Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:12 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Are GMO foods safe? Back to Topics
flyboyUT

Champion Author
Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2013 1:47:22 PM

Shoddy and biased research was used to try and show they are not it seems. More deception by environmentalists to get the answers they want it seems.
.
.
>>>GMO opponents use a lot of shady evidence to try to demonstrate that genetically modified organisms are bad for human health, but no evidence is more infamous than the study looking into the “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” in 2012. And fortunately for science, technological progress and Facebook arguments everywhere, the journal that originally published this study has printed a retraction after an investigation of lax research practices.
.
.
.
The retraction of this study is a victory not only for proponents of GMOs and scientific innovation, but also a blow against the use of junk science and research. New technologies will always have naysayers and fearmongers following their development. The showboat, pseudoscientific attacks by anti-GMO activists have the same intentions as Thomas Edison filming the electrocution of a circus elephant, to scare the hell out of people about a new technology.

With the battle for GMO labeling beginning in the United States and already raging in Europe, consumers need to be armed with the facts, not junk science. And when even the journal that published the original GMO tumor study has published a study showing that GMOs cause no harm to humans, the anti-GMO activists begin to look like they have very little evidence to stand on. GMOs can not only help to more efficiently grow crops, but also can help to lower food costs and bring nutrient enhanced food to people starving in third world countries.<<<

We need honest discussions of matters like this - not politically motivated junk science.

REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2014 8:46:41 PM

Absolute sheer stupidity - "Let Them Eat Less, Anti-GMO Fashion Designer Tells Poor".
.
.
>>>London-based fashion designer Vivienne Westwood is in trouble for saying people who can't afford organic food should simply "eat less." She also told the BBC no one should be able to sell genetically modified food in England.

The modern-day Marie Antoinette's callously naive "solution" underscores the disconnect environmental activists regularly display about agricultural technology and needs of the world's poor.

Westwood encountered the BBC reporter while delivering a letter she and other celebrities signed, protesting the sale of genetically modified (GM) foods in England. European Union rules prohibit England from growing GM crops, but an upcoming January vote might let member states decide for themselves. England would do well to adopt the technology.

"It is now clear that the opposition to GM crops has been counterproductive for the environment, as well as harmful to the economy and the consumer," notes The Times of London.

Seventeen million farmers grow GM crops in 28 countries on 12% of the world's arable land.

No one has ever suffered ill health effects from eating food containing GM ingredients, because they merely use highly advanced technologies to grow better crops.

But when indignation is its own reward, facts are irrelevant.

Take the case of urbanites in Congress trying to legislate how U.S. farmers raise crops.

Sixty representatives recently signed a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency asking Administrator Gina McCarthy to suspend or restrict neonicotinoid pesticide use.

Made from synthetic nicotine, the chemicals become part of a plant's defense system against pests that would otherwise destroy a crop.

Neonics are used predominantly as seed treatments, coating seeds before planting rather than being sprayed on crops as they grow. Only insects actually chomping on the crop are affected, whereas other insecticides and "organic" chemicals can affect all insects in the area, including beneficial species.

As is too often the case, the congressional letter-writers don't know what they're talking about. The overwhelming majority of the signatories represent urban districts: Reps. Yvette Clarke of Brooklyn, Judy Chu from Los Angeles, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren of the Silicon Valley, for example.

None of these districts contains any meaningful farming operations, the congressmen do not claim to represent farmer constituents, and there is no evidence that any of them ever tilled more than small personal veggie patches.

.
.
They did not get their "facts" from farmers who employ seed treatments, agricultural scientists, or even a legitimate science group. They got their "insights" from activists the BBC calls "environmental campaigners," the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

We've seen this before. The IUCN is famous for assuring the European Union that neonics could be banned without risk, because they're ineffective in protecting rapeseed crops that are the basis of canola oil.

"Well, the environmentalists were wrong," The Times science writer Matt Ridley retorted.

"The loss of the rape crop this autumn is approaching 50% in Hampshire and not much less in other parts of the country," Ridley noted. "Farmers in Germany, the EU's largest producer of rape, are also reporting widespread damage. Since rape is one of the main flower crops, providing huge amounts of pollen and nectar for bees, this will hurt wild bee numbers, as well as farmers' livelihoods."

Twisting the facts to fit an uninformed world view may be excusable in fashion designers. Congressmen should know better.
.
.
Neonics are the least harmful pesticides yet invented in terms of impact on the environment, injurious effects on beneficial insects and risks to farm workers applying the products.

"If neonics are banned," notes Financial Post analyst Claire Brownell, "farmers will return to using spray and granular pesticides, which they say are less effective at protecting crops in the growth stage, and even more harmful to human, bee and environmental health."

Bee busybodies should do their homework before making more recommendations.<<<
.
.
.
.
It seems once more treehuggers who have never actually done the work are telling those who do how they should do the work. Once - just once these effete lounge lizard intellectuals should actually get their hands and the rest of their precious bodies dirty really doing the job before they tell others how to do it.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:18,288
Points:219,965
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 25, 2014 3:14:48 PM

Is a profit seeking business more likely to care about food produced or creating a dependence on it's organization?
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,640
Points:153,455
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2014 11:34:19 PM

reb
said
"if we have people starving in other parts of the world, then let those parts of the world have GMO if it helps them."

"WOW Streedrider... nice attitude..."

With fly touting how safe GMO is, hopefully your not advocating taking away starving countries GMO foods away.

Would you really let them starve?

The food lables are to identify contents not exclusions.

Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:18,288
Points:219,965
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2014 4:07:28 PM

" But dont try to use the power of the govt to force every food producer to cater to your unfounded fears."

That would be the purpose of the FDA, were not lobbyists involved and the fact the only info available to them is biased and only from the manufacturer.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2014 3:10:08 PM

Once more - there is no reputable proof that GMO products pose any threat regardless of what the Luddite treehuggers want to believe. Therefore there is no reason to force the food manufactures to do all the testing and continued testing to relable present day safe food. It is a needless waste of time money and effort.

The only real effect will be to increase the shelf price of the food we all buy. Now if you choose to purchase products that the manufacturer chooses to label the way you wish fine by me - go for it. But dont try to use the power of the govt to force every food producer to cater to your unfounded fears.

Reb I understand you but trying to stay away from all products containing corn is futile in todays world. Corn or corn products are used in almost everything we consume plus its used as a feed for most of the animals we use as food.

If and when it is ever proven that some or all GMO products are or may be harmful then and only then should we look at what the alternatives are.
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,014
Points:2,509,955
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2014 8:31:26 AM

"if we have people starving in other parts of the world, then let those parts of the world have GMO if it helps them."



WOW Streedrider... nice attitude...



"Here in the good old USA a simple label will allow a consumer to make the choice to consume or not."


If I had a choice, I would choose not to eat GMO's as well. I shy away from almost all corn products... I think I would be ok with only allowing companies that do NOT have GMO products to advertise that on label / box. Here is a link for those that are really concerned about GMO's.




VERIFIED PRODUCTS


[Edited by: reb4 at 11/10/2014 8:32:16 AM EST]
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,640
Points:153,455
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2014 8:21:35 AM

flyboy

if we have people starving in other parts of the world, then let those parts of the world have GMO if it helps them.

Here in the good old USA a simple lable will allow a consumer to make the choice to consume or not.

Most of the time I look for the label to exclude GMO, there is no reason to not slap the wording on the label.

To much stuff is already hidden in the label.

So until labeling reflects actual contents its a TRUST US GAME and we know how that works out.

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2014 7:48:48 PM

AC - I understand and somewhat agree with what your saying about the business practices of certain companies. But that has little to do with the original topic idea that I tried to put forth. that GMO food is safe top eat.

We have a whole group of people who are of the opinion that they are some kind of poison. But they have no proof that is accepted by most researchers that their claims of danger mean anything at all.

Yet the use of GMO technology does show the promise of resolving many concerns inherent in the production and consumption of adequate volumes of nutritious food for the population of the world.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,640
Points:153,455
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2014 4:27:09 PM

Their
Safe trust us.
ROFLMAO
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:2,139
Points:20,005
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2014 2:10:57 PM

Just more Chicken Liberal "THE SKY IS FALLING" mania...

In other words: Liberalism is a mental disorder...
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,633
Points:3,506,895
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2014 10:33:34 AM

There are a whole lot of genetically modified crops out there that you don't even know about. Beefsteak tomatoes have a gene from a Brahma bull that helps them resist insects, for example. Corn? Well, there's so many different types as to be mind boggling.

The crops themselves I think aren't so bad. After all, only corn pollen will "mate" with other corn. The pollen from corn isn't going to affect, for example, pine trees, and vice versa.

And we have a number of "hybrid" crops. Though somewhat more "natural", they still represent fooling with nature. Look at Meyer lemons. They are a cross between lemons and oranges, as I'm to understand.

The thing that galls me about GMO isn't the crops - it's some of the business practices of the patent owners. Monsanto is the poster child for the bad guys. They strongarm people into buying their crops with lawsuits. For example - Farmer A will plant their GMO strain. Farmer B might be planting Cargill corn. The two might cross-pollinate a bit. If Farmer B plants some of his "holdback" seed the following year, Monsanto operatives come on the land, collect a sample, then genetically test it. If they find that any portion of the genetic code from their plant cross-pollinated into that corn, the sue them for patent infringement. But, if they buy Monsanto seed, the lawsuit will go away.

While Monsanto needs to get paid for their invention, I think it is underhanded and unfair to sue farmers who won't trade with them like this. That is an unscrupulous business practice that needs to be outlawed. This is one time when I will actually agree with SemiSteve that business needs to be reigned in and regulated. One shouldn't be able to sue over a natural process.
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,014
Points:2,509,955
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2014 7:54:16 AM

"Or people could wake up and quit eating fried foods. We owe the industry nothing.""

Don't eat French fries from fast food restrauants... .. Well except at local hot dog place, and that is maybe 4 -6 x's a year.



I don't go to star bucks... But company I currently work fo gets coffee for drip coffee maker. . I have never looked at coffee package. Is it the coffee or "other stuff" that may be GMO""

[Edited by: reb4 at 11/9/2014 7:56:45 AM EST]
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:18,288
Points:219,965
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2014 2:05:02 PM

Starbucks joins Monsanto so the corporate elite may maintain control over government and consumers.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:18,288
Points:219,965
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2014 1:53:27 PM


Or people could wake up and quit eating fried foods. We owe the industry nothing.
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,014
Points:2,509,955
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2014 8:51:45 AM

U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato. Next Up: French Fry Fans.



Here's an interesting article... for all you McDonalds french fries fans...



"A potato genetically engineered to reduce the amounts of a potentially harmful ingredient in French fries and potato chips has been approved for commercial planting, the Department of Agriculture announced on Friday.

The potato’s DNA has been altered so that less of a chemical called acrylamide, which is suspected of causing cancer in people, is produced when the potato is fried.

The new potato also resists bruising, a characteristic long sought by potato growers and processors for financial reasons. Potatoes bruised during harvesting, shipping or storage can lose value or become unusable."
More Background info, on previous GM Potatoes...

ANd why this one might be considered more safe???



"Genetically modified potatoes failed once before. In the late 1990s, Monsanto began selling potatoes genetically engineered to resist the Colorado potato beetle. But the market collapsed after big potato users, fearing consumer resistance, told farmers not to grow them. Simplot itself, after hearing from its fast-food chain customers, instructed its farmers to stop growing the Monsanto potatoes.

This time around could be different, however, because the potato promises at least potential health benefits to consumers. And unlike Monsanto, Simplot is a long-established power in the potato business and presumably has been clearing the way for acceptance of the product from its customers.

Simplot hopes the way the potato was engineered will also help assuage consumer fears. The company calls its product the Innate potato because it does not contain genes from other species like bacteria, as do many biotech crops.

Rather, it contains fragments of potato DNA that act to silence four of the potatoes’ own genes involved in the production of certain enzymes. Future crops — the company has already applied for approval of a potato resistant to late blight, the cause of the Irish potato famine — will also have genes from wild potatoes."


[Edited by: reb4 at 11/8/2014 8:53:42 AM EST]
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,640
Points:153,455
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 12:41:17 AM

Eat them at your own risk at least label the packages so one can choose to buy or not.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:18,288
Points:219,965
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 8:55:41 PM

Already is.`
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,640
Points:153,455
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 8:29:42 PM

in the long run GMO is going to be the more expensive way to produce.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:18,288
Points:219,965
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 8:48:06 PM

Only if we are in tune with it. Otherwise we are just a cancer growing for ourselves at the expense of our surroundings, and we know how that can turn out. Nobody wins.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,685
Points:328,045
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 8:26:37 PM

We are part of nature. So much for your theory.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:18,288
Points:219,965
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 7:18:31 PM


no us = nature getting back to normal
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,685
Points:328,045
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 6:13:26 PM

No bees = no crops.
No crops = no us.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,640
Points:153,455
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 5:21:24 PM

eroupe outlawed GMO plants several years back, the residuals take 11 years to reside from the earth. Will there be any bee's left?
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:25,159
Points:2,338,280
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 7, 2014 12:10:52 PM


This is not your average video about bees, so please watch!
Don't forget to pass it on, thanks!

GREAT VIDEO! Please watch... Marla Spivak: Why bees are disappearing

Honeybees have thrived for 50 million years, each colony 40 to 50,000 individuals coordinated in amazing harmony. So why, seven years ago, did colonies start dying en masse? Marla Spivak reveals four reasons which are interacting with tragic consequences. This is not simply a problem because bees pollinate a third of the world’s crops. Could this incredible species be holding up a mirror for us?



[Edited by: sissurf at 10/7/2014 12:12:27 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 10, 2014 6:25:25 PM

Be sure to actually read both pages of the article adn then let me know what you think.
\.
.
>>>Donald Kennedy, president emeritus of Stanford University and former head of the FDA, once chided those “who give up the difficult task of finding out where the weight of scientific evidence lies, and instead attach equal value to each side in an effort to approximate fairness.” This results, he said, in “extraordinary opinions … promoted to a form of respectability that approaches equal status.” National Public Radio – or as I prefer to call it, National Politically Correct Radio – often falls into this trap, offering extraordinary but discredited opinions that reflect a kind of back-to-nature, New Age fundamentalism that accepts environmental myths and hyperbole and is systematically antagonistic to certain sectors of science and technology.

NPR is entitled to its biases and inaccuracies, much as Fox News and MSNBC are – or they would be, except that unlike the TV networks, they receive federal funding.<<<

Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:25,159
Points:2,338,280
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 31, 2014 11:15:10 PM



You and me both, citizen1! I'm trying not to eat that garbage myself!
Profile Pic
citizen1
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:1,856
Points:1,049,430
Joined:Apr 2004
Message Posted: Aug 31, 2014 11:12:49 PM

The fact that the people who develop them for Monsanto will not eat them is all I need to know.
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:25,159
Points:2,338,280
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 31, 2014 10:34:26 PM



Any volunteers posting on here that would check the under leaf of milkweeds in your neighborhood for the monarch caterpillars and would be willing to raise them yourself indoors or your own garage?

It's very sad to say, that after so many years of raising both the monarch butterfly and the swallowtail, that I have only seen two monarchs this year and one lonely swallowtail! I use to collect hundreds of these little flutterbys!! But every year it would get worse and worse. This is the worse year ever!!

Monarch butterflies peak time to leave us and begin their migration journey to Mexico is September 18.

I had prayed to Our Father for His help and finally I saw one female monarch laying eggs on my milk weed about a week or so ago. I now have about maybe 3 dozen very tiny caterpillars. I normally don't take them in when they are so very tiny, but my fear was that every thing else in nature would eat them up before they got a chance to mature.

So who's in there with me?

I know it's a lot to ask. In the long run, you will be amazed checking in on your little flutterbys watching each stage they go through. You will also be amazed of the gold that circles around their Pupa (Chrysalis)

If you have any questions, just e-mail me @ gasbuddy. I'll also send anyone who asks, some common milkweed seeds, that I'm growing here, that smells so sweet, even sweeter then a rose. I'm not sure how the common milkweed would do in all states, but it's worth a try.

So what do you say?

Help me, so that the next generation can enjoy the butterbys.

Thanks!

Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:25,159
Points:2,338,280
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 31, 2014 10:32:53 PM



For Immediate Release, August 26, 2014

"Genetically Engineered Crops Are Major Driver in Population Crash"

A group of scientists and organizations is now pushing to have the Monarch listed as “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, Read more: http://www.birdsandblooms.com/blog/monarch-butterfly-2014-update/#ixzz3C1LsyXe2

Fall Flowers That Attract Butterflies

Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:25,159
Points:2,338,280
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 10, 2014 12:04:15 AM



STUDY: Pesticides Linked to Parkinson's Risk in People with Specific Gene. Several studies have linked pesticides with the development of Parkinson's disease, and now this newest 2014 study has found a specific gene that may explain why some people are particularly susceptible to developing Parkinson's after exposure to certain pesticides. One important part of the study was that the researchers had maps of pesticide use from the past 40 years available because of California laws requiring that pesticide use be reported. It would be difficult or impossible to repeat the study in another state, says Dr. Beate Ritz, a professor of epidemiology at University of California, Los Angeles and co-director of the school’s Center for Gene-Environment Studies in Parkinson's Disease.

No toxic pesticides-use monitoring in other states. Yet another way the agrichemical industry and Big Ag gets away with doing damage to human & animal health and the environment. No traceability. No accountability. No liability. It’s just the way these unethical corporations like it, and is one of the reasons they’re fighting tooth and nail against mandatory state and federal-level GMO labeling initiatives as well.

READ: http://www.livescience.com/43069-pesticides-parkinsons-disease-genes.html

LINK to the study: http://www.neurology.org/content/82/5/419.short



[Edited by: sissurf at 8/10/2014 12:06:26 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 8:59:47 PM

Sissurf - and your source is "Take action to save the bees and agriculture as part of Greenpeace's international "Save The Bees" campaign." Suuuuuuuuuuure I'm gonna get the heebie geepies over this latest threat.... NOT!!!!
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:25,159
Points:2,338,280
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 3:51:24 PM



Truth is stranger then fiction.

It's not hype if they are doing it!
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 4, 2014 3:20:30 PM

Yep --- aint nothing like a little hysterical hyperbole to really make a point ----
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:25,159
Points:2,338,280
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 3, 2014 11:24:08 PM


Robotic Bees replacing the real McCoy Bees!

And who's behind this?

Monsanto, Syngent, Bayer, Dupont, BASF, etc. They will once again be the ones cashing in the dough with their robotic bees, once they killed off all of Mother's Nature's bees with their chemicals and GMO garbage!

Mother nature's Bees, that were once free, is going to cost farmers big time in buying these robotic bees from big money hungry companies, that don't care a red cent about Mother Nature, only how much they can line their pockets.

[Edited by: sissurf at 8/3/2014 11:25:21 PM EST]
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:25,159
Points:2,338,280
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 3, 2014 10:39:04 PM



Why lawns suck, and how they're now GMO

"Lawncare company Scotts has created a genetically modified Kentucky Bluegrass seed that is designed to withstand massive amounts of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. So you can plant your lawn with these seeds and spray the crap out of it with a bunch of terrible chemicals so you don't get any weeds, because god forbid you have any unsightly weeds in your lawn! But the worse part is, according to folks at EcoWatch, Scotts is doing this without getting any approval from the USDA by using some neat little loopholes."

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,685
Points:328,045
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jun 24, 2014 11:41:10 PM

Horsefeathers would be another GM product from the labs at Monsanto.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 24, 2014 11:29:32 PM

Horsefeathers Tim!
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:18,288
Points:219,965
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jun 24, 2014 4:35:09 PM


GMO crops were created to further the use of chemicals.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 24, 2014 4:31:50 PM

So you are saying that biologcally active chemicals that were designed to kill certain things might cause trouble. This is somehow supposed to be news??????

We also know without a shadow of a doubt that some to many inorganic compounds can cause similar problems.

But it relates to GMO technology how again?????

Are these chemicals - both organic and inorganic used in the production of other crops or things? Are they also used in the production of GMO crops? If the answer is yes to bot then the problem is not GM technology if you ask me.

Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:25,159
Points:2,338,280
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 24, 2014 3:08:29 PM



GMO Free USA

BREAKING: New study links pesticide exposure during pregnancy to autism. A study of 970 children found that children of mothers exposed to organophosphates were 60 percent more likely to have an ASD than children of non-exposed mothers, the authors report in Environmental Health Perspectives. Autism risk was also increased with exposure to so-called pyrethroid insecticides, as was the risk for developmental delay. Carbamate pesticides were linked to developmental delay but not ASDs. For some pesticides, exposure seemed to be most important just before conception and in the third trimester, but for others it didn’t seem to matter when during pregnancy women were exposed. Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, Director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York speculated that the pesticides probably drifted from crops through the air, and that’s how pregnant women were exposed. The new study did not measure airborne pesticide levels, however.

While glyphosate was not included in the scope of this study, it should be noted that in pure chemical terms glyphosate is an organophosphate in that it contains carbon and phosphorous. This leads us to ask... what would the study have found if they had included glyphosate in the scope?

READ: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/23/us-pesticides-pregnancy-autism-idUSKBN0EY1BF20140623

READ THE STUDY: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307044/

List of pesticides examined here: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2014/6/ehp.1307044.s001.pdf

#pesticide #autism #organophosphate #GMO #glyphosate #Roundup #organic #GMOFreeCanada #GMOFreeUSA — with Alerta Cali and Victor Vargas.
Like

Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 10:04:25 PM

Marty that is the same EPA who is tasked with determining the safety of pesticides. I don't have to like all that they do but they are the designated body in the US to make the determination of relative safety and safe dosage/exposure levels.

Just because one part of the organization does one job does not force me to agree with all the organization does.

Oh by the way - dont SMH too much - I heard tell some folks dont have it screwed on quite tight enough. Be careful....


[Edited by: flyboyUT at 6/14/2014 10:07:52 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,685
Points:328,045
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 7:24:00 PM

That's the same EPA you hate when they publish findings with which you disagree. SMH
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 6:43:35 PM

Try this on for size Marty ----
.
.
.
>>>. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to glufosinate ammonium residues<<<

Doesnt seem to be a major concern there Marty.
.
.
.
.

Welcome to the discussion there tropicalmn. We have s few folks here who seem to be frightened of gm and yet don't seem to be able to show any rational basis for he fear that is supported by any data except data produced by folks who have an economic or other involvement in banning
GM tech and any thing remotely connected with newer farm technology of any kind.

Maybe you can provide them with some reasons to stop being afraid of food.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,685
Points:328,045
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 6:16:24 PM

Hence the availability of "Roundup Ready Corn" which is tolerant of Roundup, and "Liberty Link Corn" which is resistant to glufosinate.
Profile Pic
tropicalmn
Veteran Author Minnesota

Posts:278
Points:256,185
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 4:40:15 PM

“Growing GM is a package deal, all or nothing. They control the seed and the chemicals needed. the whole purpose of GM was to be able to boost chemical usage.”

Ridiculous inane nonsense.

The entire reason behind the BT corn borer & corn root worm GM traits is not to need to use any insecticide for those pests. In Conventional grown Non GMO corn to kill those same two pests you would need to spray a non selective insecticide possible multiple times that would potentially kill non target beneficial insects also. Golden Rice with added vitamin A or Papayas what additional chemicals?
If a Ag producer chooses to buy & grow a variety of seed with a genetically enhanced trait developed by Monsanto you pay a tech fee per bag of seed & sign a grower agreement or some will refer to as a license that the primary purpose is that you agree not to save or sell seed produced. There is nothing what so ever requiring you to use Monsanto chemicals. The patent on glyphosate the active ingredient in name brand Roundup herbicide expired in 2000.

“I might add that last year in spite of the fact the crops drowned early from heavy rains the spraying continued until fall. When asked why they were spraying a dead field the crop duster said the contract had to be fulfilled.”
Fallow weed control. The so called “dead field “LOL had weeds growing on them right? One weed can produce up to 100,000 seeds.

Examples of how difficult it is to explain rapidly changing 21st century agriculture that has grown extremely complex to someone who has no present day involvement. More often than not while trying to keep it simple it still gets misconstrued into some ridiculous nonsense.


[Edited by: tropicalmn at 6/14/2014 4:40:54 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 4:30:09 PM

Sure there is money to be made in making and selling chemicals - of all kinds.

If there was not sufficient money to be made to insure a profit the stockholders and investors would tell the company to stop selling something at a loss. This is supposed to be something new or surprising? The people who make tractors and plows and harvesters and barn stanchions and knitting needles also expect to make a profit. So your point is what again????

As far as the coke and eggshell - are you saying that coke should not sell coke or the egg folks should use some GM techniques to produce eggs that are impervious to being soaked in an acid solution for a year????

In other words your two post have what to do again about the subject of the topic?????
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:25,159
Points:2,338,280
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 2:24:30 PM



Talking about chemicals and their reaction to things....
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:25,159
Points:2,338,280
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 2:23:00 PM



Well there is money in making chemicals isn't there, or are you that blind to that fact also flyboy?!
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 11:54:30 AM

"the whole purpose of GM was to be able to boost chemical usage. "Suuuuuuuure it is Tim.
Profile Pic
timothyu
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:18,288
Points:219,965
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jun 13, 2014 9:39:20 PM

"So what your saying is that the claimed contamination was done at the behest of your government?"

Didn't say that at all.

You still don't get it. Growing GM is a package deal, all or nothing. They control the seed and the chemicals needed. the whole purpose of GM was to be able to boost chemical usage.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,801
Points:1,598,175
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 13, 2014 9:00:36 PM

So what your saying is that the claimed contamination was done at the behest of your government? Sounds like you have other problems up there my friend - GM food aint one of them. GM is just a technology to change seed. It has nothing to do with people doing wrong things in terms of use of pesticides. If you really do have people spraying unneeded chemicals on flodded fields you have other major problems.

The topic is and has been that GM food is not inherently hazardous to eat any more than any other food is.
Post a reply Back to Topics