Phil Deakins Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Melita Magic wrote: Yes, Madelaine, the farmer (whose crops were infected unwillingly by GMO, and harassed by Monsanto) was pursued by lawsuits for six years. (He is a main focus of the documentary. Might want to watch it.) Did he win in the end? Not really, in my opinion. But his courage is amazing. Not everyone has it in them to be Norma Rae or Karen Silkwood, though, and most farmers just sign away their free speech, and that of future generations, to avoid being sued. It isn't about being scared by lack of nature but when someone reshapes and patents FOOD you had better be concerned, before it's too late. All I can do is try to warn people to THINK. I said in my only other post in this thread that these things could only happen in the U.S. While the U.S. is very good in may ways, it is downright stupid in others, such as this. You said in another post that the company had added a fish gene to a plant, and that the company sued the farmer beause he was growing the company's gene. Nobody can own the rights to a gene unless they actually created it. Perhaps the company owns the rights to a particular sequence of genes that it created, which is fair enough. But a company suing a farmer because the company planted its sequence of genes in a field (via a customer), where they were spread to the next field (the farmer's field) by natural means, could only happen in the U.S. In things like that, the U.S. officialdom is sadly lacking in what the rest of the world, and their own people, sees as basic common sense. Much earlier than this, the U.S. patent office issued a patent on human DNA to a company. The company didn't invent the DNA - they didn't even discover it all themselves, but, for some reason only known to the common sense lacking U.S. officialdom, they issued a patent on it. Those things may work in the U.S. for a while, because of idiotic officialdom, but the rest of the world has a much greater awareness of basic right and wrong in such things. It's sad for U.S. people that their officials can get away with such stupidities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 you did good can just do what you done. just keep put it out there for people + where i live we had that whole debate over labelling and GMO and that was heaps industry money went in and say was going to end of the world. was rubbish now we gor that Act like i say before. is not perfect but is better than the nothing we had before. have to show no harm now + bc of labelling and truth advertising people more informed now like free range eggs. cant say on the package tey free range if they are not. some companies try say farm range and rubbish like that to get around. they get in trouble and get fined and have to correct. some them try go to court. judge just say to them: FAIL !!! organic now come to mean chemical free. if use chemical pesticides or chemical sprays or chemical fertilisers then is not organic. that been challenged by chemical comapnies as well. judge say FAIL again to them + it takes a while, but people getting it now. like the eggs. in the supermarket they like $2 or $3 a dozen more for free range. but is big stacks of free range eggs now. and only tiny stacks of battery eggs. supermarkets not silly. they only got so much shelf space. and they not make big space for stuff that dont sell, no matter how cheap it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinfulPrince Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 It is ALL about not giving up folks. (Thank you Pussycat Catnip, cuz you called it for that first :-) ) Just because bad guys get 3 seconds in the sun does not mean you roll over and say "they've been doing it we might as well let them continue". Thats a victim mentality of the highest order. And if you have it as a country.... You never give up. Ever. Their moment in the sun is nothing but an opportunity for you to see where they are. Your time to chart out what it is you want to happen and how you are going to go about causing that change. No change in our system causes itself. They only happen when people make them happen. 16 said that where she is when the bad guys try to pull the slick moves to get around laws those people have fought for the judge strikes it down. Judges strike down stuff like that not just because they personally happen to be "good" people. They do it when the pressure is there from people who say "you won't sit on that bench if you don't". If you want it, be those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrius Gothly Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Melita Magic wrote: Darrius Gothly wrote: I don't know enough about GMO's in general, or the latest debate regarding infertile seeds, to make a valid judgement as to their safety. (snip) So I have to agree .. labelling GMO's would serve no real valuable purpose, but would absolutely ensure that no one would ever buy the product. No offense but, if you don't know about GMO or what's going on behind and around it, then, maybe you can't make an informed decision on the wisdom behind people being able to at least know it's in their food. For people to at least know who or what they are paying money to support. Yet you are definitively stating that there is no valid reason to label. Apparently this is an issue that has struck a very emotional chord in you Melita. Your reply to me is both snarky and ill-informed. I am very well informed of the details of what a GMO is, how it is created, and why they are created. I am NOT informed on their long-term effect on the world or the food chain. No one is. It's not possible for us to predict with 100% certainty that anything will turn out a certain way. When it comes to genetically modified foods, and more to the point, genetically modified anything, we just do not know enough to predict with 100% certainty what side-effects and potential outcomes there may be. (Now for the snarky reply bit ...) As for the labelling you propose and want made into law, the sole purpose is to scare people away from buying GMO products.There is no benefit to saying "This here stuff was made in a test tube" other than to deter someone from purchasing the product. If you cannot admit that you want GMO's done away with, then your entire bluster about the "rightness" of labelling falls flat. My whole post was pointing out that truth, and apparently you understood it by virtue of the way you replied. If anyone should find out your real agenda .. well that would sully the mantle of virtue you've cloaked yourself within. It's not about making sure the details are properly displayed, it's ALL about scaring people away from buying something you think is wrong. And that makes you just another busy-body trying to dictate how others live their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 SinfulPrince wrote: 16 said that where she is when the bad guys try to pull the slick moves to get around laws those people have fought for the judge strikes it down. Judges strike down stuff like that not just because they personally happen to be "good" people. They do it when the pressure is there from people who say "you won't sit on that bench if you don't". jus want to clarify (was my bad to say the way i did) the judge strike it down bc what the companies was doing was illegal. false advertising/packaging or advertising that have the effect of misleading. judge make decision just on whats legal or not is only in the sentencing that the judge will consider mitigation. like good or bad intent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted November 11, 2012 Author Share Posted November 11, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: Melita Magic wrote: Yes, Madelaine, the farmer (whose crops were infected unwillingly by GMO, and harassed by Monsanto) was pursued by lawsuits for six years. (He is a main focus of the documentary. Might want to watch it.) Did he win in the end? Not really, in my opinion. But his courage is amazing. Not everyone has it in them to be Norma Rae or Karen Silkwood, though, and most farmers just sign away their free speech, and that of future generations, to avoid being sued. It isn't about being scared by lack of nature but when someone reshapes and patents FOOD you had better be concerned, before it's too late. All I can do is try to warn people to THINK. I said in my only other post in this thread that these things could only happen in the U.S. While the U.S. is very good in may ways, it is downright stupid in others, such as this. You said in another post that the company had added a fish gene to a plant, and that the company sued the farmer beause he was growing the company's gene. Nobody can own the rights to a gene unless they actually created it. Perhaps the company owns the rights to a particular sequence of genes that it created, which is fair enough. But a company suing a farmer because the company planted its sequence of genes in a field (via a customer), where they were spread to the next field (the farmer's field) by natural means, could only happen in the U.S. In things like that, the U.S. officialdom is sadly lacking in what the rest of the world, and their own people, sees as basic common sense. Much earlier than this, the U.S. patent office issued a patent on human DNA to a company. The company didn't invent the DNA - they didn't even discover it all themselves, but, for some reason only known to the common sense lacking U.S. officialdom, they issued a patent on it. Those things may work in the U.S. for a while, because of idiotic officialdom, but the rest of the world has a much greater awareness of basic right and wrong in such things. It's sad for U.S. people that their officials can get away with such stupidities. Actually it happened in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted November 11, 2012 Author Share Posted November 11, 2012 Darrius Gothly wrote: Melita Magic wrote: Darrius Gothly wrote: I don't know enough about GMO's in general, or the latest debate regarding infertile seeds, to make a valid judgement as to their safety. (snip) So I have to agree .. labelling GMO's would serve no real valuable purpose, but would absolutely ensure that no one would ever buy the product. No offense but, if you don't know about GMO or what's going on behind and around it, then, maybe you can't make an informed decision on the wisdom behind people being able to at least know it's in their food. For people to at least know who or what they are paying money to support. Yet you are definitively stating that there is no valid reason to label. Apparently this is an issue that has struck a very emotional chord in you Melita. Your reply to me is both snarky and ill-informed. I am very well informed of the details of what a GMO is, how it is created, and why they are created. I am NOT informed on their long-term effect on the world or the food chain. No one is. It's not possible for us to predict with 100% certainty that anything will turn out a certain way. When it comes to genetically modified foods, and more to the point, genetically modified anything, we just do not know enough to predict with 100% certainty what side-effects and potential outcomes there may be. (Now for the snarky reply bit ...) As for the labelling you propose and want made into law, the sole purpose is to scare people away from buying GMO products.There is no benefit to saying "This here stuff was made in a test tube" other than to deter someone from purchasing the product. If you cannot admit that you want GMO's done away with, then your entire bluster about the "rightness" of labelling falls flat. My whole post was pointing out that truth, and apparently you understood it by virtue of the way you replied. If anyone should find out your real agenda .. well that would sully the mantle of virtue you've cloaked yourself within. It's not about making sure the details are properly displayed, it's ALL about scaring people away from buying something you think is wrong. And that makes you just another busy-body trying to dictate how others live their lives. LOL and name calling like "busy body" (and all the negative female imagery that conjures), or saying my posts, which are trying to just state the facts of the matter (and I'm leaving things out that are iffy by the way, there is much more to be learned, than what I posted here) are "bluster" - is not "snarky?" What about my post to you was "ill informed?" When I pointed out that if you didn't know how GMO can be harmful, you might want to reserve judgment before saying what's wrong with labeling it? If you don't know why people are against it being in food, how can you say why they want it on a label, isn't that a little presumptive? I'm sorry you choose to see this in terms of "fear." I see it in terms of consumer rights to know what is in what they are eating. In fact it's already U.S. law that ingredients have to be listed in any food item. So this is hardly far afield. People want to know what is used in raising animals or other items destined for a supermarket shelf. The GMO industry just spent at least 60 million dollars in "fear" telling people things like their food costs would go up with this label, when that isn't true. I am not "emotional" on this issue. I am stating facts. I find the word "emotional" is an insult people use to women when they are standing up for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted November 11, 2012 Author Share Posted November 11, 2012 16 wrote: you did good can just do what you done. just keep put it out there for people + where i live we had that whole debate over labelling and GMO and that was heaps industry money went in and say was going to end of the world. was rubbish now we gor that Act like i say before. is not perfect but is better than the nothing we had before. have to show no harm now + bc of labelling and truth advertising people more informed now like free range eggs. cant say on the package tey free range if they are not. some companies try say farm range and rubbish like that to get around. they get in trouble and get fined and have to correct. some them try go to court. judge just say to them: FAIL !!! organic now come to mean chemical free. if use chemical pesticides or chemical sprays or chemical fertilisers then is not organic. that been challenged by chemical comapnies as well. judge say FAIL again to them + it takes a while, but people getting it now. like the eggs. in the supermarket they like $2 or $3 a dozen more for free range. but is big stacks of free range eggs now. and only tiny stacks of battery eggs. supermarkets not silly. they only got so much shelf space. and they not make big space for stuff that dont sell, no matter how cheap it is Thank you 16. Exactly. There is a general trend toward healthier foods, although there is a lot of fraud around the word natural, and even organic, also, lately. (How can food shipped in from China be "organic?" A lot of the big box stores have been caught with foods that are labeled organic but are not...in fact contained pesticides and such past the 'ordinary' limit, far from organic.) People laughed at the idea at first that second hand smoke is bad for people, too; and lots of other things. I don't know why but it seems to be human nature. Sinful Prince thank you for the support on the issue too. Much appreciated, everyone who appreciated in the discussion, no matter how heated it sometimes got. By the way if anyone thought the 'seed cave' was a figment of my imagination, or some other type of "hysteria" just google it - it's real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrius Gothly Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Melita Magic wrote: LOL and name calling like "busy body" (and all the negative female imagery that conjures), or saying my posts, which are trying to just state the facts of the matter (and I'm leaving things out that are iffy by the way, there is much more to be learned, than what I posted here) are "bluster" - is not "snarky?" What about my post to you was "ill informed?" When I pointed out that if you didn't know how GMO can be harmful, you might want to reserve judgment before saying what's wrong with labeling it? If you don't know why people are against it being in food, how can you say why they want it on a label, isn't that a little presumptive? I'm sorry you choose to see this in terms of "fear." I see it in terms of consumer rights to know what is in what they are eating. In fact it's already U.S. law that ingredients have to be listed in any food item. So this is hardly far afield. People want to know what is used in raising animals or other items destined for a supermarket shelf. The GMO industry just spent at least 60 million dollars in "fear" telling people things like their food costs would go up with this label, when that isn't true. I am not "emotional" on this issue. I am stating facts. I find the word "emotional" is an insult people use to women when they are standing up for something. I never said I wouldn't be snarky in return. In fact, that's exactly WHY I used the tone I did ... what goes around, etc. etc. You assumed I didn't know about GMO's and their purpose/creation/function .. which is ill-informed of my level of understanding regarding the subject. As I stated originally, and honed to a fine point in my previous reply .. my only point of unclarity is their long-term effects. Truth is that no one knows 100% what their long-term effects will be. That is why industry and science are proceeding with a great deal of caution on the matter. Further that is also why GMO's with no possibility of reproduction are beneficial; if they cannot produce future generations, their overall effect is short-lived and potentially less harmful should evidence come to light that they might have bad effects. I would much rather they be permitted to exist only as sterile, non-reproducing forms simply to prevent their "escape into the wild." Especially until we have real solid proof of everything they do and affect. I know full well how GMO's "can" be harmful. I also know that water "can" be harmful, air "can" be harmful and a whole host of other things "can" be harmful. I'm also quite aware that 1000's of beneficial and live-saving drugs "can" be harmful .. when improperly utilized. But it's not the "can" that is at issue here; it's the "is" .. and most importantly "is for a known fact". To my knowledge, no one knows for a fact that GMO's are harmful. There is only the fear and suspicion that they "might be" that causes people to avoid them. I'm not arguing that avoiding them might not be a wise choice. I am however arguing that dictating to others that they must avoid them is the wrong approach and .. IMO .. bieng a "busy body". It is a subject with many unknowns and thus something that must be left in the hands of each individual to decide on their own. To THAT extent, yes I believe that a proper approach would be to include the GMO ingredient(s) on the existing and standard label .. just as such things as sugars, fats, calories and various preservatives are also included. But I do not believe that enhancing the label to be solely about the GMO ingredients is necessary or beneficial to anyone. In fact I believe making it a prominent and exclusive label would have much more harmful effects than it would beneficial. In the absence of solid, verified fact, such a label is just promoting fear-mongering and insinuating a level of concern and danger that is completely unwarranted. Now about that last paragraph .. wherein you introduced a factor that was completely absent in all of my prior posts .. sexual discrimination: That alone just points out how ridiculous it is to try and debate this issue with you. Not only am I not the least bit concerned with what parts you were born with, I find your introduction of the subject matter to be unrelated and desperate. If you cannot debate without making this out to be a "sexual battle of the wits" .. then that is a failing in your stance, not in my opinion or defense of my position. For the record, calling a male "emotional" is a much lower blow than calling a female "emotional". Men are "supposed to be unemotional" .. in the old-school wisdom at least. So hanging that label on a man would be an attack of a much more personal and insulting method. But be that as it may, I personally find the presence or absence of certain body parts or hormones in a person to be not the least bit contributory toward their ability to reason, think or defend their opinions. If you do, and if you feel that you are somehow vulnerable based on some wearkness you perceive in yourself because of those factors .. then again I suggest that is your weakness and not mine. (Never mind that this is Second Life, and the real gender behind an account name is completely unknown. Thus it's never a factor I would use in a debate.) You insist in several places within your post that such terms as "busy body" are "negative female imagery". I disagree. Any outside party that seeks to interfere with one's personal decisions can be a "busy body". Especially when that party is interfering not for any valid reason other than their own bias or prejudices. If you hold the opinion that such terms are only negative toward females then I submit that you are prejudiced and failing to consider how they are equally valid when applied to either (any?) gender. Through all of your posts on this issue, I have not yet seen you post proof that GMO's are harmful. I have seen numerous statements designed to inspire fear and mistrust of them. I have seen videos (both those you posted and those from other sources) that are at their foundation designed to scare people away from GMO's completely. But I still have not seen 100% certified proof by EITHER party that GMO's are either safe or harmful. There just isn't solid fact one way or the other. Until such time as there IS solid proof, attempts to drum up fear and mistrust are counter-productive. Citing all of their "possible" ills is nothing less than crying FIRE in a crowded theater. The only effect it will have is to create fear, doubt and confusion where clarity, careful study and personal decision-making are needed most of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 What happened in Canada? My post was about the neighbouring farmer and the gene, and included the issuing of a patent on human DNA. Which happened in Canada? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 I'm ambivalent about the defeat of the GMO labeling referendum in California. On the surface, it's very appealing to think that such labels would help people make informed choices. The risk is that people might use such labels to make very bad decisions -- decisions that hurt themselves and, especially, the environment. Take the "Organic" label. If one knows about natural carcinogens, one may not consider organic products to be necessarily superior to conventional: If organic produce looks less appealing than that on the next counter, that difference may be more than cosmetic. (The existence of natural concinogens doesn't mean synthetic pesticides should be used irresponsibly, but rather that completely avoiding synthetic chemicals sometimes produces food that is actually more dangerous by the time it reaches the consumer's table.) That's on the individual level, but there's also the fact that organic growing practices often have a substantially larger carbon footprint than that of conventional, non-organic methods. That doesn't mean that nobody should ever choose organic produce. It's a safe bet, however, that most who make that choice have no inkling that the label should be considered a warning as well as a selling point. Returning to GMOs, there's the sad story of Monsanto's Newleaf potatoes, genetically engineered for resistance to an insect and a plant virus. The sad part is that large industrial food companies feared consumer rejection of those GMO potatoes, so the product was withdrawn, with the inevitable result: continued use of conventional chemicals to control these crop threats. It's impossible to guess how many people may be suffering bad health effects resulting from this market rejection of GMO foods (perhaps none, if those pesticides are safe and used responsibly), but it's pretty clear that more greenhouse gases are generated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted November 11, 2012 Author Share Posted November 11, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: What happened in Canada? My post was about the neighbouring farmer and the gene, and included the issuing of a patent on human DNA. Which happened in Canada? The farmer who was sued for six years because some GMO pollen blew into and mixed with his crops, was in Canada. He was the main focus of the documentary in the original post. They did also interview a farmer in Indiana, so it happened in the U.S. also. I was taking the mickey a bit. But I was also being straight, because, 90 percent of the documentary was about things that happened in Canada. I would have to go back and see if they said where the human DNA patent happened. I don't think they said where. It was mentioned as an example that no higher life form should be 'owned' by anybody, which I strongly agree with. I also agree with your basic point which was, (I think), that since they didn't "create" it, they can't patent it. I guess the judge considered splicing one gene into another a 'new creation.' I would argue otherwise. I'm trying to be very careful what I put into print...libel laws and all of that. I'm trying to not use names and to stick to what's happened in courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted November 11, 2012 Author Share Posted November 11, 2012 I wouldn't feel too sorry for Monsanto. Not with their history. Sustainable farming is a good thing, and I think too many pesticides are used, I agree with you there. But GMO doesn't stop that, it increases it. Plant diversity is a good thing. GMO plants are sterile, and narrow, and develop resistance to whatever is used on them. That requires more of the chemicals as we saw with Round Up. I don't trust any of their concoctions, though, because I do not feel their intentions are anything other than profit. I would love to know what you think of the documentary. BTW I think the real reason there are hungry people in the world is not farming methods but greed. Either a government stops food donations from reaching those it needs to, due to wars and conflicts and grudges, or payoffs to a higher bidder, or too much grain is being fed to animals sold for meat, instead of to people. (I said either, what I really meant is 'both.') Diet for a Small Planet came out way before GMO, and it is still true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrius Gothly Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Exactly my point Qie .. thank you. Labels often serve as much to cause bad decisions as good. That is why labels of any sort need to be carefully debated, carefully crafted and studied to determine their true result. And yeah, I look at the "Organic" produce at my local supermarket, realize how much smaller and less appetizing it appears, notice the 25% or higher price increase .. and grab a can of Chef Boy-R-Dee Ravioli. Yummm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted November 11, 2012 Author Share Posted November 11, 2012 Labels show that MSG or Aspartame is in foods. We know those are not good for us. Have those labels slowed sales at all? Most people don't even know what GMO is, so how can they fear it? The people who want it on labels mainly already know they do not wish to consume it. They simply want to know which foods to avoid. Knowledge is never a bad thing and, it is never anything to fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 So the crops thing happened in both countires. I'm very surprised that it happened in Canada. I saw a dicumentary about it quite a while ago and I got the impression from that that it was in the U.S. It was probably about the U.S. case. To me, it does seem fair that a company or person can claim some rights if they engineer a new DNA sequence. What's laughably ridiculous is a company that's done that (if they actually did it) suing land owners for having their DNA in crops when it was spread by natural processes. Unfortunately, some officials seem to think it's ok to sue in such circumstances and, instead of laughing the case into oblivion, they let the case continue. All I can say is that it would be laughed out of court almost everywhere in the world. It's like some truck accidentally spilling some super growing agent that they own the rights to in my garden, and, because the substance is such that it can't be recovered, suing me because I have it in my garden and it's benefitting my flowers. The idea of suing me over it is just too laughable. In the farmers' cases it should be the other way round - the company's stuff is changing the farmers' crops and the company should be sued over it. The human DNA thing was the subject of another documentary I saw longer ago. It occured when the human genome hadn't been fully sequenced. An american company was taking patents out on all the parts they found. They found some themselves and they patented the published findings of other labs. A British company found what I believe was the last part and wanted to publish it. They knew that the american company would patent it but, knowing that nobody has a right to such things, they published on principle and, sure enough, the unprincipled american company patented it. They were actually granted patents on human DNA. I thought "only in america". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrius Gothly Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 From the shadows comes a faint but unusual sound. You peer as deeply into the darkness as your eyes will permit, but you cannot make out any shape, any form .. or any recognizable being. And then the sound fills your ears again. Do you go into the shadows .. perhaps it's someone injured, needing help. You are but feet from the source of the sound. If they are in dire need of aid, you could possibly save their life. If only you would go into the unknown .. you might rescue someone helpless and on the verge of death. Or a dragon could eat you alive. The unknown has always been a source of fear. But thinking you "know" is even more prone to fear. If I told you that last week three people were eaten by some form of monster lurking in the shadows, would you even stop to think about what's in that shadow? Most likely not, even if the sound took the form of words .. "help me please..." you'd most likely pass on by, maybe even phone for assistance. But "knowing" that monsters lurk in shadows around these parts, you'd avoid that unknown because you think you "know" what's in there. Labels are the same way. Saying "Genetically Modified Organism" is a sure fire way to make people put it right back down and move to the Chef Boy-R-Dee aisle. Precisely because they don't really know what it is, but the words are big and scary and with all the other fear-mongering associated with the industry these days, it's just the wisest thing to pass on by. Why not say "Carefully created to ensure the best in flavor, nutrition and reduce the carbon footprint"? Or maybe "Our chefs have hand selected the ingredients for the best in pest resistance without the use of chemical additives or growth enhancers"? Isn't that what GMO's are meant to do? Reduce all the unknowns and artificial additives yet result in a product that is healthier, safer and less prone to spoilage or disease? Why are GMO's so dangerous in your opinion? Is it the legal battles that have ensued from their introduction? The poor farmer victimized by the "Big Bad Lawyers" because the wind blew some stuff his way? Or is there a larger, more insidious plot afoot seeking to infest the population with dangerous products simply to make a buck? Where is the source of your resistance to GMO's .. and why do you personally feel they should be done away with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charolotte Caxton Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Melita Magic wrote: Labels show that MSG or Aspartame is in foods. We know those are not good for us. "Monosodium glutamate, also known as sodium glutamate or MSG, is the sodium salt of glutamic acid, one of the most abundant naturally occurring non-essential amino acids. It was classified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) and by the European Union as a food additive. MSG has been used for more than 100 years to season food. During this period, extensive studies were conducted to elucidate the role, benefits and safety of MSG. At this point, international and national bodies for the safety of food additives consider MSG safe for human consumption as a flavor enhancer. The "MSG symptom complex" was originally termed as the "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" when Robert Ho Man Kwok anecdotally reported the symptoms he felt after an American-Chinese meal. Kwok suggested multiple reasons behind the symptoms, including alcohol from cooking with wine, the sodium content, or the MSG seasoning. But MSG became the focus and the symptoms have been associated with MSG ever since. The effect of wine or salt content was never studied. With the years, the list of non-specific symptoms has grown on anecdotal grounds. In normal conditions, humans have the ability to metabolize glutamate that has a very low acute toxicity. The oral lethal dose to 50% of subjects (LD50) is between 15 to 18 g/kg body weight in rats and mice respectively, five times greater than the LD50 of salt (3 g/kg in rats). Therefore, the intake of MSG as a food additive and the natural level of glutamic acid in foods do not represent a toxicological concern in humans." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate I hate to sound argumentative, Melita. I just think it is funny (sad funny) when I go eat Chinese and some of my friends ask for no MSG, please. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/monosodium-glutamate/AN01251 http://www.yalescientific.org/2011/04/is-msg-bad-for-you/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czari Zenovka Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Melita Magic wrote: it takes a while, but people getting it now. like the eggs. in the supermarket they like $2 or $3 a dozen more for free range. but is big stacks of free range eggs now. and only tiny stacks of battery eggs. supermarkets not silly. they only got so much shelf space. and they not make big space for stuff that dont sell, no matter how cheap it is Thank you 16. Exactly. There is a general trend toward healthier foods, although there is a lot of fraud around the word natural, and even organic, also, lately. (How can food shipped in from China be "organic?" A lot of the big box stores have been caught with foods that are labeled organic but are not...in fact contained pesticides and such past the 'ordinary' limit, far from organic.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (I wanted to keep 16's comment on my response as well.) My mother was raised on a farm where they grew all their own crops, raised chickens for eggs and slaughtered their meat - in their case pigs and chickens; they only kept a few cows for milking. Due to these experiences (especially the slaughtering of the livestock) she is now an ovo-vegetarian. The nomenclature is confusing at times. Basically 95% of her diet is composed of vegetables/fruit/legumes, etc. with eggs on occasion and some fish. Despite our 20 year age difference, she is much healthier than I in certain regards. She definitely has more energy...lol. We were talking about eggs the other day and she said "I am very picky about the eggs I buy." I told her I would prefer to purchase free-range eggs but, due to some personal circumstances, cannot afford them at our local health food store. I was suprised when she answered, "Oh - you can get them at the grocery now too" and proceeded to tell me where to find them. So aggreeing with 16 here on supply and demand. The terms "natural" and "organic" can definitely be confusing. Again, from growing up on a farm and being intimately acquainted with planting crops, the word "organic" to her evokes images of manure and she especially avoids "organic" root vegetables/potatoes. I tried vegetarianism for my health many years ago but I am hypoglycemic and without the iron/whatever from animal products I became very weak. However, many of the great meat substitute foods were not available back then, so I may try again up the road. I definitely do not eat a very balanced diet, in fact I ingest things I know are harmful in the long run, but the fact remains that I *do* know which then leaves it as my choice to act on my knowledge or stupidly continue eating some of the stuff I know is bad for me (and not talking about GMOs here). That is the crux of what I saw in the first post of this thread - a vote was coming up for Prop. 37 in CA and, imo, I saw the OP as presenting information. From there one could make a personal choice. I have seen many, many references to "political" issues and candidates within these forums over the years that I felt were extremely demeaning - along the lines of "If you vote for xyz, then you're an idiot." I believe people of intelligence and conviction can disagree on issues without resorting to name-calling. I don't agree with some of my best friends on certain issues; we each know how the other feels, respect the opinions of the other, and have fun discussing those areas we do have in common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Melita Magic wrote: I wouldn't feel too sorry for Monsanto. Not with their history. I'm not worried about Monsanto. Their patents have been for over a decade a license to print money on a scale unprecedented in agribusiness. And that certainly gives them motive to play dirty in the court of public opinion, as much motive as the fossil fuel industry has to rally crackpot climate change deniers. But that analogy breaks down when it comes to the preponderance of reputable scientific evidence: it overwhelmingly shows the reality of man-made climate change, but that's simply not the case against GMOs. Sustainable farming is a good thing, and I think too many pesticides are used, I agree with you there. But GMO doesn't stop that, it increases it. Plant diversity is a good thing. GMO plants are sterile, and narrow, and develop resistance to whatever is used on them. That requires more of the chemicals as we saw with Round Up. I don't trust any of their concoctions, though, because I do not feel their intentions are anything other than profit. But that isn't really the history. Roundup is a substantially safer herbicide than many, and at least for a time replaced a lot of potentially nastier stuff. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my first post, chemical control of weeds, insects, etc., is very subject to evolutionary change as the organisms they control eventually develop resistance, just as bacteria over generations gain resistance to antibiotics. (An important difference being that a bacterium's generation is typically much, much shorter than that of a weed or even an insect, so antibiotic resistance may emerge much sooner. Personally, I see evidence that we're much more at risk from the very widespread practice of feeding low levels of antibiotics to healthy livestock than we are from GMO crops -- and that antibiotics issue in my opinion calls not for labelling but rather an outright ban. But that's a tangent.) I don't actually know of a case where crop threats have developed direct resistance to genes engineered into the plant's DNA, rather than this more roundabout resistance to chemicals that can be applied specifically to GMO crops. It may happen -- it certainly happens naturally when, for example, a flu virus mutates to cross species barriers -- but offhand I don't see why the engineered gene would be any more susceptible to that than would be a naturally-occurring organism with the same properties. If GMO crops result in increased use of chemicals compared to the levels before the GMO crop was introduced, I've not seen that data; I'd find it surprising. And in the case of GMO crops for which the controlled threat has no resistance, there can be a substantial reduction in both chemical use and carbon-intensive mechanical cultivation. Again, none of this is to say that GMO crops are a panacea, nor free from as yet unknown risks, but rather to reiterate that a truly informed choice is very complex, and that I'm not at all confident that I personally could absorb all that would be needed to inform such choice even after a graduate course, to say nothing of a food label. It may be fine to label anyway -- it's hard to argue against transparency -- but I would not expect such labels to equip people to make better decisions. I really wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Qie Niangao wrote: If GMO crops result in increased use of chemicals compared to the levels before the GMO crop was introduced, I've not seen that data; I'd find it surprising. i just pick up on this point one of the most recent is here. Benbrook. it uses USDA data http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/More-GMOs-Less-Pesticide.htm edit:: (despite the name Benbrook argue that pesticide use is up) the Benbrook study has been criticised by this guy. Brookes http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/20061/?show_full_text=true Mr Brookes is a industry advocate. he not publish his own dataset in his study. just says he has one to back up his claims Mr Brookes argue that even tho the Benbrook study uses USDA data and his doesnt, that Benbrook makes assumptions to fill in any gap in USDA data + Mr Benbrook said in one part: "Do GM crops reduce pesticide use?" is really not the important question. Instead, we should be asking how biotechnology can lead the way toward prevention-based biointensive pest management systems that rest largely on low-impact ways to manage natural biocontrol processes and interactions" (Benbrook et al., 1996). which i think is interesting Mr Benbrook argue basically that if use biotech to attack the pests then will be better in the long run than try mod the crops themselves + disclosure where i live we are like almost totally dependent on agricuture for the country's prosperity. is one big farm here. the whole country pretty much. dairy and forestry exports mostly more than grain crops, altho we make lots of wines and fruit exports as well maybe bc of this we (like the public) more informed generally about these kinds of things bc is quite vital to us a country. clean green and all that. even if we not always clean and green in everything we do. we working on it tho. bc we see will be better off in the long run am not anti-gmo me. just cautious i think. same like pretty much everyone else who lives here. if we get it wrong on even only one thing then other countries will shut down our exports really quick. other countries really quick to that. has always been the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Heh. Yeah, the Benbrook paper is quite silly, really, relying on total pounds of chemicals, as if all chemicals had equal environmental impact. That ends up confounded with the very real phenomenon of increased tolerance of crop threats to any individual agent. (I must admit, though, it piqued my interest in whatever the heck happened only in Alabama, only in the 2000 cotton growing year. The cited references threw a 404 when I tried to look deeper, but this is all very old data.) It reminded me of another complexity in interpreting trend data: Correlation does not imply causation, and over a decade of time gives plenty of opportunity for other factors to affect the dependent variable. One such factor is economic response to increased fuel cost, which really revolutionized corn farming during that interval, shifting toward zero-tillage which saves a lot of fuel (and greenhouse gas emissions) but requires some other form of weed control, for which herbicides have been the only available option. Another factor during that particular decade was massive biofuel subsidies, at least in the US. That resulted in a vast increase in the number of acres planted to corn, which meant that (even) more acres were planted to corn on successive years, rather than rotated through soybean and other crop production. That in turn meant there was less deterrent to use atrazine, which carries over from year to year and would not be used if soybeans were to be planted the next year. Atrazine isn't very effective against some weeds any more (it was practically magic when it was introduced about 50 years ago), but it's absurdly inexpensive, so farmers would be motivated to use it if it reduces the need for other, more expensive chemicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 this whole thread been quite fascinating really for me. we now onto subsidies lol + am a bit bias against farming subsidies we had them but way back our centre-left government went way way to the right in traditional terms. dump all the subsidies for the farming industry and all others as well. said that business have to stand on its own two feet and not get welfare off the taxpayer anymore. they dump all the tariifs as well that protect manufacturing and all kinds dump most the licensing and permit laws as well. so anyone can start a business and not need any permission from anyone. was quite massive upheaval all the time had to do with Britain which was the main export market then joining the European Common Market in the times before. successive governments after that try prop everything up more and more with business welfare payments. but was hopeless to keep try do that in the end anyways, the farming industry suck it up and change their ways and end up try be more efficient and stuff like that. they done ok and now are really efficient at least in world market terms + USA pay about $20 billions a year in welfare subsidies to its farming industry. dunno why as they got massive scale. more than us. is quite hard to compete against that. but we keep give it a go is funny sad that we got a FTA with China and in talks with Russia for same. mortal enemies of USA historically. and yet we still seen as a friend of USA and always send our soldiers to fight in their wars since forever and in Afghanistan even now. even if we did say we not want any nukes down our way and USA Navy kinda not liked us for that ever since. oh! well USA always say nah! to us about FTA. USA keeps saying they want a FTA but always ends up they want to exclude agriculture and wants to talk about nukes. seems the farm lobby and nuclears to strong in USA. stronger than us anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Qie Niangao wrote: Another factor during that particular decade was massive biofuel subsidies, at least in the US. That resulted in a vast increase in the number of acres planted to corn, which meant that (even) more acres were planted to corn on successive years, rather than rotated through soybean and other crop production. dunno about not rotating crops. seems like a bad idea to me it maybe ok if treat the whole thing as some kinda hydroponics plant full of dirt instead of water (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melita Magic Posted November 12, 2012 Author Share Posted November 12, 2012 Czari Zenovka wrote: That is the crux of what I saw in the first post of this thread - a vote was coming up for Prop. 37 in CA and, imo, I saw the OP as presenting information. From there one could make a personal choice. I have seen many, many references to "political" issues and candidates within these forums over the years that I felt were extremely demeaning - along the lines of "If you vote for xyz, then you're an idiot." I believe people of intelligence and conviction can disagree on issues without resorting to name-calling. I don't agree with some of my best friends on certain issues; we each know how the other feels, respect the opinions of the other, and have fun discussing those areas we do have in common. Thank you, Czari. I feel the same way. I've never made it a requirement of being my friend, in RL or in SL, that I have to agree with them on everything, or they with me. But, I never see a need to get down and roll in the mud about it. At that point, the discussion has lost something for me, or the relationship to that person or whatever the case might be. And I simply disconnect. Yes, my original intention was simply to present some information and a reminder about the ballot. I rarely if ever discuss real life topics here, especially anything relating to politics, or religion, or anything 'controversial' (with the sometime exception of posting that I wish someone hadn't posted a mocking post about some belief or other.) I can't say "never" because sometimes I will also post in a topic if I feel someone's getting 'beat up' and could stand some neutral posts, etc. I didn't think wanting a label on food would be controversial. I still am not sure why it would be. I think it underestimates the public to think they would stop buying things if they don't care about an ingredient or method anyway. As you mentioned, some people think "organic" means "dirty." I know people like that. To them, all organic means is manure and bugs. And yet, for thousands of years, farming was "organic." It is not a new or a posh word. It's simply closer to nature. And it rather implies organic farmers, or those who avoid chemicals, are somehow irresponsible. The ones I've known have been highly responsible and caring individuals. Anyway, that was the norm until petrochemical companies came along and convinced everyone of "better living with chemistry" sometime in the mid 20th century. Anyway, yes all I ask of friendship is mutual respect, or of a discussion, some level of courtesy. For instance I'd number Qie among a handful of good friends in SL and yet he and I seem to disagree a lot on this particular issue. That surprised me to be honest. Qie I am struggling to see how organic farming could possibly be more dangerous or polluting of the planet than pesticides and such? Qie I agree with you about antibiotics in farming. Antibiotics and hormones are just more of the same of this issue. Monsanto also makes bovine growth hormone and as I mentioned earlier in the topic, sued in every state (perhaps in Canada too although I can't recall offhand) successfully in four states, so that farmers who do NOT use that product cannot say so on their labels. Why should they be allowed to control farmers who do not even use their product?? Phil I wish this madness were only limited to one country but it is not - if I were not afraid of libel, I might add money can buy a lot of verdicts. But, let's pretend I didn't say that. I will say that it makes no sense to me, as apparently it does not make sense to you (and I agree) that accidental and unwanted spillage of pollen into a farmer's crop can result in years of threats and lawsuits (according to some it happened to.) Many are afraid to speak out because they could lose everything: livelihood, land, home, savings, marriage. The farmer in Canada is extremely brave, as are any who spoke out against this. He's along the lines of a Silkwood or a Norma Rae. Sometimes it stakes someone standing up, despite threats, harassment and ridicule, to change things. And I'm not going to keep answering "why is GMO bad" to those who refuse to take the time to even view the documentary. You are welcome to learn about it for yourselves. There are several other documentaries available online as well. This one is, I believe, now unavailable for free viewing (another reason I posted when I did; that only lasted until November 10.) But Amazon digital rental has several good ones, all of which try to teach why GMO are bad, and why people should take paid-off 'studies' and other 'findings' paid for by the GMO companies, with a hefty grain of salt. As the documentary said, since the seed is proprietary they will only allow it to be studied to a certain extent and only using their data. A Japanese group of scientists still studied and found it harmful as have other groups. Everyone is allowed to buy and eat and drink what they want but everyone is also allowed ot know what that is. I don't see how that could possibly even be an issue. Or a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now