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.

 

3 GMO Foods Likely in Your Multi-Vitamins

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by greavsie1971
 


Good advice - none the less I will ask some questions locally to see of our local brands are following the rules. GMO's above a certain percentage need to be labelled here. I am careful to look out for Soy additives here as they are most likely GMO and soy is in almost all processed food. I occasionally take a multi though - vegetarian diet is a bit thin on the B vitamins - I will check it out.

Thanks for the post




posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Peter Brake
reply to post by greavsie1971
 


Good advice - none the less I will ask some questions locally to see of our local brands are following the rules. GMO's above a certain percentage need to be labelled here. I am careful to look out for Soy additives here as they are most likely GMO and soy is in almost all processed food. I occasionally take a multi though - vegetarian diet is a bit thin on the B vitamins - I will check it out.

Thanks for the post


Very glad to help.

Try (raw if possible)

Avocado, Spinach, swiss chard, Asparagus, broccoli and caulliflower. Raw if poss or very lightly steamed. Great B6. If you eat canned, from frozen or cooked, you will loose the B vitamins.

Good luck.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
One is an explosion in gastro intestinal problems ( perforated gut, gastro reflux etc ) the pesticides contained in some GMO's are designed to kill insects and parasites by rupturing their stomachs , look into what effects GMO feed is having on cattle and pig digestive systems......coincidence ?

There has also been links to perforated gut to the other explosion of allergies
Having these holes in the stomach allows undigested thus unprocessed food stuffs to enter the bloodstream
The body not recognising these food particles attacks them and remembers them, which in some way results in our recent food intolerances and allergies

Plenty of reserch out there on this
And many many other health concerns regarding GMO's
Hey .......just type GMO in ATS search .....lots to read and think about
If that's not your style check out the vid online of 'genetic roulette' it's long ( 84 mins I think ( full version *recomended* )
For a good place to start to get you looking in your own direction

Edit
Or just type in genetic roulette in ATS search
edit on 11-9-2013 by Neocrusader because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2013 by Neocrusader because: Auto



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

greavsie1971

Tinkerpeach
reply to post by Peter Brake
 


Am I to assume that your lack of response to my question is the fact that nobody has gotten sick or died from GMO foods?

Seems kind of silly to run around raising alarms when nothing has happened. Assuming that these have been on the market since say 2000 I'd imagine there would be a few cases attributed to this problem.

How many years would it take for someone to actually get sick or die? If we are talking decades than I am just not seeing the problem you are.


Cancer will take longer than that. Give it another 20 years and we'll see people developing tumors at 30 to 40 years old. If you dont see that as a possible problem....eat away and help destroy our natural food supply.
edit on 11-9-2013 by greavsie1971 because: (no reason given)


Well by all means than show me the science so I can let people know.

If you know this for a fact we have to get the word out.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Tinkerpeach
 


We used to have a member.........tinker bell was her name .......you remind me of her ......not sure why ?

Anyways .......the first few links from a simple search on google

www.policymic.com...
foodmatters.tv...
naturalrevolution.org...
www.prevention.com...
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.theguardian.com...
www.forbes.com...

The French study was very quickly discredited by the pro GM side......which the pro GM posters love to point at
However, recently .....but very quietly the reserch has been vindicated by the EU



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Tinkerpeach
reply to post by Peter Brake
 


So you are saying they are unsafe? Am I going to die or get sick because of this?


Sadly the science did not choose to measure 'sick' - only 'dead'.

'Dead' is not the only malady from which mankind can suffer. This is the weakness in the current science on this food. When many people eat corn, wheat, soy, canola oil, or alfalfa they get auto-immune disorders, hashimoto peroxidase antibodies, and facial breakouts indicating bacterial imbalances and immune system compromise. It took me years to determine this in my family, through very disciplined method, food logs and spreadsheets. Having access to the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet helped as well. If we wait until the industry is FORCED to do science over anything other than "rats died or did not die after being fed this for 90 days" - then we as a people are already going to be in a world of hurt.

Running the 90 day rat-death tests another 500 times is going to produce the same result: ignorance. You cannot ask a cow or a rat if her Lupus has gotten worse or if he felt lethargic since starting on GMO or highly hybridized foods. These studies did not measure toxic edema.

We cannot wait for the food industry and skeptics to gain a moral conscience and start listening to consumer feedback, moms and doctors who already recognize what is going on, and are spreading the word privately. We have to realize that it is in the nature of imperious oligopolies to be corrupt; science is often the last to know something. We have to push this forward through activism, to overcome the professional obfuscators.




edit on 12-9-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)


(post by zhaodandan removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Neocrusader
 


Thanks for posting - I have read about this experiment, but simply did not enter into yet another argument about it. It is valuable information and should I imagine stop people from eating GMO's, I find it amazing that people will eat a new food designed to poison pests. Like there was never going to be a health problem with that.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Most over the counter vitamins are filled with Crap.Not just gmos.
You have to research what you buy carefully now.
There are still pure brands.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

TheEthicalSkeptic


Running the 90 day rat-death tests another 500 times is going to produce the same result: ignorance. You cannot ask a cow or a rat if her Lupus has gotten worse or if he felt lethargic since starting on GMO or highly hybridized foods. These studies did not measure toxic edema.


edit on 12-9-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)


These are important tests - direct sickness from eating their products, but why I entered the arena was the testing which has not been done on micro- organisms. I've been yelling about what is possible "mutating pandemics" etc new viral & bacteria diseases.

For me it is logical that their will be a problem - if we load a certain bacteria with a novel gene and change an organism. I would think it was prudent to check in the lab how that bacteria interacts with the gmo.

It hasn't been tested - or at least it hasn't been published. Until two years ago I was searching university grants to see what they were looking for. They hadn't done these rudimentary safety checks.

My question remains "What is the increase of attempted gene transfers by bacteria given the presence of a GMO."

The lack of an answer scares me



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Peter Brake
 




My question remains "What is the increase of attempted gene transfers by bacteria given the presence of a GMO."

Can you clarify your question? I don't really understand what an "increase of attempted gene transfers by bacteria" means. I don't really understand the context of " given the presence of a GMO."

You seem to have some understanding of how genetic modification is done but you seem to not understand that bacterial genes, not intact bacteria, are used as an agent to insert gene sequences.
edit on 9/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Peter Brake
 


why?

theres nothing wrong with gmo's at all beyond any normalcy...stop this nonsense!

for petes sake even the amish like gmo's...because they are a great innovation.
edit on 14-9-2013 by robin22391 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I was really wanted to see something peer reviewed of course I have seen the rat study and have read why it was so flawed. I am not sure if they were warning about GMO'S or roundup.

They put strait roundup in their drinking water in pretty high doses so I will make sure not to drink the stuff but as far as the food goes the study didn't really show anything.

I see a lot of times in these threads the rat study being used as some sort of proof about gmo's but if anything it is about how you shouldn't add roundup to your water. Kind of a no brainier IMO.

After all this time you would think there would be one good test showing that gmo's are harmful but I am still waiting to see one. BTW scientific American had a few good articles about GMO'S this month they are worth reading for anyone who is truly interested.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by Peter Brake
 




My question remains "What is the increase of attempted gene transfers by bacteria given the presence of a GMO."

Can you clarify your question? I don't really understand what an "increase of attempted gene transfers by bacteria" means. I don't really understand the context of " given the presence of a GMO."

You seem to have some understanding of how genetic modification is done but you seem to not understand that bacterial genes, not intact bacteria, are used as an agent to insert gene sequences.
edit on 9/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by Peter Brake
 




My question remains "What is the increase of attempted gene transfers by bacteria given the presence of a GMO."

Can you clarify your question? I don't really understand what an "increase of attempted gene transfers by bacteria" means. I don't really understand the context of " given the presence of a GMO."

You seem to have some understanding of how genetic modification is done but you seem to not understand that bacterial genes, not intact bacteria, are used as an agent to insert gene sequences.
edit on 9/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Phage - show me what you got, you have my undivided attention.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join