Would you like GMO with that?

Things that don't fit anywhere else...

Would you like GMO with that?

Postby MtnDon » Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:25 pm

USA slant to this comment......

At risk of having my fingers slapped I ask the questions....

Do you know what a GMO is?
Do you care if you eat GMO's?
Do you read labels?

Monsanto just bought some more politicians. The House last week passed "H.R.1599 - Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015" by a margin of 275-150. This law would deny states the ability to require producers of genetically engineered food products from having to disclose them to the public.

Quote
The FDA must allow, but not require, GMO food to be labeled as GMO.

The FDA must regulate the use of “natural” on food labels.

This bill amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the Agricultural Marketing Service to establish a program to certify non-GMO food.

This bill preempts state and local restrictions on GMOs or GMO food and labeling requirements for GMOs, GMO food, non-GMO food, or “natural” food.

A very few states have managed to pass laws requiring companies to label GMO food, just as at current count, 64 foreign countries have done. 100 million dollars later Monsanto has managed to get this bill passed to prevent this and to invalidate those state's labelling requirements... thank you representatives >:(

I've come to realize that most Americans really don't know what a genetically modified organism is, if you don't please google for a definition. As always, watch your sources, from both sides. What we are currently talking about is trangenesis of DNA from unrelated organisms. A relative representing hundreds of seed companies and his plant pathologist wife were here last week, the coming twist is sysgenesis, hopping evolution on the backs of viruses. I would certainly rather we didn't play God, we're not that bright. I do think we need to demand the right to know whether someone has tampered with our food. These folks are not interested in feeding the world, these are power brokers, the same people who brought us chemical warfare. The end game is who will control the food supply of the planet, who will get food. If they are as blinded as I think, it may end up being no one.



This link shows how your rep voted, so you can ask them why or congratulate them. :o This time my rep agreed with me! Doesn't always happen. ???

While having one system of labeling for the entire country would be good, it is only good if the law means that the origin must be noted as GMO / Non GMO, IMO. There are lot of seemingly good points being made in favor of the bill. Like many Gov Bills the title is misleading.



Note, there is another bill, HR 913 that is a good bill but is still in committee. Call your rep button on that page

And on the good side... it is commonly thought that when the senate gets to its version of HR 1599 they will not pass it.

Right-to-know-gmo
Our 6x12 deep vee nose cargo trailer camper conversion... viewtopic.php?f=42&t=58336

We have a small off grid cabin we built ourselves in the NM mountains; small PV solar system; 624 watts PV, Outback CC & inverter/charger ... http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=2335.0
User avatar
MtnDon
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1977
Images: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:57 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby jstrubberg » Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:25 am

I know what a GMO is, but I've not seen any sort of proof that a GMO is more or less healthy for you than a naturally occurring organism. Until we have that kind of information, I think forcing GMO's into pariah status is premature.
The more stuff I take along, the more time I spend taking care of my stuff!
jstrubberg
500 Club
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:26 pm
Location: mid-Missouri

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby dales133 » Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:47 am

Im pleased to say i come from a country where GMO is illegal, sadly that cant be said for the one i live in
User avatar
dales133
4000 Club
4000 Club
 
Posts: 4595
Images: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:26 pm
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby S. Heisley » Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:01 pm

I know what a GMO is and avoid them by buying organic as much as I can, even though that is expensive. Genetically modifying plants was originally supposed to make them better; but, it has been used to make the plants able to withstand the chemical poisons that kill the surrounding weeds and possibly even plant-eating insects. However, if the plant is absorbing the poison, some of that poison is likely getting into it's harvest and nobody seems to be telling one way or another.

Some people may be okay with eating GMO products and may seem healthy in spite of that; but, there's no telling when the build-up of such product residuals will show up in forms of cancer or other illnesses and that healthy person is no longer healthy. Buying GMO's should be everyone's personal choice; but, without knowing which is and which isn't, that is difficult and expensive.
User avatar
S. Heisley
Super Lifetime Member
 
Posts: 8180
Images: 490
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:02 am
Location: No. California
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby MtnDon » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:12 pm

jstrubberg wrote:I know what a GMO is, but I've not seen any sort of proof that a GMO is more or less healthy for you than a naturally occurring organism. Until we have that kind of information, I think forcing GMO's into pariah status is premature.


I think we should be smarter than that. Look back in time and we can see all sorts of examples of things that were at one time considered inoccuous. Tobacco. DDT. Lead in gasoline, paints and more. Trans fats . Driving with everybody unbuckled.
Our 6x12 deep vee nose cargo trailer camper conversion... viewtopic.php?f=42&t=58336

We have a small off grid cabin we built ourselves in the NM mountains; small PV solar system; 624 watts PV, Outback CC & inverter/charger ... http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=2335.0
User avatar
MtnDon
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1977
Images: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:57 pm
Location: New Mexico
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby wagondude » Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:56 pm

S. Heisley wrote:I know what a GMO is and avoid them by buying organic as much as I can, even though that is expensive. Genetically modifying plants was originally supposed to make them better; but, it has been used to make the plants able to withstand the chemical poisons that kill the surrounding weeds and possibly even plant-eating insects. However, if the plant is absorbing the poison, some of that poison is likely getting into it's harvest and nobody seems to be telling one way or another.

Some people may be okay with eating GMO products and may seem healthy in spite of that; but, there's no telling when the build-up of such product residuals will show up in forms of cancer or other illnesses and that healthy person is no longer healthy. Buying GMO's should be everyone's personal choice; but, without knowing which is and which isn't, that is difficult and expensive.


Unfortunately, buying organic is actually more likely to get you GMO. The purpose of GMO is resistance to pests and disease reducing the need for pesticides and the like. Many of the foods available today, no matter how they are grown, have little of the original DNA or nutritional value they had even 50 years ago. Corn would be the biggest example of this. There is no clear standard to certify organics and almost no oversight in the process.
Bill

TnTTT ORIGIONAL 200A LANTERN CLUB
101137
User avatar
wagondude
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1533
Images: 35
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Land of the Jayhawks
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby Catherine+twins » Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:42 pm

wagondude wrote:[Unfortunately, buying organic is actually more likely to get you GMO. The purpose of GMO is resistance to pests and disease reducing the need for pesticides and the like. Many of the foods available today, no matter how they are grown, have little of the original DNA or nutritional value they had even 50 years ago. Corn would be the biggest example of this. There is no clear standard to certify organics and almost no oversight in the process.


Nope, the Organic standards specifically preclude using GMOs. (Ooh, I don't get to use "preclude" very often! But let me take my English Major hat off and put on my Farmer's Daugher cap.) The USDA may not test for GMOs, but plenty of consumer groups do. The reputable companies know they will be caught if they play fast and loose.

I don't think you understand how plant breeding works, or what they are going for. Corn may not be as nutritious as it was 50 years ago, but that is because most corn grown in the US is now grown for corn oil or ethanol production, not people food. Conventional breeding took it in the high-oil direction and the high-fermentable-carbs direction. Those are also generally the ones with the RoundUp Ready genes (which I think originally came from a RoundUp-resistant petunia strain). Most of the sweet corns are still "conventional," non-GMO, except where pollen drift has contaminated the crop, but the contaminated corns are tough and convert from sugar to starch too fast, which is really frowned on in the sweet corn market. Corns grown for cornmeal are more likely to be contaminated, as being ground up disguises the toughness. Some may remember the short-lived scandal years ago when just that sort of contamination was discovered! Have a corn chip!
:frightened:
Likewise, most potatoes are conventional, carrots, radishes, lettuce, basically our green veggis are not GMO, yet. OTOH, most soybeans that are processed into other products (harvested as dry beans, ground into soy flour, processed into soy sauce, soy isolate protein, etc) are GMO, soybean pods sold as edamame (which we love at our house) are generally NOT GMO. GMO wheat is being tested, likewise GMO salmon. GMO rice has been around practically since the Green Revolution.

Oh, and back to the nutrition. Don't blame the GMOs. Part of it is nutrient-depleted soil, but we (Americans) also keep breeding for shorter and shorter growing seasons, not because our summers are getting shorter but because getting two or three (or more) crops out of a field in a year is more profitable than only getting one. If lettuce goes from seed to head in only 30 days, it will develop fewer nutrients than lettuce that goes from seed to head in 45 days, 50 days or even 60 days. Even in the worst soil, a longer-season variety will have more nutrients than a shorter-season variety, but those nutrients are costing the farmer more in time and effort. Follow a 30 day lettuce with a 55 day bean, maybe sneak in another lettuce crop, or early cabbage....

So, avoiding GMOs in America. Avoid all non-organic processed foods. Anything with soy or corn products in it (and that is just about everything in the center aisles of the grocery store, they have many many names) has GMOs in it. If you read the labels for organic breads and crackers and stuff, you rarely find corn or soy in them for just that reason. Read labels. A bagged GMO potato variety has now been approved for sale (one company, look for J.R Simplot on the bags). Or eat red- or blue-fleshed potatoes, which are too weird for the food-modifiers to mess with. Two apples will be coming, probably in 2017, current plan is to market them as "arctic apples" because their flesh will remain snow-white when cut (no browning). Other veggies and fruits are still okay, but it may be a good idea to start eating more of the weird fruits and veggies that aren't (yet) economically valuable enough to mess with. Learn to love the odd grains, too. Quinoa is your new best friend, and pearled barley is an ancient and honored addition to many meals. Look for CANE sugar, as the stuff simply labeled "sugar" is generally from sugar beets, which are GMO. And yes, canola oil probably contains GMOs (again, it has been made "RoundUp Ready"). Try peanut oil for frying (really, you still fry stuff?), or stick to olive or sunflower oil for daily use.

Finally, why do I care? It's not so much that I think the foods are going to poison us quickly. But no one tests this stuff, and even if they did, the tests wouldn't show us what is going to happen in the long run. Quite frankly, we Americans are the sickest of the first-world populations in the world. We are poisoning ourselves with an unhealthy diet to begin with, and now we are experimenting with food-like stuff that isn't designed to make us healthy, but rather to make corporations rich. So, in the unofficial long-term testing, I want to be in the control group, eating an old-fashioned non-GMO diet. Also, all of the "RoundUp Ready" crops that Monsanto has developed have actually increased the use of herbicides on farms, and increased the costs to the farmers. 30 years ago my dad's doctor speculated that his use of farm chemicals contributed to his terminal cancer. All of these years later, his favorite chemicals have all been declared to be "probably carcinogenic to humans" in just about every other developed country. The unofficial long-term testing confirms that we are poisoning ourselves so the corporations can make boat-loads of money.
:(
My Representative also voted NO to the latest Monsanto Protection Act. :thumbsup:

Catherine (gardener and non-GMO-seed-saver)
Build Thread Penguino II: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=54919
Build Thread Penguino I: viewtopic.php?t=44431
Image
"Oh, let's just stay here and sing camp songs for a while." 1966, My mom in Isle Royale, MN, in a women's bath house with a momma bear and two cubs outside the door, and three tired kids trapped inside
"Dad! Dad! There's a bear outside!" 1967, Lolo Hot Springs, MT, in a tent-top trailer
"Oh, no, there it goes!!" Nov 10, 2012 as Penguino I blew over in high winds
User avatar
Catherine+twins
The 300 Club
 
Posts: 478
Images: 124
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:43 pm
Location: Northern New Mexico
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby MtnDon » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:23 am

Catherine+twins wrote:
Nope, the Organic standards specifically preclude using GMOs. (Ooh, I don't get to use "preclude" very often! )


Bravo! Right on!! We do have a few protections and that is one. Organic basically = non gmo.

And preclude is a cool transitive verb. :D
Our 6x12 deep vee nose cargo trailer camper conversion... viewtopic.php?f=42&t=58336

We have a small off grid cabin we built ourselves in the NM mountains; small PV solar system; 624 watts PV, Outback CC & inverter/charger ... http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=2335.0
User avatar
MtnDon
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1977
Images: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:57 pm
Location: New Mexico
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby S. Heisley » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:38 am

:thumbsup: Thanks, Catherine. I couldn't have said it better.
User avatar
S. Heisley
Super Lifetime Member
 
Posts: 8180
Images: 490
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:02 am
Location: No. California
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby S. Heisley » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:31 am

CAN GMOS BE USED IN ORGANIC PRODUCTS?
The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), is prohibited in organic products.
This means an organic farmer can’t plant GMO seeds,
an organic cow can’t eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an
organic soup producer can’t use any GMO ingredients.
To meet the USDA organic regulations, farmers and
processors must show they aren’t using GMOs and that
they are protecting their products from contact with
prohibited substances from farm to table.


The above was excerpted from here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile ... RDC5105405
where inspection and enforcement is also discussed.
User avatar
S. Heisley
Super Lifetime Member
 
Posts: 8180
Images: 490
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:02 am
Location: No. California
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby S. Heisley » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:01 am

:thinking: One more thing....Do you remember when farmers used DDT until it was outlawed as a carcinogen by the government?

In one of my gardening classes, the professor talked about DDT and how it could still affect some of us today. He explained that the body stored the DDT in fat cells. If you were fat back then and decide to lose weight now, you could release those carcinogens back into your body as free radicals, as your excess fat is used up by your body.

Why do I mention something from the past? Because I have since read that this fat-storing principle is true of other substances that the body doesn't recognize. While the body disposes of many substances in the usual, "bathroom" way or releases impurities through the skin, if the body can't recognize something, it may also store it in the fat cells. Think about how many Americans are overweight and are still gaining. It's a large portion of our US population. I suspect that all this 'playing' with food and chemicals could come back to haunt us in a really bad way some day; and, when it does, there may be little that we can do about it. Am I saying that poisonous chemicals like Round-up might be stored in our fat cells? ...Very possibly. Am I saying that parts of unrecognizable foods as well as poisonous chemicals could be stored in our fat, possibly making us fatter? I don't know; but, maybe....

...Just thinkin' & sayin'.... :NC
User avatar
S. Heisley
Super Lifetime Member
 
Posts: 8180
Images: 490
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:02 am
Location: No. California
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby dales133 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:51 am

Catherine+twins wrote:
wagondude wrote:[Unfortunately, buying organic is actually more likely to get you GMO. The purpose of GMO is resistance to pests and disease reducing the need for pesticides and the like. Many of the foods available today, no matter how they are grown, have little of the original DNA or nutritional value they had even 50 years ago. Corn would be the biggest example of this. There is no clear standard to certify organics and almost no oversight in the process.


Nope, the Organic standards specifically preclude using GMOs. (Ooh, I don't get to use "preclude" very often! But let me take my English Major hat off and put on my Farmer's Daugher cap.) The USDA may not test for GMOs, but plenty of consumer groups do. The reputable companies know they will be caught if they play fast and loose.

I don't think you understand how plant breeding works, or what they are going for. Corn may not be as nutritious as it was 50 years ago, but that is because most corn grown in the US is now grown for corn oil or ethanol production, not people food. Conventional breeding took it in the high-oil direction and the high-fermentable-carbs direction. Those are also generally the ones with the RoundUp Ready genes (which I think originally came from a RoundUp-resistant petunia strain). Most of the sweet corns are still "conventional," non-GMO, except where pollen drift has contaminated the crop, but the contaminated corns are tough and convert from sugar to starch too fast, which is really frowned on in the sweet corn market. Corns grown for cornmeal are more likely to be contaminated, as being ground up disguises the toughness. Some may remember the short-lived scandal years ago when just that sort of contamination was discovered! Have a corn chip!
:frightened:
Likewise, most potatoes are conventional, carrots, radishes, lettuce, basically our green veggis are not GMO, yet. OTOH, most soybeans that are processed into other products (harvested as dry beans, ground into soy flour, processed into soy sauce, soy isolate protein, etc) are GMO, soybean pods sold as edamame (which we love at our house) are generally NOT GMO. GMO wheat is being tested, likewise GMO salmon. GMO rice has been around practically since the Green Revolution.

Oh, and back to the nutrition. Don't blame the GMOs. Part of it is nutrient-depleted soil, but we (Americans) also keep breeding for shorter and shorter growing seasons, not because our summers are getting shorter but because getting two or three (or more) crops out of a field in a year is more profitable than only getting one. If lettuce goes from seed to head in only 30 days, it will develop fewer nutrients than lettuce that goes from seed to head in 45 days, 50 days or even 60 days. Even in the worst soil, a longer-season variety will have more nutrients than a shorter-season variety, but those nutrients are costing the farmer more in time and effort. Follow a 30 day lettuce with a 55 day bean, maybe sneak in another lettuce crop, or early cabbage....

So, avoiding GMOs in America. Avoid all non-organic processed foods. Anything with soy or corn products in it (and that is just about everything in the center aisles of the grocery store, they have many many names) has GMOs in it. If you read the labels for organic breads and crackers and stuff, you rarely find corn or soy in them for just that reason. Read labels. A bagged GMO potato variety has now been approved for sale (one company, look for J.R Simplot on the bags). Or eat red- or blue-fleshed potatoes, which are too weird for the food-modifiers to mess with. Two apples will be coming, probably in 2017, current plan is to market them as "arctic apples" because their flesh will remain snow-white when cut (no browning). Other veggies and fruits are still okay, but it may be a good idea to start eating more of the weird fruits and veggies that aren't (yet) economically valuable enough to mess with. Learn to love the odd grains, too. Quinoa is your new best friend, and pearled barley is an ancient and honored addition to many meals. Look for CANE sugar, as the stuff simply labeled "sugar" is generally from sugar beets, which are GMO. And yes, canola oil probably contains GMOs (again, it has been made "RoundUp Ready"). Try peanut oil for frying (really, you still fry stuff?), or stick to olive or sunflower oil for daily use.

Finally, why do I care? It's not so much that I think the foods are going to poison us quickly. But no one tests this stuff, and even if they did, the tests wouldn't show us what is going to happen in the long run. Quite frankly, we Americans are the sickest of the first-world populations in the world. We are poisoning ourselves with an unhealthy diet to begin with, and now we are experimenting with food-like stuff that isn't designed to make us healthy, but rather to make corporations rich. So, in the unofficial long-term testing, I want to be in the control group, eating an old-fashioned non-GMO diet. Also, all of the "RoundUp Ready" crops that Monsanto has developed have actually increased the use of herbicides on farms, and increased the costs to the farmers. 30 years ago my dad's doctor speculated that his use of farm chemicals contributed to his terminal cancer. All of these years later, his favorite chemicals have all been declared to be "probably carcinogenic to humans" in just about every other developed country. The unofficial long-term testing confirms that we are poisoning ourselves so the corporations can make boat-loads of money.
:(
My Representative also voted NO to the latest Monsanto Protection Act.

Catherine (gardener and non-GMO-seed-saver)

It isnt ignorance or greed that will be the eventual downfall of humanity as we know it... it will be lethagy and acceptance
User avatar
dales133
4000 Club
4000 Club
 
Posts: 4595
Images: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:26 pm
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby MtnDon » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:06 pm

Sharon, yes fat cells are good at storing all sorts of "to be released later" But I would still go ahead and lose weight if I was overweight as we know for certain that being overweight takes its own toll.

I read recently that the number of Americans rated as obese now exceeds the number of those rated as simply overweight.
Our 6x12 deep vee nose cargo trailer camper conversion... viewtopic.php?f=42&t=58336

We have a small off grid cabin we built ourselves in the NM mountains; small PV solar system; 624 watts PV, Outback CC & inverter/charger ... http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=2335.0
User avatar
MtnDon
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1977
Images: 24
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:57 pm
Location: New Mexico
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby S. Heisley » Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:03 pm

MtnDon wrote:Sharon, yes fat cells are good at storing all sorts of "to be released later" But I would still go ahead and lose weight if I was overweight as we know for certain that being overweight takes its own toll.

I read recently that the number of Americans rated as obese now exceeds the number of those rated as simply overweight.


:thinking: I guess I didn't make my meaning clear. But, yes, I do believe that substances that are unrecognized by the body can be stored in the fat cells, making the person appear to be even fatter; but that's my personal thought, with no facts to back it up. There are many things that will probably not be known in our lifetime.
.
.
However, the main point that I was trying to make was the fact that carcinogenic chemicals can be stored in the body and raise their ugly heads years later to make a person sick then...not necessarily when the contaminated foods were originally eaten. People don't realize this.
User avatar
S. Heisley
Super Lifetime Member
 
Posts: 8180
Images: 490
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:02 am
Location: No. California
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby jstrubberg » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:00 pm

S. Heisley wrote::thinking: One more thing....Do you remember when farmers used DDT until it was outlawed as a carcinogen by the government?

In one of my gardening classes, the professor talked about DDT and how it could still affect some of us today. He explained that the body stored the DDT in fat cells. If you were fat back then and decide to lose weight now, you could release those carcinogens back into your body as free radicals, as your excess fat is used up by your body.

Why do I mention something from the past? Because I have since read that this fat-storing principle is true of other substances that the body doesn't recognize. While the body disposes of many substances in the usual, "bathroom" way or releases impurities through the skin, if the body can't recognize something, it may also store it in the fat cells. Think about how many Americans are overweight and are still gaining. It's a large portion of our US population. I suspect that all this 'playing' with food and chemicals could come back to haunt us in a really bad way some day; and, when it does, there may be little that we can do about it. Am I saying that poisonous chemicals like Round-up might be stored in our fat cells? ...Very possibly. Am I saying that parts of unrecognizable foods as well as poisonous chemicals could be stored in our fat, possibly making us fatter? I don't know; but, maybe....

...Just thinkin' & sayin'.... :NC


DDT is a great example of overreacting. DDT is know to cause reproductive problems in non-migratory birds. That was used to "prove" that DDT is bad for humans as well. DDT was banned, and as a direct result we've lost thousands to needless malaria deaths since 1973.

I think we should be smarter than that. Look back in time and we can see all sorts of examples of things that were at one time considered inoccuous. Tobacco. DDT. Lead in gasoline, paints and more. Trans fats . Driving with everybody unbuckled.


If you make a decision without knowledge, you are just as likely to step into the middle of the road as you are to step to safety.
The more stuff I take along, the more time I spend taking care of my stuff!
jstrubberg
500 Club
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:26 pm
Location: mid-Missouri
Top

Next

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests