Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
sonamdrukpa Wayfarer Registered: 10/18/11 Posts: 2,777 Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: --------------------
| |||||||
sonamdrukpa Wayfarer Registered: 10/18/11 Posts: 2,777 Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: --------------------
| |||||||
treesniper119 No one of Consequence Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 1,893 Loc: rainbow land Last seen: 6 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: For those who want to continue to argue off topic with me, (I'm sorry for dragging this topic off track K1ngSp4de,) When somebody mentioned to the masses here that GMO's had no negative health effects... well i can't let that slide, & Monsanto makes GMO's, the very same engineered gluten peptides that are under scrutiny and intense study now, Monsanto has no clinical or pre clinical health determinations for human consumption of their GMO's either, as it clearly states on their website, they feel there is no need even though There is a growing body of scientific evidence which proves that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are inherently different from natural organisms, including the way the body processes them, as well as how the immune system responds to them. But Monsanto, the largest purveyor of GMOs in the world, believes that GMOs are no different than natural organisms, and that GMO testing is both needless and valueless. In the Why aren't you running human clinical trials on GM crops? section of Monsanto's Food Safety page, the biotechnology giant explains its opinion that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to natural organisms. According to Monsanto, since concentrations of proteins, carbohydrates, and other nutrient factors vary among natural crops, as well as among natural and GM crops, then these differences are automatically unimportant in light of GMO safety. Furthermore, Monsanto claims that its injection of foreign DNA into its GM crops is also automatically safe because, get this, DNA is present in natural crops as well. Never mind that the injected DNA is foreign and unnatural, and is used to alter the entire genetic structure of GM crops -- according to Monsanto, its unnatural DNA is automatically non-toxic because every other plant also has DNA. Case closed. Using this same absurd illogic, injecting foreign animal DNA into a developing human baby, for instance, must also be safe because that baby contains DNA, right? Or how about drinking antifreeze, which is made of atoms, because your body is also made of atoms? Based on Monsanto's pseudoscientific nonsense, everything can be considered non-toxic and safe because it is all made of atoms, just like our bodies... Wow....kind of contradictory from what these scientists have been saying for 12 years... Quote: -------------------- Icelander said: I'd like to fund unlimited abortions. Finally some good coming from my tax dollars. Repetoire89 said: I love abortion and fully condone it - some should make it into a sport. Treesniper119 said: Any one who is willing to start life & also willing to deny life to their form/seed/child/offspring is cursed. For you have severed your own cord to lifes worth. Anyone who condones these actions is cursed as well...
| |||||||
Enlil OTD God-King Registered: 08/16/03 Posts: 66,961 Loc: Uncanny Valley |
| ||||||
Quote: How is it unnatural? Everything on the planet is natural...everything altered by a part of nature is natural...we are a part of nature..everything we do is natural. And how is natural related to healthy? Asbestos is natural...should I snort it?
| |||||||
DieCommie Registered: 12/11/03 Posts: 29,258 |
| ||||||
What is 'natural' is merely defined in an adhoc way to support a preexisting belief. Its an appeal to the notion of a god that has constructed a way things 'should be' rather than evolution by selection which constructs things to be exactly as they are.
| |||||||
HerbBaker Registered: 08/17/07 Posts: 2,506 |
| ||||||
Quote: Watching it now, thank you.
| |||||||
treesniper119 No one of Consequence Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 1,893 Loc: rainbow land Last seen: 6 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote: You see, these unnatural "engineered gluten peptides" do not exist naturally, in nature, in the same form that they are derived from. "Engineered gluten peptides" are derived from natural gluten sources, then man modified & specifically engineered, spliced, (horizontal gene transfer etc.) by Monsanto, with a specific outcome in mind (tolerant to pesticides, drought, faster harvesting) And in light of new studies and evidence, the consequences to the consumer, ecosystem, and world at large, through the creation of previously untested specific GMs by Monsanto, are proving to be a very grave situation. In nature, no such problem or instance that we have been discussing exists & the natural crossings of plants and fruits can not and will not ever become what has been created by Monsanto. Edited by treesniper119 (04/06/12 04:16 PM)
| |||||||
sonamdrukpa Wayfarer Registered: 10/18/11 Posts: 2,777 Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Right, we can trust that the natural evolutionary process will never fuck us over:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/ How have you managed to hold the thread on such an irrelevant single point for so long? --------------------
| |||||||
starfire_xes I Am 'They' Registered: 10/24/09 Posts: 21,590 Loc: Dallas with all Last seen: 8 months, 29 days |
| ||||||
To decide something should not be allowed just because it is unnatural, or 'shows up in animal populations or humans...blah blah blah....isn't enough to ban it. Scientific evidence and research studies should clearly identify the actual damage things cause not just that 'It's not natural = translation = I don't like it or 'might' cause problems in someones opinion.
That's the same kind of specious reasoning that keeps marijuana banned--inspite of studies that show it benign. -------------------- [/url][/url] IF THE NEIGHBORS COMPLAIN BECAUSE THE MUSIC'S TOO LOUD, TURN IT UP SO YOU CAN'T HEAR THEM BITCH
| |||||||
treesniper119 No one of Consequence Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 1,893 Loc: rainbow land Last seen: 6 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Cause people like you sonmadrukpa keep coming back to post, its an interesting and very real problem, and worth discussing. (3 reasons for you) So... your either implying man engineered malaria or that malaria is becoming super resistant to engineered man made drugs? Either or proves nothing on your part, and is not really relevant to the topic. (any one ever heard of Rhino virus? Its not a new topic) Starfire_xes said: {To decide something should not be allowed just because it is unnatural, or 'shows up in animal populations or humans...blah blah blah....isn't enough to ban it. Scientific evidence and research studies should clearly identify the actual damage things cause not just that 'It's not natural = translation = I don't like it or 'might' cause problems in someones opinion. That's the same kind of specious reasoning that keeps marijuana banned--inspite of studies that show it benign.} This isn't a case of some natural wheat, corn, soy strains hybridizing. And it is not specious reasoning... Monsanto Drug Company engineered these gluten peptides which are now found to be harmful to everyone and they are not digestible or processable in the body, they basically forced these gluten peptides into 90% of the food we eat, with no testing on humans, (just check their website, they don't think its necessary, and this is the issue) & their are a multitude of scientific studies available now, i have posted a plethora of them in the last 8 pages of discussion, Studies all showing adverse reactions in the "human body" when digesting these "new modified foods". It doesn't matter who you are, human genetics will be altered eventually, & most importantly, Using this same absurd illogic, injecting foreign animal DNA into a developing human baby, for instance, must also be safe because that baby contains DNA, right? Or how about drinking antifreeze, which is made of atoms, because your body is also made of atoms? Based on Monsanto's pseudoscientific nonsense, everything can be considered non-toxic and safe because it is all made of atoms, just like our bodies! Didn't you read anything starfire? or did you just jump right into your opinions? Cannabis is illegal because it is pretty much a cure all from nearly every type of cancer to nearly every auto-immune disease. Its cheap and affordable and difficult to tax, it needs no processing or manufacturing, it is readily available medicine to all. Its also held in a corrupt monopoly by the FDA, NIDA, etc. The same FDA that Monsanto had employees working for, FDA employees who passed specific GMOs monsanto created and allowed these to the market. (its called "the revolving door" illegal much?) Drug companies are lobbying out there as well, they put money in congressman's pockets, they attempt to control and sway laws in their favor. Edited by treesniper119 (04/08/12 11:06 AM)
| |||||||
sonamdrukpa Wayfarer Registered: 10/18/11 Posts: 2,777 Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
My point is that the natural=safe/unnatural=bad dichotomy that you keep trying to shoehorn these GM crops into is completely specious. As mentioned before, the grains we eat are not natural (having been domesticated very recently in the historical past), the genes that produce these proteins you're terrified of already occur in nature (and in crops that we already ate), and (as you yourself are arguing above) this whole idea of "natural" being safe is pseudoscientific and ill-defined.
You have utterly failed to show that these proteins actually do the general population any harm - and all it would take to show that all these supposedly devastating effects on the cellular level actually matter is one little statistic saying that people actually report being sick. Not endless anecdotes about people posting their self-diagnosed problems on the internet, snake-oil doctors writing books, or supposed increases in infant diagnoses - actual, quantified rates. Why has it taken you eight pages to not do this despite repeated requests? --------------------
| |||||||
passifloracaerulea Registered: 11/13/10 Posts: 10,485 |
| ||||||
well it's a good thing you're not opposed to gmos being forced into our food supply since you are one of the experiment groups. good for europe in general for taking on the role of control in this experiment.
| |||||||
treesniper119 No one of Consequence Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 1,893 Loc: rainbow land Last seen: 6 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
They aren't snake-oil doctors sonmadrukpa, they apply no such magical substance to perform miracles, they sell nothing in fact... Since you've already judged the guy before ever reading his book or his works, or hearing from his patients, here is a very short video of him, just for you.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/per Dr. William Davis, the one who wrote "wheat belly"...He's a renowned cardiologist, hes been observing and documenting what his patients and other colleagues in the profession's patients are saying before and after they have wheat in their diet, the same wheat that Monsanto drug company has modified with engineered gluten peptides, the very same being studied now, this has been thoroughly explained now. & sonmadrukpa, As for no relevant links to prove this.... The journal of translational medicine and other related GM scientific studies on the negative effects of Monsanto's engineered gluten proteins on animal and humans with links have been posted multiple times now, it doesn't get anymore scientific than that... & I'm honestly not gonna past another link for you sonmadrukpa, until you finish reading whats been posted, and catch up with the rest of the class. sonmadrukpa said: "How have you managed to hold the thread on such an irrelevant single point for so long?" My family and millions of others are reaching out for answers and trying to help others with up to date facts and information about this plague Monsanto has now brought upon the world. then sonmadrukpa, If its irrelevant, why bother coming back? quit spammin post whore, I will no longer be wasting my energy spoon feeding you or replying to your posts because you seem like an inconsiderate, argumentative, smug, asshole of a and i really mean that, it's coming from the Enjoy the video & your GMO's. Edited by treesniper119 (04/08/12 03:06 PM)
| |||||||
HerbBaker Registered: 08/17/07 Posts: 2,506 |
| ||||||
Quote: I guess you missed this post?
| |||||||
treesniper119 No one of Consequence Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 1,893 Loc: rainbow land Last seen: 6 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Excellent link HerbBaker, & for anyone else who's not a Its really worth a read, to fully understand the gravity of the situation we've landed ourselves in. By Frédérique Baudouin CRIIGEN Insecticidal Bt toxins such as those produced in genetically engineered plants can be detrimental to human cells. This is a result of recent research led by researchers at the University of Caen (France). Their experiments showed that toxins produced in, for example, the genetically engineered maize MON810, can significantly impact the viability of human cells. The effects were observed with relatively high concentrations of the toxins, nevertheless there is cause for concern. According to companies like Monsanto, which produces genetically engineered maize with these toxins, the toxins are supposed to be active only against particular insects and should have no effect on mammals and humans at all. For the first time, experiments have now shown that they can have an effect on human cells. These kinds of investigations are not a requirement for risk assessment in Europe or in any other region. Another finding of the researchers concerns a herbicide formulation sold under the brand name Roundup. Massive amounts of this herbicide are sprayed on genetically engineered soybean crops and its residues can be found in food and feed. According to the new publication, even extremely low dosages of Roundup (glyphosate formulations) can damage human cells. These findings are in accordance with several other investigations highlighting unexpected health risks associated with glyphosate preparations. “We were very much surprised by our findings. Until now, it has been thought almost impossible for Bt proteins to be toxic to human cells. Now further investigations have to be conducted to find out how these toxins impact the cells and if combinatorial effects with other compounds in the food and feed chain have to be taken into account,” says Gilles-Eric Séralini from the University of Caen, who supervised the experiments. “In conclusion, these experiments show that the risks of Bt toxins and of Roundup have been underestimated.” Bt toxins and tolerance to herbicides are broadly used in genetically engineered plants. Bt proteins only naturally occur in soil bacteria. By introducing the modified toxin gene into the plants, the structure of the toxins is modified and may thereby cause selectivity to be changed. The content of the proteins within the plants is highly variable. Many genetically engineered plants contain several Bt toxins at the same time. For example, SmartStax produces six different Bt toxins and therefore has a higher overall content of the proteins. In addition, it was made tolerant to herbicides. So far, there has been no investigation of the combinatorial effects of these toxins and residues from spraying, or their potential risks for human health, which was considered unlikely. The researchers have now shown that interactivity does occur. Under the specific conditions of their experiment, the modified Bt toxin lowered the toxicity of Roundup. Further investigations are necessary to examine other potential combinatorial effects under varying conditions. “These results are pretty worrying. Risk assessment requirements for genetically engineered plants and pesticides need to be rigidly enforced. In the light of these findings, we think that the commercialization of these plants is not in accordance with EU regulations”, says Christoph Then at Testbiotech. Testbiotech is closely following risk assessment at the European Food Safety Authority EFSA and has repeatedly brought attention to gaps in risk assessment. The research was supported by GEKKO foundation (Germany). The Committee for Research and Independent Investigation on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) Association (France) and Testbiotech (Germany) were involved in planning the experiments and the discussion of results. Findings were published after peer review process. Edited by treesniper119 (04/08/12 02:21 PM)
| |||||||
passifloracaerulea Registered: 11/13/10 Posts: 10,485 |
| ||||||
here it's put very simply and while there may be a few proven benefits, this is clearly an assault on our liberties.
Genetically Modified Food - GM Foods List and Information Information provided by Mavis Butcher - Published: 2009-09-22 Information on Genetically Modified (GM) foods including a list of GM foods with DNA changes and the pros and cons of GM food today. GM Foods Genetic modification of food is not new. For centuries, food crops and animals have been altered through selective breeding. While genes can be transferred during selective breeding, the scope for exchanging genetic material is much wider using genetic engineering. In theory, genetic engineering allows genetic material to be transferred between any organism, including between plants and animals. For example, the gene from a fish that lives in very cold seas has been inserted into a strawberry, allowing the fruit to be frost-tolerant. By far the most common genetically modified (GM) organisms are crop plants. But the technology has now been applied to almost all forms of life, from pets that glow under UV light to bacteria which form HIV blocking "living condoms" and from pigs bearing spinach genes to goats that produce spider silk. When did genetically modified foods originate? Between 1997 and 1999, gene-modified (GM) ingredients suddenly appeared in 2/3rds of all US processed foods. This food alteration was fueled by a single Supreme Court ruling. It allowed, for the first time, the patenting of life forms for commercialization. Since then thousands of applications for experimental GM organisms have been filed with the US Patent Office alone, and many more abroad. The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was the tomato (called Flavr Savr), which was made more resistant to rotting by Californian company Calgene. The tomatoes were released into the market in 1994 without any special labeling. In February 1996, J. Sainsbury and Safeway Stores in the United Kingdom introduced Europe's first genetically-modified food product. A variant of the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996. Following GM crops included insect resistant cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybeans both of which were commercially available in 1996. In 2003, countries that grew 99 % of the global transgenic crops were the United States (63 %), Argentina (21 %), Canada (6 %), Brazil (4 %), China (4 %), and South Africa (1 %) and today the Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75 % of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient. Between 1995 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km² (222 million acres), of which 55 percent were in Brazil. In the US, by 2006 89 % of the planted area of soybeans, 83 % of cotton, and 61 % maize were genetically modified varieties. Today many Gmod crops are grown in North America. India has also come aboard the bandwagon in 2002 with a rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties. "Genetic engineering is inherently dangerous, because it greatly expands the scope for horizontal gene transfer and recombination, precisely the processes that create new viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics, and trigger cancer in cells." - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho Genetically Modified Food Debates Genetically modified foods, or GM foods, are often mentioned in the news lately. European environmental organizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GM foods since they were first created, and recent controversial studies about the effects of genetically modified corn pollen on monarch butterfly caterpillars have brought the issues of genetic engineering plants and animals to the attention of the public. The benefits of genetically modified food crops include being able to breed disease resistant crops and herbicide tolerant strains. Genetically modified crops can also be made to include vitamins that may be lacking in some staple varieties. According to the UK Greenpeace website - The introduction of genetically modified (GM) food and crops has been a disaster. The science of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another was supposed to be a giant leap forward, but instead they pose a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health. In addition, the real reason for their development has not been to end world hunger but to increase the stranglehold multinational biotech companies already have on food production. And - The simple truth is, we don't need GM technology in order to possess future food security. Using sustainable and organic farming methods will allow us to repair the damage done by industrial farming, reducing the excessive use of fertiliser, herbicides and other man-made chemicals, and making GM crops redundant. Many scientists argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production, so people should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk. Activists are opposed to genetic engineering as with current recombinant technology there is no way to ensure that genetically modified organisms will remain under control, plus the use of this technology outside secure laboratory environments represents multiple unacceptable risks to both farmed and wild ecosystems. In 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so allergic to this nut, they go into anaphylactic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death. Many opponents of current genetic engineering realize that the increasing use of GM in crops has caused a power shift in agriculture towards Biotechnology companies, which are gaining more control over the production chain of crops and food, and over the farmers that use their products, as well. In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically altered version of the food supplement – L-tryptophan. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by Showa Denko, Japan’s third largest chemical company. (Mayeno and Gleich, 1994). On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly due to accidental cross-pollination with conventional crops. In 1998, 95-98 percent of about 10 km² planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from the Monsanto company. Monsanto then sued Schmeiser for piracy. In the past few years more and more crops have started to cross-pollinate which leaves a problem that is yet to be solved. In 2005 Environmentalists say Australia faced "the most serious genetic contamination event" in its history, after the West Australian government confirmed low levels of genetically modified canola had been found in non-GM canola. Also in 2005 a decade-long project to develop genetically modified peas with built-in pest-resistance has been abandoned after tests showed they caused allergic lung damage in mice. "They're now turning those seeds into intellectual property, so they have a virtual lock on the seeds upon which we all depend for our food and survival." - Jeremy Rifkin Genetically Modified Food Labels In America, there’s no need for labeling and this has resulted in a largely uninformed populace that is ingesting “gene-altered” food. In other parts of the world such as the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and Australia consumers demand labelling so they can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins. Since its implementation in April 2004, EU Regulation 1829/2003 (labeling of genetically modified food and feed) has caused both food and feed manufacturers in Europe as well as their overseas suppliers a great deal of concern. All genetically modified foods intended for sale in Australia and New Zealand must undergo a safety evaluation by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), an independent government agency. FSANZ will not approve a GM food unless it is safe to eat. It is mandatory for GM foods to be identified on food labels in Australia and New Zealand. These requirements became law in December 2001 and were put in place by food ministers to assist consumers to purchase or avoid GM foods, depending on their own views and beliefs. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture says the industry faces huge losses if mandatory labelling is implemented. The fear is that consumers will see the labels as a warning and avoid these foods, and that food processors will reformulate their products to avoid GM foods rather than place labels. It also says labels will increase the price of foods produced and processed in Canada. "The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction." Richard Lacey: Professor of Food Safety, Leeds University. List of genetically modified foods: It’s virtually impossible to provide a complete list of genetically modified food (GM food) in the United States because there aren’t any laws for genetically modified crops! Some estimates say as many as 30,000 different products on grocery store shelves are "modified." That's largely because many processed foods contain soy. Half of North America's soy crop is genetically engineered! Rapeseed - Resistance to certain pesticides and improved rapeseed cultivars to be free of erucic acid and glucosinolates. Gluconsinolates, which were found in rapeseed meal leftover from pressing, are toxic and had prevented the use of the meal in animal feed. In Canada, where "double-zero" rapeseed was developed, the crop was renamed "canola" (Canadian oil) to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed. Honey - Honey can be produced from GM crops. Some Canadian honey comes from bees collecting nectar from GM canola plants. This has shut down exports of Canadian honey to Europe. Cotton - Resistant to certain pesticides - considered a food because the oil can be consumed. The introduction of genetically engineered cotton plants has had an unexpectedly effect on Chinese agriculture. The so-called Bt cotton plants that produce a chemical that kills the cotton bollworm have not only reduced the incidence of the pest in cotton fields, but also in neighboring fields of corn, soybeans, and other crops. Rice - Genetically modified to contain high amounts of Vitamin A. Rice containing human genes is to be grown in the US. Rather than end up on dinner plates, the rice will make human proteins useful for treating infant diarrhoea in the developing world. Soybean - Genetically modified to be resistant to herbicides - Soy foods including, soy beverages, tofu, soy oil, soy flour, lecithin. Other products may include breads, pastries, snack foods, baked products, fried products, edible oil products and special purpose foods. Sugar cane - Made resistant to certain pesticides. A large percentage of sweeteners used in processed food actually comes from corn, not sugar cane or beets. Genetically modified sugar cane is regarded so badly by consumers at the present time that it could not be marketed successfully. Tomatoes - Made for a longer shelf life and to prevent a substance that causes tomatoes to rot and degrade. Corn - Resistant to certain pesticides - Corn oil, flour, sugar or syrup. May include snack foods, baked goods, fried foods, edible oil products, confectionery, special purpose foods, and soft drinks. Sweet corn - genetically modified to produces its own insecticide. Officials from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have said that thousands of tonnes of genetically engineered sweetcorn have made their way into the human food supply chain, even though the produce has been approved only for use in animal feed. Recently Monsanto, a biotechnology food producer, said that about half of the USA's sweetcorn acreage has been planted with genetically modified seed this year. Canola - Canola oil. May include edible oil products, fried foods, and baked products, snack foods. Potatoes - (Atlantic, Russett Burbank, Russet Norkatah, and Shepody) - May include snack foods, processed potato products and other processed foods containing potatoes. Flax - More and more food products contain flax oil and seed because of their excellent nutritional properties. No genetically modified flax is currently grown. An herbicide-resistant GM flax was introduced in 2001, but was soon taken off the market because European importers refused to buy it. Papaya - The first virus resistant papayas were commercially grown in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas now cover about one thousand hectares, or three quarters of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto, donated technology to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, for developing a papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India. Squash - (yellow crookneck) - Some zucchini and yellow crookneck squash are also GM but they are not popular with farmers. Red-hearted chicory - (radicchio) - Chicory (Cichorium intybus var. foliosum) is popular in some regions as a salad green, especially in France and Belgium. Scientists developed a genetically modified line of chicory containing a gene that makes it male sterile, simply facilitating the production of hybrid cultivars. Today there is no genetically modified chicory on the market. Cotton seed oil - Cottonseed oil and linters. Products may include blended vegetable oils, fried foods, baked foods, snack foods, edible oil products, and smallgoods casings. Tobacco -The company Vector has a GMO tobacco being sold under the brand of Quest® cigarettes in the U.S. It is engineered to produce low or no nicotine. Meat - Meat and dairy products usually come from animals that have eaten GM feed. Peas - Genetically modified (GM) peas created immune responses in mice, suggesting that they may also create serious allergic reactions in people. The peas had been inserted with a gene from kidney beans, which creates a protein that acts as a pesticide. Vegetable Oil - Most generic vegetable oils and margarines used in restaurants and in processed foods in North America are made from soy, corn, canola, or cottonseed. Unless these oils specifically say "Non-GMO" or "Organic," it is probably genetically modified. Sugarbeets - May include any processed foods containing sugar. Dairy Products - About 22 percent of cows in the U.S. are injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH). Vitamins - Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is often made from corn, vitamin E is usually made from soy. Vitamins A, B2, B6, and B12 may be derived from GMOs as well as vitamin D and vitamin K may have "carriers" derived from GM corn sources, such as starch, glucose, and maltodextrin. How can the public make informed decisions about genetically modified (GM) foods when there is so little information about its safety? According to the FDA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization. Future planned applications of GMOs are diverse and may include drugs in foods, for example, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties. "History has many records of crimes against humanity, which were also justified by dominant commercial interests and governments of the day. Despite protests from citizens, social justice for the common good was eroded in favour of private profits. Today, patenting of life forms and the genetic engineering which it stimulates, is being justified on the grounds that it will benefit society, especially the poor, by providing better and more food and medicine. But in fact, by monopolising the 'raw' biological materials, the development of other options is deliberately blocked. Farmers therefore, become totally dependent on the corporations for seeds." - Professor Wangari Mathai. Disabled World - Genetically modified foods information including list of GM foods with dna changes and pros and cons of GM food: http://www.disabled-world.com/fi
| |||||||
sonamdrukpa Wayfarer Registered: 10/18/11 Posts: 2,777 Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
One miserable statistic, I don't understand why you can't produce that
Look, I'll make it real simple: Your argument is incomplete. Let me give you an example to sort of make this clearer: iodine is a poisonous element - it kills your cells, it kills you. Yet we are just fine eating iodine in trace amounts in our food. These days it's put into our salt, which means that it's in nearly everything we eat. Yet people aren't dying from it. Why? Because in small amounts, it's not poisonous. In fact, it's necessary for your body to function properly. In the same way, just pointing out that there are these things in some GM foods that can do some bad things to your cells sometimes and have other bad effects doesn't mean anything if you can't show those small-scale effects having any effects on a macro level. In order to complete your argument, you need some sort of scientific study that shows that these things are having a bad impact on the 99% of us that aren't celiac. If you can't do that, then you don't have an argument. Quote: Renowned by whom? He's selling a book based on a diagnosis that he's assuming people have without even examining them. How is that not being a snake-oil salesman? Unless he has done double-blind studies on the effects of wheat in people's diets, then his book is not worth the paper it's printed on. --------------------
| |||||||
sonamdrukpa Wayfarer Registered: 10/18/11 Posts: 2,777 Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Was this in response to me? If so, I'm not sure how that shows harm to the general population, for the reasons in my post above. This thread is full of things like that, but I just don't think they show anything worrisome without additional argumentation. --------------------
| |||||||
treesniper119 No one of Consequence Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 1,893 Loc: rainbow land Last seen: 6 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: -------------------- Icelander said: I'd like to fund unlimited abortions. Finally some good coming from my tax dollars. Repetoire89 said: I love abortion and fully condone it - some should make it into a sport. Treesniper119 said: Any one who is willing to start life & also willing to deny life to their form/seed/child/offspring is cursed. For you have severed your own cord to lifes worth. Anyone who condones these actions is cursed as well...
| |||||||
sonamdrukpa Wayfarer Registered: 10/18/11 Posts: 2,777 Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Same problem the post had before, try again.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
When Cocaine and Monsanto's Roundup Collide | veggie | 1,088 | 4 | 09/01/09 01:51 PM by SparQz | ||
Drug users will get a pass on minor charges in Snohomish County [WA] | Ythan | 1,329 | 8 | 03/04/18 01:53 AM by Awebig Throy | ||
Tragic News - Bob Wallace passes away | Thor | 5,249 | 3 | 10/25/02 10:00 AM by gnrm23 | ||
No Kidding: In Iowa, They're Taxing Illegal Drugs | motaman | 2,288 | 3 | 06/04/03 12:45 PM by | ||
Kids Today Aren't Tripping Like The Old Days | TackleBerry | 5,878 | 8 | 11/22/02 03:09 PM by upupup | ||
If his kids want pot, Depp will supply it | motaman | 2,343 | 4 | 07/18/03 06:34 PM by Mojo_Risin | ||
U.K. - Cannabis passes last legal hurdle | motaman | 1,006 | 1 | 11/14/03 12:49 PM by AuroricDistortions | ||
Agony & Ecstasy | motaman | 2,039 | 1 | 08/29/03 10:52 PM by Fungushungry |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: motaman, veggie, Alan Rockefeller, Mostly_Harmless 28,656 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||