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.
I've yet to have a good Whole Foods steak. I lived directly across the street from Whole Foods at the Indigo in the Pearl District and unfortunately was my closest grocery store. Overpriced and nothing tasted good except the wine and beer selection.
Whole foods is overpriced not because it is organic and GMO-free, neither of which it really is, but because they have a business model to appeal to certain demographics so that they can charge more. They have some pretentious stuff, but they have lots of tasty items as well (cheese, chocolates, bread, etc). Item for item, I rather prefer their selection than the high-fructose corn syrup alternatives at Safeway. I mean, just think of the processed crap on most grocery shelves: Ranch dressing, fruit punch, cheese puffs, lucky charms, orange cheese slices, wonder bread.
Local beef from the weirdest places on Kauai (Wailua country store, Princeville Chevron--yes the gas station, and Kojima's--now closed but local funky place) is as good as any I've had. Not all Kobe and pretentious either, just local food grown and sold by local folks, fresh and butchered locally--which is pretty much all I can ask for (oh, and the prices are almost cheap--$5-8 per pound). Don't know if you can find any on Oahu (either Kauai or Oahu raised).
So, a billion feedlot animals, fed a diet of processed GMO pellets, and pumped up on growth hormones and antibiotics were healthy enough* to be slaughtered at age 1, 2, or 3. Something tells me the GMO in the food wasn't really a significant factor in this study. Please enjoy your GMO diet, if you're really that convinced.
The salient point is that anti-GMO activists keep claiming that livestock fed GMO corn and soy are developing tumors, having severe digestive problems, and dropping dead in their tracks in great numbers. It's part of the standard repertoire of anti-GMO rhetoric. It's kind of impressive seeing how many statistically insignificant and unreviewed and unconfirmed small-scale studies have made claims like this, and that people latch onto. But what the UC Davis studie proved beyond any reasonable doubt is that all those claims are false... imaginary... fictional... phony. No such results have been confirmed. None.
Quote:
Btw, it's not the GMO per se that's the problem, it all the nasty pesticide residue on and IN the plant and edible parts that I wonder about.
This is the only part of the standard opposition that carries any water. Pesticide use does need to be monitored carefully, in both GMO and and conventional crops. I am personally opposed to the use of glyphosates (RoundUp), even though they reduce the effort and labor required to weed crops. They have too many negatives associated with their use, including increased resistance creating "super-weeds," and indications of increased persistence in the environment possibly causing health issues. But if you grow GMO crops without using RoundUp, there's no health issue. Almost nobody is clear on this point.
Corn containing BT pesticide is only toxic to a very small range of insects that are corn pests, not to beneficial insects or any other life, such as birds or pigs or humans. It's so safe that Organic farmers have been using it in large numbers on corn for more than 60 years with no known issues. It's MUCH better for the environment and for people's health than the chemical pesticides it replaces. Given the large number and variety of corn pests that can attack corn in Hawai'i's tropical climate, with no cold winter to kill off the wee beasties, farmers have to use SOMETHING to control them, and the BT pesticide is by far the overall best found so far.
OpenD, your comment is pretty much describing your own dilemma:
"Your stories don't fit what I've heard."
Your mind is closed and you are surprised that people don't follow your lectures. Just like the rest of the GMO corporations. It's the SHUT UP AND EAT IT! attitude which ruins a once promising science.
OpenD, your comment is pretty much describing your own dilemma:
"Your stories don't fit what I've heard."
It's not a dilemma for me. I've presented lots and lots of facts and documentation that support my position. You haven't. And that was just a tongue in cheek reply to several assertions you had made without any proof whatsoever.
Quote:
Your mind is closed and you are surprised that people don't follow your lectures. Just like the rest of the GMO corporations. It's the SHUT UP AND EAT IT! attitude which ruins a once promising science.
Again, I'm trying to talk about facts but you keep wanting to talk about me.
Anybody who knows me IRL will tell you I'm the most open-minded person they know. They'll also tell you I am ruthless about distinguishing fact from fiction. And when I find new information that contradicts my understanding, if it is credible and verifiable, I have no problem changing my thinking and publicly saying so. Or admitting I'm wrong, if I have been. My commitment is to the truth, not to some phony posture or any desire to protect myself.
As to: "you are surprised that people don't follow your lectures." that's just another fiction you've invented with no basis in reality. In fact the only real surprise I've had with this thread is how many rep points I've been given for what I've posted here, more than I would have expected. Sorry!
Here, let me boil down the essentials for you... there is no credible scientific evidence that GMO foods are harmful, while there is a mountain of credible scientific evidence that neither GMO foods nor GMO technolgy pose a threat to our health or safety. A very strong consensus of scientists concur on this point.
And finally, to get back to the topic of this thread, unless opponents can prove the opposite, which is becoming more and more remote by the day, attempts to ban GMOs from production or sale, or to mandate an arbitrary label on them, are destined to fail in the long run.
But i think you miss the point. Facts or no facts, its obvious that a huge portion of the population or dare i say majority of the population in our country wants some form of labeling of there foods. If GMOs are harmful or not isn't really the point. My question is unless its unconstitutional, why not label the foods GMO or Not? The answer i suspect is its all about money. To me personally the argument about science and fact is like the minority missionaries of the past pointing the facts that without christianity we will all surely die and forcefully exerting there will on others to change society. Today we have replaced religion with corporations. For surely we will all die if corporations where made to be accountable to society and its people.
Complete logic won't solve the issue and complete logic has caused mankind to do some wild and damaging stuff to eachother.
My question is unless its unconstitutional, why not label the foods GMO or Not? The answer i suspect is its all about money.
Of course it is about money.
The American public does not have the appetite to spend 20% to 100% more on food just because it is organic. The USDA and FDA have stated they aren't behind the labeling because that would imply GMO food and non-GMO food are different, which they are not.
If you want to avoid GMO - you can. Only buy Organic or food labeled non-GMO and prepare to pay the price in $$'s to do so.
But i think you miss the point. Facts or no facts, its obvious that a huge portion of the population or dare i say majority of the population in our country wants some form of labeling of there foods. If GMOs are harmful or not isn't really the point. My question is unless its unconstitutional, why not label the foods GMO or Not?
But that IS the point precisely, that it is unconstitutional to require a label on GMO foods, and it's a point I've repeated over and over.
Location: Southernmost tip of the southernmost island in the southernmost state
982 posts, read 1,164,105 times
Reputation: 1652
I worked for over 25 years at one of the nations' premiere Natural/Organics foods companies. There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy within the industry. I do eat some Org products but I also eat GMO; I eat what I like and what I find tasty.
If the organics foods industry wants labeling, they are free to label their products as non-GMO. What they want to do though, is a little like Volvo trying to force other car-manufacturers with lower safety standards to have to advertise as such. But that isn't what Volvo does, no they market to the fact that safety is their strength and consumers purchase Volvo's if that is what is important to them.
If your product has virtues that serve the public, then market as such. If the public agrees, then your sales will follow. Forcing others to label in a manner to make sales for you, seems, wrong.
But, in this one thread you have OpenD and Whtviper in agreement, why it's almost a Christmas miracle....
The American public does not have the appetite to spend 20% to 100% more on food just because it is organic. The USDA and FDA have stated they aren't behind the labeling because that would imply GMO food and non-GMO food are different, which they are not.
If you want to avoid GMO - you can. Only buy Organic or food labeled non-GMO and prepare to pay the price in $$'s to do so.
There wouldn't be a genetically modified organism label if the food wasn't different? GMO is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Not natural methods.
Like ive said before it shouldn't be the consumers responsibility to pay for a corporation to be socially responsible if its the citizens of this countries legal intent to have GMOs labeled. Its not unconstitutional to require labeling, What are we talking about is a label that says GMO or Non-GMO right? Or are we talking disclosure like in some states
that requires home sellers to disclose murders or paranormal activity that has happened in the home to prospective buyers, even if it doesn't effect value of the property? This sounds crazy but the legal term used for this type of actions is a "reasonable persons standard" what is reasonable? Is it reasonable to disclose the locations of sexual preditors even if they don't reoffend? Is its reasonable to disclose murders or paranormal activity to prospective buyers of homes? Is it reasonable to disclose safety tests results for cars etc. So is it reasonable by a reasonable persons standard to disclose how your food was made?
But i will be first to admit i know very little about this issue because i love my lunch plate specials and malasadas to much to eat organic etc.
Last edited by hawaiian by heart; 12-01-2014 at 10:02 PM..
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.
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.
