patrick.net

and a teaspoon of Cinnamon can kill an adult, what's your point?

I don't have a gripe with GMO's but I do have a gripe when Monsanto's practices, and the cozy arrangement they have with all governments in the world. Their profits and needs are above every and all farmer on Earth.

It's really fucking scary, that there are two options, making Monsanto richer, or making Whole foods richer. Either way we're being conned and extorted at the expense of the dinner table. But I suppose there's always room for one more. Move over Oilies, the Food barons wants a seat at the table of despair.

There is no G to M because salt is not an O.

Exactly why labels like non-GMO and organic are completely worthless. They are marketing stickers and there is no restriction on their uses.

And the label says "VERIFIED" in all caps. How exactly do you verify that salt, a compound composed of one sodium atom and one chlorine atom, isn't "genetically modified". What exactly does the person verifying this do? This makes me think that they don't verify anything they say they verify.

Hmmmm, salt...

Dan8267 says

There is no G to M because salt is not an O.

Exactly why labels like non-GMO and organic are completely worthless. They are marketing stickers and there is no restriction on their uses.

And the label says "VERIFIED" in all caps. How exactly do you verify that salt, a compound composed of one sodium atom and one chlorine atom, isn't "genetically modified". What exactly does the person verifying this do? This makes me think that they don't verify anything they say they verify.

Hmmmm, salt...

A lot of what is called salt these days has other agents in there, such as caking agents that can be GMO derived. Certainly not the most important label to watch out for (non-GMO on salt), but better than not having a contains-GMO label on something that contains GMOs.

Salt is an essential mineral to human life

Try living without it

As to Monsanto gmo soy, that donjumps seems to worship as some miracle,,,we could do without. I fail to see the benefit to human health that is supposed to arise from growing soy that farmers can douse in chemicals, without killing it.

Matter of fact, if the acreage that is wasted growing those super subsidized, non foodstuffs corn and soy, were returned to pasture where livestock could humanely graze naturally, thered be plenty of healthy food to go around. But I digress

Gmo soy and corn,,,,weeeeeeeee!

Rich bastards thinks their very presence is a benefit to mankind.
Unless you're Romney of course!

It stated that the extreme amount of investment must be protected when it comes to seed, and seed licensing. It's a difficult pill to swallow, but one that protects companies to invest in technology and then make a profit.

They won the right to protect thier investment. Even if it seems contrary to how things have been done in the past.

If you spent your blood sweat and tears making a piece of technology that improved people's lives, and then saw someone steal it and profit from it, you bet your ass you would be wanting courts to protect your intellectual property.

-------------

Lol. The irony,,,,

That's nothing compared to:

"This Sugary Fruit Drink is 100% Fat Free!"
"This Corn Syrup laden Wheat-based Snack is 100% Fat Free!"

"Corn 'sugar' is fine in moderation. But don't deal with the act that corn syrup is added to everything from ketchup to salad dressing to 'diet' cookies to frozen vegetables, making it impossible to moderate unless you only buy fresh unprocessed ingredients."

The danger of GMO I don't think is in the plant. It's in the control of seed and the danger to seed diversity. Also, GMO seeds do not work as well as advertised, and often, heirloom varieties beat them in both quality and quantity. Like any marketed artifical product, some GMOs are more hype than substance.

If the GMO companies did not fight labelling so hard and shove it down our throat, the majority of people wouldn't care much. But they continue to lobby and have both parties in their pockets and so people will naturally look at them with suspicion.

People were never given a choice-at least in this country.

mell says

A lot of what is called salt these days has other agents in there, such as caking agents that can be GMO derived.

If it contains crap that isn't salt, it simply should not be labeled as "salt". Bacon contains salt, but it isn't salt.

Dan8267 says

mell says

A lot of what is called salt these days has other agents in there, such as caking agents that can be GMO derived.

If it contains crap that isn't salt, it simply should not be labeled as "salt". Bacon contains salt, but it isn't salt.

Agreed.

donjumpsuit says

Lastly, for lost and confused. GMO companies (well actually if you read the
list of those who fought hard against labeling , you would find most of them are
quite responsible agencies, governments and companies) fought hard against
labeling ,because it is a scare tactic and does nothing to tell the public about
the ingredients in their food.

If you were branded as a loser, I am sure you would fight hard against that
branding.

Have you ever lost? Yea, I bet once or twice in your life you lost at
something. Do you deserved to be branded a looser? Well technically yes, but the
label, while technically accurate, does no one any good at describing what type
of individual you are.

Your logic is close to being cultist. You say GMO is no harm, so why is it a loser? Some people will be adventorous and try it and the rest will follow later. But by denying labelling, you are forcing people to buy something against their will.

Now if the GMO is offering their produce for free -fine. But give people a choice and people will come around or not. In Europe they have a choice-but not here, because of greedy corporate lobbying. This will forever taint GMO companies as greedy, soulless critters that do not care about people and use people as guinea pigs to test their produce. Real or not-that is the perception and you can't blame us for that. With your attitude, it will only harden the opposition.

I am not that big a fan of organic, especially for animals, because you are not allowed to give vaccines and other chemicals. Now I don't want animals pumpoed with antibiotics every day-but not the other extreme either. But I have a choice-there is humanely raised, which is somewhere in the middle. But with GMO-the corporations bought the politicians and shove dit down our throat and that will forever be the image.

CaptainShuddup says

and a teaspoon of Cinnamon can kill an adult, what's your point?

The point is that when idiot scare-mongers do "studies" where they force feed mice 135 TIMES the amount of a substance they would consume if they ate GMO corn, and then try to claim that it is in any way meaningful, they are displaying their stupidity. There are LOTS of things that can be bad for you if you put way, way, way too much of it in your body.

http://patrick.net/?p=1224648

thunderlips11 says

The danger of GMO I don't think is in the plant. It's in the control of seed and the danger to seed diversity. Also, GMO seeds do not work as well as advertised, and often, heirloom varieties beat them in both quality and quantity. Like any marketed artifical product, some GMOs are more hype than substance.

If GMO seeds didn't work correctly, then farmers would have no reason to buy them. Monsanto would go out of business. End of story.

errc says

Salt is an essential mineral to human life

Try living without it

Try living without food.

errc says

As to Monsanto gmo soy, that donjumps seems to worship as some miracle,,,we could do without.

Sorry, is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to eat soybeans? If you don't want to eat them, don't fucking eat them. Case closed.

errc says

I fail to see the benefit to human health that is supposed to arise from growing soy that farmers can douse in chemicals, without killing it.

You seem a tad confused. Chemical insecticides and herbicides were in use long before GMOs were ever invented. Farmers have been "dousing their crops in chemicals", for a long time. You are confusing two different issues. Do you think things were better back in the "good old days" when they used DDT?

Monsanto is dangerous because of practices that lead to this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

I am against GMO because of much evidence that it harms people and animals. The modification is usually to make the plant produce pesticide within its own cells. So when you eat the Bt corn you are eating the pesticide that the plant creates. Pesticides are known to be related to cancer. Even the US government acknowledges that.

I think it should be acceptable to do Genetic modification of crops that is not transgenic. In other words if you take a gene from a corn plant and put it in a corn plant that is ok. What should not be allowed is putting animal or other foreign dna in a plant that is to be grown out in the open. Why? Pollination. When you grow these crops in a field the pollen is taken by the wind and it is transferred to nearby crops. This is unavoidable.

Unfortunately, if we have a crop like corn or rice that becomes contaminated with a dangerous gene through pollination we have ruined our food supply for the entire world. By contaminating the food supply we are toying with the survival of the human species. How will we feed ourselves when all the food is so contaminated that we have nothing safe to eat?

The problem is there should be a precautionary principle when it comes to the food supply for the world, let alone our nation. Our government has been captured by big Ag to the point where we have very little say in what is grown and put on our dinner tables.

I see some humanoids are still confusing soy and corn, as food.

You're welcome. Ill be subsidizing your failing health via obamacare, and my personal decisions to eat food rather then toxic food substitutes

donjumpsuit says

MsAnnaNOLA says

I am against GMO because of much evidence that it harms people and animals. The modification is usually to make the plant produce pesticide within its own cells. So when you eat the Bt corn you are eating the pesticide that the plant creates. Pesticides are known to be related to cancer. Even the US government acknowledges that.

This is so inaccurate I don't know where to start.

As a Ph.D. holding Plant Molecular Physiologist with a B.S. in Biotechnology ............ I am speechless.

What with all your B.S., you'd think you'd know better then to trust the misinformation spilling out of the USDA/FDA,,,,same folks that tell you a healthy diet begins with 12 sevings of breads and grains a day,,,,LOL

And we all know the havoc eating those toxins, wreaks on the human body

Does it even matter if corn or soy is gmo or not? I won't eat that crap either way

Mud patties, trash soiled cardboard, and non-potable water make for a less unhealthy food substitute, compared to corn and soy. so making them more readily available, causes more problems then it does solutions.

Enjoy your toxins,,,gmo or not

I think this company is getting ahead of the labeling requirement that Whole Foods has decided to implement. After 9 years in the food business I know that labels are expensive. If they were already going ahead and printing new labels it would be a good time to change the label to comply with Whole Foods approaching labeling requirement. Instead of waiting until it is required and then having to scrap existing labels, why not go ahead and get ahead of the curve. Whole Foods is probably a big customer for this brand.

errc...yes the stuff is poison. There are new studies that show what you eat affects the expression of your genes. So if you eat crap well you are going to be sick, naturally. If you eat foreign proteins or pesticides or other foreign items do not expect to be well.

Har har. So tofu goes from being the new wonder health food 5 years ago, to "poison" today. God, if you people would just stop and listen to yourselves for one second...

If GMO foods were required to be labled, this salt would not need a label. Because companies have lobbied to prevent GMO label laws, now all non-GMO companies have to pay for the labels. It doesn't matter if it is likely to be GMO or not (salt), because the consumer doesn't know. This negative labeling is surely more costly than simply labeling the GMO foods would have been.

As far as the potential danger of GMO, I don't think anyone knows for sure. The GMO food doesn't have to directly harm a human. For example, it can interfere with gut bacteria, which in turn can harm humans. This is too complicated a subject for some jackass to come up with an answer based on a thought experiment. Environmental concerns like these take lots of animal experiments and / or time (human experiments) to decipher.

Homeboy says

Har har. So tofu goes from being the new wonder health food 5 years ago, to "poison" today. God, if you people would just stop and listen to yourselves for one second...

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 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.