Risks of Genetically Modified Foods

[Smile]

To continue the conversation on the healthful foods or not so....

 

We all know how utterly corrupt the FDA is, but sometimes the full significance of this fact doesn't resonate.

 

This video is a major wake up call.

 

Short version:

 

The FDA gave Monsanto and it friends a free pass on genetically modified organisms.

 

They've helped suppress the science that shows food produced this way is dangerous.

 

Here are the foods that are genetically modified: milk, corn, soybeans, canola oil and cottonseed oil.

 

One simple way to protect yourself is to stop eating these foods unless they come from a certified organic source.

 

For more information on how to protect yourself from the corporate/government criminals that are selling garbage and poison and calling it food, go here:

 

http://www.TheRealFoodChannel.com

 

This is truly scary shit.

 

94d-KVorSHM

 

710tmYMxsyY

 

ggtAzd8HMj0

 

Eyzu5NEWCTE

 

ElKHbNAETME

 

j4UmYU7cCkE

[Owledge]

Does the video explain the details about how it is harmful to us? If so, could you please summarize this? E.g. is it only the resulting chemicals that might be harmful or is the DNA itself claimed to have an effect (which I would doubt)?

[Desert Eagle]

http://cryptogon.com/?p=9085

[11:33]

I believe studies have shown that animals fed Genetically Modified foods have not been as healthy as animals fed normal food.

[Owledge]

(lapsed, deleted)

Edited June 21, 2009 by Hardyg

[Josh Young]

I agree the FDA has shown itself to be a corrupt and greedy organization with very little interest in protecting consumers.

 

However the idea that GMO foods are bad is a joke. The problem is that they are not well studied. Since genetics shows that genes are variably expressed that means that GMO products need to be screened, not only for the desired products of genes, but rather for all products of the inserted genes. The introduction of a new gene can affect genes transcription of other ORF sequences.

 

Since the companies that do make GMO foods and plants are not screening their products against un-modified ones in terms of the total genetic expression of the organism, we cannot rule out the potential for a genetically modified food or plant to cause detriment. They entail specific risks, not specific health problems, and it is unwise to lump all GMO together.

 

If someone GMO'd a plant 10,000 years ago, you would never know and it would be indistinguishable from evolved plants. I oppose the unethical actions of the companies that are not giving people choices when it comes to GMO products, but I am entirely in favor of the genetic sciences and this includes making GMO products, however the methods of screening GMO organisms that are ideal are not those that are being employed and I have deep concerns regarding GMO products for this reason.

 

To put it in concise terms, making and releasing safe GMO products is less profitable than just making and releasing GMO products.

 

Since companies by law must be interested in a profit, then according to business law any company that pursues action that is not in the best interest of it's profit is in violation of it's charter and any acting officer or director of a company who fails to direct the company according to the interest of profit is at risk for being replaced. It is illegal for a company in the western market to pursue a business plan that is not oriented at making a profit. Because of this it is arguable against business law for a company like Monsanto to be concerned with the health impact of the products they make unless that health impact harms their profit.

 

The development of any product or company in western business relates entirely to making money. Because of this it is in effect illegal, though not against criminal code, to operate the company according to a concern for public welfare, rather money is the only thing that matters. Public and private interests cannot be reconciled in a free market.

[11:33]

Josh,

 

You make good points. It's a conundrum. How to have business operate efficiently, while also, having the Whole operate efficiently? I guess that is what laws are supposed to be there for.

[Josh Young]

The laws are meant to help lawmakers and their financial sponsors. I don't think they pertain to being efficient, it is all part of a system which is the progression of caste and class division, such a system is based upon the use of larger part of society as domesticated animals to support a minority of society. The nature of this system is exploitative and often violently opposed to any ideal of common interest, common good or public welfare.

 

Monsanto and other companies exploit this relationship in their manufacture of GMO products. They know full well they do not have to operate according to any standard of ethics or legality.

[11:33]

I guess that is what laws are supposed to be there for.

[evZENy]

The sad thing is, that definition of Organic in the USA does not exclude GMO

[Smile]

However the idea that GMO foods are bad is a joke. The problem is that they are not well studied.

It's not a joke, it's a fact. Watch this video about the studies:

 

Eyzu5NEWCTE

[Josh Young]

If you can present to me the studies themselves that would be good. I have no interest in video or presentations of any type like this. If you just PM me the bibliography of the presentation so that i can read the studies myself I would be very appreciative.

 

for starters to lump all GMO together is a sign of the same types of poor considerations that the makers of the products are doing. Any overt condemnation of a class of things is unwise when they are subject to so many variables. The problem, which is stated in the very title of the thread, is the risk involved.

 

When any individual GMO is released without proper study then those risks are far greater than if the proper tests were run, which cost millions more than without the tests and are not required by law.

 

You can raise a GMO crop with organic methods. What is wrong with that? I think that the criteria of what counts as organic to the USDA is weak and even stupid. I much prefer the California standard of organic.

[Josh Young]

I've been reading summations of his chapters.

I am familiar with most of what he says and talks about.

I have mixed feelings, some of what he provides is not the whole picture, like with the L-tryptophan GMO problem of 89 or so, there are simple ways that this could have been avoided, but they are expensive. All the GMO companies have to do is test the GMO products with a full comparison of protein products against the standard of an un-modified product, the truth is that this costs a great deal and could show that a product that they thought was ready to release is not worthy of being released.

 

At this point I should note that Invasion biology is related to this, the ethics and details of invasion biology are complex and several people have some extremely good arguments in support of the fact that nature itself works with invasive species. Related to this is the fact that nature itself invents/recombines new untested allele combinations all the time and sometimes they are detrimental. The very thing we demand that Monsanto not do, is what nature itself does.

 

There are ton of dangerous plants and foods that are organic too. Heck, the chickpea cannot be digested by all peoples and is not safe for some people to eat, you could easily make a case against it by selective presentation of evidence.

 

The bulk of Smiths work is for sale, I can't help but think Monsanto and he have the same thing in mind: $$.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Josh Young

[11:33]

Josh, if we're going to imitate the way nature spews out stuff so natural selection can weed out the crappy species, let's do it right now. Let's just weed the messed up ones and NOT EAT THEM.

Edited June 21, 2009 by 11:33

[froggie]

Cool thinking.

Thanks for sharing.

[froggie]

I'm not even sure of how to put this, because i can't even imagine anyone saying even 1 good thing about any other methods when they truely know and understand the following:

cultivating with natural selection towards more resistance and bigger yields is the only way to make it better in terms of everything, all of the rest is worse.

It's really that simple, that black and white, as day and night, there is not even 1 'if' about it.

[Josh Young]

cultivating with natural selection towards more resistance and bigger yields is the only way to make it better in terms of everything, all of the rest is worse.

I have to ask, are you being sarcastic? I can't tell but I think you are.

 

Natural selection does not operate via goals, only natural selective pressures. Nature often selects for smaller, or weaker, in some contexts. What is good for the jungle plant is bad for the desert plant. Maybe when you say natural selection you mean artificial selection?

Otherwise people do not make the selection, rather nature self selects.

 

Monoculture is terrible and linked to many problems in sustainability. Our entire agricultural paradigm is full of terrible misconceptions.

 

The idea that the only way to make things better, in terms of everything is to have a goal in mind goes against my own precepts which are based on tao. Why fuss so? I seek increased harmony and reciprocity, not increased yields, because sustainability is not about getting the most out of things or making things as tough as possible.

 

Nothing is ever black and white. The world defies any overt and inclusive statement.

[froggie]

Josh: we are talking next to eachother and not about the same thing.

selection can be done in various ways, you can select on size, on strength, disease resistance, aroma's, nutrient content.

What i meant by 'natural selection' is to pick the traits you ant it to continue on.

I don't want all plants to have high yield but also high disease resistance, aroma and nutrients, but by the natural cultivation way (selection) and not by adding genes of other animals into it and so. that is what i mean by natural and selection.

 

ecological, biodynamic and other forms of farming, companion planting, fukuoka farming, natural cultivation of traits (which can and will only improve each time. that's why that is important, and not the other things.

 

if the first tomato was the size of a berry, look at it now.

if the grains that are cultivated now are high in gluten and more allergenic then that's not great. (old grain types are not allergenic)

 

sorry i have too much information in my mind to write it all out, i can't write that fast or organize it that well, and it's making me nervous

 

there is just too much info all pointing into one direction from various 'sources',

and this info is also pointing out on what not to do and what do do best.

 

Ok. i have found a way to sum up about it: It's all about the plant's health and strength.

Edited June 22, 2009 by froggie

[Josh Young]

I see. Thanks for the clarification. In general I agree.

[Tokoyo Tama]

Monoculture is terrible and linked to many problems in sustainability. Our entire agricultural paradigm is full of terrible misconceptions

 

 

Too true.

[awake]

You know that tiny corn they sell usually in cans? Thats its real size, the big stuff is modified to be such.

 

Also lots of other "regular" fruits and vegetables are so.

 

I remember hearing something about KFC genetically modifying their chickens to be born without beaks or feet.