Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
October 21, 2014, 03:27:56 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Beemaster's official FACEBOOK page
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The nature of, compedency & veracity of the organized opposition to GMOs  (Read 1092 times)
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« on: February 26, 2012, 11:40:09 PM »

I don't need no stinking evidence to prove my contention about the honesty and veracity of the organized opposition to GM crops.  The opponents of GMOs impeach their own ideas, veracity, and tallking points with their own silly false hoods, gross  untruths, or miss statements flowing from their own mouths.  A good case in point is displayed below.  The words in red are NOT my words, they belong to care2.com, but I did high light care2.com's words in red (which I consider to be an appropriate color) to be sure care2.com's words are not mistaken for my own humble words.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/wal-mart-to-sell-monsanto-gmo-corn-this-summer.htm

The “Bt” means that the corn contain Bt toxin, which originates in the bodies of poisonous caterpillars. In nature, the toxin prevents predators from eating caterpillars before they can mature into moth or butterflies. Monsanto’s corn has been modified to produce this toxin, which means it makes its own pesticide, rupturing the stomachs of the insects that eat it. It is unknown what effect consuming a plant that produces this toxin will have on humans, however lab rats that fed the Bt corn suffer from organ failure.

Read more:
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/wal-mart-to-sell-monsanto-gmo-corn-this-summer.html#ixzz1nY2uASYK

Boy oh Boy, What a group of ignorant, uninformed, or even a lying bunch of dumb heads.  But wait, do you think this is in reality a conscious attempt to deceive the American public as to the real nature of Bt sweet corn.  I won't comment further on care2.com's motives.

Here is a short clip and paste from Kentucky University that describes what Bt is.  In an attempt to honor the U of K I high lighted their words on the Bt organism in Wild Cat blue (I think) to definerate the words of the University of Kentucky from my own feeble scribblings.

"The Bt delta endotoxin was selected because it is highly effective at controlling Lepidoptera larvae, caterpillars. It is during the larval stage when most of the damage by European corn borer occurs. The protein is very selective, generally not harming insects in other orders (such as beetles, flies, bees and wasps). For this reason, GMOs that have the Bt gene are compatible with biological control programs because they harm insect predators and parasitoids much less than broad-spectrum insecticides. The Bt endotoxin is considered safe for humans, other mammals, fish, birds, and the environment because of its selectivity. Bt has been available as a commercial microbial insecticide since the 1960s and is sold under many trade names. These products have an excellent safety record and can be used on many crops until the day of harvest."

Since the Bt microbial organism is found naturally in the soil, Bt is also used in the commercial cultivation of ORGANIC fruits and veggies.  Infact the Bt microbial organism is considered so safe that your friendly neighborhood ORGANIC orchards and farmers are permitted to spray Bt on your ORGANIC fruit and veggies 4 hours before you pick and eat them.  Y'all enjoy your organic food now, you hear? LOL
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/organic_farming.html
Logged
Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13748


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2012, 03:13:00 AM »

>The “Bt” means that the corn contain Bt toxin, which originates in the bodies of poisonous caterpillars. In nature, the toxin prevents predators from eating caterpillars before they can mature into moth or butterflies. Monsanto’s corn has been modified to produce this toxin, which means it makes its own pesticide, rupturing the stomachs of the insects that eat it. It is unknown what effect consuming a plant that produces this toxin will have on humans, however lab rats that fed the Bt corn suffer from organ failure.

It looks like the typical accuracy of anything that the mainstream news media reports that you actually know anything about.   There is a LITTLE bit of truth (the Bt corn produces a toxin and we do not know the long term effect of the amounts a human gets when that toxin is systemic to the food we eat rather than coating it and being washed off before eating), but they certainly got the rest wrong.
Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2012, 08:29:48 AM »

There is a big difference between a surface spray and endogenous production.  Any claim that they are comparable should include an analysis of the expected dosages received in eating the corn.

But the main point is that people should be aware of genetic modification.  It should be listed as an ingredient on the label so that people are alerted to do their own in-depth analysis if desired.  Or to avoid the product if desired.
Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2012, 09:58:46 AM »

There are many examples of chemicals tested, researched, and labeled as being safe, or the side stepping wording as given above like "generally not harmful", which is legal mumbo jumbo!

CCD research has found that a simply fungicide, thought to not harm the honey bee unto itself an labled as "safe" for bees, as the most toxic applied treatment, when mixed with any other chemical.

So when it comes to GMO, and the chemicals that are needed with them, makes it all questionable to me. The recent study out of Purdue on the toxicity to honey bees and the environment, was new in regards to the impacts to the environment. And I am sure that with many other hastily approved (or purchased) registration, that more will come about that we really do not know. How can one say that Bt toxins, when mixed with all the other chemicals that is sprayed on the GMO crops, is safe? they have not been tested. And if it were not for a bunch of honey bees dying, they probably never would.

What I am surprised by, is the 100% acceptance by some of anything the government says is good for you. History is full of products found out to harmful later. And why some who are shouting from the mountain top with such passion at other people's skepticism of the EPA or other governmental agency, and outright denigration of anyone opposed to GMO or the biotech industry is a real mystery to me.

I have added some updates to the page I have been working on in regard to GMO and chemicals. http://www.bjornapiaries.com/gmoneonicotinoids.html

Hope you enjoy!
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 10:16:19 AM by BjornBee » Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2012, 11:54:28 AM »

GMO supporters are much like the cigarette industry supporters of the past.

Here is a good video of the medical profession promoting smoking:
More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette 2


Here is the olympics and athletes promoting smoking
Olympic Swim Star Sells Camel Cigarettes


For many, many years, the cigarette industry paid for spokesman, muddied the waters with their own "research", and bought off the government, to keep naysayers at bay, and the truth from the public in regards something many knew for years prior o actually confessing the harmful affects

Am I a past smoker? Yes, I smoked for 22 years.
Do I think smoking is harmful? Yes, I do.
Do I think smoking should be banned? No.
Do I think the government was bought for years by big smoking industry money and taxes? Yes.

That same situation of something on the market, being influenced by the powerful manufacturers, the money affecting the government policy, and the denigrating of anyone opposed to certain items, has gone on for years, and will continue into the future.

Even today, there are some who would want you to believe that smoking is good for you with no harmful affects. They are more than willing to march out some 95 year old still puffing away, claiming this is proof that it harms nobody.

For 50 years, the smoking industry paid for great P.R. and marketing. They had the public doing their bidding. And they had government sitting on their hands, while the coffers were (and still are) being filled.

And yet, some today want you to believe that we should always trust the maker, always trust the government, and never queston, ask, or be skeptical.

This is not about smoking. But just a small window on how a particular product can last so long on the market, and yet at the end of the day, be found to be harmful.

It is the same M.O. with GMO today. But I ask you...why would someone care if someone didn't want to eat GMO? Like the smokers of years past pressuring others to smoke, why the same today with some insisting that GMO needs to be eaten by everyone?

Many folks years ago found out about the ill-effects of smoking. And they were suppressed, shouted down, and laughed at. Why, I can only wonder. And so it is the same with GMO today. GMO is like smoking in the 40's and 50's. The makers said it was healthy. The government said it was healthy. And the public was duped for years.

I would rather understand that this stuff happens all the time. And we should not be sheep at the mercy of any industry or the government with false ideas that they are looking out for our well being.

You want to buy into every claim, then go ahead. But why the attack on those that are skeptical and willing to eat something else?

Man this makes me want to light one up!  Wink
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2012, 11:05:06 PM »

... It should be listed as an ingredient ...so that people are alerted to do their own in-depth analysis...

Fine, what is wrong then with a label on organic produce that alerts people and that reads:

"WARNING!!! This organic produce was grown while in close proximity or contact with animal or human feces or by using Bt insecticides derived from deadly microscopic bacteria found living in the soil."

"Consuming this produce without first employing proper sanitation precautions can result in E-coli 0157:H7 infection, kidney failure, listeria parasite infections, hepatitis A, salmonella and death.  Other risks are also possible.  The young, the elderly, those who are HIV positive, anyone who is pregnant, or who is planning on becoming pregnant, or who has a compromised immune system should not consume this produce.  
More information is available from your local Poison Control Center."

There, I think that about covers it.   What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Oh, BTW no one but myself has resorted yet to FACT based arguments.  So who is erecting straw men and knocking them down to create confusion?  The text clip I posted is full of sound and fury and not a word of it is factual in any substantial way.  

It is designed to mislead, obscure, panic, deceive, and confuse.  Now please defend the acquisitions made by the Organic Press in the Opening Post….  IF YOU CAN!!!  If you can not defend the words I posted from the Organic Press please say these opinions are indefensible.”  Man up in other words.  

The people making these acquisitions earn a living scaring the bejeebes out of gullible old ladies and foolish little boys and they earn it by peddling lies and untruths.  There is no excuse, they should have all the facts at their fingertips, and by now they should be able to quote the facts both forward and backwards.  But it seems the only reason they even read the facts is to make sure they don‘t use the facts to promote their agenda.  And all you care about is possible corporate ethic violations???  IMHO, something is badly wrong with your priorities.  Clean up the real cesspools that are rife and visible in your own backyard, then as the facts dictate we can pump out the corporate cesspools.

Could this be the reason that the Organic Press ignores the facts in so blatant a way???
"As long as a man [or idea] knows very well the strength and weaknesses of his teaching, his art, his religion, its power is still slight. The pupil and apostle who, blinded by the authority of the master and by the piety he feels toward him, pays no attention to the weaknesses of a teaching… The influence of a man [or idea] has never yet grown great without his blind pupils. To help a perception to achieve victory often means merely to unite it with stupidity so intimately that the weight of the latter also enforces the victory of the former.
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human,s.122, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

OH, BTW, The German philosopher Nietzsche was Adolph Hitler's favorite philosopher, it figures.

Logged
deknow
Field Bee
***
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 748


Location: Massachusetts


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2012, 11:41:37 PM »

...yes, bt has been used by organic farmers for a long time (since the 60s?).....applied as part of an IPM or IPM style plan (ie, not on a schedule, but as needed).  No one was concerned that the way bt was being used that it would lead to widespread resistance.  ....now that it is produced by the plants automatically (essentially constantly applied), resistance is a growing problem that will leave bt useless for all farmers.  This was predictable (as evidenced by the fact that it was predicted).  Monsanto is very focused on protecting their intellectual property, but they seem to fall short when enforcing the growing practices of their own customers...the growing practices that are designed to forestall resistance.

to compare an occasional (or even not so occasional) use to constant production within the plant is to either not understand, or to deliberately mislead.  any corrective measure loses its effectiveness when it becomes baseline....yelling at children or pets to keep them from wandering into traffic, lowering the interest rate to stimulate the economy, downshifting on steep hills,...or even applying pesticides is fundamentally different and has fundamentally different results from yelling _all the time_, always lowering the interest rate, always driving in a low gear, or always having a single pesticide present.

...now it is "news" that the rootworm is showing resistance to bt......but Michael Pollan told us this was coming in 1998.

Now, certainly there are all kinds of crazy people that are anti GMO....but not everyone that is for GMO is sane.   If you get to group all opposition into the kooky camp, do we get to group all those that are pro GMO into the New World Order and dismiss you on those grounds....or are we allowed to speak for ourselves?

deknow

Quote
From:
Playing God in the Garden
By Michael Pollan
The New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/playing-god-in-the-garden/


Monsanto, for its part, claims that it has thoroughly examined all the potential environmental and health risks of its biotech plants, and points out that three regulatory agencies — the U.S.D.A., the E.P.A. and the F.D.A. — have signed off on its products. Speaking of the New Leaf, Dave Stark told me, ”This is the most intensively studied potato in history.”

Significant uncertainties remain, however. Take the case of insect resistance to Bt, a potential form of ”biological pollution” that could end the effectiveness of one of the safest insecticides we have — and cripple the organic farmers who depend on it. The theory, which is now accepted by most entomologists, is that Bt crops will add so much of the toxin to the environment that insects will develop resistance to it. Until now, resistance hasn’t been a worry because the Bt sprays break down quickly in sunlight and organic farmers use them only sparingly. Resistance is essentially a form of co-evolution that seems to occur only when a given pest population is threatened with extinction; under that pressure, natural selection favors whatever chance mutations will allow the species to change and survive.

Working with the E.P.A., Monsanto has developed a ”resistance-management plan” to postpone that eventuality. Under the plan, farmers who plant Bt crops must leave a certain portion of their land in non-Bt crops to create ”refuges” for the targeted insects. The goal is to prevent the first Bt-resistant Colorado potato beetle from mating with a second resistant bug, unleashing a new race of superbeetles. The theory is that when a Bt-resistant bug does show up, it can be induced to mate with a susceptible bug from the refuge, thus diluting the new gene for resistance.

But a lot has to go right for Mr. Wrong to meet Miss Right. No one is sure how big the refuges need to be, where they should be situated or whether the farmers will cooperate (creating havens for a detested pest is counter-intuitive, after all), not to mention the bugs. In the case of potatoes, the E.P.A. has made the plan voluntary and lets the companies themselves implement it; there are no E.P.A. enforcement mechanisms. Which is why most of the organic farmers I spoke to dismissed the regulatory scheme as window dressing.

Monsanto executives offer two basic responses to criticism of their Bt crops. The first is that their voluntary resistance-management plans will work, though the company’s definition of success will come as small consolation to an organic farmer: Monsanto scientists told me that if all goes well, resistance can be postponed for 30 years. (Some scientists believe it will come in three to five years.) The second response is more troubling. In St. Louis, I met with Jerry Hjelle, Monsanto’s vice president for regulatory affairs. Hjelle told me that resistance should not unduly concern us since ”there are a thousand other Bt’s out there” — other insecticidal proteins. ”We can handle this problem with new products,” he said. ”The critics don’t know what we have in the pipeline.”

And then Hjelle uttered two words that I thought had been expunged from the corporate vocabulary a long time ago: ”Trust us.”
Logged
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2012, 03:08:55 AM »

... You want to buy into every claim, then go ahead. But why the attack on those that are skeptical and willing to eat something else?...

I don't attack those who want to eat something else, they may do as they please at their leisure.  I would also like to be allowed to do as I please at my leisure, and without a gang of busy body croaking frogs trying to control MY diet, fair enough?  I do however defend against those who seem bound and determined to condemn the Earth's ecosystem to a massive yearly dose of chemical pesticides.  Especially if the reason behind this assault on the Earth's environment is to advance an already bankrupt political agenda. 

Do you or anyone else really believe that if push ever comes to shove, that a starving world population will not clamor for wholesale chemical pesticide use on a scale that would dwarf the pesticide use of the recent past.  Especially if the population is told or they believe that the use of these pesticides will result in more food?HuhHuh
Well do you?

If you believe a starving population won't agitate for more food at any cost to the environment, then I humbly suggest that you don't understand human nature as well as you think you do.

As for MY claim about political goals being behind much of the sound and fury over GMOs, watch or re-watch the video link YOU posted in YOUR opening post, in the thread YOU started titled “so clear even an idiot should get it.”  I don’t know who the idiot is that you are referring to, it certainly is not I.  Around minutes 45 to 50 in this video is a segment featuring a certain Herr Doktor Antonio Androli (sp?) taped in German.  Herr Androli is in Brazil when he is interview for this video.  Part of the interview is taped in a library.  Whose library I do not know.  Directly behind Herr Androli are many books just as you would expect to find in any library, but the only books whose titles are in full view or close enough to Herr Androli so that we in the audience can read the titles, are books about or by the late Marxist-Leninist revolutionary Leon Trotsky.  It also looks like Herr Androli has the complete works of the German philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche.  The same Nietzsche whose words guided Adolph Hitler to power.  The same Nietzsche that Hitler quoted to countenance the murder of 13,000,000 innocent people.  I feel that the display of these works in so conspicuous a manner is done so that we dumb English speakers can WINK, WINK, better follow the thrust of Der Doktor's words, or so that we in the audience can better phantom the basis of Androli’s opposition to Round Up Ready soybeans.

NEVER MIND the fact that Der Doktor CLEARELY states around minute 45, at the beginning of his segment that the GREATIST EVIL IN THE WORLD IS PRIVITE PROPERTY!!! Is that clear enough that even an idiot should get it?   
Good!!
Are there any other questions??? 
No?
Then good night.
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2012, 07:00:14 AM »

 lau

Come on now.  your constant claims of other people not stepping up and providing facts, fell by the wayside as you employed this same tactic on a couple other threads on this topic, when someone did provide a few links, and you left that discussion as fast as you could.

After claiming the veracity of the folks who you seemingly have a problem with, by suggesting they are trying to control what you eat, may I remind you that it was you who posted a video from the GMO experts Penn & Teller, who ended their rant with a "Shut the F*** up".

And the only folks you could show as real opposition and I guess who you are afraid of, was a group of what appeared to be "teenagers" who were promoting some "eat only raw veggies".  rolleyes

Now you pick apart a video, not due to the subject at hand, but by the books on the shelf behind the person. Come on. You sidestep, change the subject, and at the end of the conversation, really do little to back up your position.

But fear not......there will always be another thread to start fresh and repeat the same tactics once again in the future.

Attacking and denigrating anyone who thinks differently from you on this subject, then claiming they are the "organized and ferocious ones" while arguing that labels should not be listed with GMO, and claiming others are trying to control what you eat, is really amazing. If labels were marked as some suggested, you could select the ones marked with GMO, while allowing others to select the ones that were marketed without GMO.

Now tell me, with your position, who really wants to control (and fool) the other side?

P.S. - The biotech playbook has the reply to this question on page 73, third paragraph down.  grin

I still see no rational basis why anyone would want to attack the organic crowd, or even those not organic, but wanting to not eat GMO.

I'll end it by saying how I love your suggestion that without GMO, massive chemical use would increase. That is what is already happening with GMO. If you would actually keep up on this stuff, it is the needed neonicotinoid systemic chemicals being applied to such crops as GMO corn that is causing all the problems right now with bees.

Cheers!
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2012, 03:21:51 PM »

... Come on now.  your constant claims of other people not stepping up and providing facts, fell by the wayside as you employed this same tactic...

I did?
You used the analogy of the tobacco industry to attack GMOs.  Yet before release all GMOs have been tested by one on more, or even all of the agencies of the US government charged with protecting us from contaminated food.  Not so with Tobacco.  In fact the tobacco industry in many nations has been a state owned monopoly for longer that you and I have been alive.  The Organic Industrial Complex by its lack of candor and disclosure is closer to mirroring the tobacco industry than are GMOs, but this fact is ignored by you.  STRIKE ONE!

I have never attacked anyone who wishes to eat organic produce, but I have pointed out (sometimes in rather stark terms) the absurdities that those in the leadership possessions in the Organic Industrial Complex expect us to accept at face value.  STRIKE TWO!

How is the Organic Industrial Complex’s proposed labeling requirements that are intended to harm the sale of non-organic (Dare I say normal) food scientific?  Yet at the same time the Organic Industrial Complex is opposed, and adamantly so, to any warning labels on organic food,  even though it is a  fact, beyond the shadow of a doubt that micro organisms rife on raw organic food kills or sickens hundreds if not thousands of consumers every year but not even one hang nail is attributable to GMOs?  STRIKE THREE!

The Organic Industrial Complex’s suppositions are impositions on consumers and their pocket books.
And there is nothing wrong with organic producers labeling their produce as organic, but danger is danger, and it doesn't matter if the danger is organic or non organic, if you label one with a scarlet letter, label all.  However, the Organic Industrial Complex doesn't want the half a loaf I am offering, they want to use the power of the state to steal the entire bakery, and may god have mercy on the stomachs of the poor and the hungry of the world once that happens. Many in the Organic Industrial Complex have already gone on the public record wishing for the death of 3,000,000,000 or more humans.  Real bunch of humanitarians in the Organic Industrial Complex.
Logged
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2012, 04:23:17 PM »

Yawn.......

You had your chance. The best you can do beyond rhetoric, is pull out an old video of a few "eat only veggie" teenagers, then call them the "Industrial Organic Complex". What a joke.

The tobacco situation was to illustrate the governments association with high dollar producers and their willingness to turn the other cheek, while they fill their pockets, and how an industry can buy influence and fend off attacks of the truth for years. But I can see now of your 100% blind faith in the government, and your willingness to not even recognize recent exposure of the EPA to process chemical applications without much more than a rubber stamp. To even suggest that politics, money, influence, and lobbying is not ever done, or has never made a difference is truly amazing. Wake up. It happens all the time.

I will not ask where you came up with 3 billion that you claim some want to kill. Cause everytime someone asks about details and facts, you change the subject. Yes, some nut somewhere probably said something stupid, and you hold onto that. But the idea of industries putting money/profit before people's health, which can be seen time and time again, and you have no clue of that ever happening. WoW!

You can run all day long suggesting those not wanting to eat GMO are "attacking" the biotech industry, or wanting to kill billions of people. The GMO playbook is full of these statements for you to pull out.

The EPA rubber stamp, and the report out of Purdue, both are examples of the governments lack of research of in the Field impacts, and the willingness to go along with industries with enough money being thrown about.

But go ahead, look the other way. Say it never happens.  rolleyes
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 04:45:43 PM by BjornBee » Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
luvin honey
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1540

Location: Central WI


« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2012, 09:25:19 PM »

it is a  fact, beyond the shadow of a doubt that micro organisms rife on raw organic food kills or sickens hundreds if not thousands of consumers every year but not even one hang nail is attributable to GMOs?  STRIKE THREE!
Wow--you're going to actually need to back this one up.

I would say that e. coli kills people, regardless of whether it is found in conventional or organic vegetables, but it is much more likely to be found on feedlot beef.
Logged

The pedigree of honey
Does not concern the bee;
A clover, any time, to him
Is aristocracy.
---Emily Dickinson
Grandpa Jim
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 172


Location: Southeast PA


« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2012, 12:10:36 AM »

Not one hangnail attributed to GMO....HOW WOULD WE KNOW?...WE DON"T KNOW WHAT IT IS IN, DO WE??..IT'S NOT ON THE LABEL.

I have served food to the public for over 30 years now, mostly large banquets.  10 years ago we could serve one meal, as ordered, to all 100 or 150 people...no problem.  Something has changed in the past 10 years.  I serve a Rotary club, 50+ people every week.  I now have to serve special meals for Gluten allergies (no one had this 10 years ago), peanut allergies, dairy allergies, they go on and on.  

Try to eat for one day without eating anything containing corn or a corn product. Most corn is GMO. We are all eating it all the time. Certainly some will have allergic reactions, but have no idea where it is coming from.

Not everyone will be allergic or have a reaction to GMO foods, just like not everyone is allergic to cats. But how can you begin to figure out what it is that is giving you the problem, if (as most people) you have not even heard of GMO or know what foods it is in. If someone is allergic to anchovies, I can check the label. If someone cannot have gluten, (a little trickier to figure out, but I can, after educating myself on gluten) I can read the label.  A problem with GMO? How would they know? Where do I look?....nowhere, no labeling requirements...I'm screwed!

Put it on the label!.....What are they afraid of?....an educated public???  I read years back that eating a vegetable modified with a gene from a nut (that was being done), could cause someone with a nut allergy to have a bad reaction.   "He was allergic to nuts, all he ate was a tomato...He's dead!.....What happened??"       Talk about killing people!!

One other thing, that crap you say should be listed in the organic label, here in farm country we call that fertilizer.  This is the stuff that comes out of the back ends of the cows, pigs, chickens and ducks, that are raised and slaughtered for your dinner plate!  What do you think farmers do with that stuff?....haul it to the hazardous waste site?...no... it goes on the fields that grow the crops.  That's called farming, not just organic farming!
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 12:55:40 AM by Grandpa Jim » Logged
luvin honey
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1540

Location: Central WI


« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2012, 11:33:14 AM »

Well said, Grandpa Jim!

I believe it was soy that was being crossed with peanut in a GM way that was causing unexpected allergic reactions to people consuming soy, not realizing there were peanut genes in it.

And let's hear it for good ol' animal poo! Sure beats the extremely high-energy-input chemical fertilizer! If you want a local food system, animal fertilizer is one great way to keep on farming without massive inputs from the middle east.
Logged

The pedigree of honey
Does not concern the bee;
A clover, any time, to him
Is aristocracy.
---Emily Dickinson
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.638 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page October 17, 2014, 06:50:30 PM
anything