Americans eat genetically modified food

There is a GMO link. It may well be a significant part of the problem. http://seattleorganicrestaurants.co...factured-by-Bayer-Syngenta-kill-honeybees.php

 

Evidence for the last two claims? (and please no anti-GMO sites)

 

Sheesh! NOT. TRUE.

 

Round-Up Ready crops are considered safe for consumption.

FDA...

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/GEPlants/default.htm

USDA...

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=AGRICULTURE&contentid=BiotechnologyFAQs.xml

From: W.H.O..

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/

"GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. "

 

"natural" meaning nature, but without man?

Sure, it might happen that some genetically mutated cabbage will take over the world creating a world where insects starve by the gazillions, and the only animals that will be able to eat these mutant cabbages will be bunny rabbits. Aliens will look down on this green cabbage and bunny world, and think how remarkable it is that only two species have managed to survive. Maybe rabbits will eventually develop gills so they can feed off the sea cabbages.

What is the alternative? Make GMO crops illegal? I'd certainly be in favor of that because I share your fear that we're dealing with an eco-system that is far too complex for us to understand. On the other hand, if we die as a species, the cabbages and rabbits will eventually evolve into different species, and life will go on.

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...tem/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

GMO soybean yield was small in tests, and "However, the study determined that, after increased costs of using GM seeds were accounted for, the profits derived from this increased yield was less significant than the increase in the yield itself."
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified.pdf

 

Along with the unknown dangers of GMO's, is the added danger of the known's, which happen to be preservatives, pesticides, pollutants, and growth hormones. These are Obesogens that cause all kinds of health problems. And the one that sticks out the most proving the danger is real, is obesity. Unfortunately, much of the problem originates from the corporate food industry, which could easily be argued is in bed with the health industry. Don't believe me? Fine! Do a little research on your own. I live in an area where there is such diametrically opposite extremes between the healthy population, and the unhealthy. How do I know that? By simply driving to a parking lot, park your car and watch all the overweight people walk into Walmart, versus parking in an area with a store that sells mostly health foods. The difference between the two groups at these stores is mind boggling, to say the least. Most of the one's at the health stores look like a million bucks, while watching them walk in and out. But here in lies the problem; they look like a million bucks because they can afford it. Think that's an accident? Not hardly! There's a huge business in keeping much of the population over weight and sick, as there is a good business in those who choose to live healthy, who can afford it. My question is, I wonder who controls all of that?

 

As I already stated, I am not concerned about the seed or the plant or the GMO character thereof. The issue is the absorption of herbicides and their ingestion. The WHO link you provided does not mention the risk of herbicides. It, like the others you posted, only concerns itself with the GMO crop as though it were grown without the use of herbicides so as to examine and test the crop itself without the "interference" of the presence of herbicides in the testing. The WHO site specifically says...

What are the main issues of concern for human health?

While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance genes is encouraged.

Outcrossing
The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing&#8221, as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

IN FACT, your FDA web page and your USDA web page never mention Roundup, and the FDA one only mentions "herbicides" as one of the advantages of GMO modifications, but none of what you provided mentions any testing for herbicides at all.

Did you think I wouldn't check?

 

Corporations choose that, the people that buy their foods choose that.. not the government, well unless the food is magic brownies

 

So where are all the sicknesses and deaths? Certainly ingesting roundup should have some effect.

 

If you do the research you find growing compelling evidence of many diseases that are exploding, like autism, Parkinson's, cancer, birth defects, kidney disease, diabetes, etc.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/gl...tant-bacteria-kidney-disease-and-infertility/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx

http://www.naturalnews.com/040226_Monsanto_Roundup_glyphosate.html

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/26614-monsanto-s-roundup-linked-to-cancer

http://www.reuters.com/article/roundup-health-study-idUSL2N0DC22F20130425

 

I am no opposed to genetically modified food. I never have been.

But I am for labelling.

I like to know what I eat, so I can make informed choices.

Apparantly, you prefer not to.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...-lefts-equivalent-global-warming-deniers.html

in over 20 years of GMO crops, and over 40 years of GMO medicines, there is not a single negative health effect to be found from GMOs.

There have been thousands of studies on GMOs, and so far The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Medical American Association, The National Academy of Science, The French Academy of Science, The Royal Society of Medicine, The European Commission, The Union of German Academics of Sciences and Humanities, The World Health Organization, The European Food Safety Authority, the US Food and Drug Administration have all concluded that GMOs are safe

As time goes by this list is only growing, the scientific consensus on GMOs is more overwhelming than the consensus for man made global warming




88% of polled scientists say that GMOs are safe, while virtually none say that GMOs are unsafe

[video=youtube;KNtCV67biBA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNtCV67biBA[/video]


I understand that many people do not like the politics of GMOs, but we mustn't turn our backs on the scientists

 

Yeah yeah yeah. Now find me a reliable, unbiased study that has done in-depth investigation into the possible health effects of a diet of herbicide-dosed crops that were sprayed with herbicides, focusing on the effects of the herbicides in the harvested crop. GMO is fine. Herbicides are the issue. Show me a study.

 

Wow, I agree with you! Although I am not for colonizing space haha.

 

BTW, Bill Nye The Science Guy and Neil D. Tyson were both long opposed to glyphosate use on crops based on science and scientific studies. Both were invited to visit with Monsanto top Execs to "discuss" the subject, and both came away with a 180-degree change, now touting Roundup.

Neither will discuss their meeting in detail and any "influence" the execs may have used can be determined.

 

If you're looking for unbiased science you are not going to find it, the science on the matter is very biased, just as the science on global warming is biased. Furthermore, the American Association for the Advancement of Science is the largest general scientific society in the world.. but much more than this, there are no scientific communities that exist who have ruled GMOs are unsafe. None

 

You mean food has never changed throughout history? Go figure.

 

Major sigh!

The Game They Play is to obfuscate
selective breeding as "genetic modification".

See the diff?
A bacterial worm poison genome could have never occured in my corn by selective breeding.
A bacterial worm poison genome can occur in my corn via "genetic modification".

Now if y'wanna play word games that selective breeding = genetic modification in a GMO discussion,
don't expect a modicum of respect from Moi

Moi
Ban Monsanto Trolls


r > g

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.

​

 

No, Neil Degrasse Tyson was not opposed to glyphosate, as for Bill Nye, he wrote an article describing his visit to a Monsanto lab

It's also worth noting that we've been able to decrease our pesticide use by 40% thanks to the advancements made from GMOs. We're able to create greater yields with less land and less water.. which is of vital importance in combating climate change and world hunger

 

So buy foods that are labeled "GMO Free".

 

We've actually been able to reduce our use of pesticides (poisons) by over 40% thanks to GMOs. This notion that GMOs have been used to increase the amount of toxins in our foods holds no scientific basis. It's as simple as taking the vitamins/genetics of one organism, and inserting them into another. It is in effect using a lab to crossbreed plants

 

in effect using a lab to crossbreed plants
Oh the simplicity of your analogy, another major sigh
Selective breeding is within a species, not across Phylum or Kingdoms of Life. plant/animal

Last I heard those worms are now resistant to the worm poison engineered in my corn.
Now, it is locked in our food supply, y'see.
Oh it is just "in effect using a lab to crossbreed plants." Don't worry.

Moi


r > g

View attachment 41118
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.


​

 

I cannot help observing that the GMO debate is a classic example of a very human condition: when our lives are secure and we have nothing to worry about, we find something to get worried about, because our lives are apparently meaningless without a source of angst. The success of politicalforum.com and politicians of all stripes relies on this.

A sane and logical human race (how boring that would be!) would take a reasonable level of steps to assure that something new - like GMO crops - don't pose a threat. Then, we throw them out there and see if problems appear that we didn't anticipate. Most of the time, nothing does, and all is good. If a problem does emerge, we don't panic and plow all GMOs under; we study exactly what the issue is, and fix that.

That is true of everything we take for granted. Canned foods could have contained leached in metallic contaminants, and I believe a few of the early ones did leach lead. But we found it and fixed it. If we had just thrown up our hands at the notion of foods contained in metal, a large part of the food supply for the last several generations would have been unavailable.

I'm guessing most of our anti-GMO participants use a cell phone. Haven't you heard that they will cook your brain? Lots of people think so, with as much evidence as anti-GMO people bring forward.

I'm not saying we should just ignore the possibility of GMO-related issues. By all means, be alert! But rejecting en bloc a new biotechnology with obvious significant benefits just because something might be wrong with it is foolish and irresponsible.

 

yes, we're NOT talking about synthetics, we are talking about GMOs, which generally consists of taking the DNA of one plant, and inserting it into another.