FDA Deletes 1 Million Signatures for GMO Labeling Campaign

page: 4
98
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliquandro
 


Is there a list of these codes available somewhere? This is compared to other codes like bread ties, where only the bread companies know what they mean, e.g. expiration dates.




posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
All I hear is bad news.
There is really never good happening in this world that gets out to the masses.
I keep thinking how things have progressed the past 5 decades.
60's were peace and love versus war and politics..
70's were pretty much the same thing...
80's no war, just cold war, with music, drugs, and lots of dreaming for the future
90's were sane for the first part, mix in some war, good economy, things were on the up and up
00's worst decade in ages.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
According to Monsanto: “There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of Genetically Modified Foods in humans."


www.monsanto.com...

"There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans. So long as the introduced protein is determined safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks. Further, it is impossible to design a long-term safety test in humans, which would require, for example, intake of large amounts of a particular GM product over a very large portion of the human life span. There is simply no practical way to learn anything via human studies of whole foods. This is why no existing food--conventional or GM--or food ingredient/additive has been subjected to this type of testing. "

I don't know if this is because I understand the central dogma of molecular biology but it seems a whole lot less shocking and more reasonable when you don't take quotes out of their original context.
edit on 31-3-2012 by 1nfiniteLoop because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-3-2012 by 1nfiniteLoop because: Fixing quote



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectPerception
 


Wouldn't the easiest solution here be to just have each individual sign their own separate form? If the fda wants to be flooded with paperwork I say let them drown in it.

Keep a copy of the forms so they cannot claim discrepancies again and make them finally address the issues instead of giving them loopholes to pull this B.S.!



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
This is the blanket excuse or "reason" the FDA won't label GMO:


H. Food Labeling

The issue of labeling food from GE animals comprised a significant proportion of comments submitted to the agency. Most comments urged the agency to require mandatory labeling of food products from GE animals, citing a consumer "right to know." Some comments took the opposite view, even recommending that FDA ban voluntary labeling to indicate that a food did not come from a GE animal.

Under section 403(a)(1) of the Act, a food is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular way. Section 201(n) of the Act further defines misleading labeling. Labeling meets that definition if it fails to reveal facts that are material in light of representations made or suggested in the labeling, or material with respect to consequences that may result from the use of the food to which the labeling relates under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling, or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual. Historically, the agency has generally interpreted the scope of "materiality" to mean information about the attributes of the food itself. Thus, if food from a GE animal is different from its non-engineered counterpart (for example, if it has a different nutritional profile), the difference could be material information that would have to be indicated in the food labeling. FDA does not consider the methods used in the development of bioengineered foods, including GE animals, to be "material" information. 2Food marketers may voluntarily label foods as being derived from GE or non-GE animals, as long as the labeling is truthful and not misleading.

www.fda.gov...

edit on 31-3-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I know that organic and natural consumers are all for mandating special labeling for anyone but themselves, but I question if organic food should not be subject to mandatory labeling procedures put forth by critics of the organic/natural food industry as a whole?

For example, maybe fresh produce fertilized in certain manners should be made to bear the label "This product has been grown in fecal matter and has not been irradiated to eliminate bacteria. It may therefore be contaminated with E. Coli, Salmonella, and/or other hazardous pathogens."

Maybe all farmers, organic or conventional, should be required to label their food if it has been produced with known or suspected carcinogens. Given that organic farmers tend to use liberal amounts of pesticides from an list of organic approved pesticides and that organic and conventional pesticides are carcinogenic in roughly the same manner, maybe it would be in everyone's benefit to note which products have been treated in such ways?

Of course, that would be a move that would benefit the people while serving no political agenda, special interest groups, or field of industry. Nobody's going to organize big campaigns to lobby government if there's no direct financial incentive for them to do so.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
This is not unlike them to do such a thing.. How else can you force feed millions of people cancer causing foods?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
Where can we get non-GM food products?


almost 80% of processed foods contain gm products.. good luck..



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


If so, shouldn't this fact coupled with the apparently lack of any epidemic afflicting those who consume this 80% be evidence of the safety of GM foods that have been approved by the FDA for human consumption?
edit on 31-3-2012 by 1nfiniteLoop because: Missing words



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska
 


Apparently the bean counters can't count. How convenient.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nfiniteLoop
reply to post by purplemer
 


If so, shouldn't this fact coupled with the apparently lack of any epidemic afflicting those who consume this 80% be evidence of the safety of GM foods that have been approved by the FDA for human consumption?
edit on 31-3-2012 by 1nfiniteLoop because: Missing words


NO...GM foods are not safe.


1. Recorded Deaths from GM: In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically modified version of the food supplement L-tryptophan creating a debilitating ailment known as Eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS) . Released without safety tests, there were 37 deaths reported and approximately 1500 more were disabled.

A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by the manufacturer, Showa Denko, Japan's third largest chemical company destroyed evidence preventing a further investigation and made a 2 billion dollar settlement. Since the very first commercially sold GM product was lab tested (Flavr Savr) animals used in such tests have prematurely died. Did Genetic Engineering Cause the Tryptophan-EMS Disaster of 1989?

2.)Near-deaths and Food Allergy Reactions: In 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans to provide the added protein methionine and by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so allergic to this nut, they can go into anaphylactic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death. Using genetic engineering, the allergens from one food can thus be transferred to another, thought to be safe to eat, and unknowingly. Animal and human tests confirmed the peril and fortunately the product was removed from the market before any fatalities occurred. [Snip]

3. Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links:GH is a protein hormone which, when injected into cows stimulates the pituitary gland in a way that the produces more milk, thus making milk production more profitable for the large dairy corporations.

In 1993, FDA approved Monsanto's genetically-modified rBGH, a genetically-altered growth hormone that could be then injected into dairy cows to enhance this feature, and even though scientists warned that this resulted in an increase of IGF-1 (from (70%-1000%).

IGF-1 is a very potent chemical hormone that has been linked to a 2 1/2 to 4 times higher risk of human colorectal and breast cancer. Prostate cancer risk is considered equally serious - in the 2,8.to 4 times range. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, this "induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells."

Canadian studies confirmed such a suspicion and showed active IGF-1 absorption, thyroid cysts and internal organ damage in rats. Yet the FDA denied the significance of these findings. When two award-winning journalists, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, tried to expose these deceptions, they were fired by Fox Network under intense pressure from Monsanto.

[Excerpts from the article]
50 Harmful Effects Of Genetically Modified (GM) Foods

That is an abbreviated version of the first three and with out the sources/links that have tons of information and study...I highly recommend that you check it out,get informed,Monsanto and GM foods are a blight to this world,a malignant sore to the people.


Additional Links -
- Scientific Evidence Documenting The Negative Impacts of Genetically Modified (GM) Foods on Human and Animal Health and the Environment

- Are GM Crops Killing Bees?

- Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms



GM foods are not safe for consumption...It is eugenics via food.
edit on 1-4-2012 by PerfectPerception because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by PerfectPerception

NO...GM foods are not safe.


1. Recorded Deaths from GM: In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically modified version of the food supplement L-tryptophan creating a debilitating ailment known as Eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS) . Released without safety tests, there were 37 deaths reported and approximately 1500 more were disabled.


Although they were genetically engineered, contamination and purification issues were implicated as the causative factors.

Correction: excess tryptophan causes EMS
academicsreview.org...

Originally posted by PerfectPerception
2.)Near-deaths and Food Allergy Reactions: In 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans to provide the added protein methionine and by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so allergic to this nut, they can go into anaphylactic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death. Using genetic engineering, the allergens from one food can thus be transferred to another, thought to be safe to eat, and unknowingly. Animal and human tests confirmed the peril and fortunately the product was removed from the market before any fatalities occurred. [Snip]


This just proves that the safety evaluations GE crops go through before being released to market are effective. As I stated elsewhere, the allergic response created by this single protein in the GE soybean, while ruinous to the crop's potential because of safety concerns, led to the wonderful scientific discovery that it was one of the allergens responsible for such allergic responses.



3. Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links:GH is a protein hormone which, when injected into cows stimulates the pituitary gland in a way that the produces more milk, thus making milk production more profitable for the large dairy corporations.

In 1993, FDA approved Monsanto's genetically-modified rBGH, a genetically-altered growth hormone that could be then injected into dairy cows to enhance this feature, and even though scientists warned that this resulted in an increase of IGF-1 (from (70%-1000%).


rBGH is just the regular form of a naturally occurring bovine hormone that stimulates and sustains lactation but produced and isolated from bacterial cultures. This is the same way that we produce insulin for diabetics, human growth hormone, blood clotting factors, etc for medical purposes. And yes, it is stressful to animals in the same way that injecting any hormone in large amounts into any organism would be stressful with possible health complications. Further, because it increases lactation and because lactation is very physically demanding it is going to increase the physical burden on cattle.

As for the health effects on humans, it has been found that the milk from these cattle is safe for human consumption. The elevated levels of IGF, while interesting, are unlikely to cause harm given that IGF is rendered ineffective by the acidity of the human stomach. It's been some time since milk has been available from cows treated with hormonal injections, where is the widespread demographic illness?



More regarding the actually GE technology behind rBGH: if you consider it to be an issue of genetic engineering and not the hormone itself that is responsible for the health effects on cattle and supposed health effects on human, would you like to ban all hormones, enzymes, and growth factors produced through genetic engineering technology as well which end up in the human body? We can go back to making cheese from calves' stomachs instead of enzymes produced by bacteria. We can use cadavers and pig organs to produce the human growth hormone and insulin needed to treat those with a growth hormone deficiency and diabetics. Although in all of these cases, the "natural" method is inherently more dangerous.

Sure, injecting hormones has side effects; just look at the side effects faced by bodybuilder or corporate women who abuse testosterone to gain an edge. But blaming GE technology just because it enabled large amounts of the hormone to be produced less expensively without killing a whole bunch of animals to extract the desired hormone from their organs is really an unfair argument. The hormone and the production process behind it are, and should be, looked at as separate issues. If you disagree then I hope that, for logical and moral consistency, you tell off the next old woman you see using insulin to treat her age-related diabetes.
edit on 1-4-2012 by 1nfiniteLoop because: Correcting a mistake



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop
 


Your arguing one aspect of what I posted and a tad out of context,We are only skimming the surface,Some link rGBH with mad-cow disease,even if that is not the case,you paint a brighter picture than what truly exists as far as I am personally concerned.

I'd bet the widespread implementation of rGBH injected cows not to mention Gm foods in general has accounted for increased chance of disease,immune dysfunctions,cancer...leading to a shorter life expectancy,can I prove it? No...But I believe it.

Masked under the guise of increased cancer and heart disease...A slower but sure death,Eugenics approved by the FDA ( Even if not consciously,they are still guilty),funded by Monsanto and the other corrupt,evil elite...cut & dry.

The proper funding and study is ignored because of deep pockets,hidden ( well,they are pretty blatant now...Looking at you Monsanto and FDA! recently) agendas,big pharm and corp. for us to truly see the negative,destructive outcome,side effects of Gm. but studies do exist...Just buried or over shadowed.

I am sorry to say this but you sound like a mouth piece for Monsanto...Why would you consciously ignore the negative side of this subject is beyond me.

Take a look at the other 48 numbered posts on that site,come back and then try to justfy your reasoning to defend GMF.

- 50 HARMFUL EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS

Pituitary hormones (PRL, GH, TSH, FSH, LH ACTH Oxytocin)

· Steroid hormones (Estradiol, Estriol, Progesterone, Testosterone, 17-Ketosteroids, Corticosterone, Vitamine D)

· Hypothalamic hormones (TRH, LHRH, Somatostatin, PRL-inhibiting factor, PRL-releasing factor, GnRH, GRH)

· Thyroid and Parathyroid hormones (T3, T4, rT3, Calcitonin, Parathormone, PTH peptide)

· gastrointestinal peptides (Vasoactive intestinal peptide, Bombesin, Cholecystokinin, Gastrin, Gastrin inhibitory peptide, Pancreatic peptide, Y peptide, Substance P and Neurotensin)

· Growth Factors (IGF's (I and II), IGF binding proteins, Nerve growth factor, Epidermal growth factor and TGF alpha, TGF beta, Growth Inhibitors MDGI and MAF, and Platelet derived growth factor

· Others... (PGE, PGF2 alpha, cAMP, cGMP, Delta sleep inducing

· peptide, Transferrin, Lactoferrin, Casomorphin and Erythropoietin


that is milk for ya...yummy
Throw in some rBGH and ya got a nice lil cocktail.

Lets take another look at rBGH -

The use of rBGH was approved by the (FDA) in November, 1993, but its use is banned in many European countries, Australia and New Zealand.

There is mounting evidence that it may compromise the health of both cows and humans. But intensive lobbying by the chemical companies has helped ensure widespread use in the U.S. and Britain.

Now it is being promoted heavily in many developing countries as a solution to food shortages. But this could be a false economy for the developing world.

Under rBGH treatment cows are kept in a perpetual cycle of gestation and lactation which wears out their bodies quickly, cutting the normal life span of 20 to 25 years to five or less.

Already, cows are overproducing milk. In 1930, the average cow produced 5 kilograms of milk per day, but by 1988, milk production was at 18 kg a day. With rBGH injections it rises to 22 kg per day.

British scientists Dr. Eric Millstone and Dr. Eric Bruner, hired by Monsanto to review data on rBGH, say they were prevented from releasing findings that showed a definite increase in cases of mild inflammation of the mammary glands (mastitis) in rBGH-treated cows.

"I find it very curious that Monsanto should object to our paper -- a relatively harmless analysis which shows some small negative effects," says Bruner. "If they're seeking to suppress these data, as they have for the last three years, then could it be that there are other questions which we don't yet know about?"

One major worry is that hormonal and antibiotic residues in milk and meat (a large percentage of hamburger meat is made from "burned out" dairy cows) will affect human health, especially children.

An earlier onset of puberty is thought to be caused by the already increased use of hormones in cows, and girls who menstruate before the age of 12 have a higher risk of contracting breast cancer later.

The increase in antibiotic use in animals also adds concern about increased antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Cows injected with rBGH produce much more of an insulin-like growth factor, IGF-1, whose molecular structure is the same in humans and cows, increasing the likelihood of transmission through milk and meat consumption. In humans, IGF-1 is linked to acromegaly, a disease involving the abnormal enlargement of the hands, feet, nose and chin. Increased levels of IGF-1 have also been linked to colon tumors and cancer, particularly breast cancer in women.

Source
Spelling corrections,Fixed mistakes,Additions(no reason given)
edit on 1-4-2012 by PerfectPerception because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PerfectPerception
 


Strange how studying biochemistry might make you sound like the scientists who design or support genetically modified organisms. It's almost like we understand the science behind it more than, say, colon hydrotherapists or raw vegans who claim their diet will stop cancer by altering their body pH( despite the tragic results of their own attempts).

As for the proteins found in milk, what's your point? Is it supposed to be frightening because the individual proteins were named? I understand that some people have this notion that if you can't pronounce it then it must not be good for you or whatnot but such people are in dire need of seeing lists of the proteins found in human breast milk and common vegetables.

Where did you even find that list? The top sources for segments of it come from these dubious sites:
homodiet.netfirms.com...
www.afrocentricnews.com...

As for the proteins themselves, maybe you'd like to know their function?

Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide en.wikipedia.org...
Lactoferrin - an antibacterial protein commonly found in your very own saliva, inhibits the overgrowth of harmful iron dependent yeast and bacteria en.wikipedia.org...
Bombesin - stimulates the release of gastrin en.wikipedia.org...
Gastrin - stimulates the release of gastric acid en.wikipedia.org...
Cholecystokinin - stimulates the digestion of fats and proteins en.wikipedia.org...
Gastrin inhibitory peptide - despite it's name, stimulates insulin secretion en.wikipedia.org...
Nerve growth factor - aids the growth and maintenance of nerves. Like you have in your brain. The ones that make you smart. en.wikipedia.org...

I could very easily go on, but how can any educated person be afraid of milk after seeing that milk is full of proteins that benefit health and digestion in so many ways?

If you're afraid to learn that individual proteins have very scientific sounding names, I dare say, you must eat a very restrictive diet.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nfiniteLoop
 


I know what the proteins are and their fancy,scientific names...I was being sarcastic,The irony being that most do not read the labels of what they tend to eat,if they did maybe they would be a bit more hesitant or let's say aware,educated about what everything is that they are ingesting.

Do you agree that most food is processed,manufactured garbage? (typical grocery stores compared to organic)

I respect science for what it is and scientists,for the most part are invaluable to society..There is a line that I think should not be crossed though,with all due respect.

Transgenics comes to mind when thinking of the line being crossed,having the unknown potential & damage not only to humans,animals but with the possible creations originating from the projects...Neat in theory but scary reality.

Bees ingesting transgenic rapeseed were found with modified bacteria in their gut.Horizontal gene transfer but what if mutated? leading to other cells,could be catastrophic in humans...Anything is possible I say.

Dubious websites? I never linked to either of the two you posted for one,Take your pick though,Google has plenty of hits.

What about these?
From the institute of science in society-
Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms

What about this one... internal memoranda about the hazards of genetically engineered foods.

Indexed site with information & links to additional scientists concerns with GM foods et cetera
Concerns Expressed by Government Scientists



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nfiniteLoop

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
According to Monsanto: “There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of Genetically Modified Foods in humans."


www.monsanto.com...

"There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans. So long as the introduced protein is determined safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks. Further, it is impossible to design a long-term safety test in humans, which would require, for example, intake of large amounts of a particular GM product over a very large portion of the human life span. There is simply no practical way to learn anything via human studies of whole foods. This is why no existing food--conventional or GM--or food ingredient/additive has been subjected to this type of testing. "

I don't know if this is because I understand the central dogma of molecular biology but it seems a whole lot less shocking and more reasonable when you don't take quotes out of their original context.
edit on 31-3-2012 by 1nfiniteLoop because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-3-2012 by 1nfiniteLoop because: Fixing quote


The original context actually makes it worse, because it means we're the test subjects for GM foods, because the public is being exposed to GM products over a very large portion of their lives, as the sentence I bolded backs it up. So of course they say there's no value to have test subjects, we already are their test subjects.

This is not something where you must be a molecular biology expert to understand, this is something where you have to have common sense to understand. Obviously you don't fit in that category.
edit on 4/2/2012 by bl4ke360 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
the fda bunch should be eating what they 'allow as food'.
poison is poison.

another top down agency spreading the agenda disease.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
how people are still getting away with this is mind blowing.

I was out in my local town having a few drinks, and my cousin likes to poke a stick at me in regards to "conspiracy theories" He had a few friends with him so i guess he was trying to see how i'd hold up to "fresh" minds.

evidently one of these guys was/is a mason and was confirming everything i was saying and filling in some blanks for me. what im getting at is A LOT of people are becoming aware. Even the petrol scare in england hasn't done the media and or government any favors.

Soon people wont be able to get away with such actions. I honestly can not wait till 20/12. bring on the change!



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectPerception
 


I-sis promotes homeopathy and acupuncture, raw-wisdom suggests that raw vegan diets will cure cancer( while the front page contains a tribute to an obvious failure of this position). These are neither scientific nor objective sites, they are simply collections of pseudoscientific nonsense and a danger to anybody with a medical condition who might take one of their supposed "cures" seriously, either because of their medical ignorance or out of desperation.

Processed junk foods have nothing to do with GE technology used to produce crops.

If you're worried about unknown potential and mutations, you should make a ruckus about mutational breeding practices which utilize radiation and mutagenic chemicals to create unknown numbers of mutations in plants in order to create new plant cultivars for consumption. This practice is organically approved, however, unlike GE in which we know exactly what kind of genetic change will occur.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


www.monsanto.com...
If you read the whole safety information, they answer your concerns. If the crops are fundamentally the same except for the production of a single protein, there is no reason to test the crop itself if the protein itself has been proven safe, which is done in animal tests of the purified protein at far higher levels than would naturally occur through consumption of the crop. If high amounts of the protein itself are deemed safe and if this is the only way in which the GE crop differs from a non-GE version of the crop, then the GE crop is safe.





new topics
top topics
 
98
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join