? Don't know?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

If you think you are going to make some point by naming other herbicides, you are sadly mistaken. You are trying to simply deflect. Glyphosate - the herbicide in Round Up, has dominated the herbicide market since Round-up ready seeds (GM) were introduced.

Why didn't you ask about 2,4-D? Seems like it should have been included in that question. Of course, WHO doesn't like that one either.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
If you think you are going to make some point by naming other herbicides, you are sadly mistaken. You are trying to simply deflect. Glyphosate - the herbicide in Round Up, has dominated the herbicide market since Round-up ready seeds (GM) were introduced.

Why didn't you ask about 2,4-D? Seems like it should have been included in that question. Of course, WHO doesn't like that one either.

There is currently very little to no resistance to 2,4-D.

Roundup has has dominated since then BECAUSE we were getting weeds resistant to many other herbicides. You seem to think weed resistance started with roundup and that is the only herbicide any weeds are resistant to. You just keep displaying how little you know on the topic.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

What I know is quite enough to know that it should be regulated better and labeled.

Tinydancer · Guru

I find it laughable that husker just can't answer the question "if there's nothing wrong with GMO's then why are all those billions spent by Monsanto to prevent labeling". I'd like YOUR answer husker not some questionable article written by Monsanto. There is no valid reason why they can't be labeled other than the fact that lots of people would avoid them. That should certainly be our choice not anyone elses.

huskerbb · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
I find it laughable that husker just can't answer the question "if there's nothing wrong with GMO's then why are all those billions spent by Monsanto to prevent labeling". I'd like YOUR answer husker not some questionable article written by Monsanto. There is no valid reason why they can't be labeled other than the fact that lots of people would avoid them. That should certainly be our choice not anyone elses.

The article is not written by Monsanto. The points it makes are the exact ones I would make. I'm not going to re-type it just because you are lazy.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
What I know is quite enough to know that it should be regulated better and labeled.

It is well regulated, therefore your statement shows your ignorance on the subject.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
What I know is quite enough to know that it should be regulated better and labeled.
It is well regulated, therefore your statement shows your ignorance on the subject.

Bullshlt!

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php

The first few paragraphs, feel free to click the link and read more.

I. Introduction

The United States does not have any federal legislation that is specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rather, GMOs are regulated pursuant to health, safety, and environmental legislation governing conventional products. The US approach to regulating GMOs is premised on the assumption that regulation should focus on the nature of the products, rather than the process in which they were produced.[1]

Compared to other countries, regulation of GMOs in the US is relatively favorable to their development. GMOs are an economically important component of the biotechnology industry, which now plays a significant role in the US economy.[2] For example, the US is the world’s leading producer of genetically modified (GM) crops. In 2012, of the 170.3 million hectares of biotech crops globally, the United States accounted for 69.5 million, over 40% of the total.[3] For several crops grown in the US, genetically engineered varieties now make up the vast majority of the crop. In 2013, 93% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton, and 90% of the corn grown in the US were genetically engineered for either herbicide tolerance or insect resistance.[4]

The US is not a party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.[5] As a signatory but a nonparty to the parent Convention on Biological Diversity, it cannot become a party to the Protocol.[6] It has participated in meetings as a nonparty observer, however.[7]

Back to Top

II. Public and Scholarly Opinion

A. Public Opinion

Public opinion on GMOs in the US is mixed. A series of polls conducted over five years, from 2001 to 2006, found that public understanding of biotechnology was relatively low, and that consumers were relatively unaware of the extent to which their foods included genetically modified ingredients.[8] Support for the introduction of genetically modified foods into the food supply held steady at 26 to 27% of respondents in favor over that time period, while opposition to the introduction of such foods fell from 58 to 46% over the period.[9]

Polls indicate strong support for labeling of GMO foods; one recent poll found 93% of respondents supporting mandatory labeling.[10] The same poll found three-fourths of Americans expressing concern regarding GMOs in food; nearly half indicating they were aware that many processed or packaged foods contain genetically modified ingredients; around half saying they would not eat genetically modified vegetables, fruits, and grains; three-quarters stating they would not eat genetically modified fish; and two-thirds saying they would not eat genetically modified meat.[11]

B. Scholarly Opinion

Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council,[12] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[13] and the American Medical Association.[14]

Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations,[15] organic farming organizations,[16] and consumer organizations.[17] A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US’s approach to regulating GMOs.[18]

Back to Top

III. Structure of Pertinent Legislation

There is no comprehensive federal legislation specifically addressing GMOs. GMOs are regulated under the general statutory authority of environmental, health, and safety laws.

A policy statement published in 1986 by the Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) entitled the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology (Coordinated Framework)[19] sets forth the basic approach to the regulation of GMOs in the US. The Coordinated Framework was the outgrowth of efforts by an interagency working group formed in 1984 to address whether the regulatory framework that pertained to conventional products was adequate for products derived from biotechnology. The working group concluded that existing laws as then implemented, supplemented with new regulations, were adequate to address regulatory needs.[20] A proposed notice was published and comments were requested.[21] The final Coordinated Framework policy notice confirmed that the regulatory jurisdiction over biotechnology products would be allocated in the same manner as conventional products, using existing laws governing conventional products.[22]

The three main agencies involved in regulating GMOs are the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

A. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

APHIS regulates the planting, importation, or transportation of GM plants pursuant to its authority under the Plant Protection Act (PPA),[23] which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product [etc.] if the Secretary determines [it] is necessary to prevent the introduction . . . of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States.”[24] By regulation, APHIS classifies most GM plants as plant pests or potential plant pests and as “regulated articles.”[25] Under the PPA, a regulated article must receive prior approval from APHIS before it is introduced.[26]

APHIS grants authorization to use GM plants in three ways: through a notification process, a permitting process, or a determination of nonregulated status.

1. Notification Procedure

The notification procedure is available to plants that are not classified as noxious weeds, or weeds in the release area, if certain criteria and performance standards are met.[27] The criteria include that the plant must be a species that APHIS has determined may be safely introduced; the genetic material must be stably integrated; the expression of the genetic material must not result in plant disease; etc.[28] The performance standards govern shipment, storage, planting, and testing, and are intended to prevent the plant from being released from containment.[29] When the applicant sends a notification to APHIS, APHIS will respond within a prescribed time with an acknowledgement or a denial.[30] If the notification is denied, the applicant may apply for a permit.[31]

2. Permit Procedure

The permit procedure requires an applicant to submit information concerning, among other things, the donor organism, the recipient organism, the composition of the regulated article; the expression of altered genetic material in the regulated article and the molecular biology of the system used to produce the article; the locality where the donor and recipient organisms and the regulated article were developed; the purpose of the regulated article; the quantity to be introduced; processes to prevent release; the intended destination, use, and distribution; and the final disposition of the regulated article.[32] If APHIS grants the permit, it is subject to conditions designed to ensure both that the regulated article remains contained and that APHIS can maintain regulatory oversight.[33] Failure to comply with the conditions can result in withdrawal of the permit.[34]

3. Determination of Nonregulated Status

GM plants that have been tested and have been shown not to pose a risk may be eligible for a determination of nonregulated status.[35] A petition for determination of nonregulated status must include detailed biological information on the regulated article and the recipient organism, published and unpublished scientific studies, data from field tests, and other information designed to assist APHIS in determining whether the plant constitutes a pest.[36] Upon receipt of a petition, APHIS publishes a notice in the Federal Register and allows sixty days for public comment.[37] APHIS has 180 days to approve in whole or part or deny the petition.[38]

Tinydancer · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
I find it laughable that husker just can't answer the question "if there's nothing wrong with GMO's then why are all those billions spent by Monsanto to prevent labeling". I'd like YOUR answer husker not some questionable article written by Monsanto. There is no valid reason why they can't be labeled other than the fact that lots of people would avoid them. That should certainly be our choice not anyone elses.
The article is not written by Monsanto. The points it makes are the exact ones I would make. I'm not going to re-type it just because you are lazy.

Ahh...So you have no thoughts of your own and rely on others to state your case so it seems you're the lazy one

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

This has my vote as the most boring thread ever...

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
This has my vote as the most boring thread ever...

flan

Luckily for you, you actually don't have to read it. Just don't click on it.

Tinydancer · Guru

flan327 wrote:
This has my vote as the most boring thread ever...

flan

What? Not enough fluff for you? If this thread is so boring why are you still reading it...lol

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
This has my vote as the most boring thread ever...

flan
Luckily for you, you actually don't have to read it. Just don't click on it.

Is that how it works?

evileye

flan