this whole push to label genetically modified food is paid for by the organic food lobby. most all the vegetables today are genetically modified to resist disease and such.
Today's Poll: Should the government require labeling of genetically modified food?
Submitted by Howard Owens on August 28, 2013 - 7:20am
CJ, while your correct that most vegetable today are GMO's they do a lot more to them then just try and make them disease resistant. They have modified them so they can spray them with round up, to kill the weeds, but not the crop. I for one think that they should tell us if they are spraying our food with round up and other poisonous chemicals.
Further more, if they are so proud of the new product they have made why not disclose it. Organic farmers have to jump thru hoops to label their food as organic, why not label GMO's if they have nothing to hide?
Soy is the most prominently GMO on the market. Used to eat it all the time, but now after 40 years I am terribly allergic to it. Same with corn, but to a much lesser degree. Possible link--who knows?
Also several theories regarding a link between Round-up (glyphosphate) and some types of cancer--most notably breast cancer. I know all the advances in technology keep our food production high and costs low, but I am slightly nervous about the potential long term hazards.
Voted "yes". At least then we have a choice.
How are we supposed to define genetically modified? Should we start with the Middle Ages? Or last week? Every vegetable, every fruit you buy in the store is genetically modified from what it was when it grew in the wild. Many could not grow without support today.
This whole argument reminds me of the mindless fear that people have of "radiation". The sunbather, disk jockey, chef and nuclear power plant worker all deal in radiation. If you don't understand the previous statement, you are just not trying to understand the world you live in.
It's not that hard to define genetic modification. When man goes in and alters the DNA of an organism in the lab and creates unnatural properties in a plant it's a GMO. When natural techniques like cross breeding are used to maximize the good attributes of certain species it not GMO. No plant naturally stands up to round up, and no plant actual produces its own pesticide, as some corn now does, due to bacterial DNA being implanted in the corn DNA. I don't think that GMO themselves are that bad, but plants sprayed with round up are. Have you read the label on a bottle of round up?
The reason why Soybeans are associated with Breast Cancer and a few other cancers is due to the fact that SOYBEANS are phytoestrogens. The world market and particularly the US market has steadily increased the use of soy in almost all foods over the last few decades. Phytoestrogens have a dramatic effect on the estrogen level in both men and women. Round up is NOT considered the source of the increase in cancers from SOY based products in the scientific community, but is rather highly publicized as the source by organic food advocates. The 3 fold increase in soy consumption is most likely why we are seeing increased breast cancers in particular. (The exception would be in Alfalfa where residuals were showing up in milk, Round Up ready Alfalfa has been removed from the Market as a result)
For information about Round UP this is a MIT report http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/index.html
Little Known Fact: Most herbicide and insecticides used in the US for the past 25 years are made from plant based rather than Petro-Chemical sources as they were in the past.
Food has been genetically modified since the day man started cultivating crops. Man continuously made choices of which crops to grow and cross breed based upon desirous traits. Some strains were better at resisting diseases or pest infestations while others produced higher yields. Repeated "unnatural" selections gave us bumper crops of highly nutritious foods that allowed the world's population to grow seven fold in less than 100 years (combined with vaccinations and clean water). I'm not convinced that GMO foods are worse for us than are "natural" or "organic" foods.
Let me just bring a particularly pertinent example into the discussion of how long man has been altering plant genetics. Corn. Not modern corn, ancient corn. Corn is so far removed from it's wild ancestor that it wasn't until the advent of genetic technology that scientists were even sure what plant prehistoric Americans started with when they started breeding it. The answer wound up being Teosinte.
The picture I just linked to displays Teosinte on the left, Corn on the right. The middle is what happens if Teosinte pollen accidentally pollinates a Corn plant. So yes, Humans have a long history of genetically modifying their food-crops. Modern technology just made it faster.
I will never understand why people refute fact and truth in favor of believing lore and hysteria
What span of years would those 'prehistoric' peoples have lived in?
Prehistoric is considered times before writing systems were developed.
As the word America isn't THAT old, I'm thinking there were no "prehistoric Americans".
The people who lived in the Americas (namely Central America in this case) in prehistoric times. Back before the Mayans and the Olmecs even. I can't think of a better way to refer to them, and if they had a name for themselves I don't know it.
Dan would you like to define poisonous a little better. Just about everything can be poisonous in sufficient quantity and period of time. See Below.... courtesy of 5 sec google search and results from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
Water intoxication, also known as water poisoning or dilutional hyponatremia, is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside safe limits by over-hydration.
Under normal circumstances, accidentally consuming too much water is exceptionally rare. Nearly all deaths related to water intoxication in normal individuals have resulted either from water drinking contests in which individuals attempt to consume large amounts of water, or long bouts of intensive exercise during which electrolytes are not properly replenished, yet huge amounts of fluid are still consumed. Moreover, water cure, a method of torture in which the victim is forced to consume excessive amounts of water, can cause water intoxication.
Water, just like any other substance, can be considered a poison when over-consumed in a specific period of time. Water intoxication mostly occurs when water is being consumed in a high quantity without giving the body the proper nutrients it needs to be healthy.
Excess of body water may also be a result of a medical condition or improper treatment; see "hyponatremia" for some examples. Water is considered the least toxic chemical compound, with a LD50 of 90 g/kg or more in rats.
Now excuse me.....thanks to Doug's MMMMMMM I have to go get a few ears of corn from the Downtown Farmers market. Now if only I could catch that danged woodchuck living by Backhoes that keeps jumping out and scaring pedestrians I would be having a true country dinner LOL
Define poison Kyle? Easy, round up, and it's active ingredient glyphosate. Read the label on a bottle of round up and tell me that you want that sprayed on most of the vegatables you eat. Remember corn and soy are both used in lots of processed foods so you may not even realize your ingesting a vegetable product.
Comparing water intoxication to glyphosate isn't even the same thing. One is designed to kill, the other is most likely to happen to a pledge to a faternity.
If there is NO issue with this way of food production why not label it as such? Why not disclose what is in products being sold for human consumption?
"Read the label on a bottle of round up and tell me that you want that sprayed on most of the vegetables you eat."
Round UP is NOT APPROVED for use on Vegetables, it is only approved for grain crops like soybean and GRAIN corn which require further processing and IS NOT applied on corn when eared or soybean once the seed pods develop. Round Up is utilized in the early stages of plant development before the edible grains are present
Dan, A little ways back you claimed that 'No plant naturally stands up to round up, and no plant actual produces its own pesticide, as some corn now does'
I feel the need to address those statements. Firstly, Round Up. Actually, quite a few plants naturally stand up to Round Up. It's one of the troubling problems that modern farmers face. Last time I looked it was something like 75 different weed species have developed round up resistance. It's actually simple biology explaining how they did this. In any population with diverse genetics, you will find a few members that have resistances to different chemicals. If you use the same chemical alone, repetitively, as some farmers did with round up it creates a strong selection pressure in favor of those individuals that resist that chemical. The resistant plants breed amongst themselves and make more resistant plants. After a few years, most of the plants of that species are resistant.
Secondly, plants producing their own pesticides. Many do, we just call them 'poisonous' or 'toxic' instead though. Tomatoes, Peppers and Potatoes are all members of the Nightshade family. Like all members of the Nightshade family they produce toxic chemicals in their leaves to deter animals from eating them. These toxins are effective against most insects and almost everything else trying to eat them. The only part of each of those plants that isn't toxic is the part that we as humans routinely eat.