GMO's - Scientific and Economic 'realities'???

[MisterCairo]

I am going to say this, and this is based solely on my experience. I know it's not scientific, at all, I don't claim it to be.

At times on my life I have had a very sensitive stomach, to the point of developing short-term food allergies (some of which i tested as allergic to for awhile then did not). At these times, when I traveled to Canada and northern Europe, I was able to eat relatively normal. (More so in Europe, but I traveled there more frequently than to Canada.)

Now why I couldn't tolerate a mouthful of bread or a bit of salad dressing here in the US without turning beet red; but could eat any bread I wanted in Europe without a sniffle, I have *no idea.* if I didn't have doctor confirmed allergies, I would think I'm crazy, but I had an allergist confirm when I ate bread here I had an actual reaction, not an "in my head" reaction.

But I would be very hesitant to change your system of agriculture if I lived there.

I can't speak to the issues of grain-based foods, I do know that in Canada, bovine growth hormones are illegal in dairy cattle, so all of our dairy products are free of those hormones (https://www.dairygoodness.ca/good-health/dairy-facts-fallacies/hormones-for-cows-not-in-canada), and our beef production has limited allowed hormones (http://www.beefinfo.org/Default.aspx?ID=11&SecID=8&ArticleID=166). Growth hormones are allowed for beef cattle but not dairy cattle.

Growth hormones are prohibited for pork.

Steroids and hormones are also completely prohibited in poultry production in Canada since 1965 (http://www.chicken.ca/ask-us/). Antibiotics in poultry are not legally prohibited, but the production industry has voluntarily banned its use (with supply management the governing body can develop and implement rules notwithstanding the lack of government rule changes).

The import of meet products containing these things is not restricted, however, the TPT thing which could result in greater importation into Canada of these products is of concern to some.

Europe does tend to have restrictive rules such as these as well, just a thought this may have something to do your dietary experiences.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's also important to point out that there's a very big difference between selectively breeding an organism to produce desirable traits and manipulating that organism at the DNA level using genetic material taken from organisms in no way related to the original organism. You can crossbreed different kinds of apples to produce a new kind of apple, or crossbreed different types of bovines to produce a calf with desirable traits -- but you can't in any natural way cross a cow with a pig. Or, as Monsanto has done, bacteria with a corn plant.

 

[sheeplady]

I can't speak to the issues of grain-based foods, I do know that in Canada, bovine growth hormones are illegal in dairy cattle, so all of our dairy products are free of those hormones (https://www.dairygoodness.ca/good-health/dairy-facts-fallacies/hormones-for-cows-not-in-canada), and our beef production has limited allowed hormones (http://www.beefinfo.org/Default.aspx?ID=11&SecID=8&ArticleID=166). Growth hormones are allowed for beef cattle but not dairy cattle.

Growth hormones are prohibited for pork.

Steroids and hormones are also completely prohibited in poultry production in Canada since 1965 (http://www.chicken.ca/ask-us/). Antibiotics in poultry are not legally prohibited, but the production industry has voluntarily banned its use (with supply management the governing body can develop and implement rules notwithstanding the lack of government rule changes).

The import of meet products containing these things is not restricted, however, the TPT thing which could result in greater importation into Canada of these products is of concern to some.

Europe does tend to have restrictive rules such as these as well, just a thought this may have something to do your dietary experiences.

It likely does. While I'll forever have a sensitive stomach, I only have two real food allergies (and two med allergies) when i am well.

I went to about 5 doctors about this and cured it on my own through a *very* restrictive diet for 3 years. No one had a clue what to do for me except prescribe antihistamines and steriods, while I slowly couldn't eat more and more things. It was a vicious cycle.

On the plus side, somebody picked me up a relatively old book from the 60s (at the latest) I think... one of the first books on food allergies that came out. It had recipies. By this time I had identified that I was seriously allergic to a food perservative once i was all better. One night I'm reading the book cover to cover and it states that this specific food perservative I'm allergic to is chemically related to sulfides. It made a point of stating that when burdened and ill, someone allergic to it can react to sulfides (which are in lots of things and added to lots of things). I got online and looked up the chemical structures, and sure enough, I was reacting to all the similar structured things. Now the chemist in me (I had a minor in chemistry) never thought to look it up.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Yet, thousands continue to jump on the train like they do the gluten free diet (and don't get me started on the ridiculousness of the "gluten free diet").

Just a point of order...but there are people with legitimate maladies that make gluten-free necessary. My sisters both are celiacs, legitimately diagnosed by physicians using gastric tissue biopsies, not self-diagnosed from watching Dr. Oz. They could not function on a "normal" gluten diet, in fact my younger sister was in very serious, life threatening condition prior to her diagnosis.

 

[HudsonHawk]

It's also important to point out that there's a very big difference between selectively breeding an organism to produce desirable traits and manipulating that organism at the DNA level using genetic material taken from organisms in no way related to the original organism. You can crossbreed different kinds of apples to produce a new kind of apple, or crossbreed different types of bovines to produce a calf with desirable traits -- but you can't in any natural way cross a cow with a pig. Or, as Monsanto has done, bacteria with a corn plant.

Exactly. Hybrids or selectively bred organisms are not GMOs. Seedless watermelons and orange carrots are no more dangerous to eat than their ancestral varieties.

 

[MisterCairo]

Exactly. Hybrids or selectively bred organisms are not GMOs. Seedless watermelons and orange carrots are no more dangerous to eat than their ancestral varieties.

The seedless watermelons are not dangerous, just tasteless.

Orange carrots taste great though. We are trying heritage varieties of different veggies, tough to find but we are locating heritage seeds which we can try to grow ourselves.

Hopefully some tasty experiments this summer!

 

[HudsonHawk]

The seedless watermelons are not dangerous, just tasteless.

I think we'd talked about this before. You need to find a new watermelon supplier.

 

[MisterCairo]

I think we'd talked about this before. You need to find a new watermelon supplier.

Canada needs to find new suppliers, because they're all tasteless here.

Seeds all the way.

 

[sheeplady]

Just a point of order...but there are people with legitimate maladies that make gluten-free necessary. My sisters both are celiacs, legitimately diagnosed by physicians using gastric tissue biopsies, not self-diagnosed from watching Dr. Oz. They could not function on a "normal" gluten diet, in fact my younger sister was in very serious, life threatening condition prior to her diagnosis.

And I'd like to bring up that the anti-gluten fad has been a godsend to people who *actually* can't consume gluten. 10 years ago no mainstream restaurants had things labeled gluten free (yet alone gluten free pastries or bread. )

But everytime someone tells me they're going gluten free for weight loss I laugh. Going gluten free only helps you lose weight if you eat less... some gluten-free flours have *more* calories in them.

 

[Haversack]

The BFMs have certainly noticed the popularity of the gluten-free label. There is even a brand of toilet-bowl cleaner out there that proclaims itself to be gluten-free.

 

[Bushman]

Just a point of order...but there are people with legitimate maladies that make gluten-free necessary. My sisters both are celiacs, legitimately diagnosed by physicians using gastric tissue biopsies, not self-diagnosed from watching Dr. Oz. They could not function on a "normal" gluten diet, in fact my younger sister was in very serious, life threatening condition prior to her diagnosis.

A celiac I can understand, but I highly doubt that thousands of people have suddenly and inexplicably contracted maladies that require them to need specialized, gluten free diets. Primarily it's the name itself, just as it it with GMO. You take something simple and harmless like water, call it something complicated and chemically, like dihydrogen monoxide or DHMO, and suddenly everybody is screaming for Chipotle and Subway to remove DHMO from their food.

Case in point:

 

[sheeplady]

I'd suggest whoever made that meme try reading the side panel as the package suggests.

It is marketing ploy, but.... um... yeah.

 

[LizzieMaine]

In the Era, "Gluten Bread" baked with high-gluten flour was considered a health food. It was especially promoted by Seventh Day Adventists and the followers of Dr. Kellogg, particularly for weight-loss diets and for diabetics. Some of the recipes called for a gluten content well over 30 percent, which, in addition to being hard to digest must've been like chewing rubber.

 

[MisterCairo]

I'm reminded of Canadian laundry and dish soaps advertised as "phosphate free".

It's been banned in laundry detergent since the 70s and in dish soap since 2010.

Now tell us all about this newfangled "unleaded gasoline"....

 

[LizzieMaine]

That wasn't all that newfangled either. It wasn't until after WW2 that most gasoline was leaded -- and Amoco, notably among oil companies, continued long after that to market its "lead free gasoline" as unadulterated and safer for the user.

 

[HudsonHawk]

A celiac I can understand, but I highly doubt that thousands of people have suddenly and inexplicably contracted maladies that require them to need specialized, gluten free diets. Primarily it's the name itself, just as it it with GMO. You take something simple and harmless like water, call it something complicated and chemically, like dihydrogen monoxide or DHMO, and suddenly everybody is screaming for Chipotle and Subway to remove DHMO from their food.

Case in point:

The "carbonfree" in the label does not mean that the product does not contain carbon atoms. It's a certification of the manufacturer based on their use of fossil fuels and environmental footprint management in the manufacturing process. It's not meant to suggest a molecularly alternate form of sugar.

 

[Fading Fast]

While I am sure that gluten, peanuts, MSG, mono this, di that all have some subset of the population that benefit from avoiding them and a smaller subset that absolutely has to avoid them altogether, I don't even read the articles on this stuff anymore because I get the story from the pattern. To wit, I hardly ever heard the word gluten a few years back, then it started to marginally hit my radar and I saw a few items pop up in stores - probably, this was when a rational world would have stopped as the small need for these products was met. Then, I could feel it becoming a "thing" as the word was everywhere in the supermarket and bakeries, I saw (didn't read) news stories on it and even heard people talking about the benefits of a "gluten free" diet. It has, thus, reached the stupid fad stage where consumer passion and venal marketing is in overdrive - which means it has about peaked. In two years, it will have shrunk back to a small segment of the supermarket (probably properly aligned to the small segment of the population that truly needs gluten-free items) and the world will be on to its next "life-enhancing" thing. Hence, I don't pay these events any attention as the social / cultural pattern that hits my disinterested radar tells me all I need to know.

 

[Bushman]

The "carbonfree" in the label does not mean that the product does not contain carbon atoms. It's a certification of the manufacturer based on their use of fossil fuels and environmental footprint management in the manufacturing process. It's not meant to suggest a molecularly alternate form of sugar.

I know, but like sheeplady pointed out it's a marketing ploy. More appropriate would be to call it carbon neutral, but they don't because carbon sounds scary, and has been given a negative connotation in the past few years (headlines including carbon emissions, family killed in carbon monoxide poisoning, cigarettes release carbon dioxide). "Carbon free" sounds more appealing than "carbon neutral" as much as "gluten free" sounds more appealing because gluten has that negative connotation in and of itself.

 

[Dan Allen]

 

[MisterCairo]

The "carbonfree" in the label does not mean that the product does not contain carbon atoms. It's a certification of the manufacturer based on their use of fossil fuels and environmental footprint management in the manufacturing process. It's not meant to suggest a molecularly alternate form of sugar.

Hell, then I'm taking it back...