More on wheat-the GMO kind

There is a lot I don't understand about GM processes and products, which of course makes me uneasy and to think - WHAT IF??

But on the other hand, my common sense tell me that if it could be conclusively proven that GM foods have a detrimental effect on human health, lawyers would be lined up around the block for some of Monsanto's gazillions of dollars with class action lawsuits.

So at this time, there simply is no smoking gun. These food products have been in our supply chain for 20+ years and nobody has been able to prove a human ailment that they cause or contribute to. And they want to very badly, just look at all the articles ranting against these products, yet a few obscure, small scale studies that no one in the scientific community seems to take seriously is all they can offer as proof.

So if my corn meal was made from GM corn, which it likely was, well I don't let that keep me awake at night.

__________________
It is still best to be honest and truthful; to make the most of what we have; to be happy with the simple pleasures and to be cheerful and have courage when things go wrong.
Laura Ingalls Wilder

We use animals in such tests because it is often indicative of what happens in other mammals.

No one force fed them, where did you get that? Even if they did, where did you get the idea eating to much will cause the types of issues we saw here?

No one proved this study wrong. you realize this is the FIRST long term study that these companies themselves didnt lead? they BLOCKED it. The one in france was carried out anyway.

Im not sure its over reacting to not want to eat food that leads to severe organ failure in such a large percentage of the rats in the studies. This EXACT strain is used in the states for both animals and humans. This exact strain was approved here as safe because of "studies" the industry did themselves while blocking others from testing. You can tell yourself whatever you like, the stuff obviously shouldnt be considered food.

__________________
I have a high desert arid mountainous climate. Working towards self sufficiency. The potentials of plant breeding and building micro climates amaze me. We must learn to ride the wave.

A lot of the "studies" that were done in the past on various medical issues turned out to be wrong, too. (The misinformation about fats comes to mind.) It's important to maintain balance, read, stay informed, and make personal decisions.

If you don't like to read these threads, then don't.

Having a discussion and reading what is available at this time is the best we can do. Making decisions to feed REAL food to our children is the best we can do.

Being snarky doesn't help.

__________________
Alice
* * *
"No great thing is created suddenly." ~Epictitus

You know why we only had a few obscure studies before this that showed dangers? Because the companies involved BLOCKED such study.

This also wasnt some small obscure study, I can only assume you havent read it yet.

this was literally the FIRST long term study that wasnt carried out by the industry itself.

In regards to past use of GMs considering human lifespans and the fact we dont label it so have no way to correlate arising issues we simply wouldnt know!! Plus the fact the study included specific strains, it could be other strains arent dangerous or as dangerous. We simply dont know right now. This EXACT strain they tested however IS in use by animals and humans in our country right now.

Im not really sure how you could call your stance "common sense" when your simply ignoring what you dont like.

__________________
I have a high desert arid mountainous climate. Working towards self sufficiency. The potentials of plant breeding and building micro climates amaze me. We must learn to ride the wave.

GM fear is the new "global warming". IMO. Something to fear, without taking into account ALL the science. Sound familiar? Only one side of the science is to be trusted? Sound familiar? I find the reactions interesting, as with "global warming" exactly the same thing occurs. Look where it got that fad of a "cause". It has been confirmed that the globe has not warmed for 16 years, yet, other studies say the world is going to end. So which is it?

I maintain it depends how open your mind is to BOTH sides of the story. Biased journals, and Mother earth news freak out articles, are hardly impartial. Science takes EVERYTHING into account, not just one side of the story, but what would I know???

I have noticed that three kinds of people post on these GMO threads:

1. Farmers. I have seen farmer who have NEVER posted on a forum before (such as the goat forum, since hey don't have goats and don't even want goats) come barreling in, defending GMO stuff, that they, themselves plant and therefore have a financial interest in the reputation of GMO products.

2. Homesteaders who originally *got into homesteading* for the purpose of growing their own food so that they would KNOW what was in it, and what they were putting in their bodies and the bodies of their children. These are not necessary "all natural" folks, they may actually use chemical pesticides on their garden, but they dang well know what those ARE, and have done research as to their effects. They are really upset that GMO companies keep hush-hush on the effects of their products, do not allow independent testing of their products for health, safety, and environmental impact, and that there is very little information out there on long term effects of GMO. These people see the secrecy and suspect a rat.

3. Back-to-nature folks who do not trust ANYTHING that isn't heritage. Heritage chickens, heritage corn, heritage cabbage. They are upset because GMO stuff is pollinating and interbreeding with their heritage stuff, polluting their genetic pool. After all, you can't force your neighbor to NOT plant GMO stuff to protect your garden, and the wind and the bees don't understand property lines.

For the first group, I say: You cannot sit back and tell people that they are just as greedy and/or financially orientated as you are because they grow/produce organic/non-GMO products and there is a market for them. If the market was all THAT great and profitable, you would be in it and you know it. Just admit that profit is a driving factor for you and accept that it is not the same for all people. Also evaluate yourself and decide HOW MUCH of a driving factor it is for you, if, for example, hypothetically, you knew that studies showed that GMO products caused a higher risk of birth defects in babies, would you still grow it? What if your sister (daughter, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law) gave birth do a baby with defects that were JUST the kind described from GMO, would you still grow it? Would you be more likely to stop growing it if you saw negative effects in someone close to you, rather than strangers on a piece of paper? Decide how important profits ARE to you, and how much you actually care about if what you do negatively affects others....and make peace with that, realizing that not everyone is going to agree.

For those people in the second group, yeah, everything SHOULD be properly labeled. This is an area where Libertarians rub elbows with Green Partiers, both nodding their heads and saying, "Yes, we should have a CHOICE, we should be able to DECIDE, for ourselves, what we put in our bodies, and the big corporations should not be allowed to HIDE the bad parts of their products!" So Libertarians, grab the nearest socialist, communist, Red-believing Green Partier and give them a hug. Green Partiers, grab the nearest anti-government, anti-regulation, capitalist-pig Libertarian and give them a hug. Both of you can at least say that you want the government and the corps to tell the truth so that you can make informed decisions about what you eat, and NOT have your food controlled by TPTB.

For the third group, we need to win lotteries so that we can build large, protected greenhouses over our gardens. I think that is the only way, if we live anywhere near any other gardens or farms, to protect our stuff from contamination. We are just SOL, I'm afraid.

__________________
Peace,
Caliann

"First, Show me in the Bible where it says you can save someone's soul by annoying the hell out of them." -- Chuck

I have a grandson who is (thankfully) a cancer survivor at age EIGHT. I have a four year old granddaughter who has partial agenesis of the corpus callosum, which means the halves of her brain aren't fully connected.

I wasn't going to rail on my family issues, but Caliann sort of kicked me out of the closet.

If you have a large community of friends, family, neighbors, and just plain people you know and hear about, you can NOT be missing the increase in weird health issues.

To me, the 'smoking gun' is there. There's just too many pairs of rose colored glasses on folks who don't want to believe that REAL food is necessary for health.

I don't care if it's GMO or BHT or pesticide residues or plastic water bottles. It may be a combination. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH OUR FOOD SUPPLY.

I do believe that if you don't eat REAL food and avoid adulterated pseudo-food, you are putting yourself and your offspring at risk.

(stepping down from my soap box now)

__________________
Alice
* * *
"No great thing is created suddenly." ~Epictitus

I find the statement by Monsanto's own Director of Communications pretty telling:


Director of corporate communications for Monsanto, Phil Angell, summed up his company’s take on the issue in a report by food author Michael Pollan for New York Times Magazine in 1998: “Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

EU Sides With Monsanto On GMO Cancer Corn Study | Alternative

__________________
Be yourself - no one can tell you that you're doing it wrong!

I just love all the people that argue the subject of Wheat not being good for you and they have never read the book that has started these past conversations. Amazing.

No, that's what the folks at "Natural News" want you to believe, so they can sell you overpriced foods that are NO DIFFERENT.
Their credibility is lacking
They can't "block" anything at all.
Explain to us HOW they "blocked" it.

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

I take a bit of offense to the statement and the lumping we farmers into a single group. Just because we farm, does not mean we do not grow gardens, organic or not, raise our own meat, and generally "homestead" alongside our farms. Just because we see merit in gm crops, and know about some of the benefits, such as less herbicide use, and less soil erosion, and more wildlife diversity, does not mean we make every decision based on profit. We have common sense, and a wealth of experience. We are not in Monsanto's pocket. We are not paid as schills. We are simply speaking from experience.

And that is one more thing similar to the "global warming" fear mongering... Blame anyone who disagrees or has other opinions, as being in someones pocket, as having ulterior motives, or that it is all about profit. What about calm, collected, common sense?

If I started a thread about boer goats, and how they were terrible, and ate my small children one by one, in the oh, hmmmm, equine forum, I wonder if any goat people would be over there to defend their opinions on boer goats? My point, is if someone says something that I or anyone else sees as lies, as false premises, or as absolutely against all the cumulative experiences I have had in my farming career, of course I will slip over and defend common sense, and my rational for my knowledge gleaned over the years.

Why would I let lies stand as truths, when they are not??? Or if the statements are based on a single, kumbaya type of study? That would be morally wrong, because in avoiding the topic, it is agreeing and letting lies stand.

KWIM???

Cheers,

Dale

While I realize you are a huge proponent of the book, and kudos for you for educating yourself, having not read *the book* doesn't mean you aren't aware of or seeking knowledge about a subject. I've never read a book on how to kill a chicken, or raise a goat or wash a load of laundry so I'm definitely no expert but my goodness, does that mean I can't seek other sources and share what I've found?

Natural news simply reported on it. they were not the ones who carried out this study.

This covers a fair amount of the rest of what your asking..

GMO Researchers Attacked, Evidence Denied, and a Population at Risk | Global Research

By the way, if youve dug into the industries own studies, even many of these show issues.

You also have to keep in mind, it appears to come down to specific varieties.

Honestly i dont care if they are legal, in fact I believe GMs could be very useful. I think its pretty clear we arent testing them well enough through independent sources. further they should be labelled. Gm methods may one day give us major advantages. To date I dont see it.

This might be interesting to many as well. this isnt the best link for her work, but I couldnt find the others in my initial search. Her work is MUCH more promising then anything GMs have offered to corn thus far. On all fronts. She did this through crosses with corns wild relatives. From drought to flooding, to disease to pests, to production to protein levels to nitrogen usage.... All of it.

I might add, that the crosses are complex and that she barely scratched the surface of the plants we could cross into corn. Actually Im doing this myself. Dipplo perennis is key to this.

With GM methods this work could be much faster, and the potentials blow away current corns. Many might not want this anyway even if proven safe but my point being is If yields and outcomes rather then profit were goals of these companies they are doing it all wrong. Youd think having the most superior corn would win you market share but apparently the folks at GM companies dont agree... Or perhaps they dont understand corn? that seems doubtful, not much else makes sense on that.

Breeding efforts aim to save non-GMO and organic corn seed

__________________
I have a high desert arid mountainous climate. Working towards self sufficiency. The potentials of plant breeding and building micro climates amaze me. We must learn to ride the wave.

I've heard that cavalier attitude from others. I was speaking to a woman who's neighbor worked on the new GMO apple that doesn't brown. When she asked her if she was aware of potential health issues associated with GMO "food" her response was, "That isn't my concern."

So let's lay it at the feet of the gov't - since they do such a great job looking out for our welfare. The gov't wants you sick. Big Pharma pays them lots of money to allow for the creation of drugs to get you better. Big Ag creates the disease, Big Pharma creates the fix. The gov't is in bed with them both and all three are using your money to play with your life and the lives of your kids.

Follow. The. Money. And the ego. There is no profit in promoting real food as a way of being healthy.

I agree. so lets label it and let people make up their own minds.

__________________
I have a high desert arid mountainous climate. Working towards self sufficiency. The potentials of plant breeding and building micro climates amaze me. We must learn to ride the wave.

~sighs~ In the U.S., and other countries where they hold patent, Monsato blocked independent studies by claiming infringement and/or risk of industrial espionage. In countries where the did not hold patent, they have blocked independent studies by causing funds to be withheld from the institutions that proposed such studies. (Research takes *money* after all.)

The fact that the French study even managed to get done is amazing, but a LOT of that study was privately funded, rather than government or corporate funded, so Monsato didn't have much of a way to push it out.

I don't think the "those naturalist folks are just trying to dis GMO stuff so we will buy their expensive, organic/heritage/etc. products" holds water. My local feed store sells heritage seed and plants. It's not like there is a shortage, or a huge, recurring market, for heritage seed. Most people save their own, after all. Organic farmers, from availability of seed standpoint, don't give a ratz --- if commercial farmers get Monsato seed. They SAVE their seed, after all, and tend to only buy new breeds once. (Having Monsato sue them for infringement because their neighbor's GMO corn pollinated their heritage corn does, however, pesse them off. It's not that they either intended or wanted GMO contaminated seed, after all.)

The produce from those organic farms is not going to waste, ether. There are not bunches of organic, GMO free corn-on-the-cob rotting in natural food stores because people won't pay the prices for the,. Even Walmart offers locally grown, organic potatoes, and have trouble keeping it in stock. The market for the organically grown stuff is higher than the demand, especially with new science available to increase production. However, the profit margin of organically grown foods is about 20% less than that of commercially grown foods. So, it is less profit for an organic farmer than for a commercial, GMO farmer. This is why the farmers here often defend GMO stuff; they like that extra profit no matter what it might entail.

So, since supply of organically grown foods is less than the demand, it is NOT that organic, naturalist people are trying to get you to buy more of their stuff. They can't keep up with the demand as it is.

And you can see that if you keep an eye out on the livestock and homemaking forums. People complain about organic feed and food. Not that the price is too high, but that it is unavailable in their area. They would pay the higher prices if they could just get their hands on the stuff.

So, no. The "they are just trying to get you to buy their high-priced goods" argument does not hold water. The growers are not the ones that are complaining about the lack of labeling and lack of studies. (They are just complaining about contamination of their crops and Monsato trying to sue THEM over it.) The people that are complaining are the consumers. The consumers want labeling and testing. The consumers want to be able to be informed, and make informed choices about their food, and decide for themselves what they will and will not put in their bodies.

Which is why the consumers are the ones complaining the most about Monsato and GMO products, and are not trusting the products when so much is being hidden.

Monsato could care less if their products cause children to be born with defects and die early. All they care about is making money.

__________________
Peace,
Caliann

"First, Show me in the Bible where it says you can save someone's soul by annoying the hell out of them." -- Chuck

~laughs~ Not me. If horse folks want to believe that Boer goats eat small children, and don't want to bother looking it up for themselves, more power to them. I would, however, sit back with popcorn while the original poster was eaten alive over posting something completely off topic and, of course, absolutely wrong. Horse people tend to be well-read on other stuff, but they can also be absolutely rabid.

That being said, even if one of my pet peeves were aired on a different forum, say, in the horse forum, someone thought to get a goat for a companion for a horse, and everyone chimed in that they had better saw the horns off of that goat or else the goat would attack the horse and kill it with the horns, I would STILL keep my mouth shut.

Because they are discussing the topic from the point of view of how it applies to THEM. THEY have a completely different mindset, and different goals, than someone who raises goats for show, milk, or profit.

Just like when goat people discuss GMO feed, whether that be grain or hay. Lots of goat folks buy organic feed. So when GMO stuff comes up, the main thought is "Oh criminy! This is going to affect the availability of the feed that I prefer to buy!" When farmers come in, telling folks who have already researched and made a decision on what they WANT to feed their animals that they are being alarmists and should just suck it up and buy that GMO contaminated feed, they, quite naturally, get upset. You are sticking your nose into a conversation from a completely different point of view, and it is naturally going to be taken as "That guy raises GMO products, and wants to sell me GMO stuff."

My mother is allergic to milk, and has been since she was a baby. I could tell her that goat milk does not have the reaction-causing protein strands that cow milk does, and that it won't cause a reaction. I raise dairy goats, and I know this stuff. But the truth of the matter is, after never having milk, she doesn't have a taste for it anyway. All milk tastes like chalk to her. So why should I attempt to convince her that goat milk is healthy and good for her when she doesn't want it anyway?

That's what is going on when farmers come into the livestock forums to comment on threads like GMOs, or aflatoxins in feed; you are attempting to convince us of the safety of something we do not want. We do not *want* GMO stuff. We do not *want* aflatoxin blended feed.

And it peeses us off that, because the stuff is not LABELED, we get sold things we *do not want*.

If we are going to spend OUR hard-earned cash on something, we should at least be getting what we WANT, right?

__________________
Peace,
Caliann

"First, Show me in the Bible where it says you can save someone's soul by annoying the hell out of them." -- Chuck

I honestly am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am one of the people who thinks about two sides to every story. I would be fine with labelling. No problem.

Label away, label away!!! lol

Does anyone remember the science on tobacco back in the 50, 60, and early 70s? How tobacco companies were denying that cancer or emphysema was caused by smoking or chewing tobacco and had the studies to prove it?

One thing I learned in test labs, if you test long enough you will eventually get a pass and one does not have to disclose how many times something failed before one gets a pass.

There are labs that will "test it until it passes" and there are labs that will skew results and there are labs that are biased towards those funding their research. Funny how it all came out once lawsuits were filed that tobacco company employees knew their product was prone to cause disease. Was it in their best interest to disclose what they knew years before? Uhm no...it surely would have caused stock prices to fall. Tobacco too fought labels on their packs of smokes for years, after all, who wants a label on a product that says "this will cause cancer".

I suspect that there are perfectly good GMO varieties out there. I also suspect that there are some varieties I would prefer not to eat. I prefer lab data to be independent of those that will receive a benefit from good results or bad results. That includes data that generated by Monsanto labs as well as tree hugging green peace PETA labs.

However I do find it curious that companies are against labeling. Why shouldn't consumers have a choice? Those that don't want this type of food should be able to buy food that doesn't contain it and those that don't mind should be able to. Same as cigarettes.

People tend to forget that some reactions to things take decades to come to the light of day, i.e. asbestos illnesses, chemical illness (think Love Canal), certain types of low level radiation exposure, smoking, drinking alcohol to excess, and so forth. Many times it is not that first five years or ten years or even 20 years that gets you, it is 30 years, 40 years down the road when you can't get a breath or your liver shuts down from excessive drinking.

Something to think about. But if California has their way, if their ballot initiative is passed in November, I do not believe there will be any further argument about labeling. If it passes in California, it will spread eastward as much of our food comes from California now and is sold into California (wheat, corn, etc.)..so as they say: If it happens in California, it will happen nation wide.

__________________
Be yourself - no one can tell you that you're doing it wrong!