It is simple common sense. We are constantly trying to improve our standard of living through innovation and that includes improving the food we eat.

Thanks for posting this.

I love how they put the soccer mom face on it. :) Meant to be reassuring. Great bit of semiotics.

FAQs page: If you can't digest it, you can't be sensitive to it....? [Explaining away how a protein in a plant can be poison to pests but not people.] Really? I thought people had reactions to all kinds of things they couldn't digest... I'm not a biochemist or anything, so am I missing something or are they skirting the truth? And if it poisons bad beetles, is it also killing ladybugs? And if the pests don't die and reproduce are we just engineering hardier pests?

This is why I buy organic. :)

I think the PR rep for Monsanto actually wrote a large portion of that and it was copied and pasted. Why am I picking on Monsanto, because they make Roundup and the GMO seeds for soybeans that are Roundup resistant, making it possible to use Roundup weed killer on corn and soybeans. Don't get me wrong, I like and use glyphosate. For very specific conditions and situations, limited use and you have to wear protective clothing to use it, so what does that tell you? The routine, broad application of glyphosate is a whole other story, with many ramifications, including the fact that plants genetically modify themselves all the time in nature through viral transmissions and other mechanisms, and many weeds will eventually pick up Roundup resistance, hindering the effectiveness of glyphosate as a method of controlling weeds. Glyphosate was touted as the solution to soil erosion being the cornerstone of no-till agriculture. But glyphosate is also an anti-bacterial and fungal agent so it kills much of the microbial life in the soil that is essential to soil and plant health. Short term benefits, long term hazards. And glyphosate has been studied as people using proper techniques to apply it and its acute toxicity, not the long term effects of INGESTING it. Nor do we necessarily test food crops for glyphosate levels. And that's just one GMO, I haven't even scratched the surface of Bt, which is what is modified into corn. The FDA didn't study these plants as food, only as pesticide. Also, as far as I know there hasn't been any substantive studies on the LONG TERM effects of ingesting Roundup ready foods over the long term. Acute toxicity is not the same as long term toxicity. The Wegman's article doesn't address one single concern, other than to say, "Trust our "scientists" we have studied it and we "scientists" can assure you it is safe." Yet as one commentator pointed out, not one reference to who these scientists were or where they got their information, or to any sources of their claims, other than the FDA. And the FDA often makes recommendations based on flimsy scientific evidence and later recants.

Here is a link that might be useful: Misgivings about how a weed killer affects the soil

Ugh. So Wegman's lets Monsanto choose their position?

I'm not buying it. Things like RoundUp are meant to kill things, but they're not bad for us? Uh huh, I have a nice bridge to sell you in Arizona.

Lpinkmountain spelled it out well, and I do not trust big corporations to have our best interests at heart, their only concern is their bottom line.

I just want the blasted things labeled, so I can decide not to eat them, geez.

That said, I plead guilty to using RoundUp to kill Autumn Olive, the darned stuff is invasive and persistent and my Ag Agent tells me that Round Up for Poison Ivy is the only thing that will kill it, and only if the stumps are sprayed within two minutes of cutting and then it's about 70% effective. Yeah, and our DNR planted it on purpose. (sigh)

Annie

"For very specific conditions and situations, limited use and you have to wear protective clothing to use it, so what does that tell you? "

I've been using glyphosate, first as Roundup and now as the generic since the patent expired, for decades while wearing levis and a t-shirt.

Why am I not DEAD?

Because you aren't a plant?

Bottom line, unless there is universal world-wide agreement on population control (one child per family), GMO farming, chemical farming, cloning and global warming (and wars?) are unavoidable.

Organic food, free-range meat, wild caught seafood are not realistic in reality.

dcarch

"Ugh. So Wegman's lets Monsanto choose their position?"

No, Wegmans actually looked at the reasearch and came to the reasonable conclusion, and decided that the stuff was perfectly safe to eat (which is the same conclusion the FDA has come to), and decided not to just ban the stuff like the tin-foil hat wearers have.

Also, we have become very accustomed to 'fine food'. Organic is often sub-prime. We raised free range chickens and couldn't sell them or the eggs for anywhere what it cost to raise them.

Also, have you ever eaten a steak from a grass-fed cow? We bought a side of beef one time from a organic farmer and were so very disappointed in the tenderness of the meat. Could be anecdotal, but I have heard similar complaints.

Unfortunately, what dcarch said is the sad truth. Just too dang many people on this earth(my words).

So do I get a gold star for never having a child? Hubs and I have been married for 40 years. We discussed it before we even committed to each other, and we stuck to our principals. Due to that, we have a wonderful, non-money stressed retirement. So it did have some great benefits.

The glyphosphate I was using was in a more concentrated form that what you buy over the counter, which is why I had to use protective clothing. I was using a tank sprayer and using it for invasive species control. But I think if you read the instructions on over-the-counter Roundup it will tell you to avoid skin contact with the substance. The issue isn't "no chemicals" or "no glyphosphate use" it is the widespread use of it, it is a mandatory part of the system of growing GMO crops, and used over and over again. And if you are not concerned about ingesting food modified in this way and sprayed with glyphosphate, fine. But I would like it to be labeled so I can go without it. I would also like the FDA to fund more long term studies on the health and environmental effects of the widespread use of glyphosphate--like being able to tell us how much we are ingesting would be a start. It's effects on the soil are being studied, and how fast weeds are picking up resistance to it is also starting to be known. Those of us who use Roundup and Bt are very concerned about these GMO-based agricultural practices speeding up the day when both glyphosphate and Bt become ineffective. We like them because glyphosphate and Bt both break down readily in the environment so do not accumulate in plant and animal tissues the way other petrochemicals can. Bt alternatives are much more acutely toxic.

And I personally don't care that Wegman's has no position on GMO's. or a pro-position on GMO's. But I think their attempt at rationalizing their position is pretty poor.

And for the self-loathing of the human race, that's a non-issue for me. There are many ways of controlling weeds and growing food. Avoiding GMOs or using them is not the cause or solution to all the problems of the human race. I prefer solutions that take all the science of ecology into account and don't cause long term damage to the environment. I prefer solutions that build up the soil, not tear it down. But I realize that is not easy to do. In fact, I have dedicated my life to researching and working on soil-positive solutions. It's interesting and fun!

The French National Assembly has made a sweeping declaration with a new bill, effective immediately. No more genetically modified crops. Another in a long list of countries that have banned GMO’s and Monsanto. If Monsanto wasn’t such a big political contributor the FDA might change their position.

Eat what you want but some of us would like to know what’s in our food. I want it on the label and Monsanto has spent millions to make sure that doesn’t happen. If it’s so good why would they do that what are they afraid of?

Yeah, Partst! Why can't they go back to the brought to you by Monsanto campaigns of the 1960's if they're proud of their frankenfood. Put a badge on the label, "Made with GMOs which help grow more food with less labor," or whatever their point is. I'm not anti-tech or anything, but when the tech kills all the good with the bad, it isn't accomplishing anything longterm except ruining the soil for the future.

Not everything has to be organic to be good, but if it's not sustainable we're not going to have a good future.

Re beef, grass fed has more flavor. Any cows that walk around are going to be less flabby. If you want steak that doesn't require cutting and chewing, then feed lot grown is for you.

Are my free range hens' eggs graded as highly as conventional? No. There's too much variation. They're excellent quality, however, and locally grown. They're also prettier and they generally taste better. For sure the free range chicken tastes better. Chickens should be roaming around pecking and eating bugs. I like the speckled eggs and variations in color. And I like knowing that the chickens are allowed to move around and behave like chickens.

" If it’s so good why would they do that what are they afraid of?"
People like you, acting out of ignorance. People like the french assembly.

There have been thousands of studies on GMO foods. There have been no dangers found.

There's no need to label them, for the same reason ther's no need to label foods grown hydroponically - there's no reason to believe there's danger.

If you want to not eat GMOs, maybe you should start petitioning companies to label their foods as being GMO -free, because that's the reasonable approach here.

"---People like you, acting out of ignorance. --"

Please, let's accept there will be difference of opinions here in a public forum.

Thank you.

dcarch

It's fine that there's a difference in opinion.

Your opinion is grounded in ignorance though, and that isn't an ignorance. Your opinion is based on you not knowing that there have been more tests of the safety of GMO foods than there have been tests of all other types of foods combined.

Admitting ignorance is the first step in fixing it.

"that isn't an ignorance." should be "That isn't an insult"

lpink, I really appreciated your posts and their content. Much to think about. Thanks.

Modern hybridized wheat is "safe". It was also cultured the old fashioned way, at least pre-lab-made-GMO. But there are large numbers of people who can eat einkorn and other ancient grains who cannot tolerate hybridized wheat. I'm not saying ban wheat. We already have laws that require that wheat content be marked on the label. That's adequate for an informed decision. Just because something is lab proven safe doesn't mean everyone can safely eat it.

JoppaRich , for instance, I would simply say you are UNAWARE of the other insulting definitions and deprecating meanings of the word "ignorant". I would not ever call you ignorant of the English language.
-------------------------------
Ignorant synonyms - analphabetic, benighted, dark, illiterate, nonliterate, rude, simple, uneducated, uninstructed, unlearned, unlettered, unread, unschooled, untaught, untutored, almost stupid.
-------------------------------

dcarch

This post was edited by dcarch on Fri, Apr 18, 14 at 19:01

I also grow grass fed beef and if I had to eat commercial beef, I'd give it up entirely. I don't like the greasy mouthfeel the tallow leaves, I don't like the mushy soft texture and I especially don't like the way the animals are fed or the way they are kept. I think it's cruel and immoral and that's why I raise and slaughter my own.

As I've often said, taste is not objective, taste is subjective. For instance, I dislike wine and I despise beer and I hate and detest pizza. Many others here like all of those things. (shrug) Especially at dinner with others, most are happy there is more wine for them. I like grassfed beef and I think that's why I have teeth. I don't even really care for tenderloin, it's too soft and mostly flavorless. Others think it is the best beef they've ever had. Neither right nor wrong, everyone eats what they like and choose to eat.

Anyone who rejects any other opinion, out of hand, as being wrong and ignorant is intolerant and calling names is just rude. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and you certainly may have yours. However, disagreeing with you doesn't make you right and me wrong.

I'm a farmer, the daughter of a farmer, the granddaughter of a farmer. I raise much of my own food for a reason. Biodiversity is being eroded daily and I don't want all that garbage on/in my food. That is my choice. You eat all the soylent green you like, but label it so I don't have to. That's my choice, not anyone else's.

dcarch, you forgot one big problem with the world food supply. We eat far too much meat. A serving is 4 ounces. I know people who will eat a pound of beef, a half pound burger, and cover it all with bacon. When I was a child we'd sometimes have meat 3 meals a day. Now I shudder, and often go a day or two without eating meat and don't think about it. Yeah, I know, I'm a beef farmer, and I still think people eat way too much beef.

Annie

Thanks dcarch and Annie for sticking up for me but we now live in a society where rudeness seems to be an attribute and tolerance only applies if you agree with the current agenda that’s being pushed. I’m a big girl that’s been around a very long time and probably been called worse than ignorant. As of right now this minute I still live in a Country that allows me to think for myself and form an opinion.

And excuse me but anytime someone calls me ignorant I certainly take it as an insult. Boy now I see why most of the great cooks on this from have disappeared.

partst, I was also sticking up for myself, as one who doesn't want to consume GMOs and someone who actually LIKES grassfed beef. I think if they are fighting so hard against labeling the stuff, there's a reason, and it's not just because people with "tin hats" won't buy it.

All other things being equal, we still get to make our own choices. Refusing to label what's in our food negates our right to choose.

Many old friends have, indeed, disappeared. As soon as they linked this to Facebook/Pinterest/etc., we started getting hit-and-run posts, SPAM posts, trolls. We've always had a few, but now we have a lot more. (sigh)

It seems that the Cooking Forum, as I knew it, has been nearly destroyed and I have no idea what will grow to take the place of it. It's been coming for some time, and yet, I still keep coming back.....

Annie

My desire to avoid GMO that have been modified to resist glyphosate is not out of ignorance. I am also not against genetic modification. In fact, on Friday I toured a lab at MSU that was working on the genetic modification of many crops, including blueberries. The ways plants can be genetically modified is vast, but the ones on the market have been modified in very few ways, one primary one is to be resistant to glyphosate in order to facilitate more use of that herbicide. The lab I visited was working on the genetics of cold tolerance. The main obstacle to other types of genetic modification in plants is the cost of the basic research--who is going to pay for it? The blueberry industry does not have the vast resources of Monsanto. And Monsanto invested in all that money in genetic research they thought would be most likely to benefit their company. I have no problem with that either, but don't argue it was for the betterment of civilization or for the health of the human race. And if you've ever really delved into the scientific studies on some of these things, you will find that we don't know far more than we know. Certain questions are not asked and not studied because there is little funding to do so.

DDT was deemed safe for many years. But then it was found that the long range effects of it were significant because it didn't break down and built up in the environment because it adhered to fat cells that accumulated in the tissues of animals, including humans. That was not extensively studied in advance. DDT is still used in some countries because they don't care if it does that, they feel the benefits outweigh the costs or else they don't have a choice.

But pests developing resistance to herbicides and pesticides is well known and studied, it is the same process by which bacteria and viruses develop resistance to antibiotics. This is why integrated pest management is preferred and disease prevention is so important. Integrated means pest management is built into the way you do business. And planting thousands of acres of the same crop year after year is just inviting pest trouble, not a system that is designed to be unattractive to pests, just the opposite. So if you farm using this system, you are forever tied to chemical pest control. I'm not picking on farmers, they have a right to do business as they see fit, but I want foods labeled if they have been modified for resistance to glyphosate. There are many industrial uses of corn and soybeans that do no involve eating them, so they can grow their thousands of acres for that if they want, and for the folks who don't mind eating food that has been routinely sprayed with glyphosate. I am not even sure how much of the corn or soybean crop even goes into food.

It's odd to me that folks lump all genetic modification together and then argue that "genetic modification" is safe, when actually we are talking about the widespread use of Bt toxin insecticide and glyphosate, not the genetic modification process itself, which as I started this note by saying, can be used to do a multitude of things, but currently is limited to resistance to a few types of pesticide, which then allows their widespread use. OK, don't label it as genetically modified then, label it as "modified to resist glyphosate" or "modified to contain Bt."

So I want to be clear, I am not concerned about the process of genetic modification, which humans have been doing one way or the other for thousands of years, I am concerned about the specific modification that allows for resistance to glyphosate and also engineering Bt toxins into corn. That one is a problem because Bt is actually an organic pesticide because it breaks down readily in the environment. Using it in such a widespread manner, increases the danger that its effective lifespan will be shortened. I know organic farmers who are totally against this Bt corn because they fear it will eventually take one of their most effective tools out of the equation by speeding up resistance. I'm not even concerned about Bt or glyphosate, it is just the widespread use of them, or in the case of genetically modified corn and soybeans, the mandatory use of them.

Great post, Lpink! thanks!

dcarch