http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss



FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN

If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about
anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.¹s ‹
genetically modified organisms ‹ you¹re out of luck. They¹re not listed.
You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can¹t
contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.¹s. Now, however, even that may not
work.
In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved
three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which
becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and *sugar
beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a
super-fast-growing salmon ‹ the first genetically modified animal to be
sold in the U.S., but probably not the last ‹ may not be far behind.

It¹s unlikely that these products¹ potential *benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that
the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or
foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because
they don¹t want to ³suggest or imply² that these foods are ³different.²
(Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but
that¹s another story.)
They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of
them. Nearly an entire continent ‹ it¹s called Europe ‹ is so wary that
G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports
(that policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than
0.9 percent G.M.O.¹s must be labeled.
(cont.)
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense.* Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

Billy writes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
....
It's unlikely that these products potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm.

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.

GMO is artificial selection on steroids. It's really directed
change vs. random change.

Opponents say that GMO is unnatural and that selection could
NEVER produce the results obtained with GMO.

Seems to me, that's short sighted. Selective breeding might be
1000s or even millions of times slower than GMO but a mutation is
a mutation. There is no theoretical limit to what can be accomplished
with selective breeding. It's just going to take a longer time.

Compare a wolf to a Great Dane to a Chihuahua. Pretty radical change
there. All done by humans in a relatively short amount of time.

That's not to say I'm 100% comfortable with crossing Poison Ivy and
Kudzu. We don't want super weeds released into the environment.

Also I'm not comfortable with patents on living organisms but that
occurs now with artificial selection, it's not unique to GMO.

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such. If the GMO results in
something in the food that wouldn't be there naturally, then the
food should be labeled. For example, the extra component could
cause an allergy. People should know if they are eating something
different. But if GMO just makes the crop bigger or more drought
resistant, I can see no need for special labeling.

Just my opinion.

On 2/20/2011 12:46 PM, wrote:
writes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
It's unlikely that these products potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm.

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.

GMO is artificial selection on steroids. It's really directed
change vs. random change.

Opponents say that GMO is unnatural and that selection could
NEVER produce the results obtained with GMO.

Seems to me, that's short sighted. Selective breeding might be
1000s or even millions of times slower than GMO but a mutation is
a mutation. There is no theoretical limit to what can be accomplished
with selective breeding. It's just going to take a longer time.

Compare a wolf to a Great Dane to a Chihuahua. Pretty radical change
there. All done by humans in a relatively short amount of time.

That's not to say I'm 100% comfortable with crossing Poison Ivy and
Kudzu. We don't want super weeds released into the environment.

Also I'm not comfortable with patents on living organisms but that
occurs now with artificial selection, it's not unique to GMO.

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such. If the GMO results in
something in the food that wouldn't be there naturally, then the
food should be labeled. For example, the extra component could
cause an allergy. People should know if they are eating something
different. But if GMO just makes the crop bigger or more drought
resistant, I can see no need for special labeling.

Just my opinion.

I agree.
Let the wrath of Billy come down upon us

wrote:

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such

There's a rather fundamental difference between selective breeding and
inserting genes from a different species. Corn that makes BT toxin in its
pollen, for instance. Not at all the same as Radiator Johnny crossing
tomato lines to get a bigger and tastier fruit to pay off his mortgage.

Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/4 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G

Gary Woods writes:

wrote:

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such

There's a rather fundamental difference between selective breeding and
inserting genes from a different species. Corn that makes BT toxin in its
pollen, for instance. Not at all the same as Radiator Johnny crossing
tomato lines to get a bigger and tastier fruit to pay off his mortgage.

As I said, foods with unique components, especially components that
might cause a reaction should be labeled that way.

The wikipedia page on transgenic corn is "interesting".
After reading that, I don't think the issue of labeling is relevant.

Corn producing BT toxins doesn't sound safe at all.
I can't see any justification for allowing that trait into crops.

On 2/20/2011 1:09 PM, wrote:
Gary writes:

wrote:

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such

There's a rather fundamental difference between selective breeding and
inserting genes from a different species. Corn that makes BT toxin in its
pollen, for instance. Not at all the same as Radiator Johnny crossing
tomato lines to get a bigger and tastier fruit to pay off his mortgage.

As I said, foods with unique components, especially components that
might cause a reaction should be labeled that way.

The wikipedia page on transgenic corn is "interesting".
After reading that, I don't think the issue of labeling is relevant.

Corn producing BT toxins doesn't sound safe at all.
I can't see any justification for allowing that trait into crops.

Actually, first line of defense for plants is chemical warfare.
Think about it.

On 02/20/2011 12:11 AM, Billy wrote:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss



FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN

If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about
anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.¹s ‹
genetically modified organisms ‹ you¹re out of luck. They¹re not listed.
You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can¹t
contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.¹s. Now, however, even that may not
work.
In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved
three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which
becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and sugar
beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a
super-fast-growing salmon ‹ the first genetically modified animal to be
sold in the U.S., but probably not the last ‹ may not be far behind.

It¹s unlikely that these products¹ potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that
the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or
foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because
they don¹t want to ³suggest or imply² that these foods are ³different.²
(Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but
that¹s another story.)
They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of
them. Nearly an entire continent ‹ it¹s called Europe ‹ is so wary that
G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports
(that policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than
0.9 percent G.M.O.¹s must be labeled.
(cont.)
Yes, GMO foods should be listed on the package.

This country was built on innovation and profit and it's not always
clear whats good or bad until something specific or terrible happens.
I don't know if GMO foods are good or bad and it will probably be a
long time before we find out. When that finally happens I hope we
don't find ourselves in a world full of mutants like in *Futurama*
the cartoon. Something is causing more & more children to be born
Autistic and it might be any number of things, like using to many
plastic products where chemicals can contaminate adults who conceive
children with health problems. Cultures that don't have our modern
lifestyle are healthier than we are, but we have better health care
to heal us when we are sick.

--
Is Obama an Internet Junkie? Why does he think it is the US governments
mission to spend $18,000,000,000.00 billion dollars to get high speed
Internet to all Americans? Shouldn't private companies do that? A better
use of that money would be to build Waste Incinerators that cleanly burn
trash and generate electricity for every city in the US. There are
already 140 in the US, lets build more, and stop dumping trash in the
oceans.

Frank writes:

On 2/20/2011 1:09 PM, wrote:
Gary writes:

wrote:

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such

There's a rather fundamental difference between selective breeding and
inserting genes from a different species. Corn that makes BT toxin in its
pollen, for instance. Not at all the same as Radiator Johnny crossing
tomato lines to get a bigger and tastier fruit to pay off his mortgage.

As I said, foods with unique components, especially components that
might cause a reaction should be labeled that way.

The wikipedia page on transgenic corn is "interesting".
After reading that, I don't think the issue of labeling is relevant.

Corn producing BT toxins doesn't sound safe at all.
I can't see any justification for allowing that trait into crops.

Actually, first line of defense for plants is chemical warfare.
Think about it.

That's true but see my comment about poison ivy and kudzu.

The combination would be beneficial to the plant.
Humans would have another reason not to go near the plant
but it wouldn't be a good thing.

The Wikipedia article raises a number of disturbing things
about corn bred to kill insects. Probably most ironic is
that if this is used widely, we'll almost certainly get
insects that are immune.

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
It's unlikely that these products potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm.

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.

GMO is artificial selection on steroids. It's really directed
change vs. random change.

Opponents say that GMO is unnatural and that selection could
NEVER produce the results obtained with GMO.

Seems to me, that's short sighted. Selective breeding might be
1000s or even millions of times slower than GMO but a mutation is
a mutation. There is no theoretical limit to what can be accomplished
with selective breeding. It's just going to take a longer time.

Compare a wolf to a Great Dane to a Chihuahua. Pretty radical change
there. All done by humans in a relatively short amount of time.

That's not to say I'm 100% comfortable with crossing Poison Ivy and
Kudzu. We don't want super weeds released into the environment.

Also I'm not comfortable with patents on living organisms but that
occurs now with artificial selection, it's not unique to GMO.

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such. If the GMO results in
something in the food that wouldn't be there naturally, then the
food should be labeled. For example, the extra component could
cause an allergy. People should know if they are eating something
different. But if GMO just makes the crop bigger or more drought
resistant, I can see no need for special labeling.

Just my opinion.

A free/fair market can't exist without sellers and buyers having the
same information.
The problems with GMOs are multiple.
1) An antibiotic is attached to the genes that are to be inserted. This
allows for identification of GMO cells in a petrie dish. It also
allows bacteria to develop a resistance to that antibiotic, making
it worthless in the treatment of a bacterial disease.

2) The cauliflower mosaic virus is attached to the genes that are to be
inserted. The cauliflower mosaic virus is the activator that turns
on the inserted gene. More than 98% of the human genome does not
encode protein sequences. Some of these genes are for suppressed
evolutionary traits such as gills, some could be dormant diseases.
These genes are also susceptible to being activated by the
cauliflower mosaic virus.

3) The spliceosome (a complex of specialized RNA and protein subunits)
from the host cell may not recognize a protein from the injected
genes and attach it to other proteins, thereby creating an allergen.
This appears to be the case with GMO potatoes created by Arpad
Pusztai at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He
was tying to modify the lecithin in the potatoes, which he did, but
the potatoes gave lab rats lesions in their digestive systems,
which lead to death.

4) GMO Bt corn (StarLink) kills monarch butterflies. Round Up Ready
crops allow more glyphosate to be used to suppress weeds, but it
also severely damages the soil biota, triggers over 40 plant
diseases, and endangers human and animal health.

5) GMOs don't produce larger crops.

6) Then there is the matter of a recent recent CBS/NYT poll that found 87
percent of consumers want GMOs them labeled.

Further reading:
Against GMOs
"Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the
Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating"
by Jeffrey M. Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/
dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298231203&sr=1-1

and

For GMOs
"Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Food"
by Nina V. Fedoroff and Nancy Marie Brown
http://www.amazon.com/Mendel-Kitchen...y-Modified/dp/
030909738X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298231359&sr=1-1

(both are available at better libraries near you)

"Mendel in the Kitchen" makes arguments similar to Despen's and gives
the historical development of wheat, and corn, which I found to be very
informative.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense.* Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

In article ,
Frank wrote:

The wikipedia page on transgenic corn is "interesting".
After reading that, I don't think the issue of labeling is relevant.

Corn producing BT toxins doesn't sound safe at all.
I can't see any justification for allowing that trait into crops.

Actually, first line of defense for plants is chemical warfare.
Think about it.

Common use of Bt corn will lead to insect resistance to the toxin.

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
by Michael Pollan
http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dile...als/dp/0143038
583/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1
(Available at better libraries near you)

BIG ORGANIC * p. 180
The reason (theory) plants produce these compounds (polyphenols) in the
first place is to defend themselves against pests and diseases; the more
pressure from pathogens, the more polyphenols a plant will produce.

**These compounds, then, are the products of natural selection and,
more specifically, the coevolutionary relationship between plants and
the species that prey on them. Who would have guessed that humans
evolved to profit from a diet of these plant pesticides?**

Or that we would invent an agriculture that then deprived us of them?
The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made
pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol
pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the plants see no reason to
invest their sources in mounting a strong defense. (Sort of like
European nations during the cold war.)

The point to the above is that organically grown food typically has more
polyphenols than non-organically grown crops.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense.* Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

On 2/20/2011 2:51 PM, wrote:
writes:

On 2/20/2011 1:09 PM, wrote:
Gary writes:

wrote:

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such

There's a rather fundamental difference between selective breeding and
inserting genes from a different species. Corn that makes BT toxin in its
pollen, for instance. Not at all the same as Radiator Johnny crossing
tomato lines to get a bigger and tastier fruit to pay off his mortgage.

As I said, foods with unique components, especially components that
might cause a reaction should be labeled that way.

The wikipedia page on transgenic corn is "interesting".
After reading that, I don't think the issue of labeling is relevant.

Corn producing BT toxins doesn't sound safe at all.
I can't see any justification for allowing that trait into crops.

Actually, first line of defense for plants is chemical warfare.
Think about it.

That's true but see my comment about poison ivy and kudzu.

The combination would be beneficial to the plant.
Humans would have another reason not to go near the plant
but it wouldn't be a good thing.

The Wikipedia article raises a number of disturbing things
about corn bred to kill insects. Probably most ironic is
that if this is used widely, we'll almost certainly get
insects that are immune.

It was years ago, I heard a lecture by Bruce Ames about this - way
before genetic modification. He had a couple of examples about plants
bred to resist disease but were toxic to people.

Clipped this recent quote.

Some critics] say, "If [BT corn, for example, is] toxic to that insect,
it must be toxic to us."
But that's an over-simplification. Dr. Bruce Ames at the University of
California, for the last 20 years,
has been analyzing all kinds of foods, thousands of different samples.
He finds that in the foods that
we've been eating from the beginning of agriculture, there are many
toxic substances, but they're present in very small quantity.
A good example to illustrate is the case of the common mushroom that
most of us like to have with our steak or gravy.
There are two [toxins] present in minute quantity. But if you isolate
those, like Dr. Ames has,
increase the dosage and incorporate it in the feed of rats, it's a
beautiful carcinogen.
Why don't we get [cancer from eating these mushrooms]? Simple reason is
that we don't eat kilos each day of mushrooms.
So dosage really makes the toxin or carcinogen. There's no zero risk in
the biological world. ...

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
It's unlikely that these products potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm.

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.
....
Just my opinion.

A free/fair market can't exist without sellers and buyers having the
same information.
The problems with GMOs are multiple.
1) An antibiotic is attached to the genes that are to be inserted. This
allows for identification of GMO cells in a petrie dish. It also
allows bacteria to develop a resistance to that antibiotic, making
it worthless in the treatment of a bacterial disease.

2) The cauliflower mosaic virus is attached to the genes that are to be
inserted. The cauliflower mosaic virus is the activator that turns
on the inserted gene. More than 98% of the human genome does not
encode protein sequences. Some of these genes are for suppressed
evolutionary traits such as gills, some could be dormant diseases.
These genes are also susceptible to being activated by the
cauliflower mosaic virus.

3) The spliceosome (a complex of specialized RNA and protein subunits)
from the host cell may not recognize a protein from the injected
genes and attach it to other proteins, thereby creating an allergen.
This appears to be the case with GMO potatoes created by Arpad
Pusztai at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He
was tying to modify the lecithin in the potatoes, which he did, but
the potatoes gave lab rats lesions in their digestive systems,
which lead to death.

4) GMO Bt corn (StarLink) kills monarch butterflies. Round Up Ready
crops allow more glyphosate to be used to suppress weeds, but it
also severely damages the soil biota, triggers over 40 plant
diseases, and endangers human and animal health.

5) GMOs don't produce larger crops.

6) Then there is the matter of a recent recent CBS/NYT poll that found 87
percent of consumers want GMOs them labeled.

I'm not sure opinions of the uninformed are all that important.

If you just label something as "GMO" all you are doing is waving a
warning flag without any information.

If a product has something in it that could be dangerous it shouldn't
be marketed. If it's got peanut genes in it, people should know
because some people are allergic to peanuts.

If we labeled all products that humans have fooled around with,
I'm pretty sure everything in the store would be labeled.

I don't know how you can assert that you can't use GMO to grow
a larger vegetable, fruit, or animal. I assume you can find all
kinds of traits that can be transferred cross species.
If you can transfer a gene from a pumpkin and grow grapes the
size of watermelons, I say go ahead. Of course a label wouldn't
be an issue in that case.

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
It's unlikely that these products potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm.

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.
...
Just my opinion.

A free/fair market can't exist without sellers and buyers having the
same information.
The problems with GMOs are multiple.
1) An antibiotic is attached to the genes that are to be inserted. This
allows for identification of GMO cells in a petrie dish. It also
allows bacteria to develop a resistance to that antibiotic, making
it worthless in the treatment of a bacterial disease.

2) The cauliflower mosaic virus is attached to the genes that are to be
inserted. The cauliflower mosaic virus is the activator that turns
on the inserted gene. More than 98% of the human genome does not
encode protein sequences. Some of these genes are for suppressed
evolutionary traits such as gills, some could be dormant diseases.
These genes are also susceptible to being activated by the
cauliflower mosaic virus.

3) The spliceosome (a complex of specialized RNA and protein subunits)
from the host cell may not recognize a protein from the injected
genes and attach it to other proteins, thereby creating an allergen.
This appears to be the case with GMO potatoes created by Arpad
Pusztai at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He
was tying to modify the lecithin in the potatoes, which he did, but
the potatoes gave lab rats lesions in their digestive systems,
which lead to death.

4) GMO Bt corn (StarLink) kills monarch butterflies. Round Up Ready
crops allow more glyphosate to be used to suppress weeds, but it
also severely damages the soil biota, triggers over 40 plant
diseases, and endangers human and animal health.

5) GMOs don't produce larger crops.

6) Then there is the matter of a recent recent CBS/NYT poll that found 87
percent of consumers want GMOs them labeled.

I'm not sure opinions of the uninformed are all that important.

If you just label something as "GMO" all you are doing is waving a
warning flag without any information.

If a product has something in it that could be dangerous it shouldn't
be marketed. If it's got peanut genes in it, people should know
because some people are allergic to peanuts.

If we labeled all products that humans have fooled around with,
I'm pretty sure everything in the store would be labeled.

I don't know how you can assert that you can't use GMO to grow
a larger vegetable, fruit, or animal. I assume you can find all
kinds of traits that can be transferred cross species.
If you can transfer a gene from a pumpkin and grow grapes the
size of watermelons, I say go ahead. Of course a label wouldn't
be an issue in that case.

So you are on board with 1 thru 4, good.
----

5) By larger crops, I meant higher yield (weight) per unit of surface
area.
Higher yield used to be touted as a reason for GMOs, but GMOs don't bear
more that non-GMOs.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8405/
Exposed: The Great GM Crops Myth
By Geoffrey Lean

Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an
authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a
switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing
world food crisis.0420 04 1

The study - carried out over the past three years at the University of
Kansas in the US grain belt - has found that GM soya produces about 10
per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting
assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.
( cont.)
----

6) As ignorant of GMOs as a consumer may be, is that sufficient to deny
them the right to know what they are buying? At the store today they
have organic almonds, almonds, roasted almonds, tamari almonds, and
Honey Roasted Orange Almonds. Why should GMOs be more difficult to
identify? Isn't it my right to buy what I want to eat? Why don't I get a
choice?

Potatoes and tomatoes faced suspicion when they were first introduced to
Europe, but with time they earned acceptance.

On the other hand, modern science gave us diethylstilboestrol,
thalidomide, Vioxx, Bextra, Cylert, Baycol, and Palladone. Thalidomide
was particularly difficult to remove from the market, even when the
egregious consequences of its use were known. The FDA is loath to recall
unless the product is acutely poisonous, and strikes you down like a
bolt of lightening. If it is a chronic poisoning, it could take the FDA
years to recall the product.

To the best of my knowledge, there have been no feeding trials done with
GMOs. We are the guinea pigs.

I guess buying organic is the only way to avoid GMOs, at least until all
the "normal" fruits and vegetables have been contaminated by GMOs.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

In article ,
Frank wrote:

On 2/20/2011 2:51 PM, wrote:
writes:

On 2/20/2011 1:09 PM, wrote:
Gary writes:

wrote:

As far as labeling GMO foods, I'm not concerned at all.
Selected crops aren't labeled as such

There's a rather fundamental difference between selective breeding and
inserting genes from a different species. Corn that makes BT toxin in
its
pollen, for instance. Not at all the same as Radiator Johnny crossing
tomato lines to get a bigger and tastier fruit to pay off his mortgage.

As I said, foods with unique components, especially components that
might cause a reaction should be labeled that way.

The wikipedia page on transgenic corn is "interesting".
After reading that, I don't think the issue of labeling is relevant.

Corn producing BT toxins doesn't sound safe at all.
I can't see any justification for allowing that trait into crops.

Actually, first line of defense for plants is chemical warfare.
Think about it.

That's true but see my comment about poison ivy and kudzu.

The combination would be beneficial to the plant.
Humans would have another reason not to go near the plant
but it wouldn't be a good thing.

The Wikipedia article raises a number of disturbing things
about corn bred to kill insects. Probably most ironic is
that if this is used widely, we'll almost certainly get
insects that are immune.

It was years ago, I heard a lecture by Bruce Ames about this - way
before genetic modification. He had a couple of examples about plants
bred to resist disease but were toxic to people.

Clipped this recent quote.

Some critics] say, "If [BT corn, for example, is] toxic to that insect,
it must be toxic to us."
But that's an over-simplification. Dr. Bruce Ames at the University of
California, for the last 20 years,
has been analyzing all kinds of foods, thousands of different samples.
He finds that in the foods that
we've been eating from the beginning of agriculture, there are many
toxic substances, but they're present in very small quantity.
A good example to illustrate is the case of the common mushroom that
most of us like to have with our steak or gravy.
There are two [toxins] present in minute quantity. But if you isolate
those, like Dr. Ames has,
increase the dosage and incorporate it in the feed of rats, it's a
beautiful carcinogen.
Why don't we get [cancer from eating these mushrooms]? Simple reason is
that we don't eat kilos each day of mushrooms.
So dosage really makes the toxin or carcinogen. There's no zero risk in
the biological world. ...

How many lab rats have the mushrooms killed?
Tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, eggplant are members of the "nightshade"
family. These all contain solanine a toxin. Going to quit eating them
soon?
-----

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
by Michael Pollan
http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dile...als/dp/0143038
583/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206815576&sr=1-1
(Available at better libraries near you)

BIG ORGANIC * 180

The reason plants produce these compounds (polyphenols) in the first
place is to defend themselves against pests and diseases; the more
pressure from pathogens, the more polyphenols a plant will produce.
These compounds, then, are the products of natural selection and, more
specifically, the coevolutionary relationship between plants and the
species that prey on them. Who would have guessed that
**humans evolved to profit from a diet of these plant pesticides?**
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...g-m-o-foods-la
beled/?partner=rss&emc=rss

FEBRUARY 15, 2011, 9:00 PM
Why Aren¹t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?
By MARK BITTMAN
...
It's unlikely that these products potential benefits could possibly
outweigh their potential for harm.

As gardeners, most of us have no problem with selective breeding.
We're happy to alter a plants genetic makeup through artificial
(human assisted) selection.
...
Just my opinion.

A free/fair market can't exist without sellers and buyers having the
same information.
The problems with GMOs are multiple.
....
5) GMOs don't produce larger crops.

6) Then there is the matter of a recent recent CBS/NYT poll that found 87
percent of consumers want GMOs them labeled.

I'm not sure opinions of the uninformed are all that important.

If you just label something as "GMO" all you are doing is waving a
warning flag without any information.

If a product has something in it that could be dangerous it shouldn't
be marketed. If it's got peanut genes in it, people should know
because some people are allergic to peanuts.

If we labeled all products that humans have fooled around with,
I'm pretty sure everything in the store would be labeled.

I don't know how you can assert that you can't use GMO to grow
a larger vegetable, fruit, or animal. I assume you can find all
kinds of traits that can be transferred cross species.
If you can transfer a gene from a pumpkin and grow grapes the
size of watermelons, I say go ahead. Of course a label wouldn't
be an issue in that case.

....
----

5) By larger crops, I meant higher yield (weight) per unit of surface
area.
Higher yield used to be touted as a reason for GMOs, but GMOs don't bear
more that non-GMOs.
....

Ah, misunderstanding. If you mean GMOs don't produce larger crops
now, I have no reason to disagree.

I think GMOs have very good potential as a means to improve yield
and a lot of other desirable characteristics of plants.

6) As ignorant of GMOs as a consumer may be, is that sufficient to deny
them the right to know what they are buying? At the store today they
have organic almonds, almonds, roasted almonds, tamari almonds, and
Honey Roasted Orange Almonds. Why should GMOs be more difficult to
identify? Isn't it my right to buy what I want to eat? Why don't I get a
choice?

Potatoes and tomatoes faced suspicion when they were first introduced to
Europe, but with time they earned acceptance.

On the other hand, modern science gave us diethylstilboestrol,
thalidomide, Vioxx, Bextra, Cylert, Baycol, and Palladone. Thalidomide
was particularly difficult to remove from the market, even when the
egregious consequences of its use were known. The FDA is loath to recall
unless the product is acutely poisonous, and strikes you down like a
bolt of lightening. If it is a chronic poisoning, it could take the FDA
years to recall the product.

To the best of my knowledge, there have been no feeding trials done with
GMOs. We are the guinea pigs.

I guess buying organic is the only way to avoid GMOs, at least until all
the "normal" fruits and vegetables have been contaminated by GMOs.

I'm not in favor of putting warning labels on things that don't
need warning labels. The only difference between GMOs and other
"improved" crops is a matter of degree.

As far as the real villain above Thalidomide, recalls by the FDA was
never an issue. In the case of Thalidomide, the FDA never approved the
drug. The FDA actually did an excellent job.

Some Americans were exposed in the clinical trials but the people
affected were mostly outside the US.

Interestingly, Thalidomide is considered a valuable drug, it's just
dangerous for pregnant women.