Posted on 06/18/2012 3:53:02 PM PDT by southern rock
The big-government/big-corporate criminal complex knows what is best for you.
Did they mention the ultimate “feature”? Seedless product.
Farmers then “must” go back to the corporation to get seed.
That’s a pretty good argument, but I still haven’t seen any serious evidence that genetically-modified food is any different from Gregor Mendel’s experiments.
ALLERGIC REACTIONS FROM GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD Genetic engineering can actually result in unexpected allergens and toxins in food and reduced nutritional value. Pioneer Hybrid, a seed breeding company in the U.S., decided to remodel soybeans to give a more balanced protein by introducing a gene from Brazil nuts. It resulted in a soybean that had a balanced amino acid composition because it had more methionine in it. The problem was that after they had spent several million dollars and several years, they discovered almost by accident that this same protein caused the soybeans to be allergenic so that it was not safe to put on the market. Even so the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave Pioneer Hybrid permission to put it on the market. Pioneer Hybrid realized there would be a risk of cross contamination and litigation caused by people getting sick or maybe dying because allergic reactions are not always mild. So they did a very wise and ethical thing and wisely chose not to market this product.
TOXINS IN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD The next story illustrates how toxins can be produced by genetic engineering, and it does not have such a happy ending. A Japanese company named Showa Denko had been producing the amino acid tryptophan for many years by extracting it from natural bacteria, and people had been getting good results with it. Tryptophan is used as a natural relaxant. They then had the great idea that if they genetically engineered these bacteria to produce tryptophan in larger amounts and more efficiently it would be more profitable for them. Because the laws in the U.S. are very sloppy about these things, they were allowed to put this on the market without any safety testing whatsoever. As a result within a few months, about 5,000 people became sick and 1,500 of those are still sick today. They were permanently disabled by the toxin in this tryptophan and 37 of them actually died. It is the opinion of many scientists that genetic engineering caused this bacteria to produce toxic tryptophan. A study published in Science (250, 1990) found that Showa Denko's tryptophan was contaminated with a "novel amino acid" not normally present in tryptophan.
REDUCED NUTRIENTS IN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD There is an example of a genetically engineered food which had reduced nutritional value, and you may be familiar with it. The FLAVR-SAVR tomato was introduced several years ago, but it tasted so bad that they had to take it off the market. It was designed to be stored for at least six weeks and still look beautiful. This was called "extended shelf life", and it was done by destroying the product of one gene that is involved in the decay process. The problem is that the decay process is a complex one and involves more than one gene, so even though those tomatoes continued looking beautiful on the shelf, the decay process continued to occur inside the tomato and reduced the nutritional value.
Monsanto already makes farmer’s do that. They have a history of harrasing farmers who they accuse of reusing their (Monsanto’s) seeds.
It’s amazing, but in previous threads on this subject some posters actually tried to represent a GMO labeling requirement as an example of big government out-of-control. As if a corporation has a greater right to refuse to fully label their product than hundreds of millions of consumers have to know what they’re buying and ingesting into their bodies.
Is it perhaps because, like "alar", "pink slime", and "DDT", the term has been demagogued into non-desirability in spite of, or perhaps because of its lack of harm and even (gasp!) possible benefit?
No, I don't work for Monsanto, and I don't seek out "GMO" foods. On the other hand, I don't go out of my way to avoid them. They may kill me-- but for thousands of years people have died after lifetimes of "organic", and I don't see myself escaping their fate.
And for the other side:
http://www.science20.com/michael_eisen/antigmo_campaign%E2%80%99s_dangerous_war_science-91128
NaturalNews could use some honest labeling too.
What is done in the lab today is really no different. We get better food that grows in a wider variety of environments and is more profitable for the producer.
Unless one subscribes to the OWS style belief that Monsanto is the personification of a big, evil, capitalist corporation making profit at the worlds expense, I really don't see a problem.
Really? They are pretty straight forward
Yes, it is. We didn't have Monsanto at the begining of human history engineering Round-Up into the DNA of seeds
Unless one subscribes to the OWS style belief that Monsanto is the personification of a big, evil, capitalist corporation making profit at the worlds expense,
Monsanto is one corporation, that really deserves it's negative reputation.
Agreed.
And, one, who doesn’t, know how to use, his comma’s or, apo’strophe’s.
Oh such a "gotcha" Ouch.
And this matters how or is relevant to the thread how?
Please, I'm anxious to hear what is so "crackpot" about all this
“With your support, we can make history together and end the scourge of GMOs in America”.
It is the same sort of subterfuge that was used against DDT and the genetically manipulated crops of the “green revolution”
I wonder if the NaturalNews folks would be interested in labeling all foods with information on the toxins found in them “naturally”.
Round Up is being found in mother’s milk due to GMO corn.
There is a difference between grafting different plants together to create desirable taste and texture of food, and manipulating a plant’s genetic code to enable it to uptake herbicide and pesticide without “harming” the plant.
I also have issue with Monsanto suing farmers for using GMO seeds when they initially never planted such GMO crops, but cross pollination bled into their fields.
I also have an issue with terminator seeds.
I want a choice between buying corn chips that are non GMO, or GMO. I would choose the former if I had the choice. I would be willing to pay more and that is my choice.
I do not see it as a “Left-Right” issue, in so much as usually the left takes the anti-corporate stance. But “truth in labeling” is not an evil left wing, or right wing issue in my humble opinion, is is an issue of consumer choice.
This rambling, slightly paranoid-sounding piece denounces regulation in the areas of vaccination and food quality yet raises the call for such vacuous concepts as “people power” and “forcing corporations to tell the truth.”
Imagine if NaturalNews were “forced to tell [somebody’s version of] the truth” by the federal government?
The whole thing, and your comments along with it, carry the whiff of hippy-dippy hemp-powered ponytailed shower-free commune committee meetings.
I don't have a problem with labeling gmo products, I don't think. I don't know exactly what would have to be covered or what further regulation and calumniation people like you would direct at the great evil corporations and for that matter at (in your eyes, perhaps) large and similarly evil family farms.
I didn't take a swipe at your writing style for no reason either. When you (or NaturalNews) are advancing an important point, I'd prefer the relevant arguments were straight, direct and clear-eyed.
Truth is, I know some Monsanto people and I know a LITTLE about what they do and I tend to trust them more than the politicians and government regulators you put your trust in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.