GMO and Monsanto

[Hydra]

Veggies are veggies.

Beef is beef

Carbolators is carbolators

[Daven]

FDA does not ban meds once a generic can be made but the consumer would start getting the generic vs the name brand. That is how ADD meds work. Every time the patent runs out Shire and their homeboys mix up a new batch of d-amps to test on us. Ritalin (Methylphenidate) > Adderal (dextroamphetamine) >(Lisdexamphetamine) Vyvance. Vyvance is the latest and greatest its not abuse-able because your liver has to cleave off the l-lysine and then your body turns it into dextro.

I can understand the use of substitutes to feed the starving but what is even the point of consuming the fake on a regular basis if you don't need to? The more in touch we are with nature the better.

[Pedro]

FDA does not ban meds once a generic can be made but the consumer would start getting the generic vs the name brand. That is how ADD meds work. Every time the patent runs out Shire and their homeboys mix up a new batch of d-amps to test on us. Ritalin (Methylphenidate) > Adderal (dextroamphetamine) >(Lisdexamphetamine) Vyvance. Vyvance is the latest and greatest its not abuse-able because your liver has to cleave off the l-lysine and then your body turns it into dextro.

I can understand the use of substitutes to feed the starving but what is even the point of consuming the fake on a regular basis if you don't need to? The more in touch we are with nature the better.

That's how every med works. Once the patent runs out, it's free reign for the generic company to take the formula and mass produce it. Usually the pharma company pulls it and makes something else better. The pharma companies are the ones spending all the money to develop it, which is why they are expensive. Now, insurance companies will barely cover brands even if the patent hasn't run out. For example, when I was a pharma rep I sold an acne med called Doryx 150. It was a strain from tetracycline, called doxycycline hyclate. Generic doxycycline had been on the market for years (slightly different strain so it could be made) but with many more side effects. Doryx still got switched at the pharmacy and insurance companies didn't cover it because the they made more money on it. Healthcare is fucked up because everybody is trying to get over on the other guy, leaving the pharma companies (the ones who actually spend the time and money to create the drug) to have to charge so much or take a huge hit with a rebate card. Now that Obama care is pushing generics, the pharma companies are getting fucked so a lot of them are merging with generic companies.

As far as organic food, that shit is expensive and I'm never sick. I'll stick with my monsanto pork.

[Zullock Holmes]

In a slightly similar note, agriculture and livestock in the US are a far cry from what it's actually 'supposed' to be. Have you ever eaten/seen naturally grown pork? The meat before its cooked is almost red , similar to beef.

this is completely untrue.

I have dealt with local farm raised pork on numerous occasions. In fact, I watched them slaughter and gut the oinker I used in my pig roast.

Pork is a light to medium darkness pink when rare.

If your pork is red to the point of looking like beef, then it's either incredibly bruised or not pork.

American grown pork and beef are some of the highest quality, cleanest, and healthiest, and affordable meats in the world. Are some of the practices used by large farms less than humane? Sure. But if you want to buy quality meat for cheap, then something has to give.

What you are talking about with fast food restaurants.... is completely different than supermarket foods. You want a double cheeseburger for $1.... then don't be surprised to find out it isn't wagu beef chuck with fresh cheese made from milk and organically grown produce.

You get what you are willing to pay for, and if don't like and then do like the old days. Grow your own produce or support your local farms. Hunt for meat or raise your own chickens. If you want beef, then find a local cattle farmer and buy it from him. It's a choice that the consumer makes.

[Daven]

die slowwwwwwww

[Calabrate2]

ALSO, no need to call someone an idiot for expressing their opinion, i could call you an idiot for thinking that the US is better then one of those 'second world countries' when i highy doubt youve ever even left your country. there is no need to be an asshole when people are simply exprssing their opinions.

You're an idot... Not sure if you've noticed or read, being called an idot is similar to the classroom when a professor tells you that you are wrong. No big deal, it happens. No need to get defensive or butt hurt. Had you really awoken some the lyrical beasts and monsters of literature, it would equate to being bent over his desk, violated by all seven colors of white board makers with salt, sand and tears as lubricant while the class watched from a safe, non fluid flying distance .

[Nick]

You're an idot... Not sure if you've noticed or read, being called an idot is similar to the classroom when a professor tells you that you are wrong. No big deal, it happens. No need to get defensive or butt hurt. Had you really awoken some the lyrical beasts and monsters of literature, it would equate to being bent over his desk, violated by all seven colors of white board makers with salt, sand and tears as lubricant while the class watched from a safe, non fluid flying distance .

[WarGin]

You're an idot... Not sure if you've noticed or read, being called an idot is similar to the classroom when a professor tells you that you are wrong. No big deal, it happens. No need to get defensive or butt hurt. Had you really awoken some the lyrical beasts and monsters of literature, it would equate to being bent over his desk, violated by all seven colors of white board makers with salt, sand and tears as lubricant while the class watched from a safe, non fluid flying distance .

That was a little graphic...
Maybe a little projection there? Something you wanna tell the group?
Lol but srsly

http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/soc...te_470173.html

Link to France's main newspaper, l'Express.
I will do my best to translate important points, but google translate fucks it up so I won't do all of it. You can get the point if you do it though

1)
Monsanto, manufacturer of modified corn varieties currently banned in France, repeated in its letter to the minister of agriculture " no effect has become apparent on Health over the course of the past 11 years during which the species MON 810 has been consumed."
While this may be true, American health and sanitation authorities haven't noticed anything wrong.... Because they haven't looked. No study of exposed populations has been started in this country. For one simple reason. Modified varieties of corn, soy, and colza(?) are completely mixed in with unmodified crops. Impossible now to know who ate gmos and in what quantities.
Certainly, anyone could say that these cultures (ag and livestock) haven't destroyed the menu of America. But Less spectacular consequences have Been able to slip through undetected, beit allergic reactions or long term toxic effects.
On these two points , institutions like
WHO and The European food health authority (EFSA) have joined citizen organizations like CRIIGEN.
All seek that manufacturers of modified foods provide research more in depth then those required by law today.

The Allergy Issue
Food allergy cases haven't stopped rising over the course of the past few decades, signs of particularly reactive immune systems in our contemporaries ( meaning the United States). This is because every GMO, by definition, contains a protein that did not exist in the original variety.
You cannot therefore just assume that this won't risk setting off a defense reaction in the organism.
For the moment, manufacturers proceed by comparing the molecular structure of the new protein to known possible allergens, like milk, eggs and nuts. The WHO and Efsa want more complete tests, notably including animal testing.

Toxicity
Can Gmos make you sick?
This is the second question that scientists are attempting to answer, thanks to diverse experiences.
Currently, all GMos must be served as a 'main course' to rats for 3 months before being authorized. The problem is interpreting the check up of the animal. Because no one really knows what indicator to prioritize in the research. The latest debate of experts is about the corn species MON 863, created by Monsanto to excrete pesticides. This confirmed the difficulty of testing GMOs.
In march 2007, GE Serani, a prominent bio-chemist at the university of Caen, found anomalies in the records of these rats, anomalies in the kidneys, liver, and lymph in the bloodstream (I beleive this is the translation). However, these results were contested and never finalized.
To remove this type of doubt, the High Authority of OGM , a committee of experts recently put in placeby the French government and destined to become the High Council,
Suggested, like CRIIGEN, to lengthen the studies performed on animals to two years rather then the current three months, the same testing period required for pesticides, seeing that the vast majority of GMOs do not augment the production of food but rather resistance to herbicides and pesticides. Experts are also asking that the field of study be broadened to include perturbations on the hormanal system, fetus', and the descendants of the rats. Monsanto to date has refused to supply produce for testing

In short, the problems of GMOs can be broken down into these points. These are summed up by me and not related to the above article. However, I dare anyone of you to prove any point here wrong.

- GMOs weren't and aren't created to feed the world. 99 % of them serve to tolerate herbicides or to create insecticides

-These 'herbicide sponges' don't make agriculture easier, or sustainable, instead requiring intensive agriculture. Resistive traits become apparent, requiring the use of particularly toxic fertilizers and herbicides. Curiously, herbicide application is increasing in nations like Canada where GMOs were grown to make agriculture practices 'cleaner'.
In reality, the farmer is taken hostage by the agrochemist.

-GMOs don't come from a want for greater good. Currently we are in the first stages of a 'genetic rough draft', creating organisms resistant to antibiotics , chemicals, etc. We know what we are introducing, and believe its intended effect , but still don't know what will truly occur, requiring longer, more extreme tests

-The impact of GMOs on the environment and health has barely been studied. The current laws allow the rapid commercialisation of these products, without studies upon the impact of the environment or health, such as is required for pesticides or Ben medication. It's true, the value of corn could probably never be compared to medications, but we sure eat a lot more corn products then we do medication...
-how can we accept a type of pollution that could be worse then nuclear waste? The waste from a powerplant has a half life of a few million years. Genetics introduce to the environment could be present billions of years from now, whether it be 'beneficial' or toxic.

[Nick]

In short, the problems of GMOs can be broken down into these points. These are summed up by me and not related to the above article. However, I dare anyone of you to prove any point here wrong.

Ok.

- GMOs weren't and aren't created to feed the world. 99 % of them serve to tolerate herbicides or to create insecticides

Which, by ensuring the food actually grows to maturity ends up feeding the world.

-requiring the use of particularly toxic fertilizers and herbicides.

Patently untrue. I quote from the EPA:

"The nature of glyphosate residue in plants and animals is adequately understood ... In animals, most (97.5%) glyphosate is eliminated in urine and feces ... EPA conducted a dietary risk assessment for glyphosate based on a worst-case risk scenario, that is, assuming that 100 percent of all possible commodities/acreage were treated, and assuming that tolerance-level residuesr emained in/on all treated commodities. The Agency concluded that the chronic dietary risk posed by glyphosate food uses is minimal.....Glyphosate is no more than slightly toxic to birds and is practically nontoxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates and honeybees"

-how can we accept a type of pollution that could be worse then nuclear waste? The waste from a powerplant has a half life of a few million years. Genetics introduce to the environment could be present billions of years from now, whether it be 'beneficial' or toxic.

What are you talking about? How can you compare something that has not been proven AT ALL to be harmful to human beings to nuclear waste? You're just making extreme and absurd comparisons in an attempt to prove your point because you lack facts.

Also, go find me someone else who cares what genetics are like a "few billion" years from now.

[Hydra]

Dinosaurs: "No, don't worry. We'll let those tiny, pathetic mammals run around unchecked instead of stomping them to bits. NO way we'll regret this in a billiondy billion years."


SEE: GMO's killed the dinosaurs and also gave my baby sister Heppopotamus C.

[Daven]

Justin Beiber killed the dinosaurs

[Zullock Holmes]

-how can we accept a type of pollution that could be worse then nuclear waste? The waste from a powerplant has a half life of a few million years. Genetics introduce to the environment could be present billions of years from now, whether it be 'beneficial' or toxic.

FYI-
Uranium 238 has a half life of 4.47 billion years
Uranium 235 has a half life of 704 million years
(most uranium fuel rods are 3-4% enriched meaning that they contain 3-4% U235)

Also it is to be noted that nuclear power plants create exponentially small amounts of waste for the amount of energy they produce.

I would be much more worried about all the millions of tons of garbage solar panels stacked up in landfills in 30 years than a couple hundred tons of spent uranium fuel rods.

Basically all pollution is worse than nuclear waste.

How about you leave nuclear energy to the big boys, if you can't grasp basic Monsanto chemistry/biology I would love to know your delusional beliefs regarding energy.

I love it when the science illiterate take to these issues. There is simply NO real evidence to support that GMO's are bad.

[Daven]

The farther away something is from being all natural the worse it is for you. Chemical additives are complete garbage for your body. I'm confused why so many people are for putting chemical additives into their bodies? It makes zero sense to me. I can understand if it is a life/death scenario but why not opt for the best fuel for your body. Compare any one who eats a ton of shitty chemical/GMO food to someone who eats organic/natural food. Chances are that person will be much healthier.

It may go beyond food though and it's just that people who do not eat GMO's are more health conscious in general than those who wish to consume them.

Even if they aren't bad for you that doesn't make them good for you either.

[Zullock Holmes]

Do you know what foods are made of........

CHEMICALS, FUCKING EVERYTHING ON EARTH IS MADE FROM DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF THE ELEMENTS.

Whether it was grown by the grace of a godly will, evolutionary byproduct, or designed in a lab.

The only chemicals that are bad for you are ones that react with the other chemicals in your body.

Hence why you can't drink ammonia, for example.

There is NOTHING to prove that altering the genetic information contained in the DNA of a plant will have any effect on our bodies.

There is NO study that proves what you are saying is right either. People that are healthier in studies eat healthier. There is no consumer available corn on earth that hasn't been genetically altered, even the organic stuff. The corn from the days of pilgrims and Indians was much different than modern corn, it was smaller and contained more starch.

Sweet corn is the byproduct of engineering crops, something that has gone on for centuries. The same process that domesticated wolves into house pets is what has made crops more palatable and more efficient. Modern science has allowed this process to be done much more quickly in a laboratory now, instead of having to fertilize and germinate generation after generation of plant to get the results you want, it can now be done in a matter of weeks.

I can take carbon dioxide and water and go into a lab and make acedic acid. Then I can take it so that the ratio is 8% acetic acid and 92% water. Mind you completely manufactured in a laboratory, not NATURAL (in your contexts) at all. and you know what I made??? Vinegar, white vinegar, chemically the exact same thing as white wine vinegar. And you know how much it costs compared to making white wine with grapes, letting it spoil in sunlight, filtering it, mixing it and having a jar of white vinegar?? A whole hell of a lot less!

That's the whole point, to develop cheaper and more efficient ways to make foods.

99% of the things made in food laboratories are completely SAFE. The FDA, even though it's a government agency is made up of scientists, whom are very very smart and who have LOTS of funding. I trust their research much more than someone with a liberal arts degree that got a d in general chemistry (generally speaking, most of the hippie idiots fighting GMO's)

[Daven]

That is because if said studies existed it would put a lot of motherfuckers out of a job. I don't understand how you would not prefer something pure. Its like if your dealer slips in a gram of no-dos or b12 into your 8ball. Sure, its still fucking coke but guess what that shit has been cut.

I could give two fucks if it hasn't been proven that its bad. Because guess what? Natural foods HAVE been proven to be healthy. I know everything is made of chemicals but that doesn't mean that we should ingest every chemical we come across. Anything is fine in moderation, but the amount of cancerous fillers and binders in most processed foods is fucking insane.