patrick.net

Talking about wasting taxpayer money, if you're really concerned about that then you should demand the FDA stop wasting FED salaries on busting raw dairy farmers and requiring labeling on raw milk, as it is safe > 99.99% of the time. At the minimum, let's use the numbered labeling system we discussed and let us have equally free access to raw milk than we have to GMOs :)

Where's the science based backing for defending the usfedgov in this wasteful attack against the health of the populace

The same government that insisted for decades, that a healthy diet consists of over two dozen daily servings of "food groups", with half of that being cereals, bread and grains, rice and pasta, is now supposed to be THE source for what is and what isn't healthy? That's your "science" LOL

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

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sep08/feeling.htm

100M+$ mistake by the worthless FDA

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

mell says

Talking about wasting taxpayer money, if you're really concerned about that then you should demand the FDA stop wasting FED salaries on busting raw dairy farmers and requiring labeling on raw milk, as it is safe > 99.99% of the time. At the minimum, let's use the numbered labeling system we discussed and let us have equally free access to raw milk then we have to GMOs :)

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/latest-raw-milk-outbreak-blamed-on-minnesota-dairy-farm/#.Ucx1kTDn93A

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-index.htm

You go ahead, I'll stick with pasteurized.

errc says

Where's the science based backing for defending the usfedgov in this wasteful attack against the health of the populace

They don't use the food pyramid anymore. Try to keep up.

Since a lot of evidence has come to light that processed grains are not healthy, the USDA now recommends consuming whole grains, and no longer recommends larger amounts than the other food groups. Isn't that pretty much the very definition of science? When the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you change the hypothesis. The problem with the "alternative" crowd is that they don't use science AT ALL. They just accept the word of a few nutballs as dogma.

puhim says

The FDA and GMOs.

Outright lie. All GMO foods have been tested. You guys have absolutely no standards as to the sources of your "information".

mell says

Talking about wasting taxpayer money, if you're really concerned about that then you should demand the FDA stop wasting FED salaries on busting raw dairy farmers and requiring labeling on raw milk, as it is safe > 99.99% of the time. At the minimum, let's use the numbered labeling system we discussed and let us have equally free access to raw milk then we have to GMOs :)

Wait. So you think the government should NOT regulate raw milk, which has caused demonstrable cases of illness, but they SHOULD regulate GMOs, which have never caused even a single illness, ever.

Yeah, that makes sense...

Homeboy says

mell says

Talking about wasting taxpayer money, if you're really concerned about that then you should demand the FDA stop wasting FED salaries on busting raw dairy farmers and requiring labeling on raw milk, as it is safe > 99.99% of the time. At the minimum, let's use the numbered labeling system we discussed and let us have equally free access to raw milk then we have to GMOs :)

Wait. So you think the government should NOT regulate raw milk, which has caused demonstrable cases of illness, but they SHOULD regulate GMOs, which have never caused even a single illness, ever.

Yeah, that makes sense...

They should label both, so people can have a choice. I don't object to the warning on raw milk that says that raw dairy can cause food-borne illness since it is a possibility, albeit very small. The health benefits of raw milk though outweighs that risk for many who make that conscious choice. Keep in mind that many countries (incl. the US in earlier years) have been allowing the sale of raw dairy without ever having significant occurrences of food-borne illness, not moving the needle to anywhere close to statistically significant, like the pro-GMO studies claim to. I have my preferences but I'd be ok with labeling for both (the vast majority of food-borne illness comes from vegetables btw.).

mell says

They should label both,

Then why did you say it was a "waste of fed salaries" to label raw milk? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

mell says

(the vast majority of food-borne illness comes from vegetables btw.).

Right, and that has nothing to do with GMO. So why are you demanding that we put labels to warn of something that has caused ZERO illnesses, when there are other things that cause illness all the time, and don't require any special labeling?

Homeboy says

mell says

They should label both,

Then why did you say it was a "waste of fed salaries" to label raw milk? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

That wasn't regarding the labeling, that has been on forever. They have been clamping down in recent years and made it much harder to distribute raw dairy apart from the labeling and busted raw milk farmers on the basis of new regulations with grey areas. Litigation is going on still today, but it is very hard to figure out what rules apply for interstate vs intrastate sale and sale to the public vs sale to farms vs sale within co-ops. I'd' call that taxpayer money waste, let alone that not a single case of the busts confirmed any contamination.

Homeboy says

Right, and that has nothing to do with GMO. So why are you demanding that we put labels to warn of something that has caused ZERO illnesses, when there are other things that cause illness all the time, and don't require any special labeling?

It hasn't caused ZERO illnesses, all you can talk about are risk probabilities at this point. Labeling is necessary, warning label or not I don't care. To the argument that there is a non-GMO choice with Organic or explicit non-GMO labels I'd say there is also a label for non-raw-dairy which reads "pasteurized".

Homeboy says

mell says

(the vast majority of food-borne illness comes from vegetables btw.).

when there are other things that cause illness all the time, and don't require any special labeling?

I agree with this in the sense that warning label on raw vegetable and fruits could be considered as they cause the majority of food-borne illnesses, and it doesn't even have to be contaminated at first, but due to the packaging process contamination from workers can thrive in that packaging. Whether it will be cost-effective overall is another question, but it's an easy and quick way to educate people who don't wash the contents thoroughly.

mell says

Homeboy says

mell says

(the vast majority of food-borne illness comes from vegetables btw.).

when there are other things that cause illness all the time, and don't require any special labeling?

I agree with this in the sense that warning label on raw vegetable and fruits could be considered as they cause the majority of food-borne illnesses, and it doesn't even have to be contaminated at first, but due to the packaging process contamination from workers can thrive in that packaging. Whether it will be cost-effective overall is another question, but it's an easy and quick way to educate people who don't wash the contents thoroughly.

Just assume the people who pick and handle your food do not have access to a handwash station after they use the porta potty. There's no toilet paper in there either.

mell says

That wasn't regarding the labeling,

I quote:

mell says

you should DEMAND THE FDA STOP WASTING FED SALARIES on busting raw dairy farmers AND REQUIRING LABELING ON RAW MILK...

(emphasis mine)

You wrote that, not me. How can you say it "wasn't about the labeling" when you clearly wrote that it was?

mell says

It hasn't caused ZERO illnesses,

Excuse me, but you can't just SAY "it hasn't caused zero illnesses", because that is false. There has never been a case of any person becoming ill due to the genetic modification of food that they ate, that was approved for sale. If you think otherwise, please give us the name of the person who became ill, and your proof that the genetic modification of the food was the reason for the illness.

mell says

all you can talk about are risk probabilities at this point.

Wrong. I can make the statement that nobody has ever had an illness due to GMO food that they consumed, because it is true. Again, if you think otherwise, prove it.

mell says

To the argument that there is a non-GMO choice with Organic or explicit non-GMO labels I'd say there is also a label for non-raw-dairy which reads "pasteurized"

I am not arguing for labeling of raw milk. I am simply stating that your position vis a vis raw milk is inconsistent with your position vis a vis GMO food.

mell says

Homeboy says

mell says

(the vast majority of food-borne illness comes from vegetables btw.).

when there are other things that cause illness all the time, and don't require any special labeling?

I agree with this in the sense that warning label on raw vegetable and fruits could be considered as they cause the majority of food-borne illnesses, and it doesn't even have to be contaminated at first, but due to the packaging process contamination from workers can thrive in that packaging. Whether it will be cost-effective overall is another question, but it's an easy and quick way to educate people who don't wash the contents thoroughly.

Why did you cut off half of my sentence? Is it because you wanted to avoid answering my question and try to change the issue?

Here it is again for you:

Right, and that has nothing to do with GMO. So why are you demanding that we put labels to warn of something that has caused ZERO illnesses, when there are other things that cause illness all the time, and don't require any special labeling?

Just answer the question. Stop pretending that I'm arguing for labeling, when YOU are the one demanding labeling, and I am simply pointing out the inconsistency in your position.

Homeboy says

(emphasis mine)

You wrote that, not me. How can you say it "wasn't about the labeling" when you clearly wrote that it was?

Half point taken ;) It's a bit more complex than that as the FDA works with state legislature to enforce stricter labeling (additional labeling such as "unfit for human consumption") or even bans while it does not acknowledge states that relax said labeling and distribution. I'd be either for uniform (warning) labeling or letting the states handle it entirely on their own. Here's a decent article about the developments in regulations and stats for food-borne illness of raw vs pasteurized millk and more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/raw-milk-regulations-tighen_n_919177.html

Homeboy says

Excuse me, but you can't just SAY "it hasn't caused zero illnesses", because that is false. There has never been a case of any person becoming ill due to the genetic modification of food that they ate, that was approved for sale. If you think otherwise, please give us the name of the person who became ill, and your proof that the genetic modification of the food was the reason for the illness.

Food-borne illness is an immediate acute disease whereas the pathways of contribution to chronic illnesses are far more complex and are dependent on overall diet as well as on the individual items. We have shown studies that have not been retracted that seem to show otherwise, and we have plenty of countries with bans or labeling requirements, so at least Iabeling would be appropriate. I am not sure why you would solely rely on mostly American scientists and authorities for this, but that's everybody's personal choice.

Homeboy says

I am not arguing for labeling of raw milk.

Fair enough.

mell says

We have shown studies that have not been retracted that seem to show otherwise, and we have plenty of countries with bans or labeling requirements, so at least Iabeling would be appropriate. I am not sure why you would solely rely on mostly American scientists and authorities for this, but that's everybody's personal choice.

I wouldn't. I rely on what's scientifically valid. It's just that every "study" the anti-GMO crowd has quoted in this forum has been completely shot down, mainly by donjumpsuit, who obviously has much more knowledge about GMOs than anyone else here. The problem with your "evidence" is that when you actually examine these "studies" critically, they completely fall apart. In fact, even calling them "studies" at all is rather generous. There just isn't any good evidence against GMOs. Breeding rats to grow tumors, and then trying to pass it off as an effect of GMO food doesn't cut it, my friend. And New Renter provided the missing piece of the puzzle: The reason these bogus studies are all European is because the Europeans are afraid of the competition from GMO foods.

mell says

Food-borne illness is an immediate acute disease whereas the pathways of contribution to chronic illnesses are far more complex and are dependent on overall diet as well as on the individual items.

Pure speculation with absolutely no evidence to support it. Bt bacteria doesn't bioaccumulate. How exactly would it cause chronic illness? And it's used by organic farmers anyway, so how would product labeling prevent the danger even if it existed?

Homeboy says

mell says

Food-borne illness is an immediate acute disease whereas the pathways of contribution to chronic illnesses are far more complex and are dependent on overall diet as well as on the individual items.

Pure speculation with absolutely no evidence to support it. Bt bacteria doesn't bioaccumulate. How exactly would it cause chronic illness? And it's used by organic farmers anyway, so how would product labeling prevent the danger even if it existed?

Organic is not a free pass either - that's why it is labeling is so important. If a pesticide or another substance (even a simple wax) is used on a fruit or vegetable during spraying, then that should be declared. Same goes for BT inside GM crop.

Homeboy says

It's just that every "study" the anti-GMO crowd has quoted in this forum has been completely shot down, mainly by donjumpsuit, who obviously has much more knowledge

He provided criticism for studies linked by various posters. I provided a link to a study about impact on flora and fauna which was solid by your friends criteria, as well as a link to quite a few scientists around the world who came out in support of the Seralini study, that's all (I'd like to note again though that the Seralini study has not been withdrawn to this day). Here's the latest about the recent pig study:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/study-says-gmo-feed-may-harm-pigs/#.UdGgLaxDuXc

which is debated around statistical significance but the data and conduct of the study has been accepted by most (including some critics) and there is a call to further studies. It also highlights the problems with growers contracts and having to get the companies permission. Btw. this is not something food scientists alone can investigate, it spans microbiology and medicine and collaboration is needed here. Always question your convictions ;)

I'm rather careful with whatever household products I use around my house in regards to their chemical composition and possible health dangers. Truth be known, roundup has been around for decades and after a huge amount of research, if used properly its a relatively safe product and certainly safer than a lot of other products- like toilet cleaner for example.

edvard2 says

I'm rather careful with whatever household products I use around my house in regards to their chemical composition and possible health dangers. Truth be known, roundup has been around for decades and after a huge amount of research, if used properly its a relatively safe product and certainly safer than a lot of other products- like toilet cleaner for example.

Agreed, in fact you can get away without using any of those cleaner products. But then again, I also would not use round-up on the weeds in our yards. To be fair this thread was about raising the allowable concentration (which is definitely an issue for debate), not about banning it.

I used it in my yard and the stuff works great. You just need to make sure its not going to rain within the next day ( which isn't a problem where we live) It still makes me uneasy to use, but given that my yard is made out of rocks there's no way to mow the weeds down.

edvard2 says

I used it in my yard and the stuff works great. You just need to make sure its not going to rain within the next day ( which isn't a problem where we live) It still makes me uneasy to use, but given that my yard is made out of rocks there's no way to mow the weeds down.

Well there IS an alternative to Glyphosphate:

mell says

Organic is not a free pass either - that's why it is labeling is so important. If a pesticide or another substance (even a simple wax) is used on a fruit or vegetable during spraying, then that should be declared. Same goes for BT inside GM crop.

Forgive me if don't find your argument here to be genuine. Up to this point, I have never heard you advocate labeling requirements for organic food. It now sounds like you want a label on EVERYTHING we buy, telling everything about the process by which it was made, whether there is any evidence of harm or not. Don't you think that would be a logistical nightmare?

mell says

He provided criticism for studies linked by various posters. I provided a link to a study about impact on flora and fauna which was solid by your friends criteria, as well as a link to quite a few scientists around the world who came out in support of the Seralini study, that's all (I'd like to note again though that the Seralini study has not been withdrawn to this day)

No, you have not posted ANYTHING "solid". In fact, you continue to tout the same studies AFTER we have shown you they are bogus. The fact that Seralini has not retracted his study means nothing to me, as Seralini is a fraud. I already posted this, but I'll post it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

mell says

Here's the latest about the recent pig study:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/study-says-gmo-feed-may-harm-pigs/#.UdGgLaxDuXc

which is debated around statistical significance but the data and conduct of the study has been accepted by mos

Mell, you can't say "it was debated around statistical significance BUT..." If it draws conclusions on data that is not statistically significant, it is not valid. PERIOD.

Read this if you dare:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

Homeboy says

Read this if you dare:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

Forget it! Too many big words, not enough pictures of cute Guinea pigs

Homeboy says

The fact that Seralini has not retracted his study means nothing to me, as Seralini is a fraud. I already posted this, but I'll post it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

No he's not, if it would be it would have been withdrawn. Read this:

http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/

Or this:

http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/the%20double%20standards%20of%20EFSA_0.pdf

Homeboy says

Mell, you can't say "it was debated around statistical significance BUT..." If it draws conclusions on data that is not statistically significant, it is not valid. PERIOD.

Statistical significance is not set in stone. The debate is if they should have used a more defensive approach or not. You don't get to decide that. Neither any opinion piece. You can find discussions about p values and the math behind it (even some interesting longer papers) all over the net.
Homeboy says

Read this if you dare:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

Read it. It's good to take in information from both sides.

Read this if you dare:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

Forget it! Too many big words, not enough pictures of cute Guinea pigs

No I read it. Sorry, but I actually have studied quite a few papers over the years and - while my domain knowledge and passion is more on the medical side - I can ingest lengthy papers and studies quite well ;) Just already label GMOs as part of the ingredients (you can actually discern most from the barcode, but it's not guaranteed and subject to change) and stop the bogus claim of 1000 labels. It's ok if you have a different opinion, but I'm betting it's going to come and I hope you don't suffer too much from having a choice ;)

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/movement-to-label-gmos-gaining-steam/#.UdIZa6xDuXc

Look, Mell - obviously you are going to sit at your computer and continue to tout the same obviously biased, bullshit "studies" posted in B-grade journals with an axe to grind, no matter how many times they're debunked. And your position on labeling is all over the map - it falls apart at the slightest inquiry. There's no consistency to your position at all. It's clear that your mind was made up before you even started.

mell says

I can ingest lengthy papers and studies quite well ;)

The fact that you still claim Serilini is valid shows that is not the case. You haven't posted one single thing that you didn't get from an anti-GMO blog. I suspect your claims of technical expertise are greatly exaggerated. If you really had the knowledge you claim, you would be a lot more selective about the sources of your information. The internet is the great equalizer. Anyone can claim to be an expert, but proving it is another matter.

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/epa-approves-rise-in-glyphosate-residue-for-monsantos-herbicide-130702?news=850448

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided to allow higher levels of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup, on food.

The new EPA rule comes despite independent studies that show glyphosate can be harmful to human health as an endocrine disruptor, according to The Cornucopia Institute.

The institute said a June 2013 study concluded glyphosate “exerted proliferative effects in human hormone-dependent breast cancer.”

Another study, released in April, concluded that “glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.”

WE ARE ALL FUCKED!