Should we have a right to know what we eat?

JGex · #21 04/12/08, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dosthouhavemilk

Bill,

Every cow has their own varying level of BST in their system at all times. There is BST in milk but our bodies simply digest it and it does not have an effect on our system since it is a bovine specific hormone.

I absolutely do not believe you have any way of knowing this to be fact.

And this is why I won't buy milk or dairy products at all any more unless it's from a reputable organic company I am familiar with or imported from a country I know does not use hormones.

gunsmithgirl · #22 04/12/08, 04:19 PM

Yes, we have a right to know what we are buying.

Unfortunately, the general population could really care less if their food is labeled or not.

dosthouhavemilk · #23 04/12/08, 04:29 PM

Guess I need to track that research down again.
I have read that BST, that is found in *all* milk from cows (even your organic milk), is not utilized by the human processes.
rBST is the synthetic form of the naturally occuring hormone already found in cattle.

JGex · #24 04/12/08, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dosthouhavemilk

Guess I need to track that research down again.
I have read that BST, that is found in *all* milk from cows (even your organic milk), is not utilized by the human processes.
rBST is the synthetic form of the naturally occuring hormone already found in cattle.

You believe everything you read?

I do not want to drink your synthetic chemicals. Naturally occurring BST is an altogether different matter.

I'm not sure why some folks do not "get" that.

Your "research" is likely compiled by scientists hired or funded by the company that manufactures the synthetic rBST.

dosthouhavemilk · #25 04/12/08, 04:46 PM

Now I'm confused. You quoted my comment about BST. I wasn't referring to Posilac, I was referring to BST, the hormone. I put r in front of BST when I am referring to Posilac.
The research I had read was in reference to the hormone BST.

I would never force anyone to drink anything they did not want to.
But I am also not going to simply buy into everything I read.

I knew this was a waste of time.
We don't even use Posilac anymore.
No worries...I'll keep my little mouth shut and not educate people on the fascinating ways in which the bovine body functions. Why should we educate ourselves? Just follow the strongest voices, I suppose....

JGex · #26 04/12/08, 06:33 PM

My apologies, Dosthou, I was confused and thought you were saying that synthetic BST has no effect on our bodies.

Jeff54321 · #27 04/13/08, 09:01 AM

Anytime the name "Monsanto" is mentioned it would be a good assumption that Frankenfood will follow. While Monsanto is hardly the only corporation playing "poison the public", they are certainly the most visible.

It all makes me wonder what the Monsanto employees think as they watch their children eat this frightening Monsanto matter called food.

FalconDance · #28 04/13/08, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billooo2

At the last hearing, one woman testified that, "no one has grown a 3d eye, an extra arm, or 2 more legs, so it should not be anyone's business whether or not r-BSt is used."

Methinks she doth protest too much

.

Quote:

Another person testified that the consumer should not have any rights to know anything at all about what is in their food. or how it is produced.

....because if they did, most intelligent people would be apalled at what they have been ingesting!

*shakes head* Bad for business.

minnikin1 · #29 04/13/08, 09:14 AM

I don't think any company should be required to label. Consumers can choose to by-pass the product that has no label.

But that's not what Monsanto is squawking about.
In this case, someone WANTS to label, their sales are soaring, and Monsanto is running to the government to STOP them from labeling.

Their argument is THEY and the FDA have determined there is no difference in the milk, therefore YOU have no right to disagree.

To answer the OP's question, yes, we have a right to know what's in our food.
A list of ingredients is already required.
Requiring a label that gives every detail about every ingredient would be
unreasonable, IMO.

But trying to prevent the competition from providing those details?
Monsanto is clearly insane!

**ladycat** · #30 04/13/08, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dosthouhavemilk

rBST is the synthetic form of the naturally occuring hormone already found in cattle.

The "r" in rBST stands for the word "recombinant". Which means it's engineered, not a natural hormone! It's not "synthetic" in the usual sense of the word either. It's BIOENGINEERED.

Do those who defend it also defend the steroids that athletes take? After all, it's "just" natural hormones they are taking which their bodies already produce.

Trixie · #31 04/13/08, 07:38 PM

Unfortunately, the general population could really care less if their food is labeled or not

I don't know that I believe that.

Far too much of the general public believes the hype from the chemical companies/our government.

They don't realize that there are harmful things being put into our food and even if it is mentioned, you then get someone who will come out with great big words and stories of 'scientific facts', and that ordinary people just are not educated enough to understand, etc.

Also, many people feel it makes no difference - they have no choice but to buy the chemical laced products.

texican · #32 04/13/08, 10:34 PM

No one will care what the food is made out of...

Once food is no longer available.

I'm torn. I dislike hybrid and gm seeds. Given my druthers, I plant open pollinated, so I can save seeds from one season to the next. But, there are ? billion people on this planet, and I'd guess 95% aren't farmers, and for the two billion or so that don't have full bellies on a regular basis, any food is better than the 'best food'. Open pollinated crops aren't going to feed the teeming hordes of humans. Only some miracle plants that can grow with little water, bad soil, and bad climate. Stuff that seed behomeths like Monsanto produce.

Once the system balances out, and 90% of the planets humans are gone, we can all get back to open pollinated crops. Anything that postpones that day, in most peoples view, is a good thing. So, are you for mass starvation, or for gm crops... In my view, mass starvation is unavoidable...

these are the good ol days... maybe the last good ol days for a couple of decades...

Paquebot · #33 04/14/08, 01:06 AM

Yes indeed, Texican. The sad thing is that there are so many who would wish to hasten it for some reason. Proves that Adolph Hitler was not alone in placing a low price on his fellow humans as "the final solution". Anyone who advocates depriving others of sustenance are little better than that monster who took his own life rather than defending his thinkings.

Martin

uyk7 · #34 04/14/08, 07:54 AM

Quote:

So, are you for mass starvation, or for gm crops...

How about organic foods? There was a report I saw (somewhere - I'll try and find it again) that states that, contrary to Monsanto, crop production has not gone up. The only reason, IMO, that there might be a shortage of food is greed.

.

Paquebot · #35 04/14/08, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uyk7

How about organic foods? There was a report I saw (somewhere - I'll try and find it again) that states that, contrary to Monsanto, crop production has not gone up. The only reason, IMO, that there might be a shortage of food is greed.

.

Worldwide production of canola, corn, soybeans, ARE up. Those are the 3 main food crops which Monsanto is involved with. Blame for shortages of non-Monsanto crops must therefore be laid elsewhere. One example might be to blame Earth for not drying up the oceans to give us more land to support the massive number of more mouths to feed daily.

Martin

sammyd · #36 04/14/08, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Human and bovine milk normally contain small amounts of growth hormone. After ingestion, growth hormone is handled by the gut as any other protein in milk: it is digested into its constituent amino acids and di- and tripeptides. There are no data to suggest that BST present in milk will survive digestion or produce unique peptide fragments that might have biological effects. Even if BST is absorbed intact, the growth hormone receptors in the human do not recognize BST and, therefore, BST cannot produce effects in humans.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv....section.24152

Quote:

BST does not elicit any of its recognisable biological actions in humans even if injected. The reason for this is that, in consequence of its amino acid sequence, its three-dimensional shape differs by about 35% from that of HST. To have a biological effect, a protein hormone must first bind to a specific receptor on the cell surface. The amino acid sequence dependent shape determines whether the protein will be able to bind to a receptor. Receptor binding studies have shown that the affinity for BST of human receptors is very much less (10,000 to 100,000 times) than their affinity for human somatotropin and thus BST has negligible hormone activity in humans. (Moore et al, 1985; Hoquette et al, 1989; Souza et al. 1995).

http://rbstfacts.org/rbst-facts/rbst...atotropin.html

But hey, what's a little science when you have hate on your side?

uyk7 · #37 04/14/08, 06:29 PM

Here is where I read about GMO crops not producing as well as Monsanto says:

http://homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=244838

.

texican · #38 04/14/08, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paquebot

Yes indeed, Texican. The sad thing is that there are so many who would wish to hasten it for some reason. Proves that Adolph Hitler was not alone in placing a low price on his fellow humans as "the final solution". Anyone who advocates depriving others of sustenance are little better than that monster who took his own life rather than defending his thinkings.

Martin

At what point do you stop the pain?

When a region of the world is no longer fit for human habitation ...total habitat destruction... should we keep making the problem worse, by feeding them... With some sort of oversight on population control, I could see feeding a completely dependent population. However, in the real world, sending food to starving people on exacerbates the problem... local farmers stop farming (they can't sell food, when foreigners give it away free), which produces more dependency... and the population soars, since they have nothing to do but sit around and eat.

What do we do to solve the problem? We're not practicing sustainable agriculture as a civilization. To feed the masses, we're strip mining the soil and the water. Sustainable ag is possible and preferable, but it won't feed the teeming masses. Personally I dislike the idea of Soylent Green.

______________

Quote:

Originally Posted by uyk7

The only reason, IMO, that there might be a shortage of food is greed

Yep, greed is one of the basic human emotions. The root cause of the food shortages are high fuel costs... we can blame the producers or the commodity traders... also, Australia's crop failure and wheat rust in Africa isn't helping matters any.

And... folks that are used to having a full belly aren't likely to like going without, so there less fortunate brothers can have anything in their bellies.

minnikin1 · #39 04/16/08, 07:01 AM

More on Food labeling.
From "Milk Shake Up" by Amanda Rose - Organic Gardening

"Legislation introduced in Kansas in February 2008 (subsequently tabled until next session) reaches beyond dairy foods: It limits unregulated claims on all foods. "This Kansas bill will put all manner of labels at risk that are regularly used by local family farmers," notes Kansas City Food Circle co-coordinator Craig Volland. These include "free-range, cage-free, all natural, grass-fed, pasture-raised, pesticide-free, farm-fresh, heritage breed, and even locally produced." If this type of legislation is enacted, consumers who want to support natural production methods will be limited to buying certified-organic products and having firsthand knowledge of their food producers. "

**ladycat** · #40 04/16/08, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minnikin1

More on Food labeling.
From "Milk Shake Up" by Amanda Rose - Organic Gardening

"Legislation introduced in Kansas in February 2008 (subsequently tabled until next session) reaches beyond dairy foods: It limits unregulated claims on all foods. "This Kansas bill will put all manner of labels at risk that are regularly used by local family farmers," notes Kansas City Food Circle co-coordinator Craig Volland. These include "free-range, cage-free, all natural, grass-fed, pasture-raised, pesticide-free, farm-fresh, heritage breed, and even locally produced." If this type of legislation is enacted, consumers who want to support natural production methods will be limited to buying certified-organic products and having firsthand knowledge of their food producers. "

Can you post a link to where ever you got that?