Latest posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
23,855
Posts
469,669
Members
27,180
Latest Member
Erdrea
What's New?

Whole Foods admits its organic foods contain genetically modified ingredients

E

Eatcleanathlete

MuscleHead
Mar 4, 2014
574
105
#13
My wife is really big on the gmo free food ever since she got really sick 4 years ago and it took some time to get it diagnosed that she had celiac and a dairy intolerance. She gets all our veggies from our garden or the farmers market. her family raises cattle so every year her dad puts back 2 cows and leaves them out to pasture for us to slaughter when they get big enough. She also started raising chickens a few years back and we get about a dozen eggs a day.
 
BrutusMaximus

BrutusMaximus

Member
Jul 8, 2013
30
8
#14
GB:

I have not read any articles about how bad GMO's are for you. Instead the ones I have read is how the mixing of genes risks causing food allergy reactions and how there is a lack of studies to show GMO foods are as safe for the general population as are normal foods.

So, for example, if you mix peanut genes into potatoes, someone who is allergic to peanuts, has a decent chance of an allergic reaction to the potatoes, including death. And they had no warning because there is no labeling.

And the FDA is not requiring labeling because the GMO's are considered naturally occurring foods, and not under the FDA jurisdiction.

So if a person has any life threatening food allergies, perhaps an allergy to peanuts, and there is no GMO labeling, and they eat some vegetables with GMO peanut genes in it, shouldn't that person be afraid of dying? And shouldn't they be angry because there is no GMO labeling? Because the simple act of labeling could have saved that person from eating the risky foods . . .

I wonder, how much money does your university receive from Monsanto for research? Maybe you should ask that question as part of educating yourself on the subject.
I don't know where you're reading but the idea that there is a lack of research on the dangers of GMOs is totally false.

From Wikipedia:*"A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 found no plausible evidence of dangers from the use of currently marketed GM crops."

I should also note that about 1/3 of these studies were conducted by independent researchers not funded by Monsanto or any other GM company. Go to biofortified.org to find a growing list of these studies.

The general scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe for human consumption.

Furthermore, GMOs are heavily tested for their safety before being released to market, and then only after government agencies like the USDA have evaluated them. Do you really think if Monsanto or some other company used peanut genes in a GM food they wouldn't make absolutely sure it didn't kill people? Can you imagine the media shitstorm that would create if a GM food was proven to be dangerous?
 
shortz

shortz

Beard of Knowledge VIP
May 6, 2013
3,107
895
#15
I just had a discussion with someone the other day and we were talking about what "Organic" means. I told her that it didn't mean shit, that it was just a play on words, and that only one ingredient could technically be organic or natural. She showed me some source that showed anything labeled "organic" had to be free of GMOs. I went to the FDA website and it said there was no curent FDA restrictions with organic and GMOs. Also, I found this on a non-GMO driven website...

"May take legal action against companies

Notable for companies wanting to advertise products as non-genetically modified is the fact that the FDA says it will not allow labels like "GM-free," "GMO-Free" or "biotech-free." The agency says guaranteeing a product to be free of GM material is virtually impossible. Instead the labels will have to say the food was not produced through bioengineering. The FDA said it may take legal action against companies that violate these guidelines.
- See more at: http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/millenium/fdadisallowsgmo-freelabel.php#sthash.n58A6dZa.dpuf"

Hmmm, actually, there was no date on that article, and the copyright dates back to 2001, so now I am not sure how old that article is. That is why people should date their articles. Now if it's outdated, they look like morons.
 
graniteman

graniteman

MuscleHead
Dec 31, 2011
6,133
1,554
#17
I don't know where you're reading but the idea that there is a lack of research on the dangers of GMOs is totally false.

From Wikipedia:*"A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 found no plausible evidence of dangers from the use of currently marketed GM crops."

I should also note that about 1/3 of these studies were conducted by independent researchers not funded by Monsanto or any other GM company. Go to biofortified.org to find a growing list of these studies.

The general scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe for human consumption.

Furthermore, GMOs are heavily tested for their safety before being released to market, and then only after government agencies like the USDA have evaluated them. Do you really think if Monsanto or some other company used peanut genes in a GM food they wouldn't make absolutely sure it didn't kill people? Can you imagine the media shitstorm that would create if a GM food was proven to be dangerous?
YES!! I like this guy already a Libtard Hippy hater! Welcome aboard. GMO's, fracking, evil oil, nuclear power, global warming NOW changed to ''Climate Change'' which conveniently covers every scenario possible... blah blah blah . It's all BS from people who would never give up their cell phone, car, nice house, Latte's etc. It's called progress and to live a decent standard of life we need it ALL. Power\Energy, plentiful food sources, water(how about building new resorvoirs?),Gasoline(how about a new refinery?? The USA hasn't built a new refinery in over 50 years..WHY You ask..liberal hippy tards file lawsuits on every project
 
graniteman

graniteman

MuscleHead
Dec 31, 2011
6,133
1,554
#18
Here, found this...

http://usda-fda.com/organic-nutrition.htm

Funny thing is, it states this.

"No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. "
^^Yea and no conclusive evidence has been found Bigfoot, Aliens and Santa Claus don't exist!
Libs have gone from the ''organic '' label now regulated to the ''green '' label that is not. I know ranchers and farmers that have tried to go ''organic'' but it's stoopidly expensive and a typical gov't fiasco. I like the beef WalMart carries, pretty dang good
 
PillarofBalance

PillarofBalance

Strength Pimp
Staff Member
Feb 27, 2011
17,066
4,628
#19
USDA is a better place for info on organic.

-produced without excluded methods (genetic engineering),ionizing radiation or sewage sludge

- produced per the national list of allowed and prohibited substances

- overseen by a USDA national organic program authorized certifying agent following all USDA regulation

So if you are a company producing a food product for interstate sale you want to make your product out of USDA certified organic products. Then FDA can suck it...

I am sure as time goes on this organic labeling regulation will evolve into something that makes more sense.

I just like the fact that this return to more sustainable, environmentally friendly and healthier way of raising and growing our food has been brought on by consumer demand in our free market and not by executive decree.
 
shortz

shortz

Beard of Knowledge VIP
May 6, 2013
3,107
895
#20
^^Yea and no conclusive evidence has been found Bigfoot, Aliens and Santa Claus don't exist!
Libs have gone from the ''organic '' label now regulated to the ''green '' label that is not. I know ranchers and farmers that have tried to go ''organic'' but it's stoopidly expensive and a typical gov't fiasco. I like the beef WalMart carries, pretty dang good
I did post a study that showed feeding cattle grass raised nutrient and omega content by almost 300% though, so there is def evidence there. Just not sure how consistent it is.
 
BrutusMaximus

BrutusMaximus

Member
Jul 8, 2013
30
8
#21
I just had a discussion with someone the other day and we were talking about what "Organic" means. I told her that it didn't mean shit, that it was just a play on words, and that only one ingredient could technically be organic or natural. She showed me some source that showed anything labeled "organic" had to be free of GMOs. I went to the FDA website and it said there was no curent FDA restrictions with organic and GMOs. Also, I found this on a non-GMO driven website...

"May take legal action against companies

Notable for companies wanting to advertise products as non-genetically modified is the fact that the FDA says it will not allow labels like "GM-free," "GMO-Free" or "biotech-free." The agency says guaranteeing a product to be free of GM material is virtually impossible. Instead the labels will have to say the food was not produced through bioengineering. The FDA said it may take legal action against companies that violate these guidelines.

Hmmm, actually, there was no date on that article, and the copyright dates back to 2001, so now I am not sure how old that article is. That is why people should date their articles. Now if it's outdated, they look like morons.
Absolutely, the "organic" label just means that certain synthetic pesticides weren't used or other techniques like irradiation. Nothing to do with GMOs.

It's not impossible to avoid GM foods. Most fruits and vegetables aren't genetically modified. If the FDA was to take legal action it would be because a company said they didn't use GM foods when in fact they did. False advertising, and whatnot. Most likely, that article is taking something out of context and twisting it to fit their agenda. It happens a LOT, not just with anti-GMO sites but with just about every website that isn't a government or college or similar website.
 
BrutusMaximus

BrutusMaximus

Member
Jul 8, 2013
30
8
#22
YES!! I like this guy already a Libtard Hippy hater! Welcome aboard. GMO's, fracking, evil oil, nuclear power, global warming NOW changed to ''Climate Change'' which conveniently covers every scenario possible... blah blah blah . It's all BS from people who would never give up their cell phone, car, nice house, Latte's etc. It's called progress and to live a decent standard of life we need it ALL. Power\Energy, plentiful food sources, water(how about building new resorvoirs?),Gasoline(how about a new refinery?? The USA hasn't built a new refinery in over 50 years..WHY You ask..liberal hippy tards file lawsuits on every project
Hate to burst your bubble but I don't hate anyone :p I just would much rather learn from scientists than from talking heads and politicians. Scientists are much more reliable.

That being said, I agree with the vast majority of scientists that human activity is affecting climate change. "Global warming" is not an adequate definition of what is happening, that's why it's not being used.

I do think that we should utilize nuclear power more. It's "cleaner" than coal and oil, and has a relatively good track record (only 3 major incidents since we started doing it). I'm holding out on fracking until I hear more research about it, but what I've heard so far doesn't sound good. :(
 
BrutusMaximus

BrutusMaximus

Member
Jul 8, 2013
30
8
#23
^^Yea and no conclusive evidence has been found Bigfoot, Aliens and Santa Claus don't exist!
Libs have gone from the ''organic '' label now regulated to the ''green '' label that is not. I know ranchers and farmers that have tried to go ''organic'' but it's stoopidly expensive and a typical gov't fiasco. I like the beef WalMart carries, pretty dang good
I think "Green" typically refers to vehicles and other non-food items, but I could be wrong. Organic farming is definitely more expensive though. Lower crop yields, and more is spent on pesticides because the organic pesticides aren't as effective as the synthetic ones.
 
graniteman

graniteman

MuscleHead
Dec 31, 2011
6,133
1,554
#24
Hate to burst your bubble but I don't hate anyone :p I just would much rather learn from scientists than from talking heads and politicians. Scientists are much more reliable.

That being said, I agree with the vast majority of scientists that human activity is affecting climate change. "Global warming" is not an adequate definition of what is happening, that's why it's not being used.

I do think that we should utilize nuclear power more. It's "cleaner" than coal and oil, and has a relatively good track record (only 3 major incidents since we started doing it). I'm holding out on fracking until I hear more research about it, but what I've heard so far doesn't sound good. :(


Well..I take it back then! I don't like you either!! I'm an equal opportunity hater..''I hate all libs equally' . You pups are too young to know this but it wasn't long ago THESE SAME GROUP OF SCIENTISTS SAID WE WOULD ALL BE FROZEN RIGHT NOW! They predicted we would be in a ice age now, it wa son the cover of times mag. Hmmmm I think now they're crying the opposite, mean anything to you? Like maybe they receive their funding from the gubbamint so tow the line = mo money!!
POB you hippy, when I hear ''sustainable or enviromentally friendly'' I want to break things! What a bunch a puss's being raised these days:D

O ALL THE CHILDREN WHO SURVIVED THE 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's!

First, we survived being born to mothers Who smoked and/or drank while they were Pregnant.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, Tuna from a can and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-base paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, Locks on doors or cabinets and when we rode
Our bikes, we had baseball caps not helmets on our heads.

As infants & children, We would ride in cars with no car seats, No booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes.

Riding in the back of a pick-up truck on a warm day Was always a special treat.

We drank water From the garden hose and not from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, From one bottle and no one actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter and bacon. We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar. And, we weren't overweight. WHY?

Because we were Always outside playing... that's why!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, As long as we were back when the
Streetlights came on.

No one was able To reach us all day. And, we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps And then ride them down the hill, only to find out We forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's and X-boxes. There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable, No video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, No cell phones, No personal computers, no Internet and no chat rooms. WE HAD FRIENDS And we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth And there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, And the worms did not live in us Forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, Made up games with sticks and tennis balls and,
Although we were told it would happen, We did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and Knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just
Walked in and talked to them.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal With disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law Was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

These generations have produced some of the best Risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever.

The past 50 years Have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.
 
Top