What most people don’t know, that they should, is that practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food. There are no wild seedless watermelons, there’s no wild cows, there’s no long-stem roses growing in the wild …

We have systematically genetically modified all the foods, the vegetables and animals, that we have eaten ever since we cultivated them. It’s called artificial selection. That’s how we genetically modify them. So now that we can do it in a lab, all of a sudden, you’re going to complain?

So we are creating and modifying the biology of the world to serve our needs. I don’t have a problem with that because we’ve been doing that for tens of thousands of years. So, chill out.

Hacked photosynthesis could boost crop yields

It is difficult to find fault with a process that can create food from sunlight, water and air, but for many plants, there is room for improvement. Researchers have taken an important step towards enhancing photosynthesis by engineering plants with enzymes from blue-green algae that speed up the process of converting carbon dioxide into sugars.
The results, published today in Nature, surmount a daunting hurdle on the path to boosting plant yields — a goal that is taking on increasing importance as the world’s population grows.

Read more

Vandana Shiva’s fiery opposition to the use of genetically modified crops has made her a hero to anti-G.M.O. activists everywhere. In this week’s issue, Michael Specter examines her controversial crusade.

Illustration by Jason Seiler / Reference: Amanda Edwards / WireImage

Imagine if today, scientists showed you the Aurochs Wild Ox, and said — “Give us time. In just a few years, we will genetically modify this wild animal, turning it into a different sub species whose sole purpose is to provide vast quantities of milk for humans to drink. They will produce 10x as much milk as did the original animal. But they will require vast grasslands to sustain. And some of you will get sick because you won’t be able to digest the lactose. But no need to label this fact. People will just figure this out on their own. The rest of you will be fine. We’ll call the result a Holstein Milk Cow.”

What would anti GMO-laboratory people say this story? Would they embrace it or reject it? Of course, over the past 10,000 years, this is exactly what we’ve done to that Ox - or whatever is the agreed-upon origin of the domesticated Cow. Call it GMO-agriculture. If you reject GMOs you fundamentally reject it all.

"Neil deGrasse Tyson may not be a GMO expert, but the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the European Commission all agree with him on the safety of GMO foods. So does the research.

"I’m amazed how much objection genetically modified foods are receiving from the public. It smacks of the fear factor that exists at every new emergent science, where people don’t fully understand it or don’t fully know or embrace its consequences, and therefore reject it. What most people don’t know, but they should, is that practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food.

There are no wild seedless watermelons; there’s no wild cows; there’s no long-stem roses growing in the wild — although we don’t eat roses. You list all the fruit, and all the vegetables, and ask yourself: Is there a wild counterpart to this? If there is, it’s not as large, it’s not as sweet, it’s not as juicy, and it has way more seeds in it.

We have systematically genetically modified all the foods, the vegetables and animals, that we have eaten ever since we cultivated them. It’s called “artificial selection.” That’s how we genetically modify them. So now that we can do it in a lab, all of a sudden you’re going to complain?

If you’re the complainer type, go back and eat the apples that grow wild. You know something? They’re this big, and they’re tart. They’re not sweet, like Red Delicious apples. We manufactured those. That’s a genetic modification.

Do you realise silk cannot be produced in the wild? The silkworm, as we cultivate it, has no wild counterpart because it would die in the wild. So there’s not even any silk anymore. So we are creating and modifying the biology of the world to serve our needs. I don’t have a problem with that, cause we’ve been doing that for tens of thousands of years. So chill out.”

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/neil-degrasse-tyson-believes-in-gmos-2014-7?nr_email_referer=1&utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Science%2520Select&utm_campaign=BI%2520Science%25202014-07-31&utm_content=emailshare

People think I’m outside my head because I don’t eat animals.

People think I’m going to die because I can’t eat gluten. 

People think I’m incompetent because I don’t eat food sprayed with bug poison. 

People think I’m extreme because I care about where my food was grown, how it got here, and the welfare of the workers who picked it. 

People think I’m a fear monger for wanting GMO labeling and to have a choice wether or not I eat a plant spliced with eel DNA. 

People think I’m paranoid because I have emergency food and water.

People think I’m a hippy because I have a food garden. 

People think a lot of things about me based on my diet and habits. Maybe they should think more about their own. Stay informed, stay healthy, stay prepared, stay happy. And don’t judge people because they care. 

People who say GMO helps fix world hunger are wrong.

Genetically Modified Crops are restricted to a select handful of countries.

GMO crops are used primarily for animal feed and fuel

- US: over 50% GMO
- Brazil & Argentina: 30% GMO
- China: 3% GMO
- India: 3% GMO
- EU: 0.21% GMO

Most developing/poverty stricken countries have no access to GMO foods due to patents made by companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta

The people who hold patents hold the right to say “Who plants what, and who sells what around the world”

Generally GMO foods/seeds are not engineered for sustainability and yield. However pesticide resistance does help with the aforementioned, it is not intended for that

"Genetic engineering causes centralization of food genes instead of diversification" - Agriculture at Crossroads 2008

This means that our food isn’t diverse genetically, causing prices to rise and monopolies to continue their hungry rule on seeds

"Evidence is emerging of herbicidal and insecticidal resistance in crop weeds and pests associated with GMO crops" - Agriculture at Crossroads and World bank 2008

"Glyphosate (a very powerful and common pesticide) tolerance in corn, soy and rice have increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds in the USA alone" - Union of Concerned Scientists Report November 2009 

Several States for example Georgia have had to abandon pieces of land due to Glyphosate resistant plants!

This means that because the land is so resistant to pesticides, it has an uncontrollable amount of weeds!

Summary: GMO in its /current/ state is only hurting us, I have yet to find to research proving its harmful to consuming GMO food, however the same goes for the opposite. I’m staying away from GMO all together mostly in protest of these monopolies.

8

Some more discussion of GMO with a scientist here.

An infographic on the scientific consensus on GMOs, with sources, and a discussion of what a scientific consensus means and what qualifies as a scientific consensus.

More on the research making up the scientific consensus, and a scientific review on the safety of GMOs.

A discussion of some common anti-GMO arguments, and way more GMO safety information here.

Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed.
The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.
What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.
7 SECRET WAYS WE ARE BEING POISONED

The objectivism of the scientific method seems to have been hijacked by corporations who often pay for scientists to support their products, as well as politicians who move through the revolving door between the private and public sector.  Even worse is that sometimes the consumer protection agencies themselves are complicit.  

The trust placed by consumers in scientific studies and federal oversight committees has been violated in service to profit so that products are allowed to enter the marketplace with reduced safety standards. The synthetic chemicals we encounter on a daily basis in our food, water, and environment are increasingly shown to be disastrous to our physical and mental well being.  Volumes can be written — indeed have been written — by experts in both mainstream and alternative medicine who have documented the sleight of hand used to hoodwink consumers and threaten our health. The categories below are worth deeper investigation as prime examples of what we might face as a species if this chemical bombardment continues.

1. GMO Foods — Monsanto started as a chemical company that brought the world poisons like Agent Orange and Roundup. Now they are more well known for their domination of Genetically Modified agriculture, owning nearly 90% of staple GMO crops such as corn, soy, and cotton. In independent studies GMO “frankenfood” has been linked to organ failure, and a recent Russian study has concluded near-total sterility in GMO-soy-fed hamsters by the third generation. Despite these and many other legitimate health concerns, it is unlikely that the Monsanto-controlled FDA will curb the growth of GMO foods, while the USDA’s biotechnology risk assessment research arm has a paltry $3 million at its disposal.  Of course the industry-funded studies show that the effects GMO on human health are “negligible.”

2. Food Additives — When most of us think of harmful food additives we think of Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) which is still in many processed foods, but unfortunately MSG appears to be the least of the poisons now found in our food. In 2008 Melamine was found in infant formula and some food products from China; the FDA went on record to say it was OK, despite sickening tens of thousands.  Dangerous food additives appear in nearly all processed foods with even the most common food dyes Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 being linked to cancer.  Most recently 92,000 pounds of frozen chicken was recalled because it contained “blue plastic pieces,” while McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets have been found to have “silly putty" chemicals in them.  In fact, some researchers estimate that today’s chicken is so full of chemicals that it only contains 51% actual meat

3. Fluoride — Not all fluoride is bad; only the type promoted by dentistry and added to our water and food supply.  Calcium fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral, while its synthetic counterpart, sodium fluoride (silicofluoride), is an industrial-grade hazardous waste material made during the production of fertilizer.  Its past history includes patented use as rat poison and insecticide.   There are many blind- and double-blind studies that show sodium fluoride has a cumulative effect on the human body leading to allergies, gastrointestinal disorders, bone weakening, cancer, and neurological problems.  In this case, the EPA’s Union of scientists issued a white paper condemning fluoridation of drinking water.  However, as a hazardous waste, it is extremely expensive to dispose of as such.  And here might be a clue as to why this chemical, more toxic than lead and almost on par with arsenic, has been disposed of for our consumption.

4. Mercury — A dangerous heavy metal in its natural quicksilver form, but more so as the neurotoxin, methylmercury, released into the environment by human activity.  In both organic and inorganic form, mercury wreaks havoc with the nervous system — especially the developing nervous system of a fetus.  It penetrates all living cells of the human body, and has been documented most as increasing the risk for autism.  This calls into question mercury’s use in dental fillingsvaccines, and just about anything containing high fructose corn syrup — a near staple in the American diet … including baby food.  But the Corn Refiners Association naturally supports this chemical that is “dangerous at any level.”

5. Aspartame — The king of artificial sweeteners was allowed to the market in 1981 when the U.S. Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Arthur Hull Hayes, overruled FDA panel suggestions, as well as consumer concerns.  Aspartame is a neurotoxin that interacts with natural organisms, as well as synthetic medications, producing a wide range of proven disorders and syndromes.  So who installed this commissioner that would rule against scientists and the public?  Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G.D. Searle; the maker of Aspartame.  Rumsfeld was on Reagan’s transition team, and the day after Reagan took office he appointed the new FDA Commissioner in order to "call in his markers" with one of the most egregious cases of profit-over-safety ever recorded.  Aspartame is now nearly ubiquitous, moving beyond sugarless products and into general foods, beverages, pharmaceuticals, and even products for children.  It recently has been renamed to the more pleasant sounding AminoSweet.

6. Personal Care and Cleaning Products — Everyday household items and cosmetic products are applied directly to the skin, absorbed through the scalp, and inhaled.  The Story of Cosmeticsuses an animated video to tell a haunting tale of industrial violations and complicit “public safety” groups … and still only tells half of that story.   The list of common products and their chemical components is encyclopedic.  The sum total of the overwhelming presence of these chemicals has been linked to nearly every allergy, chronic affliction, and disease known to man.  Most recently, household cleaning products have been linked to breast cancer and ADHD in children.

7. Airborne pollutants — In a NASA article titled “Airborne Pollutants Know No Borders” they stated that, “Any substance introduced into the atmosphere has the potential to circle the Earth.” The jet stream indeed connects all of us. There is one category of airborne pollution that has been conspiracy theory despite a voluminous number of unclassified documents from 1977 Senate hearings:  chemical spraying (chemtrails) by both private and commercial aircraft.  Recent admissions by public officials strengthen the case.  Fallout from these chemical trails has been tested and shows very high levels of barium and aluminum.

Interesting to note that Monsanto announced that they recently developed an aluminum-resistant gene to be introduced.  Chemtrails might seem like abject paranoia, but there is a current example of chemical spraying that is undeniable: the spraying of Corexit oil dispersant over the Gulf.  This process of aerial application can be likened to crop-dusting, which we know has been going on for nearly 100 years.  Wars abroad even seem to be affecting global air quality, as military munitions such as depleted uranium have entered the upper atmosphere, spreading around the planet.  The observable effects of depleted uranium are not pleasant.  Airborne pollutants have been linked to allergies, genetic mutations, and infertility. 

This is all leading to scientific, governmental, and medical management of the health and rights of the individual.  It is ironic (or coincidental) that when one becomes sick due to the unnatural products listed above, the mainstream medical establishment aims to treat the afflictions with more unnatural chemicals.  Furthermore, some of the people at high levels of American government and academia such as John P. Holdren, the current White House Science Czar, have advocated population control via “pollution particles” as far back as 1977 in books such as Ecoscience.  Holdren’s views of humanity could make one question the intentionality of the poisons in our environment.

M.Adams

Text
Photo
Quote
Link
Chat
Audio
Video