Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-24-2014, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,342,306 times
Reputation: 8672

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
which foods can legally be proclaimed organic that knowingly have GMO content?



again, you already have that label on foods labeled usda certified organic. buy 'em.

for the third time, did you read katiana's post?



umm... what? can you rephrase this?
No, I didn't say that.

I said something can be labeled organic or not, and it has nothing to do with GMO. Also, something may not be labeled organic, and still not have GMO in it. So how does the consumer know?

Again, GMO needs a separate listing, away from organic. And read the sentence below from the USDA.

If less then 5% of the weight is GMO, then it can still be labeled "certified Organic" which mean, that its only "usually" GMO free, that doesn't mean it always is.

Certified Organic / USDA Organic: At least 95 percent of content is organic by weight (excluding water and salt). The <5% remaining ingredients must consist of substances approved on the USDA’s National List. GMOs are NOT on this list, so USDA Organic products are also usually GMO-free.

 
Old 09-24-2014, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,321,515 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
No, I didn't say that.

I said something can be labeled organic or not, and it has nothing to do with GMO. Also, something may not be labeled organic, and still not have GMO in it. So how does the consumer know?

Again, GMO needs a separate listing, away from organic. And read the sentence below from the USDA.

If less then 5% of the weight is GMO, then it can still be labeled "certified Organic" which mean, that its only "usually" GMO free, that doesn't mean it always is.

Certified Organic / USDA Organic: At least 95 percent of content is organic by weight (excluding water and salt). The <5% remaining ingredients must consist of substances approved on the USDA’s National List. GMOs are NOT on this list, so USDA Organic products are also usually GMO-free.
I just posted a clarification letter from the USDA. If the process is organic but somehow GMO got into the final product that product can still be labeled organic because it was not the producer's fault.

Certified Organic means the producer used organic methods. The certification is on process, not content.
 
Old 09-24-2014, 01:01 PM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
52,529 posts, read 34,259,842 times
Reputation: 29172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
No, I didn't say that.

I said something can be labeled organic or not, and it has nothing to do with GMO.
it certainly does if it's USDA organic, since that is one of the criteria

Quote:
Also, something may not be labeled organic, and still not have GMO in it.
certainly. so far the label fanatics have not demanded such a label.

Quote:
So how does the consumer know?

Again, GMO needs a separate listing, away from organic. And read the sentence below from the USDA.

If less then 5% of the weight is GMO, then it can still be labeled "certified Organic" which mean, that its only "usually" GMO free, that doesn't mean it always is.

Certified Organic / USDA Organic: At least 95 percent of content is organic by weight (excluding water and salt). The <5% remaining ingredients must consist of substances approved on the USDA’s National List. GMOs are NOT on this list, so USDA Organic products are also usually GMO-free.
you just reiterated that your 5% cannot be GMO, so I don't see what you're getting at

for the fourth time - did you bother reading katiana's post?
 
Old 09-24-2014, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,342,306 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I just posted a clarification letter from the USDA. If the process is organic but somehow GMO got into the final product that product can still be labeled organic because it was not the producer's fault.

Certified Organic means the producer used organic methods. The certification is on process, not content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
it certainly does if it's USDA organic, since that is one of the criteria



certainly. so far the label fanatics have not demanded such a label.



you just reiterated that your 5% cannot be GMO, so I don't see what you're getting at

for the fourth time - did you bother reading katiana's post?
See the above quoted data.

Just because its organic, doesn't mean it doesn't have GMO in it.
 
Old 09-24-2014, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,321,515 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
See the above quoted data.

Just because its organic, doesn't mean it doesn't have GMO in it.
The USDA certifies the process is organic and doesn't intentionally use GMO.
The USDA does NOT certify that the produce it GMO-free.
And the USDA does allow the organic label even if GMO is found in it.



http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getf...TELPRDC5090396

If a producer adheres to all aspects of the NOP regulations, including never utilizing genetically modified seeds, but a certifying agent tests and detects the presence of genetically modified material in the crop, is that crop's status determined to be no longer certified organic?

As long as an organic operation has not used excluded methods and takes reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods as detailed in their approved organic system plan, the unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods should not affect the status of the organic operation or its organic products.
..
Crops grown on certified organic operation may be sold, labeled and represented as organic, even with the inadvertent presence of GMOs, provided that all organic requirements under 7 CFR Part 205 have been followed.
 
Old 09-24-2014, 01:10 PM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,002,733 times
Reputation: 2521
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
can you please cite some studies on non-GMO foods that you would use as a model for this that would satisfy your requirements.


is that so? according to whom?
I've never met a centurion that didn't eat oatmeal. That's my study

Sure, they say: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.”

Since the first GMO food came on the market in 1994, its been 20 years. But what is the
longest study actually done on humans. I'm googling and I can't find one that long.
Maybe you can help me

As far as disease, it's not as direct of a link as you might think.

"In a recent paper published in the journal Entropy, Dr. Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samsel argue that the key ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, contributes to most of the diseases associated with a Western diet — everything from gastrointestinal disorders to mood swings, heart disease to diabetes.

Monsanto has long argued that glyphosate is perfectly safe for humans. That’s because glyphosate works by disrupting the shikimate pathway in a plant’s metabolism. Human metabolism does not have the shikamate pathway, so we are safe.

In her paper, Dr. Seneff argues that glyphosate interrupts your gut bacteria’s metabolic pathways the same way it does a plant’s.
...you are eating plenty of glyphosate residues in your food — particularly if you’re eating foods made from RoundUp Ready genetically-modified (GMO) crops like sugar beets, corn, canola (rape), and soy.

Unfortunately, about 85% of the foods sold in grocery stores contain these GMOs."

The Link Between Roundup Ready GMOs and Disease | Food Renegade

Entropy | Free Full-Text | Glyphosate
 
Old 09-24-2014, 01:12 PM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
52,529 posts, read 34,259,842 times
Reputation: 29172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
See the above quoted data.

Just because its organic, doesn't mean it doesn't have GMO in it.
saw it. the quote wasn't from the USDA.

it can't intentionally have GMO in it, as I've stated a number of times. if you demand labeling, how will you ensure products labeled as not having GMO don't have any? what degree of testing and oversight will you require?

and for the fifth time - have you read katiana's very good post re: labeling?
 
Old 09-24-2014, 01:13 PM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
52,529 posts, read 34,259,842 times
Reputation: 29172
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
you blundered right on past my use of the word 'knowingly' even though you bolded it



however, this raises an excellent point. for those screaming for labels, how will you avoid the adventitious presence issue you just cited?

do you plan to require that every portion of food be tested by PCR to determine it doesn't contain so much as a molecule of GMO plant material?
are you every going to tackle this one, happy?
 
Old 09-24-2014, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Volcano
12,969 posts, read 28,350,584 times
Reputation: 10757
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin View Post
I am simply saying, you can not determine the long term effects of GMO's on a human, based on that study.
You're still missing the point... you can't have it both ways, claiming that animal studies show GMOs are dangerous and unhealthy, then rebuking animal studies that show they are safe and healthy.

You also need to dig into the study further. They also looked at people who ate the meat and eggs and drank the milk from those animals, and they looked for DNA transfer, etc. The lead researcher on this study is a geneticist, so he looked into possible downstream effects. Once the full study is available on October 1 I'm sure this will all be much clearer, and more convincing... at least to those who are actually open minded.

Quote:
Folks can choose whether to eat GMO foods. You don't really have a choice with corn or wheat anymore.
Corn or soybeans, you mean. And most of the GMO corn is used for animal feed. GMO wheat is not on the market.

Quote:
But, they have yet to invade Oats and they are surprisingly good for you.
Yep, I agree. I eat oatmeal most mornings, and other oat products. But here's an example of how crazy people are about the anti-GMO hysteria. I have a friend who breathlessly announced to her large circle of friends on Facebook that she had found a store on the other side of the large city she lives in which stocks oatmeal from a small rural producer that is labelled NO GMOs, and that she had just driven across town to stock up on it, even though it was 4X the price of Quaker Oats, but "Darn it, I'm worth it!"

She wasn't at all happy with me when I informed her of the fact that there aren't any GMO oats on the market. they're ALL non-GMO.

Quote:
But eat GMO's to your heart's content...Not sure about that. Doesn't matter to me personally but it is becoming a global issue for the mere fact of what we are now eating globally because of GMO foods is now creating more heart disease since these particular foods were not readily eaten in such high consumption 50 years ago, e.g. wheat and soybean.
Sorry, this is just more of the same goofy rhetoric people repeat endlessly without ever thinking it through. First, the dawn of modern civilization is widely attributed to the invention of agriculture with the domestication of wheat. And in most western cultures wheat has been the dominant grain from which bread has been made ever since. "Give us this day our daily bread" referred to the staple of life, the one thing people relied on for their daily nutrition. You could literally live for years on nothing but bread and water... if you didn't die of boredom .. and large populations ate far more wheat than a typical American eats today. You're pinning the crime on the wrong suspect.

Well, how about soybeans, then? Again, they've been eaten in large quantities, in many different varieties in Asia for thousands of years. They're really only "new" to Westerners. And again, they're not the bad guys either. Want better suspects for ill health? Meet Mr. Salt, Ms. Sugar, and Mr. Fat. There's plenty of proof they are known killers.

Quote:
Get into the yield lag and corporate monopoly on crop production that GMO foods creates, driving family farms into distinction. And I am not a fan of GMO products.
Conversely, GMO crops are saving family farms, like those Hawaiian papaya farmers I mentioned. No big corporate farms, they're all small family operations. They were all facing ruin, and loss of their land, until these improved GMO seeds, developed by one researcher with a part time assistant, and distributed free of charge by the University of Hawai'i, saved the industry. And the seeds can be saved and breed true, and Monsanto was not involved. And the fruit is juicy and delicious and is naturally good for your digestion.

That's the big story with GMOs that needs to be told. There are literally thousands of GMO projects being developed all over the globe that have nothing at all to do with Monsanto. Some are literally lifesavers. GMO is just an advanced breeding tool. There are legitimate complaints about Monsanto's corporate behavior, but they should not be used to condemn the tools, which can be used in many ways.

Quote:
BTW, there is much more to why folks don't like GMO's besides what I have stated. It is not just delegated to your small argument of research on a few rats.
Like I said... get clear what's fact and what isn't. And the biggest single objection people express about GMO foods is that they are afraid they are not safe. But as time goes on, that unfounded fear is being proven wrong, and anti-GMO laws based on hysteria and fear rather then credible evidence are beginning to be rolled back, all over the world. Even France has now OKd the cultivation of two varieties of GMO corn. You can reliably expect to see more of that to come.
 
Old 09-24-2014, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,400,602 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
It's comforting to know that the makers of DDT and Agent Orange are now in charge of our food supply
and the funding of our university studies isn't it? /sarcasm


Grow your own. Buy organic. It's a free country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:43 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top