# Everyone's opinion of GMO foods?



## Poppysocks (Mar 20, 2013)

Hey everyone,

Ive been around this forum for awhile, haven't posted in some time though. I just was wondering what everyone thought about GMO foods.

Whole Foods just recently said they will be labeling all of their foods NON GMO by 2018

http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2013/03/08/whole-foods-products-will-carry-gmo-labeling/

My rationalization is this. You have genetically modified foods. Which means that those foods are not natural, or foreign. What is the body's response to foreign material in it's system? Inflammation. It's pretty simple to me.

But then, the UK has similar rates of Crohn's and Colitis, and there Grocery stores require labeling, which reduces the amount gmo ingredients used in the food.


----------



## Ya noy (Mar 20, 2013)

I try to stay away from GMOs as much as possible.  Usually successfully too.


----------



## rollinstone (Mar 21, 2013)

What are we talking about here, things like rice cakes/wraps/noodles or anything processed? Personally I try stray away from anything processed with the exception of rice puffs/ wraps. I think processed high content sugars are the worst for us. I used to live coke so much, I plan on never touching it again


----------



## David (Mar 21, 2013)

Do I believe that GMO foods cause Crohn's disease?  No.

Do I believe that GMO foods can be inflammatory?  I'm not really sure if they make inflammation worse or not.

Do I avoid GMO foods like the plague?  Yes, absolutely.  Of course, I also avoid organic foods with ingredients such as carrageenan.  In fact, I'd eat some GMOs before I'd ever touch carrageenan again.


----------



## Maree. (Mar 21, 2013)

I'd not come across carrageenan before.  Thanks for the tip on that, will add to the list of things to avoid, it sounds really nasty.


----------



## rollinstone (Mar 21, 2013)

I was drinking almond milk I thought was a much healthier choice to lactose free milk, unknowingly drinking carrageenan, well I knew it was in the ingredients but I had no clue how bad it was for you, since then iv stopped and definitely feel a little better


----------



## hugh (Mar 21, 2013)

"avoid like the plague"
absolutely


----------



## juljul (Mar 21, 2013)

Hi Poppysocks,

A nutrition consultant I saw when I had a food sensitivity test done had told me to stay away from all corn and corn products because I was showing high sensitivity to corn. She also said that it has been so altered over the years that it is just unnatural now. The same applied to wheat. 

I think GMO might have got into the normal food chain anyway so we are eating it unknowingly...cross-contamination. But I would definitely avoid a product if it did specify GM... as I try to avoid MSG and aspartame in particular. Apologies to our US friends, but I try to avoid US foods for the concern of GM contamination. 

I was not aware there was an issue with Carageen David. Thanks for that. Something new to research 

Yes I think you are right about the body's response to what it deems as "unnatural". Paleo might be the way to go....will give it some serious thought. 

juljul xx


----------



## xX_LittleMissValentine_Xx (Mar 21, 2013)

Hmm... I don't really know my conclusion on this tbh. Here are my thoughts.

If I think beyond myself and crohn's, I think its a really good idea.  GMO foods can help to increase food yields, have a longer shelf life, resist infection or harsh weather conditions, even be more nutrient dense. All of this really helpful in a world with a dangerously fast growing population. 

However, they can also cause problems when companies "make" a seed and then have a patent over it. Meaning that farmers rely on the company for their seed and can get into trouble and expensive law suits if they don't follow all their rules. 

We don't have a lot of GMO foods in the UK because the media hyped them up to be the sporn of the devil and so a lot of people are afraid of them and don't want them. 

Whether or not they cause health problems I'm not sure.

I suppose really it depends where they are getting the genes from, if it was something we could eat anyway then should it cause a problem?

People have been genetically modifying for centuries by using selective breeding, and thats ok. But because GMO happens in a laboratory its a bad thing?

But I don't know enough about the actual process. Is it something they do in the method which people don't like, or make it "unnatural"?


----------



## Beach (Mar 21, 2013)

Oh, I think GMO foods are one more concerning agriculture items for us with IBD conditions.  Our agriculture system has been changing significantly for over a century.  GMO foods is only the latest in a long line of change.  At this point I pretty much avoid grains, and try to eat grass fed animal foods.  It has helped my condition.  

The vast majority of wheat sold today, called short dwarf wheat, was created in a laboratory 50 plus years ago.  When you read about its creation it is difficult to even call it wheat.  It's more of a frankenfood.  The short dwarf wheat is great for the farmer as it is hardy, can grow in aired landscapes, feeds more people (short wheat's creator won a noble prize.) and being shorter doesn't get blown over and ruined as the wheat our grandparents used to eat.  Baker enjoy working with it also, as it tend to dough better than previous wheats.  Health wise though it seems the new short dwarf wheat is problematic for many people we are finding out today.  

Some writing about the creation of short dwarf wheat 

"WORSE than Genetic Modification"

http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/09/worse-than-genetic-modification/ 

It used to be that our live stock ate foods natural to their surroundings.  Pasture grass for cows, other goods found on the land for other animals.  That changed a number of decades ago with the creation of the tractor and herbicides.  With automation more grains could be grown than ever before.  With a surplus of grains, farmers needed to figure new methods to use the stuff.  One area that grains could be used was feeding live stock.  Most animals are not developed to consume grains though.  Acidic, low in nutrient grains, makes them sickly, develop ulcers and such.  As a result the animals need to be fed antibiotics to keep them alive.  Grains and antibiotics have an added bonus in that it fattens live stock up quickly, making product ready for the market place.  

"The Problems with Antibiotics: They Kill the Good Guys and Make You Fat"

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-...the-good-guys-and-make-you-fat/#axzz2OApEnawU

It used to be that food eaten wasn't as sterile.  Dairy items were not pasteurized.  Water was not ultra clean, with minerals and microbes removed.  As we are learning today, while there are negative bugs that need to be avoided in our food supply,  there are also positive, beneficial probiotics that our bodies need to function correctly.  Over the last century we've taken a scorched policy, that all microbes are bad and need to be removed from our food supply.  In hindsight, that policy has been shortsighted.


----------



## Maree. (Mar 23, 2013)

Liam doesn't seem to have an issue with gluten, so he is still having a range of grains, but a lot of breakfast cereals, particularly ones high in fiber do seem to cause him pain (of all the things I'm trying to cut out of his diet breakfast cereal is the thing he misses most.)

Having read all the comments here about the extent to which wheat has been modified over the years for ease of production and this making it harder to digest.  I bought a spelt porridge which was extremely nice and he seemed to cope well with (spelt apparently is an ancient form of wheat used heavily in bronze era to medieval times, that is easier to digest as has brittel gluten chains.)   Will keep an eye out for spelt flour and trial that in baking.


----------



## mnsun (Mar 25, 2013)

All in all, I think it largely depends on the amount of GMOs ingested.  Luckily, most GMOs are minor ingredients (soy oil/protein/flour/lecithin, corn syrup, cottonseed oil, canola oil) or used as feed (some studies show differences in resultant meat...)but more and more whole, fresh produce (Attribute Bt Sweet Corn, etc.) and even fish (Aquabounty Salmon...soon) are being put on the market.  These whole GMO "food" products are most worrysome.  The effects of consuming GMO foods will likely affect the digestive tract moreso than any other organs.  However, if the consumption of GMOs becomes the dominant feed for the human "herd", then we could experience problems as documented in animals fed 100% GMO diets... 

As it specifically relates to Crohn's: some of the genetic material, like the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops, could survive digestion and uptake could occur by various cells or microorganisms and populate the digestive tract, gaining selective advantage over natural populations.  From Wikipedia's "Bt Corn": "This gene codes for a toxin that causes the formation of pores in the Lepidoptera larval digestive tract. These pores allow naturally occurring enteric bacteria, such as E. coli and Enterobacter, to enter the hemocoel, where they multiply and cause sepsis.[6]"

Some animal studies suggest GMO consumption lowers the pancreas' digestive enzyme, amylase, production.  "And Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and *intestinal symptoms* and
fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms returned the following year, also during pollination, and blood tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt toxin—created by the GM corn... http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_GMBanlongoverdue.html ...For example, the published paper (on soy) showed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy allergies
in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced. The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two sections that are identical to known allergens. This might also account for the increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that this inserted gene transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the intestines. This means that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your own gut bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein inside your digestive tract." http://www.glifocidio.org/docs/soya/so1.pdf

Unstable genes could overproduce glycoalkaloid, irritating to some with digestive problems, content in nightshade crop(peppers/tomotoes/eggplant/potatoes, etc.); though I haven't seen studies suggesting this as of yet.  Soy lectin, which messes with nutrient absorption, can be elevated in GM varieties.  Roundup soaked plants may be missing vital nutrients, like manganese, and actually act as anti-nutrients, by leaching out more minerals/vitamins upon ingestion, leading to other deficiencies.

The technology used to bombard cells or use bacterium to insert genes is too haphazard and once these go into mass production individual plants could have super elevated proteins/allergens that could affect an individual immediately after ingestion, who knows?


----------



## Price (Mar 27, 2013)

Poppysocks said:


> My rationalization is this. You have genetically modified foods. Which means that those foods are not natural, or foreign. What is the body's response to foreign material in it's system? Inflammation. It's pretty simple to me.


Medicines aren't natural and they don't cause inflammation. 

I think people are against these far more than they really should be. We've been mixing things to achieve better results for ages, it's not really a recent thing. By not doing this you have far less food for people, it goes off quicker (meaning places that import have even less time before they go off), etc etc.


----------



## hugh (Mar 28, 2013)

Price said:


> Medicines aren't natural and they don't cause inflammation.
> 
> I think people are against these far more than they really should be. We've been mixing things to achieve better results for ages, it's not really a recent thing. By not doing this you have far less food for people, it goes off quicker (meaning places that import have even less time before they go off), etc etc.


It's nice to have an opinion about things but if you don't know what you're talking about then please don't bother sharing it
[youtube]wnlTYFKBg18[/youtube]


----------



## Maree. (Mar 28, 2013)

The testing process for medicines is fairly rigorous my impression is one of the issues with GMO foods is like supplements they aren't subject to the same sort of rigor that new medicines are before beeing allowed to be consumed by people.


----------



## rollinstone (Mar 28, 2013)

I agree w Hugh here, I think everyone would benefit from watchin that video he posted if you truly think GMO foods aren't "that bad"


----------



## mnsun (Mar 28, 2013)

"Maree:The testing process for medicines is fairly rigorous my impression is one of the issues with GMO foods is like supplements they aren't subject to the same sort of rigor that new medicines are before beeing allowed to be consumed by people."

Safety  assessments are seriously lacking.  The WHO/OECD/and UN's FAO (all unelected corporate bodies) basically came up with the "substantial equivalence" paradigm that distances GMO precautionary measures from more expensive and thorough methods required for new pharmaceuticals. 

So safety studies are usually very short and performed by the same companies who developed the GMO while leaving the potential criteria for investigation on a purely case by case (plant-by-plant) basis.  So if the natural counterpart never had a history of known toxicity/allergens, then there is very little safety criteria to satisfy.  This is my understanding of it all.  Little investigation is done to determine whether “stacked” designer genetic material survives cooking, chewing, digesting and gets taken up by “host” cells.

New, undiscovered proteins/allergens/toxins could be produced; an unknown unknown--much like cancer viruses, from mammalian organ cultured cell lines, in vaccines--which cannot be screened for because they are not known to exist in the first place.  These differences can vary wildly on a plant-by-plant basis as the genetic insertion methods are often highly unstable; so a third party might try to study the supposed genetic sequence advertised as being in a GMO seed only to find that the specific sequence isn't actually there anymore, once the seed is mass-produced.  

If you look into the individual modifications done to a single plant, you’ll sometimes find 4-5 different gene insertions.   Some of these “stacked” traits are inserted just to be able to allow the plant to survive the “Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated plant transformation” modifying techniques, not for desired commercialized growth traits.   So you’ll find that the plants are sometimes given E. Coli genes to be antibiotic resistant (neomycin/kanamycin/spectinomycin/streptomycin) just in order to be successfully modified—what this does to the consumer if anything, I’m not sure.


----------



## Price (Mar 28, 2013)

What part of medicine is natural sorry?

And what about all the genetically modified things people are eating with no consequence every day? You're cherrypicking information.


----------



## rygon (Mar 28, 2013)

I agree with Price. Most of the "natural" foods we eat have been genetically modified over the years. (carrots werent originally orange). 
Personally Im more worried about how our diet has changed over the recent years, and how the world is driven by fast cheap food without thinking about the effects that they bring (loss of nutrients, high in salt + sugar and the use of chemicals)


----------



## Price (Mar 28, 2013)

Carrots is probably the best example anyone could give, considering a high percentage of people didn't know they weren't orange all the time 

That's also a good point. Let's say we're looking at cancer statistics or something. Just because there's been an increase in GMO foods and cancer does not mean GMO foods were at fault for that, as it's much more likely it was due to a change in diet by the masses. 

This is why picking the right information is absolutely necessary. Lots of places will be quick to jump on information and misinterpret what it means. I'm not going to watch an hour and a half long video though, I have things to do.


----------



## Lisa (Mar 28, 2013)

A note for all members...please, no derrogatory remarks or attacks against others.....and opinion is just that, an opinion. Whether right or wrong, a person is entitled to it. 



hugh said:


> It's nice to have an opinion about things but if you don't know what you're talking about then please don't bother sharing it
> [youtube]wnlTYFKBg18[/youtube]


----------



## David (Mar 28, 2013)

Could someone please provide me an example of a naturally selected plant we consume that now produces its own pesticide which is found to be in the blood of people and cross the placenta like GMO BT producing corn, soybean, et al?  Could someone provide me an example of natural selection CROSSING SPECIES whereas GMO does this all the time?

Anyone who compares GMO to naturally selected plant varieties is either not well-educated on the subject or being intentionally misleading.  I'm not being mean when I say this, but those of you who are making that comparison need to delve much deeper into the subject.

As a farmer, I naturally select plants all the time.  I select plants for:

1.  Genetic diversity
2.  Ability to grow well in my soil/weather conditions
3.  Ability to grow well with the diseases/pests in my area
4.  Flavor
5.  How we feel after we consume it

Number 5 is an important one lost on most.  If we eat from a tomato plant and observe that we more than once get indigestion or diarrhea or whatever after we do so, I don't save seeds from that plant.  There's a small chance that there has been a mutation that isn't agreeable which can and has happened.  This is what people have been doing for thousands and thousands of years.  Humans have been evolving along with the food they consume in a manner that is agreeable to both the plant and the human.

GMO and industrial agriculture have broken that bond AND the other four points above.  And now we're getting things like corn and soybeans that produce their own pesticide which they're finding in our serum and it crosses the placenta.

The entire premise of industrial agriculture is flawed.  It is not sustainable and we must change our perspectives and culture to move towards sustainable agricultural practices.  GMO is a result of them attempting to put a band-aid on an arterial wound.  They have to create plants that create their own pesticides because the monoculture ecosystems they have created are so unhealthy that the plants wouldn't survive otherwise.  Conversely, in my food forest, I don't have to spray anything, even organic pesticides because I am focusing on creating a healthy, sustainable ecosystem and mother nature takes care of the rest.

Stop propping up that which is unsustainable with your votes (money).  Source locally produced, organic food that is grown in a sustainable manner.  If it GMO, it is not sustainable and there's a chance that it is negatively affecting both human health and the health of the ecosystem.  Be a part of the solution.


----------



## Price (Mar 28, 2013)

Not sure if this would belong in this topic, but do you think we could actually grow enough food to feed everybody in the country? I know some people in the countryside grow their own vegetables, but in a city like mine there just doesn't seem to be enough room. 

Like in my block of flats there's around 700-800 people, and none of us own any sort of place where we could grow food. Which leaves us to rely on farmers to manage it for us. With that said, at a rough guess you'd need.. a lot of land. There are also a lot of places in the world even more densely populated then here, like those almost scary looking apartments in Hong Kong. Do you think we could manage to source all our food in the way you suggest and still have enough to feed everyone? 

I think a certain amount of GMO and industrialization is needed just because it wouldn't be possible to feed everyone otherwise. With that said my knowledge of farming only really goes as far as rotating crops. 

Again sorry if this is the wrong topic, I'm just curious.


----------



## David (Mar 28, 2013)

A tremendous amount of food can be grown within cities.  All of the food for a city?  No, but if we change our culture and perspectives, then massive amounts can.  As you walk along your city, look at all the empty lots, non-food producing trees and plants, south facing balconies, rooftops, etc.  Use your imagination regarding where food could be grown that it isn't now.

And GMO industrialization is not needed to feed everyone but they sure strive to make you think that.  Food Forests and Food Savannahs can provide more than enough food for the masses as well as provide healthy ecosystems not just for people, but animals as well.


----------



## Clash (Mar 28, 2013)

David, I have a question about your fifth point, "how we feel after we consume it". Isn't it that plants do produce defense toxins so in effect their own pesticide(to keep pests away) these toxins have a greater effect on small animals and such but can and do affect humans too, such as the alkaloids in different nightshades or the carrageenen in algae, these can have an effect on humans. So do you think you are weeding out plants with high levels of their natural defense toxins when you discard or don't replant those seeds?


----------



## myriahdawn (Mar 28, 2013)

I am not a fan!!!  My little seedlings for my garden are GMO free seeds.  : )


----------



## David (Mar 28, 2013)

Clash, I may be weeding out any number of things (many of which I don't understand) and will no doubt have some false positives as well.  

There was a celery bred for mass market in California that turned out to be extremely high in a photoactive toxicant.  It was mass planted and not until the workers began to harvest it and have severe reactions did they figure this out.  Thank god it affected their skin before it reached the mass market because god knows what would have happened.  As you mention, glycoalkaloids can cause problems and in the case of potatoes, some varieties have much more than others.  

This is all stuff we can test or select for, our ancestors have been doing it for thousands of years.  But I sure as heck don't know how to determine levels of BT in my system after eating BT corn and how that BT is affecting my long term health and the health of other organisms in the ecosystem that have never faced anything like it.  This is stuff that organisms in the ecosystem have faced or our ancestors had to deal with because BT does NOT naturally occur in plants.  BT is from a soil bacteria.  And that is one of the huge differences between natural selection and GMO.  In normal plant selection, you cannot cross species.  GMOs are crossing species.  BT corn has genetic material from bacteria in it.  Our immune systems are no doubt confused as hell about that one.  

Anyone here have an immune system that is going haywire for some reason?  Why potentially stress it more?  Why take the risk when the alternatives are not just healthier for you, but for the ecosystem.  Why not be a part of the solution?


----------



## Clash (Mar 28, 2013)

David, I'm not arguing any point about GMO, I was just wondering if you thought some of your reactions were likely due to the natural defense systems in the plants you've grown.


----------



## David (Mar 28, 2013)

I haven't had any reactions to the food I grow but I pay very close attention just in case   I want to produce uber-healthy food for my family, neighbors, and eventual customers.  They deserve nothing less.

But yes, I think a lot of those potential reactions are related to natural defense systems the plant has evolved over time.

And I didn't think you were debating it.  I went off on a tangent that wasn't aimed at you.  Sorry about that


----------



## Clash (Mar 28, 2013)

Oh I thought you meant you had weeded out certain seeds/plants in your garden due to different reactions such as indigestion or diarrheah, you were saying if you were to experience symptoms. I find a plant's ability to in effect have it's own defense system(ie toxins or symbiotic relationships with fungi/fungal toxins) facinating and could read about it forever. The GMO situations seems overwhelmingly too large and out of hand to back out of or achieve any kind of progress toward a solution to.


----------



## hugh (Mar 28, 2013)

Clash said:


> The GMO situations seems overwhelmingly too large and out of hand to back out of or achieve any kind of progress toward a solution to.


It's suprisingly easy, 
Just don't buy it.
It may take a bit of effort and a bit of research and a bit of willpower.
*
it's all about making money -and that's what it's about, not feeding the world.
If you can't afford it you will starve, same as it is now.*


----------



## Clash (Mar 28, 2013)

Ummm...I wasn't talking about in relation to me but thanks!

Edit:
Sorry I didn't take the time to read your full post. I wasn't necessarily speaking of the actual solution as much as slodging through all the information out there to determine where the truth of the matter lies with GMO as a whole, not just frakencarrots or corn and the controversy that the word "GMO" incites. But for instance the use of rDNA methods to produce rennin for use in the production of hard cheese. To say, what do we keep that is safe and beneficial and what isn't. It is a lot that is affected and alot to read through.


----------



## hugh (Mar 28, 2013)

@ clash,
sorry, i like jumping in feet first 

I think that corporate science has always been used to muddy the waters and create the illusion that we don't know yet (that, and outright lies).
I find it helpful to ask what someone is gaining by putting information out there.

Are you going to loose you job and find it hard to get another one, but you still feel that you need to put it out there, or are you going to get rewarded and funded?

Most of the propaganda can be dismissed pretty quickly.
Pesticide resistant crops lead to higher pesticide use, that's pretty easy to follow (in theory and in practice)
Pesticide producing crops may initially require less pesticide but the plants now ARE pesticides, also pretty easy to follow.

This is a good start (on the anti-GMO side.)
"GMO Myths and Truths"
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3b.pdf
It's a bit long, but there is a concise summary of their findings on page 8, and the table of contents makes it easy to access specific myths.

Safe? Not my problem!

_“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe
the safety of biotech food. Our interest
is in selling as much of it as possible.
Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
– Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of
corporate communications


“Ultimately, it is the food producer who is
responsible for assuring safety.”
– US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
(the FDA is the US
government’s Food and Drug Administration,
responsible for food safety)
_


----------



## Clash (Mar 28, 2013)

I wasn't comparing one to the other, Hugh. Also, after your world's intelligence comment all I read was banana, banana, banana or possibly organic banana, banana, banana.


----------



## Ya noy (Mar 28, 2013)

Clash said:


> I wasn't comparing one to the other, Hugh. Also, after your world's intelligence comment all I read was banana, banana, banana or possibly organic banana, banana, banana.


Love it!  :roflanim::roflanim::roflanim:


But I also totally agree with Hugh.


----------



## Clash (Mar 28, 2013)

I'm not pro GMO, I actually buy organic from a farmers market and have my beef delivered from an organic, grass fed farm which I got to tour(only since it isn't far from me). Although, I do eat processed food at times, pasta is my downfall!!! 

Anyway, I wasn't arguing for GMO, at all. I just wondered if David thought the natural defense systems of plants was affecting him in some way and weeding them out. My Dad grows organic tomatoes and he found that some aggravated some issues he has. He kept weeding out different seeds and finally an organic grower told him they were probably due to a certain toxin, solanine, and gave him some seeds to try and voila...no probs. That is when I started researching about natural toxins and found it facinating!


----------



## rollinstone (Mar 28, 2013)

Clash said:


> I'm not pro GMO, I actually buy organic from a farmers market and have my beef delivered from an organic, grass fed farm which I got to tour(only since it isn't far from me). Although, I do eat processed food at times, pasta is my downfall!!!
> 
> Anyway, I wasn't arguing for GMO, at all. I just wondered if David thought the natural defense systems of plants was affecting him in some way and weeding them out. My Dad grows organic tomatoes and he found that some aggravated some issues he has. He kept weeding out different seeds and finally an organic grower told him they were probably due to a certain toxin, solanine, and gave him some seeds to try and voila...no probs. That is when I started researching about natural toxins and found it facinating!


I miss pasta so bad haha, and pizza


----------



## Price (Mar 29, 2013)

Alright then, if these horrible awful companies didn't do any research at all because they're so bias, who would? Nobody else has the money to do it. It's not like anyone can even argue against you, because all you're saying is "propaganda! evil corporations!". Of course it's all about money. You're not on a free computer are you posting by using free internet? 

And cross-breading plants and GMO is similar. Most the things we have cross-bred have not been done naturally. What you're doing in both cases is the same in principle, you're taking what you want from one plant and adding it to another. It's not rocket surgery.

As for trying to grow crops on roofs and things, I still don't think that's enough. It'd be more, but it wouldn't be enough I think. The building I live in is small, just really tall. So at a guess you could feed maybe 20 people at most, but there's about 700-800 of us. Like these sorts of buildings are just not possible to feed by growing in cities:





http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs45/f/2..._block_in_Hong_Kong_by_guillotinemaster75.jpg
(Second pic is far too big to put on forum)

We just don't have the infrastructure to feed these amounts of people with nothing but organic food (and we definitely don't have enough if you cut out grains and things). Any year there was a bad yield it's be disastrous, and they'd be bound to increase without GMO.


----------



## David (Mar 29, 2013)

Price, I reiterate: can you please show me how crossing two types of tomatoes (natural selection) and corn and bacteria (some forms of GMO) is basically the same thing?  Can you show me any instance where a plant was ever naturally bred with a non-plant form of life?  And if it has never been done in the billions of years life has been on this planet, do you think maybe we should be a little more careful with it than, "Welp, it didn't kill these 10 rats we injected with it, let's feed it to billions of people and release it into countless ecosystems!"

And as I said, cities aren't going to sustain themselves.  Outside of cities you will need massive food forests.  That's the case whether you utilize GMO or sustainable agricultural practices.


----------



## rollinstone (Mar 29, 2013)

Price said:


> Alright then, if these horrible awful companies didn't do any research at all because they're so bias, who would? Nobody else has the money to do it. It's not like anyone can even argue against you, because all you're saying is "propaganda! evil corporations!". Of course it's all about money. You're not on a free computer are you posting by using free internet?
> 
> And cross-breading plants and GMO is similar. Most the things we have cross-bred have not been done naturally. What you're doing in both cases is the same in principle, you're taking what you want from one plant and adding it to another. It's not rocket surgery.


I think you mean it's not rocket science? As for it being propaganda, if you actually took time to watch that video you'd see the evidence that you blindly choose to ignore. There's an enormously strong correlation to the rise in ibd and other chronic conditions and the increase in GMO foods. To ignore it is just plain silly, especially if you are unlucky enough to suffer from a chronic illness


----------



## Beach (Mar 29, 2013)

I've seen some mentions about the idea of growing foods further in cities, on roof tops and such.  

What looks promising is turning waste lands of the world into farm producing areas.  It's an old concept, but recall this article that came out at the end of last year about one group that is successfully doing just that.  

"Another Kick in the Teeth for Malthus"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/11/25/another-kick-in-the-teeth-for-malthus/ 

snippet:



> Today we bring you something straight out of a science fiction novel: Scientists have found a way to produce nearly unlimited amounts of food in the desert, fueled by desalinated salt water and sunlight. It sounds like a pipe dream, but it’s not—it’s already happening in Australia and Qatar, and may soon spread further if these early trials deliver on their initial promise.
> The Guardian explains how the system works:
> Indeed, the work that Sundrop Farms, as they call themselves, are doing in South Australia, and just starting up in Qatar, is beyond the experimental stage. They appear to have pulled off the ultimate something-from-nothing agricultural feat – using the sun to desalinate seawater for irrigation and to heat and cool greenhouses as required, and thence cheaply grow high-quality, pesticide-free vegetables year-round in commercial quantities....


Not gardening, but also found this a good concept also at greening the planet and producing more grass fed live stock from areas that have become unusable for farmers.   

"How Cows Could Green the World’s Deserts and Reverse Climate Change"

http://www.dietdoctor.com/how-cows-could-green-the-worlds-deserts-and-reverse-climate-change

From Dr. Eenfeldt's sight:



> Could millions of cows help save the environment? Yes, says Allan Savory, a grassland ecosystem pioneer, in this fantastic new 20 minute TED-talk.
> 
> Animals grazing grass, when used right, do not turn grassland into desert. Savory used to belive that, a long time ago, but he’s now realized that was a tragic mistake (in a very personal way). The animals do the opposite. They make the desert green again.
> 
> ...


----------



## Amy2 (Mar 29, 2013)

I mostly buy organic and I try to stay away from GMO's, but the correlation between their increased use and an increase in chronic conditions, is just one of many.  Another thing that happened about 1996 was a rise in the use of home computers and we became far less active.  I've heard many health and fitness experts say that exercise is THE single most important thing one can do to stay healthy.  And judging by most shopping carts I see, people aren't eating healthy, either.


----------



## Price (Mar 29, 2013)

David you're missing my point, just because two types of tomatoes being bred together isn't the same as corn and bacteria doesn't mean it's not human intervention. Those tomatoes probably wouldn't have mixed in the wild. Just because what one thing occurs naturally in one vegetable doesn't mean it won't go without consequence if bred into another type. I don't understand how you can agree with mixing like that, but not in the way corn is. You're still messing with two things that haven't mixed together in the wild. Look at all the times animals have been mixed into already well established ecosystems, it usually messes it up. I think there's a stigma against the other kind just because it's not two natural things being mixed. Most people here take medicines every day, which are likely to be much more dangerous than changing plants for agricultural purposes.

I'm done here anyway, after seeing a post like Hugh's being inflammatory and offensive go without any editing and nothing being done I know differing opinions just aren't wanted. Guess you lot got what you want anyway, just lots of people to agree with you with no arguments against. Have fun.


----------



## nogutsnoglory (Mar 29, 2013)

I think we don't yet know the long term impact of GMO's but I think they are extremely dangerous to our health and the planet. We are going into unchartered territory and creating unnatural products. 

I for one regardless of any studies will always aim to buy organic and if that's not available certainly GMO free products. 

I do hope there will soon be laws mandating companies list if they use GMO ingredients. I have a right to know as a consumer.


----------



## rygon (Mar 29, 2013)

Wasnt there a debate when microwaves 1st came out about how it was going to cause cancer, cause radioactive food etc. Yet this was unfounded and most people have microwaves nowadays. Im wondering if GMO is on the same line as this.

Also with regards to the tomato, some of the plants may have been involved in mutation breeding, where they are pounded with X-rays to create random mutations.  These have been going on since the 1930s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding 

For the record im not for the GMO foods, I just want to keep an open mind to how we are producing foods now and how GMO will affect what we do in the future (I still think the type of diets we have play a much bigger role in the impact of our health tbh)


On a more *important note.* Can we remember that this is a forum for helping others. Although debates can get heated and people can disagree with one another, this should in no way mean you can attack others for their views (whether its one person or a group). We all can have our opinions, please respect that.


----------



## myriahdawn (Mar 29, 2013)

Where can I find that video? I would like to post it on my Facebook/everywhere. : )


----------



## David (Mar 29, 2013)

Price said:


> David you're missing my point, just because two types of tomatoes being bred together isn't the same as corn and bacteria doesn't mean it's not human intervention. Those tomatoes probably wouldn't have mixed in the wild. Just because what one thing occurs naturally in one vegetable doesn't mean it won't go without consequence if bred into another type. I don't understand how you can agree with mixing like that, but not in the way corn is. You're still messing with two things that haven't mixed together in the wild.


Cross pollination happens ALL THE TIME in the wild.  Constantly.

In fact, that's one of the problems with GMO crops.  They are cross pollinating like crazy and "infecting" non GMO crops.


> That likely means that transgenic canola plants are cross-pollinating in the wild—and swapping introduced genes.


What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## hugh (Mar 29, 2013)

myriahdawn said:


> Where can I find that video? I would like to post it on my Facebook/everywhere. : )


pm sent


----------



## nogutsnoglory (Mar 29, 2013)

rygon said:


> Wasnt there a debate when microwaves 1st came out about how it was going to cause cancer, cause radioactive food etc. Yet this was unfounded and most people have microwaves nowadays. Im wondering if GMO is on the same line as this.
> 
> Also with regards to the tomato, some of the plants may have been involved in mutation breeding, where they are pounded with X-rays to create random mutations.  These have been going on since the 1930s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
> 
> ...


I still think we don't fully know the impact of microwaves and other relatively new technologies yet. We know the food is denatured in the microwave and its molecular makeup is changed. 

With all the cancer today, one must wonder if there are contributing environmental factors. It may not be solely GMO's or the microwave or cell but as a whole we are damaging ourselves.


----------



## hugh (Mar 29, 2013)

my apologies to Price,

I was merely trying to express in a clumsy and inappropriately robust manner that the opinion that genetic engineering is merely an extension of selective breeding displays a profound innocence and perhaps a degree of unquestioning trust that is not deserved, and could be remedied with an exposure to more varied and less corporate sources of information.

Likewise, the view that GMO will feed the masses is deeply flawed in many ways.
Current food production is adequate yet starvation continues.
This is because it is not distributed to those who need it, for political, economic and logistic reasons, NOT because we don't produce enough.
That this will be addressed by concentrating production and ownership in the hands of fewer larger organisations is a complete fallacy.


_“If anyone tells you that GM is going to
feed the world, tell them that it is not...
To feed the world takes political and
financial will.”_
– Steve Smith, head of GM company Novartis
Seeds UK (now Syngenta)


As production and distribution become more expensive (as oil becomes more expensive, and the rights, means and technology to produce food becomes corporate property) then those who have no money will be worse off as they are no longer allowed to plant seeds owned by others, on land no longer able support agriculture, and certainly won't be able to afford to buy it.

The moment the trucks stop bringing food to the supermarket, society as we know it is over


----------



## Ya noy (Mar 29, 2013)

nogutsnoglory said:


> I still think we don't fully know the impact of microwaves and other relatively new technologies yet. We know the food is denatured in the microwave and its molecular makeup is changed.
> 
> With all the cancer today, one must wonder if there are contributing environmental factors. It may not be solely GMO's or the microwave or cell but as a whole we are damaging ourselves.


How many years was it that the tobacco companies denied any knowledge of the fact that smoking causes cancer, emphysema and all kinds of health problems, up to, and including death?  

A couple months ago, a federal court judge ordered the tobacco companies to publish "corrective statements", admitting not only that they lied. But deliberately deceived the American public, intentionally concealing the dangers of smoking for many decades, even though they knew the real truth all along.  see link:  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57555099/judge-orders-tobacco-companies-to-say-they-lied/

It is estimated that smoking kills, on the average, 1,200 Americans per day. The question to me is not whether or not I believe there's enough evidence to absolutely prove that GMOs are harmful, but whether I believe that the manufacturers of these products are anymore ethical than the tobacco companies?  Do you trust their ethics with your very life?  because that's what it comes down to.


----------



## David (Mar 29, 2013)

Ya noy said:


> The question to me is not whether or not I believe there's enough evidence to absolutely prove that GMOs are harmful, but whether I believe that the manufacturers of these products are anymore ethical than the tobacco companies?  Do you trust their ethics with your very life?  because that's what it comes down to.


Companies these days such as Monsanto are SO MUCH smarter than the tobacco companies of old.  They've learned from other companies mistakes.  How can they ever be properly investigated when they have so many "former" employees in positions of power in government.

They placed all their chess pieces around the board quite strategically.  From a strategic business perspective, I respect it a lot.  From an ethical perspective I am mortified.


----------



## nogutsnoglory (Mar 29, 2013)

I do not trust these companies in the least. When money is the only motivating factor for a company, ethics often flies out the window. I do trust many small companies and farmers who make an effort not only for financial gain but because of their philosophical view on health and ecology.


----------



## hugh (Mar 30, 2013)

Beach said:


> "How Cows Could Green the World’s Deserts and Reverse Climate Change"


wow!!!!! 
truely inspirational
[youtube]vpTHi7O66pI#![/youtube]
research confirming that mimicking a paleo diet can help reverse deforestation, climate change and world hunger.
gotta love that

in wild and total contrast to GMOs, causing deforestation, desertification, climate change, poverty, illness .... ohh yeah, and massive profits.


----------



## Beach (Mar 30, 2013)

Thanks Hugh, 

Agree, that really was a pleasant and surprising video.  It gives me further reason to keep buying grass fed meats.  

On further GMO news, saw this today about GMO firms such as Monsanto and the court system.     

"Fields of Unregulated Gold?"



> Tucked in the recent spending bill signed this week by President Obama is a provision called the Monsanto Protection Act that critics say gives makers of genetically modified crops freedom to sell products without federal court approval.


The rest of the article can be seen at:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rs-genetically-engineered-crops-from-federal/


----------



## hugh (Apr 5, 2013)

If anyone wants background on monsanto,
nearly two hours but worth the time
Gives one a basis for evaluating their claims and promises.
[youtube]N6_DbVdVo-k[/youtube]

and then there is the revolving door........


----------



## jwfoise (Apr 9, 2013)

Poppysocks said:


> Ive been around this forum for awhile, haven't posted in some time though. I just was wondering what everyone thought about GMO foods.


My two cents (or less) 

Humans have been genetically modifying our foods for thousands of years.  It is called selective breeding, something we have done for both animals and plants.  None of this selective breeding is "natural", but then neither are most drugs, nor the Internet for that matter.

The modern techniques are just a little more direct, and frankly I think that a good thing.  Sure, like all technology it is a double-edged sword, but it has the potential to do a lot more good than harm.

By itself I have no problem with labeling foods as containing GMO material, and let each consumer decide for themselves.  But frankly, I think it is a scare tactic to try to scare companies like Whole Foods to just ban such foods, rather than fuss with labeling, and it is apparently working.

Like I said, just my 2 cents.


----------



## David (Apr 9, 2013)

jwfoise said:


> Humans have been genetically modifying our foods for thousands of years.  It is called selective breeding, something we have done for both animals and plants.  None of this selective breeding is "natural", but then neither are most drugs, nor the Internet for that matter.
> 
> The modern techniques are just a little more direct, and frankly I think that a good thing.  Sure, like all technology it is a double-edged sword, but it has the potential to do a lot more good than harm.


Humans have never crossed species before.  We have never crossed plant with bacteria.  Until now.  Selective breeding and GMO are vastly different.


----------



## hugh (Apr 10, 2013)

jwfoise said:


> Humans have been genetically modifying our foods for thousands of years.  It is called selective breeding, something we have done for both animals and plants.  None of this selective breeding is "natural", but then neither are most drugs, nor the Internet for that matter.


To say that genetically modifying our foods is just an extension of selective breeding is a bit like saying that a cluster bomb is just an extension of hitting someone over the head with a stick, 
It's just plain bullshit.

But it's an important bit of bullshit, 
It lends support to the claim that there is “Substantial equivalence”, that is the claim that GM food is 'basically the same' and *therefore doesn't need to be tested*.
That this “Substantial equivalence” can be assumed is amazing, and also highly misleading, since it just means 'mostly the same with small differences that we have decided (for political and economic -not scientific reasons) that you don't need to know about '

_“Substantial equivalence is a pseudo-
scientific concept because it is a 
commercial and political judgement 
masquerading as if it were scientific. It 
is, moreover, inherently anti-scientific 
because *it was created primarily to 
provide an excuse for not requiring 
biochemical or toxicological tests*.”_
– Millstone E, Brunner E, Mayer S. Beyond 
“substantial equivalence”. Nature. 1999; 
401(6753): 525–526.

This in turn supports the assumption of 'GRAS' - "generally recognised as safe" - 
the FDA has given this designation to GMOs because they are “Substantially equivalent”, and chosen to ignore the evidence, or even the possibility that they may not be safe. 
Lets keep in mind that prior to 1992,when the 'GRAS' was given, the FDAs own scientists were expressing (and being suppressed for expressing) a very different opinion.
The scientists at the FDA were saying
_"The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."_ (FDA Administrative Record)", and the corporate ring-in administrators were saying
_"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way..."_
With other products the 'GRAS' designation is given 'if it's generally recognized in the scientific community that the use of the substance is safe in food', or after it is proved safe.
This 'GRAS' designation is given GMOs if the *developer *says it is safe,and this overrides any scientific dissent or precautionary principle  - that's all it takes.
There is much evidence showing that GMOs are not safe.
The most commonly cited examples that i have seen are multiple tests on rats showing abnormal gut bacteria and immune response, 

But Hey, I say eat what you want but it should be labelled
(what you eat doesn't affect my digestion )

'the rate of chronic conditions among US children jumped from 12.8 percent in 1994 to 26.6 percent in 2006, with asthma, obesity, and behavior/learning disorders leading the way.'



jwfoise said:


> By itself I have no problem with labeling foods as containing GMO material, and let each consumer decide for themselves.  But frankly, I think it is a scare tactic to try to scare companies like Whole Foods to just ban such foods, rather than fuss with labeling, and it is apparently working.


Pardon?

Even though 90% of americans want GMO labelling, the corporations have stopped it from happening.
Prop 37 failed fairly suspiciously (electronic votin,g anyone?) so they are going ahead on their own
Whole Foods is dropping GMOs* because *they can't get labelling, and they can make more money giving customers what they want.

Scare tactics? seriously?

What TV channel do you watch?


----------



## Ya noy (Apr 11, 2013)

David said:


> Humans have never crossed species before.  We have never crossed plant with bacteria.  Until now.  Selective breeding and GMO are vastly different.


I think some people may not fully understand the cause for concern, which hasn't really been explained in this thread.   

This is not like cross breeding, say a tomato plant with another plant that is naturally resistant.  

But rather, this is genetically implanting a chemically produced bacteria, a pesticide called BT, which kills insects by irritating their bellies, to the extent that they swell up and explode upon biting into the plant.    

Now, the manufacturers of GMIs contend that BT has been used safely for many years to spray crops, but when you spray a crop with BT, it can washed off before eating.  

However, when you genetically modify a plant, the BT can not be washed off, so when you eat the plant, you are fully consuming the Pesticide as well.  

Now rat poisen works in a similar fashion, killing rats by swelling up their bellies and exploding them.  If an animal comes along and then eats that dead rat, their bellies will also swell up, and depending on how much of the poison from the rat they consumed, at minimum they will get sick, if not die as well.  

The exact effects of BT on human beings in GMOs is not (yet) known, but we take products off the market that are found to cause cancer in mice, and yet, it's supposedly safe for us to consume food products that are intentionally and very specifically engineered to explode the bellies of insects?  

I hope this provides a little better clarification of why there is cause for concern from GMOs.


----------



## mnsun (Apr 11, 2013)

Some crops have spider/scorpion/snake venom genes in them.  Other crops have genes from flounder fish that keep them from freezing, thus making crops frost tolerant.  There are spider-goats that produce silky-milk that can be used in bullet proof vests, spider webs when wound up taught are stronger than kevlar.  Some unscrupulous pet stores may sell glow in the dark fish and monkeys, especially overseas, that have been mixed with jellyfish genes....  Pretty sure this would have never occured in nature....  Monkeys getting funky with a man-o-war.


----------



## hugh (Apr 30, 2013)

I know it's 'Mercola' but i trust him more than Monsanto...

 _"A report given to MomsAcrossAmerica4 by an employee of De Dell Seed Company (Canada's only non-GMO corn seed company) offers a stunning picture of the nutritional differences between genetically engineered (GE) and non-GE corn. Clearly, the former is NOT equivalent to the latter, which is the very premise by which genetically engineered crops were approved in the first place.

Here’s a small sampling of the nutritional differences found in this 2012 nutritional analysis:

    Calcium: GMO corn = 14 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 6,130 ppm (437 times more)
    Magnesium: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 113 ppm (56 times more)
    Manganese: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 14 ppm (7 times more)

GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. This is quite significant and well worth remembering.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “safe” level for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm... At 13 ppm, GMO corn contains more than 18 times the “safe” level of glyphosate set by the EPA." _
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130430


----------



## Gra (May 5, 2013)

hugh said:


> It's nice to have an opinion about things but if you don't know what you're talking about then please don't bother sharing it
> [youtube]wnlTYFKBg18[/youtube]


Hugh, for some reason your video comes up with a message "this video is private", and all I see is random dots or "snow".

Can you repost please?


----------



## hugh (May 6, 2013)

ooops, was i really that rude?

looks like it's no longer available for free.....

but i found it here...
http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi2611455769
and here
http://rclvideolibrary.com/2012/10/29/genetic-roulette-the-gamble-of-our-lives/
they may be unlicensed, i don't know


----------



## hugh (May 6, 2013)

who's running the country anyway?
[youtube]2K4pfiYK2IQ[/youtube]

ohhhhh. that's who


----------



## hugh (May 6, 2013)

[youtube]eeW5yUSqdhY[/youtube]

the EFSA ( European Food Safety Authority) slammed the study, but that was to be expected.
To review the criticisms and reply to said criticism this one was a good read - http://www.gmfreecymru.org/documents/efsa_slammed.html

about another report from NZ i think

[youtube]g9v2aCmHVQM[/youtube]

http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html
http://safefoodfoundation.org/wordp.../2012/09/Carman-Expert-Scientific-Opinion.pdf

eat what you want :smile:


----------



## hugh (Jun 11, 2013)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

_"an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops."_


----------



## The Real MC (Jun 13, 2013)

I refuse to patronize an industry that exploits IP law, engages in "regulatory capture" (EPA and other toothless agencies), suppresses health studies that threaten their product, and authors federal laws that removes federal courts from legal jurisdiction over GMO cases.  Asia and Europe refuse to import GMO foods for a Good Reason.  The GMO industry is more evil than tobacco.

I am moving to buy more organics and to buy more from farmer's markets whenever possible.


----------



## hugh (Jun 13, 2013)

Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

"Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals."  

"GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world "

"A university-based survey of 8200 field trials of the most widely grown GM crops, herbicide-tolerant soya beans - revealed that they yield 6.7% less and required two to five times more herbicides than non-GM varieties"

"Between 1993 and 1997 the number of mid-sized farms in the US dropped by 74,440, and farmers are now receiving below the average cost of production for their produce"

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php


----------



## jacobgypsum (Jun 14, 2013)

hugh said:


> "Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals."
> 
> "GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world "


These sentences contradict each other. Patents on GM plants restrict the availability of GM plants to those who pay for them. Restricting the availability of GM plants can threaten food security only if GM plants are better than non GM plants, unlike stated in the quote.

Also, if GM plants are, all in all, worse for the farmers, they can always opt not to use them.


----------



## hugh (Jun 16, 2013)

This is a bit random with plenty of cut and pastes so it might not flow but i'm not a typer

firstly, these are just extracts from the letter...

_hugh said: 
"Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals." 

"GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world "_



jacobgypsum said:


> These sentences contradict each other.


They are not at all contradictory,

The first refers to the patenting of life, - “Patents on life-forms and living processes“

_“Government recognized that a company could invent a process to extract a gene or reveal its properties, and thus gave a right to the use of that gene in a new product.”
_
_
“Although intellectual property rights are not supposed to allow materials to be taken out of the public domain once they have arrived there, several highly publicized, controversial cases—such as one involving a recent U.S. patent covering a variety of yellow beans believed by many to have been widely used for generations in Latin America, have caused some observers to question whether this principle actually works in practice”_
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC429328/

you can see how the first statement is valid –
 someone else even owns the genes in your body! hence the reference to healthcare and medical and scientific research 

_“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office claims the power to assign ownership of your DNA to private companies and universities who apply for patents on your genes.”_
_
“To date, 20 percent of your genetic code is owned by someone else. About two-thirds of these patents belong to private companies, and one-third belong to universities. The company that owns the most patents is called Incyte, a drug company based in California which "owns" the patents on 2,000 human genes.”_

for example one company 'owns' specific genes relating to , say, breast cancer, then it is illegal for another company to develop treatments based on these genes,  or apparently, even to develop a test for these genes
If a company 'owns' the genes to a plant, then they can stop other people using those genes too

Considering that Monsanto has successfully sued farmers for stealing when their crops have been contaminated byGM crops it makes me wonder what will happen when the companies that OWN your genes decide that you are copying their property without paying a royalty.

The second statements applies to GM crops specifically, and refers to the lack of benefits and the real dangers involved (lack of diversity (and exposure to catastrophic failure due to said lack of diversity), super weeds, super pests, pesticide build up, degraded soil, health threats, and* monopoly of food supply*).



jacobgypsum said:


> Patents on GM plants restrict the availability of GM plants to those who pay for them. Restricting the availability of GM plants can threaten food security only if GM plants are better than non GM plants, unlike stated in the quote.
> .


I'm not sure I understand this statement.....
Nowhere does it say 'restricting GM plants can threaten food security', quite the opposite, GM plants are a threat to food security . 
While only those who pay can use the seeds, their affects are much more widespread.. Many crops have been contaminated, for example, the whole US wheat crop is now under a cloud, but many small farmers have had their crops contaminated and lost their livelihoods.




jacobgypsum said:


> Also, if GM plants are, all in all, worse for the farmers, they can always opt not to use them.


The fact that hundreds of thousands of farmers are committing suicide in india demonstrates the fallacy behind that argument.
These farmers borrow money to buy seed, and are promised miraculous results by salesmen and government shills alike.
When their harvest fails or they find that they can't afford the additional pesticide that the crops require then they cannot start again.
_
“It is on account of increasing corporate monopoly operating under the globalised economy that the poor are getting poorer and hungrier. Family farmers around the world have been driven to destitution and suicide, and for the same reasons. Between 1993 and 1997 the number of mid-sized farms in the US dropped by 74,440, and farmers are now receiving below the average cost of production for their produce”_

It's really  quite simple...
It has been estimated that 75 percent of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient, and your government has decided that you are not allowed to know or choose what you eat.


----------



## SarahDMartin07 (Jun 19, 2013)

I am new here and this is my first post, but has anyone read Jordan Rubin's book Beyond Organic?  I was just recently diagnosed with Crohn's and have started researching GMOs and organic produce.  It is scary to think of all the things going into our food and in essence creating food that God did not intend humans to eat.  I would encourage everyone to read some of Jordan Rubin's books.  He has created a company called Beyond Organic and it is interesting to read some of his theories about the food we eat.  Also, read just yesterday that 90% of what is found in a grocery store contains some type of GMO in it.


----------



## hugh (Jun 29, 2013)

Evidence of GMO harm in pig study
http://gmojudycarman.org/new-study-shows-that-animals-are-seriously-harmed-by-gm-feed/#prettyPhoto

_"And the other main finding is that we looked inside the stomachs and the results show quite clearly that the level of *severe stomach inflammation in the GM-fed pigs was much higher *than in the non-GM fed pigs."_
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3780391.htm


----------



## hugh (Jul 9, 2013)

_"This report explores the impact of the adoption of genetically engineered (GE) corn, soybean, and cotton on pesticide use in the United States, drawing principally on data from the United States Department of Agriculture. The most striking finding is that GE crops have been *responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds* of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996-2008)."_
http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/13years20091126_exsumfrontmatter.pdf


----------



## Beach (Jul 23, 2013)

Saw Dr. Mercola has an interesting article up this morning on GM foods, herbicide use, the growth in crop pests, and GMO labeling.  

"Good News! Monsanto’s PR Machine Is Failing Miserably"

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130723


----------

