Training & Nutrition - Genetically Modified Food = Paranoia
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
04-17-10, 11:11 PM
Maybe it's just me but the more i learn about food the more paranoid i'm getting with what i eat. Anyone seen the movies below? After watching them, i'm thinking i might go all organic. I've already cut out most processed / synthetic food...
The Future of Food (http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food)
Food, Inc. (http://www.foodincmovie.com/)
04-18-10, 04:51 AM
All food we eat is genetically modified. That is the definition of domestication. Instead of taking 1,500 years to isolate the "grow 2x bigger mutant gene" and breeding it into the main population to replacement, we can do it in 3 years.
04-18-10, 09:20 AM
But they're not only making things bigger they're making things creepy...When the main biotech company for agriculture is mainly a pesticide company there is something wrong...
Monsanto (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto) is considered the Mother of agricultural biotechnology (1). Their "Roundup Ready" crops have been genetically engineered to permit direct, "over the top" application of the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate allowing farmers to drench both their crops and crop land with the herbicide so as to be able to kill nearby weeds (and any other green thing the herbicide touches) without killing the crops (2).
In fact, the Roundup Ready System was specifically designed to require the exclusive use of Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup, primarily, some say, to increase profits for Monsanto - and at almost 250 million GM acres worldwide which all require Roundup that's a lot of profit  (http://www.purefood.org/mothjones.html). Says David Ehrenfield, Professor of Biology at Rutgers University, "Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers"  (http://www.mercola.com/2002/nov/2/biotechnology3.htm). "In the United States, the widespread adoption of Roundup Ready crops combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major field crops from 1994 to 2005"  (http://www.foei.org/en/publications/pdfs/gmcrops2008full.pdf)
...and the whole patenting life controversy makes things even worse.
04-18-10, 10:04 AM
Says David Ehrenfield, Professor of Biology at Rutgers University, "Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers"  (http://www.mercola.com/2002/nov/2/biotechnology3.htm)
Market says otherwise. If there was an alternative that produced as much crop for as little work/cost farmers would switch. The fact that weeds are becoming resistant is not surprising and either Monsanto will create a new product that is cost effective or farmers will switch to a new supplier.
04-18-10, 10:39 AM
In my opinion (gee, I bet you never heard THAT on the internet...) there are two aspects to the GMO controversy: the health aspect, and the moral aspect. Regarding the health aspect, there are plenty of google hits for "GMO health study" that you can make your own decision. For me, the choice comes down to a moral one: do I want to support the production of GMO food? Personally, the answer is no. When I have a choice, I avoid GMOs due to the fact that I simply do not trust Monsanto et. al. to do the right thing.
I'm especially suspicious due to their response when the subject of labeling comes up. The gist of their response is "Requiring labeling for ingredients that don’t pose a health issue would undermine both our labeling laws and consumer confidence." (from http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/gmo_labeling.asp). But there are some studies that have found health problems from GMOs (although it remains to be seen if the studies are definitive or not), and it completely ignores those of us who would avoid GMOs for moral/ethical reasons. The latter reason is almost the same as saying that you're against labeling a food as Kosher because it doesn't have anything to do with health.
All of the above is pertinent to the U.S., if you're in other 'more enlightened' countries this may be a moot point...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.