Started on new non-gmo food!

[PDXcluck]

The reason they are calling it junk is because they couldn't find it published in the journal 'Science', or at least that is what I could gather. That blog is sort of tricky to read!

Anyways, I can't vouch for the research. I came across its mention on a few anti-GM websites, put in minimal time verifying the research existed (which to me it still seems like it does). The whole point was, I am not avoiding GM food because it is a fad! The main reason I avoid is that I think their use, and corresponding pesticide use, is very harmful to the environment and to farmers growing non-GM crop. In addition, to me there is enough evidence (more than these two studies if you take the time to look) calling into question the safety of GM food for me to try my hardest to keep it off my own and my kids plates.

 

[Nambroth]

I try not to get into these arguments, but.... Here's how I see it:

Eating safe foods with safe handling practices that are not GM and/or have had no pesticides or herbicides applied-- They way that we have for millenia-- is reasonably safe. You can, of course, still do yourself harm if eating any one thing in excess, but that's not the argument.

Eating safe foods, with safe handling practices, that are GM, and/or have pesticides or herbicides applied-- are unknowns. We, as a population, simply haven't been eating them long enough to know what long term effects it will have on our health. Arguably, any studies done may also have bias-- the truth is that we may never know one way or another. Monoculture and pesticide/herbicide use do have proven negative impacts on the environment, though. This matters to me. It doesn't to others, which I find sad, but that is their choice.

So, since I have options, I choose the first method. This is a choice, and I am privileged to have it. Not everyone does.
For those that choose GM/pesticides/herbicides, that is their choice. I have no reason to mock them for it.

 

[Davaroo]

All very interesting.
What I would like to see is the clinical study results which supports its use. There are always vocal detractors, it seems. Okay. We get that.

So, what do the "pros" say?
I've worked in both the food and drug industry, and currently work for a multinational pharmaceutical company... yeah, I'm horrid, I know.
But I guarantee that somewhere, the studies exist on the other side. What does that evidence show?

It feels, at least to me, like it's being made inadmissable to this court.

 

[PDXcluck]

All very interesting.
What I would like to see is the clinical study results which supports its use. There are always vocal detractors, it seems. Okay. We get that.
So, what do the "pros" say?
I've worked in both the food and drug industry, and currently work for a multinational pharmaceutical company... yeah, I'm horrid, I know.
But I guarantee that somewhere, the studies exist on the other side. What does that evidence show?
It feels, at least to me, like it's being made inadmissable to this court.

The trouble is that safety and efficacy studies on new food, drugs, pesticides, etc. are almost all conducted by the manufacturers themselves, and thus become subject to the bias of the manufacturer. The FDA does a relatively terrible job in assuring the studies follow sound scientific protocol, and an even worse job if the name on top of the submission is Monsanto, or Merck, or Dow, etc... There are many FDA employees that go on to work for said companies, there are also many execs from the big companies that go to work for the FDA, the list is long and to me seems obvious that some conflicts of interest are present.

To be clear, I am not trying to pretend that the studies I posted above have no agenda. I don't know if they do or not, but usually this type of research has an agenda. The most telling information is to look at who is funding the research, for the papers above, given they were conducted in Russia, I had trouble figuring that out.

Nonetheless, I will continue to argue that the lack of hair growing in your mouth, your families mouths or your friends mouths, is a poor reason to continue to eat GM foods. There are many newborns within my family and circle of friends who are being fed GM soy formula and rapidly acquiring soy allergies. Based on the anecdotal recollection of some elders among us, this is odd and cause for some alarm. Likewise with allergies, asthma, eczema, and poor childrens health in general, there does (anecdotally) seem to be a recent uptick in such things. All this even though, relatively speaking, the general environment is 'cleaner' now that it was 20-30 years ago.

To sum, your evidence is not inadmissable in my court. Find it and present it, something exists because the manufacturers had to present something to the FDA/USDA for approval of their new and novel technologies into the market. To be truthful, I probably won't put a lot of faith in Monsanto's studies telling me it's OK to eat their GM soy, but it would be interesting to see the methodologies used and the results they found.

Cheers to levelheaded debate, I can get ahead of myself sometimes. Thanks to all posters for keeping this civil and my apologies if I went over the top in any previous posts. Its definitely a hot-button topic.

 

[ButchGood]

If you doubt the research, just keep on eating the GMO's. Keep on spraying Monsantos round up around you garden, keep spraying Monsantos insecticide on your plants. Trust Monsanto to save the worlds hunger through genetic modification while destroying our pollinators. I'm just going to grow my organic heirloom veggies, I'm going to eat my chickens and their eggs grown naturally in my backyard. At the grocery store I sure would like the choice to buy non-Gmo foods. Label it so I can tell. For now the organic section at the grocery store gets my full attention. If I can't get rid of it all together I'm going to limit my exposure to the toxins Monsanto is poisoning our world with.

 

[Davaroo]

If you doubt the research, just keep on eating the GMO's. Keep on spraying Monsantos round up around you garden, keep spraying Monsantos insecticide on your plants. Trust Monsanto to save the worlds hunger through genetic modification while destroying our pollinators. I'm just going to grow my organic heirloom veggies, I'm going to eat my chickens and their eggs grown naturally in my backyard. At the grocery store I sure would like the choice to buy non-Gmo foods. Label it so I can tell. For now the organic section at the grocery store gets my full attention. If I can't get rid of it all together I'm going to limit my exposure to the toxins Monsanto is poisoning our world with.

Ah, the haughty foodie - I wondered when you would appear. Death to Monsanto - let the world starve. I'll get mine.
Awesome attitude.

 

[Cindy in PA]

There again the problem with GMO food is that you have no choice but to grow everything yourself, as GMOs do not have to be identified! Not many can grow everything themselves, so they have to guess which foods they want to eat. Our government makes us label everything else and dictates that some things can't be "declared" (mainly if they are good for you), but they don't make big Ag label GMO products. Just label and let the consumer decide, period. That will never happen in this country, too much money in the business. JMHO

 

[PDXcluck]

Ah, the haughty foodie - I wondered when you would appear. Death to Monsanto - let the world starve. I'll get mine.
Awesome attitude.

This is a terrible argument. First, he (I am going to assume 'he', ButchGood, my apologies if my assumption is wrong!), didn't say 'Death to Monsanto', he implied that Monsanto's products are bad and that they are killing bees and other pollinators, for which there is recent scientific evidence. Additionally, there were statements regarding the FACT that many of Monsanto's products are toxins and poisons and are sprayed on food crops (again, this cannot be argued, it is fact). Finally, to imply that "Death to Monsanto" is equitable with letting the world starve is the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard!!! On the contrary, I would say there is ample evidence to argue that the opposite is true, that allowing Monsanto's business practices to continue unabated would cause more starvation than would "Death to Monsanto".

 

[ButchGood]

This is a terrible argument. First, he (I am going to assume 'he', ButchGood, my apologies if my assumption is wrong!), didn't say 'Death to Monsanto', he implied that Monsanto's products are bad and that they are killing bees and other pollinators, for which there is recent scientific evidence. Additionally, there were statements regarding the FACT that many of Monsanto's products are toxins and poisons and are sprayed on food crops (again, this cannot be argued, it is fact). Finally, to imply that "Death to Monsanto" is equitable with letting the world starve is the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard!!! On the contrary, I would say there is ample evidence to argue that the opposite is true, that allowing Monsanto's business practices to continue unabated would cause more starvation than would "Death to Monsanto".

Thank-You! I took Davaroo's comment with a grain of salt. This sounds like an ex-FDA employee who did a lateral move to big pharma. He's just trying to protect his livelihood.
I was diagnosed with stage 4 Nodular Melanoma that spread to the brain, lung and lymph system in 2004. My diagnosis was 6 months to a year to live. I'm convinced that cancer is caused by our toxic lifestyle. I did no chemotherapy which was recommended. That's poison! I did no radiation therapy. That's Poison. what I did do was go on a raw vegan diet for nearly 1 year. I got rid of all the toxic chemicals in my house. A whole house water filtration system. Organic toothpastes, soaps, detergents. I was living a non-toxic lifestyle. No poisons no pharmaceuticals. The 2 Tumors in the brain shrank and disappeared, the one in the lung shrank and now tested negative for cancer. I guess my lymph is clean, Ive been cancer free for 7 or 8 years now. SO, the haughty foodie I am not. This is why I'm dead set against poisoning our world, I almost left it,(our world) do to the toxins we have forced upon us.
Nambroth said, "For those that choose GM/pesticides/herbicides, that is their choice. I have no reason to mock them for it." Yes it is their choice, But its not right to do it if it harms others.

 

[Davaroo]

Thank-You! I took Davaroo's comment with a grain of salt. This sounds like an ex-FDA employee who did a lateral move to big pharma. He's just trying to protect his livelihood.

****, Im found out!
(you couldn't be more wrong - I could go on at length about being a food paladin since, well... long before it became something to hang your hat on. But I've learned a few things along the way.
I'll let you labor on your assumptions about me.)
For what its worth, I DO agree that the lifestyle you chose has benefit. You are living proof and I congratulate you. What I don't agree with is that everything else is the devils work.