Would you like GMO with that?

Things that don't fit anywhere else...

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby S. Heisley » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:05 am

jstrubberg wrote:
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.


You're right, jstrubberg. DDT was originally banned because of the weakening egg shells for mainly predatory birds. It wasn't until 2002 that it was labeled for its possible carcinogenic properties. But my main point was that the body can store chemicals that it is unsure of and later release them from the fat cells; and that, if it can do that with DDT, it can also do that with other chemicals currently being used, as stated in my second paragraph that you quoted (Thank you). Some of the new pesticides could turn out to be a lot worse than DDT!

Since you brought up malaria, I went out and checked. Here is what I found:
In 1955, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria in countries with low to moderate transmission rates worldwide, relying largely on DDT for mosquito control and rapid diagnosis and treatment to reduce transmission.[29] The program was initially highly successful, eliminating the disease in "Taiwan, much of the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the northern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific"[30] and dramatically reducing mortality in Sri Lanka and India.[31]

However, failure to sustain the program, increasing resistance of mosquito to DDT, and increasing parasite resistance led to a resurgence (of malaria). In many areas early victories partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission even increased.[32] The program was successful in eliminating malaria only in areas with "high socio-economic status, well-organized healthcare systems, and relatively less intensive or seasonal malaria transmission".[33]

DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure.
It was not applied at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties. Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especially following the disease's resurgence as a result of resistance to drug treatments and the spread of the deadly malarial variant caused by Plasmodium falciparum.[citation needed]

The goal of eradication was abandoned in 1969 and attention was instead focused on controlling and treating the disease. Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation.[32] Efforts shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides and other interventions.[33][34]


It is my understanding that 26 countries have now banned DDT; however, I can't help but wonder if it might be better than some of the chemicals we are now using. If only man could find a way to manage vegetation without using man-made chemicals. Oh, wait! Man can manage! It's called organic gardening. The problem is not that. The problem is man's greed and man's desire to do as little as possible while producing perfect-looking produce.

Is there an answer to all of this? It is doubtful. Perhaps the best that we can do is research and publish our findings in our own meager ways so that people can make up their own minds and decide how they want to handle their own lives. But, remember that the power of the wallet and of knowledge is mighty. Perhaps that is what this thread is all about.
User avatar
S. Heisley
Super Lifetime Member
 
Posts: 8056
Images: 488
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:02 am
Location: No. California

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby MtnDon » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:27 am

GMO's are worse then chemicals, IMO. Why?

GMO products are alive. So they're inherently more unpredictable in terms of what they'll do once they're out into the environment. Secondly, GMOs reproduce. Chemical products don't do that.

Third, they can mutate. Fourth, they can migrate and proliferate over wide regions. And fifth, you cannot easily recall them to the laboratory or clean them up. So when we're dealing with genetically modified organisms, we're dealing with a whole new genre of environmental and health questions, totally different than when we introduce chemical or even nuclear products into the environment. ...

Those very small bits [of DNA inserted into genetically modified organisms] can change in qualitative ways that GMO when it's introduced. Let's say you take a human growth hormone gene and place it into a salmon. That's just one gene. But if the salmon gets out into the marine ecosystem and it's growing twice as fast and twice as big, it can destabilize millions of years of relationships in the oceans. So one gene can be very, very powerful. ...

There's a second generation of genetically modified organisms being readied in R&D. These organisms are plants that act as chemical factories to produce genes that code for proteins to produce vaccines and chemicals and drugs and vitamins. ... This all sounds very good--except no one has stopped for even a moment and paused and asked this question: When we seed millions of acres of land with these plants, what happens to foraging birds, to insects, to microbes, to the other animals, when they come in contact and digest plants that are producing materials ranging from plastics to vaccines to pharmaceutical products? There hasn't been as much as a single congressional hearing, and as far as I know, there hasn't been a single parliamentary debate anywhere in the world, on introducing this second generation of pharmaceutical and chemical-producing plants.

Think about it... History is full of actions with unintended consequences.


Of course the real problem here is underlying and very difficult to resolve. Population.
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: 1931
Images: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:57 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby dales133 » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:11 pm

MtnDon wrote:GMO's are worse then chemicals, IMO. Why?

GMO products are alive. So they're inherently more unpredictable in terms of what they'll do once they're out into the environment. Secondly, GMOs reproduce. Chemical products don't do that.

Third, they can mutate. Fourth, they can migrate and proliferate over wide regions. And fifth, you cannot easily recall them to the laboratory or clean them up. So when we're dealing with genetically modified organisms, we're dealing with a whole new genre of environmental and health questions, totally different than when we introduce chemical or even nuclear products into the environment. ...

Those very small bits [of DNA inserted into genetically modified organisms] can change in qualitative ways that GMO when it's introduced. Let's say you take a human growth hormone gene and place it into a salmon. That's just one gene. But if the salmon gets out into the marine ecosystem and it's growing twice as fast and twice as big, it can destabilize millions of years of relationships in the oceans. So one gene can be very, very powerful. ...

There's a second generation of genetically modified organisms being readied in R&D. These organisms are plants that act as chemical factories to produce genes that code for proteins to produce vaccines and chemicals and drugs and vitamins. ... This all sounds very good--except no one has stopped for even a moment and paused and asked this question: When we seed millions of acres of land with these plants, what happens to foraging birds, to insects, to microbes, to the other animals, when they come in contact and digest plants that are producing materials ranging from plastics to vaccines to pharmaceutical products? There hasn't been as much as a single congressional hearing, and as far as I know, there hasn't been a single parliamentary debate anywhere in the world, on introducing this second generation of pharmaceutical and chemical-producing plants.

Think about it... History is full of actions with unintended consequences.


Of course the real problem here is underlying and very difficult to resolve. Population.

Couldnt agree more.
You outlined my reasons for concern perfectly.
The ecosystem is a verry fragile thing and ive seen the damage introduced pests can do first hand
User avatar
dales133
4000 Club
4000 Club
 
Posts: 4570
Images: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:26 pm
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby Tom Kurth » Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:08 pm

One of the valuable lessons I've learned is that, when looking at any kind of controversial issue, consider who has a vested interest.

When Monsanto tells you that they have (after spending millions in development costs and from which they expect to earn billions) developed a herbicide resistant strain of plants, consider that they might be fudging the data, especially if they also sell the herbicide.

When Rodale, the publisher of 'Organic Gardening' (forgive me the name has changed I think, but I don't know it), tells you that same plant strain is dangerous, consider that they may be over-reacting.

A few months ago I read an article written by a farmer that equated GMOs with the selective breeding that has been used (often unwittingly) ever since mankind began practicing agriculture. As far as I know, no amount of selective breeding ever inserted into an organism a gene from a totally unrelated species. Or from an animal to a plant. In one of the seminal experiments in gene splicing they made-glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants by inserting a firefly gene or something like that, if memory serves correctly. So that farmer's argument is certainly disingenuous.

I don't KNOW any demonstrable reason to distrust the safety of GMOs, but I am firmly convinced that to trust Monsanto or any other corporation when big dollars are at stake is asking for trouble. Witness FoMoCo and exploding Pinto gas tanks and a thousand other instances of corporate greed overwhelming basic honestly and decency. And that's another valuable lesson I've learned.

Best,
Tom
Tom Kurth
Teardrop Advisor
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:39 pm
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby S. Heisley » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:19 pm

:thinking: ...Good thoughts about probably bad things. Yes, the big guys don't have the little guys' interests at heart, unless that 'little guy' is a dollar bill.
User avatar
S. Heisley
Super Lifetime Member
 
Posts: 8056
Images: 488
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:02 am
Location: No. California
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby jstrubberg » Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:06 pm

MtnDon wrote:GMO's are worse then chemicals, IMO. Why?

GMO products are alive. So they're inherently more unpredictable in terms of what they'll do once they're out into the environment. Secondly, GMOs reproduce. Chemical products don't do that.

Third, they can mutate. Fourth, they can migrate and proliferate over wide regions. And fifth, you cannot easily recall them to the laboratory or clean them up. So when we're dealing with genetically modified organisms, we're dealing with a whole new genre of environmental and health questions, totally different than when we introduce chemical or even nuclear products into the environment. ...

Those very small bits [of DNA inserted into genetically modified organisms] can change in qualitative ways that GMO when it's introduced. Let's say you take a human growth hormone gene and place it into a salmon. That's just one gene. But if the salmon gets out into the marine ecosystem and it's growing twice as fast and twice as big, it can destabilize millions of years of relationships in the oceans. So one gene can be very, very powerful. ...

There's a second generation of genetically modified organisms being readied in R&D. These organisms are plants that act as chemical factories to produce genes that code for proteins to produce vaccines and chemicals and drugs and vitamins. ... This all sounds very good--except no one has stopped for even a moment and paused and asked this question: When we seed millions of acres of land with these plants, what happens to foraging birds, to insects, to microbes, to the other animals, when they come in contact and digest plants that are producing materials ranging from plastics to vaccines to pharmaceutical products? There hasn't been as much as a single congressional hearing, and as far as I know, there hasn't been a single parliamentary debate anywhere in the world, on introducing this second generation of pharmaceutical and chemical-producing plants.

Think about it... History is full of actions with unintended consequences.


Of course the real problem here is underlying and very difficult to resolve. Population.


Overreaction.

GMOs have been around for centuries. We have been manipulating organisms through selective breeding for a long time already. Bred to better yields, better taste, less or more fat, etc. the only difference between breeding for better meat and a GMO is that we have some idea of the outcome beforehand with a GMO.

People freak out because now we have a name for manipulation, but the truth is every food you've eaten out of a supermarket EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE has been the product of selective breeding.

Manipulation.
Mutation.
Labs.

All of this is nothing new.

Were you aware that just about every ear of corn on the planet comes from seven genetic ancestors? Again, genetic manipulation.
The more stuff I take along, the more time I spend taking care of my stuff!
jstrubberg
500 Club
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:26 pm
Location: mid-Missouri
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby S. Heisley » Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:39 pm

Okay...I can't resist...Jurassic Park...Genetic manipulation? :lol:

By the way, did you know that people have found a baby wooly mammoth in the mountains overseas that is so complete that they are going to try to recreate the beast? Good idea or bad?
User avatar
S. Heisley
Super Lifetime Member
 
Posts: 8056
Images: 488
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:02 am
Location: No. California
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby jstrubberg » Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:08 am

Interesting idea, anyway...

I'm ok with bringing back a mammoth. We never competed with the herbivores for our spot in the food chain. :) When they start into the carnivores, then I will get concerned!

Sorry for the rambling post last night, btw.
The more stuff I take along, the more time I spend taking care of my stuff!
jstrubberg
500 Club
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:26 pm
Location: mid-Missouri
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby MtnDon » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:40 pm

Update:

The DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) act moved out of committee today heading for a senate vote. This bill would forbid labeling of GMO food. Another bill has also been introduced that would require labeling of genetically modified food.
http://agfax.com/2016/03/01/senate-ag-c ... -bill-dtn/

Gotta wonder, if this is such a great new product, why do they want to hide it? Have you ever seen a company make such a technological "stride" without wanting to crow about it and thereby gain market share?

Grab your senator's ear and let them know you would rather know what is in the food you eat.

For those who prefer to email, here's a handy page. Enter your ZIP and then your name, etc, and click
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: 1931
Images: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:57 pm
Location: New Mexico
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby lrrowe » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:47 pm

I will look at it MtnDon. Isn't this in the same category to a degree with the requirement lifting having to put country of origin on food products anymore? I shouldn't get red in the face and continue a discussion on this because it borders on political discussions.
Bob

First Post on Purchase of Trailer: http://www.tnttt.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=60722
Hot water infloor and radiator heating project:[url]http://www.tnttt.com/posting.php?mode=reply&f=54&t=62327[/

Image Image
User avatar
lrrowe
Donating Member
 
Posts: 3262
Images: 439
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:54 am
Location: SW Virigina
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby MtnDon » Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:14 pm

The Senate voted against the DARK act this morning! That's good news for labeling what's in our food.
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: 1931
Images: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:57 pm
Location: New Mexico
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby lrrowe » Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:24 pm

That is good news MtnDon. I did research your links and forgot to send my opposition in to my Senators. So I am glad others may have and made a point.
Bob

First Post on Purchase of Trailer: http://www.tnttt.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=60722
Hot water infloor and radiator heating project:[url]http://www.tnttt.com/posting.php?mode=reply&f=54&t=62327[/

Image Image
User avatar
lrrowe
Donating Member
 
Posts: 3262
Images: 439
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:54 am
Location: SW Virigina
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby MtnDon » Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:08 pm

Today General Mills has announced that it will begin labeling GMO ingredients in all its products. :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: 1931
Images: 6
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:57 pm
Location: New Mexico
Top

Re: Would you like GMO with that?

Postby PKCSPT » Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:18 pm

I buy organic as much as I can afford and buy my gas where they advertise it is cleaner burning. Now I don't know if it truly is better for me but I am voting with my dollars to let the powers that be know I want cleaner more natural foods and gas.
141240 145569147706
PKCSPT
Silver Donating Member
 
Posts: 1507
Images: 60
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:27 pm
Location: Minnesota
Top

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests