It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Largest ever study of its kind finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food

page: 2
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well modifying foods has been around forever (beer is considered a modified food), but genetically modified food has only been around since the 80's and has only been sold to the public since the mid 90's.


I was always under the impression that maize and some grasses were considered the original genetically modified food stocks since our ancestors began selectively breeding them millennia ago.


They are not the same thing at all.

This article is very informative

One of the main differences between conventional and genetically modified crops is that the former involves crosses either within species or between very closely related species. GM crops can have genes either from closely related species or from distant species, even bacteria and viruses.


www.actionbioscience.org...



n selective breeding, two members of the same species are paired as breeding partners in order to encourage desirable characteristics in the offspring.




Genetic modification changes the DNA pattern of an organism to help create a new organism with desirable traits.


curiosity.discovery.com...




posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

The hippie crowd you are referring too is an international team of experts led by Newcastle University. This is peer reviewed science bud.

purp..



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy
a reply to: purplemer

It appears that ignorance here is universal. Does anyone know what "organic"means. It means having carbon. Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is perfectly organic. Kerosine is organic. Yum! Polychlorinated Biphenols (PCBs) are organic. Puff adder venom is organic. Words have meanings. Let's start using the right ones. By the way, most of the pesticides people rail against are Organophosphates. Know what that "organo stands for? Organic. So take a big swig of Malothion - it's organic.


LOL well the meaning of the word and the meaning of GROWING ORGANIC FOOD...not the same!


"Organically grown" food is food grown and processed using no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. Pesticides derived from natural sources (e.g., biological pesticides) may also be used in producing organically grown food. Increasingly, some consumers are purchasing organically grown and processed foods as a way to reduce their exposure to synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Many supermarkets now stock organic products for their consumers. Ask your grocer about organic food and its availability at your store.

www.epa.gov...



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
They are not the same thing at all.
This article is very informative
One of the main differences between conventional and genetically modified crops is that the former involves crosses either within species or between very closely related species. GM crops can have genes either from closely related species or from distant species, even bacteria and viruses.


I think it is a matter of perspective, our ancestors were modifying food stocks and thus accomplished genetic engineering. I am not equating this to crossing DNA from specie to specie but what they did was to genetically modify their food supply to promote better harvests.


The first evidence of plant domestication comes from emmer and einkorn wheat found in pre-Pottery Neolithic A villages in Southwest Asia dated about 10,500 to 10,100 BC.[2]:1 The Fertile Crescent of Western Asia, Egypt, and India were sites of the earliest planned sowing and harvesting of plants that had previously been gathered in the wild. Independent development of agriculture occurred in northern and southern China, Africa's Sahel, New Guinea and several regions of the Americas.[3] The eight Neolithic founder crops (emmer wheat, einkorn wheat, barley, peas, lentils, bitter vetch, chick peas and flax) had all appeared by about 7000 BC.[4] Horticulture first appears in the Levant during the Chalcolithic period about 6 800 to 6,300 BC.[2]:5 Due to the soft tissues, archeological evidence for early vegetables is scarce. The earliest vegetable remains have been found in Egyptian caves that date back to the 2nd millennium BC.[2]:6 Source



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




So why do you have to go back hundreds of years to know what non-GMO foods tasted like? All you have to do is think back 20 years.


Not sure if this is the case.. Soils have been depleting in nutrients for a long while now due to farming techniques. Available nutrients have also been seen to decrease.

purp..



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
British government records from 1940 to 2002 show that the iron content of 15 different meats had fallen by 47 percent and that their magnesium content was down 7 per cent,turkey had lost 71 percent calcium and 79 percent iron,bacon had lost 87 percent calcium and 78 percent iron,the iron content of milk had dropped 62 percent and magnesium 21 per cent,cheddar cheese had 9 percent less calcium and 47 per cent less iron.

Other vital trace elements such as selenium,potassium,phosphorous,iodine and chromium were also way down,why because there is no longer soil management chemicals and insecticides have depleted the soil,compared to our grandfathers we are eating garbage.Plants extract their nutrients from the soil and animals from plants,soil has lost its fertility however there is good news organic farming can regenerate the soil and fully restored organic fields average between 94 to 100 percent of the yields of frankencrops.The one problem is scale the smaller the farm the greater the yield,so we need a green revolution.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Wheat has been selectively breed for a long period of time. That is different to Genetic modification. However the genome is so complex one does have to wonder how it originated..


its constituent number of paired DNA bases, or nucleotides, totals 17,000,000,000 base-pairs (17 Gb). This is about five times the amount of DNA in the human genome


www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
Wheat has been selectively breed for a long period of time. That is different to Genetic modification.


I disagree. It is different from some modern methods but the genomes are still altered. From the above source:


The first human manipulation of genes occurred during the domestication of plants and animals through artificial selection.


Again, I am not equating this to modifying an organism by the introduction of DNA from another specie.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Your point is good but selective breeding is not the same thing as genetic gene splicing, the gene splicing uses borrowed genes from other species, even animal to plant and has a number of macro genetic consequences in the way the organism functions afterwards as well as it's inherent propertys but more natural methods such as selective breeding are merely methods of forcing the organism to adapt to produce the desired propertys so not only does it take longer but the macro genetic profile is changed far less than the effect of gene splicing, also the species thus produced are either successful or not and the result is seen in a normal setting with natural competing unaltered variety's of the organism/plant/animal.

If used with sufficiant knowledge and if the model of the full genesequence and not only the desired property can be modelled (which is not that far away) then it may be possible to produce good genetically altered products but at the moment it is still hit and miss and when a corporation wants to recoup that massive investment they will sell the crap even when it is not exactly what they had in mind so long is it get's past the relevant and usually biased regulatory body's.

In short I think they are playing russian roulette with people's health and to argue a point about this obvious point I think it wrong but given more time and understanding of the Genome as well as the whole effect not only on the organism altered but on the target consumer then it will mature as a science but it is moving too fast and mistakes are bound to happen.

edit on 14-7-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Your point is good but selective breeding is not the same thing as genetic gene splicing...


I said that three times already.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: generik

bananas are usually heavily dosed in fungicides and they are close to extinction unless something is done to save them.


The Cavendish banana — the vitamin-packed yellow beauty found on grocery shelves in most of the Western world — could be going the way of the dodo during our lifetime, according to The Scientist. Researchers are worried about the Cavendish banana's potential extinction, and for good reason


news.msn.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy
a reply to: purplemer

It appears that ignorance here is universal. Does anyone know what "organic"means. It means having carbon. Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is perfectly organic. Kerosine is organic. Yum! Polychlorinated Biphenols (PCBs) are organic. Puff adder venom is organic. Words have meanings. Let's start using the right ones. By the way, most of the pesticides people rail against are Organophosphates. Know what that "organo stands for? Organic. So take a big swig of Malothion - it's organic.


the term organic has different meanings in different contexts. You are correct to say HCN is organic. That is correct within the faculity of organic chemistry. What we are talking about here is organic farming. Below is a general definiton from wikipeadia...


While the "organic" standard is defined differently in different jurisdictions, in general organic farming responds to site-specific farming and crop conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not allowed, although certain organically approved pesticides may be used under limited conditions. In general, organic foods are also not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives.[1]


en.wikipedia.org...

purp..



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: purplemer
Wheat has been selectively breed for a long period of time. That is different to Genetic modification.


I disagree. It is different from some modern methods but the genomes are still altered. From the above source:


The first human manipulation of genes occurred during the domestication of plants and animals through artificial selection.


Again, I am not equating this to modifying an organism by the introduction of DNA from another specie.


Honestly things just changed when we can't know (not allowed to know) what animal, fish or other plant is now part of a piece of fruit we eat.


genetically engineered tomato in 1991. The tomato included a modified gene from a breed of arctic flounder that, it was hoped, would allow the tomatoes to be more resistant to frost and cold storage.

www.pbs.org...


Other researchers are using genes from chicken embryos and insect immune systems to try to make potatoes more disease resistant.



A piece of a gene from the virus is transferred into the plant where it acts like a vaccine to protect the plants. (



Bioengineers at one company learned that the Arctic flounder produces an antifreeze to protect itself in freezing waters. They plan to find the gene that regulates production of the antifreeze and introduce it into strawberry plants.



Asgrow scientists used a method of gene transfer called Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation to produce the new squash. (See the left side of Figure 2.) Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a bacteria that can be used to transfer genes into the chromosomes of plant cells.
The genes that produce the coat protein of the two viruses WMV-2 and ZYMV were introduced into the bacteria. Two DNA molecules called plasmids that were located within the bacteria transferred the two virus genes into squash plant cells.


And on and on.................
www.aces.uiuc.edu...



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dapaga
wish I could afford organic


I know it expensive to buy. I cannot afford to buy it either. But I am lucky enough to be able to grow some of my own produce. You would be surprised what you can grow in even a little space. People even manage to grow without any of there own space by means of allotments or gorilla gardening..




posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
Honestly things just changed when we can't know (not allowed to know) what animal, fish or other plant is now part of a piece of fruit we eat.


I am of the opinion we should have the information indicating what, if any, modifications were made on our food.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Geurilla gardening can work very well for example in Cuba where there's been sanctions for 50 years everyone has a vege plot for fresh veges you dont go to the supermarket,you just walk around the block.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I was just thinking about if the non organic food was created to make people developed disease and then go to the drug store to buy a treatment or cure. could it be made just to add money in anti-marijuana pharmacies?
just a thought
a crazy one..



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




I am of the opinion we should have the information indicating what, if any, modifications were made on our food


I agree. People have the right to know what is going into there food. They should be given the correct information and be able to make an informed choice whether they choose to eat it or not. Food labeling is too underhand these days and in some countries getting worse.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
I agree. People have the right to know what is going into there food. They should be given the correct information and be able to make an informed choice whether they choose to eat it or not. Food labeling is too underhand these days and in some countries getting worse.


As a former chef I try to grow my own vegetables and herbs. Not always easy here in New Jersey with land at a premium. But if I cannot grow it I hit the local farmer's market or stand.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: luciferslight

You might be onto a conspiracy there why is it the only foods most people can afford are processed white grains,sugar loaded,processed foods and processed meats all of which make you fat and unhealthy eventually needing insulin,anti-depressants or antipsychotics...a fat mind numbed herd



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join