GM in your diet

Juan Mourep

Vital 1st Team Regular
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-wasley/genetically-modified-food_b_4794557.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cukt1%7Cdl14%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D244209

How Genetically Modified Food Is Finding Its Way Onto Your Dinner Plate

Genetically modified (GM) food is flooding into the UK through the back door with many consumers unaware that much of the meat and dairy products they eat may have been made from farm animals fed a diet containing GM crops.

Campaigners are so alarmed that they are now calling for a mandatory labelling scheme to be introduced which would force manufacturers and retailers to identify products made from livestock fed on a GM diet.

Cash-strapped British farmers also face an unpleasant ultimatum in 2014 - accept GM or go organic - as conventional non-GM animal feed becomes less and less available at affordable prices.

Unknown to many, about 30million tonnes of GM animal feed is thought to be imported into Europe each year to feed pigs, poultry, dairy and beef cattle, as well as farmed fish. The UK imports an estimated 140,000 tonnes of GM soya and as much as 300,000 tonnes of GM maize annually for use as animal feed.

Much of the soya and maize used is grown in South America, including Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, where cultivation has been linked to serious environmental and human rights abuses.

In the UK, foods containing GM material for human consumption are currently required by law to be labelled. However, human foods derived from GM fed animals - meat, fish, milk and dairy products - do not need to be labelled. This represents a worrying loophole which means consumers could inadvertently be eating be GM products.

More at the link


 
You think that's bad. In America, the GM movt are trying to pass a bill whereby where GM food is classified 'natural' , so can be included in any product without having to advise the customer there's GM in it. These people are the scum of the earth and they are being backed by Kellogs, Kraft, coca Cola and Pepsi.
 
I always hear about how awful GM food is but then no one can ever actually say why it's so bad, or why it offends them so much.
 
Its gone too far now and the clock will never be able to be turned back. The genes within any of the foodstuffs we are talking about will have the implanted "human touch". The little piggy living on organic feed, well his great grandmother would have been fed GM feed, or given steroids, or some other form of medical injections. Its the same as the new GM blight resistant potato they have now invented, over years time many potato varieties will just be derivatives from the man made one.
You would probably have to go to the outback mountains in Burma or Mongolia to find a farm animal or vegetable that has never been genetically modified in any way, or chemically messed with in its lineage.
 
Green Tea - 20/2/2014 09:53

Its gone too far now and the clock will never be able to be turned back. The genes within any of the foodstuffs we are talking about will have the implanted "human touch". The little piggy living on organic feed, well his great grandmother would have been fed GM feed, or given steroids, or some other form of medical injections. Its the same as the new GM blight resistant potato they have now invented, over years time many potato varieties will just be derivatives from the man made one.
You would probably have to go to the outback mountains in Burma or Mongolia to find a farm animal or vegetable that has never been genetically modified in any way, or chemically messed with in its lineage.

Disagree, I don't think you could find anywhere in the world that doesn't have genetically modified food. Artificial selection by humans and crossbreeding have been going on since civilization began. It's just now scientists can do it in a much more accurate way by transferring specific genes from one organism to another.
 
The Fear - 20/2/2014 09:41

Start messing too much with Mother Nature and...........?


..... quite a few people on this forum would be brown bread?
 
Without GM crops we aren't going to be able to feed the World's population. What worse - genetically modified foods or starvation?

If you want to stop this then support population control. It's the only viable alternative.
 
david-avfc - 19/2/2014 23:45

I always hear about how awful GM food is but then no one can ever actually say why it's so bad, or why it offends them so much.



You haven't spoken to the right people, but to save me time and a lot of typing you can start with this lot.

The bottom line is that genetically modified organisms have not been proven in any way to be safe, and most of the studies are actually leaning the other direction, which is why many of the world’s countries have banned these items whose DNA has been genetically engineered. In America, they aren't even labelled, much less banned, so the majority of the populace has no idea that they are eating lab-created DNA on a daily basis.

1. GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn foetuses.

Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.

The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)?which is linked to cancer.

2. GMOs contaminate?forever.
GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"?they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.
By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments' superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn't require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA's own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, later their vice president. He's now the US Food Safety Czar.

6. The biotech industry uses "tobacco science" to claim product safety. Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.

7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed. Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a "large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge." Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored.

8. GMOs harm the environment.
GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world. Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield?the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability. On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.


Why does it offend me so much? I object to the poisoned food supply, not just for me, but for my kids, my grandkids, your kids, your grandkids, all to line the pockets of corporations who are already responsible for the deaths of thousands.



 
Looking in detail at all that Juan, I can't see one piece of actual evidence. It's all supposition and speculation. The truth is that there just hasn't been enough research done on the subject.

Indeed, if you take many of the quotes from organisations you quote and dig deeper, they certainly don't dismiss GM altogether. You've just cherry picked the statements you want to hear. For example, the AAEM quotes Gurain-Sherman of the UCS, and he actually says:-

"Does UCS Have a Position On GE?

Yes. We see that the technology has potential benefits, but we are critics of its commercial application and regulation to date. GE has proved valuable in some areas (as in the contained use of engineered bacteria in pharmaceutical development), and some GE applications could turn out to play a useful role in food production."




GM crops vary massively, with different Companies trying different methods and manipulation. The results are going to be varied, as it's a very young Science.

We've got to give it a chance.
 
There needs to be clear labeling. I only buy meat from places that do not use GM. I am no health freak but I do not want to consume that shit at all.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 21/2/2014 08:41



GM crops vary massively, with different Companies trying different methods and manipulation. The results are going to be varied, as it's a very young Science.

We've got to give it a chance.

You give it a chance. Personally I'd like the CHOICE not to have to eat it.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 21/2/2014 08:41

The truth is that there just hasn't been enough research done on the subject.

it's a very young Science.

We've got to give it a chance.



Your first line says it all, there are many horrifying results on lab animals fed GM products, a quick search will verify that.

It is, it requires MUCH more research and development.

I have no intention of becoming one of their guinea pigs, do you? Would you feed experimental food to your kids? The long term effects of consuming GM foods is unknown, it's Russian roulette.

The adverse effect of Monsanto GM seeds on Indian farming is well documented and should act as a very loud warning to all, this is not the way forward, Yet.



 
Juan Mourep - 21/2/2014 22:58
Your first line says it all, there are many horrifying results on lab animals fed GM products, a quick search will verify that.

It is, it requires MUCH more research and development.

I have no intention of becoming one of their guinea pigs, do you? Would you feed experimental food to your kids? The long term effects of consuming GM foods is unknown, it's Russian roulette.

The adverse effect of Monsanto GM seeds on Indian farming is well documented and should act as a very loud warning to all, this is not the way forward, Yet.

Seems to be all guff and bluster -
the trouble is interest groups and the scientically illiterate glance at wiki and pontificate.
It's an interesting area of research which has to deal with a good deal of ill-informed nonsense really.
Shame so many talented people / technologies get held back - still even the slow get there eventually.
 
Juan Mourep - 21/2/2014 22:58

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 21/2/2014 08:41

The truth is that there just hasn't been enough research done on the subject.

it's a very young Science.

We've got to give it a chance.



Your first line says it all, there are many horrifying results on lab animals fed GM products, a quick search will verify that.

It is, it requires MUCH more research and development.

I have no intention of becoming one of their guinea pigs, do you? Would you feed experimental food to your kids? The long term effects of consuming GM foods is unknown, it's Russian roulette.

The adverse effect of Monsanto GM seeds on Indian farming is well documented and should act as a very loud warning to all, this is not the way forward, Yet.

When I say not enough research, I really mean long term studies, as these crops just haven't been around long enough. Short term, there is a very comprehensive testing procedure.

In terms of what has been done, the American Association for the Advancement of Science says:-

“As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to sterility, tumours and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a recent review of a dozen well-designed long-term animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent.”



For example, if you dig a bit deeper than the Daily Mail on Monsanto, you'll find the truth is far less sensationalist. It's another one of those myths that is used to perpetuate the "GM Crops are Evil" lobby. It was a 2009 test of a new crop that will never make it to human consumption. That's the point of these tests.

In an ideal World, yes, it would be great if we could all eat Organic. The truth is there just isn't the capacity for us to do so.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 22/2/2014 00:29

In terms of what has been done, the American Association for the Advancement of Science says:-


Monsanto has people in the government, it is very powerful, for all we know they own that association, it's the same way Aspartame came into use, bribery and corruption.


For example, if you dig a bit deeper than the Daily Mail on Monsanto, you'll find the truth is far less sensationalist.


It appears that you have not dug deep enough.


In an ideal World, yes, it would be great if we could all eat Organic. The truth is there just isn't the capacity for us to do so.


The supposed increased yields of GM have already been rubbished, please explain why a world where every inhabitant of the planet could have a parcel of land and live quite happily in Australia, that is every person on the planet, in one country, so why do we not have the capacity?



 
Again, Juan. You're being fooled by the hype. It's the typical pattern of the conspiracy theory.

There is no provable evidence that GM foods are bad for you, full stop. Apart from hearsay, give me one study that shows that anything that has been proven to be damaging has entered the human food chain.
 
david-avfc - 20/2/2014 11:13


Disagree, I don't think you could find anywhere in the world that doesn't have genetically modified food. Artificial selection by humans and crossbreeding have been going on since civilization began. It's just now scientists can do it in a much more accurate way by transferring specific genes from one organism to another.


There is a big difference between cross-polination of various strains of the same type of plant in order to strengthen or weaken a given inherrited trait and the splicing in of genetic material from totally unrelated life forms, like fish genes in tomatoes to improve shelf-life in the supermarket.