Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Future of Food

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #17
    http://www.psrast.org/fdalawstmore.htm
    http://www.psrast.org/biotechist.htm
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/01/refined-foods-are-bad-but-these-may-be-far-worse.aspx
    http://www.biointegrity.org/FDADeception.html
    http://smokinchoices.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/dan-quayle-invited-monsanto-in/
    http://www.wanttoknow.info/deception10pg
    http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry66f7.html?recid=1736
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey17.htm

    Did you notice anything recurring here? No studies.


    Haha holy crap are you blowing this out of proportion.

    Let me just say what I've been saying before:

    ORGANIC food is not as good for you as some people say, and in SOME instances can be worse for you than genetically modified food.
    There is no order in the world, save what death has put there.

    Billows
    Fender::Matamp::Acoustic

    Comment


    • #18
      In the United States, the regulatory process is confused because there are three different government agencies that have jurisdiction over GM foods. To put it very simply, the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat. The EPA is responsible for regulating substances such as pesticides or toxins that may cause harm to the environment. GM crops such as B.t. pesticide-laced corn or herbicide-tolerant crops but not foods modified for their nutritional value fall under the purview of the EPA. The USDA is responsible for GM crops that do not fall under the umbrella of the EPA such as drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops grown for animal feeds, or whole fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption. The FDA historically has been concerned with pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and food products and additives, not whole foods. Under current guidelines, a genetically-modified ear of corn sold at a produce stand is not regulated by the FDA because it is a whole food, but a box of cornflakes is regulated because it is a food product. The FDA's stance is that GM foods are substantially equivalent to unmodified, "natural" foods, and therefore not subject to FDA regulation.

      The EPA conducts risk assessment studies on pesticides that could potentially cause harm to human health and the environment, and establishes tolerance and residue levels for pesticides. There are strict limits on the amount of pesticides that may be applied to crops during growth and production, as well as the amount that remains in the food after processing. Growers using pesticides must have a license for each pesticide and must follow the directions on the label to accord with the EPA's safety standards. Government inspectors may periodically visit farms and conduct investigations to ensure compliance. Violation of government regulations may result in steep fines, loss of license and even jail sentences.

      As an example the EPA regulatory approach, consider B.t. corn. The EPA has not established limits on residue levels in B.t corn because the B.t. in the corn is not sprayed as a chemical pesticide but is a gene that is integrated into the genetic material of the corn itself. Growers must have a license from the EPA for B.t corn, and the EPA has issued a letter for the 2000 growing season requiring farmers to plant 20% unmodified corn, and up to 50% unmodified corn in regions where cotton is also cultivated41. This planting strategy may help prevent insects from developing resistance to the B.t. pesticides as well as provide a refuge for non-target insects such as Monarch butterflies.

      The USDA has many internal divisions that share responsibility for assessing GM foods. Among these divisions are APHIS, the Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service, which conducts field tests and issues permits to grow GM crops, the Agricultural Research Service which performs in-house GM food research, and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service which oversees the USDA risk assessment program. The USDA is concerned with potential hazards of the plant itself. Does it harbor insect pests? Is it a noxious weed? Will it cause harm to indigenous species if it escapes from farmer's fields? The USDA has the power to impose quarantines on problem regions to prevent movement of suspected plants, restrict import or export of suspected plants, and can even destroy plants cultivated in violation of USDA regulations. Many GM plants do not require USDA permits from APHIS. A GM plant does not require a permit if it meets these 6 criteria: 1) the plant is not a noxious weed; 2) the genetic material introduced into the GM plant is stably integrated into the plant's own genome; 3) the function of the introduced gene is known and does not cause plant disease; 4) the GM plant is not toxic to non-target organisms; 5) the introduced gene will not cause the creation of new plant viruses; and 6) the GM plant cannot contain genetic material from animal or human pathogens (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov:80/bbep/bp/7cfr340 ).

      The current FDA policy was developed in 1992 (Federal Register Docket No. 92N-0139) and states that agri-biotech companies may voluntarily ask the FDA for a consultation. Companies working to create new GM foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to follow the FDA's recommendations after the consultation. Consumer interest groups wish this process to be mandatory, so that all GM food products, whole foods or otherwise, must be approved by the FDA before being released for commercialization. The FDA counters that the agency currently does not have the time, money, or resources to carry out exhaustive health and safety studies of every proposed GM food product. Moreover, the FDA policy as it exists today does not allow for this type of intervention.

      Comment


      • #19
        That's nice and all, point out where I said that GM food is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You're assuming that my statement on organic food is a blanket statement against organic food, and that GM and processed food is great for. Please quote me where I said that GM food is good for you?
        There is no order in the world, save what death has put there.

        Billows
        Fender::Matamp::Acoustic

        Comment


        • #20
          The "All Natural" fallacy rears its ugly head.


          "Hey man these mushrooms are all natural, it's safe to eat"
          There is no order in the world, save what death has put there.

          Billows
          Fender::Matamp::Acoustic

          Comment


          • #21
            Haha holy crap are you blowing this out of proportion.

            ORGANIC food is not as good for you as some people say, and in SOME instances can be worse for you than genetically modified food.


            I didn't say anything about organic food. I'm talking about modifying a gene in a necessary food like corn or potatoes and then suing farmers to force them to use a seed that has to be repurchased every year, with absolutely no testing on the health effects or resistance to insect, drought, blight, etc. I'm worried about starvation and illness on a mass scale.

            Comment


            • #22
              I didn't say anything about organic food. I'm talking about modifying a gene in a necessary food like corn or potatoes and then suing farmers to force them to use a seed that has to be repurchased every year, with absolutely no testing on the health effects or resistance to insect, drought, blight, etc. I'm worried about starvation and illness on a mass scale.


              Okay so what you're saying has absolutely no relation to what I said, got it.
              There is no order in the world, save what death has put there.

              Billows
              Fender::Matamp::Acoustic

              Comment


              • #23
                I didn't say anything about organic food. I'm talking about modifying a gene in a necessary food like corn or potatoes and then suing farmers to force them to use a seed that has to be repurchased every year, with absolutely no testing on the health effects or resistance to insect, drought, blight, etc. I'm worried about starvation and illness on a mass scale.


                Just be glad that there are handfuls of farmers "washing" Monsanto's seed and getting that kill gene out of it. Of course they are being prosecuted when caught and getting their asses handed to them.
                Mesa/Boogie Mob

                AMT Army-Lt. Colonel AnGuS

                Clips (Click Me):

                For Good Transactions Click Me

                BRO CLUB: Member

                Comment


                • #24
                  Does not compute.

                  Organic doesn't mean safe by ANY means. Some scientists believe that organically grown foods may be more harmful mostly do to not being bacteria resistant




                  if you stay strictly organic, your body acidity (alkaline if you do it right) would not allow bacteria to survive inside of you, therefore safe. also, coconut water will rape anything nasty living inside your body if you incorporate that into your diet.
                  HCAF's resident meathead.

                  Comment


                  • #25
                    if you stay strictly organic, your body acidity (alkaline if you do it right) would not allow bacteria to survive inside of you, therefore safe. also, coconut water will rape anything nasty living inside your body if you incorporate that into your diet.


                    This is possible. Also very true.
                    There is no order in the world, save what death has put there.

                    Billows
                    Fender::Matamp::Acoustic

                    Comment


                    • #26
                      sorry man but are you saying that the au natural version of food is MORE dangerous than the GMO version?


                      Think about this:

                      Natural Fertilizer vs Nitrates injected into the soil.

                      With the Nitrates you are getting those chemicals and nothing else. With natural fertilizer you are getting those same nitrates plus a whole bunch of other chemicals that aren't accounted for that are in the fertilizer.

                      Just because something isn't grown naturally doesn't mean it is inherently bad.
                      http://www.last.fm/user/pinkfreudHC

                      Comment


                      • #27
                        Think about this:

                        Natural Fertilizer vs Nitrates injected into the soil.

                        With the Nitrates you are getting those chemicals and nothing else. With natural fertilizer you are getting those same nitrates plus a whole bunch of other chemicals that aren't accounted for that are in the fertilizer.

                        Just because something isn't grown naturally doesn't mean it is inherently bad.


                        THIS IS A LOGIC FREE ZONE!
                        There is no order in the world, save what death has put there.

                        Billows
                        Fender::Matamp::Acoustic

                        Comment


                        • #28
                          if you stay strictly organic, your body acidity (alkaline if you do it right) would not allow bacteria to survive inside of you, therefore safe. also, coconut water will rape anything nasty living inside your body if you incorporate that into your diet.


                          Holy ****************.

                          Is this a parody of some kind? Am I missing an inside joke?
                          "You won't like me when I'm angry because I back up my rage with facts and documented sources" ~ The Credible Hulk

                          Comment


                          • #29
                            Holy ****************.

                            Is this a parody of some kind? Am I missing an inside joke?


                            No seriously the native Americans didn't have to fear bacteria.
                            There is no order in the world, save what death has put there.

                            Billows
                            Fender::Matamp::Acoustic

                            Comment


                            • #30
                              A lot was covered. Major points, four companies including Monsanto are patenting all the species of edible plant and seed in every country they can. They are suing farmers to force them to pay to use their seeds rather than reusing old seed from crop. They are adding weird things into the genetics that haven't been tested and nobody knows the side effects. They put a suicide gene in crops so seed has to be purchased. They put test fields all over the country and nobody knows where they all are, so there is a very good chance they will cross-contaminate.




                              Not this **************** again. Go talk to soybean and other row crop farmers about this instead of relying on bull**************** propaganda films. Monsanto sues people because, in order to grow Monsanto products, you have to sign a contract stating that you're not going to replant any of the seeds, etc. People get sued for breach of contracts that they knowingly, willingly, and lawfully entered into. If you don't like it, don't grow Monsanto beans. Pretty simple, actually. They use the same four or five guys in each one of these films to try and make a case about how 'evil' Monsanto is. When you actually know how this stuff works, you can see right through this garbage. Tens of thousands of farmers all over the US use Monsanto products with NO difficulties year in and year out. Five guys get sued for knowingly breaching their contracts (over and over and over again...they were each warned numerous times before Monsanto actually went to court) and everybody cries foul.

                              The genetic engineering of crops has been going on since agriculture began. Early on traits were manipulated by selective breeding. We're doing essentially the same thing now, except instead of waiting ten generations for a particular trait to be manifested, we can alter the genetic structure of the organism so it's there immediately. Corn is one of the most highly manipulated plants out there, and the reason corn is cheap and readily available worldwide is because we've turned it into a very hardy, high production plant.

                              There are legitimate issues with the food supply chain, but coming down on Monsanto for contract issues or genetic engineering is not well placed or particularly well informed.

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X