And then even the stuff that is not pretend food at the average grocery is still
full of pesticides and hormones. Or the animals were raised in pig pens and
filth while they partook of a low quality diet. Bees and honey which have been a
long time staple of nutrition throughout the history of the world now falls prey
to shortcut capitalists, as they raise bees who don't even live off of
honey. Many big brand honey options come from bees injected with high fructose
sugar water. How pathetic that is. That would be like feeding cattle twinkies
and slim jims, then slaughtering them for us to consume.
This is why I shop at Whole Foods. When I go to standard grocery stores, I am
amazed at the endless aisles of chemical, artificial, and empty calorie junk
that is labelled food.
Let me attempt to wrap my mind around this logic. GMO'S = Not natural are
"Good", Marijuana = 100% natural is "Bad"...No one in this State
is attempting to legislate morality. Right!
Response to Redshirt1701:You are absolutely correct. I might be eating
GMO foods. According to some sources 70% of the foods on the supermarket
shelves are GMO foods. How would I know since the growers and sellers of these
products are not required to disclose to their consumers? So I do the best I
can with the information that I do have. USDA organic standards have prohibited
any genetically modified ingredients. Hence, my option #3, buy organic. I just
don’t understand the fight over disclosure. If there is nothing wrong
with the product then why is it such a problem to stop hiding it?To answer
your specific question, I define GMOs as plants or animals where scientists have
altered their genes with DNA from a different species of living organisms,
bacteria, or viruses. These things do not occur in nature and this is not the
way farmers have in the past selectively breeded crops and animals.
I might remind conservatives that the "free market" solution is to label
things correctly and let the consumer decide.
Marxist,Labeling GMOs is an expense most of us do not want to bear.
Labeling GMOs implies that there is a danger, which is not warranted on the
basis of scientific fact. BTW, we eat "DNA from bacteria, viruses or other
plants and animals." in virtually every food we eat. Should we label every
food stuff as such?
Cancer is epidemic - GMO foods are Frankenfoods - How can a plant be repeatedly
sprayed with round up and not have the pesticide poison absorbed into the
vegetable? Europe has banned GMO's - China has banned GMO's . The
human body has the ability to heal itself from any disease including cancer ,
and it is one's guts that allow the immune system to attack any and all
foreign invaders - but GMO foods have that roundup gene spliced into the seed
and once that GMO poison is consumed the beneficial bacteria are nuked resulting
in one's immune system to die off.GMO foods are more costly to
grow & cause sickness to all humans and animals that consume it.Insist on honest labeling - why are they spending millions to hide labeling ?
that fact alone tells all - wake up and don't buy the GMO Poison -
especially if you have young ones - Shameful that this Frankenfood was ever
allowed to be grown - Organic only ! or non GMO !
FYI, from GMO Facts:GMOs, or “genetically modified
organisms,” are plants or animals that have been genetically engineered
with DNA from bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals. These experimental
combinations of genes from different species cannot occur in nature or in
To "OneWifeOnly" depending on your definition of GMO, you could be
eating GMO foods. You see biologists have been modifying the DNA of plants for
hundreds of years. Thanks to the modifications to the original plant, we now
have a wide variety of tomatoes, corn, and most anything that you can grow. GMO
gave us all sorts of things, from pluots to domesticated cows that will give us
gallons of milk per day.Please define what you understand GMO to be.
I want the choice. If I don't trust GMO food, I have the right to know what
I'm eating; what is and what isn't. If GMO research goes on, fine.
Maybe it will produce some good things over time. But we don't know
long-term consequences do we? Years ago, Thalidomide was declared safe by the
FDA. After hundreds of deformed babies, FDA had to admit it was wrong. To say
GMO is safe and good for you because "it's Science" is crazy. Do
you think scientists never get it wrong? Look carefully at the history of
science. It's interesting that the GMO industry fights hard to
not label their food. Think about that! They don't even want you to KNOW.
When a company is withholding information about our food supply, that needs to
be STOPPED. And NOW.Europe doesn't allow GMO food into the EU.
Ever wonder why? So let those who want GMO food have it and label
it. We have a right to know what we're buying and what we're eating.
I hope Massachusetts very soon adopts this kind of law. Good for you
@ 2 bits, how could you oppose disclosure so people can make their own
decisions? That's all.
I think fear of GMOs is similar to fear of vaccines. Both unfounded.
I have been following @2 bits advice for a while now, with a bit of modification
so that as he points out my family won’t get hungry. 1. I eat food
grown in my own garden to the extent I am able. No pesticides, no herbicides.
I supplement the soil with worm castings. The worms are fed vegetable scraps
from my kitchen.2. I purchase food from my local farmer. Local is better
for the planet, sustainable and tastes best since it can be picked closer to
when it is ripe.3. Organic, Non-GMO4. Processed, manufactured
foodsI’ve eaten very little processed manufactured foods this year
and most of last year. I’m feeling healthier and losing weight. I should
also point out my parents and grandparents followed this same method but took it
one step further. They purchased food from local farmers while in season, canned
and preserved it, and we ate well all winter.
To me, there seem to be two separate concerns: First, are GMOs safe for human
consumption? As of today, there is not yet enough empirical evidence to
definitely state one way or the other. Second, should food packaging clearly
indicate that GMO content is included? Why not? I believe that consumers have
a right to know what they are consuming. Artificial colorings and preservatives
have been deemed safe by the FDA but are still included in product labeling.
Let's do the same with GMOs and let consumers decide for themselves what
they will or will not consume. I can't see any benefit to consumers from
withholding this information. Why not provide full and open disclosure of a
I think most of us can agree that independent, well-designed scientific studies
are key to deciding this issue. What I can’t understand is the
anti-labeling argument.Free market capitalism is built on the free
flow of accurate information – without this it simply doesn’t work
and we may as well consign ourselves to living in an oligarchy or dictatorship.
All food should have clear & complete labels at the source of
consumption, leaving consumers free to make up their own minds. Really, unless you are a shill for business (which ALWAYS fights any
regulation no matter how sensible and miniscule the cost of compliance) or in
lock step with a political ideology, I don’t know why anyone would be
The title to this article is good-"In our opinion..." The fact of the
matter is that nobody knows for sure one way or the other. That's what the
whole pro-labeling movement is all about--giving people the choice as to whether
or not to gamble with something that seems safe in many peoples' opinion.
Or, perhaps it doesn't always revolve around whether or not GMOs are
safe--I, for one don't like the idea of our whole food chain being
controlled by a very small group of bioengineering companies that have
demonstrated time and again that the only thing that matters is money.Speaking of opinions, why is it that D News keeps pushing this "Let's
not bother labeling GMOs" opinion on us? I don't mind hearing your
opinion once or twice, but this is starting to look like propaganda.
Unlabeled GMO's are condemned by the Jewish faith because you get things
like the Salmon (a clean fish) that have had genes from eel (an unclean fish
according to the dietary law in old testament) unnaturally inserted into the
Salmon for quick, unnatural growth. LDS claim to be of house of
Israel! LDS claim that choice through free will is God's will for man. Then
why would they be against labeling of GMO food as a means to make a choice, also
a choice which if one adheres to the Word of Wisdom they would avoid items that
are detrimental to health as some studies would indicate GMO's are
detrimental and are banned in some countries.
What needs to happen first is to define what the government considers to be a
GMO food.For example, I can buy a pluot (aprium, apriplum, or
plumcot) that is a modified plum or apricot. It did not originally exist in
nature, but people have modified the original DNA to create the new fruit. Is
that a GMO?Or is GMO only when non-compatible DNA is added to a
plant or animal? An example of this is bacteria that have been modified to
produce insulin for diabetics.First define what a GMO is, then lets
have a discussion about the effects that it may have.
marxist,If it's really that complex.... then you better not put
ANYTHING in your mouth. There's no way to empirically PROVE that ANY food
doesn't do some harm. There's no proof organic food
doesn't cause any health problems. Cancer has been around as long as man
has been around (didn't start with GMOs). Scientific consensus is that
GMOs to not cause cancer. That doesn't mean we stop research. But we
also don't panic (based on somebody's fear campaign).Without GMOs many more people would be dieing from starvation. There's
been no link between GMOs and Cancer. So I'm comfortable with the risk,
until SCIENCE finds a link (not the granolas).This is a campaign of
fear. No harm has been linked to GMOs. Until science finds a link... keep
your fear to yourself... and grow your own food if you don't trust what the
corporate food complex is growing.The only solution is for you to
grow it yourself (IF you don't trust American farmers).
@2 bits"who are the "Deniers" of "Science" and
"Consensus" this time???"You are correct, this is
totally the subject matter where liberals are often on the side of science
denial. I, on the other hand, am not going to ignore what the data says on the
matter of GMOs, climate science, vaccinations, etc.
OK Hemlock, but don't people have a right to know if they are consuming GMO
foods, as per the Vermont law?
Perpetuating disinformation about possible ill effects of GMO's, as some of
the comments have, is not in the publics' interest. "Research" by
the French biologist Gilles-Eric Seralini has been retracted from the journal
Food and Chemical Toxicology. His flawed paper on the oncogenic (cancer causing)
effects in rats of GMOs has been discredited by the European Food Safety
Authority, Germany's Federal Food Safety Authority and slammed by numerous
scientists. Calling for more research is fine, but it must use valid scientific
methodology and it will never satisfy the GMO conspiracy theorists. Thus far
there is no documented harm from GMO's in the human food chain. It is
ironic that more than 1000 people die prematurely each day from tobacco use,
about 400,000 per year, and some people are worrying about GMOs that have caused
re: 2bits "We insist people accept "Scientific Consensus" on
Climate Chaos... but on this one... the same people who are pushing Climate
Chaos DENY Scientific Consensus on GMOs...You raise a very
interesting point. Just speaking for myself, I place the bar for GMO's
higher than for climate change because I am sticking the GMO's in my mouth.
I've worked in epidemiology so I know how complex the etiology of cancer
is. This has made we extremely wary about what I eat.Frankly, the
science of climate change is a whole lot easier than most of epidemiology.
@2bits. How can you prove it is safe? Just because people do not die instantly
from gmo foods doesn't mean it is safe. Cigarettes were also deemed safe 50
jcobabe 8:56 a.m. has a good point. We may want to compare the number of
people who have died from eating GMO crops yearly... with the number that die
every year in this world from starvation.====Quote from
"2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics"..."The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that
nearly 870 million people of the 7.1 billion people in the world, or one in
eight, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012. Almost all the
hungry people, 852 million, live in developing countries, representing 15
percent of the population of developing counties. There are 16 million people
undernourished in developed countries (FAO 2012)". We live in
America... so we don't suffer as much as people in other nations (because
of our Evil "corporate food industry". But starvation is still a
problem (worldwide).Should we go back to the agricultural methods
used in other countries?... I say "NO"!We make sure what we
are doing is safe (and it is) and we keep insuring our food supply is safe... We
do NOT give in to these granolas and move backwards!
Baron Scarpia, You are naive to consider this a conservative vs. liberal issue.
This is a big government in cahoots with with big business issue, that includes
scientists being paid, coerced or encouraged to give the "correct"
answer. I am a conservative who has marched against Monsanto and believe in
freedom of information, including the freedom to know whether I am eating GMOs.
Please don't label this fight as something it is not.
Environmental Idiot you are mixing up GMO's and crop breeding. Crop
breeding is a natural process where the desired traits are selected an used for
breeding to make genetic improvement naturally. GMO's are not done
naturally, the plant is altered genetically. It is like playing God with crops.
I just hope that people don't come to some conclusions without true facts.
They might blame GMOs for autism, ADHD, and a host of other illnesses. They did
the autism thing with vaccinations, and now children are dying because of this
paranoia. Using the scientific method is the way to prove if some things are
Mister J - You hit the nail on the head. GMO's, along with herbicides,
pesticides, and fertilizers, have one purpose--increase the amount of food that
can be produced by an acre of land. For much of history, mankind has been
afflicted by starvation and famine across the vast majority of the world. Today
these problems have been largely eliminated in most of the world, and are mostly
limited to areas where they farm without GMO's, herbicides, pesticides, and
fertilizers. So yes--our waistlines are increasing because we have more food.
For the first time in history, mankind is not starving. We need to stop the
witch hunt and start recognizing these modern miracles of science for the
blessings that they are.
@2 bits – “So... who are the "Deniers" of "Science"
and "Consensus" this time???”These two (climate change
and GMO’s) are not analogous for a couple of reasons.First,
GMO is a word like “drug” – there’s aspirin and
there’s heroin. What these have in common is only that each affects our
physiology. After that, the commonalities largely disappear.GMO’s are like this and are rapidly changing all the time. Just because
one genetic modification may be safe doesn’t say anything about all the
others.Second, and most importantly – no one has a patent on
the climate so it can be studied by disinterested scientists from around the
world without the corrupting influence of tremendous financial gain.This distinction makes all the difference in the world when it comes to
science, which is not to say that GMO’s are unsafe – only that they
have not been studied with anywhere near the objectivity & rigor that
climate change has.
cjb states"I've read that several genetically modified crops are
made to have their own pesticides. Now bees are dying off so much so that it is
a significant concern. Could it be that the pesticides in genetically modified
crops are the cause of bees dying off?"What you are referring to is
the recent reports that neonecotinacides are killing bees. that
"research" has really made it's rounds in the press BUT it is
seriously flawed and does not prove anything. Dosages given to bees were 50 to
over 100 times what they should of been. Bees were made to directly digest it
which is not the way bees get it in nature. Many, many independent variables
were not factored in the research. Actual bee researchers are reviewing it and
totally disagree with the conclusions.
It might put things in better perspective to understand exactly how many people
have died because of GMO technology, and compare that number with estimates of
how many people would have died of starvation or been killed in wars and social
unrest that would have resulted without the added food produced from technology.
My thinking is that the ratio would weigh vastly in favor of technology.The world has a food surplus today thanks to improvements in the
technology of food production. Changes introduced by scientists ever proved to
be a mixed blessing, but the downside of feeding a world of billions of starving
people is not quite as clear. The further science investigation that is needed
should not be aimed at condemning the technology, but rather with a focus on
continuing to improve it for the benefit of a hungry world.
@Esquire,I have a suggestion. If you don't trust the
"corporate food industry"... and you want to know for sure everything
that's in your food... grow it yourself!Then you would know for
sure what's in it. And you wouldn't have to trust the evil
"corporate food industry". And you wouldn't be contributing your
$$$ to the advancement of the "corporate food industry". The evil "corporate food industry" that made America great, insures
Americans are well fed, and allows us to help feed the world, I might add.But if you don't trust these corporations... the solution seems
obvious to me. Just plow some land in your back yard and grow your OWN food!
Totally organic... no fertilizers or weed killers... I'll bet you'll
get pretty hungry though...
How it works is that a patented GMO is aligned with a specific patented
pesticide so that they must be used jointly. The problem then is two-fold:
One, we no longer can use basic "free" seeds from nature for food; seeds
are now patented by the major food companies so that the farmer (and we as
consumers) must continue to pay those patents, and the seeds of our food supply
increasingly are dependent on a few massive seed providers who control them.
And two, changing the genetic properties of the seeds and food removes them from
nature, so that basic natural processes that have evolved over millions of years
are now disrupted. Will we as a society then have to rely on paying
Monsanto to combat weeds and pests and replace God's natural order?I'm so afraid conservatives, in their zeal for anti-science and
anti-intellectualism for the all mighty short-term dollar, will bypass research
and promote GMOs at the peril of our children and grandchildren.
It may just be coincidence and there may or may not be any correlation but...
Isn't it interesting as GMO's are becoming more common
place that obesity rates are skyrocketing?
Dear Marxist, please research the true facts. The GMO Study By Gilles-Eric
Seralini retracted. David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the Public Understanding
of Risk at the University of Cambridge, said it was "clear from even a
superficial reading that this paper was not fit for publication".We have been eating GMO foods since Gregor Johann Mendel stated it in
1800's. GMOs are generally crops that are made from plants with superior
genetics found in the nature already. Using modern techniques these traits are
isolated and then seed with the trait is bread more efficiently that waiting for
the randomness of nature. Roundup resistant crop exist in nature already and we
eat them without knowing which ones they are and have no problem with that
ignorance. When a company tells us they are resistant then someone throws a fit
before researching the facts.
Of course scientific research should continue, but I'd like to point out
one thing... The "scientific consensus" is that GMOs have no greater
risk than other foods.What happened to accepting "Scientific
Consensus"??? We insist people accept "Scientific Consensus" on
Climate Chaos... but on this one... the same people who are pushing Climate
Chaos DENY Scientific Consensus on GMOs...If you Google
"GMO" or "Genetically modified organism" (wikipedia) and read
the "Controversy" section... it states "There is broad scientific
consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk
than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been proven in the human
population from ingesting GM food."So... who are the
"Deniers" of "Science" and "Consensus" this time???
When we naturally cross breed one strain of plant with another we are pushing
mother nature along - not changing things up entirely. Genetic modification can
be quite a bit more radical. The possible effects are much harder to model
accurately as often there is no precedent.Does this mean we should
not do it? No. But caution and study first should be the rule.The
law of unintended consequences has never been rescinded (and never will be). We
should text exhaustively and over the long term before allowing GMOs into the
I've read that several genetically modified crops are made to have their
own pesticides. Now bees are dying off so much so that it is a significant
concern. Could it be that the pesticides in genetically modified crops are the
cause of bees dying off?
In your opinion, GMOs are OK. But you don't know. Neither do I. What I
do know and believe is that it is a good thing to label and then let consumers
make their own decisions. Can't you come out and say that, and push back
on the corporate food industry to allow consumers to be informed?
Question – are we even able to conduct control group, peer reviewed
studies designed by scientists with no conflict of interest on most of these
products? My understanding is most of these (GMO’s) are patent
protected and therefore cannot be studied by anyone but the companies who own
them, a situation which calls to mind Upton Sinclair’s truism – "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salary depends upon his not understanding it"With the
proliferation of GMO’s over the last 30 years, we are conducting an
enormous experiment on our population – except without proper controls to
isolate other variables from a single independent variable, it may be difficult
to make cause and effect connections.However, since many countries
have already banned these products, this may have the unintentional result of
setting up the experimental group we need - namely, us – with much of
Western Europe acting as the control group. Don’t experimental
subjects typically get paid to play the guinea pig?
"Scientific American published an article discussing research on the inert
ingredients in herbicides like Roundup in 2009."Scientific
American said "'This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in
Roundup formulations are not inert,' wrote the study authors from
France’s University of Caen. 'Moreover, the proprietary mixtures
available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual
levels' found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn,
or lawns and gardens."In our commercial system we rush products
to market before we know their carcinogenic effects. Half of all cancers have
an environmental component, but we don't know the mechanisms.