# GMO foods in Canada.



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

Here's 5 minutes of truth about GMO foods in Canada.
Let's not start on Suzuki, thats a whole other thread. (in politics forum)
Let's not be guinea pigs for this experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mBF1OOPdTo


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Long live GMO foods, let the ignorant people starve with David..........


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

allowing people to "opt out" will skew the data. not gonna happen


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I gotta go with Dave on this one. I think everything we eat ought to be labeled clearly. It is bad science when you go ahead without having a conclusion, and only money driving it. Another example of the wrong people having too much influence over what happens to everyone.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

We should maybe take all the gmo food off the market to make little David happy. Then what little food is left over can be purchased by only those who can afford it. Dont worry though, David can afford his, thats all the fuck this pompas ass cares about. People get to eat because of GMO, and thats the only fucking reason...........


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

They don't want to label anything, because it's in everything.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

sulphur said:


> They don't want to label anything, because it's in everything.


Who actually reads the labels and when they do who can understand them


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

that you have such difficulty understanding them is deliberate. ceretainly not a reason to decide against pushing for clarity.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

cheezyridr said:


> that you have such difficulty understanding them is deliberate. ceretainly not a reason to decide against pushing for clarity.


If the shit tastes good, I eat it


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Don't hide it in the list of ingredients, stick it proud on the front of the package for all to see.

If they're all as safe as they claim, state it on the product, what's the problem with that?
The problem, is that it would give the consumer a choice of NOT buying that product.


----------



## Bohdan (Jan 19, 2012)

Why the hell not agree with David??????????????????


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I love it when David get scoffed at when he speaks on climate change, 
because he isn't a climatologist, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Well, genetics _is_ his field, he might know something on the subject, this time.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

sulphur said:


> I love it when David get scoffed at when he speaks on climate change,
> because he isn't a climatologist, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
> .



im the last person to defend some climate change hippy. however, i would counter your argument by saying that i am not a bloodhound, but i can tell you that shit stinks. just cause he is no expert doesn't make him wrong. what makes him wrong is actually being wrong. _ if_ he is. * i* think he is. climate change smells too much like religion to me to be real. otoh, being a geneticist doesn't automatically make him right about that either.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

cheezyridr said:


> im the last person to defend some climate change hippy. however, i would counter your argument by saying that i am not a bloodhound, but i can tell you that shit stinks. just cause he is no expert doesn't make him wrong. what makes him wrong is actually being wrong. _ if_ he is. * i* think he is. climate change smells too much like religion to me to be real. otoh, being a geneticist doesn't automatically make him right about that either.


So what do you disagree with then?
GMOs are safe? How would you know?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

You have to remember that he was a in the field long before 90% of the existing science of genetics was developed. To him GMOs are like looking at an alien. The biggest emerging issue when he was a scientist was, is the earth really 5000 years old?..........


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Accept2 said:


> You have to remember that he was a in the field long before 90% of the existing science of genetics was developed. To him GMOs are like looking at an alien. The biggest emerging issue when he was a scientist was, is the earth really 5000 years old?..........


So what's your point? How long have you been a geneologist?

[video=youtube;07pSYJ2qDIY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07pSYJ2qDIY[/video]


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Asking for more research to get more definitive answers is not really a radical suggestion.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Jim DaddyO said:


> Asking for more research to get more definitive answers is not really a radical suggestion.


He said right in the video, its bad science. If he says that his whole argument is crap, get someone who is not biased and recognizes the science, then listen to what they have to say. He acts like the scientists behind all GMOs are Frankenstiens who arent scientists. He is closer to a non-scientist than they are. The biggest anti GMO guys on the planet are big pharma, and they have a reason to be scared of GMOs. Normal people do not because its not a threat to their bottom line, its the only thing keeping them from starving..............


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I don't have a problem with labelling. The question is whether what is on the label is_ informative_. If something says "May contain peanuts/shellfish/gluten, etc.", that's useful information for a lot of people who face *known* consequences of those food substances. Indicating that something is GMO doesn't really tell you anything. What it does do for a lot of people is scare. It's like a great big question mark at the top of the list of ingredients.

If there was something known to be different about a GMO ingredient, I'd have no problem with it being labelled on a product. After all, parts of what such labels are intended to do is allow the consumer to make safer and informed choices. "Hmmm, 780mg sodium vs 240mg sodium. I think I'll buy the second one." And eventually, we will know enough about GMO products for them to be that sort of choice. At the moment, too many feel about GMO the way they felt about radiation in the 1950's, after watching a couple of monster movies.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

[video=youtube;5epdNz4T_x0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5epdNz4T_x0[/video]


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

[video=youtube;M_ztZGbLEJ0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ztZGbLEJ0[/video]


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

From the source...

[video=youtube;jEX654gN3c4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEX654gN3c4[/video]


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

http://www.eatrightontario.ca/en/Ar...Understanding-Genetically-Modified-Foods.aspx

Cell phones and GMO have been in Canada an equal amount of time. The government has not found one on the market that will harm you, yet they warn against cell phones:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/prod/cell-eng.php

Yet how many anti GMO people have cell phones? Anti GMO is the yuppie cause of the day. Once the yuppie leaders find something that offends them more, they will keep the yuppie followers at Star Bucks against GMO without even understanding what it is. The ultimate goal of the cell phone is to convince you that you need it and move your money into the pocket of big business. The ultimate goal of GMOs is to feed the world and make genetically engineered foods that have all the nutrients you need so you dont need pills or vitamins. Really what do you think the scary scientists have to gain from killing you? If its so harmful why hasnt David "Grandpa Super Scientist of the Stone Age" Suzuki handed you a smoking gun proving they will kill you? I used to idolize this clown when I was a kid, but he is the past. A faded TV star. At least when Einstein got old, he acknowledged that he didnt understand the new science and went to hang out with Godel. Suzuki is starting to look more and more like the faded star in search of attention............


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

Whats known to be different is regular crops die from being sprayed with roundup, GMO crops are designed to withstand harsh herbicides(roundup) and pesticides. They aren't designing them to feed the poor, htey are designing them so the farmers need to buy their chemicals to spray the plants.
Its a pure money grab. And these products are in the foodchain, is it too much to ask that they be labeled correctly.

As much as I'd like to say I refuse to be a part of this "bad science" experiment we really have no choice not to be. Its in the grains, the corn, the soy, the feed for the pigs, cows, chickens ect. We are all guinea pigs for their massive "bad science" experiment. 

Pharma's just pissed off they need to do proper (expensive and lengthy) clinical trials to see how harmful their drugs are to humans over time. Seems GMO got the green light without due research (which would take time) to tell what the effects are over time. If the time has not passed how can you tell the effects over time? 

I was at someones house the other day doing a job, while tlaking with the guy he told me about how he was in Vietnam and they used Agent Orange to kill off vast amounts of jungle. He then told me about his recent cancer diagnosis and "how could they spray their own soldiers in chemicals" they had no idea would cause him to die at 60. I felt bad for the guy, he went voluntarily. We need to learn from our mistakes and be conscious of our actions today and how they will affect future generations to come. When food causes cancer instead of preventing it, we're doomed.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

If anyone thinks GMO crops aren't about making money then they are out to lunch... it's not altruistic motivations, it's about money and control but it sure sounds better to say it's being done to help starving people around the world.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

What I would like to know is why does it always come down to GMO's or starve? Defenders of GMO have used this argument to death, yet ironically death is where we will surely be headed if GMO food becomes our mainstay. We fed ourselves long before GMO's were around and we will continue to. The danger is in cross pollination of crops. If farmer A is growing GMO pig feed corn and across the road farmer B is growing peaches and cream corn they are bound to be pollinated by each other. Corn is wind pollinated not by insects so depending on which way the wind blows therfore pig feed benefits from some sweetness and peaches and cream contains genetically modified genes. We eat the pig, we eat the corn.
I would still eat the pig and the corn if there was no GMO's.

Monsanto has been suing (successfully in the US) farmers that dont use their seed/chemicals because their crops contains GMO genetics, which i guess they can prove to be theirs. The diversity in food is being killed off farm by farm and it is detrimental to the food chain. The contamination of crops by GMO crops is making it harder for people to even say their crop is GMO free.
[h=1]Top 20 Foods and Products that have been Genetically Modified[/h] The debate over labeling genetically modified organisms still continues in US while 27 different countries have banned GMOs and 50 countries across the globe have requited GMO labeling. The voters in California will make the final decision this November to label GMOs. Meanwhile customers should be aware of the food products that have already been genetically modified and aren’t properly labeled. 








Many independent studies and research performed by the concerned scientific community have warned the public about potential GMO harms and dangers. However due to lack of proper labeling, many foods could be genetically modified without your knowledge. Here are the top 20 foods that have been genetically modified: 
[h=2]1. Cotton Seeds[/h] Almost half of cottons grown in the world have been genetically modified to resist pests and pesticides. GMO BT cotton has had devastating results in Indian agriculture causing suicide of 250,000 Indian farmers in the last decade. Dr. Vandana Shiva in a study shows how GM cotton have lead to Indian farmers suicide and soil infertility by killing useful microorganisms in the soil.Also in March 2006, the shepherds of Warangal district reported the death of nearly 2,000 sheep after gazing on GMO cotton crops from sever inflammation and toxicity of intestine. Consumers should be aware that cottonseed oil are extracted from cotton plant seeds and is consumed by us in many foods. [h=2]2. Jatropha[/h] The seeds of Jatropha plant are like palm oil and can be used as biofuel. The extracted oil from the Jatropha seeds is a high source of protein and can be used for feeding livestock. However planting Jatropha seeds have caused destruction of the native plants and devastating results in agricultural practices in India.








[h=2]3. Rice[/h] Both Golden rice and flood resistant rice have now been genetically modified to contain high levels of vitamin A. However Daily China reported about the serious environmental and health issues such as increase in allergies related to GMO rice.[h=2]4. Soy:[/h] More than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the United States are genetically modified. GMO Soy compounds can block normal estrogen; disrupt endocrine function, cause infertility, increase the chances of allergies and breast cancer. Soy can also cause vitamin B12 deficiencies and interfere with protein digestion. GMO soy can be found in pastries, soy tofu, soybean oil, soy milk, soy flour, soy protein, soy lecithin, soy beverages and many famous infant formulas. In fact GMO rats that were fed GMO soy had higher rate of death and infertility.







[h=2]5. Sugar Beets:[/h] GMO sugar beets were engineered to grow faster and to be more resistant to weeds. However a federal judge put a halt on processing GMO sugar beets due to failure of USDA to present an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Many environmentalists and researchers are concerned that GMO sugar beets could have serious impacts on the environment and other crops.Despite the halt, earlier last year the USDA gave farmers permit to grow Roundup Ready pesticide resistant sugar beets. Now 85% of sugar beets planted in the US are all GMOs. [h=3]6. Yeast[/h] Although the wine institute released a statement that GMO yeast shouldn’t be used in making wines, genetically modified wine yeast, ML01 is out in the market. Genetically modified yeast has been related to increase in headaches and allergies. Make sure you contact the vineyard or the wine maker before purchasing the wine, if you want to make sure they aren't using GMO yeast. 









[h=2]7. Cassava[/h] Cassava is a starchy plant like potato that is consumed by many people across the globe like Africa. The first GMO cassava plant was engineered in 1955. Cassava was supposed to be virus and pest resistant but farmers reported that in few years the GMO cassava lose their anti-virus resistant quality. [h=2]8. Papaya and Banana[/h] Papaya was first genetically modified in Hawaii and introduced to the market in 1999. Genetically modified papayas aren’t approved in Europe however 50% of papayas that are from Hawaii are genetically modified. Also majority of bananas in the US are genetically modified. [h=2]9. Artificial additives, preservatives and sweeteners[/h] Many additives, preservatives and food flavoring are genetically modified. Aspartame in diet drinks is sure one of the products of genetic engineering.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

*10. Potatoes*

Genetically modified potatoes are a threat to other organic produce and their biodiversity. Studies showed that mice that were fed GMO potatoes had higher toxins in their blood. Here is the summary of GMO potatoes health risks: 

*11. Corn*

Most corns produced in America are genetically modified. Corn can be found is almost every processed foods in forms of high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, corn starch, corn oil and corn meal. Many food products such as many breakfast cereals, infant formula, salad dressing, bread, cereal, hamburgers, mayonnaise, veggie burgers, meat substitutes, soy cheese, tomato sauce, crackers, cookies, chocolate, candy, fried food, protein powder, baking powder, alcohol, vanilla, powdered sugar, peanut butter, ice cream, frozen yogurt, tofu, tamari, soy sauce, enriched flour and pasta have high levels of GMO corn. GMO corns have been related to infertility, tumors, and increase in food allergies. *12. Tomatoes*

GMO tomatoes are banned in Europe but many tomatoes have been genetically modified in US. Tomatoes are genetically modified to last longer and not get rotten quickly. GMO tomatoes have been related to premature death in lab rats. *GMO Tomatoes*








*
13. Squash*

Squash was genetically modified to become more resistant against viruses and bacteria. However the cucumber cockroaches love to feed on GMO squash and start wounding the leaves and leaving open holes in them. The cockroaches’ feces get absorbed into the stem of genetically modified squash and cause bacterial diseases. Some experts also believe that GMO squash have been blended into the wild plant and that might increase the chances of new pathogens and bacterial diseases. *
14. Oils*

Most vegetable oils used in production of processed foods are genetically modified. Cotton seed oil, corn oil and soy oil are mostly genetically modified and produced in US, India and China. Also most canola crops in Canada have also been genetically modified. Both GMO cottonseed oil, GMO canola oil (rapeseed oil) are genetically modified to be resistant to pesticides. Before genetic modification, canola oil or rapeseed oil was too bitter to be used in foods. However the best healthy oil for cooking is organic grapeseed oil and the best cold-pressed oil for salad dressing is olive oil. Be aware that cold pressed oils like olive or coconut shouldn’t be exposed to heat. 

*15. Animals that are fed GMO*

US, Brazil and Argentina are the three main exporters of GMO soybeans. Most cows, pigs and chickens maize on GMO corn and soy except the ones that are certified organic or grass fed. Also most dairy products in US are produced from animals that have been injected with rBGH growth hormones and antibiotics. rBGH growth hormones and antibiotics can increase the chances of breast and prostate cancer, allergies and make body more resistant to antibiotics.








*16. Salmon*

GMO salmon grows a lot faster than wild salmon and it grows twice as size. AquAdvantage is the GMO salmon that can be grown as farmed fish. Many environmentalists and scientists are worried that GMO salmon could have negative impact on the environment and mutate over time. Wild salmon is the is low- mercury salmon and best for consumption. 

*17. Peas*

Genetically modified peas are created by inserting kidney beans genes into the peas DNA and creating a protein that functions as a pesticide. Studies show that genetically modified peas can cause lower immune system in human beings. *18. Alfalfa*

Genetically modified alfalfa could be a serious threat to organic sustainable agriculture. Alfalfa has been found to be an amazing source of nitrogen for the soil and increasing fertility. However GMO alfalfas are treated with Monsanto’s Roundup ready that have been related to many health problems including a mysterious organism. Dr. Don Huber found a new mysterious organism in crops that were treated with Roundup. This new organism can cause disease in crops, increase infertility and potentially harm the US food supply. He wrote a letter to Tom Visak, the secretary of agriculture who was called the governor of the year by biotech companies, to put a halt on Roundup until further studies are performed but his letter was ignored and never replied. Despite many concerns by the scientific communities, the FDA and USDA approved genetically modified alfalfa. Approving genetically modified Alfalfa can increase the chance of cross-contamination since alfalfa is pollinated by insects. In few years the new gene can contaminate all the crops in America and that could be a serious threat to organic sustainable agriculture. 









*19. Pork*

A project called “Enviropig” has been going on in Canada since 1999 to genetically modify pigs by taking genes from mice and E.Coli bacteria and inserting it into pigs. However there are still concerns among the scientific community about the environmental impacts of GMO pigs and their safety for human consumption. 

*Major Canadian food processor says no to GM Enviropig*

*20. Honey*

The Canadian export of honey was banned to Europe after the honeybees in Canada were feeding off of GMO canola. In US 75% of honey you find in the grocery stores are made of high fructose corn syrup with no nutritional value. If you’re looking for non-GMO honey you should buy organic raw honey.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

If you've ever eaten anything that was "bred", then you've eaten GMO food. The entire history of agriculture is the genetic modification, via cross-breeding, of crop plants to produce something that had higher yields, was hardier under duress (whether to drought, pests, disease, temperature), required less maintenance, looked nicer on the store shelf, held up better in shipping, etc., etc. 

There are several differences between all of that and GMO.

1) The genes used to modify the functioning of the plant can be derived from unrelated species - resulting in the "frankenfood" epithet. People forget that such genes may exist in many places, but are derived from the first source where they are easily identifiable and obtainable. A gene is a gene is a gene.

2) The companies that put the money and time into targetted genetic modification have profit goals in mind, that include a sort of merchandising; namely, an assortment of exclusivity contracts that require a long-term commitment to that company's products, including specific non-seed products. Such arrangements make the worst cellphone contracts look generous by comparison. Even if one has no compunction about the consumption of GMO food itself, the large-scale investments, and lofty profit expectations, of such companies and their shareholders, tends to bring out the worst in them and their legal department. Any warning labels should be for the farmers, not the end-consumers.

3) ALL food-products should be tested and inspected for safety. If such testing finds no evidence of risk/hazard, then there should be no need for labelling unless it fall into the same category as other foodstuffs that have known effects on certain sub-populations, or pose health risks via their overconsumption. The real concern there, however, is not with labelling as much as with sufficient preliminary testing. If a GMO product developed to grow in northern Alberta or Saskatchewan right into November brings with it certain chemicals that warrant against its frequent consumption then that is something that should be identified before anyone invests too much money or too much health in it.
I'm unaware of where all of this falls within the various mandates of relevant departments and agencies, whether at the federal or provincial levels. In one sense, it is part of Health Canada's mandate, but it is also part of Agri-Culture and Agrifoods, the Canada Food Inspection Agency, and the Public Health Agency of Canada. I just hope it doesn't fall between the cracks. That desire would be true of ANY foodstuff that may have unknown health risks, whether GMO or not.


One of the paradoxes is that GMO foods are generally developed to overcome *known* challenges to yield. Climate change is posing ever-greater uncertainty in weather conditions, duration of growing season, etc. It may well end up that the development of some GMO crops is for naught, as the growing conditions typical to a given region where a crop is traditionally grown change radically, or in unpredictable ways.

Traditional breeding methods identify strains of a crop or animal that somehow withstand a catastrophic circumstance when other strains knuckle under. Following that strategy, farmers/developers "get lucky". Industrial chemical companies can't turn to such luck; they rely on having defined objectives - "we need a crop variant that does X". But if X turns out to be something you can't predict or anticipate, how do you develop?

In that sense, GMO crops would appear to be a strategy developed around the idea of: 1) stable climate, 2) growing population, 3) diminished availability of arable land, 4) acceptable transportation costs to get food from here to there. #2 and #3 are certainly in evidence, but I'm not so sure that #1 and #4 hold anymore.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

I can remember back in the 70's when a group of farmers tried to sue a neighbour who had agreed to plant GM grains and for years he had full thick viable crops and his neighbours didn't , so his crop yeild was at about 90% which he had never achieved on his own nor his neighbours. And several years after he started his neighbours noticed that their crops were coming in faster and better then ever before and they were starting to get much higher yields from the crops . So they had their grains tested and found them to be the same now as their neighbour. So they sued him and the company who made the seeds ( they lost ) as the courts ruled that he couldn't control the bee's and such that would help pollenate their crops.
Its kind of like buying organic foods that are suppose to be free of all the things that folks don't like, but when a crop duster does someone else's fields its got to blow somewhere else to and then lets not forget that pollution doesn't ever stay in one spot.
And I wonder sometimes if some of the climate changes might not be natural also, after all the world is ever changing and when you study weather you discover the weather is ever changing also and has never been stable in terms of being consistant in terms of heat rain or winds. It could be a combination of both man made and natural changes.ship
I don't bother to much with labels I eat to live and live to eat, but everyone else is right shit still smells like shit and probably tastes like shit


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

GMO would appear to be a strategy to get those companies infinitely richer from where im sitting. They may use all of the above points as an argument to why we should be subjected to their experiment but the truth of the matter is they are doing it for the money.

They are not generally developed to overcome yield but to withstand harsh chemical herbicides and pesticides designed by the companies selling GMO seed. 

Please do not confuse breeding for specific traits and genetically bio-engineering plants. 2 very different things.

Plant breeding keeps intact the diversity of the species while the other does not. They can breed to make specific traits show in all plants or make all female plants, seedless plants ect. 

Genetically fudging up of the genes to resist roundup pesticide cannot be achieved through a plant breeding program. 
Breeding for yield, drought tolerance, insect resistance, fungus resistance, taste, colour ect. can be done without genetically modifying the DNA and does not need testing to detmine its health impact.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm confident every farmer derives a sense of contentment from knowing that they are growing top-notch produce and feeding the world. But they are also trying to earn a living, and hate like hell to have a crop go south on them because of something that comes along....particularly if they have a heavy investment in the sort of machinery it takes to work that many acres. So you can rail on about harsh chemical herbicides all you want, but I'll wager that anyone growing on more than 3 acres is probably quite happy to find out about seed that is more resistant to this or that, and very few of them will be all that preoccupied with plant diversity, in comparison to the state of their books at the moment. That doesn't mean WE should be uncaring about it, or unconcerned about what is often used to produce higher yields, but companies like Monsanto don't have to hold anyone's children hostage to get them to view pest/disease-resistant seed varieties in a positive light, because ALL farmers would like to have higher yields, and whatever seems to promise that will capture their attenjtion. Maybe not hold it, but capture it for at least a little bit.

I have a lawn and yard that have a pesky weed that chokes off light for any grass growing under it. I hate that weed. Because my yard is not huge (a 100 x 60 foot lot), I go down on my hands and knees and pull those suckers out by the roots, individually, and decline to use chemicals. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if my lot were 3x the size it is, I'd be pondering chemicals, simply because I'd have to give up my job to pull weeds full time. DO NOT mistake the motivation of individuals like myself or yourself, with the motivation of farmers who are trying to run a business, and fill all those orders for what eventually turns into frozen corn or peas, or canola oil. That doesn't make what they are doing "right", but it does mean that the industries producing GMO seed have a VERY willing audience.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

Its putting wealth before health without knowing the consequences of those actions. 

Agent orange was a herbicide used before knowing what the implications of its use would be.

Farmers have crop insurance for ruined crops due to floods, droughts ect. And as I've said they aren't growing the crops for higher yeilds but explicitly for the use of chemical herbicides provided by the seed producer. When farmers start seeing through the BS Monsanto flies in front of their face (and some of them have) and start seeing the destruction of the soil and that nothing else will grow there because the soil is dead, they will start rethinking this but by then it will be too late. probably already is.


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

I don't really know what you're talking about concerning destruction of the soil, and I'd venture to say you don't either. As someone who grew up on a farm and was involved with agriculture most of my life I find the comments of what is mostly an urban crowd here, uninformed to say the least. I speak from the perspective of a western Canadian dryland operator who has seen a tremendous increase in value for producers through the use of Glyphosate-resistant canola. Glyphosate is pretty mundane as far as herbicides go and I'd much sooner see my food sprayed with it than the extremely toxic chemicals it has displaced. Again my comments only concern this crop and this herbicide. It ain't all bad.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

To be honest Moosehead the only soil I have seen that was damaged beyond any usage was caused from greenhouses ( don't remember ever hearing about agent orange being used in Canada ), as they sit on land that was farmable prior afterwards most of the land has been rendered useless and as for insurance well honestly most farmers I know can not afford that kind of insurance anymore and a lot of them had no choice but to let those policies lapse. With the high cost of fuel and everything else ( farm equipment is not cheap ) its getting harder for farmers to make any kind of living, so fopr me I am all in favor of them doing what it neccesary for them to make a go of it.ship


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

Look through the comments I've made in this thread, I'd say they are pretty informed. 
Im speaking from the point of view of a consumer and gardener (my organic vegetable garden looks awesome this year) and what we are arguing for is clear labeling of GMO's in food products. Not that much to ask.

Roundup kills plantlife, residual and runoff contaminate the soil rendering it useless for crops that aren't immune to the effects of roundup.
Notice I havn't used Glyphosate at all in this thread. Its not all bad but we dont have the choice good or bad, its hidden in the foods we eat, meat and vegetables. They dont want to label it because of the massive overhaul it would take to find out everything it has contaminated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U0pdIGdpuA

Dont worry they'll keep a watchful eye on the health effects on guinea pigs ( i mean canadians).


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

*Monsanto Food Wars: GMO Seeds and Animals*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TTWwOWvPzA


@28:25 From the mouth of a farmer

http://youtu.be/5TTWwOWvPzA?t=28m25s


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

nkjanssen said:


> Accept2 said:
> 
> 
> > Long live GMO foods, let the ignorant people starve with David..........
> ...



^ THIS!!

I agree 100%. Let me choose whether or not to feed my children GMO produced foods. Isn't it everyone's right as consumers to know what they're ingesting?

As an aside it wasn't that long ago that we were told "More Doctors Smoke Camels than any other Cigarette" and anyone who tried to connect cigarette smoking to cancer was a crazy conspiracy theorist.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Yeah, lets at least do the label thing. Let public opinion and consumerism hash it out. It is the least that could be done to start.

The only authority on genetics that is speaking out and not being paid by GMO makers is David Suzuki. I would say that this makes him the independent authority on the subject. He does not get paid to say either pro or con, he has the credentials, he is as close as we have to an unbiased expert opinion. Now if anyone else has better qualifications or education and does not have a horse in the race, I will listen. I would not take the word of the scientists who are working for the manufacturers, kind of a conflict of interest for them to be all gung-ho about their little monsters.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

[h=1]What are Roundup Ready & Bt Pesticide GMO crops? 
You need to know![/h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hjy-CJlzbM


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

Moosehead, Roundup is effectively neutralized when it contacts soil. Spraying Roundup with dirty water results in zero weed control. Yes, sorry, you are indeed misinformed.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I don't think that I have to be raised on a farm up to my knees in cow shit to know a thing or two about what's going on.

Jack the prices of your "modified" seeds, that you'll have to buy again the next season.
These are only available with gobs of pesticides, that are losing their ability to fend off weeds that are becoming more resillient.
-Control the foodchain and you control the masses-

This is all about the benjamins, not feeding the world.

I have a feeling that it'd be easier to label what products are _*not*_ GMOs.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

GMOs have been consumed by Canadians for 20 years, Roundup has been used for 40 years. Where is the increases in cancers, deformities, and other shit? It aint there. All I see are people wearing tin foil hats convinced that everyone is out to get them................


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

In Canada, they stopped doing any studies on the affects, because it was too hard.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Monsanto only tested for three months, I wonder why?

[video=youtube;Njd0RugGjAg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njd0RugGjAg[/video]


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

BTW, here is a disclaimer....it you walk out to my shed you will find round up. I have had the same spray bottle for 4 years and use it once or twice a year to spray directly on the poison ivy around the edges of the yard. I'm starting to see giant hog weed across the river too, so it will get sprayed if it gets close.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

WCGill said:


> Moosehead, Roundup is effectively neutralized when it contacts soil. Spraying Roundup with dirty water results in zero weed control. Yes, sorry, you are indeed misinformed.


I stand corrected, my bad. Roundup is however made for killing plants, not for growing them.

http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907

http://www.globalresearch.ca/geneti...d-the-impacts-of-glyphosate-herbicide/5337096

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

http://planetsave.com/2012/10/04/gm...bicide-use-thanks-to-super-weeds-study-finds/

Plants have been here longer than we have and will grow on once we are gone. They adapt faster than we can and learn to tolerate thresholds of their environment. 

Cancer rates are on the rise but we continue to search for the causes. Sometimes it takes time to establish the link but by then its too late, they've made thier billions, folks that ate their food over the course of a few decades have cancer but how can they trace it back? They once thought cigarettes were safe too.

Im all for finding out the facts and the truth. All I see are lies, deception and greed.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Sorry the facts say otherwise...........
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/0...ocietys-latest-report-a-statistical-snapshot/


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

Really? what facts were you reading?

Here are some of the report’s key numbers:



173,800 new cancer cases estimated for this year, up 2,800 from last year
76,200 deaths from cancer, up 900

They noticed a decline in lung cancer from people stopping smoking but the numbers are up from last year (2010 report).


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

Monsanto GMO FOOD Alarm from inside scientists SCIENTIST CONSTRAINED
http://youtu.be/XOINXMp_VjQ

See also: Professor Don Huber: Messing with Nature, The Perverse Effects of GMO's 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnMpMr...
Don Huber, Agricultural Scientist and Expert in Microbial Ecology

See also : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onw72S...
Arpad Pusztai - Blowing the Whistle, He Knew the Truth About GMO's Years Ago
Audio only:
http://oneradionetwork.com/health/fro...

Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D., received his degree in Chemistry in Budapest, Hungary and his B.Sc. in Physiology and Ph.D. in Biochemistry at the University of London in England.

THE LANCET
Health risks of genetically modified foods
Stanley WB Ewen a, Arpad Pusztai b

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...

Health risks of genetically modified foods
Stanley WB Ewen a, Arpad Pusztai b
Sir—Your May 29 editorial1 about the health risks of genetically modified (GM) food was apposite and addresses some of the important medical issues vigorously. It beggars belief that "badly designed, poorly carried out, inaccurately interpreted experiments" could have perpetuated such profound public debate for almost a year.

Regrettably, among the correspondents who responded to the editorial, Peter Lachman (July 3, p 69)2 accused you of factual inaccuracy, and it seems pertinent to remind him of the actual sequence of events. The Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI) did not initiate a study into GM potatoes. The research proposal for this "entirely sensible study" was, in fact, initiated by Susan Bardocz and Arpad Pusztai, written and submitted from the Rowett with the help of SCRI and Durham University scientists and coordinated by Pusztai.

Your editorial correctly notes that not all the facts were in the possession of the Royal Society. Thus, it is difficult to understand how they could deduce that the GM-potato experiments were "badly designed and poorly carried out" from an internal report by Pusztai that contained no such details. The Royal Society had never considered, or even asked for, a copy of the original research proposal of 1995. This omission was further compounded by the Royal Society's unwillingness to take up Pusztai's offer of full cooperation. Moreover, as crucial details of the histological findings were never divulged to them, it is more than perplexing that the Royal Society's unnamed experts were so emphatic in their condemnation of the GM-potato experiments.

The unsolicited report of the Royal Society, produced by clandestine "peer review", is deprecable, because many influential committees are redolent with advisers linked to biotechnology companies. The commercial prevarication that impedes scientific debate is well illustrated by the experience of Eric Brunner and Erik Millstone3 and we strongly commend their support for openness in the regulatory process for new foods.
After the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) and various biotechnology companies' exhaustive safety studies, only one publication on feeding GM soya to animals has been published up to the beginning of 1999.4 Lachmann claims that "there is no experimental evidence or any plausible mechanism by which the process of genetic modification can make plants hazardous to human beings", although it now seems that the FDA has overriden its own safety experts. It would be helpful if such authoritative opinions were supported by published results of biological, nutritional, and immunological testing with mammals before introduction into the human diet.

Scant attention has been given to people with abnormal digestion as a result of chronic gastrointestinal disease. The widespread mucosal accessibility to food viral DNA, a hot spot of DNA recombination, could allow unexpected enhancement of intercurrent viral infection. Similarly, in countries where HIV-1 infection is endemic, the assumption that a viral component of GM food is harmless maybe misplaced.

Few would question the well meaning sentiments of your correspondents but other equally valid opinions do not agree with the view that the GM route is the only salvation for mankind. We hope that your correspondents are correct about the health prospects of the millions of Americans and Chinese who have been consuming untested but assuredly "safe" GM food for years. In the UK, nobody can be completely certain whether or not they have consumed GM foods and overseas consumers cannot be declared unaffected until chronic symptoms are identified, collated, and published.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Moosehead said:


> Cancer rates are on the rise but we continue to search for the causes. Sometimes it takes time to establish the link but by then its too late, they've made thier billions, folks that ate their food over the course of a few decades have cancer but how can they trace it back? They once thought cigarettes were safe too.
> 
> Im all for finding out the facts and the truth. All I see are lies, deception and greed.


Sometimes Cancer is just part of ones genes and sometimes its part of the enviroment and with so many more people occupying this planet we may never know why certain things happen but to say all you see is lies, deception and greed. 
How does one respond to something like that and then it comes down to a solution deosn't it at the end of the day and all I have seen are people freaking out and saying we are coming to the end of the world, well then how do we feed 7 billion people and stop the destruction of animals and plants and still keep all of these folks alive and working. Where does the balance begin and where does it end. One can spend days researching the intermnet for wonderful facts and fictions but what is the truth and who decides what the truth is and how was the research conducted and who produced the reasearch and authenticated it and proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the work was done without any bias.
We have seen to many folks manipulate numbers and facts to sway to one side or the other so how do we as ordinary folks decide which side is right or wrong.

And to me the facts say only one thing that is imporatant at this moment and time there are pests out there that we cannot control be it bugs weeds or what ever and that we have 7 billion people that need food and we know that we cannnot by conventional means grow enough food do the whatever reason, so are we going to let you decide or any other member here decide as to who can eat tonite and who can't. 
As I see it there are no easy answers but one must do what one can with what we have today, I know I couldn't stomach the idea of telling a poor child somewhere you can't eat that corn because it is a GM food, now ask yourself could you.ship


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Cancer rates will continue to rise as other sources of morbidity and mortality are eliminated. The factor people tend to forget is that you have to die of *something*. So, whenever disease or chronic risk-factor X is reduced or eliminated, that nudges up the rate for other sources of morbidity/mortality, because people will not die of whatever it was that was eliminated, and live long enough to die of something else. If everybody did everything required to avoid heart disease (the #1 source of morbidity/mortality in western industrialized society), cancer rates would skyrocket.

That is NOT a call to throw one's hands up in the air and give up, or shrug off cancer, but it _does_ make it very difficult to detect *when the incidence of any given health risk or source of morbidity/mortality is increasing in a conspicuous manner*. I am confident that there are many places in the developing world where the primary source of morbidity/mortality is either insect-borne disease, malnutrition, or respiratory diseases. Get rid of the bugs, give them decent food and potable water, and keep the air clean, and just watch the cardiovascular deaths and cancer rates go through the roof. Would those increases be cause for alarm....or merely exactly what you'd expect after eliminating those other sources of mortality?

From a statistical perspective, it is an instance of "sampling without replacement". Pick a card from the deck, and keep that card out. If it's black, the odds of the next card being red go up because you have not put that black card back in the deck. Develop a vaccine or drug for a disease, and it is akin to pulling a card out of the deck, changing the odds of what else people will get sick and die from.

Case in point. If you live long enough, your risk of Alzheimer's Disease becomes huge. The incidence of AD would decline considerably if more people died from other things by the time they were 60....like they used to do in the good old days.

here's a good way to stay on top of things: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

My dog, Leo, was attacked by a pair of genetically modified killer bananas.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

My dog got into a can of GMO and the next morning when I got up she had dressed herself and starting playing Welcome to the Jungle on a genetically modified miniature Les Paul


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Now now, some of us may disagree with Moosehead, Sulphur, and others, on the topic, but they hold their beliefs sincerely, and I respect that. Nuthin' wrong with a little caution on serious matters. Just important not to go overboard.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

mhammer said:


> Now now, some of us may disagree with Moosehead, Sulphur, and others, on the topic, but they hold their beliefs sincerely, and I respect that. Nuthin' wrong with a little caution on serious matters. Just important not to go overboard.


Disagree with me. No problem. But when you disagree with the scientists, some of whom work(ed) for Monsanto then show me something that proves them wrong. 

3 minutes of video for your viewing pleasure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOINXMp_VjQ

Yes, i already posted but it obviously didnt get seen.

@2.20 - scientist - "they should not be using human beings as guinea pigs"


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I guess I was wrong. There are other scientists besides Suzuki that are speaking out against GMO. Many of them, it seems, would be making money being pro GMO, or at least, saying nothing. Some have been fired and "blackballed" for just making the suggestion "be careful". When the companies own scientist say there is no advantage to the product, that says a lot!


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2FyONXh22M

Yup ex employee videos are fun..........


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Jim DaddyO said:


> I guess I was wrong. There are other scientists besides Suzuki that are speaking out against GMO. Many of them, it seems, would be making money being pro GMO, or at least, saying nothing. Some have been fired and "blackballed" for just making the suggestion "be careful". When the companies own scientist say there is no advantage to the product, that says a lot!


And there lies the rub because there is money to be made from the other side also, so what do they do but spend time trying to prove each others side as being wrong for the world instead of making the thing right for the world by making it safe if it isn't. 
So if they shouldn't be using humans, what should they be doing then. How would Jonas Salk have proven that the Salk Vaccine was good to go and lets not forget Pennecilin could you imagine a world with out it now.
What I object to is a bunch of scientists spending millions upon millions to prove that GMO is bad for the world, how about making sure the GMO is good for the world instead of fighting the other side work on it so that it has benefits instead of what they are doing now. David is not going hungry tonite but some kids will not be eating what he is eating tonite.
The other rub is all of this doom and gloom I am pretty sure we don't need a bunch of video's available all over the net to tell us just how bad the state of the world is and I am sorry but digging up a bunch of u-tube video's is not really going to convince me otherwise and I will always disagree with scientists as I have to balance in my own mind the rights and wrongs of this world and not leave it to somebody else to make that decision for me.ship


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

As always, very well written! Thanks for explaining this in such an easily understandable way. 
My wife (a psychologist also...and someone who "enjoys" the mathematical science of statistics) often enjoys reading your posts (I call her to the computer and say "Mark has written another cool post"). 

Cheers

Dave



mhammer said:


> Cancer rates will continue to rise as other sources of morbidity and mortality are eliminated. The factor people tend to forget is that you have to die of *something*. So, whenever disease or chronic risk-factor X is reduced or eliminated, that nudges up the rate for other sources of morbidity/mortality, because people will not die of whatever it was that was eliminated, and live long enough to die of something else. If everybody did everything required to avoid heart disease (the #1 source of morbidity/mortality in western industrialized society), cancer rates would skyrocket.
> 
> That is NOT a call to throw one's hands up in the air and give up, or shrug off cancer, but it _does_ make it very difficult to detect *when the incidence of any given health risk or source of morbidity/mortality is increasing in a conspicuous manner*. I am confident that there are many places in the developing world where the primary source of morbidity/mortality is either insect-borne disease, malnutrition, or respiratory diseases. Get rid of the bugs, give them decent food and potable water, and keep the air clean, and just watch the cardiovascular deaths and cancer rates go through the roof. Would those increases be cause for alarm....or merely exactly what you'd expect after eliminating those other sources of mortality?
> 
> ...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks, Dave. Much appreciated.

If she hasn't read it already, buy her a copy of Dan Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". She'll appreciate you for it. It's a well-written nice stroll through just about everything we know about human decision-making and applied cognition, and spends considerable time addressing why people usually don't think like statisticians. Chock full of good reasons why Kahnemann shared the Nobel with his research partner.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

mhammer said:


> Thanks, Dave. Much appreciated.
> 
> If she hasn't read it already, buy her a copy of Dan Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". She'll appreciate you for it. It's a well-written nice stroll through just about everything we know about human decision-making and applied cognition, and spends considerable time addressing why people usually don't think like statisticians. Chock full of good reasons why Kahnemann shared the Nobel with his research partner.


Gotta agree with the kudos on your writing (again). I should get that book too, would probably explain why I buy lottery tickets too...lol


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

+1 on the writing Mark, I dont always agree with the substance but it is well written.

PS. My wife's also a Psychologist


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Timely article for this thread:
http://www.nooga.com/162293/the-farm-stand-understanding-what-gmo-means/

Cheers

Dave


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

greco said:


> Timely article for this thread:
> http://www.nooga.com/162293/the-farm-stand-understanding-what-gmo-means/
> 
> Cheers
> ...


A decent read, though it kind of peters out. Although the bigger agricultural picture is laid out nicely at the outset, the connection between labelling GMO foods and other matters of public policy is not really clearly spelled out. My sense is that the writer wants such food to be labelled so that pubic pressure might be applied to providers of such food to abandon their "bought/forced allegiance" to monoculture crop production. The argument is a bit like insisting that all clothing produced in factories that employ legal minors should be labelled "Uses child labour".

It's not that I am either blasé about child labour or the generally counter-productive aspects of trying to force agricultural production by any means possible. But it's not clear that labelling is the answer, particularly when the concept of GMO and recombinant DNA is not well-understood by a great many. To me, it's a bit like labelling food "May contain allergens". Um, what kind? How many? What levels? Or "This clothing produced by exploited workers". How exploited? Exploited in what way? Beaten? Underpaid? No over-time pay? Exploited in comparison to what standard?

One ought not to simply shrug and turn a blind eye to anything that detracts from the public interest and moving the world forward (and I do not view technological "progress" as _necessarily_ equivalent to moving the world forward), but public policy intended to shape both consumer and industrial behaviour should be more specific and targetted than showing up in the living room 3 hours later and yelling "BAD dog!" at your pet for underspecified acts.

Look at it this way. Suppose there was a crop that facilitated the proliferation of an insect that carried a disease afflicting many, and a GM version of that crop was developed that inhibitted that insect from multiplying, perhaps by deterring the laying of eggs over a wider area such that any needed spraying to kill the insect (and control the disease) could be confined to a MUCH smaller area. The spraying is going to happen anyway, because nobody wants to either get the disease, or cover the cost of publicly treating so many cases of the disease, so less spraying is a good thing. How would one label such food?

This is not at all to dismiss ANY labelling with a wave of the hand, but to illustrate that GM is not uniformly "bad" or worthy of contempt. The article Dave linked to lays out an argument that the business practices of the purveyors of GMO can be worthy of contempt, or at least serious skepticism. But whose behaviour is shaped by labelling, and who feels the impact of labelling most directly?


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Look at it this way. Suppose there was a crop that facilitated the proliferation of an insect that carried a disease afflicting many, and a GM version of that crop was developed that inhibitted that insect from multiplying, perhaps by deterring the laying of eggs over a wider area such that any needed spraying to kill the insect (and control the disease) could be confined to a MUCH smaller area. The spraying is going to happen anyway, because nobody wants to either get the disease, or cover the cost of publicly treating so many cases of the disease, so less spraying is a good thing. How would one label such food?
> 
> This is not at all to dismiss ANY labelling with a wave of the hand, but to illustrate that GM is not uniformly "bad" or worthy of contempt.


And this is almosr exactly what I have been trying to say for all the bad there has to be good, like with everything there has to be a balance. I have no idea if GMO food is going to kill us but what about the people its going to save and there is never going to be a good or decent way of labeling foods so that one can say thatits completely FREE of ANY genetic manipulation hell that can happen even naturally. Its a balkancing act that we must find and I say this because the winds blow where they may and that so called oraganic foods and grains could have been contaminated with GMO pollen 20-40 years ago and maybe we will get into the same scenario as with what happened with the killer bees in trying to control something. But lets face it at the end of the day each farmer is in a bussiness that needs to generate monies to go from this year to next and if he can reduce his costs by using GMO grains and seeds, well what are you going to do grow your own.
We live in a world that is spninning faster then we can control things and for me its more about picking the right battles that has the least amount of bad impact on us as a whole, the needs of a few who don't like it nor understand it can be scary but so is dismissing it outright.ship


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Maybe.

A lot of what happens as a result of labelling depends on the knowledge and expectations of those who read the labels. For example, take the case of PKU ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria ). Once upon a time, this metabolic deficiency was an express lane to severe developmental delay and lifelong handicap. Once we learned enough about it, we learned that eliminating phenylalanine from the diet of persons with the genes for PKU (it is an inheritted condition) resolved a lot of the problem. Nowadays, we either keep it out of food, or else label the food as containing it. People at risk for PKU simply read the label, and know to avoid it. Bing, bang,boom - a major source of mental retardation eliminated by food labelling.

What's important is that the labelling is perceived as a specific risk factor for a specific problem by those for whom the problem is relevant. For everybody else, it's just more "stuff" on the label, and ignored. Same thing for foods containing gelatin (off limits for observant Muslims and Jews, since it is largely made from pig bones). Folks for whom it isn't relevant, either don't look at the label, or read it, go "Meh", and chuck it in the shopping cart.

I'm not so sure GMO labelling falls into the same category as phenylalanine or gelatin labelling at this point in time, primarily because it confounds a number of different issues:
1) the specific risk incurred by chronic ingestion of THAT product generated via GMO
2) the business practices of the companies that develop GMO,
3) the perceived weirdness or unnaturalness of recombinant DNA,
4) the consequences of GMO development, and monoculture agriculture, for farmers and smaller-scale farming,
5) the global consequences of monoculture crop production for biodiversity,
6) exploitatioon of farmers in developing nations.

All of those are things to be concerned about, but lumping them all together under one generic kind of label just ends up creating a boogeyman that some folks get terrified of when they shouldn't, or ignore when they shouldn't. That said, much like labelling of food to address specific concerns, there may come a point when specific sorts of labelling to address specific sorts of concerns - the way that fair trade labels do now - may provide a social backdrop that makes GMO labelling a more effective tool to accomplish something good than it would likely do now.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

It has yet to be shown that GMO foods have any advantage. Crop yields are the same, the amount of soil prep is the same, and if you are planting round up ready soy beans, then all those round up ready corn plants are weeds that have to be removed by hand. So it may be a disadvantage. It has also been shown that GMO seeds are not the property of the farmer to harvest and must be bought at a higher premium. Even if the farmer grew generic plants and they got cross pollinated on the breeze by a GMO plant, he can not harvest and use the seed without fear of being sued. It seems a slippery slope of increasingly shelling out bigger and bigger dollars to companies who are trying to monopolize the food chain.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Who says that there is a lower cost to the farmer?
Who are these people that these GMOs are supposed to be feeding, that aren't eating now?

This isn't a matter of producing more to feed the hungry, so drop that argument.
It's a matter of battling the ever increasing resistant weeds to their poisons.

I don't eat clothing made in a third world country either,
besides, they ARE labelled as to where they were assembled.
That then is up to the customer to decide whether to buy those clothes, or not.

That again brings us back to labelling on the foods that contain GMOs.
If it's safe, put it on the label and be done with it, what's the problem?
China requires labelling of GMO foods, ffs!

Linking youtube vids are not to your liking?
What do you want, a hand written letter? You're on a computer, aren't you?
Maybe you should watch some of them, you may learn something.

Isn't there a difference in cross-breeding plants, a seemingly natural way,
than jamming some foreign material into the genes of plants in a petri-dish?
Not to mention Monsantos business practices, that alone should show you how ruthless they are.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

I just read that Fender is no longer going to print the country of manufacture on all their lines. MIA or MIM? We won't know.

Can you imagine the uproar here if that happened?!


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Here's a good documentary from the 90's about farmers and Monsanto...

[video=youtube;omtYlsG1P5U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omtYlsG1P5U[/video]


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...western-canada-over-10-years/article12770029/

http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/facts.shtml


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

*Another good documentary*

[video=youtube;eUd9rRSLY4A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A[/video]


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Oh ya, did you know that the latest heads of the FDA in the US is a former Monsanto executive?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/21/former-monsanto-exec-appointed-to-the-head-of-the-f-d-a/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

The World According to Monsanto...

[video=youtube;N6_DbVdVo-k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=N6_DbVdVo-k[/video]


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Why would I need to watch them after all I have the great Sulpher to teach me ( sorry but if you feel the need to chastize what I believe and then tell me to look over old video's well what did you think I would say ). You obviously have the time to watch all of the video's good for you. I choose to believe what I want and your posting more video's is fantastic for you and those that believe like you do. I DO NOT which is my right to choose or not to choose what he says to be the gospel truths.
You seem to think that if you shout long and hard enough its going to change my views and yes they are MY VIEWS, not based on old video's on todays subjects but you do no get to tell me how to believe, sorry thats mine and my wifes perogative. I am just going to ignore your snide comments towards me and keep thinking the way I want to and you keep thinking the way you want to and I will keep saying what I want to say.thanking you in advance. Ship of Fools


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

Ship this is not about beliefs. Its about what is in our food. Finding out the facts and educating ourselves to make an informed decision.
Nobody can tell you what to believe but if you can believe you can fly, it does not make it so. 
And you should be told so before you swan dive off a building.

You can believe these GMO foods are good for you and your family, it will not protect you from eating those foods.
I prefer not to turn a blind eye and let the scientific facts paint the picture. Many of which you wont know about without doing some fact finding.
I agree with your statement a page back that there are scientist on both sides telling different sides of the story. Who would you believe, the company that is financially motivated or independent scientists who would not be waving red flags if there was no reason to.

Suzuki has his haters but that should in no way discount him speaking out about his field of expertise.

I try not to post hour long utube clips because I know most people wont watch them. Please do take some time to educate yourself on the matter. 
Watch a video or read an article. 

Gospel truth huh, oxymoron of the day lol.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Moose it appreciate your thoughtsw on the subject I guess I was a little choked that he was telling me to become better informed as fpor Dadid S. well I appreciate his knowledge and his works in many fields, but I believe there needs to be a balance on all things. And trust me I do not think there are not inherent risks to GMO foods I just think that we must not rely on old views and with what is videoed to the internet. And posting many video's well that doesn't prove a point either way but I also think that there is money made in both fields of trying to prove that its not harmful and that it is harmful and there is research that says both ways are true. 
So its not that I turn a blind eye to it, but that I belief there are valid points to both agruments and that we need to study both arguements without telling the other that they do not know what they are talking about ( and not referring to you ). I have my education and I feel I can judge things equally without closing the door before I find enough information to make a rational judgement on a subject. So in a sense it really is about which side you belief, and I know when there is money involved there is always going to be opposite sides because they both make money to research and prove the opposite is true in any arguement or any research.
So I guess what I am saying is that everyone is making money instead of telling us the complete truths, don't know nor will we ever know the gospel truth of anything without being in the field itself.ship


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

They used to say "an apple a day will keep the doctor away" so we all started eating apples to keep healthy. Did it keep the doctor away? Yes it did. . . They stopped making house calls.

If they developed an apple that cured Cancer, that would be great for the people that have Cancer. If I didn't have Cancer and the apples weren't labelled, how would I know which apples to buy?
The only way I can think of is "just buy the apples that don't cost $100 each". Yes, that would work but labeling them so I could make an informed decision may be a better option.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

"Why would I need to watch them after all I have the great Sulpher to teach me"

Snide remarks? You seem to have your fair share of them. 
Keep your head in the sand. 

They're documentaries directly on the subject, showing the practices of the company you seem to be defending.
They're not someone "opinion", they're facts. Do a little research.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

This would be to easy to start back and forth but I won't get pulled into that direction.
On the pro-GMO side, we're reminded that there are still 800 million people starving, including 146 million children under five years of age, according to United Nations Food and Agriculture figures.
Golden Rice 2, the first transgenic crop developed especially for food-insecure regions, has been designed to combat vitamin A deficiency and increase the amount of beta-carotene by 20 times.
A recent study article in Scientific American pointed out it's not a magic bullet, but: "It could be a cost-effective supplement to other strategies."

This is the kind of stuff I am talking about and why its necessary to not just discount it, and ever go out for a burger, eat process foods at home, what about french fries from Mcdonalds that Canola oil is GMO I'm not some idiot that just stepped off the banana boat. And I even appreciate the fact that people care about these kind of things but not to much for a person telling me that U need to go out and educate myself and labelling well at the end of the day from all I know it would be better to try and tell you what foods aren't rather then are.
And then there was the cost factorn someone mentioned.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The source of the data was the 1998 Costs and Returns survey conducted by the Iowa Agricultural Statistics Service.� The survey used personal interviews with farmers to determine the extent and nature of their crop production practices in 1998.� The Iowa State Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture funded an expansion of the survey in Iowa to increase the reliability of the estimates.� There were 377 randomly selected corn fields and 365 soybean fields covered in the survey.[/FONT]
[h=2][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genetically modified soybeans[/FONT][/h][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In 1998 just over 40 percent of Iowa soybean acres were planted with GMO soybeans.� The farmers were asked why they planted GMO soybeans.� As shown in Table 1, increased yields through improved pest control was listed most often followed by decreased pesticides costs.� [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Table 1.� Why did you plant GMO soybeans?*[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Reason*[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Percent*[/FONT]​[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Increase yields through improved pest control[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]53%[/FONT]​[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Decrease pesticide costs[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]27[/FONT]​[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Increase planting flexibility[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]12[/FONT]​[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Other reason[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Farmers using GMO soybeans made an average of one pre-plant tillage trips across the field.� Those using non-GMO soybeans made an average of 1.45 trips.� [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The use of no-till or drilled soybeans was also higher for those using GMO�s.� A third of those using GMO soybeans used no-till and 39 percent used drilled soybeans.� For the non-GMO soybean farmers only 13 percent used no-till and 17 percent used drilled soybeans
And from what I understand the yeilds are much higher and the cost to produce is a lot lower to the lower needs for pesticides and other treatments needed prior, is it a perfect thing no but you can't just discount it because you are afriad of what it might do. Oh by the way sitting in front of a computer screen or TV well I can remember when they talked about radiation from those things use a cell phone, cancer of the brain. One has to agree being informed is always good but there are always going to be two sides to any pancake and right or wrong. and I have just about covered all I can on the subject and will now let you tell me some more, oh wait can't see it so don't bother.ship[/FONT]


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Dont waste your time, the yuppie causes turn into religious crusades, and why argue religion? If someone truely believes something, just let them believe...........


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

I've got to say that you all have had great points. I've followed this thread since it started (less the videos - I get the gist and have seen stuff on Monsanto in the past). I wasn't sure how to contribute. 

mhammer has continually nailed the issue of labeling GMOs on the head. The Only reason I would want to see it on labels is out of curiosity, but I agree that at this stage, it doesn't make too much sense. 

Ship, I totally understand where you're coming from - despite your keyboard's missing periods and commas  

After reading posts up to this point, I realize:

I simply don't care about GMOs, since I don't see the direct affects it has on me and my family. I just don't. I truly never thought about it much. 

I think I'm comforted knowing that for every potential issue a GMO could present to our health, there's 10 companies working on a pill to counter that issue (with the potential side effects of headache, nausea, and diarrhea, of course)

So, to sum up I'm okay with what's going on, since there's no immediate cause/negative effect. This probably isn't good, but I believe we all live much longer than we're supposed to anyway, so f it. 

For those who care, Leo is doing much better, but his meds have him shitting all over the house. Goddam GM bananas.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

In one of those documentaries, it states that we already farm enugh food for 11 billion people.
Access and excess are the factors to why most go hungry.

You seemed to have omitted a tidbit of info from that survey - 

"In 1998, GMO soybeans averaged 49.3 bushels per acre. 
The non-GMO soybeans averaged 51.2 bushels per acre. 
Thus, on average, the non-GMO soybeans yielded 1.9 bushels more per acre than the GMO varieties."

http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/1999/10-11-1999/gmosoybeans.html

Here's a rebuttal to your GMO soy beans...

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/nov08/non-gmo_soybeans_high_yields_lower_costs.php

So ship, are you opposed to labelling GMO foods then?


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Adcandour unfortunately writing was never a very strong point for me since childhood ( not being born in Canada wasn't advantages for me ) my childhood teachers made sure of that, my strongest thing is numbers and yes you are absolutely right sometimes the cure is worse then the disease. As for the labeling well from what I understand these days it is easier to label which foods *do not contain GMO's *or at least that is my understanding aqnd I could very well be wrong having been wrong before and many more times in the future. I think what I bring to this table is an oppsition point of view as I just *do not see everything as black and white *and so there it is, not arguing to argue but to bring a different opinion, not as eliquently as Mark but at least a few get my point.ship


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

My observations from this are you have scientists warning us that we are guinea pigs of this dangerous bad science experiment and everybody on the other side saying meh I'll eat what I'll eat cause thats what im eating. While a few take notice and try and bring awareness to the issue they are getting through to a few while the rest take the ignorant stance of "if it tastes good, I'll eat it". It may be very well possible that GMO technology can be used in a good way for good causes but you;re fooling yourself if you think thats what these companies are doing. 

Labelled foods give the consumer knowledge what they are consuming and choice to buy an alternative but the corporations dont want that. They want their corn products to make the food with the least cost to the company. I'm going to be a dad in september and I'd like to know that what I feed our boy in 8 months time (or whenever they stop breast feeding) is free of GMO ingredients. While I do concede that it is a huge task and could be somewhat of a farce since wind pollinated crops know no boundaries, its worth it. Consumers should have the choice to support or not support GMO foods or GMO grain fed meat, and they currently do not have that choice. 

I find this eerily similar to 20 or so years ago when climate change and global warming came to light. Suzuki popped up and said "hey, we need to fix this" but I think Homer simpson said it best, "no, no, no, dig up stupid". Now here we are and the weather patterns are changing, Calgary and Toronto have been flooded, tropical storms are more severe and people are finally coming around. 

Maybe we should listen to the scientists.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Moose, gotta watch what momma is eating in the mean time if you want to make sure.

Just as a "what if" observation. What happens when someone with a severe food allergy eats something that is supposed to be OK for them, but has genes from what they allergic to implanted in it? Do people start to die before something is done? (last question is rhetorical, someone always has to die before something is done). Also, are GMO foods going to create more allergies/problems? Is any researcher even considering this?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Being a scientist, I fully support listening to evidence and making informed decisions. Being a dad, I fully support being attentive to my children's, and indeed all children's, nutrition.

But I think you are adopting an over-inclusive, overly alarmist, point of view. There will ALWAYS be foods that we thought were fine, and, down the line, turned out not to be so. And the reason why that happens is because they shared *much* in common, in terms of superficial characteristics, with foods that were absolutely positively unassailably benign, and often helpful. Lumping everything that could conceivably fall under the banner of GMO into one harmful category is like declaring that any and all cheeses are "bad for you" because of their fat content. Goat's milk? Sheep's milk? Camel's milk? Pasteurized, unpasteurized? Firm ripened, soft-ripened, curds, cottage cheese, full fat, fat reduced? Tofu cheese? Lactose-free cheese? Don't we make ANY differentiation?

I repeat:
1) the specific risk incurred by chronic ingestion of THAT product generated via GMO
2) the business practices of the companies that develop GMO,
3) the perceived weirdness or unnaturalness of recombinant DNA,
4) the consequences of GMO development, and monoculture agriculture, for farmers and smaller-scale farming,
5) the global consequences of monoculture crop production for biodiversity,
6) exploitation of farmers in developing nations.

ANY of these is a plausible reason for having misgivings about GMO food. But because you don't like #2 does not necessarily imply that ALL GMO food falls into reason #1. Because a person may have personal beliefs that make #3 salient to them does not make #5 or #1 necessary or cataclysmic.

It is IMPORTANT to keep all possible considerations separate. The "scientists" who issue warnings about the impact of monoculture agricultural practices generally have little training or insight into how businesses work, toxicology, oncology, or any of the other factors. Conversely the people who study and specialize in food production and distribution, or crop sustainability, tend not to study ecology, nutritional biology, etc. All of these rationales and arguments about GMO food are coming from different and disconnected sources of expertise. Taken together, a person might (and probably should) decide that it is not always the wisest strategy, or a panacea. But the debates within each silo need to be pondered separately, just as they were developed separately.

There will be instances where THIS GM food product is not as nutrient-rich or hardy as first assumed, while THOSE ones are. Cases where yield for TIS is consistently as high as hoped for while THOSE ones didn't really provide any advantage for effort expended. THESE ones have an impact on biodiversity, while THOSE ones peacefully coexist with biodiversity. THIS company's business practices are utterly shameful and deserving of divestiture by all shareholders, while THAT company is a paragon of ethical practices. It happens. YOu can't lump everything together and get a realistic understanding or approach.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

mhammer said:


> Being a scientist, I fully support listening to evidence and making informed decisions. Being a dad, I fully support being attentive to my children's, and indeed all children's, nutrition.
> 
> But I think you are adopting an over-inclusive, overly alarmist, point of view. There will ALWAYS be foods that we thought were fine, and, down the line, turned out not to be so. And the reason why that happens is because they shared *much* in common, in terms of superficial characteristics, with foods that were absolutely positively unassailably benign, and often helpful. Lumping everything that could conceivably fall under the banner of GMO into one harmful category is like declaring that any and all cheeses are "bad for you" because of their fat content. Goat's milk? Sheep's milk? Camel's milk? Pasteurized, unpasteurized? Firm ripened, soft-ripened, curds, cottage cheese, full fat, fat reduced? Tofu cheese? Lactose-free cheese? Don't we make ANY differentiation?
> 
> ...


While I did acknowledge that there may be some good mixed in with all the bad GMO's out there, by and large they are swayed to the dark side.
If there are no problems with the foods why mislead the public and jsut label the damn product.

In my previous post I tried to objectively look at what the scientist have been saying in the video's and take a step back from my point of view to make sure im getting the whole picture. You're right that everything shouldnt be lumped together as they all aren't the same products and should be studied independantly. They do share the fact that they are all genetically modified and thus all fall under that label. 

All 6 of those examples are further justification to the fact that these foods should be studied more before being given the green light for production and consumption. If GMO soybeans are ok and GMO potatoes are not I'd like to know. I don't know, so I look for the answers.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

A more tempered and sensible response.

The challenge, I would think, lies not in the labelling, but rather in simply requiring more stringent testing of GMO food before approval for sale/consumption. If GMO soybeans are fine but potatoes not, then that's a food safety issue, not labelling. In that respect it is no different than having more stringent food testing for things like prepared produce than raw whole produce (things like cut up vegetables, fruit section, or baby peeled carrots have known higher risk for e. coli than many meats).

But of course, those testing standards have be meaningful, and rigorously adhered to. I.E., testing doesn't supplant labelling unless done *right *and done consistently.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Part of the problem is that the "testing" is not done independantly,
it's carried out by the chemical company that's trying to push the product.
This is taken as gospel by the government as a prudent test.

When the GMOs are willing to be tested in other labs,
they have to sign waivers, essentially gagging them.
How is that an independant study?

When they were trying to bring the GMOs into Europe,
the study was actually funded partly by one of the chemical giants.
When the researchers did not recommend the importation, use, or ingestion of the GMOs,
they were all canned after two calls from the government in Britain.

We needed a group of whistle-blowers in Canada to expose the problems with bovine virus, also a product of Monsanto.
These government officials came forward after a two million dollar bribe was offered.
All that came forward were released from their jobs because of it.

Nobody sees a trend, or problem with that?


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

sulphur said:


> Part of the problem is that the "testing" is not done independantly,
> it's carried out by the chemical company that's trying to push the product.
> This is taken as gospel by the government as a prudent test.
> 
> ...


That is hitting the nail on the head. Independent and verifiable testing is the only way to go. The producers own word is not good enough. It is like the tobacco industry tests all over again, and we all know how accurate that was.

I keep thinking that there is a reason that GMO's are not being received well in Europe, but no one is saying much, which makes me suspicious. I can't understand how (in one of the videos) a scientist can work for a company for 35 years, then all of a sudden the company fires him (shortly after speaking out against gmo) and discredits him. It was all OK for 35 years, and that is one heck of a job/pension that the guy is giving up for speaking out.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

mhammer said:


> A more tempered and sensible response.
> 
> The challenge, I would think, lies not in the labelling, but rather in simply requiring more stringent testing of GMO food before approval for sale/consumption. If GMO soybeans are fine but potatoes not, then that's a food safety issue, not labelling. In that respect it is no different than having more stringent food testing for things like prepared produce than raw whole produce (things like cut up vegetables, fruit section, or baby peeled carrots have known higher risk for e. coli than many meats).
> 
> But of course, those testing standards have be meaningful, and rigorously adhered to. I.E., testing doesn't supplant labelling unless done *right *and done consistently.



I wholeheartedly agree.

The next problem has been touched on by Sulpher and I saw it in a video in the past is the musical chairs surrounding Monsanto's board members and executives and public office. They will do the same to other countries if they havent already. I think Sulpher pointed out a former top executive is now the head of the FDA. How convenient.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Jim DaddyO said:


> I keep thinking that there is a reason that GMO's are not being received well in Europe.


I think it's interesting as well that folks in Europe have mounted full scale demonstrations / near riots over GMOs while North Americans are largely apathetic.

For some reason it reminds me of how Coke's launch of Dasani bombed in the U.K. but does well on this side of the Atlantic.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3809539.stm

"Coca Cola is not a company known for making too many mistakes. Its marketing is slick and Coke is the best-selling soft drink in the world. Few would have predicted that Coke's attempt to launch its Dasani bottled water brand in the UK would prove to be a disaster for such an experienced company.


In just five weeks, Dasani had come and gone
Yet, in March this year, only five weeks after its multi million pound UK launch, red-faced Coke executives were forced to take Dasani off the shelves in the UK.

What went wrong?

Dasani was launched in the USA in 1999 as a bottled, purified water, and had become a huge success there. Taking that same formula and repeating it for the UK market must have looked like a breeze, but that wasn't quite how it turned out.

Unlike most of the bottled water sold in British petrol stations and supermarkets Dasani hadn't come from alpine glaciers or trickled out of a precious natural spring - it had come out of the local tap. True, the company put it through a purification process and added mineral salts, but the source was still tap water.

At its launch on 10 February, some people in the drinks industry already knew Dasani's big "secret". Simon Mowbray of The Grocer magazine had mentioned the source of the water in an article, but didn't think anyone else would pick up on it. Now, he sees it more graphically. "It was a bomb waiting to go off," he says.

The Real Sting

At first, the launch seemed to have go well, and Coke executives thought the public would respond to their new product with its distinctive blue packaging. But everything changed when the Press Association reporter Graham Hiscott saw the reference in the Grocer magazine to the real source of Dasani.

The following day, the story was splashed across the daily papers. Headlines like "The Real Sting" a play on Coke's "The Real Thing" slogan and the more obvious "Coke sells tap water for 95p" could hardly have been worse for Coke and their new baby.


Coke could make a comeback in the UK
The tabloids drew on the uncanny parallel with the episode in the BBC sitcom "Only Fools and Horses", in which Del Boy and Rodney take ordinary tap water from their Peckham flat and bottle it up to sell as Peckham Spring. The irony couldn't have been worse. Dasani was sourced and bottled in a factory in Sidcup, just a few miles down the road from Peckham! The tabloids continued their onslaught. "Are they taking us for plonkers!" yelled the Daily Star.

Contaminated

Despite the pages of negative press coverage, Coke persisted with Dasani. Executives protested that they had been misunderstood and that the drink was not just tap water but in fact the result of a highly sophisticated process to create the purest drinking water you can get. As far as Coke were concerned, Dasani was a lifestyle drink, a drink you would want to be seen with, the source was all but irrelevant.


The fiasco was complete when Dasani was contaminated
Then on Thursday 18 March there was even worse news.

Something had gone wrong at the Dasani factory and a bad batch of minerals had contaminated the water production with a potentially carcinogenic bromate. Coke admitted defeat. Immediately they withdrew all 500,000 bottles of Dasani in circulation. In just five weeks, Dasani had come and gone, arguably providing more in terms of entertainment than refreshment.

The cost to Coke is thought to run into the millions, but behind the financial loss is the possibility of an even more serious problem. After years of heady growth, sales of Coca-Cola are beginning to flatten out. Bottled water, by contrast, is now the fastest-growing of the soft drinks and Coke still need a successful bottled water for the UK and the European market.

An organisation the size of Coke, with the marketing strength that has made it the biggest drinks company in the world, is unlikely to give up easily. Astonishingly, Dasani could make a comeback one day. Asked whether the company has any plans to bring Dasani back, Patricia McNamara, New Beverages Director at coca cola GB says coyly, "we like to think it's a definite maybe"."


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I just had another thought on the whole labeling thing. In industry we have WHMS, or, the right to know about just about everything a worker comes in contact with. There is a file that contains the ingredients of everything the workplace uses and a worker comes in contact with (even steel info has nickle as a carcinogen). I don't understand why it would be so difficult or unreasonable to implement the same thing for things we are eating.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Actually, my wife evaluates the completeness of WHMIS sheets for a living, as part of a ffederal micro-agency, now rolled up into Health Canada. Part of what they do is go through a rather exhaustive search of the research literature (and believe me, they search _dozens_ of different massive databases), about 6 times a year, to see if there is anything new known about those substances contained in the products whose WHMIS sheets are being evaluated. If there are any gaps in the information that ought to be included (e.g., new knowledge about potential hazards or risks and the conditions under which they occur), the product manufacturers are goaded/coached into updating the sheets. This federal body has no real leverage, and indeed, manufacturers have no legal obligation to even send in WHMIS sheets for review. *BUT*, should there be an accident or other tragedy involving your product, and it comes to light that you didn't keep the WHMIS sheet current when you had every opportunity to have someone review it and help you update it, it now turns into criminal negligence, and the sort of lawsuit you don't want to ever run into.

All of that said, manufacturers of industrial products have a legal obligation to inform workers about risks and hazards, but have no obligation to spill industrial secrets and tell you or anyone other than the WHMIS reviewers (who have to know so they can look up the relevent toxicological, teratogen, oncological, and dermatological research) what is IN the product. If it's a no-brainer (i.e., it sure _smells_ like ammonia), they tell you, but they don't have to tell anyone what their secret ingredient is, only that you shouldn't inhale it, or rub it on your skin, or drink it, or be within 8ft of it if you're pregnant, or expose it to high temperatures, or whatever.

So what could any labelling compel a food provider to reveal? If all that a label would convey is that the item is the byproduct of recombinant DNA, then a peach that had a gene from a plum that did well in cold temperatures inserted, and maybe had been in production for 25 years with no ill effects ever documented, would be lumped in with other things not quite as studied and refined or "outlandish". Much like WHMIS sheets, there would be no requirement for the manufacturer to tell you what they did (i.e., no obligation to spill trade secrets). Perhaps, like WHMIS sheets, labelling would simply advise of _known_ risks and hazards. In which case we're back to food safety labelling, not just GMO/non-GMO.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

hardasmum said:


> I think it's interesting as well that folks in Europe have mounted full scale demonstrations / near riots over GMOs while North Americans are largely apathetic.
> 
> For some reason it reminds me of how Coke's launch of Dasani bombed in the U.K. but does well on this side of the Atlantic.


It takes a lot to get us off our lazy asses, Coke's gonna have to do better than RO filtered tap water. F&^k with the beer and we riot.

We are very quick to dismiss danger signs being waved in our face and label those protesting (alarmist, treehugger, pinko ect.).
I dont post much stuff up on facebook or on the net in general as i dont think the message is received well if you bombard people with it. They become quicker and quicker to dismiss it each time they see it. At least thats how i react (I have a friend thats a vegan/animal activist and constantly puts up pics of suffering animals to show the evils of the meat industry). You try and bring some awareness to an issue but its a fine line of whats too much and what resonates wiht people and what pushes them away.
-----------------------------------------

[h=3]800 Scientists Demand Global GMO “Experiment” End[/h] Sunday, May 26, 2013 

​Did you hear about the 800 esteemed scientists who came together and demanded the production of genetically modified crops and products be stopped? Scientists who called on world powers to re-evaluate the future of agriculture and seek _sustainability rather than corporate profits_?

Don’t be surprised if you haven’t, as the mainstream media won’t touch this one.








Eight-hundred scientists did make such a demand. They made it first over a decade ago and they have updated it over the years, adding signatures and release dates. Still global powers have all but ignored their calls.

The Institute of Science in Society is a non-profit group of scientists from around the world, dedicated to bringing an end to what they refer to as the “dangerous GMO “experiment. In their open letter to the world, they have highlighted why governments need to stop genetically modified crops now – before there are irreversible effects on the health of the people and the health of the earth at large.

The _Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments_ calls for “the *immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products*, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years.”

They also want *patents on organisms, cell lines, and living things revoked and banned*. Such patents (a sort of corporate version of “playing God,”) “threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals.”

And as Anthony Gucciardi recently detailed on NaturalSociety, this would be bad news for Monsanto following the recent Supreme Court decision that they have the ‘right’ to patent life.

[h=3]Scientists Speaking Out[/h]
In the beginning, after its first draft in 1999, the letter had just over 300 signatures. Since then, it’s grown significantly. At the writing of this article, the document has *828 signatures representing 84 different countries*.

While we are told by Monsanto and the FDA that GMOs are nothing to worry about and instead safe tools for the future of agriculture, a growing number of esteemed scientists seem to disagree. So, who’s listening?

The letter has been presented to numerous governments and organizations, including the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Trade Organization, and yes, even the U.S. Congress. The letter has been shared at these venues, but it doesn’t seem like anyone was listening.

The populous has to dig for information like this. We have to seek out the news sources willing to cover it, because we won’t hear about this letter on the nightly news or through a governmental agency. No, the U.S. government wants you to fear what they want you to fear (“terror” and crime, for instance), but they certainly don’t want you to fear the information and the food they are putting on your table. Or the GMOs they are funding with your taxpayer dime. 

http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/05/800-scientists-demand-global-gmo-experiment-end.html


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

While these polls reveal that Canadians that don't trust GMOs and those that don't care are almost split down the middle,
44% and 45%, respectively, it also shows that over 80% still want labelling of some kind.
http://www.naturallysavvy.com/food-labels/north-americans-want-labeling-for-gmo-foods

I'd stated earlier in this thread, as well as Ship, that there are more products containing GMOs than not.
Here in lies part of the problem.
Along with these big chemical corporations, there are all those other companies that are utilizing their end products.
Some of these outfits are as big, or bigger than the chem companies.
Also, the many farmers that are making their living off of these crops.
I'm sure that the government is getting pressure from many sides on this issue.

My problem is, they are supposed to be our employees, the government, that is.
They should be looking out for our best interests, not corporations, especially when a vast majority wish for it.
This seems to be the way of the road though, especially lately.

I don't think that "there's just too many products that contain GMOs to label" as a valid excuse not to do so.
I'd be happy with them labelling products that are GMO free, that was tried and banned already...
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/canadalabels.cfm


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

*One more thing...*

It's not like they spliced some other plant material into these crops to helps them grow,
someone on a Monsanto compound noticed that something was living/surviving in pool of Roundup.
This bacteria was rushed back to the lab and jammed into the DNA of the plants.
That doesn't sound too appetizing to me.

Another thing I found out in those vids, was that when the farmers sign the contract to use GMOs,
if and when they ever want to cease using them, they have to clear their land and not use it for a minimum of three years.
That, to me, sounds like a pretty tight noose on the farmer.
Who here can go three years without any income?


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I live in the middle of farm country and it is not the farmers that are reaping the profits of these magical plants. There are a few agri-business people who do pretty well, but they are not what I would call "farmers".

I still do not know (does anyone?) what happens when someone with a food allergy ingests a food that has had the genes of his allergen spliced into something common that he eats (say a peanut gene put into corn being eaten by someone with a peanut allergy).

I would support a "contains no GMO" label on food at the very least (and we know they will do the very least). I did not know about the scientists outcry, and that is even more alarming. Are all countries doing as Harper is and muzzling the scientists???


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Jim DaddyO said:


> I still do not know (does anyone?) what happens when someone with a food allergy ingests a food that has had the genes of his allergen spliced into something common that he eats (say a peanut gene put into corn being eaten by someone with a peanut allergy).


Chances are, nothing. The person has no allergies to the genes of the peanut, or whatever, but to the substances produced by an intact peanut. Genes are simply codes for what the cell will do when exposed/stimulated by chemical circumstance X. Those circumstances are dictated by the entirety of the organism. Would corn cells ever replicate fully what peanut cells encounter? 

Additionally, part of the allergic response is the result of learned associations between the superficial indicators of whatever is in the allergen that provokes the immune response, and the subsequent consequences of its injestion or direct exposure. This is why folks with hayfever get all congested just by the sight of ragweed.

So, unless whatever genetic material is parked in the host actually results in the host now producing whatever it is that provokes the immune response, whether intentionally or unintentionally, there should be no risk. But of course, that is something to be confirmed by testing. 



> I would support a "contains no GMO" label on food at the very least (and we know they will do the very least). I did not know about the scientists outcry, and that is even more alarming. Are all countries doing as Harper is and muzzling the scientists???


It is not hard to find scientists who are willing to sign just about anything. One can find similarly long petitions of scientists who deny greenhouse gases, climate change or support fracking, culling of seals, or whatever you want. I'm not disparaging "science", or even petitions, just noting that almost every university has its nutbars that got hired way back when, when maybe the faculty search committee wasn't paying close attention, and everyone is waiting for them to retire or call it quits (we have one such s***-disturber at Univ of Ottawa who is dragging his case through the courts, with throngs of cheering students behind him). The presence of such a petition is not compelling evidence, particularly when there is no "reputation gamble" on the part of the signatories. If a large professional body puts its weight behind a declaration (risking its reputation and that of all its members), then you have something.

As for the "scientist muzzling", this particular government is no great friend or admirer of basic research, but the "muzzling" part is vastly overblown, and has become a meme. I feel pretty confident that, in an era of "permanent campaign mode", the Twitterverse, and the 24hr news-cycle, where the comms advisor is king/queen, we could install Liz May in the PM seat tomorrow and things would not be all that different a few months later. Fundamentally, what has been conveniently and poetically labelled "muzzling" is conflict between the cultures of the science community and the policy community. The former lives and breathes recency, diversity, and preponderance of evidence, where the latter suffocates in the absence of uniformity and consistency of message. He wants to watch the game and she wants to watch Love It or List It, but there is only one TV in the house, so something has to give. 

What has happened is that cabinet ministers and deputy heads want everything to go through comms (communications dept.) for clearance _first_ so that conflicts between what the minister is about to announce and what scientist X says to the press can be avoided, or so that the scientist doesn't steal the minister's thunder when the minister's office call a presser, standing in front of a bunch of flags. I work in an independent federal agency that has no cabinet minister (hence *no* political interference whatsoever) and even WE have to run everything through comms such that there is no conflict between what we might suggest in a research paper and what might be formally announced by Policy folks or written in the Annual Report to Parliament. Policy thinks in terms of unambiguous messaging for consumption by those who want certainty, while science thinks in terms of interesting information for consideration by thoughtful people. Sadly, in the government totem pole, Policy sits higher up than Science, so any compromises have to be by Science. As a scientist, it's frustrating as hell, but there is no muzzling, just frustrating contemporary SOP. And remember, there is a difference between how freely one lets science roam, and whether you even_ listen to it and understand it_.

As for a label indicating "Contains no GMO", if you stop and think about it, that's not particularly informative. There is a LOT of stuff that is not GMO and isn't particularly good for you. Do I want people to look at food labels for "Does not contain any GMO" the way they look at decorative food labels that declare "No Trans-Fats!!" or "Zero calories!!", or "9 out of 10 dentists recommend!" ? Not really. I'd like to see an informed and thoughtful population, not one easily assuaged by slogans.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Its good when scientists speak out against radical new ideas..........
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Bulls-eye! 50pts.!!


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Just to add to my earlier post about Policy vs Science. As the web-world grew, and we saw the emergence of on-line forums, listservs, e-journals, Twitter, and all manner of other ways to get information out quickly, scientists went "Hurrah!", simply because the traditional wait between sending in a paper to a refereed journal and getting it in print could be as long as 3-4 years...seriously (when a prestigious journal comes out 2-3 times a year with maybe 6 articles per issue, you gotta wait your turn). 

This radical shrinking of the "learned it" to "get it out there" interval was greeted VERY differently by folks in communications and policy, for whom this rapid communications possibility - made available to EVERYONE - created all sorts of risk that have them breathing their inhalers and trying to stave off what they view as catastrophe on a constant basis.

The good news?: you can get stuff out faster. The bad news?: people can get stuff out there faster. The brunt of this techno-info change has happened during the past 7-8 years so the change in attitudes gets _attributed_ to the Conservatives and Harper, simply because they've been in power for much of that time. Of course, Jean Chretien never had to contend with Twitter and Facebook, and Paul Martin only got to see the beginning of it, so we never got to see the same kind of panic from their offices.

Mark my words, it's not going to get better anytime soon, no matter what the result of the next election.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

*Great read*



Accept2 said:


> Its good when scientists speak out against radical new ideas..........
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


Wow talk about a great read and how it can influence ones point of view and how it can be scewered by ones beliefs one way or another. And at the end of the day we all agree that more information needs to be gathered without the little rooster screaming the sky is falling. Who knows what is the truth and what is the lie and wjho is profiting really at the end of the day, but to me you can't be afraid of new things based on old beliefs that have not been completely proven to be accurate and just because it was posted on the internet doesn't make it so.
And I will also agree that everyone is entitled to believe what they as persons need to believe to help them sleep at night, but also that everyone needs to keep an open mind and look at facts as they are presented and try to judge everyone's opinion as to how they came to their conclusions.
This is what I choose to believe, that I am not educated enough to know one way or another as to if GMO's are completely bad for the world or if they hold some goods for the world, but its my own belief that I choose to think that they may hold benefits to world hunger and to me that is far more important then just saying the sky is falling.ship
Oh and maybe someone can explain why everyone keeps mentioning peanuts as an alergen, I am unaware of any benefit of mixing peanut genes with any crops out there, I do not see how it could benefit in terms of keeping any type of weeds or bugs from harming certain crops or helping them grow any faster.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

For me, I mentioned peanuts as an example because it is widely known to be an allergen to some people. I could have just as easily used milk or wheat. Just a handy reference is all.

In all, we are all victims of our own point of view I guess. We have all grown up with preconceived notions and ideas, perhaps handed down, perhaps gleaned through experience.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

jeez lets not get into the evolution debate. it's easily as bad as the gun debate, and easily as pointless and impossible to figure out


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Ship of fools said:


> Oh and maybe someone can explain why everyone keeps mentioning peanuts as an alergen, I am unaware of any benefit of mixing peanut genes with any crops out there, I do not see how it could benefit in terms of keeping any type of weeds or bugs from harming certain crops or helping them grow any faster.


When it comes to GMO. It gets complicated. Since every action has a reaction, any changes made to plants to make them stronger and resistant to certain insects etc. changes things. It may take awhile for the reactions to these changes to show up. We just don't know. That is why I would like them labelled. So I can make an informed decision as to whether I want them to be part of my families diet.

As to your question about peanuts. It may have been the peanut plants themselves that were modified. Again, without them telling us about the changes, we don't know.
Peanut allergies were unheard of back in the 50's & 60's. Why are they so prevalent now.

One more thing, heritage plant seeds are becoming a popular item these days and are readily available online for those that want to plant unmodified seeds.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Guitar101 said:


> Peanut allergies were unheard of back in the 50's & 60's. Why are they so prevalent now.


About 5 years back, I was on the school council of my younger son's elementary school. The topic of nut allergies came up in a meeting, and one of the parents, who had come from somewhere in southeast Asia (or possibly Nepal) piped up and said, "You know, in my country where I came from, peanut allergies are completely unknown. But we didn't roast peanuts like they do here. Maybe it's the way they are prepared?". Interesting notion. Roasting does bring out the oils, and the flavour, and when it comes to allergies, easily noticeable external properties of foods tend to provoke earlier and quicker allergic reactions.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

So, does David Suzuki want us to label immigrants as well?..........


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> About 5 years back, I was on the school council of my younger son's elementary school. The topic of nut allergies came up in a meeting, and one of the parents, who had come from somewhere in southeast Asia (or possibly Nepal) piped up and said, "You know, in my country where I came from, peanut allergies are completely unknown. But we didn't roast peanuts like they do here. Maybe it's the way they are prepared?". Interesting notion. Roasting does bring out the oils, and the flavour, and when it comes to allergies, easily noticeable external properties of foods tend to provoke earlier and quicker allergic reactions.


A lot of people ie our generation and this next one up, also treat their children like they are made out of crystal. I had some woman I was working with on a travel package that in the end I just told her to stay home. She wanted to either go to Disney land or in a cruise but there could not be any trace of nuts anywhere. I told her good luck. Not just in the food but anywhere. I also know of another that has a young girl that discovered very early in life that if she complained of a stomach ache or some other unknown or undetectable illness that she could come home from school everyday or not go at all. Kids been to every doctor from Niagara Falls to Sudbury and there is not a thing wrong with her.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

http://topinfopost.com/2013/07/10/10-american-foods-that-are-banned-in-other-countries

Its good to know a few of these are banned for sale in Canada. Its also good to know what is not banned and probably should be...


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

In a nutshell...

[video=youtube;ptDd9ftNaq8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptDd9ftNaq8[/video]


----------

