MonroeTalks.com > Categories > Health > GMO's... Good or bad?


Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: GMO's... Good or bad?  (Read 29974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Fuzz

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22787
  • Fish Lake Michigan!
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #120 on: September 29, 2014, 08:06:22 PM »

If it's strong enough to drive a truck through it, then it sure as hell will support a sex swing.   ;D
Logged
Support local government, pass all tax increases!

Go Green - Pot, Solar/Wind Energy, Electric Vehicles, and buy at Dick's Sporting Goods!

My next vehicle will be an electric powered RV!

Greg Chamberlain

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3098
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #121 on: October 01, 2014, 06:52:31 PM »

If GMo's are harmless, what is the problem in having a label on the product?  What are they so afraid of?

They aren't afraid of anything, as long as the label is accurate and truly reflects the nature of the ingredients. So, a label along the lines of...

"Contains ingredients from biotech enhanced crops approved by the USDA, FDA and EPA"

...would be acceptable. A big label that just says "GMO", would not.

GMOs are an interesting demonstration in the hypocrisy of the so-called "science left". These are the people who, despite not understanding a damn thing about climate science, demand that electric cars and solar/wind replace our current dependence on fossil fuels ASAP. That isn't to say I disagree with the current mainstream climate science, just that I don't wish to associate with people for whom the issue is political and not scientific.

You see the fact is there is just as much of a scientific consensus that GMOs are safe for human consumption as there is that human activity is driving up the global average temperature. And just as the petroleum and coal industry try desperately to paint climate science as ideology-drive, the organic food lobby (which is huge btw) tries very hard to paint scientists the same way.

Now, this doesn't say Monsanto are a bunch of angels. There are legitimate concerns over their commoditization of biology into intellectual property. Something we should all be concerned about, but can't get much attention when the anti-science left keeps accusing them of poisoning us.

GMOs are safe. An overwhelming majority of the scientific literature shows they are safe. The few studies that have shown them to be dangerous, have all been shown to be non-repeatable. Labeling them is silly when there are things like gluten which people are legitimately allergic to, and foods are not mandated to be labeled such.
Logged
"To preserve the freedom of the human mind then and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will, and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement." - Thomas Jefferson

SidecarFlip

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24111
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #122 on: October 02, 2014, 12:04:56 AM »

A person who owns a retail produce and vegetable outlet (who will remain nameless because I don't want to impact their business told me earlier this year that (and I quote)....

People want organically grown produce, fruits and vegetables until they see it and then  buy the commercially grown (with herbicides, perticides and genetically mutated) because the organic stuff don't look good compared to.....

That came right from a retailer. btw.

The greenies dance the dance but when the rubber meets the road, waffle.
Logged
AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #123 on: October 02, 2014, 06:11:37 AM »

Cargill's GMO hypocrisy

Can you have your hypocrisy and eat it, too?

I don't think so, but Cargill Inc. is doing its damndest to get away with its version of the old admonition that eating your cake today means not having it tomorrow. Cargill, the $2.3 billion-a-year food conglomerate, is a huge producer and user of food ingredients that contain genetically manipulated organisms. But it has a marketing problem – by huge margins, consumers here and around the world do not want to put those GMO Frankenfoods on their families' tables.

Thus, Cargill has been a ferocious, deep-pocket opponent of every state law and ballot initiative that would mandate the labeling of any product containing GMOs. Better that families be kept in the dark about what they're buying and eating, says Cargill – better for its profits, that is. Indeed, the chairman of the conglomerate's board is also on the executive committee of the industry lobbying front that goes all out to kill every right-to-know provision for consumers. Any such label, he scolds, would be "misleading."

But – whoa, what's this? It's a press release from Fortress Cargill, proclaiming that the diehard giant is now marketing a non-GMO soybean oil that – voila! – announces on its label that the product is GMO-free. Has the diehard had a change of heart?

Excuse me, but corporations don't have hearts. They have bottom lines, period. And the bottom line is that Cargill's terminally-hypocritical honchos see dollars laying on the ground that they're not getting. So, weasels a company man with the cumbersome title of Food Ingredients Commercial Manager, "Despite the many merits of biotechnology, consumer interest in… non-GMO ingredients is growing, creating opportunities… for food manufacturers."

That is the clearest expression you'll ever get of corporate integrity.
http://www.jimhightower.com/node/8418#.VC0koPldW31
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #124 on: October 02, 2014, 06:12:22 AM »

Genetically modified food has quietly become second nature in the U.S., and it may surprise you just how many foods you are eating that you never knew contained a genetically modified ingredient.

Experts say 60% to 70% of processed foods on U.S. grocery shelves have genetically modified ingredients. The most common genetically modified foods are soybeans, maize, cotton, and grapeseed oil. That means many foods made in the U.S. containing field corn or high-fructose corn syrup, such as many breakfast cereals, snack foods, and the last soda you drank; foods made with soybeans (including some baby foods); and foods made with cottonseed and canola oils could likely have genetically modified ingredients. These ingredients appear frequently in animal feed as well.

If this shocks you, a new USDA-funded survey shows you're not alone. Researchers from the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers' Cook College found that only 52% of Americans realized that genetically modified foods are sold in grocery stores and only 26% believed that they have ever eaten genetically modified foods -- a modest 6% increase since 2001.

But what exactly is genetically modified food? Is it safe to eat? Why isn't it labeled in the U.S.? The European Union and the U.S. are boxing it out.

The U.S. government's position: Genetically engineered crops are safe, resist disease better, and can provide much-needed food in starving nations.


The EU position: Keep it out. We prefer organic, which is much healthier. The risk of genetically modified foods to health and the environment outweigh the benefits. Only the multinational biotech companies will benefit, dominating the world food supply and squeezing out traditional farmers.

The U.S. is the largest producer of genetically modified crops.

More than a dozen countries around the world have latched on to the technology, including Argentina, Canada, China, Australia, India, and Mexico.

'Frankenfood' Fears
The term genetically modified food (also known as biotech or genetically engineered food) refers to crop plants that have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits, such as resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. Experts say this science, like any other, has no guarantees. Risks include:

Introducing allergens and toxins to food
Accidental contamination between genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods
Antibiotic resistance
Adversely changing the nutrient content of a crop
Creation of "super" weeds and other environmental risks
Benefits include:

Increased pest and disease resistance
Drought tolerance
Increased food supply
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/are-biotech-foods-safe-to-eat
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

SidecarFlip

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24111
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #125 on: October 02, 2014, 06:17:50 AM »

Danm...  Dickweed can't sleep and/or just got in from a bar binge....

Here we go with the usual cut-n-pasta, I'm excited.
Logged
AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY

livewire

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13937
  • "SHALL NOT be infringed". Got it?
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #126 on: October 08, 2014, 09:06:32 AM »

New scientific review concludes GMO feed has no adverse effects


An article published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Animal Science concludes feeding livestock diets that contain genetically engineered (GE) crops has no impact on the health or productivity of those animals. In a thorough review of scientific literature and field data sets, the article documents evidence that the performance and health of food-producing animals fed GE crops are comparable with those of animals fed non-GE crops.

Since their introduction in 1996, GE feed crops have become an increasing component of livestock diets. Today, more than 95 percent of U.S. food-producing animals consume feed containing GE crops. Studies that involve feeding GE crops to livestock are used to evaluate the safety of these crops.

Recently, University of California, Davis researchers reinforced the consistency of these studies in an unprecedented review article that examines nearly 30 years worth of livestock-feeding studies, representing more than 100 billion animals.

In the review, posted online September 24 in the Journal of Animal Science, Alison Van Eenennaam, Cooperative Extension Specialist in Animal Biotechnology in the Department of Animal Science at the University of California, Davis, and research assistant Amy Young examine feeding data from 1983 (13 years before GE crops were introduced) through 2011 (when GE feed use exceeded 90 percent).

The review also examines the composition of products derived from animals fed diets containing GE feeds. "No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals," state the authors.

The review, entitled "Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations," will appear in print and open-access in the October 2014 Journal of Animal Science. Due to the high level of interest in the article, ASAS has elected to make the full article immediately available in open-access form at www.asas.org.


https://www.michfb.com/MI/Farm_News/Content/Technology/New_scientific_review_concludes_GMO_feed_have_no_adverse_effects/?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Michigan+Farm+NEWS
Logged
The Spirit of the Woods is like an old good friend.
Makes me feel warm and good inside.

SidecarFlip

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24111
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #127 on: October 08, 2014, 09:48:30 AM »

There was an article on AgWeb concerning GMO's and the growing push to curtail them as well as some comments about Monsanto.  Didn't link it.....
Logged
AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #128 on: October 10, 2014, 10:30:28 AM »

New scientific review concludes GMO feed has no adverse effects


An article published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Animal Science concludes feeding livestock diets that contain genetically engineered (GE) crops has no impact on the health or productivity of those animals. In a thorough review of scientific literature and field data sets, the article documents evidence that the performance and health of food-producing animals fed GE crops are comparable with those of animals fed non-GE crops.

Since their introduction in 1996, GE feed crops have become an increasing component of livestock diets. Today, more than 95 percent of U.S. food-producing animals consume feed containing GE crops. Studies that involve feeding GE crops to livestock are used to evaluate the safety of these crops.

Recently, University of California, Davis researchers reinforced the consistency of these studies in an unprecedented review article that examines nearly 30 years worth of livestock-feeding studies, representing more than 100 billion animals.

In the review, posted online September 24 in the Journal of Animal Science, Alison Van Eenennaam, Cooperative Extension Specialist in Animal Biotechnology in the Department of Animal Science at the University of California, Davis, and research assistant Amy Young examine feeding data from 1983 (13 years before GE crops were introduced) through 2011 (when GE feed use exceeded 90 percent).

The review also examines the composition of products derived from animals fed diets containing GE feeds. "No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals," state the authors.

The review, entitled "Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations," will appear in print and open-access in the October 2014 Journal of Animal Science. Due to the high level of interest in the article, ASAS has elected to make the full article immediately available in open-access form at www.asas.org.


https://www.michfb.com/MI/Farm_News/Content/Technology/New_scientific_review_concludes_GMO_feed_have_no_adverse_effects/?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Michigan+Farm+NEWS
That's on livestock
Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations
Conclusions
Commercial livestock populations are the largest consumers of GE crops, and globally, billions of animals have been eating GE feed for almost 2 decades. An
extensive search of peer-reviewed literature and field observations of animals fed diets containing GE crop products have revealed no unexpected perturbations or disturbing trends in animal performance or health indicators. Likewise, it is not possible to distinguish any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products following consumption of GE feed. Animal agriculture is currently highly dependent on GE feed sources, and global trade of livestock feed is largely supplied by countries that have approved the cultivation of GE crops. Supplying non-GE-fed animal products is likely to become increasingly expensive given the expanding global planting of GE crops and the growing number of countries that raise them. The market for animals that have not consumed GE feed is currently a niche market in the United States, although such products are available to interested consumers via voluntary process-based marketing programs. The cost of these products is higher than conventionally produced products due to both the higher cost of non-GE feed and the costs associated with certifying the absence of GE crops in the production process and product segregation. There is currently a pipeline of so-called “second generation” GE crops with improved output traits for livestock production. Their approval will further complicate the sourcing of non-GE feedstuffs. Additionally, recent developments in techniques to induce precise genetic changes in targeted genes offer both tremendous opportunities and a challenge for global regulatory oversight. Given these developments, there is an urgent need for international harmonization of both regulatory frameworks for GE crops and governance of advanced breeding techniques to prevent widespread disruptions in international trade of livestock feedstuffs in the future.
https://www.asas.org/docs/default-source/jas-files/final.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #129 on: October 13, 2014, 08:26:25 AM »

The mendacity of GMO purveyors

Tenacity can be a virtue. But the persistent push by giant food conglomerates to deceive us consumers has turned their tenacity into raw mendacity.

Brand-name food peddlers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbyists, lawyers, campaign donations, PR hypesters, and political manipulators so they can genetically (and dangerously) alter the dinner we put on our family tables, without bothering to tell us which items they've messed with. With practically no public notice, their first deception was to get Washington to okay the production and introduction of genetically modified organisms into corn, canola, soy, and other crops. Then they quietly pushed to prevent federal regulators from requiring that these tampered Frankenfoods be labeled as containing GMOs. Next, they tried a grand deception insisting that foods tainted with GMOs qualify for the national "organic" label.

Even our usually-submissive regulators balked at that one – but, look out, for here they come again! Big Food's industry front group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, is now demanding that foods with genetically-engineered ingredients be allowed to use the word "natural" on their packages.

Natural? Let's see – one, these biotech mutations are not products of nature, but of corporate technicians; and two, the plants are manufactured in corporate labs by extracting genes from a foreign plant or even an animal, then splicing those genes into the manufactured creature. The very DNA of this man-made "food" is altered, with no understanding of the long-term environmental or health consequences.

A Twinkie is more natural than that! They're perverting both our language and nature's reality. To oppose these profiteers' tenacious mendaciousness, contact the Environmental Working Group: www.ewg.org.
http://www.jimhightower.com/node/8452#.VDvEm_nF_bJ
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #130 on: May 19, 2015, 12:46:24 AM »

GMOs: Should they be on our shelves?

The benefits and safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are causing a major debate within the healthcare and scientific communities, as well as the public. Ameera David and Manuel Rapalo speak with Alexis Baden-Mayer of the Organic Consumers Association and Peter Davies, professor of Plant Biology at Cornell University, discussing the pros and cons with regards to GMOs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jqQLrRR-0U
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #131 on: May 22, 2015, 11:37:24 AM »

Obsolete science behind ‘safe’ GMO claims?

Despite the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of non-browning GMO fruits and vegetables, many remain unconvinced of their safety. All-natural activists are calling into question the techniques used by the government in evaluating produce, claiming that their methods are outdated and not at all equipped to test GMOs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAiDIHmC8Q
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

livewire

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13937
  • "SHALL NOT be infringed". Got it?
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #132 on: May 23, 2015, 07:47:54 AM »

Obsolete science behind ‘safe’ GMO claims?

Despite the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of non-browning GMO fruits and vegetables, many remain unconvinced of their safety. All-natural activists are calling into question the techniques used by the government in evaluating produce, claiming that their methods are outdated and not at all equipped to test GMOs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAiDIHmC8Q

Dude, you are using information based solely on opinions formulated by "All-Natural Activists", compiled and distributed by RT News, which is about as left wing flaming liberal as you can get, in order to support your claim that GMO's are somehow "bad" for us.

Pathetic.
Logged
The Spirit of the Woods is like an old good friend.
Makes me feel warm and good inside.

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #133 on: May 23, 2015, 10:59:28 AM »

Dude, you are using information based solely on opinions formulated by "All-Natural Activists", compiled and distributed by RT News, which is about as left wing flaming liberal as you can get, in order to support your claim that GMO's are somehow "bad" for us.

Pathetic.
I don't recall taking a position on it either way.

I'm merely sharing the info that I stumbled upon that seemed related to the subject.

Not really sure why the right is so opposed to education.
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

SidecarFlip

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24111
Re: GMO's... Good or bad?
« Reply #134 on: May 23, 2015, 11:01:59 AM »

Opinions are like a'holes, everyone has one and some stink.  Dig deep enough and you'll uncover the stinky ones....

Dig enough and you can find counter opinions to anything.  Does that mean its gospel, probably not but it makes for good copy for those that are gullible enough to want it to be......
Logged
AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 16   Go Up