Who would wager a guess re amount of GMO food they consume?

[senior citizen]

Who would dare to wager a guess re the amount of GMO food we all consume? None of us really know which of the foods we eat are genetically modified. Food for thought after viewing Jake Tapper's "The Lead" earlier today. The tumors on the mice were startling, to say the least.


Millions protest genetically modified food, Monsanto, organizers say (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/28/millions-protest-genetically-modified-food-monsanto/)

Two million people in more than 50 countries marched over the weekend in protest against a company called Monsanto, organizers claimed. CNN could not independently verify those numbers..

Monsanto is a giant, $58 billion multinational corporation with field in 60 countries. It was founded more than 100 years ago – and is best known for producing the chemical known as Agent Orange that scorched thousands of miles of earth during the Vietnam war.Monsanto currently produces pesticides designed to deliver a death blow to living things, and also produces seeds designed to resist those lethal chemicals.

Now the company, with a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government, may have received protection from future trouble. Slipped into a bill (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/29/is-hastened-legislation-bad-for-our-health/) signed by President Barack Obama back in March is something called the "Monsanto Protection Act," which would shield Monsanto seeds and other genetically modified crops approved by the Agriculture Department to be grown - even if there is action in the courts against them.

The weekend protest was focused on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. GMOs are plants, bacteria, and animals whose genetic makeup has been scientifically altered.

Some opponents want GMOs banned, others say foods whose DNA has been changed needs to at least be labeled.

Monsanto is a leading producer of genetically modified seeds and herbicides. In the last quarter alone it sold seed – much of it modified – worth more than $4 billion. The company said their business helps to feed the planet.

"It’s a vision that strives to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population," said a Monsanto ad.

Some of the outrage was sparked by shocking photos (http://ens-newswire.com/2013/05/24/u-s-senate-bars-gmo-labels-as-march-against-monsanto-revs-up/) showing massive tumors that developed on rats that ate genetically modified corn over a lifetime.

The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Caen, France. It has been criticized by many in the scientific community, and by the European food safety authority, who said it is simply not up to scientific standards.

Even so, the disturbing tumor photos lead many to question their own standards about what exactly they are eating.
But consumers have no way of knowing if they are eating genetically modified food, or feeding it to their family.

Last week, U.S. senators debated whether states could require food labeling for products with genetically engineered ingredients. The legislation, introduced by Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, failed.

"When you take on very powerful biotech companies like Monsanto and large food corporations, who, in many ways, would prefer that people not know what is in the food that they produce, they're very powerful," said Sanders. "They were able to gather a whole lot of support in the Senate."

On its website, Monsanto states, “plant biotechnology has been in use for over 15 years, without documented evidence of adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment."

Legislators who sided with Monsanto say the company is improving on nature.

"I think it would more accurately be called a modern science to feed a very troubled and hungry world," Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts said on the Senate floor last week.
But Sanders said the company, and others like it, need to be more transparent, and that slipping protection for Monsanto into that March bill (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/29/is-hastened-legislation-bad-for-our-health/) was wrong.

"People have a right to know what is in the food they're eating," said Sanders.
"You have deregulated the GMO industry from court oversight, which is really not what America is about. You should not be putting riders that people aren't familiar with, in a major piece of legislation," said Sanders.

Law or no law, grocery giant Whole Foods said they will start labeling all genetically modified food by 2018.
"The fact is there are no studies, as yet, linking GMO to health problems,"said Michael Moss, New York Times investigative reporter and author of "Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us."The flip side, said Moss, is there are few scientists doing that kind of research, and the agency in charge of GMOs is "the FDA, which has a real spotty record on food safety, which concerns people."

At the moment, the issue appears to be evolving into a matter of disclosure.
"People care about what they're putting into their bodies, and they want to know what is in the products that they're eating, so they can make that decision," said Moore.






















































.

[jblum315]

I wish they would GMO bananas so they don't go from green to black in 4 days.

[mickey100]

My understanding is that most corn and soy in the U.S. is GMO, but not wheat. They have found an extremely small percentage of wheat to be contaminated, but think it is due to cross contamination during shipment in containers that probably held GMO corn and soy. Monsanto applied for a permit some years ago to produce GMO wheat but didn't follow through when suppliers said they wouldn't buy the wheat.

[golf4me]

We recently met and talked at some length to a young woman, daughter of a friend, she was just finishing her doctorate in plant molecular genetics. She was a very bright young woman and her education past her initial degree was focused on the process of genetically altering plants and testing them to see that they do produce better crops and she spent years in the labs and classrooms and the many farms that test and grow genetically altered crops. She is a scientist and one of the brightest and best and her work will help us and other countries produce better and more drought and pest resistant foods and probably tastier ones and more of them.

I think that many don't realize that changing the genetics of plants that we consume does not change our genetics or harm us in any way. Growing plants and cross pollinating plants to have higher yield and better flavor and more nutritious punch has been going on for years and years and years. To change the genetic qualities of seeds to make a plant produce more fruit or to make a tomato more delicious or with less seeds and impervious to tomato worms is a helpful process and one that will not harm the people who consume it.

I think that many who protest do not realize that changing the genetics of food products does no harm to the people who eat those plants and makes it better for all people.

It may be misunderstood or thought unethical much like artificial insemination was at first but geneticists everywhere are finding clues to many processes to further our own lives and cure disease in people. They are also doing it in plants.
Because it is very complicated and involved does not make it dangerous to consume foods that have grown from seeds that were genetically altered.

I doubt if my post will change anyone's mind, because I am not on the level of this remarkable young woman who was educated at the University of Florida at Gainesville. Maybe we can ask one of their educators in molecular plant genetics to come to one of our garden groups to educate us about this process and allay some of the fears about genetically altered plants and fruits and vegetables that are produced from them..

[senior citizen]

We recently met and talked at some length a young woman, daughter of a friend who was just finishing her doctorate in plant genetics. She was a very bright young woman and her education past her initial degree was focused on the process of genetically altering plants and testing them to see that they do produce better crops and she spent years in the labs and classrooms and the many farms that test and grow genetically altered crops. She is a scientist and one of the brightest and best and her work will help us and other countries produce better and more drought and pest resistant foods and probably tastier ones and more of them.

I think that many don't realize that changing the genetics of plants that we consume does not change our genetics or harm us in any way. Growing plants and cross pollinating plants to have higher yield and better flavor and more nutritious punch has been going on for years and years and years. To change the genetic qualities of seeds to make a plant produce more fruit or to make a tomato more delicious or with less seeds and impervious to tomato worms is a helpful process and one that will not harm the people who consume it.

I think that many who protest do not realize that changing the genetics of food products does no harm to the people who eat those plants and makes it better for all people.

It may be misunderstood or thought unethical much like artificial insemination but geneticists everywhere are finding clues to many processes to further our own lives and cure disease in people. They are also doing it in plants.
Because it is very complicated and involved does not make it dangerous to consume foods that have grown from seeds that were genetically altered.

I doubt if my post will change anyone's mind, because I am not on the level of this remarkable young woman who was educated at the University of Florida at Gainesville. Maybe we can ask one of their educators in molecular plant genetics to come to one of our garden groups to educate us about this process.

No......GREAT POST. My husband just about said the same thing as you have.

It was those tumors on the test mice that got to me.......gross.

Still, a huge amount of protestors from all over.........I'll have to do some more reading on the subject...............

Thanks for posting.

[maureenod]

They now have a GM Salmon before the FDA for approval. If you think for one minute that the FDA is on your side think again. Money talks.

[Villages PL]

Dr. Bruce Lipton, in his book "The Biology Of Belief" talks about the concept of gene transfer that takes place between GMO crops and surrounding weeds. This creates what's known as "super weeds". The result being that more herbicides have to be used to kill weeds that have become herbicide resistant. In other words, when you make crops more herbicide resistant, gene transfer will eventually make the weeds more herbicide resistant.

This is a relatively recent finding that plants share genetic information via gene transfer.

In addition to the above, a study has shown that gene transfer can take place within humans who ingest GMO foods. That's because we have beneficial bacteria in our intestines that will share genetic information with the GMO food. (And I would suggest that it may go one step further with the beneficial bacteria sharing genetic information with cells in our body.)

[senior citizen]

Dr. Bruce Lipton, in his book "The Biology Of Belief" talks about the concept of gene transfer that takes place between GMO crops and surrounding weeds. This creates what's known as "super weeds". The result being that more herbicides have to be used to kill weeds that have become herbicide resistant. In other words, when you make crops more herbicide resistant, gene transfer will eventually make the weeds more herbicide resistant.

This is a relatively recent finding that plants share genetic information via gene transfer.

In addition to the above, a study has shown that gene transfer can take place within humans who ingest GMO foods. That's because we have beneficial bacteria in our intestines that will share genetic information with the GMO food. (And I would suggest that it may go one step further with the beneficial bacteria sharing genetic information with cells in our own body.)

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.........

[Villages PL]

In The Biology of Belief, Dr. Lipton says that DNA can be altered by our thoughts. HUH?!!


Beam me up , Scotty!!

Remember the days when doctors used to work on cadavers with their bare hands and then go straight to the operating room to operate on someone without washing their hands? When they were told they should wash their hands, they laughed and ridiculed the doctor who suggested it.

Did you actually read his book?

[Villages PL]

An article in today's Daily Sun: "USDA: Modified wheat found in Oregon field"

Non-approved GMO wheat was discovered by a farmer on his land. He doesn't know how it got there. He tried to kill it with "roundup" but it didn't work. It's herbicide resistant.

[KeepingItReal]

We recently met and talked at some length to a young woman, daughter of a friend, she was just finishing her doctorate in plant molecular genetics. She was a very bright young woman and her education past her initial degree was focused on the process of genetically altering plants and testing them to see that they do produce better crops and she spent years in the labs and classrooms and the many farms that test and grow genetically altered crops. She is a scientist and one of the brightest and best and her work will help us and other countries produce better and more drought and pest resistant foods and probably tastier ones and more of them.

I think that many don't realize that changing the genetics of plants that we consume does not change our genetics or harm us in any way. Growing plants and cross pollinating plants to have higher yield and better flavor and more nutritious punch has been going on for years and years and years. To change the genetic qualities of seeds to make a plant produce more fruit or to make a tomato more delicious or with less seeds and impervious to tomato worms is a helpful process and one that will not harm the people who consume it.

I think that many who protest do not realize that changing the genetics of food products does no harm to the people who eat those plants and makes it better for all people.

It may be misunderstood or thought unethical much like artificial insemination was at first but geneticists everywhere are finding clues to many processes to further our own lives and cure disease in people. They are also doing it in plants.
Because it is very complicated and involved does not make it dangerous to consume foods that have grown from seeds that were genetically altered.

I doubt if my post will change anyone's mind, because I am not on the level of this remarkable young woman who was educated at the University of Florida at Gainesville. Maybe we can ask one of their educators in molecular plant genetics to come to one of our garden groups to educate us about this process and allay some of the fears about genetically altered plants and fruits and vegetables that are produced from them..

Agree, great post. We maybe too often fear anything new before we fully understand it. If not for Hybrid Seeds we would likely not be able to produce enough food for present needs much less an excess. Herbicides are for killing weeds etc. not the crop so the more resistant the crop to herbicide the less damage to the crop. The study on the mice was totally refuted by the French according to the article.

("However, six French academies dispute the study. The national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies issued a joint statement condemning the findings. Their opinion was backed by two government-commissioned scientific reviews.")

What are genetically modified foods?

The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. For two informative overviews of some of the techniques involved in creating GM foods, visit Biotech Basics (sponsored by Monsanto) or Techniques of Plant Biotechnology from the National Center for Biotechnology Education.

What are some of the advantages of GM foods?

The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways:

Pest resistance Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help eliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market4, 5.
Herbicide tolerance For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto has created a strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup ®6. A farmer grows these soybeans which then only require one application of weed-killer instead of multiple applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of agricultural waste run-off7.
Disease resistance There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases8, 9.
Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings10. (Note: I have not been able to find any journal articles or patents that involve fish antifreeze proteins in strawberries, although I have seen such reports in newspapers. I can only conclude that nothing on this application has yet been published or patented.)
Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance As the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places11, 12.
Nutrition Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A)13. Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation14, a non-profit organization, the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all15.
Pharmaceuticals Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require special storage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes16, 17. These vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable vaccines.
Phytoremediation Not all GM plants are grown as crops. Soil and groundwater pollution continues to be a problem in all parts of the world. Plants such as poplar trees have been genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil18.

[asianthree]

So far I am doing well with this we grow our veggies from seeds that have been in our family for generations we raise our own organic beef chicken and pork since forever (sorry jumbo) but still it's a great concern for children to come

[Villages PL]

Agree, great post. We maybe too often fear anything new before we fully understand it.

That sounds logical, but what about the other way around?: What about when we don't fear something until we come to understand it? Then it's too late because the damage has been done. Example: In the early years of the 20th century, how much was known about the dangers of long term cigarette smoking? Even as late as mid-century (1950s and 60s?) the cigarette companies were defending cigarette smoking. They kept saying there was no proof of any harm.

[KeepingItReal]

[QUOTE=Villages PL;684899]In addition to the above, a study has shown that gene transfer can take place within humans who ingest GMO foods. That's because we have beneficial bacteria in our intestines that will share genetic information with the GMO food. (And I would suggest that it may go one step further with the beneficial bacteria sharing genetic information with cells in our body.)

I would like to be provided a reference or link to this study or note where it may be located and/or where it was conducted.


[QUOTE=Villages PL;684899]That sounds logical, but what about the other way around?: What about when we don't fear something until we come to understand it?

************************************************** ************************************************** ****************
Maybe we should just doubt and fear everything even though there is ample research data and well documented evidence to eliminate those unfounded fears. Most of us have neither the intellect, resources, nor the time to become an expert on everything to know if the research is really accurate. At some point we must rely on those that have expertise, and do the research in a particular field, or we can just continue being scared of everything while the rest of the world moves forward. What would be the answer when we go to the market and there is no longer any food on the shelves since we are still trying to prove or disprove an already tested technological advancement?

Dr. Bruce Lipton talks about unproven ideas, concepts, beliefs, and nutty theories, just to sell a book. I would have to wonder why anyone would be willing to put such stock in a book by a guy living in New Zealand working at a chiropractic school?

Bruce Harold Lipton (born 21 October 1944) is an American developmental biologist, who is best known for promoting the idea that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person's beliefs.[1] He teaches at the New Zealand College of Chiropractic.[2]

If you Google Lipton or click below you find his ideas, theories, concepts, and Lipton himself are not well respected.

www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#sclient=psy-ab&q=bruce+lipton+quack&oq=bruce+lipton+q&gs_l=serp.1.1.0l4.21548.24029.0.25118.2.2.0.0.0.0. 66.126.2.2.0...0.0.0..1c.1.15.psy-ab.oPRTpX5lRMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=96e70d11bba84a0e&biw=1344&bih=800

[graciegirl]

[QUOTE=Villages PL;684899]In addition to the above, a study has shown that gene transfer can take place within humans who ingest GMO foods. That's because we have beneficial bacteria in our intestines that will share genetic information with the GMO food. (And I would suggest that it may go one step further with the beneficial bacteria sharing genetic information with cells in our body.)

I would like to be provided a reference or link to this study or note where it may be located and/or where it was conducted.


[QUOTE=Villages PL;684899]That sounds logical, but what about the other way around?: What about when we don't fear something until we come to understand it?

************************************************** ************************************************** ****************
Maybe we should just doubt and fear everything even though there is ample research data and well documented evidence to eliminate those unfounded fears. Most of us have neither the intellect, resources, nor the time to become an expert on everything to know if the research is really accurate. At some point we must rely on those that have expertise, and do the research in a particular field, or we can just continue being scared of everything while the rest of the world moves forward. What would be the answer when we go to the market and there is no longer any food on the shelves since we are still trying to prove or disprove an already tested technological advancement?

Dr. Bruce Lipton talks about unproven ideas, concepts, beliefs, and nutty theories, just to sell a book. I would have to wonder why anyone would be willing to put such stock in a book by a guy living in New Zealand working at a chiropractic school?

Bruce Harold Lipton (born 21 October 1944) is an American developmental biologist, who is best known for promoting the idea that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person's beliefs.[1] He teaches at the New Zealand College of Chiropractic.[2]

If you Google Lipton or click below you find his ideas, theories, concepts, and Lipton himself are not well respected.

www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#sclient=psy-ab&q=bruce+lipton+quack&oq=bruce+lipton+q&gs_l=serp.1.1.0l4.21548.24029.0.25118.2.2.0.0.0.0. 66.126.2.2.0...0.0.0..1c.1.15.psy-ab.oPRTpX5lRMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=96e70d11bba84a0e&biw=1344&bih=800 (http://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#sclient=psy-ab&q=bruce+lipton+quack&oq=bruce+lipton+q&gs_l=serp.1.1.0l4.21548.24029.0.25118.2.2.0.0.0.0. 66.126.2.2.0...0.0.0..1c.1.15.psy-ab.oPRTpX5lRMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=96e70d11bba84a0e&biw=1344&bih=800)

Very well said. I very much agree with your arguments.

[senior citizen]

Agree, great post. We maybe too often fear anything new before we fully understand it. If not for Hybrid Seeds we would likely not be able to produce enough food for present needs much less an excess. Herbicides are for killing weeds etc. not the crop so the more resistant the crop to herbicide the less damage to the crop. The study on the mice was totally refuted by the French according to the article.

("However, six French academies dispute the study. The national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies issued a joint statement condemning the findings. Their opinion was backed by two government-commissioned scientific reviews.")

What are genetically modified foods?

The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. For two informative overviews of some of the techniques involved in creating GM foods, visit Biotech Basics (sponsored by Monsanto) or Techniques of Plant Biotechnology from the National Center for Biotechnology Education.

What are some of the advantages of GM foods?

The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways:

Pest resistance Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help eliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market4, 5.

Herbicide tolerance For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto has created a strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup ®6. A farmer grows these soybeans which then only require one application of weed-killer instead of multiple applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of agricultural waste run-off7.

Disease resistance There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases8, 9.

Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings10. (Note: I have not been able to find any journal articles or patents that involve fish antifreeze proteins in strawberries, although I have seen such reports in newspapers. I can only conclude that nothing on this application has yet been published or patented.)

Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance As the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places11, 12.

Nutrition Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A)13. Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation14, a non-profit organization, the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all15.

Pharmaceuticals Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require special storage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes16, 17. These vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable vaccines.
Phytoremediation Not all GM plants are grown as crops. Soil and groundwater pollution continues to be a problem in all parts of the world. Plants such as poplar trees have been genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil18.
__________________________________________________ ___________

I just read the above TWICE and printed it out to read later to hubby.....
Thank you so much for putting it all into perspective..........great post.

With me, one new thought always leads to another search.......

Our daughter in law's dad, a chemist by education, formed a corporation back in the early '60s that produces pesticides and insecticides (same thing) for farmers......in this country and all over the world.........

I decided to check out their website to see if anyone had commented on the Monsanto "news"......not that it is "new"........

This was posted from the publication FOOD SAFETY NEWS:
Food Safety News (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/)

Corn Growers Turn to Pesticides After Genetically Modified Seeds Fail

By Dan Flynn (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/author/danflynn/) | May 28, 2013

The $1 billion pest has done it before. It beat crop rotation during the 1990s when a new strain of the western corn rootworm began breeding opposite fields so they’d be ready for corn planting in the following year. “Up until then rotation of corn and soybeans was a pretty good control strategy,” University of Illinois entomologist Michael Gray told Food Safety News.

After that came the controversial genetically modified Bt seeds–from Monsanto and licensed to others—that came with built-in toxins to slay the destructive corn rootworm. And everyone from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that approved them to Monsanto who developed them to Land Grant universities who monitor the performance of American agriculture—all said use of the Bt seeds would reduce pesticide use.

Herbicide-tolerant and Bt-transgenic crops did result in some reduced pesticide use. Charles Benbrook at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources figures Bt crops reduced insecticide use by 10-12 million pounds annually in the period from 1996 to 2011. There is USDA data showing an even more dramatic decline.

But in the last couple years, the billion dollar pest with a new immunity has begun striking back against Monsanto’s Bt seed. And America’s corn farmers—who are planting a near record 97.3 million acres this year—are responding with the only weapon in their arsenal by dramatically upping their pesticide use.

Any reduction now looks to be history. Coming off two extraordinary years when acres dedicated to corn produced $77 and nearly $80 billion, respectively, in 2011 and 2012 with corn prices of $6.22 and $7.40 per bushel, growers are not pulling back and pesticides are now one of their big “inputs” in the corn crop.

Even though $2 corn was a reality as recently as 2005, they see too many competing uses for their product to be gloomy about the future.

Beverages, high fructose corn syrup, starch, cereals and sweeteners are among uses of corn in food. Corn-fed beef, poultry, pork and dairy are its principal feed uses. And then on the fuel front ethanol demands are around 500 million bushels of corn.

More pesticide bought to control another break-out of the western corn rootworm is seen by most growers as just a little more insurance, according to both Gray and Benbrook. Gray, who discovered severe rootworm injury in a Cass County, IL cornfield in June 2012, says most growers made decisions about pesticide use this year based on their harvest experiences last fall.

Earlier in 2013, Gray meet with Illinois corn and soybean growers at five locations in the state. He used hand-held “clickers’ to survey growers, finding on average 92 percent planned to plant a Bt hybrid for corn rootworm protection in 2013, but on average 46.66 percent also plan to apply insecticides at planting.

After his meetings with almost 600 Illinois growers, Gray predicted the sharp increase in planting-time soil insecticides with corn rootworm Bt hybrids. Last week, that prediction was verified with the Wall Street Journal reporting surging insecticide sales for companies like American Vanguard Corp. and Syngenta AG.

Corn growers, according to Gray, are “covering their bets” by upping their pesticide use while sticking with a Bt hybrid for corn rootworm. Benbrook agrees growers are “all in in their bet on corn.”

Gray’s work with Illinois corn growers even brought a response from Monsanto last year. The giant agri-business suggested growers using their product should rotate their crops and traits, and buy their dual of mode action products. At this point, Monsanto’s dominance in America’s cornfields is not threatened. That could change if one of its topline products is breaking down.

For 2013, more acres have been planted with genetically modified corn than ever, and its being planted with more pesticides than in more than a decade. USDA’s current forecast for harvest time is for corn selling for around $4.50 a bushel.

That would be enough to cover the “inputs” and clear a profit. Droughts or disease that reduce yields could increase prices. Memories of last fall’s corn futures of $8.50 continue to dance in the heads of growers.

With more than 40 states contributing to the U.S, corn crop, growers continue to have significant political clout. They no longer get direct payment from the USDA if prices go south, but the taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance program takes up the slack.
© Food Safety News

[mickey100]

I agree with a lot of what you posted. I personally see nothing wrong with GMO crops. Plants have been genetically modified "naturally" for years. The tomatoes we eat today are probably not the same tomato genetically that we ate 50 years ago. It does'nt make them bad, just different. My issue with GMO crops is the pesticide connection. When GMO corn is Roundup resistant, instead of using less Roundup the farmers use more Roundup to kill all the superweeds that have cropped up in recent years, and the corn itself may show residual of the roundup upon harvest. And we know that chemical pesticides are bad for us. So its not the GMO traits of the corn that are bad, but the residual herbicides that they harbor.

Agree, great post. We maybe too often fear anything new before we fully understand it. If not for Hybrid Seeds we would likely not be able to produce enough food for present needs much less an excess. Herbicides are for killing weeds etc. not the crop so the more resistant the crop to herbicide the less damage to the crop. The study on the mice was totally refuted by the French according to the article.

("However, six French academies dispute the study. The national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies issued a joint statement condemning the findings. Their opinion was backed by two government-commissioned scientific reviews.")

What are genetically modified foods?

The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. For two informative overviews of some of the techniques involved in creating GM foods, visit Biotech Basics (sponsored by Monsanto) or Techniques of Plant Biotechnology from the National Center for Biotechnology Education.

What are some of the advantages of GM foods?

The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways:

Pest resistance Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help eliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market4, 5.
Herbicide tolerance For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto has created a strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup ®6. A farmer grows these soybeans which then only require one application of weed-killer instead of multiple applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of agricultural waste run-off7.
Disease resistance There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases8, 9.
Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings10. (Note: I have not been able to find any journal articles or patents that involve fish antifreeze proteins in strawberries, although I have seen such reports in newspapers. I can only conclude that nothing on this application has yet been published or patented.)
Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance As the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places11, 12.
Nutrition Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A)13. Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation14, a non-profit organization, the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all15.
Pharmaceuticals Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require special storage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes16, 17. These vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable vaccines.
Phytoremediation Not all GM plants are grown as crops. Soil and groundwater pollution continues to be a problem in all parts of the world. Plants such as poplar trees have been genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil18.

[rubicon]

Agree, great post. We maybe too often fear anything new before we fully understand it. If not for Hybrid Seeds we would likely not be able to produce enough food for present needs much less an excess. Herbicides are for killing weeds etc. not the crop so the more resistant the crop to herbicide the less damage to the crop. The study on the mice was totally refuted by the French according to the article.

("However, six French academies dispute the study. The national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies issued a joint statement condemning the findings. Their opinion was backed by two government-commissioned scientific reviews.")

What are genetically modified foods?

The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. For two informative overviews of some of the techniques involved in creating GM foods, visit Biotech Basics (sponsored by Monsanto) or Techniques of Plant Biotechnology from the National Center for Biotechnology Education.

What are some of the advantages of GM foods?

The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways:

Pest resistance Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help eliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market4, 5.
Herbicide tolerance For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto has created a strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup ®6. A farmer grows these soybeans which then only require one application of weed-killer instead of multiple applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of agricultural waste run-off7.
Disease resistance There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases8, 9.
Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings10. (Note: I have not been able to find any journal articles or patents that involve fish antifreeze proteins in strawberries, although I have seen such reports in newspapers. I can only conclude that nothing on this application has yet been published or patented.)
Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance As the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places11, 12.
Nutrition Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A)13. Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation14, a non-profit organization, the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all15.
Pharmaceuticals Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require special storage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes16, 17. These vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable vaccines.
Phytoremediation Not all GM plants are grown as crops. Soil and groundwater pollution continues to be a problem in all parts of the world. Plants such as poplar trees have been genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil18.

Keeping It Real: Spot On WSJ carried an article covering much of what you share.

[Quixote]

Quote from the website: "We are not conspiracy theorists. Here is a world famous Geneticist speaking out against GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) foods."

Natural Cures Not Medicine: David Suzuki speaks out against GMO's (http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2013/05/david-suzuki-speaks-out-against.html)

What's in the news now is that so many countries around the world are rejecting GMO wheat in particular. Some states are considering bans. Some food manufacturers, recognizing that more and more people are opposed to GMOs, are labeling their products "Contains no GMOs," just as they are labeling "Contains no high fructose corn syrup" (which is made from GMO corn).

Can all these countries/companies/individuals be wrong? I think we need to know a lot more about how our foods are processed before making decisions about what's good and what isn't. The trick will be to find accurate, reliable sources, not the easiest thing to do....

[Villages PL]

The following 2 references are to prove that genes from GM foods transfer into good bacteria, in the intestine, thereby changing their character.

Netherwood, T., S. M. Martin-Orue, et al. (2004). "Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract." Nature Biotechnology 22(2): 204+.

Heritage, J. (2004). "The fate of transgenes in the human gut." Nature Biotechnology 22(2): 170+.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are 2 more references to prove gene transfer from GM crops to surrounding species of plants (weeds) and how it gave rise to "superweeds."

Milius, S. (2003). "When genes escape: Does it matter to crops and weeds?" Science news 164: 232+.

Haygood, R., A. R. Ives, et al (2003). "Consequences of recurrent gene flow from crops to wild relatives." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 270 (1527): 1879-1886.

[Quixote]

That sounds logical, but what about the other way around?: What about when we don't fear something until we come to understand it? Then it's too late because the damage has been done. Example: In the early years of the 20th century, how much was known about the dangers of long term cigarette smoking? Even as late as mid-century (1950s and 60s?) the cigarette companies were defending cigarette smoking. They kept saying there was no proof of any harm.

Granted this is an analogy, not a direct comparison, but whew.... Isn't that the truth about cigarette smoking and the pap that we were fed for DECADES that it was harmless?...


I would like to be provided a reference or link to this study or note where it may be located and/or where it was conducted.

I would like to be provided a reference or link to this study or note where it may be located and/or where it was conducted.

The following 2 references are to prove that genes from GM foods transfer into good bacteria, in the intestine, thereby changing their character.

Netherwood, T., S. M. Martin-Orue, et al. (2004). "Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract." Nature Biotechnology 22(2): 204+.

Heritage, J. (2004). "The fate of transgenes in the human gut." Nature Biotechnology 22(2): 170+.

Thank you, Villages PL, for providing the sources asked for by KeepingItReal and graciegirl—and which I would have asked for too if they hadn't. At least now I can read something about this and hopefully have the competence to understand what I'm reading! Hopefully this journal is available online.

[Villages PL]

Granted this is an analogy, not a direct comparison, but whew.... Isn't that the truth about cigarette smoking and the pap that we were fed for DECADES that it was harmless?...

Thank you, Villages PL, for providing the sources asked for by KeepingItReal and graciegirl—and which I would have asked for too if they hadn't. At least now I can read something about this and hopefully have the competence to understand what I'm reading! Hopefully this journal is available online.

You're welcome! If you go back to my previous post you will see that I added 2 more references concerning gene transfer from GM crops to surrounding species of plants (weeds) and how it gave rise to "superweeds."

[Villages PL]

Neither link proves this statement of yours, however.

" In addition to the above, a study has shown that gene transfer can take place within humans who ingest GMO foods. That's because we have beneficial bacteria in our intestines that will share genetic information with the GMO food. (And I would suggest that it may go one step further with the beneficial bacteria sharing genetic information with cells in our body.) "

Do you have a reference supporting the notion that GMOs can cause human DNA mutation?

Notice I added that myself, totally on speculation. That's why I worded it the way I did, stating, "I would suggest" and it "may" go one step further. Notice the wording; words mean things.

[Villages PL]

Neither link proves this statement of yours, however.

I posted references not links. They are references to journals containing peer-reviewed studies.

So far, no one has asked for references proving that GM foods cause no harm to the environment or intestinal bacteria. I wonder why? Am I the only one required to show proof of what I say?

[KeepingItReal]

Quote from the website: "We are not conspiracy theorists. Here is a world famous Geneticist speaking out against GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) foods."

Natural Cures Not Medicine: David Suzuki speaks out against GMO's (http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2013/05/david-suzuki-speaks-out-against.html)

************************************************** ************************************************** *************************

I think I will have to support the current scientists, researchers, and the FDA rather than a 77 year old Canadian that got his degrees in 1958 and then in 1961 in Zoology and retired in 2001.
I will support the people that are are currently trying to develop crops that will feed the world's ever increasing population rather than just being against anything new that comes along. I doubt Suzuki is quite as up to date as maybe he should be concerning GMOs, but then his controversy on this and other issues apparently does help to sell his books to a few. Many of the references noted to oppose GMOs are 10+ years old, are antiquated, and have little value in this arena since the developments and technology have already and continue to advance so rapidly. Anyone that has ever experienced the onslaught of a new insect or disease in a cash crop would welcome anything to help overcome it.

Oranges are presently under siege from a new disease called Citrus Greening deemed to be the most serious threat in history and for which there is currently no cure, who will solve this problem?
www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/disease-threatens-floridas-citrus-industry.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I don't think those wanting to argue only a personal opinion or those against most any advancement and having absolutely no training or expertise in these areas have an answer as to how we can overcome any of these problems or those problems still to confront us and our food supply. I think we must encourage and support the current researchers and scientists to help us since we don't really have a choice.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki

Thanks Auto Bike for this link:

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm

If you re-read post 15 or click the Google link below you will note that Dr. Bruce Lipton previously given as another reference has absolutely no standing and his ideas and theories are basically considered quackery by many, but again it does help sell his books to some .

http://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#sclient=psy-ab&q=bruce+lipton+quack&oq=bruce+lipton+q&gs_l=serp.1.1.0l4.21548.24029.0.25118.2.2.0.0.0.0. 66.126.2.2.0...0.0.0..1c.1.15.psy-ab.oPRTpX5lRMM&pbx=1&fp=1&biw=1344&bih=800&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&cad=b


To argue against the well documented facts concerning GMOs would be to say people like the one mentioned in post #4 below do not know their information, all their training and research really doesn't matter, and we should just keep hanging on to old, outdated, preconceived notions that will only hender their efforts. Once again it appears the real intent is just to argue an opinion and never consider the facts. In the end it is a simple truth that what is argued here will likely make absolutely no difference.

Post # 4 was excellent..

[QUOTE=golf4me;683750]We recently met and talked at some length to a young woman, daughter of a friend, she was just finishing her doctorate in plant molecular genetics. She was a very bright young woman and her education past her initial degree was focused on the process of genetically altering plants and testing them to see that they do produce better crops and she spent years in the labs and classrooms and the many farms that test and grow genetically altered crops. She is a scientist and one of the brightest and best and her work will help us and other countries produce better and more drought and pest resistant foods and probably tastier ones and more of them.

I think that many don't realize that changing the genetics of plants that we consume does not change our genetics or harm us in any way. Growing plants and cross pollinating plants to have higher yield and better flavor and more nutritious punch has been going on for years and years and years. To change the genetic qualities of seeds to make a plant produce more fruit or to make a tomato more delicious or with less seeds and impervious to tomato worms is a helpful process and one that will not harm the people who consume it.

I think that many who protest do not realize that changing the genetics of food products does no harm to the people who eat those plants and makes it better for all people.

It may be misunderstood or thought unethical much like artificial insemination was at first but geneticists everywhere are finding clues to many processes to further our own lives and cure disease in people. They are also doing it in plants.
Because it is very complicated and involved does not make it dangerous to consume foods that have grown from seeds that were genetically altered.

I doubt if my post will change anyone's mind, because I am not on the level of this remarkable young woman who was educated at the University of Florida at Gainesville. Maybe we can ask one of their educators in molecular plant genetics to come to one of our garden groups to educate us about this process and allay some of the fears about genetically altered plants and fruits and vegetables that are produced from them..
************************************************** ************************************************** *****************
May 31, 2013

Dear Ms. Brown:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding the labeling of genetically engineered or modified foods. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

During the 112th Congress, Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced H.R. 3553, the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act. This legislation would have required food producers and companies to label any food containing genetically engineered products with statements meeting specified requirements.

Like you, I have concerns about our food supply and want to ensure it remains safe and healthy. However, we have to understand that without genetic engineering, our nation would likely not be able to feed itself or have important lifesaving products that so many Americans depend on. It is estimated that the United States accounts for nearly two-thirds of all biotechnology crops planted globally. Additionally, products such as insulin or Hepatitis B vaccines would not exist without genetic engineering.

Currently, similar legislation has yet to be re-introduced in the current 113th Congress.
Should Congress take up this issue, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns. I appreciate having the benefit of your views.

Sincerely,
Steve Pearce
Member of Congress

Stevan Edward "Steve" Pearce is the U.S. Representative for New Mexico's 2nd congressional district. He is a member of the Republican Party. He previously held the seat from 2003 to 2009 and was an Assistant Minority Whip. Wikipedia
Born: August 24, 1947 (age 65), Lamesa, TX
Office: Representative (R-NM 2nd District) since 2011
Previous office: Representative (NM 2nd District) 2003–2009
Spouse: Cynthia Pearce
Education: New Mexico State University, Eastern New Mexico University

[senior citizen]

__________________________________________________ ___________

I just read the above TWICE and printed it out to read later to hubby.....
Thank you so much for putting it all into perspective..........great post.

With me, one new thought always leads to another search.......

Our daughter in law's dad, a chemist by education, formed a corporation back in the early '60s that produces pesticides and insecticides (same thing) for farmers......in this country and all over the world.........

I decided to check out their website to see if anyone had commented on the Monsanto "news"......not that it is "new"........

This was posted from the publication FOOD SAFETY NEWS:
Food Safety News (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/)

Corn Growers Turn to Pesticides After Genetically Modified Seeds Fail

By Dan Flynn (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/author/danflynn/) | May 28, 2013

The $1 billion pest has done it before. It beat crop rotation during the 1990s when a new strain of the western corn rootworm began breeding opposite fields so they’d be ready for corn planting in the following year. “Up until then rotation of corn and soybeans was a pretty good control strategy,” University of Illinois entomologist Michael Gray told Food Safety News.

After that came the controversial genetically modified Bt seeds–from Monsanto and licensed to others—that came with built-in toxins to slay the destructive corn rootworm. And everyone from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that approved them to Monsanto who developed them to Land Grant universities who monitor the performance of American agriculture—all said use of the Bt seeds would reduce pesticide use.

Herbicide-tolerant and Bt-transgenic crops did result in some reduced pesticide use. Charles Benbrook at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources figures Bt crops reduced insecticide use by 10-12 million pounds annually in the period from 1996 to 2011. There is USDA data showing an even more dramatic decline.

But in the last couple years, the billion dollar pest with a new immunity has begun striking back against Monsanto’s Bt seed. And America’s corn farmers—who are planting a near record 97.3 million acres this year—are responding with the only weapon in their arsenal by dramatically upping their pesticide use.

Any reduction now looks to be history. Coming off two extraordinary years when acres dedicated to corn produced $77 and nearly $80 billion, respectively, in 2011 and 2012 with corn prices of $6.22 and $7.40 per bushel, growers are not pulling back and pesticides are now one of their big “inputs” in the corn crop.

Even though $2 corn was a reality as recently as 2005, they see too many competing uses for their product to be gloomy about the future.

Beverages, high fructose corn syrup, starch, cereals and sweeteners are among uses of corn in food. Corn-fed beef, poultry, pork and dairy are its principal feed uses. And then on the fuel front ethanol demands are around 500 million bushels of corn.

More pesticide bought to control another break-out of the western corn rootworm is seen by most growers as just a little more insurance, according to both Gray and Benbrook. Gray, who discovered severe rootworm injury in a Cass County, IL cornfield in June 2012, says most growers made decisions about pesticide use this year based on their harvest experiences last fall.

Earlier in 2013, Gray meet with Illinois corn and soybean growers at five locations in the state. He used hand-held “clickers’ to survey growers, finding on average 92 percent planned to plant a Bt hybrid for corn rootworm protection in 2013, but on average 46.66 percent also plan to apply insecticides at planting.

After his meetings with almost 600 Illinois growers, Gray predicted the sharp increase in planting-time soil insecticides with corn rootworm Bt hybrids. Last week, that prediction was verified with the Wall Street Journal reporting surging insecticide sales for companies like American Vanguard Corp. and Syngenta AG.

Corn growers, according to Gray, are “covering their bets” by upping their pesticide use while sticking with a Bt hybrid for corn rootworm. Benbrook agrees growers are “all in in their bet on corn.”

Gray’s work with Illinois corn growers even brought a response from Monsanto last year. The giant agri-business suggested growers using their product should rotate their crops and traits, and buy their dual of mode action products. At this point, Monsanto’s dominance in America’s cornfields is not threatened. That could change if one of its topline products is breaking down.

For 2013, more acres have been planted with genetically modified corn than ever, and its being planted with more pesticides than in more than a decade. USDA’s current forecast for harvest time is for corn selling for around $4.50 a bushel.

That would be enough to cover the “inputs” and clear a profit. Droughts or disease that reduce yields could increase prices. Memories of last fall’s corn futures of $8.50 continue to dance in the heads of growers.

With more than 40 states contributing to the U.S, corn crop, growers continue to have significant political clout. They no longer get direct payment from the USDA if prices go south, but the taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance program takes up the slack.
© Food Safety News

__________________________________________________ _________

I'm going to "quote" my own post above.......in ending with the thought that the bottom line is the farmers/corn growers are in it for a profit and to provide food for a growing population around the world.

They will do what they have to do......and it sounds like they are doing both, if you really read what was posted..........

I've also learned a lot from all the other posters; all input was very valuable in helping me to understand the GMO's.........

[Villages PL]

I referred to this article previously but didn't give the whole story. It stated that this incident represents a potential threat to trade. That's because other countries have not fully accepted the idea of modified foods.

I have a somewhat different take on the FDA: From what I have noticed, they only look at the results of studies given to them by the companies seeking approval. Drug companies often withhold information about the possible long-term side effects of their drugs. Therefore, it wouldn't be surprising if Monsanto did the same. For example, why would they submit a study to the FDA showing the development of superweeds? That would be a long term side effect that Monsanto doesn't have to look at or acknowledge.

As far as plowing the weeds under, how would one do that without destroying the crop? Weeds tend to grow alongside crops.

Thankfully, other countries have their own highly intelligent scientists evaluating GM wheat. We don't have a monopoly on intelligence. They might be the one's who save the day. They are the buyers and we are the sellers and buyers tend to be more cautious than sellers. Good for them!

[KeepingItReal]

Drug companies often withhold information about the possible long-term side effects of their drugs. Therefore, it wouldn't be surprising if Monsanto did the same. For example, why would they submit a study to the FDA showing the development of superweeds? That would be a long term side effect that Monsanto doesn't have to look at or acknowledge.


I think you need to prove this statement for it is totally incorrect. My daughter is a manager over clinical trials for new drugs and you have no idea of the intensity to detail it requires nor the acute attention to every detail given at every level. Shameful that people can just babble any accusation they wish about most anything with no accountability required to do so. They have no basis on which to base anything, no experience or training in these areas, nothing, except for an uneducated opinion.

People working and giving every bit of themselves to help humanity and they have to put up with comments like this. Disgusting!

[QUOTE=Villages PL;686891]
Thankfully, other countries have their own highly intelligent scientists evaluating GM wheat. We don't have a monopoly on intelligence. They might be the one's who save the day. They are the buyers and we are the sellers and buyers tend to be more cautious than sellers. Good for them!

I would encourage anyone that cheers for Okinawa and other countries over our own country to please send us a postcard from there after they relocate.

Maybe they will solve this problem for us:

Oranges are presently under siege from a new disease called Citrus Greening deemed to be the most serious threat in history and for which there is currently no cure, who will solve this problem?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/disease-threatens-floridas-citrus-industry.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[KeepingItReal]

[quote=KeepingItReal;686900]

It's in the drug company's best interests to fully disclose potential hazards because they know that if there is a lawsuit and they had knowingly withheld pertinent data, they would be lose their butts in court.

Exactly correct AutoBike, an Alabama court case recently wanted to hold the maker of the original drug responsible for a problem a user had while taking a generic made by another company.

www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/business/court-says-pfizer-can-be-sued-by-man-who-took-generic.html?_r=0

This is the reason the list of possible side effects sometimes seems endless.

[applesoffh]

Does Monsanto use chemicals to genetically modify the crops? I seriously doubt they use cross breeding of desired traits, as has been done for generations, as that would be too time consuming. If genetically modified seed transfers to the soil in which it is planted, and that soild becomes resistant to pesticides, that's got to be horrendous for the water supply. Somehow, in spite of all the talk about how good Monsanto's genetically modified seed is, there are still sane arguments in opposition.

[KeepingItReal]

Does Monsanto use chemicals to genetically modify the crops? I seriously doubt they use cross breeding of desired traits, as has been done for generations, as that would be too time consuming. If genetically modified seed transfers to the soil in which it is planted, and that soild becomes resistant to pesticides, that's got to be horrendous for the water supply. Somehow, in spite of all the talk about how good Monsanto's genetically modified seed is, there are still sane arguments in opposition.

************************************************** *****
NO

Step by Step, How to Genetically Modify A Seed
Using nature as a guide, geneticists build plants with qualities evolution could never produce
Behind every single seed is at least a decade of research involving geneticists, engineers and farmers, working to produce a seed that will grow exactly as expected, and in a way nature may not have intended.
(Article is 2 pages long)

How To Genetically Modify a Seed, Step By Step | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/life-cycle-genetically-modified-seed)

Photo Gallery 7 Images

http://www.popsci.com/technology/gallery/2011-01/gallery-how-make-genetically-modified-seed


Ginny Ursin, head of technology prospecting at Monsanto, has been studying plants most of her life; at age 10, she cobbled together a makeshift greenhouse in the front yard. It was well-built enough that a city building inspector dropped by to inquire about a permit, she recalled. After obtaining her Ph.D in genetics from the University of California-Davis, she studied the biochemical pathways that allow plants to accumulate oil. She has spent more than a decade developing a new omega-3 soybean, which actually produces a precursor fatty acid that our bodies convert into a heart-healthy type of omega-3 — fish oil without the fish. Its history includes Alaskan wildflowers, a type of mold used in Indonesian cooking and years of patient cultivation.

Monsanto is working with the African Agricultural Technology Foundation to license the technology it used to make drought-tolerant corn, which it hopes will debut in this country by 2012. Corn is a huge cash crop in this country, so Monsanto isn’t exactly giving it away — but the public-private partnership, financed in part by a $47 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, will help African companies develop their own strains, which theoretically can thrive in dry areas of western Africa.

[Quixote]

They now have a GM Salmon before the FDA for approval. If you think for one minute that the FDA is on your side think again. Money talks.

From the FDA's website:
10. Are there long-term health effects of foods from genetically engineered plants?
When evaluating the safety of food from genetically engineered plants, scientists with experience in assessing the long-term safety of food and food ingredients consider several factors, such as information about the long-term safety of the food from traditionally bred crops in combination with information on the food safety of the newly introduced traits. Foods from genetically engineered plants that have been evaluated by FDA through the consultation process have not gone on the market until the FDA’s questions about the safety of such products have been resolved.
Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants (http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm)

Here is one of those rare times in a serious discussion that I cannot help thinking the acronym ROFLMAO!!! You're right on, maureenod! The FDA?! The world's second most frequently told lie is "I'm here from the government to HELP you!" (The most frequently told lie is "The check is in the mail...." And no, I cannot document this; it's a joke!) Although I'm not trying to confuse anyone with facts when their minds are made up, following are a handful of links that spell out some of the more disastrous decisions made and positions taken by the FDA (of which GMO labeling is only one):

Testimony Assessing the U.S. Drug Safety System (http://www.citizen.org/hrg1759)

FDA says it's OK to turn bad food into sellable stuff » peoplesworld (http://peoplesworld.org/fda-says-it-s-ok-to-turn-bad-food-into-sellable-stuff/)

The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal | Collective-Evolution (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/19/the-shocking-story-of-how-aspartame-became-legal/)

The Ten Worst Drug Recalls In The History Of The FDA - 24/7 Wall St. (http://247wallst.com/2010/12/10/the-ten-worst-drug-recalls-in-the-history-of-the-fda/)

FDA’s Biggest Blunders - Health - MSN Healthy Living (http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/fda%E2%80%99s-biggest-blunders-1)

The 20th Anniversary of the FDA's Biggest Mistake | Rodale News (http://www.rodale.com/gmo-labeling-0)


My issue with GMO crops is the pesticide connection. When GMO corn is Roundup resistant, instead of using less Roundup the farmers use more Roundup to kill all the superweeds that have cropped up in recent years, and the corn itself may show residual of the roundup upon harvest. And we know that chemical pesticides are bad for us. So its not the GMO traits of the corn that are bad, but the residual herbicides that they harbor.

This is yet another serious side effect of GMOs....


.... Dear Ms. Brown:

During the 112th Congress, Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced H.R. 3553, the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act. This legislation would have required food producers and companies to label any food containing genetically engineered products with statements meeting specified requirements....

Sincerely,
Steve Pearce
Member of Congress

Stevan Edward "Steve" Pearce is the U.S. Representative for New Mexico's 2nd congressional district. He is a member of the Republican Party. He previously held the seat from 2003 to 2009 and was an Assistant Minority Whip....

Emphasis above ("would have") is mine. Why did this legislation fail? Why did Monsanto pour millions of dollars to defeat a similar proposition in California in the last election? Why are food producers so reluctant to provide information on their products that state what is GMO? Why the need for such secrecy? This sure makes it sound as though there is something to hide.... Here are links to more studies concerning GMOs (and the reason I didn't post this yesterday is that I wanted to read all these links first):

GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans | Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/14570)

Institute for Responsible Technology - Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/Doctors-Warn-Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Food-May-2009)

The Effects of Genetically Modified Foods | The Liberty Beacon (http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/03/14/the-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods/)

Genetically Modified (GM) Food, Genetically Modified Organisms, Genetic Engineering, GM Food Crops, Engineered GMOs, Genetically Altered Foods (http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful).

Frankenfoods: The debate over genetically modified (GM) foods | Washington Times Communities (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/world-our-backyard/2013/apr/15/frankenfoods-debate-over-genetically-modified-gm-f/)

The Truth Is Out on Genetically Modified Foods - And It's Not Pretty (http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/the-truth-is-out-on-genetically-modified-foods-and-its-not-pretty)

Vital Link article on health hazards of genetically modified foods (http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/145-vital-link-article-on-health-hazards-of-genetically-modified-foods)

Genetically Modified Foods Affect Health and Body - Oprah.com (http://www.oprah.com/health/Genetically-Modified-Foods-Affect-Health-and-Body)

A point of view in a discussion is lost as soon as we sink to the level of being offensive or patronizing (as in an ageism and nationality comment about a respected geneticist, as though someone with decades of experience and a non-American to boot disqualifies him AND his research) or a put-down of British farmers by describing them in primitive terms or describing the views of someone whose differ from yours in a disparaging term rather than simply disagreeing.

To go back to my first quote, "Money talks." We can put down anyone who disagrees with us in an offensive way, even countries who disagree and ban GMOs and who thus even risk the possibility of their own food supplies being more costly to their citizens (based on supply and demand) because of these countries' concerns about the health of their citizenry. But it's American farmers who are the losers! Meantime, a "Protection of Monsanto Act" quietly sneaks through Congress that, as stated in this article, "Liberals and Tea Party Members alike are up in arms over...."

The Real Monsanto Protection Act: How The GMO Giant Corrupts Regulators And Consolidates Its Power | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/10/1832621/monsanto-protection-act-power/?mobile=nc)

How can one not respect the concerns of someone who writes a thoughtful comment like this:

So far I am doing well with this we grow our veggies from seeds that have been in our family for generations we raise our own organic beef chicken and pork since forever (sorry jumbo) but still it's a great concern for children to come.


.... I doubt if my post will change anyone's mind....

.... So far, no one has asked for references proving that GMO foods cause no harm to the environment or intestinal bacteria....[/B]

I don't understand this. Why should anyone think in terms of needing to "change anyone's mind" or "proving that GMO foods cause no harm"? GMOs are only one issue. If one is comfortable eating GMOs; eating foods from animals that have been treated with such things as BGH; eating foods that have been produced with heavy use of pesticides; eating foods with artificial colors, flavors, and flavor enhancers such as MSG; and so forth, then one is free to do so. On the other hand, if one is NOT comfortable eating such foods and prefers foods that are organically raised, which invariably cost more, then one is free to do that. No minds need to be changed; no proving is necessary....

[Villages PL]

It's in the drug company's best interests to fully disclose potential hazards because they know that if there is a lawsuit and they had knowingly withheld pertinent data, they would be lose their butts in court.

I stand by my statement: If drug companies can hide negative research, Monsanto can do the same.

A quick search turned up lots of articles. Here are a few:

Search: Drug firms hiding negative research are unfit to experiment on people. (This article involves Glaxo Smith Kline and Astra Zeneca)

Here's a book: Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients.

Search: Drug Companies hide cancer research showing negative results.

[Quixote]

I'd rather die happy eating GMO than worry myself to death about possible negative effects of doing so. ;)

And of course there is the third alternative: to die happy and healthy eating non-GMO foods!

[Villages PL]

And of course there is the third alternative: to die happy and healthy eating non-GMO foods!

Thanks for all the informative links you provided, I learned a lot. I had no idea there were so many GM foods. I don't eat processed foods so that's not a problem for me. Of the 12 GM foods on the whole foods list, I eat about 5.

The last time I shopped at Aldi's I passed on the corn and I'm glad I did now that I know about the built in pesticide.

[Quixote]

.... The last time I shopped at Aldi's I passed on the corn and I'm glad I did now that I know about the built in pesticide.

And the last time I shopped at Aldi's, I was suckered into buying the corn because it LOOKED so good (one of the goals of genetic modification of foods). My mistake; no one else is responsible. When I got home, I realized what I had done and promptly threw it out. Wouldn't even feed it to the animals (that I don't have...)!

[KeepingItReal]

Always heard it, I now believe it, Old dogs really can't learn new tricks.......

Think about all the negativity towards drug companies and the FDA next time you or a family member needs a life saving drug or there is a food shortage or another problem.

If you think you can eat well enough to stay totally healthy I think you are in for a big surprise soon and then there are all your family members that may need a crucial drug to save their life.

Biased, half truth, and self serving links are easy to find on about anything. These are usually written by someone like Lipton or Suzuki without any or a questionable background trying to get some attention for themselves or sell a book.

Hopefully the critics and naysayers will not be able to discourage research and developments we need.

Big companies are in business just like any business and do make mistakes but it takes big business to do the research, invest the needed capital, take the risks, and even market a product.

No critics have offered any suggestions or alternatives to solving the food supply issues, the orange disease currently happening, or any other problem, yet criticize those working on these problems..
Guess we can just hope they will go away since we can't reply on the many people with PHDs working hard everyday. What the heck do they know anyway.

I'm done.

[JP]

In my opinion, genetically modified anything is just the same thing that has been happening on our planet since its inception. EVOLUTION.

[graciegirl]

QUOTE=Jp [my opinion, genetically modified anything is just the same thing that has been happening on our planet since its inception. EVOLUTION.UNQUOTE


QUOTE=KeepingItReal;687033]Always heard it, I now believe it, Old dogs really can't learn new tricks.......

Think about all the negativity towards drug companies and the FDA next time you or a family member needs a life saving drug or there is a food shortage or another problem.

If you think you can eat well enough to stay totally healthy I think you are in for a big surprise soon and then there are all your family members that may need a crucial drug to save their life.

Biased, half truth, and self serving links are easy to find on about anything. These are usually written by someone like Lipton or Suzuki without any or a questionable background trying to get some attention for themselves or sell a book.

Hopefully the critics and naysayers will not be able to discourage research and developments we need.

Big companies are in business just like any business and do make mistakes but it takes big business to do the research, invest the needed capital, take the risks, and even market a product.

No critics have offered any suggestions or alternatives to solving the food supply issues, the orange disease currently happening, or any other problem, yet criticize those working on these problems..
Guess we can just hope they will go away since we can't reply on the many people with PHDs working hard everyday. What the heck do they know anyway.

I'm done.[/QUOTE]



I completely agree with both Keeping It Real and JP in their above posts. Well said, gentlemen.

[Quixote]

I completely agree with both Keeping It Real and JP in their above posts. Well said, gentlemen.

Surely, my friend graciegirl, you cannot be disagreeing with this "live and let live" point of view, can you be?

.... Why should anyone think in terms of needing to "change anyone's mind" or "proving that GMO foods cause no harm"? GMOs are only one issue. If one is comfortable eating GMOs; eating foods from animals that have been treated with such things as BGH; eating foods that have been produced with heavy use of pesticides; eating foods with artificial colors, flavors, and flavor enhancers such as MSG; and so forth, then one is free to do so. On the other hand, if one is NOT comfortable eating such foods and prefers foods that are organically raised, which invariably cost more, then one is free to do that. No minds need to be changed; no proving is necessary....

[Villages PL]

Here is one of those rare times in a serious discussion that I cannot help thinking the acronym ROFLMAO!!! You're right on, maureenod! The FDA?! The world's second most frequently told lie is "I'm here from the government to HELP you!" (The most frequently told lie is "The check is in the mail...." And no, I cannot document this; it's a joke!) Although I'm not trying to confuse anyone with facts when their minds are made up, following are a handful of links that spell out some of the more disastrous decisions made and positions taken by the FDA (of which GMO labeling is only one):

Testimony Assessing the U.S. Drug Safety System (http://www.citizen.org/hrg1759)

FDA says it's OK to turn bad food into sellable stuff » peoplesworld (http://peoplesworld.org/fda-says-it-s-ok-to-turn-bad-food-into-sellable-stuff/)

The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal | Collective-Evolution (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/19/the-shocking-story-of-how-aspartame-became-legal/)

The Ten Worst Drug Recalls In The History Of The FDA - 24/7 Wall St. (http://247wallst.com/2010/12/10/the-ten-worst-drug-recalls-in-the-history-of-the-fda/)

FDA’s Biggest Blunders - Health - MSN Healthy Living (http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/fda%E2%80%99s-biggest-blunders-1)

The 20th Anniversary of the FDA's Biggest Mistake | Rodale News (http://www.rodale.com/gmo-labeling-0)




This is yet another serious side effect of GMOs....




Emphasis above ("would have") is mine. Why did this legislation fail? Why did Monsanto pour millions of dollars to defeat a similar proposition in California in the last election? Why are food producers so reluctant to provide information on their products that state what is GMO? Why the need for such secrecy? This sure makes it sound as though there is something to hide.... Here are links to more studies concerning GMOs (and the reason I didn't post this yesterday is that I wanted to read all these links first):

GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans | Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-scandal-the-long-term-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-on-humans/14570)

Institute for Responsible Technology - Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/articles-about-risks-by-jeffrey-smith/Doctors-Warn-Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Food-May-2009)

The Effects of Genetically Modified Foods | The Liberty Beacon (http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/03/14/the-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods/)

Genetically Modified (GM) Food, Genetically Modified Organisms, Genetic Engineering, GM Food Crops, Engineered GMOs, Genetically Altered Foods (http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful).

Frankenfoods: The debate over genetically modified (GM) foods | Washington Times Communities (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/world-our-backyard/2013/apr/15/frankenfoods-debate-over-genetically-modified-gm-f/)

The Truth Is Out on Genetically Modified Foods - And It's Not Pretty (http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/the-truth-is-out-on-genetically-modified-foods-and-its-not-pretty)

Vital Link article on health hazards of genetically modified foods (http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/145-vital-link-article-on-health-hazards-of-genetically-modified-foods)

Genetically Modified Foods Affect Health and Body - Oprah.com (http://www.oprah.com/health/Genetically-Modified-Foods-Affect-Health-and-Body)

A point of view in a discussion is lost as soon as we sink to the level of being offensive or patronizing (as in an ageism and nationality comment about a respected geneticist, as though someone with decades of experience and a non-American to boot disqualifies him AND his research) or a put-down of British farmers by describing them in primitive terms or describing the views of someone whose differ from yours in a disparaging term rather than simply disagreeing.

To go back to my first quote, "Money talks." We can put down anyone who disagrees with us in an offensive way, even countries who disagree and ban GMOs and who thus even risk the possibility of their own food supplies being more costly to their citizens (based on supply and demand) because of these countries' concerns about the health of their citizenry. But it's American farmers who are the losers! Meantime, a "Protection of Monsanto Act" quietly sneaks through Congress that, as stated in this article, "Liberals and Tea Party Members alike are up in arms over...."

The Real Monsanto Protection Act: How The GMO Giant Corrupts Regulators And Consolidates Its Power | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/10/1832621/monsanto-protection-act-power/?mobile=nc)

How can one not respect the concerns of someone who writes a thoughtful comment like this:








I don't understand this. Why should anyone think in terms of needing to "change anyone's mind" or "proving that GMO foods cause no harm"? GMOs are only one issue. If one is comfortable eating GMOs; eating foods from animals that have been treated with such things as BGH; eating foods that have been produced with heavy use of pesticides; eating foods with artificial colors, flavors, and flavor enhancers such as MSG; and so forth, then one is free to do so. On the other hand, if one is NOT comfortable eating such foods and prefers foods that are organically raised, which invariably cost more, then one is free to do that. No minds need to be changed; no proving is necessary....

I think your post was worthwhile and informative, but if it wasn't designed to prove anything or change anyone's mind, what was the point of it? What was the point of all those links?

If GM foods are destructive and bring about ever increasing environmental and healthcare costs, why should it be allowed to continue? If it's based on the freedom to do so, will the rest of us be free from paying the costs?

[Quixote]

I wrote this yesterday ...

To go back to my first quote, "Money talks." .... But it's American farmers who are the losers! Meantime, a "Protection of Monsanto Act" quietly sneaks through Congress that, as stated in this article, "Liberals and Tea Party Members alike are up in arms over...."

... and this is today's news. Feel free to "kill the messenger"!

"It's on! Farmers begin suing Monsanto over genetic pollution of wheat crops"

Learn more: It's on! Farmers begin suing Monsanto over genetic pollution of wheat crops (http://www.naturalnews.com/040625_lawsuit_Monsanto_genetic_pollution.html#ixz z2VNRKLA1d)


I think your post was worthwhile and informative, but if it wasn't designed to prove anything or change anyone's mind, what was the point of it? What was the point of all those links?

If GM foods are destructive and bring about ever increasing environmental and healthcare costs, why should it be allowed to continue? If it's based on the freedom to do so, will the rest of us be free from paying the costs?

You have answered your own question [see bold emphasis above]. Undecided people can make up their own minds. People can choose to change their minds if they wish; that's not my job. I am Quixote; I do battle with windmills, not with the minds of others. I know my limitations; the best I can do is live by a power of example: those who agree, agree; those who don't agree, don't agree. Those who don't agree AND THEN feel the need to "kill the messenger" because they don't like the message, well, that's not my problem, and I have no control over it; sorry....

"Will the rest of us be free from paying the costs?" That's a joke, isn't it—perhaps a not-so-funny joke, but a joke nonetheless?! With government comes the good and the bad. For example (as it's been part of this discussion), the FDA has done some wonderful things, but to cite them as a paragon of perfection when they've made some terrible proven mistakes is just plain unrealistic. And yes, we do pay for it. Michael J. Fox has public recognition and money, both of which theoretically should bring clout, but was he able to do anything for the many years that stem cell research—that could by now have given us a cure for Parkinson's disease—was banned? C'mon.... Purism and idealism may be wonderful, but we have to live in a world of reality!

[KayakerNC]

And the last time I shopped at Aldi's, I was suckered into buying the corn because it LOOKED so good (one of the goals of genetic modification of foods). My mistake; no one else is responsible. When I got home, I realized what I had done and promptly threw it out. Wouldn't even feed it to the animals (that I don't have...)!

Wasting food is like stealing from the poor, says Pope Francis at his weekly audience in St. Peter's Square.
Wasting food is like stealing from the poor, says pope - World News (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18780415-wasting-food-is-like-stealing-from-the-poor-says-pope?lite)

[zonerboy]

"Paranoia strikes deep,
Into your life it will creep,
It starts when you're always afraid,
............
Better stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin down."

Buffalo Springfield 1967

[Villages PL]

In my opinion, genetically modified anything is just the same thing that has been happening on our planet since its inception. EVOLUTION.

What you say has some truth to it but overlooks the pace at which evolution effects change to plants, animals and humans. In nature, there's very little genetic change over tens of thousands of years. The very slow change in plants and animals allows humans the time to adapt. Genetic change creeps along ever so slowly and that's what keeps everything in balance.

Now we have scientists in laboratories making genetic changes, one after another, in a short period of time, leaving no time for animal and human species to adapt. Does anyone know what all the consequences of this rapid change will be?

If you are one who eats a lot of processed foods, you might not care about rapid genetic changes to the food supply. This is basically the same thing all over again because we have not had time to adapt to all the many processed foods that are available to us in supermarkets. And I can see the effect it has had on our population with record numbers of people being overweight and obese. More and more cases of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, arthritis etc.. Now rapid genetic change to the food supply just adds more fuel to the fire.

P.S. I'm not trying to change anyones mind, I'm just providing information. :-)

[Quixote]

P.S. I'm not trying to change anyones mind, I'm just providing information. :-)

BINGO! That's all any of us can do....

[senior citizen]

For optimal kidney health.....
Fruits and vegetables, particularly cranberries, blueberries, spinach, onions, celery and asparagus, are beneficial for kidney function. Focusing your diet on fresh, unprocessed foods is also important, and generally a heart-healthy diet is one that will be beneficial for your kidneys as well. Excess amounts of sodium, potassium, animal proteins and sugar should be avoided for kidney health.

You may also want to use caution when consuming genetically modified foods, as residues of glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) widely used on GM crops and modified Bt insecticidal toxins that are produced by the GM plants themselves have been found to kill human kidney cells.