patrick.net

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.

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.