Finally "GMO's rear its ugly head"

[UglyPug]

Of Wikipedia....
No, no, no, I kid....he's a very smart guy- but sometimes he just doesn't have the right sources to implement his claims.

Granted, I have said some things at the top of my head that he has corrected me on, but (I am dead serious here) - if I had the money to put him back through college, that would be a delight- for he has the mind to gain knowledge ( it's a gift of his) and that is a sign of wisdom. Although, you can't achieve wisdom without understanding, which is a characteristic he lacks....anyways, that's as far as I'll go right now.....

Haha, I agree, I think piglet is fairly intelligent, but lacks understanding about a lot of issues he posts; I also don't think he's quite as smart, or clever as he thinks he is. I imagine him typing with a stern look on his face at all times.

I've had to school him on a few areas he lacks understand in, but he's also corrected me a few times as well.

Lol but he's a good lad, and I enjoy his presence on the forums.

[squealpiggy]

Ok, while as a nutritionist / ******* - there are studies which develop our understanding to increase our knowledge and adhere to the safety of the human people - but this study is a steaming pile of bull**** as is Russia....

....as is squealpiggy

A nutritionist eh? That sounds very food-sciencey. It's also a meaningless term, it's not a protected term. You can call yourself a nutritionist with zero schooling.

There was that one poster who had a picture of a woman who was like 55, and ate dairy, meats, cheeses, and all kinds of sugary desserts, and she looked like she was 28 eyars old.

Then another woman, who lived by all these "organic foods" only, etc., etc. who was the same age, but looked like she was 70.

No, actually what you said is:


You obviously don't understand GM foods whatsoever to be capable of such a statement.

I made an of the cuff comment about the expense of buying organic food, which is primarily marketed as a status thing.

Actually, you sort of have it backward. It is the interest groups which push the poisons. Sometimes in the more egregious cases some consumer advocacy organization, or scientific research laboratory, comes out to raise questions about the safety of the products in question, and incur the wrath of the industry groups, which have a massive economic interest in, say, GM foods not being so much as labeled.

If you do follow the money trail, it often runs in the other direction. The ones with a vested economic interest in this case are not the scientists in France, it is Monsanto, and other pedlars of bio-engineered life forms.

Nobody said that the scientists have a financial interest in the results of the study. They certainly have a political interest if their previous work is anything to go by.

What was pointed out is that the "natural" health industry is worth billions of dollars and most of what they peddle is snake-oil. There's a reason why they are anti-everything and that reason is that it's lucrative to sell their bottled homeopathy water and copper bracelets and green sludge and worthless pills and salves and they don't want people going to their doctor and being told that they're wasting their money so you get people like Natural News spreading lies about real medicine.

Oh, I agree 100%. If I had a choice, I'd go with products using natural sugar. That's why all the sodas that use natural sugar, as opposed to high fructose corn syrup, taste so much better.

I drink diet pop, full sugar ones are gross. Make my teeth hurt.

The thing about high fructose syrup is that it is significantly sweeter than cane sugar meaning that they can use less so it contains fewer calories (and costs less to produce too). Of course the professional paranoiacs like to tell you that it's like totally processed man, as though processing food is always a bad thing. As though cane sugar isn't processed. As though stevia isn't processed.

But I don't think drinking a few sodas a week, or hell, even one soda a day if you're active with high fructose corn syrup is going to do anything to you. Or consuming other high fructose corn syrup products in moderation is going to have any ill-effects on you.

ALso, as a "simple carb" both raw sugar, and high fructose corn syrup will both store up as fat just as quickly.

Yes, the hand wringing is disproportionate to the actual threat.

[Canelo Phresh]

A nutritionist eh? That sounds very food-sciencey. It's also a meaningless term, it's not a protected term. You can call yourself a nutritionist with zero schooling.







I made an of the cuff comment about the expense of buying organic food, which is primarily marketed as a status thing.



Nobody said that the scientists have a financial interest in the results of the study. They certainly have a political interest if their previous work is anything to go by.

What was pointed out is that the "natural" health industry is worth billions of dollars and most of what they peddle is snake-oil. There's a reason why they are anti-everything and that reason is that it's lucrative to sell their bottled homeopathy water and copper bracelets and green sludge and worthless pills and salves and they don't want people going to their doctor and being told that they're wasting their money so you get people like Natural News spreading lies about real medicine.



I drink diet pop, full sugar ones are gross. Make my teeth hurt.

The thing about high fructose syrup is that it is significantly sweeter than cane sugar meaning that they can use less so it contains fewer calories (and costs less to produce too). Of course the professional paranoiacs like to tell you that it's like totally processed man, as though processing food is always a bad thing. As though cane sugar isn't processed. As though stevia isn't processed.



Yes, the hand wringing is disproportionate to the actual threat.

Looked for nudes of Nigella Lawson but sadly none.

[UglyPug]

A nutritionist eh? That sounds very food-sciencey. It's also a meaningless term, it's not a protected term. You can call yourself a nutritionist with zero schooling.







I made an of the cuff comment about the expense of buying organic food, which is primarily marketed as a status thing.



Nobody said that the scientists have a financial interest in the results of the study. They certainly have a political interest if their previous work is anything to go by.

What was pointed out is that the "natural" health industry is worth billions of dollars and most of what they peddle is snake-oil. There's a reason why they are anti-everything and that reason is that it's lucrative to sell their bottled homeopathy water and copper bracelets and green sludge and worthless pills and salves and they don't want people going to their doctor and being told that they're wasting their money so you get people like Natural News spreading lies about real medicine.



I drink diet pop, full sugar ones are gross. Make my teeth hurt.

The thing about high fructose syrup is that it is significantly sweeter than cane sugar meaning that they can use less so it contains fewer calories (and costs less to produce too). Of course the professional paranoiacs like to tell you that it's like totally processed man, as though processing food is always a bad thing. As though cane sugar isn't processed. As though stevia isn't processed.



Yes, the hand wringing is disproportionate to the actual threat.

Good find, piglet. That's the picture I was looking for.


I'm in agreement with you here. Except the diet vs full sugar pops. I can't drink more than 12 oz at a time, nor can I drink them like water throughout the day, but I love the sweet pops juxtaposed with a good spicy, salty meal!

[arraamis]

Looked for nudes of Nigella Lawson but sadly none.

Yes, she's definately a looker ....

*******

I think the bottom-line and what I really do not like, is the issue relating to labeling. There should be a national mandate on GMO labeling, so that consumers can make an informed decision about what they're putting on their families tables.

To sneak an untested food product onto super market shelves without any warning is extremely suspect. Forget the denial of choice involved with the brazen act for a minute, and focus on the inherent why's.

Consumer's not only are entitled to that choice by law, but also by right. And if consumers make the decision, NOT to consume GMO's then that is their choice ... But what we have in practice is a complete denial of choice.

And when I state untested, I am referring to research and testing conducted by independants who have no affiliation with the Monsanto's of the world.

[squealpiggy]

Yes, she's definately a looker ....

*******

I think the bottom-line and what I really do not like, is the issue relating to labeling. There should be a national mandate on GMO labeling, so that consumers can make an informed decision about what they're putting on their families tables.

To sneak an untested food product onto super market shelves without any warning is extremely suspect. Forget the denial of choice involved with the brazen act for a minute, and focus on the inherent why's.

Consumer's not only are entitled to that choice by law, but also by right. And if consumers make the decision, NOT to consume GMO's then that is their choice ... But what we have in practice is a complete denial of choice.

And when I state untested, I am referring to research and testing conducted by independants who have no affiliation with the Monsanto's of the world.

Does this mean that you're retracting your statements about how GM food is poisoning everyone?

[UglyPug]

Yes, she's definately a looker ....

*******

I think the bottom-line and what I really do not like, is the issue relating to labeling. There should be a national mandate on GMO labeling, so that consumers can make an informed decision about what they're putting on their families tables.

To sneak an untested food product onto super market shelves without any warning is extremely suspect. Forget the denial of choice involved with the brazen act for a minute, and focus on the inherent why's.

Consumer's not only are entitled to that choice by law, but also by right. And if consumers make the decision, NOT to consume GMO's then that is their choice ... But what we have in practice is a complete denial of choice.

And when I state untested, I am referring to research and testing conducted by independants who have no affiliation with the Monsanto's of the world.

I do agree with this here. I see no reason why they don't have to release it.

Then let people do research from BOTH sides, and hopefully independent scientists as well (although i wonder if that'd be possible. . depending on how they get their funding).

I seriously doubt it would stop me from eating the corn, unless I was seriously convinced based on research that there is a proven causation, or even correlation between eating produce subject to GMO, and "harm." And I meant REAL research, where they list possible flaws, variables, etc. Control groups, and everything.

[arraamis]

I do agree with this here. I see no reason why they don't have to release it.

Then let people do research from BOTH sides, and hopefully independent scientists as well (although i wonder if that'd be possible. . depending on how they get their funding).

I seriously doubt it would stop me from eating the corn, unless I was seriously convinced based on research that there is a proven causation, or even correlation between eating produce subject to GMO, and "harm." And I meant REAL research, where they list possible flaws, variables, etc. Control groups, and everything.

At least you would be in a position to make a choice -- That is the main difference.

When you butter and are ready to indulge in your corn, you're really oblivious of its origin. With a GMO label mandate, you would know for certain whether the corn is GM, and are therefore in a position to make an informed choice, to indulge and assume the associated risks or not.

[squealpiggy]

At least you would be in a position to make a choice -- That is the main difference.

When you butter and are ready to indulge in your corn, you're really oblivious of its origin. With a GMO label mandate, you would know for certain whether the corn is GM, and are therefore in a position to make an informed choice, to indulge and assume the associated risks or not.

So you're still saying that there are "risks" despite the majority of research saying that there aren't any?

[arraamis]

So you're still saying that there are "risks" despite the majority of research saying that there aren't any?

I don't what kind of B.S. you're spouting but the evidence is there for those who WISH to open their eyes and read.

There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.2,6,7,8,9,10,11

Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system.6

Regarding biological gradient, one study, done by Kroghsbo, et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. 11

Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.

Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.13 The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."13

Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: "When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)."13

With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:


Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.

Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.

Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.

For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.

(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)

Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D.

Bibliography: Genetically Modified Foods Position Paper AAEM

World Health Organization. (Internet).(2002). Foods derived from modern technology: 20 questions on genetically modified foods. Available from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/public...s/en/index.php

Smith, JM. Genetic Roulette. Fairfield: Yes Books.2007. p.10

Freese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews. Nov 2004. 21.

Society of Toxicology. The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol. Sci. 2003; 71:2-8.

Hill, AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceeding of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300.

Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric. Food Chem. 2008; 56(23):11533-11539.

Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean:effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130:967-977.

Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. 2008.

Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354.

Kilic A, Aday M. A three generational study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008; 46(3):1164-1170.

Kroghsbo S, Madsen C, Poulsen M, et al. Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice expression PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats. Toxicology. 2008; 245:24-34.

Gurain-Sherman,D. 2009. Failure to yield: evaluating the performance of genetically engineered crops. Cambridge (MA): Union of Concerned Scientists.

Lofstedt R. The precautionary principle: risk, regulation and politics. Merton College, Oxford. 2002.