LEGIT LIKE dont even get me started about the anti gmo people like i have learned so much about corn farming from them just being fucking incorrect
yeah I mean there are always concerns when we genetically engineer things, but the fact is there’s simply no way to feed our present global population without these crops engineered to be higher yielding, pest resistant etc.
like seriously our global population has NEVER had 7 billion. It took thousands and thousands of years to even get to 1 billion.
and a lot of these people are scaremongering based on nonsensical facts and taking advantage of people being unfamiliar with the science to throw around scary-sounding terms :-/
Monsanto’s PR “Reputation campaign” spotted in Food Network #Magazine and the commercials have been airing on #FoodNetworkTV. This campaign stole messaging from the Prop. 37 GMO labeling campaign. No, Monsanto. #GMO food is not love. When they steal your messaging, you know you’re winning. Monsanto: Your reputation is based on your long term history of unethical behavior and all the money in the world won’t change that. Our families are not #Roundup Ready. We’re not buying it. Turn that #TV off. Unsubscribe from the #propaganda! #Foodgram #Foodie #Lunchgram #NaySayersGottaNaySay
TL;DR: Because the California Fish and Game Commission decided that GMO fish are bad and GloFish® are “immoral.”
I don’t think these fish are scary. I think GloFish® look kind of like fun, swimming Skittles and Mentos. Glofish are for the most part just like other tropical pet fish, but they glow under blacklight. As cute as they are, they’re more illegal than machine guns in California, the only U.S. state that has banned the pets.
A British company’s plan to unleash hordes of genetically modified
mosquitoes in Florida to reduce the threat of dengue fever and other
diseases has sparked an outcry from fearful residents.
As of Friday, more than 145,000 people had signed a petition
at change.org urging regulators to “say no” to allowing the
tourist-friendly fishing and diving haven to become “a testing ground
for these mutant bugs.”
The company, Oxitec, said it wants to try the technique there in
order to reduce the non-native Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in south Florida
"They are more than just a nuisance as they can spread serious diseases such as dengue fever and chikungunya,” Oxitec said on its website.
The process involves inserting a gene into lab-grown, male Aedes
aegypti mosquitoes. The added DNA makes it impossible for their
offspring to survive. Since the males do not bite—only the females do—the lab-grown males
would be released to mate with wild females. These releases would take
place a few times per week.
"Both the released mosquitoes and their offspring will die—they do
not stay in the environment," Oxitec said, describing the approach as "a
new tool in the fight against mosquitoes."
Trials conducted in the Cayman Islands and Brazil showed a more than
90 percent drop in mosquito populations, according to the company. Based on those results, the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District
agreed to work with Oxitec, which has built a breeding lab in the
Florida Keys. But the project still needs approval from the Food and Drug Administration to move forward. If it does get the green light, the mosquito releases could begin in a few months.
That animal was not given any antibiotics during its lifetime
birds are raised without cages - ALTHOUGH it doesn’t specify whether the birds were raised outdoors or if they were raised indoors in overcrowded conditions.
farmers and workers have received a fair wage and worked in acceptable conditions
"The label can be used as long as the producers allow the birds access to the outdoors so that they can engage in natural behaviors. It does not necessarily mean that the products are cruelty-free or antibiotic-free, or that the animals spent the majority of their time outdoors. Claims are defined by the USDA, but are not verified by third-party inspectors. " (IIN)
GMO-FREE, NON-GMO, OR NO GMOS
not genetically modified
Animals raised on grain ( check for 100% vegetarian diet to ensure they weren’t fed any animal by-products
animals fed grass (natural diet) instead of grain/animal byproducts/synthetic hormones and sometimes antibiotics. look for grass fed AND grass finished (not fed grain before slaughter)
must be low in saturated fat, and only small amounts of cholesterol and sodium. Some must also contain 10% of either vitamins A or C, iron, calcium, protein, or fiber.
"A “heritage” label describes a rare and endangered breed of livestock or crops. Heritage breeds are traditional livestock that were raised by farmers in the past, before industrial agriculture drastically reduced breed variety. These animals are prized for their rich taste, and they usually contain a higher fat content than commercial breeds. Production standards are not required by law, but true heritage farmers use sustainable production methods. This method of production saves animals from extinction and preserves genetic diversity. " (IIN)
(i.e. no added hormones) animals raised without added growth hormones (hogs and poultry cannot be given hormones by law
no standards for any food except meat and poultry. These products (meat and poultry) have to undergo minimal processing, no artificial colors/flavors/ preservatives, etc.
Food isn’t exposed to radiation
a traditional farming technique where animals are raised on a pasture where they can graze on grass and other plants. Very humane. (similar to grass fed except pasture raised indicates that the animals were raised outdoors)
"All organic agricultural farms and products must meet the following guidelines (verified by a USDA- approved independent agency):
Abstain from the application of prohibited materials (including synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and sewage sludge) for three years prior to certification and then continually throughout their organic license.
Prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms and irradiation.
Refrain from antibiotic and hormone use in animals.
Sustain animals on 100% organic feed.
Avoid contamination during the processing of organic products.
Keep records of all operations.
If a product contains the “USDA Organic” seal, it means that 95 to 100% of its ingredients are organic. Products with 70 to 95% organic ingredients can still advertise “organic ingredients” on the front of the package, and products with less than 70% organic ingredients can identify them on the side panel. Organic foods prohibit the use of hydrogenation and trans fats. ” (IIN)
RBGH-FREE OR RBST-FREE
RBGH is a growth hormone that artificially increases the milk production in cows. RGBH has not been properly tested and is not allowed in the European Union, Canada and some other countries.
SOURCES: Institute of Integrative Nutrition, http://sustainabletable.org
"WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children."
Big Psychiatry: Eating Too Healthy is a “Mental Disorder”
Apparently not content with medicating more than one out of every five Americans with mind-altering and potentially dangerous psychiatric drugs, the Big Psychiatry and Big Pharmaceutical industries are working to promote their latest invented “mental disorder” supposedly requiring their benevolent and costly assistance: Being too concerned about eating healthy. Calling the proposed new “disorder” orthorexia nervosa, the increasingly discredited establishment press has so far been more than happy to unquestioningly parrot the notion that people deeply concerned with eating healthy and nutritious food are somehow “ill” and in need of expensive “treatment.” As public knowledge of toxins in processed food and genetic engineering spread, the “disorder” is apparently surging in tandem.
The dubious diagnosis of so-called “orthorexia,” which translates roughly into righteous or correct eating, was first proposed by Dr. Steven Bratman in 1997. He originally defined it as “an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy food.” Outside of psychiatry, it was largely ignored or ridiculed. Even many psychiatrists balked as the whole industry faced increasing scrutiny over its accelerating efforts to expand the list “mental disorders” by just making more up — along with expanding the potential pool of “patients” in need of supposed “treatment.” A handful of articles discussed it over the years, including a 2005 piece in the state-funded BBC and a 2011 article in the Huffington Post.
Starting late last year, though, almost certainly with an expensive public-relations propaganda campaign operating behind the scenes, Bratman’s alleged “disorder” gained a great deal of traction in the establishment press. Indeed, inside a period of just a few months, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, ABC News, and other media outlets all began hyping the supposed “disorder” as if it were a totally legitimate disease that had just been discovered and was fast becoming another scourge on mankind. All of the articles indicated that the alleged condition was on the rise, failing to mention growing awareness about widely distrusted genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and various toxins often found in processed foods. Just 37 percent of Americans think genetically engineered food is generally safe to eat, according to a recent survey.
In the media, though, “orthorexia” was treated as deadly serious. The Journal, for example, called it “a little-researched disorder,” and claimed that researchers were coming up with “criteria” for clinicians to “diagnose orthorexia.” ABC News even found an eccentric 23-year-old woman whose “perfectionism” surrounding food had supposedly “morphed into a full-blown eating disorder called ‘orthorexia nervosa.’” Not to be outdone, CNN claimed: “There’s now a name for people dangerously addicted to all things healthy — a sufferer of orthorexia nervosa.” Popular Science, Fast Company, and other media outlets also began hyping the supposed disorder. Despite all of the hysteria, however, there seems to be little agreement on what precise combination of seemingly arbitrary “symptoms” must be exhibited to qualify.
In traditional medicine, objective biological diagnoses can be made because there are real medical problems being dealt with — a broken bone on an x-ray, a bacterial infection, and so on. With “orthorexia,” though, like virtually all of modern psychiatry, there are no objective criteria or biological tests. Indeed, psychiatrists actually vote regularly to literally invent or redefine supposed diseases, “symptoms” that go with their newly created “disorders,” and what drugs ought to be used to treat them. While what critics call the latest “quackery” has not yet been formally added to the ballooning “bible” of psychiatry known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the recent PR campaign appears to be setting the stage for its eventual inclusion.
Even the DSM, though, is coming under increasing fire. Duke University psychiatry professor Allen Frances, who served as the lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM, explained that “there is no definition of a mental disorder.” In fact, “it’s bull****,” he said as he attacked the very foundations of psychiatry’s “diagnostic” tool. “I mean, you just can’t define it.” “The DSM is distinct from all other diagnostic manuals because it has an enormous, perhaps too large, impact on society and millions of people’s lives,” explained Dr. Frances, who also worked on previous editions of the manual. “Unlike many other fields, psychiatric illnesses have no clear biological gold standard for diagnosing them.”
In 2012, as the DSM was being updated and packed with new and improved labels, the problems only grew. In an unprecedented rebellion, 13,000 mental health professional from around the world were so outraged at what they saw that they attacked it publicly in an open letter calling for the manual to be put on hold and reconsidered. “[The DSM] is wrong in principle, based as it is on redefining a whole range of understandable reactions to life circumstances as ‘illnesses,’ which then become a target for toxic medications heavily promoted by the pharmaceutical industry,” clinical psychologist Lucy Johnstone with a Health Board in Wales told Reuters at the time. “The DSM project cannot be justified, in principle or in practice. It must be abandoned so that we can find more humane and effective ways of responding to mental distress.”
For the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries, however, the DSM and its perpetually mushrooming list of invented “disorders” means big money. In a widely reprinted report first published by the Natural Society, journalist and researcher Jefferey Jaxen lambasted the drive to label those concerned about healthy eating as mentally disordered. Suggesting it was an establishment attempt to curb growing consumer demand for healthy and nutritious food, Jaxen also attacked the psychiatric industry and its close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry as an unholy alliance aimed at fleecing consumers by inventing more “disorders” to be treated with their “toxic products” as the supposed answer.
“The cherry on top is that if you have the pseudo-science labeled disorder of orthorexia nervosa, you will be prescribed known toxic, pharmaceutical drugs from some of the same conglomerate corporations that you are trying to avoid by eating healthy in the first place,” he wrote, pointing out that efforts are underway to label even creativity as a mental disorder. “As the people continue to walk away from the broken medical and agricultural/food systems like any abusive relationship, the food makers are willing to do anything to maintain their waning control…. Perhaps some people to take it too far to the point of self-harm, but the problem we face with a toxic food system is a much larger threat.”
Indeed, beyond what critics say is wild overmedication and over-diagnosing of “mental disorders,” some experts have raised an even more troubling specter. As The New American reported in 2012, former U.S. Marine Brandon Raub was detained in a psychiatric ward by law enforcement over anti-government Facebook posts. “The police state is here,” explained John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, about Raub’s case. “For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon. This should be a wake-up call to Americans.” Of course, the mass-murdering regime ruling the Soviet Union became infamous for its use of “psychiatry” and quack diagnoses to disappear and discredit political opponents.
While there may indeed be a tiny handful of people who are what most would consider “too” concerned about healthy eating, critics of the effort to make “orthorexia” into a “mental disorder” said the issue highlights a growing and troubling trend. DSM-IV lead editor Dr. Frances, for example, warned years ago that the overly broad and vague definitions of “disorders” would create more “false epidemics” and increase the “medicalization of everyday behavior.” His motivation for speaking out, he wrote in Psychology Today, was to prevent “diagnostic inflation” that would result in the “mislabeling of millions of people as mentally disordered.”
As psychiatry increasingly seeks to label any and all emotions, beliefs, and actions as “disorders,” healthy eaters and the general public ought to be paying attention. If the industry and its Big Government allies are left unchecked, Americans may wake up one day to find that they, too, have some newly invented “mental disorder.”
I think the age of fact-checking in journalism is over, as all of these stories seem to have more or less invented the Genetic Modification angle and run with it, and/or copied each other. Even science news aggregators are heralding this as a GM crop: next comes the Facebook groups calling for it to be banned, and the townspeople with pitchforks to burn the orchard: all the while, no one bothered to read the product description, or watch the breeders’ video.
The process of selecting this apple is described on their website in all of its conventional breeding glory:
"An apple is an apple. But not in this case. Our new breeding Paradis Sparkling® is different. So different, just as the name describes: Sparkling® explodes in your mouth. When the large cells release their juice, it feels as if CO2 is brought into play. To stay with the analogy: Paradis Sparkling® is the first apple that is not ‘still’, but ‘sparkling’!
This apple variety is so different that I can remember the exact day when I selected it in the field amongst thousands of seedlings. In
general, apples at this early stage are just mere numbers and they are
only able to undergo more intensive testing and over the years, they
gain personality and stature. But on that day in September 2006, I was
with my cousin Robert, a psychiatrist. He wanted to do something
tangible for one day, eat fruits, with both feet on the ground. Then we
walked by an apple tree and we really wanted to skip over it because the
apples looked somewhat unattractive. But something pulled me back, I
turned around, grabbed an apple, cut a slice for Robert and one for me -
and we ate a Paradis Sparkling® apple for the very first time! This is
what I wrote in my notes: “sour, sweet and tangy. Effervescent tablet,
texture is very unique.”
And a year later, also very uncommon
in breeding, where the variety name is usually assigned just before the
market launch, it got its present name. Tomi Hungerbühler, the apple
whisperer, bit into apple no. 85 - and exclaimed spontaneously:
“Sparkling!” Yes, that is just how it felt and feels when this apple is
eaten in its ideal full ripeness.
Did I mention that the first
fruits in 2006 were pretty unattractive? I wouldn’t judge our Sparkling®
apple this hard today, but perhaps the taste obscures my eyes? Anyway, I
consider it my duty and obligation to point out some negative
characteristics of Sparkling®:
It is irregular in shape and size; it can produce huge apples or even medium-sized apples, on the same tree, in the same year.
Its colouring is irregularly striped, with a red base colour that is not always bright. There is not just one harvest period, but the tree must be picked 3-4 times.
Haven’t I now just pronounced the death sentence for the new variety Paradis Sparkling®?
No, not at all! All these “negative” points cause no real problems in
home gardens; the inferential maturity may even be an advantage! And
that Paradis Sparkling® is not the most beautiful apple out there today
only shows us what ultimately counts: inner qualities!”
This day has been healing, waiting out the storm in show low AZ. Thanks for all the support everyone. Big love. #righttoknow #gmo #walk2know #justlabelit #truthinlabeling #ourland #showlowaz (at Kiva Motel)
The US Department of Agriculture has allowed two new genetically modified apple varieties to be commercially planted. Arctic Golden and Arctic Granny apples are modified to brown far more slowly than normal apples.
The Canadian company behind the varieties plans to license the them to commercial farms.
The company’s president Neal Carter told NPR that food service companies will no longer need to treat their pre-sliced apples with preservative chemicals. “Right now, to make fresh-cut apple slices and put them in the bag, 35 or 40 percent of the cost is the antioxident treatment,” he said. “So you could make a fresh-cut apple slice 30 percent cheaper.” Okanagan will sell licenses to commercial farms for a one-time fee of $1,500 per acre of trees.
Tangling with the blueprints of life is no simple task, though, and even successes in the lab demand serious considerations about unintended consequences in the field. What happens if a bacterium designed to work in an isolated system, say a drug-producing fermentation tank, gets out into the wild? And what is the impact when you employ bacteria modified to consume a cancer-causing pollutant that has leaked into a wetland?
Bioengineers looking to improve the safety of modified microbes are working on a number of routes. One of these reprograms a bacterial cell to need a certain nutrient to live; without it, the organism dies. Another buries a self-destruct sequence in the genes that stops them from making proteins when exposed to chemical signals.
Now, two papers published recently in the journal Nature take safety mechanisms built into altered bacteria a step further. Harvard and Yale researchers say they have successfully made organisms that can only survive when they have access to synthetic amino acids that don’t exist in nature. Their test bacteria were reprogrammed at multiple points along their genome to need the synthetic food, making them unable to mutate to live on naturally occurring amino acids.