RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods

RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Kirata -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 8:40:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Probably you can't simply call him an idiot but will have to settle for showing him how he's an idiot. Can I get away with calling you an optimist? [:D] K.

kalikshama -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 9:36:10 AM)
I'll take that label!

tj444 -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 9:50:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama In addition to the Mad Cow and Downed Cow issues, Lyman brings up the issue of rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) used to increase milk production in cows and the possible effects this could have on human health. To combat the mastitis that develops from the use of rBGH, cows are given antibiotics that are then passed to the dairy consumer in various milk products. With the increased use of antibiotics comes increased bacterial resistance to antibiotics. The funny thing is that you dont need rBGH to have cows that produce more milk than the average cow, a farmer just needs to know how to breed for that. I grew up on a farm, a small one, not a factory farm with all the pesticides and junk they use now. When i was a kid my father figured out how to breed cows to get the ones that produced the most milk. Some of those poor cows, they got milked twice a day and at times they had so much milk that it was squirting out before we could get them in the barn to milk. All the cows we had were heavy producers.. so you dont need drugs to do that..

LillyBoPeep -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:00:54 AM)
Yeah, but that takes time, and rampant mass producers don't have time. It would totally cut into their profits. :p

drummer687 -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:01:38 AM)
quote: Exactly! Actually, many girls didn't get their periods until even later, when they were 16 or 17. I got mine at 9, and I'm pretty sure that's not normal -- well it is now, I guess. Actually, it's fairly normal. It's not ABNORMAL (precocious puberty is defined as beginning before age 8) According to the National Institute of Health, the "normal" age for the onset of puberty is: "...between ages 10 and 14 for girls and ages 12 and 16 for boys. Some African American girls start puberty earlier than white girls, making their age range for puberty 9 to 14." http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/Puberty.cfm ------------------------------------------- Precocious Puberty What is precocious puberty? "Precocious puberty is puberty that begins before age 8 years for girls and before age 9 years for boys. The word “precocious” means developing unusually early." What causes precocious puberty? Sometimes precocious puberty is the result of a structural problem in the brain that triggers puberty to begin too early. There are many conditions that may lead to precocious puberty, such as: Congenital adrenal hyperplasia McCune-Albright syndrome Gonadal (testicles or ovaries) or adrenal gland disorders or tumors hCG-secreting tumors Hypothalamic hamartoma But in many cases, there is no identifiable cause for the precocious puberty. Puberty just starts earlier than normal http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/precocious_puberty.cfm

ShaharThorne -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:08:18 AM)
Signed and I have a beef with Monsanto anyway. Don't ask.

LillyBoPeep -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:08:55 AM)
Well that's interesting info - thanks for enlightening. :) so maybe not Sooo weird, but we're still seeing a trend of it happening earlier rather than later in the scale.

Edwynn -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:11:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheBigDog Yeah more government regulation is what we need in our lives. quote: ORIGINAL: TheBigDog People need to just learn to live their own damn lives without begging for more and more intervention like a bunch of slaves. Could we take it from this, then, that you would be in favor of relieving your bio-engineered industrial farming family and friends of such onerous government intervention in the form of subsidies and price supports, so that they could just learn to live their own damn lives without begging for more and more?

tj444 -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:11:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep Yeah, but that takes time, and rampant mass producers don't have time. It would totally cut into their profits. :p not that much.. regardless, the cows need to be pregers to produce milk anyway, they can be bred with the right bull to get babies that grow up to be big producers.. They grow pretty fast.. imo, long term it would be cheaper than being addicted to rBGH and paying for it year after year.. I just had a horrible thought.. what if they invented a drug that could cause cows to produce milk without being pregers first??? Can you imagine humans drinking that milk with that drug in it and then their human boobies doing the same thing and dripping milk??? Men having to walk around with nursing bras and such? The scary thing is i bet there is some scientist out there working on that as we speak.. [:'(]

LillyBoPeep -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:14:12 AM)
Eeeeegads that's all kinds of horrible. But you're probably right - well, doing that might interfere with the profits of veal producers. :p

drummer687 -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:24:36 AM)
quote: Well that's interesting info - thanks for enlightening. :) so maybe not Sooo weird, but we're still seeing a trend of it happening earlier rather than later in the scale. Do you have a link to some research showing the trend you mention? Hopefully, meta studies (a study of studies). That is, not an isolated study. I've been trying to confirm this but cannot. but I'll take whatever I can get. Thanks!

LillyBoPeep -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:26:16 AM)
I'll dig around when I'm not on my phone. :) I'm sure I've got links somewhere.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:29:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: I got a lot of friends and family in agriculture and modification has done wonders for their farms yields and for the cattle they raise. Conventional farming is neither healthy nor sustainable. MAD COWBOY: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won't Eat Meat A fourth-generation Montana rancher, Lyman investigated the use of chemicals in agriculture after developing a spinal tumor that nearly paralyzed him. Now a vegetarian, he blasts through the propaganda of beef and dairy interests -- and the government agencies that protect them -- to expose an animal-based diet as the primary cause of cancer, heart disease, and obesity in this country. He warns that the livestock industry is repeating the mistakes that led to Mad Cow disease in England while simultaneously causing serious damage to the environment. Persuasive, straightforward, and full of the down-home good humor and optimism of a son of the soil, Mad Cowboy is both an inspirational story of personal transformation and a convincing call to action for a plant-based diet -- for the good of the planet and the health of us all. ...I truly believe that everyone should be informed, particularly with regards to what they are placing in their mouths, and this is an excellent, easy-to-read personal account that does just that. Howard Lyman, a fourth generation cattle rancher, blows some of the common misconceptions and agribusiness propaganda right out the window in this straight forward and, at times, humorous expose that comes, so to speak, straight from the horses mouth. Lyman doesn't waste any time in getting right to the gritty, gruesome details behind the highly politicized business of food production. Within the opening pages, he informs us that cattle, chickens, and pigs are fed "protein concentrates" consisting of euthanized pets, ground up diseased farm animals, fecal matter, and roadkill. Not only are fodder animals being fed this vomit-inducing mixture, but our pets are as well. Yummy! Lyman spends a good amount of time discussing the impact that the aforementioned practice could have on America's potential to see "Mad Cow Disease" effecting people in the not-so-distant future, which has been a steadily increasing problem in Britain. He points out several studies that debunk the myth that spongiform encephalopathy cannot jump species barriers. In addition to the Mad Cow and Downed Cow issues, Lyman brings up the issue of rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) used to increase milk production in cows and the possible effects this could have on human health. To combat the mastitis that develops from the use of rBGH, cows are given antibiotics that are then passed to the dairy consumer in various milk products. With the increased use of antibiotics comes increased bacterial resistance to antibiotics. ... Lyman spends several pages of his book discussing overgrazing and it's environmental impact. Rainforests are being depleted, in part, due to the need for land for cattle to graze, as are riparian woodlands. Native species are going extinct because of the human desire for burgers and steaks. Flooding and erosion have become a problem because of overgrazing and lack of natural vegetation. The list goes on and on. I really need to consider becoming vegan....

drummer687 -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:36:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals Thanks for the link. I believe the study is from 2009? Since organ failure, even in mice, sounds serious I looked into the study to see what other scientists thought of the methodology, etc. I found a highly critical response from FANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is an independent statutory agency established by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991.) Some highlights then the full response: The authors do not offer any plausible scientific explanations for their hypothesis, nor do they consider the lack of concordance of the statistics with other investigative processes used in the studies such as pathology, histopathology and histochemistry. Séralini and colleagues have distorted the toxicological significance of their results by placing undue emphasis on the statistical treatment of data, and failing to take other relevant factors into account. Reliance solely on statistics to determine treatment related effects in such studies is not indicative of a robust toxicological analysis. There is no corroborating evidence that would lead independently to the conclusion that there were effects of toxicological significance. FANZ's RESPONSE (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfm) In their latest paper, Séralini and colleagues again use a statistical analysis approach to interpret data from animal toxicity studies. On this occasion, they apply their methodology to separate feeding studies in rats with GM corn lines MON863, MON810 and NK603, and claim that their analysis has identified “new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent”. The authors claim that their results show “signs of toxicity” mostly associated with the kidney and liver, although other effects were reported to have been identified in heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. Based on their reported findings, the authors argue strongly that longer-term (up to 2 years) feeding experiments are necessary in at least three animal species forin vivosafety evaluation of GM foods. In response to Séralini’s 2007 paper, an expert scientific panel dismissed similar claims made by these authors. FSANZ also independently investigated the material presented in the paper and concluded that the incidence of statistically significant differences in animals fed GM corn (MON863) is entirely consistent with normal background variability. In their most recent paper, Séralini and colleagues reject the consensus view and instead propose a cause-and-effect link between the findings and the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) specific to each GM corn, or associate the results with unintended effects arising from the genetic modification process itself. The authors do not offer any plausible scientific explanations for their hypothesis, nor do they consider the lack of concordance of the statistics with other investigative processes used in the studies such as pathology, histopathology and histochemistry. Séralini and colleagues have distorted the toxicological significance of their results by placing undue emphasis on the statistical treatment of data, and failing to take other relevant factors into account. Reliance solely on statistics to determine treatment related effects in such studies is not indicative of a robust toxicological analysis. There is no corroborating evidence that would lead independently to the conclusion that there were effects of toxicological significance. FSANZ remains confident that the changes reported in these studies are neither sex- nor dose-related and are primarily due to chance alone.

drummer687 -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:46:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep I'll dig around when I'm not on my phone. :) I'm sure I've got links somewhere. Thanks. There doesn't appear to be any agreement at this time. Example: in 2010, Dr. Abby Hollander, associate professor of pediatrics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. "Within five years, we should be able to say whether the average age girls get their periods is earlier." The following article is typical and if read carefully, basically says experts can't agree. And if it is happening, they offer many different possible explanations including childhood obesity. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/girls-hitting-puberty-early-age-study-suggests/story?id=11345321#.Tzv8PVFdDEZ

LillyBoPeep -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 10:56:29 AM)
That article does mention lots of different reasons it could be happening. I honestly think it would be pretty hard to DEFINITIVELY tie it to agricultural hormones -- the agriculture lobby is pretty huge. If a study did come out definitively linking it (most things I've read don't state "this is definitive" but studies generally don't say "definitive" anyway, especially if they're statistical), there would most certainly be an agriculturally-funded study that would say otherwise; like with the whole "high-fructose corn syrup is evil" thing vs. "your body can't tell the difference" thing.

drummer687 -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 11:07:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep That article does mention lots of different reasons it could be happening. I honestly think it would be pretty hard to DEFINITIVELY tie it to agricultural hormones -- the agriculture lobby is pretty huge. If a study did come out definitively linking it (most things I've read don't state "this is definitive" but studies generally don't say "definitive" anyway, especially if they're statistical), there would most certainly be an agriculturally-funded study that would say otherwise; like with the whole "high-fructose corn syrup is evil" thing vs. "your body can't tell the difference" thing. One hormone, I think, that can be ruled out is BGH (or rBGH). According to The American Cancer Society: "Bovine growth hormone levels are not significantly higher in milk from rBGH-treated cows. On top of this, BGH is not active in humans, so even if it were absorbed from drinking milk, it wouldn't be expected to cause health effects." http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormone

tj444 -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 11:18:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drummer687 One hormone, I think, that can be ruled out is BGH (or rBGH). According to The American Cancer Society: "Bovine growth hormone levels are not significantly higher in milk from rBGH-treated cows. On top of this, BGH is not active in humans, so even if it were absorbed from drinking milk, it wouldn't be expected to cause health effects." http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormone if a cure for cancer were discovered, then the american cancer society would cess to exist, so in a weird way they have a vested interest that the cure not be found.. I know some people might say i am a tad paranoid but even my mother who was a nurse was sceptical of these societies that were supposedly seeking cures for various ailments... Of course one doesnt know how this chemical/drug will interact with various other multitude of chemicals/drugs, etc in our food, air, water and already stored in our own bodies.. I will rely on my own judgement and stick with natural organic food is better, thanks just the same..

kalikshama -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 11:47:30 AM)
Conflicts of Interest: Why the ACS stresses treatment and screening over prevention So what are the American Cancer Society's strategies for fighting cancer? Innocent Casualties author Elaine Feuer comments that the ACS is more intent on developing cancer treatments than preventing the disease. Feuer argues, "Instead of allotting money towards the prevention of cancer, the medical establishment prescribes chemotherapy and radiation (which can be very expensive and even toxic)." Also contentious is the agency's emphasis on screening. Samuel S. Epstein, author of The Politics of Cancer, argues that the society's "priorities remain fixated on damage control -- screening, diagnosis, and treatment." Sure enough, the ACS' 2005 Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Facts and Figures report focuses primarily on screening. While screenings are valuable in helping people fight cancer, they do not prevent the disease. If decreasing the number of cancer fatalities is the first priority, why not prevent the disease before it starts? Many critics of the American Cancer Society are quick to suggest its "vested interest" in the cancer industry, especially in chemotherapy and pharmaceutical treatments. Dr. Samuel Epstein, former head of a Congressional committee on cancer, has accused the ACS of foul play for years. Epstein claims that the ACS' "longstanding conflicts of interest with a wide range of industries, coupled with a systematic discrediting of evidence of avoidable causes of cancer" preclude many powerful life-saving initiatives. In a debate this year, Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society did not deny the agency's connection to corporate interests. “The American Cancer Society views relationships with corporations as a source of revenue for cancer prevention,” said Dr. Thun. “That can be construed as an inherent conflict of interest, or it can be construed as a pragmatic way to get funding to support cancer control.” So it is in fact true that the ACS' 22-member board was created in 1990 to solicit corporate contributions. It's also true that board members include Gordon Binder, who is the CEO of Amgen, a biotechnology company that sells chemotherapy products. Another board member, David R. Bethune, is president of Lederle Laboratories, a multinational pharmaceutical company and a division of American Cyanamid Company. In fact, many board members seemingly stand to make more money by treating cancer than preventing it. But as Thun said, these relationships are "pragmatic" ways to garner funding. Money, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, is the name of the ACS' game. The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a watchdog organization that monitors major charities. After analyzing the ACS' budgets and programs, they concluded the agency is "more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives." Epstein argues that the ACS's financial ties with industry also skew its policies pertaining to environmental causes of cancer. In his new book, Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing War Against Cancer, Epstein claims the agency is willfully suppressing information about the environmental causes of cancer. Carcinogens can be found in pesticides, industrial pollution, materials used in plastic or reconstructive surgery, the water supply and many other everyday materials. Corporations – some of which contribute to the American Cancer Society – profit handsomely while they pollute the air, water, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, endangering the lives of millions of people. Why is the ACS silent? Epstein says they are more interested in inflating their budget than waging war against industrial pollution. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/010244.html#ixzz1mTvdSOaL

drummer687 -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 12:45:35 PM)
While I'm not against "organic" food, I think there's some confusion regarding "organic" vs. "synthetic". Organic things (e.g. snake venom or poisonous plants) can be very "bad" for you too. And "organic" farming does use "synthetic" chemicals. I'd spend the money if I thought it was worth it but so far, I'm not sold. Here's a list of the synthetic compounds allowed in U.S. "organic" farming: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=f1312ca30770a8e585290633a1216a75&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7.354.2&idno=7 (a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems. (1) Alcohols. (i) Ethanol. (ii) Isopropanol. (2) Chlorine materials— Except, That, residual chlorine levels in the water shall not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (i) Calcium hypochlorite. (ii) Chlorine dioxide. (iii) Sodium hypochlorite. (3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent. (4) Hydrogen peroxide. (5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only. (6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material. (7) Soap-based algicide/demossers. (8) Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (CAS #–15630–89–4)—Federal law restricts the use of this substance in food crop production to approved food uses identified on the product label. (b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable. (1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops. (2) Mulches. (i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks. (ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)). (c) As compost feedstocks—Newspapers or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks. (d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of crop. (e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control). (1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil. (2) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #–1312–76–1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand. (3) Boric acid—structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops. (4) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent. (5) Elemental sulfur. (6) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide. (7) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils. (8) Soaps, insecticidal. (9) Sticky traps/barriers. (10) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922–74–7; 58064–47–4)—in accordance with approved labeling. (f) As insect management. Pheromones. (g) As rodenticides. (1) Sulfur dioxide—underground rodent control only (smoke bombs). (2) Vitamin D3. (h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045–86–0). (i) As plant disease control. (1) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #–1312–76–1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand. (2) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides. (3) Copper sulfate—Substance must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil. (4) Hydrated lime. (5) Hydrogen peroxide. (6) Lime sulfur. (7) Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils. (8) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria. (9) Potassium bicarbonate. (10) Elemental sulfur. (11) Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only. (12) Tetracycline, for fire blight control only and for use only until October 21, 2012. (j) As plant or soil amendments. (1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than hydrolyzed)—Extraction process is limited to the use of potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide; solvent amount used is limited to that amount necessary for extraction. (2) Elemental sulfur. (3) Humic acids—naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali extracts only. (4) Lignin sulfonate—chelating agent, dust suppressant, floatation agent. (5) Magnesium sulfate—allowed with a documented soil deficiency. (6) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing. (i) Soluble boron products. (ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt. (7) Liquid fish products—can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5. (8) Vitamins, B1, C, and E. (9) Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782–99–2) for on-farm generation of substance utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section. (k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene gas—for regulation of pineapple flowering. (l) As floating agents in postharvest handling. (1) Lignin sulfonate. (2) Sodium silicate—for tree fruit and fiber processing. (m) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances. (1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern. (2) EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity—for use only in passive pheromone dispensers. (n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen chloride (CAS # 7647–01–0)—for delinting cotton seed for planting. (o)–(z) [Reserved]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625