GMO's

[Lady Revel]

Is anyone else trying to avoid them? I have read some frightening things...such as they cause inflammation which may lead to Crohn's, Diabetes and any number of terrible diseases. I also read they are killing bees. Do I have the backup article? Absolutely not...I cannot remember where I read it, sorry, slightly disorganized.

How do you feel about GMO's? And I am so sorry if I am missing a thread on this somewhere else.....if that is the case, direct me to it, and I shall join that one.

Good day!

[Harbinger]

She is referring to Genetically Modified Organisms in case you didn't know and didn't want to google right away. I had to google it.

No, I'm not worried about eating them; I am worried about their effects on existing plant species though.

As far as eating them goes, it has to be better for you than steroids, chemicals, etc. I mean really, all they have done turned of/on a gene or added/removed genetic material. It's all natural.

[Lady Revel]

I am sorry! Here is a little more info on the subject from:

www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Ge ... food.shtml

GM Products: Benefits and Controversies
Benefits

Crops
Enhanced taste and quality
Reduced maturation time
Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
New products and growing techniques
Animals
Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
Environment
"Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
Conservation of soil, water, and energy
Bioprocessing for forestry products
Better natural waste management
More efficient processing
Society
Increased food security for growing populations

Controversies

Safety
Potential human health impacts, including allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects
Potential environmental impacts, including: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
Access and Intellectual Property
Domination of world food production by a few companies
Increasing dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries
Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural resources
Ethics
Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Stress for animal
Labeling
Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
Mixing GM crops with non-GM products confounds labeling attempts
Society
New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

[lorin]

I read a book called The Unhealthy Truth which discusses food allergies and GMO's. Really good book. I found out that in most of Europe GMO's are not allowed into the food supply.
www.barnesandnoble.com/w/unhealthy-trut ... 0767930741

[Lady Revel]

Wow, interesting. There has been an incredible increase in food allergies over the last 20 years. And, yes, Europe is way ahead of us regarding the labeling and distribution of gmo's.

Here is an article on how gmo's came to be with no regulation in the US.

www.espbotanicals.com/environmentalpois ... el-taylor/

GMOs – Already a $50,000,000,000 industry by the year 2000! Michael R. Taylor, Former Monsanto Lawyer & GMO Food Lobbyist, Placed in Charge of All US Food Agencies

The food safety system is, however, under serious stress, largely because of rapid change in the food system… new and emerging microbial pathogens… new agricultural and food technologies, such as genetically engineered food crops” ~ C&EN – Chemical & Engineering News
Michael Taylor became the director of the FDA at the time the Reagan-Bush administration was set to begin the new deregulation of Monsanto GMO policy.

Before joining the FDA Michael Taylor was a partner in a law firm named King and Spalding for 12 years. During which time Monsanto was not only a personal client of Michael Taylor’s (he worked directly on Monsanto legal matters) but he was also employed for 16 months as Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Company. Michael R. Taylor also served as co-chair of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee that issued the report Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues (2004) [citation]. Another of his personal client’s was The International Food Bio-Technology Coucil (IFBC). (Intentionally infecting humans with diseases and toxins is an ongoing and very real issue)

The FDA created a new position for Michael Taylor “Deputy Director for Policy at the FDA” where he held this position from 1991 to 1994. This was the exact same time that policy regarding GMOs were changed to allow them to pass without scrutiny.

Michael Hansen, Ph.D. and Senior Staff Scientist of the Consumers Union says: “If you look at the proposal that was drafted for IFBC that was Michael Taylor’s with the one that was published (by the FDA), it was very, very similar – so if he didn’t write it, it looks like somebody took what he wrote and changed it slightly for the policy.”

Michael Taylor claims “It had nothing to do with GMOs, nothing at all to do with GMOs. I wasn’t the author of these policies, but that’s, they’re very, but that’s just false.”

However when Michael Taylor was a partner of the King and Spalding law firm he drafted for Monsanto and The International Food Bio-Technology Council (IFBC) a proposal for how they would like to genetically modified foods regulated.

In regards to that drafted proposal renowned expert in food safety and environmental health issues including mad cow disease, genetic engineering, and pesticide use, Michael Hansen, Ph.D. and Senior Staff Scientist of the Consumers Union says (complete bio PDF) “If you look at the proposal that was drafted for IFBC that was Michael Taylor’s with the one that was published (by the FDA), it was very, very similar – so if he didn’t write it, it looks like somebody took what he wrote and changed it slightly for the policy.”

James Maryanski, Ph.D. Biotechnology Coordinator at the FDA from 1985 to 2006 says Michael Taylor provided the leadership making sure that the project got done. This project included both how genetic engineering was dealt with as well as the use of Bovine Growth Hormones.

So where is Michael Taylor now that so many major health issues are rearing their ugly heads concerning GMOs and the pandemic of Hyper Toxic Skin Syndrome? Why isn’t the CDC looking seriously into this issue now that fears that people would get sick from genetically modified foods and bovine growth hormone use? Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) is a trans-genic growth hormone that’s injected into cows and which started being sold to dairy farmers in 1994 under the brand name Posilac. IGF-1 in milk is not denatured (inactivated) by pasteurization. The extent to which intact, pharmacologically active IGF-1 is absorbed through the human gastrointestinal tract remains uncertain (incomplete analysis of the science). The American Cancer Society (ACS) “encourages continued and expanded scientific research and independent, credible assessment of potential relationships between the use of this substance in cows and human cancer risk.” [citation] The American Cancer Society is not satisfied with their billions of dollars worth of research into cancer with the safety of genetically altered recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone – but lawyer (and now food expert) Michael R. Taylor is.
Where is Michael Taylor Now?

MICHAEL R. TAYLOR was named Deputy Commissioner for Foods at FDA is now Senior Adviser to the Commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration. He also acts as an adviser to the section of the CDC that deals with “Foodborne Diseases: Better Prevention with Better Public Health Information.” Nice to know that the CDC is taking the lead on GMOs from a man who says “there is no difference between GMOs and real food.”

At the same time, Michael R. Taylor co-wrote an article for “Issues Online in Science and Technology” that “The food safety system is, however, under serious stress, largely because of rapid change in the food system. Many of the cases of foodborne illness reported by the CDC are linked to new and emerging microbial pathogens, changing U.S. eating habits, and an aging population. The system is also challenged by new agricultural and food technologies, such as genetically engineered food crops” and that “There is growing support for the concept of a single food safety agency.” [citation]

BP Oil Cleanup Crews

So let’s get on to how Michael Taylor deals with food safety issues right now at this very moment. Over at the C&EN – Chemical & Engineering News web site on the topic of Health Risks in the Gulf and the Gulf Oil spill and the use of Dispersants: “FDA also provided good news at the hearing, claiming that seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is safe as long as it is caught from an area open to fishing. FDA’s Taylor brushed off concerns about small fish ingesting dispersants, stating that dispersants contain water-soluble chemicals that are unlikely to bioaccumulate. But he added that researchers at NOAA are currently studying the ability of compounds in the dispersants to bioaccumulate. When asked whether shrimp from the Gulf is safe to eat, Taylor told lawmakers that because of NOAA’s aggressive action to close oil-stricken waters to fishing, he is confident that the seafood supply is safe. ” [citation]

“Unlikely”? “Confident”? and then finally “researchers at NOAA are currently studying the ability of compounds in dispersants to bioaccumulate”? in other words this is not someone who prefers to err on the side of caution, this is someone who makes decisions and statements based on personal opinion and not based on facts and research.

The fact is that in toxicology it’s quite often not the original compound that’s the toxic entity. According to Scientific American magazine (the most accurate and respected scientific journal in America written for the general public) phototoxicity occurs when sunlight falls on the dispersed oil and causes compounds in the oil act as a catalyst to transfer some of the sun’s energy creating new deadly compounds. Ocean dwelling fish and other wildlife ingest the dispersed oil which in turn is then broken down into more toxic by-products that no longer resemble the dispersants.
Unprecedented 700,000 gallons of Corexit® dispersants sprayed and pumped into the environment.

Unprecedented 700,000 gallons of Corexit® dispersants sprayed and pumped into the environment.

An unprecedented quantity of at least 700,000 gallons, Corexit® dispersants, produced by Nalco Energy Services, for example, were sprayed on the water surface or pumped below the surface in the 2010 oil leak catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. [citation]

All of this is still perfectly ok with Michael R. Taylor.

Liver and kidney failure has been linked to GMO corn, however. “In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on GM foods: ‘several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.’” [citation][citation]

Which leaves us with not knowing what’s on our plates because the labels don’t say – and it’s not an FDA requirement and it is quite unlikely that it will ever be a requirement as long as there are enough people like Michael Taylor in the world.

Clearly a biased article, however, Michael Taylor was indeed put into position by Monsanto in order to ease the way for the introduction of gmo's into the food supply. Monsanto, a biotechnology company, also stated that DDT and Agent Orange were harmless.

[wayfriend]

I mean really, all they have done turned of/on a gene or added/removed genetic material. It's all natural.

Turning gene sequences on or off changes the kinds of proteins produced, which in turn changes the chemical compounds produced by the organism. The range of possible results spans the spectrum of life on this planet. Doing so with an incomplete understanding of what you are changing leads to an innacurate estimation of the result.

[wayfriend]

I mean really, all they have done turned of/on a gene or added/removed genetic material. It's all natural.

Turning gene sequences on or off changes the kinds of proteins produced, which in turn changes the chemical compounds produced by the organism. The range of possible results spans the spectrum of life on this planet. Doing so with an incomplete understanding of what you are changing leads to an innacurate estimation of the result.

[lorin]

Turning gene sequences on or off changes the kinds of proteins produced, which in turn changes the chemical compounds produced by the organism. The range of possible results spans the spectrum of life on this planet. Doing so with an incomplete understanding of what you are changing leads to an innacurate estimation of the result.

Beautifully put. Beautifully put.

[Vader]

As already said above Europe is far more restrictive concerning GMOs in food. However with all the recent food scandals it's hard to believe that we'll ever exactly know what's in food we're eating.

[Harbinger]

I'll concede to the possibility of allergies from changing the food (which has not yet been proven), but beyond that I'm not willing to speculate. I would rather have genetically modified food than chemical-laden food.

If you're really worried about it- buy organic and/or grow/raise your own.

Probably the smartest thing to do. Oh, yeah- and don't dine out.

[Vader]

Buy organic or grow your own doesn't work. We just had another food scandal over here when they found out that millions of eggs labeled "organic" where actually from convential farms. So you can't be sure what you get even if the label says "organic".

And when you grow your own stuff you never know where seeds and manure and stuff come from, or in case of producing your own meat what' you feed your animals.

Food industry is mafia and price battles force producers to fool consuments. If they can snuck in horse meat without us knowing they can put ANYTHING they want into our food and all those "organic" labals are not worth the sticker they're printed on.

[Lady Revel]

I have never really been a "healthy" eater....but I must admit, this gmo thing is rather alarming to me, and I have been trying to buy milk from cows without the hormones, cereals with the non-gmo project verified label on it, and organic meat. I am also in the process of switching to soy milk, but soy is one of the biggest gmo foods out there, so once again, trying to use the ones with the label on it. I can only hope I am figuring things correctly.

This has been going on in my world for a couple of months now. I have discovered a new interest in trying to eat healthy....at the moment I am convincing myself how much I love hummus. It is almost working. I am steering away from carbs...for the most part.

I have a lifetime of bad eating habits to correct...yes, I am one of those people who actually "like" McDonald's food....I am so ashamed. I am trying to retrain the taste buds, but it is a long and arduous task. I just hope I can stick with it, lol. I think that is the wish of everyone who attempts this. Some find success, others not so much.

[Vraith]

There may or may not be health problems now or in the future from eating GMO's...the evidence isn't clear right now either way...
And of course it will surely vary from food to food, and gene to gene.

But what is known is that crops modified to resist pests have already begun to be create pests that are resistant...

And crops modified to tolerate herbicides have resulted in weeds that resist herbicides...[Funny thing about that...IIRC, Monsanto finally found the way to get the gene's by studying the resistant wild plants from the herbicide-polluted soil outside their factories. Given that, how could they not know perfectly well that super-crops would end up infested with super-weeds?]

It's just MRSA in the food-chain.

As for organic in the U.S...
The Ag-industry lobbies made sure that the standards for labeling something "Organic" don't mean the food is necessarily organic at all.

[I'm Murrin]

There's nothing inherently wrong with genetic modification, and the results of it depend entirely on what is being modified and how, so you can't really talk about them as a single blanket group. So in your first post here, when you say you've heard of "them" causing diabetes and inflammation - the question is, which "them"?

I'm all for genetic modification so long as it's clinically tested and regulated.

[Lady Revel]

THEM being...genetically modified foods....such as corn, soy, and salmon. It has been a while since I have had the opportunity to post, so please forgive my lapses in clarity and explanation. I am trying....and I imagine I will get better at this as time passes and I am in the swing of things again.
And I do recognize that there is no proof of harm from these food sources....only that there is growing concern about the possibilites of dangerous side effects.

[I'm Murrin]

My point was you can't just say "genetically modified food" causes diabetes, for example. Different foods modified in different ways will have entirely different effects.

[Zarathustra]

I wonder how many people who are worried about things like this--which haven't been proven to be harmful--knowingly scarf down french fries, potato chips, candy, ice cream, and lots of other things that are known to be bad for you? If you're already doing everything you can to eat healthy, and you're eating those in the proper portions so that you're not overweight, then I could understand worrying about this (though, I still wouldn't personally) as a last area of concern--chasing those diminishing returns. However, given most people's waistlines, I'm not convinced that knowledge of harmful effects is the problem with our diets. It's willpower. You can have a much more profound effect upon your health just by applying what we already know, and getting off the couch. Those things are hard enough as it is, and takes about all the attention and effort I'm willing to give this issue. If I had to research the food science behind every crop I'm eating, I think I'd just say "screw it" and give up. Supersize me, please!

Maybe I'm naive, but I mostly trust the food I buy. I think if there was a serious problem with our food supply, we wouldn't have the lifespans we have now. This is fearing the unknown, AFAICT.