Dr. Davis from Dr.Oz show last week wrote a book. He says we are eating genetically modified wheat(GMO). Of course, this wheat is found in all our bread,cakes,cookies,cereals,gravies,whatever. Just read the labels. If it lists whole wheat flour or white flour as an ingredient, you are eating GMO Wheat. There would be nothing wrong with this if you don't mind eating wheat that was made in the Laboratory. And if you don't mind getting the diseases that this wheat apparently causes, like diebetes,high blood pressure,heat disease. My son sent me a box back label of Macaroni & Cheese from the UK. They have to list gmo's in that country, & the ingredient label lists, gmo wheat. It has a warning on the back of the box, which says "May cause harm to children".
Just on the ABC news. Organic frozen berries from a Oregon farm carry Hepatitis "A" virus. It is believed to come from infected worker somewhere. Berries came from Argentina, USA, & 2 other countries I didn't catch the name of.
This seems to be more of a problem than some undocumented GMO outbreak.
I'm always amused by the fear of Laboratories. If you don't like to eat food that has heritage in laboratories, then you're pretty much going to starve these days. But, as properly noted, there are vastly more important things to be concerned about in food these days than the fact that it once had something to do with a laboratory.
Also, as noted, although the fear of GMO foods is rampant, there is no evidence that such foods actually cause any harm, and laboratory studies (oooh, those evil laboratories) have looked carefully into it. I know someone who is deathly afraid of black licorice. I'm sure you can make up frightening stories about black licorice as well. I also know lots of unmodified "natural" substances that are quite deadly.
It's good to be skeptical about new and different products, but skepticism is very different than fear.
That is an interesting article. It is good that it has the references and foot notes. Many times, there are unsubstantiated claims with no references, though it is normally the "panic" news that is manipulated. It was interesting to see that there is no true GMO wheat, but only conventional or lab-based hybridization. GMO is a hot-button at the moment, and something that can be used to complain about agro-corporations and other big business, often without any scientific basis or facts.
danderlion wrote:It's good to be skeptical about new and different products, but skepticism is very different than fear.
Irrational fear at that...
Ideologically motivated bad science, pseudoscience, misinformation & outright lies irritate me too. Kind of reminds me of the anti-vaccine & global warming movements.
dreaves wrote:GMO is a hot-button at the moment, and something that can be used to complain about agro-corporations and other big business, often without any scientific basis or facts.
That is very true, as with the global warming scam. If people actually thought to 'follow the money', they would see the motivation behind the 'anti-this & anti-that crowd'. This guy is simply trying to push his book... Gore was pushing the sale of 'carbon credits'.
Very good level-headed responses! I try to grow fresh vegetables and freeze/can them. That way, I know what I am getting. However, there are some things that I need not worry about. GMO foods = one of them. If our nation's source of wheat is GMO, then it would be about impossible to stay away from it. Wheat is in everything it seems! I know this because my baby is allergic to wheat and we have to really watch what he eats and since my wife is breast feeding, she has to watch what she eats as well. It's amazing at the things that you think would not have wheat in it and it turns out it does. We just leave it up to God and he provides for us. Whether it is home-grown or store bought, He has given it to us.
dandelion: I didn't mean to offend you. Being a biology major from a University, you have had your share of the Laboratories I guess. I can understand why you would think this way. I myself would rather eat Gods food, not mans. Who do you trust, scientists or God
There may be more reason to fear Black Licorice than GMO foods. As a boy i worked in a large Candy Factory. All of the sugar based candies, jelly beans, gum drops, etc, that had become old and stale would be returned by the stores. They would all be dumped in the steam kettles, Flys, mouse turds and all, and melted, and then some Black Licorice would be added to color and flavor it. No new sugar was ever added to the licorice candies.
I do eat both Licorice and GMO foods, but have a little twinge with each bite of licorice.
If you want to see something scary in food technology, you might pay some attention to the concern about high fructose corn syrup, and it's replacement for sucrose (cane sugar) in soft drinks and other sweetened foods. We're talking natural corn glucose, chomped on by a natural bacterium, that turns into (equally natural) fructose, which is sweet. It is just now being appreciated that fructose, while it tastes just like sucrose, is processed by the liver in a very different way, and ends up as fat on the body much more readily than sucrose would. As such fructose is now being considered to be a likely nutritional obesity hazard, with strong relevance to liver disease and diabetes. The research is still being done, but such concerns should be taken more seriously than that about current GMO foods.
As to licorice with mouse turds and fly carcasses, well, hey, if it's heated enough, and is sterile, it's just protein, no? Heh.
As to being a biology major at a university, that I am certainly not. But if you want to make up stuff like that, you can make up stuff about God's food. God seems to have made natural things that taste good that are actually quite bad for you. I'm told that lantana tastes good, which is why creatures eat it (and then die). Why would he ever do that?? So you have to be a little choosy with "God's food", as one might well also be choosy with laboratory food. Scientists don't make stuff that tastes good and they know is bad for you and call it food. I dunno, who would you trust?
The world’s largest producer of seeds, Monsanto, has apparently given up on attempts to spread its genetically modified plant varieties in Europe. A German media report said the firm would end all lobbying for approval.
HoneybeeNC wrote:Do our cousins across the pond know something we don't?
Like I said, follow the money. They are 'protecting' their farmers who cannot compete with the big boys from America. The fact is 38% of the entire European Union's budget goes to 2% of the population. European farmers cannot compete in the world market without these subsidies.
When Europeans get tired of paying a greater percentage of their dwindling incomes for food or going hungry, they will welcome them back with open arms, LOL!!!
Face it, this has nothing to do with GMOs & everything to do with politics. This is no different than socialist France calling Amazon.com "a destroyer of bookshops".
Sometimes I cannot believe how people think. global warming is a joke, gmos are not a threat. do some research. as for following the money, it all goes to monsanto-they are poisoning our food supply, killing bees at an alarming rate, and buying up everyone that disagrees with them..
Hopefully all the lawsuits that have been filed, those that have been won, and those still in the works, against monsanto will bring it to its knees.
If you still think it is not a threat, now that gmo wheat has been found in oregon fields, asian countries are banning US imports. that's an 18 billion dollar industry that monsanto is singlehandly destroying, and they cannot explain how it happened. japan has banned wheat import, so has korea and china is on the verge of doing so.
Blah, blah, blah,yada, yada, yada. Good luck proving any of those accusations. LOL!!! It is simply politics. Nothing more, nothing less... In the end, everybody needs to eat or perish.
Either take personal responsibility to grow your own food & meat or don't. Step up your game & try to supply it all for a year & get back to us on the outcome. Sun City has 2,280.0 people per square mile, good luck!!!
Remember though that continuously whining about any successful company's business model will NOT put food on your table.
sadly, he is not. the research is out there, if you take the time to read it. Just because you say it isnt so, or you dont believe it, does not disprove the science of it. I suppose remaining ignorant of the facts is one way to deal with all that is happening.
risingcreek wrote:might I add that it needs to be scientifically accurate, verifyable data.
Yes it does need to be verifiable, and nothing you have posted thus far is. If you think that an article from the NYT is 'scientific', you are sorely lacking in sound judgement (most people would use it only to line the bottom of their bird cages). The simple truth is that the earth has had fluctuating temperatures since before man ever walked on it & thus before Monsanto ever exisited.
As far as your link to Natural Resources Defense Council, I had a good laugh on that one. A bunch of eviro-whackos doesn't constitute a verifiable, scientific data source in anyone's book. Maybe you should read a little bit about them... Pay attention to the last paragraph & maybe you'll understand why I say 'Follow the money':
In addition, you made specific accusations against Monstanto: "they are poisoning our food supply, killing bees at an alarming rate". Would you be so kind as to provide the verifiable, scientific data to support your statements???
oh please so the temperatures are not rising, the ice cap isnt melting, and nothing I say or cite will change your mind so why bother. hope you enjoy the continued rising temperatures and live long enough to eat your words
oh, by the way, are you also one of those people that believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
obviously you didnt bother to read the times article to see the sources of their info.
If I believed that the Earth was only 6000 yrs old, why would I post a graph of Antarctica's temperatures for the last 400,000 years??? Have you ever heard of core samples??? Obviously you slept thru your earth science classes...
Facts are facts, they actually exists... they are reality, they are concrete. Your fears have no basis in fact.
fact (fækt) noun
1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation
Actually, we don't need facts, or truth, but proof. The proof is in the pudding. W-r-Ranch. Since you seem to have all the facts, & lets also let risingcreek in on the proof, proving. I had quoted that GMO Wheat has been discovered to be causing diebetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, weight gain. A large amount of weight gain I might add, let these two people state if they eat wheat, like bread, pancakes,cakes, cookes, every day, & state if they have any of these problems. You don't have to state exactly what problem you have, but lets say, state how many of these problems you might happen to have. Then we might beable to have proof, that wheat is causing this epidemdic.
From what I have read, there is no genetically modified wheat on the market. Why genetically modified wheat was found in Oregon is a mystery. Other nations have tested wheat imported from the USA and (so far) no GMO wheat has been found.
If you study weather patterns, you will find highs & lows on temperature swings for the last millions of years. You get an extended warm period, (1000's of years), then an extended cool period.
That's why they find dinosaur bones & fossils where there were glaciers.
behillman wrote:I had quoted that GMO Wheat has been discovered to be causing diebetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, weight gain.
I suggest that more research on your part (prior to posting) may enlighten you. No where is there 'proof' that "GMO Wheat has been discovered to be causing diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, weight gain". Sheesh...
I will assume that you have heard of & have some respect for the Mayo Clinic. You will also notice that none of these links list "GMO wheat" as a cause...
behillman wrote:wheat is causing this epidemdic.
Oh bovine excrement... Fat people are prone to health problems because they eat too much & don't exercise enough. That is a provable fact. Would you like some more "pudding"???
Now do us all a favor & keep your irrational fear of the GMO/anti-Monsanto boogieman were it belongs... in your closet or under you bed (it's gotten more than old). Go outside & do some gardening, enjoy life instead of sucking the joy out of it...
People go WAY to crazy over this GMO nonsense IMHO. SO WHAT? There are far more important things to be concerned about IMHO. RELAX PEOPLE! You won't die from eating that stuff, you haven't yet have you?
I want to chime in here with a comment about the very first post above. Dr. Davis NEVER talked/wrote about GMO wheat. (I have his book.) What he does talk about is our modern wheat that has been hybridized since the 1950's to produce more wheat kernels on much shorter stalks. The shorter stalks mean less waste in the fields because the stalks do not fall over as much.
HoneybeeNC wrote:Tommy - some of us prefer not to consume herbicides/pesticides with every mouthful of food.
You don't have to.
w_r_ranch wrote:take personal responsibility to grow your own food & meat or don't. Step up your game & try to supply it all for a year & get back to us on the outcome.
I certainly can respect a person's decision to be 'totally organic' as it shows personal responsibility on their part.
What I believe is wrong is for a person to actively & willfully spread ideologically-motivated bad science, pseudoscience, misinformation & outright lies. It is a sign of their willful ignorance & a lack of ethics, regardless of their motivation (acquiring a 'grant', selling their book, carbon credits, etc). Some here choose to give their tactic approval, while others offer their full endorsement without knowing their basis for doing so. That is just plain wrong, IMO.
darius: If you want to quote something, that is your right. But do not go into my post & try to change what I have posted. I stand behind everything I wrote. Come up with some of your own ideas,. Also, while we are on this subject, a person does not have to be a doctor to figure out what is bad or good for us to eat. If you were to feed a dog or cat, bread,cake,cookies(wheat products) every day, they would become anemic & probally die. But that is exactly what we humans are eating.
Just noticed this thread and am wondering why the people who object to the concept of reining in GMOs bother to post on it. I don't understand why you don't just stop following the thread and leave it to people who do have concerns. As we saw on the previous thread, you're not going to convince them and they're not going to convince you, so why spend your time (and unleash your vitriol) here?
Behillman, there is no GMO wheat being sold in the U.S. Trials of GMO wheat were run in the early years of this century, but the wheat was never approved for distribution because there was a great deal of resistance from wheat farmers, who were concerned that consumers would not accept a modified product that was so much a staple in our food system. In addition foreign buyers would have boycotted it. The GMO wheat which was found on a farm in Oregon is an issue because it was not supposed to be released for general consumption, so the question is how it got into the field and are there other wheat crops that are similarly affected.
behillman, I was NOT trying to change your post, only pointing out that the information about what Dr. William Davis actually believes is contrary to what you posted. Obviously some misinterpretation somewhere. I've done a lot of research on his work, and admire his stance.
Put on your big boy whitey-tighties and do some internet research on Dr. Davis and what he really says about hybrid wheat, and see if he ever says ANYTHING that link health issues to GMO wheat.
We just had a thread closed that was all about labeling. So why hash it all over again.
Does anybody do anything but worry about these things. Do you even bother planting your favorite "non GMO" seeds ?
Get a life !
greenhouse_gal wrote:Just noticed this thread and am wondering why the people who object to the concept of reining in GMOs bother to post on it. I don't understand why you don't just stop following the thread and leave it to people who do have concerns. As we saw on the previous thread, you're not going to convince them and they're not going to convince you, so why spend your time (and unleash your vitriol) here?
There are some new people posting who have questions. I suspect this topic is going to resurface with increasing frequency because of all the press GMO agriculture is getting. But no one has to read this thread. See above.
It is also rude to call people irrational and/or tell them to "get a life" because you don't agree with them. DG has a policy of mutual respect which should be adhered to.
HoneybeeNC wrote:I suspect in the not too distant future, most seeds will have the terminator gene so that seed prices will be at the mercy of those who created them.
And even if this was to come to pass, how is this different than say most computer software??? You pay for a subscription for a specified period of time (not a lifetime) & the originators of the technology retain ownership as it is their 'intellectual property'.
BTW, Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product. While the technology certainly exists to accomplish this (through the acquisition of Delta and Pine Land Company in 2007), it is a non-event...
greenhouse_gal wrote:Just noticed this thread and am wondering why the people who object to the concept of reining in GMOs bother to post on it. I don't understand why you don't just stop following the thread and leave it to people who do have concerns. As we saw on the previous thread, you're not going to convince them and they're not going to convince you, so why spend your time (and unleash your vitriol) here?
I got involved for the simple reason that most of what is posted here regarding GMOs is based on ideologically motivated bad science, pseudoscience, misinformation & outright lies as I stated at the top of this thread.
Now, why are YOU here? Do you have something factual to add this time???
HoneybeeNC wrote:My only request is that genetically engineered food be so labeled. And to those who say doing so will raise food prices so they will no longer be able to afford to eat ... I ask
How much do you suppose it would cost for the following statement to be added to labels?
Why don't you just assume that foods that do not label themselves as GMO-free contain the things you seek to avoid? Is there a shortage of products that meet your dietary restrictions? It is certainly simple to find "organic" food for sale.
Would not a voluntary label on specially grown food that meets your needs be simpler than forcing every processed product on the market to have a "this product may contain GMO" type label?
As far as the costs of implementing any of your form of labeling goes, how about doing the research for yourself??? Think about how you are going to guarantee
that not 'cross contamination' will occur (separate growing fields, decontaminating transport trucks/farm equipment, both the storage & processing plants themselves and the separate warehouses).
When you arrive at the estimated costs, it will then become a 'no-brainer' decision for you... Just shop at one of your organic stores & pay the price for your 'chosen lifestyle' or grow your own food.
greenhouse_gal wrote:It is also rude to call people irrational and/or tell them to "get a life" because you don't agree with them. DG has a policy of mutual respect which should be adhered to.
With all respect to the mutual respect policy, it is not rude to be honest.
Let's see if this works better than the first one.
But what he's saying is what Darius pointed out - that modern wheat has been bred over the centuries to be very different from the wheat that our ancestors ate. This isn't GMO wheat - created in a laboratory through insertion of specific genes from other species in its DNA - but simply wheat that has been crossed and recrossed to change the strains and breed for specific traits, just as crops have been bred and hybridized for centuries.
In the other thread, when mentioned that non GMO label the food as such, it was not well received. Seems the thinking is force big business to do as the minority wishes.
Seems as though some farmers, & others are beginning to think along the lines of going back to different seeds. Weeds are becoming resistant to RU. One farmer found that a ½ pound of sugar mixed with any spray, per year, will keep aphids off his soybeans. Apparently the aphids can't handle the proteins & die from lack of food.
BT works the same way for caterpillars, such as cabbage lopers & corn borers. That is where the BT corn comes in & potatoes are sprayed with BT to knock out potato bugs. BT is an organic pesticide and can be used on organic crops.
Believe it or not big business like Monsanto doesn't want to kill people or soils, because if they did they would soon be out of business. How many people own stock in these big businesses through mutual funds.
Behillman, The link I posted worked because I changed the hyphens, as you indicated. The second link you provided does talk about GMO wheat -
"A new GM wheat in development by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CIRO), an Australian governmental research agency, may permanently alter the genes of the humans and animals that consume it.
but Dr. Davis wasn't saying that it's in use here, just that an organization in Australia is developing it, and there are obvious dangers if it can alter the genes of organisms that consume it. Thanks for providing that link; I hadn't heard of this.
What is bothering you, Ranch? We told her (or him) that Dr. Davis wasn't talking about GMO wheat, so she quoted an article to show us that in fact he was, although he wasn't saying that GMO wheat is approved and available for sale in the U.S.
But why do you care what behillman writes? It's her (or his) thread and she can say what she likes here.
What part of the following do you have a challenge comprehending???
w_r_ranch wrote:I got involved for the simple reason that most of what is posted here regarding GMOs is based on ideologically motivated bad science, pseudoscience, misinformation & outright lies as I stated at the top of this thread.
Now, why are YOU here? Do you have something factual to add this time???
It sure seems like it to me as you constantly criticize others who are posting. It has been politely suggested that you simply ignore the thread since it obviously does not met your personal criteria as what should be posted. Since you are not respecting the rights of others to free speech without impuning their intelligence, my assumption is that you have a personal agenda concerning GMO and are trying to limit discussion of this issue on Dave's Garden.
Quoting:Just shop at one of your organic stores & pay the price for your 'chosen lifestyle' or grow your own food.
I do precisely that. My fear is that these options will not be available to me or my children at some point.
Most of the organic food I purchase has been produced in countries other than the USA. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to support American farmers? And before you ask how I know these foods come from abroad...it says so right on the label
When/if it becomes illegal to grow anything other than patented seeds, and the price of those seeds is beyond the reach of those who would purchase them, you and your ilk will be singing a different tune. Or are you so wealthy that you don't care?
Hopefully, Yankee Cat, those selling the seeds will tell the purchasers in advance that the seeds will not reproduce. Unfortunately, they will probably not inform the purchaser that future seed prices will escalate to the point that they will be unaffordable. Then these poor farmers will have to sell their land to the seed producers, who will then hire the previous owners to raise the crops.
From what I have read, this has already happened in poorer nations.
What would really be a breath of fresh air (and a value to the forum) would be a discussion of this subject based solely on facts that are backed up with actual verifiable scientific data (including the methodology utilized to arrive at those conclusions).
That would be wonderful. Unfortunately, the biotech industries do not provide them. Which, admittedly, means we are left to speculate. Perhaps if they provided verifiable information, our fears would be obviated.
You did not answer my question. Is this your web site?
[deleted by admin]
Have you ever heard the Edmund Burke quote "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."?
Yes, I'm familiar with the quotation.
Personally, I would prefer biotech industries stop twiddling with the DNA of our food supply and leave it to God and nature to continue on the same course it's been for millions of years. Or, I could sit back and let them continue with their untested experiments. What will happen if they are proven to be wrong? It's not like we will be able to go back to the way things were. Unfortunately heritage seeds don't stay viable forever.
So, yes, your quote: "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing?" is a good one.
I have visited rice farms in India and I saw women with babies on their backs, spreading chemicals by hand. When we engineer food well, we get better yields, better results with less water and other harsh conditions, and farmers can use fewer chemicals and pesticides. I have some concerns and urge for careful development and use of GMOs. But if I was alive when penicillin was discovered, I would have urged for the careful development and use of that too. And by the way, the anti-GMO science is very poor. Be careful about the anti-GMO hype, and ask yourself who funds the anti-GMO crowd. Could it be chemical companies, or others with motives that are not as pure as you think?
Well, pooh. I wrote a response this morning to HoneyBee and Memory about terminator seeds, but it evaporated into space. The gist was that the foreign aid policy of the U.S. often requires farmer's to use only Monsanto seeds as part of the deal. (Seeds are free in the initial aid package.) That's especially true in Africa.
We all know Monsanto does not allow seed-saving, so the seeds might as well carry the Terminator Gene.
Chester67 I don't see anything bad about women working in the fields. Its much more healthier then sitting in an airconditioned house, watching tv, & eating chips. Besides, they are working for their food, instead of collecting food stamps. As a gardener, we all go out into our gardens when its hot,wet,cold,etc. You can call us stupid, but we like working in our gardens. So, do not feel sorry for those women. I feel proud of those women.
Behillman, maybe I did not make that point well enough: I have no problem with women working in fields, I love working my garden or I would not be here. The women were carrying large bags of dangerous pesticides and other chemicals.. spreading with their bare hands, breathing an unhealthy cloud of dust. An enormous quantity of dangerous pesticides and chemicals polluting our dirt and water. The point: pesticides and chemicals are a more clear and present danger to people. GMOs are not perfect and should be used carefully, but there are real benefits too.
Quoting:GMOs are not perfect and should be used carefully, but there are real benefits too.
From what I have read, none of the so-called benefits have been forthcoming. More and more herbicides are being applied to combat superweeds. Although yields the first year were higher, subsequent harvests have not repeated the higher yields. Farmland in some areas have been abandoned because of superweeds.
Now another herbicide called dicamba (RoundUp Extend) is about to foisted upon us that is supposed to kill the superweeds.
Why they don't think this, too, will produce super-superweeds is beyond me!
I was reading an article that said dicamba is very volatile and likely to spread to neighboring crops. Which, in turn, will necessitate those farm owners to switch to GMO crops or lose their livelihood. How true this is, I don't know - I don't believe everything I read, so only time will tell how accurate this statement is.
I'm not sure that there is any scientific evidence showing the benefits of GMO's - at least non that is available publicly. If such an article shows up, I would like to read it.
Those that produce GMO's have said they are safe. The USDA says there is no difference between non-GMO's and GMO's. As far as I can tell the only people who have done any testing, are the companies that produced the seeds.
Some foreign countries have done testing - but whose to say they are not following their own agenda. From what I have read, they thought GMO's were a bad idea.
Personally, I am not against the production of GMO's - I am concerned about the herbicides/pesticides/fungicides that are spread on agricultural crops in the millions of tons. This cannot be good for us, or the planet. I am also concerned that herbicides and in some cases insecticides are part of the plant itself.
Is anyone here concerned with the fact that every meal they eat contains, in one way or another, a pesticide/herbicide/fungicide? Would you purposely sprinkle these poisons on your food like salt? Do you think unborn children should be fed these agents? What about young children? Does it concern you that these poisons are in their food?
This planet is our only home. If WE don't take of it, who will?
Don't forget the millions of city residents that spread chemicals & commercial fertilizers on their lawns & gardens with no supervision. Then it is washed into our rivers so they can blame the farmers.
That's true CG. Maybe they should be required to fork over $200, take the class & pass the test to have an applicator's license like we are & have to endure the record keeping/spot checks & take the mandatory continuing education classes to 'maintain' it...
I also wonder how many of these yahoos have receive land steward awards from their respective states...
We seem to be wandering off topic. No one doubts that homeowners are affecting streams with chemical herbicides and pesticides; it's just a question of limiting exposure wherever you can to minimize harm. But the topic was GMOs. I know that the FDA is testing as fast as it can to see whether other wheat crops are contaminated with unapproved GMO stock, but the damage to wheat farmers whose product is now being rejected abroad is enormous. I see they are suing Monsanto to try to recoup some of their losses.
greenhouse_gal wrote:I know that the FDA is testing as fast as it can to see whether other wheat crops are contaminated with unapproved GMO stock, but the damage to wheat farmers whose product is now being rejected abroad is enormous. I see they are suing Monsanto to try to recoup some of their losses.
It doesn't appear to be the farmers suing (far too early for that)... Not so for the moonbat activists that as always hope to extort some pittance to make them go away...
Meanwhile, the first lawsuits over the modified wheat have been filed, in Kansas and Washington State. The Center for Food Safety launched one suit seeking class-action status, with several others filed by individual farmers. Lawyers have been scouring Oregon for wheat farmers ready to sign on to even more lawsuits, says Blake Rowe, chief executive officer of the Oregon Wheat Commission. “I call them ambulance chasers,” he says.
Funny how the suspect wheat field is located in Oregon, yet the 2 lawsuits are filed in Kansas and Washington State by none other than 'The Center for Food Safety', LOL!!! Read more about them at:
Yes, money IS a major factor because farmers in Kansas and Washington State are apparently also having their wheat harvests rejected by foreign buyers due to fears that they too are contaminated with GMOs, so they're losing their shirts.
No, apparently our wheat farmers sell a huge percentage of their wheat to buyers overseas; it's that market that they've lost until (and if) it turns out that this was just an isolated incident. Wheat prices here wouldn't change.
Quoting:Reaction in the export markets, which buy up to 90 percent of what's produced in the Pacific Northwest, has been cautious. Japan, the biggest customer, postponed purchase orders for western white wheat used to make noodles and crackers. South Korea announced it will test all wheat and wheat flour arriving from the U.S. South Korea said it hasn't detected genetically modified material in 45 initial tests of wheat imports from Oregon.
Just saw this; interesting study if you like science.
A significant number of genetically modified (GM) crops have been approved to enter
human food and animal feed since 1996, including crops containing several GM genes
'stacked' into the one plant. We randomised and fed isowean pigs (N=168) either a mixed
GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet (N=84) or an equivalent non-GM diet (N=84) in a longterm toxicology study of 22.7 weeks (the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from
weaning to slaughter). Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each
group. The GM corn contained double and triple-stacked varieties. Feed intake, weight
gain, mortality and blood biochemistry were measured. Organ weights and pathology
were determined post-mortem. There were no differences between pigs fed the GM and
non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry
measurements. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs.
GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025). GM-fed
pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% of GM-fed pigs
compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (p=0.004). The severe stomach inflammation was
worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0 (p=0.041), and
GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034).
"Mycotoxin analyses (Midwest Laboratories Inc, Omaha, Nebraska, US) showed 2.08 ppb
total aflatoxins and 3.0 ppm total fumonisins in a pooled sample of the GM feed and no
aflatoxins and 1.2 ppm total fumonisins in a pooled sample of the non-GM feed."
Aflatoxins are incredibly toxic and come from contaminated grain or peanuts.
I would have interpeted this as "the GM feed was unfortunately contaminated with toxic mold and invalidated the entire, expensive study". But then I didn't spend a lot of time and money setting the study up.
"These levels are well below the USA and EU limits for mycotoxins in pig feed.
In addition, according to common industry practice, a mycotoxin
binding agent (200 mesh bentonite clay) was added to the diets of young pigs (Table 1)."
Well, alflatoxins are supposed to attack the liver more than the stomach (though high doses cause esophageal cancer, I know from college days).
I see limits for dogs at 100-300 ppb, so "2 ppb" may really be negligible. maybe that in itself does not invalidate the study. I'll go look up "fumonisins ".
Of course, it meant that Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus ("weedy molds" whose growth is favored by "high moisture content (at least 7%) and high temperature.") (source Wikipedia). Maybe the GM feed was stored badly in the piggery, despite all the care taken to keep other conditions equal.
These authers did well to specify that they easured the mycotoxins in "pooled samples". I know in peanut silos for human consumtpion, the sampling proceedure is (or was, in the 1970s) very lame, One sample was taken, and the whole silo could pass if that sample was clean. However, at least back then, they were allowed to DILUTE a barely failing silo with several silos that were passing by a wider margin. If a re-sample showed them passing, then the contaminate4d peanuts could still be sold (for human food). Bon apetit!
Most of the paper "smells" like authentic, careful science by conscientious scientists.
I wish they had added an equal amount of alflatoxin and fumonisins to the control group, to see if they also developed stomach inflamation or ulcers.
Or said, along with all the other cautions "both feeds were stored under equal conditions and inspoectedd t9be free from mold infestation".
And I wish they had stated "we considered the aflatoxin contamination to be ignorable and unimportant" in the abstract and the first paragraph.
Hmm, I thought the earlier part of the paper talked about ulcers and gross damage, but now I see:
"In this study, a diet of GM feed had no effect on stomach erosions or ulceration but had a
significant effect on inflammation."
So they only saw inflamation, not ulcers or even erosion. Maybe I should adopt their diet: I have esophageal erosion, and almost had an ulcer. But that doesn't invalidte the pig study either ...
Hmm, fumonisins come from molds in the genus Fusarium, so the GMO feed was contaminate by at least TWO kinds of fungus or mold. . And a lot of corn has SOME of this contamination, including that eaten by humans. Very very tentstively, I think the acute txoic levels are around 10^-5 or 10^-6, whereas 3 ppb is 3x10^-9. So tentatively and presumably, the fumonisin residue from mold contamination would not by itself kill pigs, by a concentration of a couple hundred. Unless eating the same moldy grain for your whole pig-life is worse for you than just a few moldy bags now and then.
THIS, however, I would DISagree with, based on what they admitted in their data section:
"The result is attributed to the difference in diet, since the presence of mycotoxins, possible confounders such as infectious diseases, animal
husbandry considerations or temporal, between-person, measurement and recording bias were controlled across the two groups."
No, the GMO group HAD two known kinds of mycotoxin contamination and the control group did not.
I wonder what other moldy contamination occured but was not measured for, and whether pigs typically get stomach irritation from eating moldy soy and corn?
I take this as an example of how hard it is to do long-term nutriition studies.
For example, 13-14% of both groups died during the study, which was "within expected rates for US commercial piggeries. ... due to usual commercial piggery-related matters and not to their diets. One out of 7 died, but the only difference they found was enlargement of one organ and inflamation in another. They DID see a difference, but they had to do a better set of autopsies than any of the papers they cite to find it.
it might be a great study that provided some evidence that (for example) the CRY proteinss may irritate mamalian guts UNLIKE prior thought on that subject, or it might have been a study where they noticed they had been feeding moldy soy and corn but had to finish the study and say "well THESE SPECIFIC mycotxins SHOULD not have caused severe, easily-noticed effects, and maybe there were no other relevant molds causing the stomach irritation ... and after spending all that money and time, we HAD to publish and state what we saw, but explain away the moldy feed."
I'll add my vote for personal courtesy, even though I had intended to stay out of this thread due to the consistant pattern of misrepresentation in literature pointed to by many as "scientific studdies" when they ranged from gross to moderate mis-representation (in one case, mis-representation of what WAS a good study, but which had conclusions nothing like what one professional scare-monger represened them as.
After the prior thread, I gave up on researchuing andd debunking passinate pseudo-science on the side of "be afaraid, be vary afraid". The consistency of the nonsense or seeming deceit made those just-not-worth-listening-to.
Too bad, because toxicology IS a difficult field when the effects are not near-term and blatent. The loud anti-GMO "propaganda" might be drowning out some vlaid but subtle and hard-to-prove science. But if a political group yells "wolf" loudly enoguh and frequently enough, no one will lusten if the say reasonably "this kind of study might start to suggest a moderate deleterious effect we SHOULD pay attentetion to".
(By my defination, any group that advocates public policy is a political group.)
P.S. Someone demanded "scientific proof" that GMOs
P.S. Someone demanded "scientific proof" that GMOs gave any real benefit, or words to that effect.
Obviously they allow you to use much less of the most toxic insecticides and herbicides. Glyphosate instead of chlorinated hydrocarbons, and organic Bt instead of organophosphates.
And there are experiments with GM varieties that are more drought-tolerant or that grow with lower requirements for fertilizer. I don't know if any of those are commercialized yet.
The fact that farmers pay more to get the GM seeds proves there are economic reasons.
Maybe the question was intended sarcastically, to make the point that "proving" things "scientifically" is not practical in a forum that does not expect to publish papers dozens of pages long, that can mostly only be critiqued fairly by someone with a PhD in relevant fields or the patience and ability to detect gross deceit.
I'll try to critique a study, but I'm bound to miss things or fixate on things that might realistically not be a big issue, like 2-3 ppb mycotoxins.
P.S. I forgot to mention that the "pig stomach inflamation" study used GM corn or soy that was 'triple-stacked" with GE genes. They used normal crossing techniques (not GE) to cross GM varieties with 3 different "imported" genes into one plant, to collect the GM fodder. I don't know how real-world that is, but it is a good way to increase a scientist's odds of getting some result that he CAN measure.
As usual, one study leads to 3 more.
Repeat the test with non-moldy GM feed, or equally-moldy non-GM feed.
Repeat the study with GM fodder containing only typical GE modifications, not the 'triple-stack".
repeast the study with only GM corn.
repeast the study with only GM soy.
Repeat the study with pigs fed diferent %s of GM and non-GM feed, but see if there is a CORRELATION between the maount of GM fodder and the obsevred effects (doese-effect study). Extrapolate those lines down to whatever the "normal comemrcial practice" is.
But time and funding are not infinite.
You might be able to do the last one "one the cheap", like a :"population study" by just recording how much GM corn or soy was in EVERY animal's feed. But you would still have to do the extra-craeful autopies they were so proud of..
P.S. It seems odd that the authors never compared their results to pigs fed a 'normal' diet. What is the 'normal' % of GM feed? Do "most" pigs have these stomach inflamations?
The authors of the study reported that the level of mycotoxins in the GM feed was well below accepted USA and EU limits; furthermore a mycotoxin binding agent was added to the diets to control for this. Other studies have reported stomach inflammation where GMO feed was utilized. Apparently the anomalies in uterine size were also noted in other studies using rats, which makes this a finding of serious concern.
At any rate, there are an increasing number of studies which suggest that classification of GMO foods as virtually identical to non-GMO products may not be substantiated by the data.
Here's another report that I just ran across: Syngenta faced criminal charges in a German court for falsifying information about the known toxicity of GMO corn it had sold to farmers for feed. The farmer who filed the suit lost all of his cows over a series of several years after they began showing intestinal damage, poor milk production, and other illnesses that resulted in his having to euthanize them.
Everybody knows that the internet is full of articles from anti-GMO hacks looking for either 'donations' or B.S. 'studies. Give it up already, no one cares about them, other than a few people here & others in la-la-land that feed on your shared irrational fears..
Sheesh... The guys cows probably died of old age & hard winters...
I've never had a flu shot, and have never had the flu.
greenhouse_gal wrote:I've never had a flu shot either, and I guess I won't be starting now!
What has this got to do with the target of you affection (Monsanto)??? Deflecting is a sign of weakness. Just say'in.
Let the thread die a natural death, especially since neither of you have anything concrete (aka scientific) to add... you have no support here... or across America... or across Europe for that matter. Face it, people just don't buy into your form of fertilizer & numerous polls support that statement.
Just give it up... & get on with your lives. Go outside & grow your gardens, if you even have one (I say that because neither of you have ever posted a picture since I've been here)...
Darius, some of this new stuff is interesting, though. Behillman, the thread-starter, asked about GMO foods in our supermarket so this seemed like a good place to post these developments. I wasn't familiar with the pig studies - were you?
Yankeecat, your garden looks gorgeous, but whether or not you or Honeybee or I have one is irrelevant to this discussion. Thanks for posting the pictures, though. They're inspirational!
it is also sure to lead to all sorts of serious side effects, including the deadly nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GSB), which is listed on the shot as a potential side effect.
Unless there's been new research results in the last 20 years since I had GBS, the warning on vaccines is pure lawyer repllent. (There might well have been new results in 20 years).
But when the warnings were first added, it was because ANY storng immune reaction has a small chance of triggering GBS. A cold, infection, pregnancy, even in theory a heavy dose of an unusual pollen.
The difference betwween getting GBS from a cold 9as I did), or from a flu shot or other vaccine, is ONLY that you can sue a pharmacuetical company but you can't sue a cold. So they have to put the warning on vaccines. Obviously, vacines HAVE to cause an immue reaction or they aren;'t effective, that's what a vaccine is.
So an author that links any specific vaccinne to GBS is advertising that he's an ignoramus or a liar ... well, someone who deliberately creates a false impression to advance an agenda. Someone who feels entitiled to mislead trustful people so they will think what he wants them to, not what honestly reported facts would have led them to think.
But it makes me cranky when some liar uses a syndrome I had to frighten people.
I don't have a big problem with people who hold an opinion that is not very strongly supported by academic evidence. Any one study and most ten studies can't "prove" much at the level of real-world political decisions. The real world is very complicated. Maybe being somewhat more cautious than existing scientific evidence would support is a path of wisdom - I think that's arguable either way..
Everything is a trade-off, and "more food" or "cheaper food" has to be balanced against "some risk" or "imaginary risk" or "natural caution". Even the Unabomber knew that we either had to use lots and lots of modern technology, or some large % of the popukation would have to volunteer to be euthanized.
Waving the red "GMO" flag and trying to scare people that "GMO vaccines" have more risk of causing GBS than a sneeze is a more speicifc deceit, without support.
>> sure to lead to all sorts of serious side effects,
It doesn't take any scientific training to recognize unsupported hot air couched in scary terms. In my opinion, ordinary intelligence should identify that as fear-based propaganda.
>> deadly nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome
It's a syndrome, not a disease. Both of those words have specific meanings and it is not a disease.
It's very far from 'deadly", Fiirst, it's rare, around 10-20 cases per million per year.
Second, the mortality rate for people who get it is pretty low, 2-4%. If you soend any time in a spinal rehab or head-injury rehab, or where they treat MS patients, they DON'T call it "deadly GBS". They say "he only has GBS, lucky guy".
80% have a complete recovery.
90% of all victims recover 90% of their strength. Very few cases proress far enoguh to interfere with breathing.
>> the death rate is still about 2–3% even in the best intensive care units. Worldwide, the death rate runs slightly higher (4%),
>> Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GSB),
It's "GBS", not "GSB". The author is not just a clumsy liar, he's an idiot. Or as bad a typist as I am.
There was increased incidence of Guillain–Barré syndrome following influenza immunization during the 1976-1977 swine flu pandemic; however, epidemiological studies since then have demonstrated either an extremely small increased risk following immunization (under 1 additional case per million vaccinations) or no increased risk.
• ^ Lehmann HC P et al. (Sept 2010). "Guillain-Barré syndrome following influenza vaccination". Lancet Infect Dis 10 (9): 643–51. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70140-7. PMID 20797646.
• ^ Liang et al; Li, Li; Liu, Da-Wei; Li, Ke-Li; Wu, Wen-Di; Zhu, Bao-Ping; Wang, Hua-Qing; Luo, Hui-Ming et al. (February 2011). "Safety of Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccine in Postmarketing Surveillance in China". New England Journal of Medicine 364 (7): 638–647. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1008553. PMID 21288090.
I AM annoyed by deliberate propaganda to push a political agenda, especially if it falsly invokes "science" as supporting its lies. I don't accept the theory that it's good to advance a political agenda by lying. Unfiortunately, such a high % of anti-GMO publicity that I've had pointed out to me as "good science" is obvious deceit that I'm ready to generalize. The "pigs stomach inflamtion study" that GG pointed out was the best one so far, but maybe because I only read the paper, not articlews claiming "GMOs cause ulcers".
I did see, and quoted, their statement that tjhe mycotoxinlevels were below the allowed rate. But they also made the point that the thing they found (inflamed stomach lining) is NOT tested for by other studies. So yes, stomach inflamtion MIGHT be occuring due to very low levels of mycotoxins.
I'm more interested in their comments avbout CRY protiens causing insect gut damage, and that thye have found a new unsuspected mechanism, by which they cause mamalian stomach inflmataion.
- are CRY protiens present in comemrically sold GM food? Are they being considred for approval?
- do doses of pure CRY protiens have the smae effect (maybe at dopses high enough to see the effect in one month isntead of many motnhs
- is there a dose-response curve?
- do you need 'triple-stacked" CRY protiens to cause the effect?
- what is thee mechanism?
- (almost unanswerable) is there any similar detectable human rea vtion to real-world levels in realworld foods?
I was very surprised to find out how educated everyone is concerning GMO Wheat & Hybridized Wheat. For most Americans, every single meal & snack contains foods made with wheat flour.Bagels,pancakes, for breakfast. fettuccine Alfredo for lunch,pasta with Italian bread for dinner.Poppy seed muffin for dessert.
I know, behillman. I think we depend on it far too much. But re the education, when the term GMO is in the name of a thread you'll naturally attract people who are interested in the subject and have done some reading about it.
1lisac, don't you find Consumers Union's statement to be interesting? I don't think posting it is going in circles; their reaction to the pig study (and the pig study itself) is brand new and I saw it as a watershed in mainstream reaction to GMOs.
I've glanced down through several of these posts, and here's our position as moderators of the site: this issue is obviously contentious, and it is highly unlikely that anyone's argument is going to change anyone else's position.
So here's what I'm asking each of you to look within yourselves and determine.
IF you can discuss the subject matter without personal attacks and denigrating other poster's positions, fine - discuss away.
If you can't, it's time to walk away.
We would much prefer that members take responsibility for their own choices in how they act and react here in the garden. Know when it's time to leave well enough alone.
If you can't/won't do that, and this thread continues in this vein, we will have to shut it down and "bird dog" some folks to make sure the rancorous exchanges don't continue elsewhere. Please don't force us to do that - it's unpleasant for us and you. Our goal is to keep DG the fun, friendly and informative place it has been for almost 13 years. As members, you can help us do that and many of you have done that for a very long time. We sincerely hope everyone here will choose to not spoil things for yourself or others.
I saw that, Honeybee. I only buy organic apples anyway. Once in a while I'll try a non-organic apple and they always make my lips burn, now that I'm not desensitized to the sprays anymore. Apples are among the most pesticide-laden fruits out there, along with strawberries, when they're not organic. But I do worry for my grandkids.
An article in Vegetable grower magazine talked about a test on cookies.
They took 2 cookies out of a batch, both made exactly the same way. Labeled one organic & the other one as regular.
People tasted them. They said the organic one tasted lower in fat and were deemed more nutritious, but the regular cookie tasted better.
Talk about nonsense!!
GG - I try to buy as much organic food as possible, but sometimes it is hard to find. I shop mostly at Trader Joe's because, according to their website, they do not carry anything that contains GMO ingredients under their "Trader Joe" label.
Here is the lead researcher's responses to Monsanto's critiques of the pig study. In light of Rick Corey's comments I find it interesting that no one is discussing mycotoxin levels as a possible factor in inflammation - not even Monsanto's scientists.
Thanks for the Consumer Union link. It was one case where the study was NOT mis-represented in the non-technical press.
In fact they pointed something out that I had missed: the 'severe inflamation" also occured in animals NOT fed the GM fodder:
"the rate of severe stomach inflammation was more than 2.5-fold higher, on average, for GE-fed pigs compared to non-GE-fed pigs \
(32 percent vs. 12 percent, respectively). "
I had thought that the GM feed caused a symtpom not otherwise seen. But it only made something that already happens, more frequent.
Maybe the thickened/heavier ovaries were a whole new symptom.
Persoaqnlly, I don't think that some group "viewing something with alarm" adds anything to the factual content of the report they are referring to. Maybe it has more political impact becuase it leaves out most of the details and is easier to read.
P.S. When I refer to propaganda and lying, I have tried to always make it clear that I'm criticising text in the links that have been posted - authors of publications - not DG members and their posts.. I have not been calling any DG members liars or intetenionally mis-representing. . I'm sure everyone here passionately believes what they're saying.
HoneybeeNC said "I'm sure glad I'm not a pig, or any other farm animal raised without access to green pastures and still waters.
How can living with painful inflammation be considered "normal" by anyone's standards?"
Feedlot animals don't lead "normal" lives, and I would suspect that they are highly stressed and suffer from all the ills that stress creates. That's one reason why they lace their food with antibiotics, which is a whole 'nother issue.
Rick, yes, everyone here does seem to be rather passionate about his or her position. But that can make for good discussions as long as everyone stays pleasant.
I just tried to look something up in the earlier "GMO" threads in the vegetable gardening forum, and saw that the links between the first and second thread were removed, and they are locked so they can't be "bumped".
Here are the links in case anyone wanted to refer back to prior discussions and links.
Since some of my health problems are soy-related, I've done a lot of research in the last 2-3 years. Most soy is now GMO unless specified as 'organic', and soy additives hide under about 40 or more different names in processed foods... names such as flavonoids which wouldn't make one automatically think of soy when reading the ingredients.
I got a chuckle out of the post that said the poor animals in a feed lot must suffer from Stress.
For a Cow, living in a feed lot is the animal equivalent of being on the California Welfare Program.
All of the Stress inducing factors, like earning your food, paying your doctor, buying medicine, etc., is taken care of. So you get to loll around in the shade waiting for the dinner bell, or feed truck.
But the poor cows out on the range often have to walk uphill a couple of miles to find something to eat, then they have to walk downhill a couple of miles to get a drink of muddy water, and the flies bite, because there is no fly sprayer machine at those country waterholes. So tell me again about the poor cows and the stress. Have you ever seen a cow in a feed lot with his nose covered with cactus thorns because he got hungry enough to eat cactus?
More and more consumers are becoming aware and increasingly concerned with how farm animals are treated. Industrial type farm settings, commonly referred to as factory farms, have replaced traditional, more natural farm settings in order to produce the highest output at the lowest cost. While the MSPCA recognizes the need to find economic and efficient means of raising livestock, the Society opposes those practices--such as intensive confinement systems--which cause needless pain, suffering and stress to the animals involved.
"Factory farms" are characterized by the use of crates and cages that either totally isolate individual animals from others of their species or crowd many animals together in order to save space and increase handling efficiency. Factory farms are also characterized by the manipulation of diet in ways that interfere with the animal's good health, handling animals in stressful or injurious ways, surgeries performed without appropriate use of anesthesia, surgeries performed on animals solely to prevent injuries resulting from confinement-induced stress, and selective breeding practices which produce characteristics that increase animal suffering. Factory farm practices also use an alarming number of antibiotics in order to keep animals alive and producing under unhealthy, stressful conditions. The MSPCA believes that good animal husbandry should be based on humane stewardship of livestock.
In April of 2008, The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, released a 2 1/2 year analysis based report Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America that calls for major changes in the way factory farms produce milk, eggs and meat. Three of the Commission's key recommendations are:
Banning non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials in food animal production,
Phasing out the most intensive and inhumane production practices
(i.e., gestation crates and battery cages), and
Replacing the broken farm waste system that we have today.
Read what The Pew Trust, The Washington Post and The Union of Concerned Scientists have to say about this important report.
I will look at Google if you will go out West, Texas, Wyoming, Montana, and see the conditions some of those Cows, Deer, Buffalo, etc., live under the year around on those "Traditional Farms", that may be green for two or three months in the Spring. Then be sure and stay out there watching them romp and play in January when a blizzard comes roaring through. Some of the cows and steers are lucky enough to spend a few months in a Feed Lot, which will be the best months of their lives, but the Buffalo and Deer do not have it that opportunity, so what are you going to do about them? And has anyone done some stress tests on the Range Raised animals for comparison purposes?
I assume Kobe Beef Cattle are raised in a way that the people you quote would approve of, but the last time i saw any Kobe beef for sale it was about $40.00 a pound.
I will give you the last ten thousand words on this subject, since we have learned there is no way to reconcile the true facts of life with the fantasy world your articles are written about.
There are 425,000, yes thousand, pigs butchered everyday in the USA. Where are the acres going to come from to pasture all those pigs ?
Your part of the country has feral pigs, along with the rest of the south. Ever watch any of the shows on TV that are trying to catch some of them. They do much destruction.
Your pastured pigs would destroy the grass, not eat it. Pigs like to dig holes & root for grubs & worms.
Bottom line, there is not enough real estate in the USA to pasture all the animals on farms across the country.
I count on proteins and fats in my diet a lot, and the proteins/fats from animal products (meat, eggs, cheese, yada, yada) seem to work better in my body than the proteins from some vegetables like beans.
My body doesn't tolerate vegetable fats much at all, excepting olive oils and coconut oils, neither of which I can grow.
If I had some fencing, I could have a pig or a meat goat, or maybe a beef or two in my back yard. Enough to supply meat for a year... and I could augment it with caged meat rabbits and ducks. Ducks wouldn't destroy my garden the way chickens do.
Honeybee, the study I referenced above and that Meezersfive also linked to indicated that even pigs fed non-GMO feed did have some incidence of stomach inflammation, but it was significantly less. I'm sure that factory-raised/feedlot pigs are reacting to stress just as other animals do.
By the way, Ernie, this is from a beef industry site (http://factsaboutbeef.com/tag/factory-farming/) "The truth about factory farming, or cattle feedlots, is that feedyards are made up of caring, professional people including cowboys, veterinarians and animal nutritionists who make sure cattle receive the best care possible on a daily basis, and that includes ensuring they receive a proper, nutritious and balanced diet." Most places seem to use those terms interchangeably.
I agree that we eat far too much meat, although I'd never give it up entirely.
YankeeCat, we've raised lambs and goats and currently raise chickens; that does involve butchering. DH also hunts deer on our property. I know that some people can handle that and others can't, but you can always take your animal to a slaughterhouse so you don't have to do the deed yourself. And at least you know that he or she has had a good life and has been fed on a diet you're comfortable with.
You'd be surprised what you can do if you are hungry enough. Thankfully, I am not that hungry. Yet.
My neighbor raised meat rabbits for his family, and finally quit after butchering 3,000 rabbits. He just couldn't face butchering anymore.
I remember my grandma chopping the heads off chickens, and they'd run headless around the yard. At least today the few farmers that raise pastured chickens put them upside down in a metal funnel and slit their throats. Quick, and humane.
I've learned a lot about butchering venison from a friend who shares the meat with me, but the deer are already dead and gutted when I see them.
In the real world, Factory Farming generally refers to an operation that Produces, Raises, Fattens and Markets animals, generally Pigs or Chickens, on an assembly line basis under close confinement from start to finish.
Feed Lots are places where mostly Beef Cattle that are born and raised on farms and ranches are placed to be fattened and finished by feeding them grain. Grass fed beef has yellow fat, which is not as attractive to customers. When they leave the feedlot, the meat is more tender from the fat marbling, and more attractive because the fat is whiter.
There is no law against mingling and mangling the meaning of words, but in real life a Feed Lot serves a very different purpose than a Factory Farm.
I do not believe you have quoted PETA yet, and i am sure they have lots of good stuff for you to use as talking points, too.
The title is "Anyone interested in GMO Foods in our supermarket" but it's true that the main question posted by Behillman was about GMO wheat, which gave rise to a general discussion about GMOs in our food.
I'm not concerned about this; it was a side issue. Whether it's feedlots or factory farming these animals are stressed, and that was the point. I don't care to argue it with you. You have your opinion and I have mine. I'm okay with you having your opinion but you keep attacking me and making accusations such as that I'm living in a fantasy world. That's inappropriate.
Back to our regularly scheduled programs! And please let's discuss this with mutual respect.
>> Bottom line, there is not enough real estate in the USA to pasture all the animals on farms across the country.
I think that's a key point. The question shouldn't be solely whether there are downsides to modern agriculture. We should also give some thought to what the alternatives would have as unintended consequences:
- more expensive food?
- less food production?
- broke famers?
- lower profits for stockholders of agribusinesses?
- forced redcution in world population?
- foced chnages in diets in wealthy countries? Forced how?
I think it's hilarious that someone as demented as the Unabomber made the clearest stement about that I've heard. He wanted us to use MUCH less technology - so much that we were not stressed by trying to live in ways that our evolution had not prepared us for. Like the people who point out that wheat may have some downsides.
He not only realized that doing away with as much technology as he wnated to dump would require a lasrge decrease in the population iof every country, but ALSO that there were not going to be enough volunteers for euthanasia to make his suggestions workable.
A bigger tragedy is that there are not even enough volunteers to chnage their lifestyle that some avoidable resource depletion can be avoided.
Perhaps one downside of the "lasissez faire" econiomic philosophy is that it assumes an open system, where there are always new land and markets to expand into, and raw material resources are always available for the taking. Our planet is heading twoard being a closed system, where everyone's effluent is in everyione else's face, and we are comepting for scarce resourfces
For a few decades i hoped that space stations and space colonies would teach us how we HAVE to live in a closed system. No, in the short term you can always make more money by ignoring all long-term consequences, using resoruces at the lowest cost you can drive them down to, and polluting and sleazing around laws as much as your lawyers can get away with.
(Despite the Club of Rome, every ecosystem experiences population growth until something is limitng. After a period of increased competition, there are some winners and some losers. At this time it looks like climate change will be the biggest spiked boot, rather than other kinds of pollution or material resource depletion (like oil and coal) I would hate to see rats, cockroaches, kudzu and cactus as the population winners, and humans as the losers. For people to avoid that paradigm would requrie us to act smarter than we do, at the macroeconomic, political and international levels.)
Maybe that's still a little alarmist, but let's see how it looks in another 50 years. I think that's about 1/2% of the time since we first developed agriculture - like one tick of a clock. Alien archeeologists might do some digging and conclude that we MIGHT have adapted to agriculture, given enough time, but we invented industry and that killed us off "right away".
I assume that when humans experience "increased competition" for food, water and resoruces, we'll probably compete with tanks and jets and IEDs.
>> no one is discussing mycotoxin levels as a possible factor in inflammation - not even Monsanto's scientists.
My guess (hope) is that those "in the biz" know and agree that the levels seen, "below offical limits" are not only frequently seen in comemrical practice, but (somehow) "know" that they don't cause kinds of stomach inflamation that no one was checking for when they set the standards.
That kind of question would be worth studying: IS such inflamation common? What USUALLY causes variations in it (mycotoxins? moldy stale fodder? random elements that were NOt specifically controlled?)
If it were only of scientitific interest, I would say "test their hypothesis" which was that CRY proteins CAN inflame mamalian guts, as they do insects' guts. THAT might lead to information that would prompt usefull actions.
Like maybe only certain of them irritate mamalians sotmachs. Genengineer those OUT of GM crops! Or maybe when you find the exact causative agent and use concentrations where you can really SEE the results (like a dose-effect curve that doesn't take 27 weeks to run), you might find out that, ooppss, yes those ARE toxic and a long term downside IS plausible.
I'm sorry I'm not researching delta-endotoxins vs beta-exotoxins in Bt baccilus and GM corn - which ones are CRY protiens? Which was the experimental toxin in whole bacterial cyst crystals (if I recall) that the misquoted "causes leukemia" study looked at?
>> I don't think that I could butcher any animal.
>> You'd be surprised what you can do if you are hungry enough. Thankfully, I am not that hungry. Yet.
I know what you both mean. For me, some of both. I had to kill a lot of mice and some rats doing cancer research. It's icky and preyed on my mind, but I could do it.
I felt worse about giving lab mice murine leukemia or repeated painful injections, than for breaking their necks. Compared to causing them pain, rooting around inside their bodies after death was easier.
I've also worked in an animal room for cancer reasearch / Nutrition and Food Science, and some rats had tumors that made up more than half their body weight. Some died because the tumors were too big to let them reach the water bottle.
Despite a lot of sympathy for lab animals, my theory was that cancer research was worth some animal pain. Once I answered the phone when a patient's husband was trying to reach her clinician to ask for the pain meds that some pharmacist had questioned as being "too strong to give to ANYONE". Despite those, they later had to cut her spine to deal with the pain (before she died anyway).
That's my answer to PETA, my version of human-chauvinism. Science and medicine are slowly finding cures, and that's worth doing.
People have survived for thousands of years, growing & gathering foods & meat. Are you saying that we can't survive without the Big Corporations & the Feed Lots. Are you saying that we are not capable of feeding ourselves? If that is the case, then the World Powers have finally gotten to us & made us believe their lies. Don't fall for those lies. They have put most of our land into Parks, & Soil Bank. They pay farmers not to grow crops. So don't try to fool me or most of the gardners on this forum. We are growing our gardens & raising li vestock.
I'm sure that farmers can feed themselves. However, they also have to feed the city dwellers. And factory workers, and office workers, and doctors and nurses.
>> People have survived for thousands of years, growing & gathering foods & meat. Are you saying that we can't survive without the Big Corporations & the Feed Lots.
What is the world population now, around 7 billion? Increasing by around one billion per decade? Very rough numbers, but you would be right, IF the Unabomber had his way, and (for example) everyone but the farmers volunteered to be plowd under for fertilizer (or have no babies and give up meat and processed food).
Maybe we could dump modern agriculture if we had five times as many famrers, froze the world population where it is, redcued meat intake by a facotr of 5. But we might have to turn a lot of parks and forests into famrs, if the soil and climate where the forests were would support crops.
And the rpoblem is, how to convice people to do things they don't wnat to do, if they don't even wnat to pay for "non-GMO food" labels?
As I posted earlier, Charlotte, NC has 750,000 people.
Do you have any idea how much food that takes for just 1 day ?
All farm land in parks & soil banks. You gotta be kidding. It is planted road to road, I don't care where you go. I've traveled all over the Central US around harvest time, from Minnesota to Tennessee & west to Missouri, back through Iowa. There is no land sitting empty unless it is very poor ground that would only erode & not grow crops.
Parks are there to appease city dwellers. They need places to walk their dog. Probably wouldn't work to have a corn field in the middle of a city.
I have read repeatedly that there is plenty of food, and plenty of land to grow food, but the problem is that the distribution sources aren't in place to make sure that it's delivered where it's needed. But sure, population growth is a huge problem. As is our habit of trying to "reclaim" lands in the desert or in other inhospitable places using artificial and unsustainable means, which results in populations growing to take advantage of this new environment and then suffering from famine and/or drought when the ecosystem crashes because that level of production isn't possible over a longer term. But the long-term results of GMO food and what it may do to our health and reproductive systems may be the new plague which ends up reducing the population. I hope not, but we won't know for a couple of generations.
I would feel a lot better about GMO food if it was served exclusively in the Monsanto Executive dining room!
As to food production - there would be more actual food produced if "we" didn't use ethanol as a fuel and wheat and corn as cat litters. etc. not to mention the amount of grain needed to raise meat. *raising hand as guilty of all three*
I saw this product recently on kickstarter (or one of the other crowd sourcing places) and thought it was a brilliant idea even though the actual item is selling for $250 and out of reach of many people. Could be fairly easily made for much less by using this sellers instructions. The finished barrel that I saw for sale added worms to the mix and composted household veggie scraps in the center tube.
Quoting:A large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that claims (made by the biotech industry) are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:
1. Are laboratory-made, using technologies that are totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks than from non-GM crops
2. Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
3. Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
4. Do not increase yield potential
5. Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
6. Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “super weeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
7. Have mixed economic effects
8. Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
9. Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
10. Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
11. Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.
from Real farmacy.com is a list of Monsanto owned "Food Producers. I will print only a few, Aunt Jemima,Banquet,Best Foods,Betty Crocker,Bisquick, Campbells, Capri Sun,Carnation,Chef Boyardee,CocaCola,DuncanHines,FritoLay,GeneralMills,HealthyChoice. Many more but I can't list them all.
Most prepared foods and mixes have some GMO ingredients. GMO corn and soy are in almost everything. Makes it hard to avoid them if you'd like to. Trader Joe's doesn't use GMO in anything with their own name on it, and there's also the GMO-Free Project which labels foods that are totally clear of GMOs. Whole Foods plans to go GMO-free as soon as they can find sufficient sources for conventionally-grown ingredients. People seem to be becoming more and more aware of this issue. Even though Proposition 37 failed in California, it brought a lot of attention to the problem and that has helped.
"More detail of the samples used: “Urine samples were collected from volunteers in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Macedonia, Malta, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the UK. A total of 80/182 samples tested were found to contain glyphosate. Volunteers were all city-dwellers and included vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets. No two samples were tested from the same household. The samples were analysed by Dr Hoppe at Medical Laboratory Bremen in Germany.””"
At this point, I would say this points out that a large study is needed. Only 182 samples were tested by one doc. Not enough evidence to prove the seriousness of the issue.
I am sure you folk that have been concerned about Roundup will now be reassured and pleased to see the empirical evidence that we have all been waiting for. This proves that Glysophate has done no documented harm to the half of the population of Europe that have it in their bloodstream and Urine. Surely if it was harmful it would be known by now.
This is the first solid evidence that i have seen in all the posts concerning this matter.
Thanks for sharing the information.