Why i do not want GMO in my food or my pets food

[Tammy N]

Hi all i hae a BIG concern with GMOS and i just want to share this with Everyone. Look at your pet food does it contain GMO ? Look at your human Grociery lists are there any GMO foods on it ? If you do not know look up GMO foods . My concern for everyone including our Pets is Our lifes. Planning on having a baby? A litter ? Check out Gmo Birthdefects. I Switched to Fromm pet food after My Cats started getting sick on Royal Canin over a yr ago THANK GOD. they do not use GMO foods in their food Now look up GMO birth Defects and Click Images. GOOD LUCK ALL.

Look it up Its important to us all

Cost effective Well the cost to us could be greater then the cost for bettering our animals lifes by staying away from GMO foods.

 

[PrairieChickens]

I an anti-GMO for two very simple reasons. The first reason is less to do with the fact that the crops are genetically modified and more to do with HOW--if I'm not happy with the quantity of pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals being used on crops now, why would I want crops that are modified so that they can survive the application of even MORE chemicals? Most of the GMO's I've been hearing about aren't modified to have larger yields or be resistant to disease--they're modified so that farmers can spray more roundup crap on them without killing them. That idea does not appeal to me.

The second reason is the way these huge companies *coughMonsantocough* destroy farmers' liveliehoods. If you're a farmer growing soybeans in a field next to a farmer who grows Monsanto's GMO soybeans, and the breeze carries pollen from that GMO field onto yours, if you save the seeds from your OWN CROP, you are considered a criminal. We have become a country where huge corporations are allowed to tell an American citizen what to do with his own crop, where someone is punished as a thief because of the direction of the wind, and where we are not allowed to provide for ourselves--we either buy from the big, all-powerful corporation, or we don't grow food at all.

There's also the small matter of some genuinely scary GMO's going on, like putting human genes into food that is grown openly in the great outdoors and can then cross-pollinate with anything withing blowing distance of the wind. How do you feel about human liver genes in your next bowl of rice? We have no way to control where this GMO "data" gets carried by the wind, what it cross-pollinates with, or what long-term effect it may have on us and our food supply. We're not taking the time to test these things, or what effects they may have before just chucking them into our entire food supply. I don't know about you guys, but I don't like the idea of our food supply--our ENTIRE food supply--being the guinea pig for every GMO frankestein they can come up with.

I think the science of genetically modifying organisms is fascinating and potentially very useful, but anything we create needs to be tested thoroughly BEFORE being inflicted on the public. It needs to be labeled clearly, so that we the people can make informed choices, and it needs to be changes that are actually of benefit rather than just trudging down the same failing road we've been on for decades with pesticide and herbicide resistance. Also, the American people need to be guaranteed the right to preserve and produce our own food so that monsters like Monsanto can't come and and tell us what to do with our own crops. It's one thing to hold a customer to contract who purchased your product, but to go to his neighbor who has never bought a Monsanto product and take him to court for violating your patent because the wind blew your pollen onto HIS field... That's just BS. I cannot support GMO's as long as that continues to happen.

 

[mrcush]

People don't seem to understand that a few (big ag) are attempting (and succeeding) at controlling the worlds food supply. It's not that difficult to understand...

 

[DTchickens]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of GMO products either. Hopefully one day, if for nothing but food mostly.. I can go all natural/self-sufficient.

I already have a lot of fruit trees (and planning to increase the collection), got some vegetables too.. Chickens for meat/eggs (I fish a fair amount too, and hunt), and I really want a La Mancha goat for milk/cheese.

God bless,
Daniel.

 

[Cindy in PA]

If it is all so safe, then why do they refuse to label human food as to whether it contains GMO grains or not?? They are afraid we would vote with our dollars & big Business cannot let that happen. Give me a choice & I am happy. Right now we have no choice. JMHO

 

[triplepurpose]

A very contentious issue, for sure!

Folks have made some good points. There is indeed a lot of mis-information out there--however, I am opposed to GEOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms)--their cultivation, marketing, consumption--all of it--for several reasons. I'll try to keep it simple and brief.

1. the patenting/ownership of seedstocks issue: Having a situation where a for-profit corporation owns a significant amount of the gene-pool that the populace relies on for food, and therefore survival, is a dangerous, stupid idea. It is not in the interest of the common good, period. This is pretty self-evident.

2. The excessive use of herbicides and pesticides, and chemical fertilizers: Most GE crops are designed to be used in conjunction with larger amounts of these than conventional crops. We already know these substances are all toxic (to people, animals, plants, and/or essential soil microbes) to greater or lesser degrees, depending on the specific chemical in question. They are also heavily dependent, for manufacture, distribution, and application, on fossil fuels. None of this is smart, especially given that better models exist (organic fertilizers, selective breeding, diversification, crop rotation, intercropping, green manure, sheet composting, grazing land in between cropping, etc).

3. Lack of comprehensive safety testing, etc.: the companies creating GEOs insist they are safe, but adequate testing has not been done (or has been covered up and suppressed in cases where results suggested that the products might be harmful, we are told?) If testing has not been done, how can they know that they are safe? You see the problem here? If GEOs are indeed "safe," then it needs to be shown by rigorous, sincere, third-party testing, not somebody's word, or someone's hunch, or because the company trying to sell them says so. In fact, there is quite a lot of independent evidence that many of these food crops are NOT "safe." But even ignoring that, until better testing is done, I'm going to err on the side of caution and give benefit of doubt to the public interest groups and non-profits lobbying for consumer protection (and questioning the safety of GEOs)--not the companies presumably willing to cut corners to make a profit. Seems like the prudent course. If you want to buy a car, you don't just believe whatever the salesman tells you, you inspect things yourself or have a third party do it. The whole thing smells fishy no matter how you shake it.

4. Labeling and the right-to-know issue: Foods containing GEOs should be labelled as such, period. It's a simple issue of consumer sovereignty. Many consumers have made it clear they don't want GEOs in their food, and if consumers don't want them, they should not be hoodwinked into eating them. If processors are concerned that people will avoid the foods because they don't want to eat GMOs, then, oh well, that's that. Hey Monsanto--maybe you should have done more work to prove to us all that your products are safe before you introduced them! It's called the free market--people get to choose what they want to buy, whether corporations like it or not. And even if you or I think their choices are totally ignorant and wrong-headed.

IMHO, any one of these reasons is enough to discredit the whole GEO agenda. Taken together, it's way too much too swallow. "Feeding the world?" "Food security?" All of these ring hollow, and regardless just don't hold up when you look at the record so far. GEOs are about profits for seed/fertilizer/pesticide companies, not about advancing the common good. That's okay in and of itself, but they need to be demonstrated to be safe in every way, economically necessary, socially equitable, and generally beneficial, before they are allowed on the market--and so far they seem to be failing on all counts. The whole model is flawed.

Whether GEOs will actually give you or your chickens cancer outright or make you sprout a second head are debateable. Basic issues of human rights, consumer protection, and responsible business practices are not--at least they aren't supposed to be.

Well, that was neither simple nor brief, but there it is...

 

[mrcush]

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/ucm196721.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html

http://naturalsociety.com/sorry-monsanto-govt-admits-gm-bt-cotton-crops-fail-40-percent/

http://naturalsociety.com/bill-gates-foundation-buys-500000-shares-of-monsanto/

http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10595-monsanto-a-history

Bear Foot Farm. You are either naive or working for Monsanto... either or, or both

 

[Gofygure]

I don't think there's anything inherently bad about GMO- it's just the natural extension of mankind's mastery of agriculture. Unfortunately, the way it is being used today is ethically unsound. The herbicide resistance that many plant species are developing will come back to bite us in a big way, all so that our tomatoes can be a few cents cheaper today. Not to mention the firms that sue farmers over the natural propagation of their crops.

Somewhere along the way our food production has gone from small and localized to a massive industrial business. And I've never trusted a business with my personal welfare.

I'd be interested in hearing of some more organic chicken feed solutions that are still cost-effective. Free-ranging can only cover so much of their daily diet. Right now I am content with the knowledge that my meat and eggs are the product of affection and humane treatment, rather than antibiotics and efficiency studies. Escaping GMO in today's market would probably require growing my own grains or paying a small fortune in upkeep.

 

[Bunnylady]

GMO means "genetically modified organism." Eating something that has been genetically modified does NOT cause either cancer or birth defects. For once, I would like to read a rational analysis of the situation; anything you can find by googling "GMO birth defects" or "GMO cancers" is going to be a lot of hysterical fearmongering intended to do exactly what it has done to the OP, reduce you to a state of abject terror. The authors of such drivel are not trying to inform you, they are trying to scare you. It's sensationalist nonsense, written by someone with their own agenda and based on the very shakiest imitation of science if not outright fabrication.

In the court of public opinion, you don't have to provide hard facts; speculation and innuendo get picked up and waved around as though they actually mean something. People with no knowledge repeat what they've heard, and the story grows. Glyphosate has been in use for 40 years. It was introduced shortly after DDT was banned; there were many hoops that a manufacturer had to jump through to demonstrate that any product was effective and would also have no lasting environmental effects. Tests were done where animals were continuously exposed to various levels of the product for 2 and 3 generations, and no signs of genetic changes were noted.

Am I saying that glyphosate is 100% safe? Of course not - I haven't done the experiments myself, and I know that the scientific method doesn't work in absolutes. But if product label directions have been followed, there shouldn't be any detectable residue from the pesticide left by the time the crop is harvested. Unless the intended mother-to-be is drinking the stuff or bathing in spray solution, she isn't getting significant exposure to glyphosate. Like most modern pesticides, it breaks down fairly quickly after it has been applied.

My advice to the OP is, stop reading this junk, for the sake of your own peace of mind. I understand that you want to be informed, but these people aren't interested in informing you. They have gotten you all bent out of shape about something that really doesn't affect either you or your animals. If you don't want to be exposed to glyphosate, don't spray it in your yard, but don't worry about it being in your food because it isn't there anyway.

 

[NYREDS]

GMO means "genetically modified organism." Eating something that has been genetically modified does NOT cause either cancer or birth defects. For once, I would like to read a rational analysis of the situation; anything you can find by googling "GMO birth defects" or "GMO cancers" is going to be a lot of hysterical fearmongering intended to do exactly what it has done to the OP, reduce you to a state of abject terror. The authors of such drivel are not trying to inform you, they are trying to scare you. It's sensationalist nonsense, written by someone with their own agenda and based on the very shakiest imitation of science if not outright fabrication.

In the court of public opinion, you don't have to provide hard facts; speculation and innuendo get picked up and waved around as though they actually mean something. People with no knowledge repeat what they've heard, and the story grows. Glyphosate has been in use for 40 years. It was introduced shortly after DDT was banned; there were many hoops that a manufacturer had to jump through to demonstrate that any product was effective and would also have no lasting environmental effects. Tests were done where animals were continuously exposed to various levels of the product for 2 and 3 generations, and no signs of genetic changes were noted.

Am I saying that glyphosate is 100% safe? Of course not - I haven't done the experiments myself, and I know that the scientific method doesn't work in absolutes. But if product label directions have been followed, there shouldn't be any detectable residue from the pesticide left by the time the crop is harvested. Unless the intended mother-to-be is drinking the stuff or bathing in spray solution, she isn't getting significant exposure to glyphosate. Like most modern pesticides, it breaks down fairly quickly after it has been applied.

My advice to the OP is, stop reading this junk, for the sake of your own peace of mind. I understand that you want to be informed, but these people aren't interested in informing you. They have gotten you all bent out of shape about something that really doesn't affect either you or your animals. If you don't want to be exposed to glyphosate, don't spray it in your yard, but don't worry about it being in your food because it isn't there anyway.

There is no place for logic & reason in discussions of topics of this nature. Emotionalism rules the day. People need to become outraged because other people tell them the situation is outrageous. Facts aren't needed here when we have more than enoiugh hysteria.