or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Monsanto and GMOs - Page 2

post #31 of 58

Check out Dr. Mercola interviewing Dr. Don Huber

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/126465/Dr_Mercola_Interviews_Dr_Huber_about_GMO/v

 

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14164-glyphosate-and-gmos-impact-on-crops-soils-animals-and-man-dr-don-huberv

 

 

Best talks I've heard on GMO's and roundup ready shtuff.   

 

I live 7 miles from Monsanto & Danforth, across town from their partners Wash U and Missouri Botanical Gardens.....MO land grant university does Monsanto research and promotes the "party" line to Ag students (though after years of screaming, sustainable ag classes are happening).....MO Senator Roy Blunt is the bozo behind "the Monsanto protection act".

 

Things are changing....it just takes much longer than I ever anticipated.....

The stuff I wrote on Cheftalk back in 2003ish http://www.cheftalk.com/t/10840/garlic-a-red-flag-to-foodv

cooking with all your senses.....
Reply
cooking with all your senses.....
Reply
post #32 of 58

I make my own condiments, sauces, etc. when possible and buy few packaged foods except for bacon, ham, cheese, lettuce - the basics. I avoid most deli products because of the bacteria that they spray on them. We buy no packaged foods such as cereals, boxed macaroni, cookies, cakes, bread, etc.  After learning about pink slime in hamburger meat, insecticides that Monsanto implants in grains, etc., I am convinced that the food industry cares nothing about my health - their bottom line is how much money they can charge me for inferior products.

 

I have even started grinding my own hamburger and will soon start making my own sausage mixture. We make our own ice cream. I now make homemade soup and stock - pure foods.

 

Since we started doing this, our sinus problems went away, my husband's blood sugar reading became normal (he was type 2 diabetic, his blood pressure became normal again.There is a lot of "poison" in processed foods.

 

But the up side of this is that fresh vegetables and made from scratch foods taste so much better, too. I am having fun, too, learning new techniques such as sous vide, etc.

post #33 of 58

OT but still relevent.

Someone posted about long term effects.

Here is a little story.

About 15 years ago I admitted a healthy young woman for routine labor.

Looking over her chart I noted that she had been on one of the "safe for pregnancy" anti depressants for 2 years.

Asked her doc about the wisdom of this, to me, unnecessary treatment  (was she so depressed that she would slash her wrists or drive her car into a telephone pole?) and he replied that it had been OK'd by the FDA.

Sure.

Whatever.

This boy is now 15 years old and has several mental and physical issues.

His parents are signed with a class action suit attny and they are going after big pharm .

Still see this doc occ (socially) and he is sweating bullets over this.

Worried that if this suit is settled in favor of the families that it is just a matter of time before civil action is taken against individual med pros.

I reminded him of our little convo and he replied he just wished I had been one of his office nurses (I can be pretty convincing when I need to be).

Too late.

Too late for the boy, his family and thousands like them.

Oh and too late for the doc (who until recently allowed his patients to continue taking those meds).

 

mimi

post #34 of 58

I'm not so worried about GMO's.  Two things worry me.  The first is the artificially increased rate of evolution that threatens the survival other species.  Other organisms just cannot adapt fast enough to survive alongside lab grown super spieces.

 

My larger concern is how we do not have choice nor legal protections against this juggernaut of a company.  Makes me ill.

post #35 of 58

*News From the Future*

 

Home gardens now under new federal regulation amid growing concerns about quality, safety and origin of foodstuffs. So called "preppers," "home grown food advocates" and other individuals who are skeptical of the greatness that is government are now subject to fines, confiscation, or destruction of property not sanctioned by the new federal Agency for Safe Food. Former Monsanto Executive Weiss Schutzstaffel was appointed to head up the organization today. Now back to the manufactured crisis that has dominated 98% of the news cycle deflecting your attention away from the previous story,

post #36 of 58

We were GMing products LONG before Monsanto was around doing what they do.  I dont advocate the attempt to squash the small/local farm, I do infact support them buy purchasing 90% of my produce via a local co-op and my meats from local farms and butchers, but people must understand that food has been modified for generations. Produce doesnt grow naturally year round and doesnt last 14 days once off the vine/tree/plant, the way you get your produce to make it to mid America in the dead of winter is thru Genetic Modification and Engineering. 

Taste: The sensation derived from food, as interpreted thru the tongue to brain sensory system.
Flavor: The overall impression combining taste, odor, mouthfeel and trigeminal perception.
Reply
Taste: The sensation derived from food, as interpreted thru the tongue to brain sensory system.
Flavor: The overall impression combining taste, odor, mouthfeel and trigeminal perception.
Reply
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by chefhow View Post

We were GMing products LONG before Monsanto was around doing what they do.  I dont advocate the attempt to squash the small/local farm, I do infact support them buy purchasing 90% of my produce via a local co-op and my meats from local farms and butchers, but people must understand that food has been modified for generations. Produce doesnt grow naturally year round and doesnt last 14 days once off the vine/tree/plant, the way you get your produce to make it to mid America in the dead of winter is thru Genetic Modification and Engineering. 


Hybridization is not GMO. It is the same process nature uses to select the best of a species. GMO puts in genes from a totally unrelated species into plants.

post #38 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chefhow View Post

... people must understand that food has been modified for generations. Produce doesnt grow naturally year round and doesnt last 14 days once off the vine/tree/plant, the way you get your produce to make it to mid America in the dead of winter is thru Genetic Modification and Engineering. 

 

There is a cost to this process.  Someone will have to pay it.  With interest.

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply
post #39 of 58

There is a talking point here that I don't believe we've touched on, which is the humanitarian aspect. Genetically engineered crops have allowed the US to feed a huge population, larger than our own, we feed many others in the world that cannot grow their own food. Due to living in hostile environments or having a population density that is far too great to support on their own land. What would you say with regard to genetically engineered crops in light of the humanitarian aspect? If we abandoned this technology, millions would starve and die. Where do we sit in balancing human life against using such technologies?

post #40 of 58

This is not really true, eastshores. While localized yield increases have been reached by the use of GMOs, our basic ability to feed a huge population cheaply rests on the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. While this is a talking point frequently brought up by GMO advocates, we still can feed the world on conventional seeds. When the cheap fossil fuels cease to be available in the forseeable future, however, we will have a problem. None that genetic modification has solved so far - still waiting for that nitrogen fixating wheat here...

post #41 of 58

So yield per acre for corn is based purely on fertilizer and pesticide? Haven't some of the modifications to corn for instance, created less need for pesticides? I'm no advocate for GMO I'm just chiming in here. So hopefully you don't lump my talking point into such that you say is brought up by GMO advocates. I am a software developer by trade, and I do believe in science. That is anchor enough.

post #42 of 58

Essentially, yes - I am not really current on experimental yields from new GMO strains - I am (or was, while still active in research) more specialized on structural biochemistry - but that huge explosion in yields we have seen in the last century is a fertilizer+pesticide thing. Combined with improved hybrid cultivars, sure, but those are not GMO. We could go without it - as a fact, in Europe we mostly do. 

 

As I said in my first comment, I am not categorically against GM. I am against what it does to the structure of agriculture in its current implementation - i.e. increased monocultures, loss of diversity, loss of family farms in favour of industrial operations.

post #43 of 58

Sounds like the "scientist" should be working as a human rights activist.

 

My understanding is that genes are modified in plants to allow higher doses of pesticides without yield reduction.  Makes sense if you are selling pesticide.

post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumacookery View Post

Sounds like the "scientist" should be working as a human rights activist.

 

My understanding is that genes are modified in plants to allow higher doses of pesticides without yield reduction.  Makes sense if you are selling pesticide.

Pretty much how it is done today, mostly, yeah. Profit up the corporate food chain. No real profit for the consumer.

post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneMachine View Post

Pretty much how it is done today, mostly, yeah. Profit up the corporate food chain. No real profit for the consumer.

 

Really? Such generalizations are dangerous no matter what side you stand on.

post #46 of 58

In my research about Monsanto and the problems created by Big Ag, the conclusion that I come to every time has to do with information. Within this thread there are supporters of GMOs and dissenters, wanting to have access to non genetically modified food and labels showing relevant information. In terms of the relationship with Monsanto and farmers, the problem is that they have created a necessary vicious cycle where farmers and growers have to purchase seeds which can grow in the right kind of ways exhibiting necessary traits to remains economically viable, requiring the right chemical and treatments (sold only by Monsanto), and with things like terminator genes meaning farmers have to re-buy every year. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but is an adequate basic description. This also relies on the necessity of Monsanto to provide that kind of information. I just started an organization to help socially valuable projects get off the ground, and one of the first I am working with is a project with a means to fight this gap.

 

Basically this project is taking all the spread out and disparate seed information that is out in the world and creating an open source seed library and market. This will allow for several things that cut off this vicious loop. First, farmers will not need to be reliant on Monsanto to find appropriate seeds (and chemicals) that exhibit the traits they are looking for, whether GMO or not. Secondly it will allow food consumers to access information about where the food they are buying is grown, from what kind of seeds, and how it is sourced. All this information IS currently out there, but so decentralized that is is practically speaking useless. 

 

If you think this project is one that is worth while, please check out their project page, http://openfi.re/projects/urbsly and support it however you can! I'm more than happy to answer any questions about this project, or introduce anyone to the creator who is building the library.

post #47 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawea View Post

In my research about Monsanto and the problems created by Big Ag, the conclusion that I come to every time has to do with information. Within this thread there are supporters of GMOs and dissenters, wanting to have access to non genetically modified food and labels showing relevant information. In terms of the relationship with Monsanto and farmers, the problem is that they have created a necessary vicious cycle where farmers and growers have to purchase seeds which can grow in the right kind of ways exhibiting necessary traits to remains economically viable, requiring the right chemical and treatments (sold only by Monsanto), and with things like terminator genes meaning farmers have to re-buy every year. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but is an adequate basic description. This also relies on the necessity of Monsanto to provide that kind of information. I just started an organization to help socially valuable projects get off the ground, and one of the first I am working with is a project with a means to fight this gap.

 

Basically this project is taking all the spread out and disparate seed information that is out in the world and creating an open source seed library and market. This will allow for several things that cut off this vicious loop. First, farmers will not need to be reliant on Monsanto to find appropriate seeds (and chemicals) that exhibit the traits they are looking for, whether GMO or not. Secondly it will allow food consumers to access information about where the food they are buying is grown, from what kind of seeds, and how it is sourced. All this information IS currently out there, but so decentralized that is is practically speaking useless. 

 

If you think this project is one that is worth while, please check out their project page, http://openfi.re/projects/urbsly and support it however you can! I'm more than happy to answer any questions about this project, or introduce anyone to the creator who is building the library.

 

Excellent, thanks for sharing.

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply
post #48 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastshores View Post

There is a talking point here that I don't believe we've touched on, which is the humanitarian aspect. Genetically engineered crops have allowed the US to feed a huge population, larger than our own, we feed many others in the world that cannot grow their own food. Due to living in hostile environments or having a population density that is far too great to support on their own land. What would you say with regard to genetically engineered crops in light of the humanitarian aspect? If we abandoned this technology, millions would starve and die. Where do we sit in balancing human life against using such technologies?

 

Not for a moment do I believe that the US cannot continue humanitarian aid without the help of Monsanto.  I'd be willing to entertain the idea if there wasn't an aisle in every grocery store dedicated almost entirely to cheetos or cereal.  How does overfeeding this country have anything to do with helping others?  This kind of argument supports Monsanto's god-complex.  It's ok for one megacompany to single-handedly destroy and rescue one industry?

 

You may find the book Guns Germs and Steel an interesting read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply
post #49 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuan View Post

I'm not so worried about GMO's.  Two things worry me.  The first is the artificially increased rate of evolution that threatens the survival other species.  Other organisms just cannot adapt fast enough to survive alongside lab grown super spieces.

 

My larger concern is how we do not have choice nor legal protections against this juggernaut of a company.  Makes me ill.

 

look at Cuba's backyard farming sans embargoed pesticides

 

Can we feed the world, sure. There's so much edible food in the waste stream that would more than compensate.   

 

Monsanto has been working on a seed that can germinate without water....now that's scary shtuff.

 

+1 Kuan's comment " My larger concern is how we do not have choice nor legal protections against this juggernaut of a company.  Makes me ill."

 

The onerous of labeling should be on GMO.   ditto too with conventional farming receiving perks while organic has to pony up $$$ to tell us they don't put shtuff on plants/soil.    

cooking with all your senses.....
Reply
cooking with all your senses.....
Reply
post #50 of 58

The only food aid program that delivers food commodities to foreign recipients is targeted at emergency situations only--wars, temporary famines and the like. There used to be two other longer-term programs that delivered commodities but they are no longer funded. One of them has not been funded since 1994. It is cheaper, more efficient and better for regional and local economies to source food regionally and to encourage local agriculture. Our surpluses are not distributed to hungry countries.  We do sell commodities to countries that want and can afford them. It's not a humanitarian business.

 

http://foodaid.org/food-aid-programs/food-for-peace/

 

Monsanto makes the argument that GMO's allow for more efficient local agriculture but Indian farmers who cannot afford the royalties required to grow competitive crops from corporately produced seeds and the fertilizers required to grow them have been committing suicide in droves for years now. 

 

ETA:

 

I did a little more digging.

 

Apparently the link above does not tell the entire story. The US did donate billions of dollars worth of commodities in FY 2012, benefiting 9.7 million people.  (about the population of the Chicagoland region) A lot of it is conditional aid--meaning the countries have to have programs in place for things like child education, democracy building, local agricultural and free market initiatives. The countries may then either sell or donate the commodities to their citizens, depending on the program. The value of the goods donated cited by the USDA includes what they paid to ship the stuff.

 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/PressRelease/pressrel_dout.asp?Entry=valid&PrNum=0042-12


Edited by ChicagoTerry - 4/10/13 at 4:57pm
post #51 of 58

Regarding Hellman's Mayo...How about Duke"s Mayo?

post #52 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidediva View Post

Regarding Hellman's Mayo...How about Duke"s Mayo?

 

It gets some good reviews, but it does contain soybean oil unfortunately.

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply
post #53 of 58
Thread Starter 

I've been seeing this circulating for a while on facebook.

*

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply

"You are what you eat, so don't be fast, cheap, easy, or fake."

Reply
post #54 of 58

Codes are voluntary so the above is not a useable guide

post #55 of 58

I am a bee-keeper, and have followed the Monsanto trail for over a year now.
In our continued battle against Monsanto, all information spread, needs to be correct in building a line of defense.

 

The bill signed does NOT protect Monsanto as others have been led to believe. It was labeled the Monsanto Act, but in fact it is a bill (The Farm Bill) that has been around for ages (since 2002 or previous).
Broken down in simplified terms, from government talk, the key that points it to Monsanto is it basically protects a FARMER from being sued IF their crop (regardless of what it is or who provided the seeds) is found to cause health problems, IF they were already GOVERNMENT approved to plant that crop.

It's protecting the farmer. It is also one of the few Made in the USA products. If you remove the Monsanto factor, the Farm Bill actually is a good thing in assisting farmers and the USA.

 

Reports from the United Nations and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2007 criticized the United States and other developed nations for their continued farm trade subsidies. Such subsidies, according to the reports, prevent fair competition from developing nations. Because of its continued refusal to conform to WTO guidelines, the United States may be the target of up to $4 billion of trade sanctions by Brazil.

Other organizations have voiced opposition to the farm subsidy policy of the United States, such as the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies,] the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Rural Affairs, and Oxfam America.

post #56 of 58

Speaking of GMO's, I got the following at my local market.

 

I cut the top and the bottom off, and sliced it open.

Notice anything missing? 

post #57 of 58

Seeds?

Gebe Gott uns allen, uns Trinkern, einen so leichten und so schönen Tod! Joseph Roth.
Reply
Gebe Gott uns allen, uns Trinkern, einen so leichten und so schönen Tod! Joseph Roth.
Reply
post #58 of 58

"The satisfactions of making a good plate of food are surprisingly varied, and only one, and the least important of them, involves eating what you've made" - Bill Buford, Heat

Reply

"The satisfactions of making a good plate of food are surprisingly varied, and only one, and the least important of them, involves eating what you've made" - Bill Buford, Heat

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Food & Cooking