Somehow I was under the impression that it was in limited supplies at the neighborhood grocery stores due to the many protest, but it looks like it was only Monsanto that was the issue. Meanwhile, it's been business as usually.

And while we are on it, ideas of cloned livestock for food. What do you think? What have you read?

http://www.guardian.co.uk...sfeed=true

mod-o-licious

I am okay with the labels as long as there are no bans. we act like it is a bad thing to be able to produce food much faster and much cheaper...

i saw part of a movie called food inc. it was pretty good, except their agenda was to BAN many of the methods of producing food cheaper and faster. We NEED food... if some treatment can make a chicken grow 3 times as fast and cuts the cost in half... i think that is a good thing.

i say keep the government out of my kitchen and out of my bed room...

OnlyNDaUsa said:

mod-o-licious

I am okay with the labels as long as there are no bans. we act like it is a bad thing to be able to produce food much faster and much cheaper...

i saw part of a movie called food inc. it was pretty good, except their agenda was to BAN many of the methods of producing food cheaper and faster. We NEED food... if some treatment can make a chicken grow 3 times as fast and cuts the cost in half... i think that is a good thing.

i say keep the government out of my kitchen and out of my bed room...

...so long as the proper testing and reseatrch has been done to ensure that the aforementioned super-chicken won't give me dementia or some rare disorder after years of consumption.

...and by "testing & research" I don't mean funded by Tyson Farms and delivered to the USDA wrapped in $100 bills.

After reading the book Omnivore Dilemna which goes into the history of nutrition I could see how we are "signing away our birthrights" for an instant gratification. It seems we (the public) assume that they (the nutrionalist) know everything there is to know about what makes our bodies tick, and nobody does, only time gives us the real answer. It's been a hit or miss throughout history. Even in my lifetime I remember the craze where margerine was so much better for you than butter, and in time it was discovered that transfat which are in margerine will kill you faster than the regular old animal fat that's in butter, hence now we have all these labeling telling you this or that product doesn't contain transfats. Constantly trading one fad for another.

I don't know if GM foods are a problem maybe they're not but I hate thinking that one isn't given a choice of knowing what they are eating, and realizing just how much of the food we eat is dictated by someone else.

Everything is genetically modified. I mean...what do you think a hybrid is?

Nobody got their knickers in a twist when somebody crossed one corn plant with another corn plant to produce one that's more drought/insect/whatever resistant. It's only when someone found a way to do it without waiting several plant generations that people freaked out.

Frankly, a lot of it is just anti-corporate propaganda.

We know cross breeding species has it's drawbacks, which is what GM is, not crossing plant species with each other but bacterium, insect or other animal species with plants. Things that could never occur in nature, and could not reproduce on their own. I'm aware corn the more diverse grain on the plant is the byproduct of genetic manipulation by humans, but it had a lot of time to perfect.

PurpleJedi said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

mod-o-licious

I am okay with the labels as long as there are no bans. we act like it is a bad thing to be able to produce food much faster and much cheaper...

i saw part of a movie called food inc. it was pretty good, except their agenda was to BAN many of the methods of producing food cheaper and faster. We NEED food... if some treatment can make a chicken grow 3 times as fast and cuts the cost in half... i think that is a good thing.

i say keep the government out of my kitchen and out of my bed room...

...so long as the proper testing and reseatrch has been done to ensure that the aforementioned super-chicken won't give me dementia or some rare disorder after years of consumption.

...and by "testing & research" I don't mean funded by Tyson Farms and delivered to the USDA wrapped in $100 bills.

so how do they test it to that standard? Seems the labels would suffice to let you know that there could be some risk allowing you to chose for yourself if you want to risk it or not. I will likewise choose for myself.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

PurpleJedi said:

...so long as the proper testing and reseatrch has been done to ensure that the aforementioned super-chicken won't give me dementia or some rare disorder after years of consumption.

...and by "testing & research" I don't mean funded by Tyson Farms and delivered to the USDA wrapped in $100 bills.

so how do they test it to that standard? Seems the labels would suffice to let you know that there could be some risk allowing you to chose for yourself if you want to risk it or not. I will likewise choose for myself.

Set WHAT standard?

All I want is to be able to TRUST that whatever is being offered for consumption is, indeed, fit for human consumption and won't make me grow six nipples when I'm 60.

PurpleJedi said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so how do they test it to that standard? Seems the labels would suffice to let you know that there could be some risk allowing you to chose for yourself if you want to risk it or not. I will likewise choose for myself.

Set WHAT standard?

the one that ensures no major side effect years later.

All I want is to be able to TRUST that whatever is being offered for consumption is, indeed, fit for human consumption and won't make me grow six nipples when I'm 60.

how do you do that? what method? 30 years of testing?

You really want no testing on a hormone that would cause a chicken to grow to three times its normal size?

/

[Edited 3/12/12 12:38pm]

Efan said:

You really want no testing on a hormone that would cause a chicken to grow to three times its normal size (in half the time it takes to grow to normal size)?

Who said anything at all like that?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Efan said:

You really want no testing on a hormone that would cause a chicken to grow to three times its normal size (in half the time it takes to grow to normal size)?

Who said anything at all like that?

Whoops. You said three times as fast, not as big. Sorry. Still, I have essentially the same question:

You really want no testing on a hormone that would cause a chicken to grow three times faster than normal?

Efan said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Who said anything at all like that?

Whoops. You said three times as fast, not as big. Sorry. Still, I have essentially the same question:

You really want no testing on a hormone that would cause a chicken to grow three times faster than normal?

I still never said i was opposed to testing. I am okay with testing! I am fine with labels and restrictions too. I just do not agree with those that want to ban it.

I also do not see how purplejedi's standard of testing is possible. I do not see any good way to test that something will not cause some problem years down the road.

So I say we use testing and monitoring and labels. as questions arise then more testing can be done and if need be change the product.

*much like coke is now changing its carmle coloring in light of new data over the safety its current formula

Efan said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Who said anything at all like that?

Whoops. You said three times as fast, not as big. Sorry. Still, I have essentially the same question:

You really want no testing on a hormone that would cause a chicken to grow three times faster than normal?

What do you have against giant chickens, anyway? [img:$uid]http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g216/rebecca8273/emoticon/eusa_eh.gif[/img:$uid]

Genesia said:

Efan said:

Whoops. You said three times as fast, not as big. Sorry. Still, I have essentially the same question:

You really want no testing on a hormone that would cause a chicken to grow three times faster than normal?

What do you have against giant chickens, anyway? [img:$uid]http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g216/rebecca8273/emoticon/eusa_eh.gif[/img:$uid]

I totally want to derail this thread now. But I shan't.

Genesia said:

Everything is genetically modified. I mean...what do you think a hybrid is?

Nobody got their knickers in a twist when somebody crossed one corn plant with another corn plant to produce one that's more drought/insect/whatever resistant. It's only when someone found a way to do it without waiting several plant generations that people freaked out.

Frankly, a lot of it is just anti-corporate propaganda.

I'm not as educated on this issue as I should be, but I tend--perhaps in a misinformed way--to be leery of modified animal products more than modified produce. With produce, I usually don't like the modifications--I always buy watermelon and grapes with seeds, for example. They taste far, far superior. But I'm not worried about the seedless variety, and I would eat them if I had to. But chickens and cows and pigs that get hormones and weird diets, etc.--that I find worrisome.

ppsh, derailed it's the org way, besides folks are talking about hormones, but it's about genetic manipulation beyond the cellular level, two totally different subjects anyway.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

PurpleJedi said:

Set WHAT standard?

the one that ensures no major side effect years later.

All I want is to be able to TRUST that whatever is being offered for consumption is, indeed, fit for human consumption and won't make me grow six nipples when I'm 60.

how do you do that? what method? 30 years of testing?

I would like to think...to hope...to EXPECT...that our science has evolved to the point where we can determine what will and will not be harmful WITHOUT 30 years' worth of tests.

There have been leaps and bounds in scientific developments since the days that margarine was developed as a "healthy alternative" to butter.

I dunno...if the answer is a resounding 'NO'...then maybe we need to send our testing to India.

We're using up the peasants for organ harvesting anyway, why not use them for excessive mutant chicken consumption?

Efan said:

Genesia said:

Everything is genetically modified. I mean...what do you think a hybrid is?

Nobody got their knickers in a twist when somebody crossed one corn plant with another corn plant to produce one that's more drought/insect/whatever resistant. It's only when someone found a way to do it without waiting several plant generations that people freaked out.

Frankly, a lot of it is just anti-corporate propaganda.

I'm not as educated on this issue as I should be, but I tend--perhaps in a misinformed way--to be leery of modified animal products more than modified produce. With produce, I usually don't like the modifications--I always buy watermelon and grapes with seeds, for example. They taste far, far superior. But I'm not worried about the seedless variety, and I would eat them if I had to. But chickens and cows and pigs that get hormones and weird diets, etc.--that I find worrisome.

The hormones & antibiotics used in animal production are separate issues – there’s a host of issues in that industry, from environmental impact, the amount of food and water that has to go into the animals in order to raise them, how animals are treated in production. I recently read Peter Singer’s ‘The Ethics of What We Eat’ and it had a truly powerful impact on me, to the extent that I’ve decided, after forty plus years of loving prime rib and salmon, to adopt a vegetarian diet – but that’s another topic entirely.

As for the GMO, I’m first going to quote from pages 130-131 of Denialism by Michael Specter:

“The National Academy of Sciences and the UK’s Genetically Modified Science Review Panel, among many other scientific organizations, have concluded repeatedly that the process of adding genes to our food by genetic engineering is just as safe as conventional plant breeding. Each group, in turn, has concluded that there is no danger associated with replacing the combination of genes that has always occurred through breeding or nature with a process that allows scientist to insert snippets of DNA into the walls of cells with a gene gun.”

The most broadly vocalised argument against GMOs is the easiest one to dismiss. As already pointed out, everything we eat has been modified, either by genetic engineering, breeding or by nature. Mutations occur in nature, genes jump around – evolution depends on that very process.

There are more legitimate concerns. In Denialism, the book I quoted above, an example is given of genes from a brazil nut being placed into a soybean, and a fatality could result if someone with a nut allergy were to eat that soy product. The product in this case never went to market, but that’s an example of something that unwittingly could happen. There is also the threat that GMO plants or animals will interact with the wild and alter ecosystems. It’s very rare for any new technology to pose zero risk, so we have to weigh the benefits versus the costs. GM crops require fewer chemicals, less water and produce more, and those are the real world benefits that the poorest regions of the world need the most.

I think the resistance to the technology is mainly based in reflexive fear and somewhat more justifiable precaution – but excessive caution dampens advancement, and losing the benefit we gain from the technology is its own risk. We accept this type of manipulation in our medical products (eg insulin has been made from a synthetic gene since 1982) without too much ado, and I think we should be setting aside the reflexive fears and embracing the tech here as well – have the debate by all means, but it should be based on the science, not on knee-jerk franken-food fear-mongering.

All that may or may not be true, all people's mouths are cut the same way and all that. It's just unnerving that there are groups that don't feel that the consumer should have an informed decision or choice of what they put in their mouth. There has been a very bad history of that, and just simply saying that those in certain positions have a better knowledge of what is or isn't good for us is what I mean by giving away your birthright.

Efan said:

Genesia said:

Everything is genetically modified. I mean...what do you think a hybrid is?

Nobody got their knickers in a twist when somebody crossed one corn plant with another corn plant to produce one that's more drought/insect/whatever resistant. It's only when someone found a way to do it without waiting several plant generations that people freaked out.

Frankly, a lot of it is just anti-corporate propaganda.

I'm not as educated on this issue as I should be, but I tend--perhaps in a misinformed way--to be leery of modified animal products more than modified produce. With produce, I usually don't like the modifications--I always buy watermelon and grapes with seeds, for example. They taste far, far superior. But I'm not worried about the seedless variety, and I would eat them if I had to. But chickens and cows and pigs that get hormones and weird diets, etc.--that I find worrisome.

exactly, there is nothing harmful in my mind about breeding fruit & veggies to be a certain way, except that they are generally bred for shelf life rather than flavor. Plus, you have to wonder if they have the same nutrition as the "real" thing.

But with meat it seems a little more complicated, as you mention, what with hormones...but perhaps pesticides in our fruit are also alarming. Certain things like apples & potatoes may absorb more than others.

Wow, just wow.

morningsong said:

All that may or may not be true, all people's mouths are cut the same way and all that. It's just unnerving that there are groups that don't feel that the consumer should have an informed decision or choice of what they put in their mouth. There has been a very bad history of that, and just simply saying that those in certain positions have a better knowledge of what is or isn't good for us is what I mean by giving away your birthright.

I do think it's good to know. I am all for labels. I just am more concerned about some things than others, such as actual poison or hormones in my food

As has been said, some genetic modification could more or less as innocent as the various dog breeds. And I like Labradors. But some breeds do have health problems, so it's not completely without risk, either in dogs or fruit.

But to continue the dog analogy, adding pesticides & hormones might be likened to bad training for your pitbull. In those cases, the nurture probably outweighs the nature.

i want them to modify animals to the point they cook themselves! So you have a pen of creatures and you say "I am hungry" and you go pick one to eat... put it on a plate and pull out a tab and it cooks!

NDRU said:

morningsong said:

All that may or may not be true, all people's mouths are cut the same way and all that. It's just unnerving that there are groups that don't feel that the consumer should have an informed decision or choice of what they put in their mouth. There has been a very bad history of that, and just simply saying that those in certain positions have a better knowledge of what is or isn't good for us is what I mean by giving away your birthright.

I do think it's good to know. I am all for labels. I just am more concerned about some things than others, such as actual poison or hormones in my food

As has been said, some genetic modification could more or less as innocent as the various dog breeds. And I like Labradors. But some breeds do have health problems, so it's not completely without risk, either in dogs or fruit.

But to continue the dog analogy, adding pesticides & hormones might be likened to bad training for your pitbull. In those cases, the nurture probably outweighs the nature.

Well it definitely explains a lot about people in general. Yeah, I get one can only concern themselves about so many things at one time.