patrick.net

This is what genetically modified salt looks like. If only it were labeled GMO.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/BsogfjxlDpo

I'm sorry, Bones. I should have spent the extra few dollars to pick up non-GMO salt at Whole Foods.

mell says

It is ironic but true and proof that science keeps evolving. Initially tofu was only studied in its fermented form as mostly used in Asia, but the industry just started promoting it as the new wonder food in any form. Then they found out that it is not all that great unfermented and that it elevates estrogen levels which is esp. not good for men. Now we have GMO soy, so yes, it was turned from its age old natural harvest and use into something far less healthy (if at all). Never discount on big food riding good wave and turning good stuff into crap.

This is bullshit obfuscation and backpedaling. 5 years ago, hippies were touting soy as a wonder health food, and now errc is calling it "toxic". Total 180. That's got fuck all to do with whether it's fermented or whether soy is GMO. It's got everything to do with knee-jerk reactionaries who form opinions before getting any facts. A minority right now is screaming that GMOs are poison. It's a minority, but it's a very LOUD minority. Tomorrow they might be screaming that GMOs are the new wonder health food. Take it all with a grain of GMO-free salt, because these people easily succumb to hysteria and eschew reason.

Soy is neither a wonder food nor is it poison. It's just food. Some people don't seem to be able to comprehend life unless they polarize everything.

Salt isn't bad for you! It's essential for the conversion of sugars to energy (ATP).
Here's an article about that.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/14/salt-diet-sodium-intake/2156143/

http://www.jonbarron.org/article/benefits-dangers-soy-products?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jon%20Barron&utm_content=NL%20Soy%209/17/12

The first applications for the development of genetically engineered soy did not even appear until 1987. By the year 2000, over 50% of all soybeans planted in the U.S. were, according to current terminology, genetically modified organisms (GMO). By 2007, that number had soared to an astounding 91%. It's important to understand that soybeans have not been modified to improve their nutritional value, but rather to improve crop yields. In fact, one of the primary genetic modifications is to make soybeans "Roundup Ready." Roundup is an herbicide that kills weeds. "Roundup Ready" means that the soy has been genetically modified so that it is unaffected by the herbicide. This allows farmers to spray Roundup to their heart's content to kill weeds, thus increasing farming efficiency. Unfortunately, this means that your soy comes packed with Roundup…and its genetic modification.

And as Dr. Joseph Mercola points out, not only is GM soy linked to an increase in allergies, but "the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that the gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of our gut bacteria and continues to function. This means that years after you stop eating GM soy, you may still have a potentially allergenic protein continuously being produced in your intestines.32" In other words, if you eat GMO soy, there is a high likelihood that you will be genetically modified too.

Don't confuse homeboy with facts ;)

mell says

Don't confuse homeboy with facts ;)

I wouldn't be surprised if the poor chap consumes that crap,,,would explain his man boobs, if nothing else

Hey its a free country don jumps,,,eat that crap to your hearts content,,,,or rather, to your stomachs discontent

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-crops-usda-delay-323/

errc says

I wouldn't be surprised if the poor chap consumes that crap,,,would explain his man boobs, if nothing else

That's it - if you can't win on facts, just throw out random insults that have nothing to do with the topic. Just proves that we're right and you're a hysterical reactionary that gets all his info from junk websites.

donjumpsuit says

Here is the Google search for Joseph Mercola. The author that claims GMO's modify your gut.

Oh my god. The guy's a total charlatan.

http://shop.mercola.com/catalog/top-sellers,127,0.htm

errc and mell (are those really two different posters?) - you guys are as gullible as they come. Be sure to max out your credit card on a tanning bed from the good "doctor".

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Homeboy says

donjumpsuit says

Here is the Google search for Joseph Mercola. The author that claims GMO's modify your gut.

Oh my god. The guy's a total charlatan.

http://shop.mercola.com/catalog/top-sellers,127,0.htm

errc and mell (are those really two different posters?) - you guys are as gullible as they come. Be sure to max out your credit card on a tanning bed from the good "doctor".

Why are you so angry? I think you started by implying that errc was part of the "hippy" movement that once glorified soy and now abandoned it as evil. If you look at his posts it seems more likely he never ate soy, and while this is a personal preference it disproves your insinuations. Also, how's that Monsanto is making billions by modifying foods where lots of countries have health concerns about since consumers cannot really choose (as there is no label and some products are already dominated by GMOs), while Mercola is just trying to sell tanning beds without putting a gun to you head? I mean, you have to blind to not see how cannot compare a multi-billion dominating GMO food company with some random MD.

mell says

Why are you so angry?

I'm not angry. Is ad hominem the only weapon in your arsenal? I'd love to see some actual facts coming from you, not just name-calling and ridiculous assertions on the website of a known quack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

Mercola operates mercola.com, which he has described as the most popular alternative-health website on the Internet.[3] The site advocates and sells a variety of alternative medicine treatments and dietary supplements. An article in BusinessWeek was critical of his website's aggressive direct-marketing tactics and complained of Mercola's "lack of respect" for his site's visitors, writing:

Mercola gives the lie to the notion that holistic practitioners tend to be so absorbed in treating patients that they aren't effective businesspeople. While Mercola on his site seeks to identify with this image by distinguishing himself from "all the greed-motivated hype out there in health-care land", he is a master promoter, using every trick of traditional and Internet direct marketing to grow his business... He is selling health-care products and services, and is calling upon an unfortunate tradition made famous by the old-time snake oil salesmen of the 1800s.[3]

Phyllis Entis, a microbiologist and food safety expert, highlighted Mercola.com as an example of websites "likely to mislead consumers by offering one-sided, incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information."[11]

Mercola has also received three warning letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for violations of U.S. marketing laws. The first two letters, dated 2005 and 2006,[12][13] charged Mercola with making false and misleading claims regarding the marketing of several natural supplemental products, which violated the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.[4] In the most recent letter, sent in March 2011,[14] Mercola was accused of violating federal law, by making claims about the efficacy of certain uses of a telethermographic camera exceeding those approved by the FDA concerning the diagnostic and therapeutic potential of the device (regulation of such claims being within the purview of the FDA)

What part of "quack" didn't you get, mell?

Dude, I didn't bring up Mercola and my opinion of him is entirely irrelevant. I was simply pointing out that avoiding Mercola is as simple as not becoming obsessed with him, whereas avoiding Monsanto and GMOs is a really difficult, almost impossible task (without labeling). And citing the FDA has its own problems, don't you think? Also asking why you seem so angry should not be taken as an ad hominem attack, I just think you don't like to compromise and reach a consensus with other posters, even if it is to agree to disagree.

errc says

And as Dr. Joseph Mercola points out, not only is GM soy linked to an increase in allergies, but "the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that the gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of our gut bacteria and continues to function.

errc says

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Bingo! That's exactly what your logical fallacy was. Good job. (snicker)

mell says

Also asking why you seem so angry should not be taken as an ad hominem attack,

Um, yeah - it pretty much is. Maybe you need to google "ad hominem".

mell says

I was simply pointing out that avoiding Mercola is as simple as not becoming obsessed with him

Um, no. You said he's "just trying to sell tanning beds", which is bullshit. He's doing much more than that. He is peddling false and possibly dangerous ideas for the purpose of bilking gullible people out of their money. I'm not "obsessed" with him; it is you who seems to be obsessed with defending him. I'm simply pointing out the truth, which is that he is a quack.

Homeboy says

mell says

I was simply pointing out that avoiding Mercola is as simple as not becoming obsessed with him

Um, no. You said he's "just trying to sell tanning beds", which is bullshit. He's doing much more than that. He is peddling false and possibly dangerous ideas for the purpose of bilking gullible people out of their money. I'm not "obsessed" with him; it is you who seems to be obsessed with defending him. I'm simply pointing out the truth, which is that he is a quack.

There are a lot of issues where I would agree with him, some I may not, so what's your point? Just because the FDA slapped some warning/fine on him for a part of what he does invalidates the rest of his arguments? He has been on Dr. Oz and has reached the acceptance of the mainstream with some of his ideas. Do you take all your information from a single source without validation?

donjumpsuit says

mell says

Just because the FDA slapped some warning/fine on him for a part of what he does invalidates the rest of his arguments?

Actually, that is exactly what invalidates his arguments.

Again, case by case, I am free to discuss specific threats as laid out in a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal. As it stands now, those are pretty exclusive to discrediting any concerns about GMO's through meaningful research.

The GMO altering the gut flora theory is not uniquely proposed by Mercola, but by quite a few MDs and scientists. I don't consider the FDA as a reputable authority, it is deeply entangled with big food and big pharma, but to each their own. No reason to run around like the world will end tomorrow because of GMOs, but I persist in my statement that they should be labeled their use restrained under the condition of successful containment. It's ok to disagree on this.

donjumpsuit says

Again, case by case, I am free to discuss specific threats as laid out in a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal.

Btw. I would love to do that if I had the time, need to find a way to retire first - but keep posting as the resident food chemistry expert, even if you are taking the other side ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai

mell says

Just because the FDA slapped some warning/fine on him for a part of what he does invalidates the rest of his arguments?

The quotation I posted cited 3 sources: BusinessWeek; Phyllis Entis, a microbiologist and food safety expert; AND the FDA. And if you'd bother to do a simple google search on the man, you will find many, many articles discrediting him. Yet all you bring away from this is "the FDA slapped some warning/fine on him for part of what he does".

Are you fucking serious?

I'm finding it extremely hard to take you seriously, mell. You are one of the most credulous people I have ever encountered. You seem to want to dismiss anything having to do with the FDA out-of-hand, for no particular reason, yet you seem to believe that websites of known quacks and shows like "Dr. Phil" [EDIT: Dr. Oz - oops] are perfectly valid sources of scientific data.

This is the problem with the whole anti-GMO camp. None of you seems able to apply critical thinking skills when analyzing the evidence. You seem to consider all sources of information as equally valid. In fact, the less valid they are, the MORE weight you seem to give to them.

eastcoast guy says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-1-pusztais-flawed-claims/

Homeboy says

shows like "Dr. Phil" are perfectly valid sources of scientific data.

Relax, I loathe Dr. Phil, but that's now who we were talking about ;) Dr. Oz on the other hand is a well respected surgeon with broad based medical education and knowledge and I think he is right to push the envelope on most of the issues where he does. By your logic the FDA was right labeling Vioxx as safe while plenty of MDs were voicing their concerns, because by your definition they were quacks?

donjumpsuit says

Again, OK. But bring some serious studies to the table. People can't do it, YET.

It's hard to come up with long term studies if they haven't been around ling enough, so often they increase the dosage and use animals such as mice. Doesn't necessarily mean a human will react similarly with lower dosages, but it is somewhat likely. Maybe not enough for statistical significance and so they need to reproduce the study in humans, but it's enough for those who are concerned to be able to have a choice.

donjumpsuit says

Again, High Fructose Corn Syrup, refined sugars, and meat are DEFINED items.

The term GMO is insanely ambiguous.

Why? = contains any ingredients derived from genetically modified organism and/or those GMOs themselves.

donjumpsuit says

You can't run around and say everything GMO's is bad for one's health, and that we should be informed if an item contain's GMO's or not, that it must be labeled.

Why not? Plenty of ingredients (ideally all) are labeled that are not necessarily proven harmful, or only harmful depending on the dosage.

donjumpsuit says

This is the kind of stuff modern scientists have to deal with. The seepage of poor information is taken as the holy grail.

That definitely happens with lots of issues affecting mankind and I am not disputing that there is likely misinformation out there, but if it wouldn't you wouldn't have a job or it would be far more boring ;) Only time will tell, I say the jury is still out and I want the right to know.

Homeboy says

Mercola has also received three warning letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for violations of U.S. marketing laws. The first two letters, dated 2005 and 2006,[12][13] charged Mercola with making false and misleading claims regarding the marketing of several natural supplemental products, which violated the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.[4] In the most recent letter, sent in March 2011,[14] Mercola was accused of violating federal law, by making claims about the efficacy of certain uses of a telethermographic camera exceeding those approved by the FDA concerning the diagnostic and therapeutic potential of the device (regulation of such claims being within the purview of the FDA)

You do realize that these laws make it virtually impossible to make any claims whatsoever without running foul of these laws. These are having the effects they are intended to have, that is to suppress information about natural, homeopathic and alternative means of preserving ones health without drugs and surgery of the very high cost, low effective pharmaceutical and surgery industries. Please do yourselves a favor and investigate home remedies before resorting to drugs that can kill or surgeries that can maim.

www.earthclinic.com has a wealth of information. They do not sell anything but simply give you ideas of what remedies may help you.

donjumpsuit says

fear that a select few lawyers and troublemakers who would test every item without a GMO label to see if there was a speck of GMO in it. When it was found, they would sue the food distributor, farmer, or food manufacturer for unspecified damages.

That is a problem with the US justice system and can be used to defeat any informative or warning labeling. And it underlines the problem of contamination that comes from releasing GMOs into the wild.

donjumpsuit says

You see, just because something is 'genetically modified' doesn't mean it's dangerous, harmful, healthy, allergenic, or political.

Nobody said that, artificial flavors are not necessarily harmful (depends on the flavor) but they have to be declared.
donjumpsuit says

Some items of contention aren't even GMO's, but the pesticides used in conjunction.

Those would not have to be labeled as GMO, "may contain the following pesticides: ..." would suffice.

mell says

Relax, I loathe Dr. Phil, but that's now who we were talking about ;) Dr. Oz on the other hand is a well respected surgeon with broad based medical education and knowledge and I think he is right to push the envelope on most of the issues where he does. By your logic the FDA was right labeling Vioxx as safe while plenty of MDs were voicing their concerns, because by your definition they were quacks?

Uh, YOU relax. It was a typo, obviously. I meant to write Dr. Oz. Anyway, the fact that you get your info from TV talk shows and whacko fringe websites makes it pretty tough to have any kind of meaningful discussion with you.

*Sigh* - The dumbing-down of America.

MsAnnaNOLA says

You do realize that these laws make it virtually impossible to make any claims whatsoever without running foul of these laws. These are having the effects they are intended to have, that is to suppress information about natural, homeopathic and alternative means of preserving ones health without drugs and surgery of the very high cost, low effective pharmaceutical and surgery industries.

Actually, no. There are thousands of "alternative", "homeopathic", and "supplement" remedies out there with absolutely no scientific evidence of their effectiveness, and the FDA in many cases has no power to stop them. By using certain keywords in naming their products, they take advantage of loopholes in the law that allow them to sell their snake oil without any regulations. If anything, the regulations should be TOUGHER.

These "alternative" shysters are bilking a gullible public to the tune of $33.9 billion a year:

http://news.consumerreports.org/health/2009/08/information-on-natural-medicine-money-spent-on-alternative-medicine-alternative-treatments-vitamins.html

There's a sentence in that article that I think you should read and really, truly try to think about:

"Once a treatment is shown to work, it stops being alternative, and becomes part of mainstream medicine."

If there were scientific evidence that something works, it would not be "alternative".

mell says

It's hard to come up with long term studies if they haven't been around ling enough, so often they increase the dosage and use animals such as mice. Doesn't necessarily mean a human will react similarly with lower dosages, but it is somewhat likely. Maybe not enough for statistical significance and so they need to reproduce the study in humans, but it's enough for those who are concerned to be able to have a choice.

Would you listen to yourself? That's absolute junk science. You obviously don't even understand what "statistically significant" means. If I flip a coin once and it come up heads, I cannot conclude that coins always come up heads when flipped. This is an extremely basic tenet of science, and understanding it is absolutely VITAL to interpreting scientific data.

You can "prove" whatever you want if you toss the scientific method out the window. If we had done that, we'd still be treating illness with blood letting and exorcism.

Homeboy says

I meant to write Dr. Oz. Anyway, the fact that you get your info from TV talk shows and whacko fringe websites makes it pretty tough to have any kind of meaningful discussion with you.

"Oz has been a professor at the Department of Surgery at Columbia University since 2001.[10] He directs the Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital.[11] His research interests include heart replacement surgery, minimally invasive cardiac surgery, and health care policy. With his collaborators, he has authored over 400 research papers, book chapters and medical books and has received several patents."

What are your credentials? Did you ever study medicine?

IN USDA WE TRUST

Homeboy says

Would you listen to yourself? That's absolute junk science. You obviously don't even understand what "statistically significant" means.

FWIW I don't give much about it, but I studied anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and statistics in medicine for roughly 4 years. You cannot start with "statistically significant" long term studies in humans right away, there are ethical issues and if you just randomly follow patients then there are a lot of other factors that could interfere with what you want to observe. They have to start somewhere and that is usually the animal model. It's reasonable to be worried, but not panicking, if you observe issues in short-term animal studies, even if the dosage is much higher.

donjumpsuit says

rdiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital.[11] His research interests include heart replacement surgery, mini

That gmo pundit site is funny. So, there have been 200 articles published by people not working at gmo seed companies claiming gmo food is safe. In the grand scheme of things that's an absolutely miniscule amount of research. Also, 70 million Euros - not a lot of money to be spent on the issue.

The main reason for labeling GMOs is that people have a right to know when a major shift like this happens in their food supply. The horse is already out of the barn for sure, but people still have a right to decide for themselves what to eat.

There are legitimate reasons that people might want to avoid gmo food like: (1) concern over crop monocultures and their effect on insects, food stability, etc. (2) concern about the social impact on farmers (3) concern about eating active synthetic chemicals (inside the plant as opposed to on the surface where they can be washed off). There may be more reasons - I'm not an expert.

Crying about labels driving up the cost of food is silly. No one is asking for labels with pictures of disfigured children and warnings about consuming gmos. They simply want a label, much like one saying that a garment is made in China. People can decide how to spend their own money. Pink slime was considered safe as well, but people resent not having the option to make that choice on their own.

mell says

FWIW I don't give much about it, but I studied anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and statistics in medicine for roughly 4 years. You cannot start with "statistically significant" long term studies in humans right away, there are ethical issues and if you just randomly follow patients then there are a lot of other factors that could interfere with what you want to observe. They have to start somewhere and that is usually the animal model. It's reasonable to be worried, but not panicking, if you observe issues in short-term animal studies, even if the dosage is much higher.

I find it hard to believe you studied all those things, because your definition of "statistically significant" is completely wrong. You are conflating 3 or 4 different concepts. Statistical significance refers to whether a given result differs from what might occur from random chance. Dosage, human vs. animal test, and ethics have absolutely nothing to do with that.

If you conduct an experiment, and your results are not statistically significant, then you have proven nothing. Period.

mell says

What are your credentials? Did you ever study medicine?

My credentials are I appear to know more about science than you, since you completely failed at understanding what "statistically significant" means. That's pretty basic stuff.

Let me make this very simple. Let's say that in nature, 5 of every 100 mice get cancer (I don't know the real numbers; this is just hypothetical). If I feed GMO to 100 mice, and 5 of them get cancer, what did I prove?

Answer: Bupkis

So anyone who says, "It's not statistically significant, but...." is full of it. There is no "but".

Homeboy says

If you conduct an experiment, and your results are not statistically significant, then you have proven nothing. Period.

You are mistaken once again, statistical significance depends on the size of the cohort for example and often on the duration of the study as well, usually a combo of both. If you observe an effect in 10 out of 10 study subjects it may not be statistically significant, but it can give you a pretty damn fucking clue. Of course you need to validate that. When Fleming looked at his discarded petri dish and noted something very interesting, he gave a fuck about statistical significance. It took a long time to turn his discovery into one of the most important life saving drugs of human history, enough time that it could have been discarded by others labeling it as quackery.

Homeboy says

Let me make this very simple. Let's say that in nature, 5 of every 100 mice get cancer (I don't know the real numbers; this is just hypothetical). If I feed GMO to 100 mice, and 5 of them get cancer, what did I prove?

Answer: Bupkis

On this specific example we agree.