US food supply is severely messed up and toxic.

[Kaiser]

THEY'RE MADE OF PEOPLE!!!!!

[Enjay]

I'll give you my genes when you take them from my cold, dead cells.

[Gokuma]

There's potential for good in genetic engineering, but Monsanto is just fucking everything up. They're fucking mass murderers.

[Enjay]

From what I have heard about them, their attitude to GM is indeed just one of their undesirable aspects.

[Zaldron]

Gokuma said:

There's potential for good in genetic engineering, but Monsanto is just fucking everything up. They're fucking mass murderers.

Potential? Pre-GM seeds do not produce enough food matter to sustain the current world requirements.

[Christoph]

Kinda sucks cuz I live in PA now. I've also noticed that everything in the past several years is trying so hard to be labeled "organic" and now "green" just to make people think it's something better than whatever shit it still is. I also support (at least in theory) localized farming and growing/preparing food the "old fashioned way", since every other way seems to lead only to death (or a sooner, more miserable death). What really sucks is when you can't even buy fruits and vegetables without them being loaded with all kinds or pesticides, residues, and other weird crap, in addition to being modified (overgrown) and underripe in the first place. When I was in China, the fruit there was smaller, but tasted/felt so much better than anything I've had in America. I need to plant my own garden one of these days...

[darknation]

darknation's alternative "world food shortage" solution

Stop breeding you retards.





Alternative alternative - eat the Person sitting next to you. Two birds, one stone baby.

[GreyGhost]

The alternative alternative lends new meaning to the phrase "invite someone home for dinner".

[40oz]

tl:wr

No amount of multi-chapter text book posts and links wiil make me believe that all food is toxic.

[Sharessa]

Christoph said:

Kinda sucks cuz I live in PA now. I've also noticed that everything in the past several years is trying so hard to be labeled "organic" and now "green" just to make people think it's something better than whatever shit it still is. I also support (at least in theory) localized farming and growing/preparing food the "old fashioned way", since every other way seems to lead only to death (or a sooner, more miserable death). What really sucks is when you can't even buy fruits and vegetables without them being loaded with all kinds or pesticides, residues, and other weird crap, in addition to being modified (overgrown) and underripe in the first place. When I was in China, the fruit there was smaller, but tasted/felt so much better than anything I've had in America. I need to plant my own garden one of these days...

I'm fairly sure that "organic" just means "overly-ripe". When I go produce shopping, I see the non-organic stuff and it all looks fine and tastes fine, then I see the organic stuff and it's wilted, bruised, and otherwise unsightly. It doesn't taste too great either. Don't say I'm spoiled by store-bought fruit either, because I've had plenty of freshly-picked fruit and greens, and (at least to good looking stuff) looks and tastes closer to the normal stuff than the "organic" stuff. I'm fairly sure the "organic" section is just where they toss the stuff that's passed its prime.

[Bloodshedder]

Danarchy said:

I'm fairly sure that "organic" just means "overly-ripe".

Very clever. But, just maybe, possibly, could it be they spoil faster because they aren't treated with waxes or preservatives?

[Gokuma]

Enjay said:
...
Yes, there are many reasons to question how suitable certain areas of GM investigation and development are but, in reality, the quality and safety of food is not significantly one of them because there is little evidence to show that the changes made to crops (etc) makes them harmful. Indeed, one of the things that are supposed to be checked is that the crop is not harmful. Why would anyone be trying to develop crops that were harmful knowing that, sooner or later, it would be found out. And, yes, I know that it can, and does, go on - and always has, even before GM.
...
For examples of some GM crops:
A GM mod to some crops makes them resistant to specific weed killers, allowing the crop to be sprayed to kill weeds but not affect the crop itself. The modification has no impact on the quality of the actual food, but people will object to it because "GM is bad for you". If you object to that crop because it is GM, then it shouldn't be on the basis of GM making the food unsafe, but some other aspect of GM (for example you might not like the principle of people messing with the "blueprint of life").
...
Another example, and one that is often quoted as to how "unnatural" these experiments are, there was a trial to put certain fish genes into crops. Fish genes in plants - freaky huh? Well, maybe. The reason it was being done was that the fish in question had the ability to stay alive and maintain an acceptable metabolic rate at very low temperatures. The trial was to see if this could be used to give the crops frost resistance. Again, it would have no impact on the actual crop. Whether the trial worked or not, I don't know, but it was certainly being carried out.
...

Zaldron said:

Potential? Pre-GM seeds do not produce enough food matter to sustain the current world requirements.

What I've underlined are very dangerous myths put out by the genetic engineers such as Monsanto. GM fish would wreak havoc if they get out into the wild. Fortunately they're easier to contain than crops. You should really see the documentary Roundup Ready Nation. It has views from different sides and covers really screwed up stuff. You see people working on GM and pharmacrops wearing hazmat suits. GM crops aren't feeding any or much more people than regular crops and since GM genes cross over into weeds it's only temporary. It's mainly just for easier to maintain, cleaner crop fields.

If you're diabetic, chances are it's thanks to GM high fructose corn syrup and all the free glutamate most stuff is laced and loaded with.

I haven't heard it anywhere but I really wonder if it's GM crops killing bees or at least contributing to the problem since there's conflicting reports whether or not electrical or other interference from cellphone towers and things is causing colony collapse disorder.

[GreyGhost]

Danarchy said:

I'm fairly sure that "organic" just means "overly-ripe".

Down here "organic" means "over-priced" - up to three times the price of non-organic produce!

[Lich]

Danarchy said:

I'm fairly sure that "organic" just means "overly-ripe". When I go produce shopping, I see the non-organic stuff and it all looks fine and tastes fine, then I see the organic stuff and it's wilted, bruised, and otherwise unsightly. It doesn't taste too great either. Don't say I'm spoiled by store-bought fruit either, because I've had plenty of freshly-picked fruit and greens, and (at least to good looking stuff) looks and tastes closer to the normal stuff than the "organic" stuff. I'm fairly sure the "organic" section is just where they toss the stuff that's passed its prime.

The best organic produce you can get is that which is grown right out of your own garden. Still, I shop the Mississipi Market and Whole Foods in Saint Paul and while the produce isn't as nice looking (or as cheap) as treated produce, it's not wilted, bruised or foul tasting. Just to throw in my experience.

[Grazza]

Gokuma said:

You see people working on GM and pharmacrops wearing hazmat suits.

And have you seen what people wear when they are manufacturing computer chips? Those things must be absolutely deadly.

[exp(x)]

Grazza said:

And have you seen what people wear when they are manufacturing computer chips? Those things must be absolutely deadly.

Actually, they are pretty bad.

[fraggle]

Gokuma said:

I haven't heard it anywhere but I really wonder if it's GM crops killing bees or at least contributing to the problem since there's conflicting reports whether or not electrical or other interference from cellphone towers and things is causing colony collapse disorder.

No. It is emphatically not caused by mobile phones (or GM food for that matter). That is an untrue myth that has been propagated by the media.

Here's what happened: The University of Landau did a study into the effects of DECT phones (NOT mobile phones) on bees, by placing a cordless phone base station inside a bee hive. The results were that there was a very slight effect on the ability of bees to navigate, but nothing particularly important.

However, the study was reported on by the British newspaper "The Independent", who twisted it out of all recognition. They stated that the study had found that mobile phones kill bees and that this was the cause of CCD. This story was then repeated by other newspapers, etc. until a large number of people are now worried that mobile phones kill bees.

Studies of the phenomenon have shown that it has spread over geographical areas, in the exact pattern of a viral infection, so if there's any doubt left, this is the most convincing evidence that mobile phones have nothing to do with CCD.

A similar thing happened with the MMR vaccine several years ago. A scientist, who was later disciplined for academic disconduct, published a biased and flawed study that purported to link the MMR vaccine with autism. Although it was a hoax and thoroughly debunked, scared parents didn't vaccinate their children out of fear that it might harm them. Now we're facing a Measles epidemic as a result.

[Sharessa]

Bloodshedder said:

Very clever. But, just maybe, possibly, could it be they spoil faster because they aren't treated with waxes or preservatives?

Well, yeah. My point is that if you're going to ship produce without any kind of protection (aside from the basics like refrigeration), then you're going to end up with stuff that's already passed its prime by the time it gets to the supermarket.

GreyGhost said:

Down here "organic" means "over-priced" - up to three times the price of non-organic produce!

Wow. Around here it's more like 150% maybe 200% more expensive than the normal stuff. Still, it's ridiculous that inferior products are being sold at higher prices.

[myk]

Danarchy said:
Still, it's ridiculous that inferior products are being sold at higher prices.

Inferior taste and appearance perhaps, but it's a higher expense to the supermarket, and must have a certain demand from people looking for health food.

It you want better tasting and properly ripened organic food you'll probably have to get it during the right season, at a stand by the highway in the countryside, at an organic foods shop or the like.

[Zaldron]

Gokuma said:

What I've underlined are very dangerous myths put out by the genetic engineers such as Monsanto.

I picked that up from a summit on scientific progress and environment impact my father attended a few years ago, not from "the media".

Would you kindly expose a realistic conjecture that doesn't just blame food distribution politics?

[Zaldron]

Danarchy said:

Wow. Around here it's more like 150% maybe 200% more expensive than the normal stuff. Still, it's ridiculous that inferior products are being sold at higher prices.

"Organic" is becoming a very profitable business itself. People that adamantly refuse GM foods in their diet have no other choice but to pay whatever the hell they charge them. Plus, many enhancements done to our crops where meant to lengthen shelf life, combat common diseases and parasites and lower the reliance on the cold chain. All things that very realistically impact on the effort and funding required to crow organic crops, independent of how over priced they are.

[Enjay]

Gokuma said:

What I've underlined are very dangerous myths put out by the genetic engineers such as Monsanto.

Sorry, no. What you have underlined in my quotes are backed up by food quality surveys and have been reported in a number of scientific journals and more popular scientific publications such as "New Scientist". Inserting a gene into an organism that does nothing to affect the end product that is eaten by the human consumer will not make it harmful. What's more, it isn't some kind if arbitrary "let's try this gene and see who dies" kind of technology. It is an exact science which also involves rigorous testing, often taking years. I'm not saying mistakes don't get made - of course they do. But mistakes also get made with, for example, selective breeding and any number of crop development and management techniques. What's more, a lot of those do not undergo the same level of scrutiny as GM.

Gokuma said:

GM fish would wreak havoc if they get out into the wild.

Which, although I was speaking about crops, is one of the potential hazards I already suggested. However, your assertion that they would wreak havoc is unsubstantiated. Why would they? Has it been proven? What sort of "havoc" are we talking about? This kind of statement is equally dangerous because, actually, it doesn't really mean anything. It is empty. It says nothing. It just sets up in people's minds that GM fish are somehow dangerous but doesn't say how they are, how likely it is to happen, what the nature of the consequences might be or what the evidence is. And which particular GM fish are you talking about? There isn't such a thing as a GM fish, period. There are many types and many strands that have been investigated. Do you mean the sterile triploid fish used by many fish farms that cannot reproduce, reach maturity quite quickly and, left to their own devices, are not particularly competitive or able to survive in the wild and which will die out having left no young? Sorry, as you have phrased it, it's just another scare-mongering statement.

Gokuma said:

If you're diabetic, chances are it's thanks to GM high fructose corn syrup and all the free glutamate most stuff is laced and loaded with.

So, nothing to do with people living longer and developing age related diabetes, or obesity related diabetes? What "chances"? You make it seem more likely than not increased levels of fructose in GM crops are the cause of any person's diabetes. In fact, your whole sentence is full of inflammatory wording "most", "laced", loaded".

Gokuma said:

I haven't heard it anywhere but I really wonder if it's GM crops killing bees or at least contributing to the problem since there's conflicting reports whether or not electrical or other interference from cellphone towers and things is causing colony collapse disorder.

And I'm sorry, but that's the part where it became clear that you have been listening to too many conspiracy stories. Colony collapse disorder isn't fully understood, but red herrings such as electrical interference and mobile phone masts have been discounted by a number of serious scientific studies, or at least relegated to being viewed as highly speculative. The most likely causes are mites and insect diseases. Arbitrarily accusing GM just because you "wonder" if it might be involved for no real reason (other than, perhaps, bees visit flowers) is, again, the kind of blatant scaremongering that the anti-GM lobby gets involved in. What, in the crops, would be causing colonies to collapse? Which gene inserted into them is likely to have that kind of effect? What protein is the plant making because of its additional DNA that is causing this problem?

All a person has to do is be told something like that once and it lodges at the back of their mind that somehow, maybe, GM is responsible for killing bees. It's exactly the kind of thing that the anti-GM lobby want people to say because it becomes a half remembered "fact" in enough people's heads to repeat it and to turn them against GM but they do so on the basis of nothing at all.


Again, I repeat that I'm not saying GM is good, I'm not saying it is bad. I'm saying that the issue complex. I'm also saying that people should look at evidence and facts from authoritative sources, and not listen to the crazy guy with an agenda, standing on the street corner spouting emotive pish. And I'm certainly not a supporter of Mosanto. From what I have read about them, I think that they are a pretty vile organisation, indulging in exactly the kind of selfish, self serving, unethical practices to line their own pockets, and screw everyone else, that typifies the kind of organisation that I despise.

[Graf Zahl]

Enjay said:

Sorry, no. What you have underlined in my quotes are backed up by food quality surveys and have been reported in a number of scientific journals and more popular scientific publications such as "New Scientist".

Why do you even try?

Some people are hopeless and prefer to believe any crap that's floating around the internet instead of making informed decisions.

[myk]

Graf Zahl said:
Why do you even try?

That question itself shows a pretty narrow-minded attitude. Also, by making such a post Enjay may be informing or advising other people who aren't sure about these reports for whatever reason.

[40oz]

I'm gonna have to second what Graf Zahl said. It kinda sums up what I'm beginning to think of everyone here, as well as on many other forums too.

[alexz721]

Enjay said:

So, nothing to do with people living longer and developing age related diabetes, or obesity related diabetes? What "chances"? You make it seem more likely than not increased levels of fructose in GM crops are the cause of any person's diabetes. In fact, your whole sentence is full of inflammatory wording "most", "laced", loaded".

To be fair, consumption of lots of high fructose corn syrup can lead to obesity. Lots of empty calories. The jury's still out on MSG, but research seems to point to low consumption being all right. Of course, overeating in general can lead to obesity. These two things just happen to be easy to blame because they're in so many foods.

[Graf Zahl]

myk said:

That question itself shows a pretty narrow-minded attitude. Also, by making such a post Enjay may be informing or advising other people who aren't sure about these reports for whatever reason.

Somebody missed the implicit smilie... :?

[Enjay]

alexz721 said:

To be fair, consumption of lots of high fructose corn syrup can lead to obesity. Lots of empty calories. The jury's still out on MSG, but research seems to point to low consumption being all right. Of course, overeating in general can lead to obesity. These two things just happen to be easy to blame because they're in so many foods.

Indeed. Of course increased consumption of certain food constituents can contribute to obesity more so than others and if certain foods have been genetically modified to contain more of those potentially problem constituents, then eating the GM food, particularly to excess, could be a contributory factor. However, I still reckon that's some way from being able to say to diabetics "chances are your diabetes is thanks to GM high fructose corn syrup and MSG". ;) Like you said, these two things are easy to blame.

As an aside, if someone was proven to be diabetic because of eating such foods I definitely think they should shoulder some of the blame for eating such foods to the point that they became diabetic as a result.

[Sharessa]

JohnnyRancid said:

I'm gonna have to second what Graf Zahl said. It kinda sums up what I'm beginning to think of everyone here, as well as on many other forums too.

We're not going to miss you either.

[Gokuma]

fraggle said:

No. It is emphatically not caused by mobile phones (or GM food for that matter). That is an untrue myth that has been propagated by the media.

Here's what happened: The University of Landau did a study into the effects of DECT phones (NOT mobile phones) on bees, by placing a cordless phone base station inside a bee hive. The results were that there was a very slight effect on the ability of bees to navigate, but nothing particularly important.

So mobile phones weren't even tested, just a single cordless phone base that does not replicate a massive amount of disturbance was tested, and although very slight, there was an effect. How does that prove safety?

Studies of the phenomenon have shown that it has spread over geographical areas, in the exact pattern of a viral infection, so if there's any doubt left, this is the most convincing evidence that mobile phones have nothing to do with CCD.

Maybe GM foods have hurt immune systems making the bees prone to such a virus. I'm not saying I'm sure at all, that GM food and/or electrical disturbance contribute. But I haven't seen any proof they don't.

A similar thing happened with the MMR vaccine several years ago. A scientist, who was later disciplined for academic disconduct, published a biased and flawed study that purported to link the MMR vaccine with autism. Although it was a hoax and thoroughly debunked, scared parents didn't vaccinate their children out of fear that it might harm them. Now we're facing a Measles epidemic as a result. [/B]

There's vaccines done right and there's vaccines done wrong. People are right to be afraid of the bad ones. Unfortunately, if they don't get any they're left vulnerable. Of course when they're hit by a disease, the pro-whatever-the-hell-lobby is quick to capitalize on it as an excuse to accept whatever they say. They're not so quick to talk about when someone gets the disease they were supposed to be protected from or develop other problems. What I was saying is take the middle road and make informed decisions about vaccines you get. Call me crazy but I think it's a good idea to know exactly what quality ingredients are being directly injected into your blood stream, can cross the blood brain barrier, and may cause other problems.

Enjay said:

Sorry, no. What you have underlined in my quotes are backed up by food quality surveys and have been reported in a number of scientific journals and more popular scientific publications such as "New Scientist". Inserting a gene into an organism that does nothing to affect the end product that is eaten by the human consumer will not make it harmful. What's more, it isn't some kind if arbitrary "let's try this gene and see who dies" kind of technology. It is an exact science which also involves rigorous testing, often taking years. I'm not saying mistakes don't get made - of course they do. But mistakes also get made with, for example, selective breeding and any number of crop development and management techniques. What's more, a lot of those do not undergo the same level of scrutiny as GM.

A lot of supposed experts are influenced too much by the industries paying them.

A large group of seemingly respectable and ethical doctors and scientists will have a good old witch-burning if they feel someone is threatening to expose something they screwed up or was just plain wrong.

It is NOT an exact science. It's a lot of guesswork. They don't know what genes they're replacing and they don't know the longterm effects of consuming what they've created. Consuming something that produces its own pesticide/herbacide is a bad idea. Consuming something that's being totally drenched in pesticide/herbacide because it's more resistant itself is a bad idea. An antibiotic is inserted with the new gene and it's known that Americans get too much antibiotics. It's also known the Americans have depressed immune systems on average. There is NOT rigorous testing. The FDA doesn't test. The law is written so the companies are trusted to do their own testing and FDA takes their word for it. Some fraudulent results are from tests that weren't even done. Some tests are rigged such as an MSG test where supposed placebos were laced with aspartic acid so everyone was getting a dose of excitotoxins.

I saw right on CNN's scrolling ticker, a study finds GM foods weaken the immune system and thin the lining of the stomach. That must have pissed off the industry too much because a month later on the same channel I saw that a study finds GM food to be safe.

If it's so safe why is the public at large being kept so much in the dark for so long? Why are kids in school being educated and graded on only supposed benefits of GM foods while their parents are left in the dark? Why did Monsanto pull their own GM potatoes off the market, other than a strong enough link being made that made them a liability. If aspartame (which the FDA originally refused to approve until Reagon replaced its head) can stay on the market, practically anything goes.

If you want to see something nuts, look up MSG-treated mice, and see an otherwise impossible unnaturally obese giant ball of fur. In Puerto Rico, the place most densely packed with GM crops, a lot of kids are hitting puberty in elementary school.

Which, although I was speaking about crops, is one of the potential hazards I already suggested. However, your assertion that they would wreak havoc is unsubstantiated. Why would they? Has it been proven? What sort of "havoc" are we talking about? This kind of statement is equally dangerous because, actually, it doesn't really mean anything. It is empty. It says nothing. It just sets up in people's minds that GM fish are somehow dangerous but doesn't say how they are, how likely it is to happen, what the nature of the consequences might be or what the evidence is. And which particular GM fish are you talking about? There isn't such a thing as a GM fish, period. There are many types and many strands that have been investigated. Do you mean the sterile triploid fish used by many fish farms that cannot reproduce, reach maturity quite quickly and, left to their own devices, are not particularly competitive or able to survive in the wild and which will die out having left no young? Sorry, as you have phrased it, it's just another scare-mongering statement.

GM fish may not produce viable offspring but with their physical advantage will easily beat out viable mates and fish populations could be decimated from reproduction failing, not to mention that they could further unbalance ecosystems.

And I'm sorry, but that's the part where it became clear that you have been listening to too many conspiracy stories.[/b]

That's a pigeon-holing cop-out.


USA is #1 in degenerative diseases except for maybe some smaller more specific disaster areas. If people want to work on GM stuff in quarantined greenhouses then fine, but that's not what they're doing. They're contaminating things are on a massive scale and sneakily forcing it on the unknowing public without proving it's safe. Laws are written to serve the industries and keep in the public in ignorance.

The industries have the advantage of the most clout with the most money, the most scientists in their pockets, and the most media in compliance. The way to beat them is to not patronize them starving them of the profits that fuel them and to inform as many people as possible. It's slow and difficult to get the ball rolling, but there is gradual improvement that can amount to surprising results. As profits dwindle and opposition mounts with public backlash, their actions become more blatant, overt, and desperate, causing further profit loss and backlash in a snowball effect.