Great News!!: Congress bans FDA from approving genetically modified fish

Yay something good actually happened that's worth reporting.
Better than seeing all those dooms day threads.

Hopefully this leads to some changes in what Monsanto is doing...or atleast puts pressure on the wrong-doings they are commiting.

reply to post by zuluAttack

In accordance with their licensing agreement, Monsanto, the largest holder of genetic modified seeds in the world, will not allow independent research to be conducted on any of their seeds. That is enough reason for me to suspect GMO foods.

This doesnt mean what you think it means. This is Alaskan Republican Don Young protecting the economic viability of the fish harvest in his state.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Here's an idea: If you GM foods are deleterious,don't eat them. It's that simple. There steps one can take to avoid all genetically modified foods.

Uh... Yeah. Like read the labels!

Oh. Wait. They don't label things such that We can tell how pure the genetics of the product are. Unless it is labeled "organic," One is never sure - and even THAT label can be adulterated (and with other things like Neotame, Aspartame's more concentrated rat poison cousin, too!).

You just show Me how One can make sure the genetics are pure.

This is great.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Eat organic whole foods. In the case of salmon, make sure it's wild CAUGHT. In the case of fruits and vegetables, by organic from a trusted source (yes, you have to do some actual work to find out who is trustworthy). As far as farmed meats...pastured cattle on their natural diet and cage-free chickens NOT fed a vegetarian diet.

There you go.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Eat organic whole foods. In the case of salmon, make sure it's wild CAUGHT. In the case of fruits and vegetables, by organic from a trusted source (yes, you have to do some actual work to find out who is trustworthy). As far as farmed meats...pastured cattle on their natural diet and cage-free chickens NOT fed a vegetarian diet.

There you go.

Well, though I am on food stamps and often rely on charity food pantries to make it to the end of the month, still I do what I can towards those ends.

But I tell Ya... I know I'm not able to keep My diet "pure." Do You have suggestions for those on food stamps...?

reply to post by Amaterasu


any local farmers markets in my region accept food stamps.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I agree with your first post regarding politicians from Alaska: This is my point too. I want this crap gone. I want no GM foods (my opinion). I want to be able to eat without worrying what MY GOVT put in it. The issue for the gov is not my health though. It is $. Pay me enough via your fish-farm lobby and YES - we WILL pass this...looks like they didn't this time, but I bet they will next time. I wish I wasn't so jaded.

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Yeah, I mean, all you have to do is read the article (many obviously comment after only reading the headline)to see they arent preventing them from being approved. They are merely researching a bit more, and it will come up for approval again soon enough. This was a decision based on an Alaska politician protecting his state's cash harvest. It has nothing to do with concerns about health r the environment. NONE.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


you and I need to stop being so realistic...it's a nice day out, can I pretend it isn't this way for the day?

CJ

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Yeah, I mean, all you have to do is read the article (many obviously comment after only reading the headline)to see they arent preventing them from being approved. They are merely researching a bit more, and it will come up for approval again soon enough. This was a decision based on an Alaska politician protecting his state's cash harvest. It has nothing to do with concerns about health r the environment. NONE.

Sadly, the fact that it didn't get passed right away, is progress.

And, the fact that they are doing a little more research (that isn't proprietary), is progress.

Heck, a politician going against GMO for ANY reason, may even be progress.

BTW, in regards to other posts, this may be helpful in avoiding GMO in food:

www.nongmoshoppingguide.com...

Originally posted by EthanT


Heck, a politician going against GMO for ANY reason, may even be progress.

But, again, he didnt go 'against GMO's' He voted to protect his state's fish stock from a competing market. It just HAPPENED to be GMO. His decision had nothing to do with concerns over GMO's.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by EthanT


Heck, a politician going against GMO for ANY reason, may even be progress.

But, again, he didnt go 'against GMO's' He voted to protect his state's fish stock from a competing market. It just HAPPENED to be GMO. His decision had nothing to do with concerns over GMO's.

It doesn't matter. If you read up on Monsantos they carry significant political clout ... so you don't see GMOs being opposed to often for any reason, as they were here, being that Monsantos is not as involved. That's good news.

Besides, all this is an assumption, anyhow. Neither of us fully know this guy's motivations.

But, regardless of the reason, it created more press and raised awareness on the issue. It works against GMO interests in the end ... and, once again, that's progress.

It's been cited from previous experience, that you only have to educate 5-10% of the folks to create change on something like this. This was a little baby step towards that.

Originally posted by EthanT


Besides, all this is an assumption, anyhow. Neither of us fully know this guy's motivations.

Well, we do know his STATED motivation. From the article in your OP:

But Alaskan Republican Don Young moved to block the move and offered an amendment to a farm spending bill on Wednesday that would prohibit the FDA from spending money to approve AquaBounty's application. The amendment was passed and The House is expected to pass the bill later this week.

Young argued that the modified fish would compete with wild salmon in his state.

But, regardless of the reason, it created more press and raised awareness on the issue. It works against GMO interests in the end ... and, once again, that's progress.

Maybe. That is certainly just speculation on your part. Nothing in the ruling said anything about GMO's safety. It was merely a bill that protected one state's fish harvest against another. It's a trade issue, not an issue having anything to do with concern over the safety of GMO's.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Get a second job. Or third. Buy in bulk (one whole/half cow). Make a garden. Eat more of the cheaper organic foods (fruits and vegetables) and eat the more expensive on occasion (meat).

I'm not saying everybody has the luxury of being able to choose their food source so effortlessly. However, until the data on GMO consumption becomes less ambiguous and more conclusive, especially on genetically modified animal products, then there isn't much of an argument.

You have a choice:

A) Choose to consume cheaper, genetically modified food which has a health-science data record that is the very definition of ambiguity. You're taking a risk by consuming such foods, as scientists have not arrived at a consensus about the possible long-term side effects of GMO consumption.

B) Choose to consume more expensive, organic foods that are not inherently deleterious in nature. However, there can be a financial risk by choosing this route. Some sacrifices may be needed by lower income families. (a side note: although it may seem financially burdening to spend more money on food, if GMO consumption does cause long term side-effects in the form of chronic illness, it's quite reasonable to assume that consuming organic food is a preventative measure and will save one from an even more financially burdening factor: Medical Bills.)

Until the science becomes clearer, the government should stay the hell out of it and let the scientists do their jobs. Last time they stepped in to prevent obesity and heart disease....they made a severely premature assessment and issued guidelines that were not consensus at the time. Only after the public health authorities began repeating the mantra did it become common dietary knowledge. And, sadly, those very recommendations probably caused us to become more obese, atherosclerotic and extremely diabetic.

Let's get a better, more conclusive understanding of how these foods react in our bodies before labeling thing "good" or "bad".

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds


Well, we do know his STATED motivation.

Last time I checked, a politicians STATED motivations are to be trusted as far as you can throw a ten-ton boulder

They just say what is politically expedient at the time ... and it might be the truth, and it might not be.

Interestingly enough, this was an amendment to legislation that actually CUTS funding for FDA food inspections:

House Republicans vote to cut funds to implement food safety law

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Well, though I am on food stamps and often rely on charity food pantries to make it to the end of the month, still I do what I can towards those ends.

But I tell Ya... I know I'm not able to keep My diet "pure." Do You have suggestions for those on food stamps...?

Just avoiding any corn and soy that does not specifically say "nonGMO" is a great start.

But, be aware corn and soy is in a lot of stuff! Ever notice "soy lecithin" in many ingredient lists. I ordered a pizza the other night and was surprised to find out they use corn in making the dough somehow.

So, easier said than done, but it is possible.