Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 311

Thread: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

  1. #1
    tricia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    50

    Default Traditional seed stock compromised, NY Times: GM seeds mixed with non GM

    globesetter Posted: Mar 1 2004, 09:45 AM

    Looks like the food supply is degenerating even further...


    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/op...01MON4.html?th

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    boston, ma
    Posts
    5

    Default Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

    sorry for such a long post, but i just found this article (its from 2001 though). does anyone know much about GMOs? whose food to avoid, etc.? thanks!


    : ) crystal


    GMOs Are Found in
    Morningstar Farms Products
    By MELINDA FULMER, Times Staff Writer
    March 8, 2001


    New laboratory tests have found that veggie burgers and meat-free corn dogs made by natural foods brand Morningstar Farms contain genetically modified soy and the controversial genetically altered feed corn, StarLink, that has not been approved for human consumption.

    The tests, commissioned by the activist group Greenpeace, highlight the difficulty that even natural foods companies are having in assuring customers that their products do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

    Kellogg Co., which bought Morningstar's parent company, Worthington Foods, in late 1999, had told customers in a string of letters and e-mails about its conversion to a soy protein that is not produced through biotechnology. Its productswere not labeled as GMO-free, however.

    Kellogg's own tests confirmed recently that the soy protein it received from its suppliers was genetically altered.

    "This was an isolated incident," said Chris Ervin, a Kellogg spokeswoman. "It was a case of a supplier not providing ingredients to our specifications."

    Kellogg executives have yet to decide whether to recall any of the products. But they have contacted the Food and Drug Administration, which recalled hundreds of StarLink-tainted products last year and are submitting products to an independent laboratory to be tested for the controversial corn.

    FDA officials say they have insufficient information to decide whether to recall the products or investigate Kellogg's claims.

    One of the tests, conducted by Fairfield, Iowa-based Genetic ID, indicated that 1% or less of the corn in Morningstar's corn dogs is of the StarLink variety, which was approved in animal feed but never for humans for fear that the slow-digesting proteins might cause allergic reactions.

    On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said less than 1% of the corn set to be sold to farmers this spring contained StarLink corn seed, and the government has offered to buy that seed to keep it off the market.

    Industry analysts say they don't think Kellogg is trying to mislead customers, but is simply struggling along with most other food companies to police its supply chain.

    "A lot of the industry would like to go GMO-free and use some kind of insignia on their label, but today they don't have complete assurance down the [supply] chain," said Grant Ferrier, editor of San Diego-based Nutrition Business Journal.

    Still, a Greenpeace official questioned how vigilant Kellogg has been in conducting testing or pressuring its suppliers to screen out genetically modified ingredients.

    In another report Greenpeace commissioned from RHM Technologies in Britain, a biochemist estimated that 50% of the soy in the sample of Morningstar Harvest Burgers was of the Roundup Ready variety, a genetically modified soybean that is resistant to a popular weed killer.

    "It's very hard to explain 50% of the soy [in a product] being genetically engineered as just a slip up," said Charles Margulis, who heads Greenpeace's genetic engineering campaign. "This seems to be a company that just doesn't care."

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    boston, ma
    Posts
    5

    Cool

    i found out a little bit...

    http://www.soyinfo.com/haz/company.shtml

  4. #4
    cedartree cedarblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,964

    Default

    thats a good list ravelston, shame it doesn't seem to cover uk companies. anyone know of a similar one?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    boston, ma
    Posts
    5

    Default uk GMO info

    check this link out. i think it's only in the uk


    http://www.organicgarden.org.uk/



    : ) crystal

  6. #6
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Thumbs up anti-GM campaigner, José Bové

    France's most notorious anti-GM campaigner, José Bové, and up to 1,500 protesters tore up a field of experimental maize yesterday, launching a new wave of action against trials of transgenic corn. Mr Bové risks returning to prison for up to five years, just a year after his last stretch, and could face a £50,000 fine.

    About 15 police officers watched the protest in Haute-Garonne, south of Toulouse, but were under orders to only monitor the event. Mr Bové said the protest had been motivated by the government's "deafness" on GM crops. "They must change their position because 70% of French people disagree," he told Le Journal du Dimanche, warning that yesterday's action was just the beginning.

  7. #7

    Default

    Interesting. Where do you find these kinds of news?

  8. #8
    gertvegan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol, SW England
    Posts
    1,912

    Question UK Vegan Society GM Policy

    I've just read this on the UK Vegan Society website and wondered what you thought.


    The Vegan Society's Policy on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

    On 13th June 1999, the Vegan Society Council reviewed the Society's GMO policy and adopted the following position with regards to genetically

    In keeping with its vegan ethic, the Vegan Society is totally against the use of animal genes or animal substances in the development and production of GMOs.
    The Vegan Society believes that all foods that contain, may contain, or have involved GMOs should be clearly labelled.

    In addition any product must also meet the Society's Criteria for Vegan Food . Products carrying the Society's trademark can contain GMOs, but must be clearly labelled.
    But then.
    Products that are licensed to carry the Society's trademark or which are listed in the Animal Free Shopper must meet the Society's animal free criteria; i.e. vegan products must, as far as is possible and practical, be entirely free from animal involvement
    Does this make sense ? Is it right to give approval to products which contain gmo ingredients ?

  9. #9
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Possibly the vegan-approved products that must be labelled may well refer to GMOs where there are no animal involvement, eg canola oil, cotton, etc.
    Eve

  10. #10
    gorillagorilla Gorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sussex, UK
    Posts
    3,925

    Default

    i don't agree with GM, but i suppose if the Vegan Society is only looking at the animal involvement and not the ecological concerns they can still approve GM if no animals have been used in development. as they are calling for all GM products to be labelled it would be down to the individual to choose whether they wish to buy GM or not.

    i guess the Vegan Society don't want to get into the political debate about GM, but as there is so much secrecy surrounding the whole GM industry i'd be surprised if they could get much reliable info about any of the products. there are often stories in the newspapers about vegetables/grains grown with animal genes to make them 'better' in some way, but surely these are just for publicity and they would not release such sensitive info to people like the Vegan Society? also i don't know for sure, but i suspect many GMOs have been tested on animals to find out if they're harmful, which obviously the Vegan Society would not approve. would the scientists really be willing to disclose this sort of information, when their 'patented' crops are such closely guarded secrets?

  11. #11
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    I certainly avoid GM as best I can, but I've had discussions with vegans who insist that they're not interested in this matter, and say they have enough on their plate avoiding animal products in their lives. On another on-line vegan/veggie forum, that I no longer go to, I used to trawl newspapers from UK, US, Europe, etc, and post on the forum, environmental news that I'd gathered. But whereas an item from someone about their kitten would attract lots of posters to share experiences, the GM or other enviro news was completely ignored. Oh well, can't win 'em all.
    Eve

  12. #12
    Northern Lights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote eve
    I certainly avoid GM as best I can, but I've had discussions with vegans who insist that they're not interested in this matter, and say they have enough on their plate avoiding animal products in their lives.
    Eve, I find that very scary!

    From a vegan point of view I agree that the society needs to be labeling GM products that are animal free/ cruelty free. Them not taking a stand against GM is fine (IMHO) since they are a vegan society.

    HOWEVER, GM are an issue to think about, research and make decisions about, and to think people said they had 'enough on their plate avoiding animal products'? Hello? Does that mean they'd continue drinking tap water after a warning is issued about contaminant levels being high? They'd continue using flour from a bag that they open and find bugs in? I don't think they'd do that.

    It sounds to me like the onmi statement of "Don't tell me what's in it, I just wanna enjoy my dinner..."


  13. #13
    cedartree cedarblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,964

    Default

    gert, for me, you cannot be totally against animal stuffs being in GMO goods and then say its ok per se (if no animal 'additives') and they will still allow use of the logo that as long as the GMO goods are labelled.

    for me, my veganism incorporates looking after others, my surroundings, my plant etc - into which GMO goods do not sit at all, containing animal bits in them or not.

    too much sitting on the fence done. having an opinion does not necessarily make it a political statement (although of coure, it may fall into one of the politcal camps) and the more statements are made against wrongdoing, the braver folk can be to stand up for what they feel is right or wrong, the more politcal voices may listen.

    rant over

  14. #14
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    I hate the thought of polluted or tampered food or drink ending up in mine, or anyone else's bodies.
    For me it is part of being Vegan to care about the Planet as a whole, and the consequences of what we are doing to it.

  15. #15
    cedartree cedarblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,964

    Default

    Quote PinkFluffyCloud
    I hate the thought of polluted or tampered food or drink ending up in mine, or anyone else's bodies.
    For me it is part of being Vegan to care about the Planet as a whole, and the consequences of what we are doing to it.



  16. #16
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    Genetic modification in itself is not a problem- as I see it - but the intention behind and the reasons for modifying organisms and the whole frightening and stupid process of patenting genes does really worry me. Could there be a day where you have to apply for a license to reproduce based upon the genetherapy you have recieved so that the company that pateneted the gene does not therefore own your children because they contain a modified gene?
    In that scenario it is almost Shakespearian where to get the 'pound of flesh' I would demand that they take only what is owed - the modified gene - but must not spill one drop of 'blood' to get that which they seem to demand is rightfully there's...
    This could be applied to roundup ready crops that are contaminated by pollen drift. As for the danger of the crops themselves...if you insert a toxin into a plant to act as a deterrent to pests - you may find that it is also a deterrent to people and is no longer fit for consumption. In the meanwhile that gene for that toxin is making it's way around the countryside on the jet stream winds as well as in the guts of bees and other insect - and interestingly - in the genomes of bacteria. Bacteria have interesting DNA that can 'pickup' fragments of DNA in its environment and incorporate it into its own. Bacteria multiply rapidly and are also predated upon by viruses that also have overly social gene sharing habits. New inclusions that have a negative effect on the organism or virus particle - but those that have no effect or even a benefit will survive and multiply. Who is going to be brave enough to say there is no possibility that there will be a catastrophe as a result of the kinds of organisms that are currently being released?

    The motivation is the key; the companies funding this kind of research are looking at greater ways of making more money - that's what they are there for and there is no limitations on their activity - so long as it is kept out of the public eye... Genetic modification has been occuring for over a decade in the labs and has been occuring possibly since DNA molecules were formed. HIV is a gene modifying virus and there are a lot of them around; it is not that genetic modification is bad - it is merely a tool. The question really lies in are we responsible enough as a society to use it wisely. I would suggest that there is not enough evidence to say that we are.

    Humans have a very limited scope of values that is short term and does not consider all biota. We depend on the living systems for our continued survival and, I fear, are far too willing to put them at dire risk. Isn't it time we learnt that we need to know how to fix it before we break it, and until we do, don't break it in the first place....
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  17. #17
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    The point is that GE has not been in use or tested long enough to know what are the long-term results of, eg, eating foods containing GE ingredients. Look at the present James Hardie case in the courts where many working people are still suffering long-term effects and facing painful deaths because of handling asbestos products. Canada is still exporting asbestos to developing countries, the way tobacco is pushed in those same countries. Who knows what will happen to young children in the future, who today are eating GM products, simply because their parents are unaware of consequences, governments couldn't care less, and Monsanto and other multinationals are focussed on the almighty dollar.
    Eve

  18. #18
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default What is wrong with GMO's?

    I think this is an issue that is of interest to at least a few and maybe worth reviving. Some starter topics;

    What is it about a GMO that you wouldn't want to eat it?

    Are there any circumstances where GM is worthwhile?

    Would you consider wearing a product that was made from GMO's - for example a plant the instead of producing just cellulose, produced silkworm silk fibres?

    What is your opinion on flu vaccines developed via GM technology?

    Would you eat a GM fruit if it contained B12?

    Remember, the technology is currently well within the reach of science now.
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  19. #19
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default GM - Creepy!!

    Personally, I like my food to be as 'near to natural' as possible, so, regardless of any safety arguments, I just wouldn't feel good about eating GM foods.
    Also, I feel that genetically modifying food is the first step on the downward ladder - an experiment on the way towards genetically modifying everything else from 'Dolly' the Sheep to human clones.
    It just gives me the Creeps.
    I am not a lover of vaccines, but am interested - you mention the GM 'flu vaccine - would that cut out any animal suffering do you know?

  20. #20

    Default

    I am uncertain of the safety of GMOs. I'd rather eat foods as nature intended, organic and vegan.

  21. #21
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    Quote PinkFluffyCloud
    Personally, I like my food to be as 'near to natural' as possible, so, regardless of any safety arguments, I just wouldn't feel good about eating GM foods.
    Also, I feel that genetically modifying food is the first step on the downward ladder - an experiment on the way towards genetically modifying everything else from 'Dolly' the Sheep to human clones.
    It just gives me the Creeps.
    I am not a lover of vaccines, but am interested - you mention the GM 'flu vaccine - would that cut out any animal suffering do you know?
    I would be interested to know how natural is defined. It leads to the question are human's natural? No species has a static genome as it is constantly under 'attack' from radiation, rare errors in translation within the cell, viral attacks and environmental pollutants - both man made and naturally occuring.

    Genetic modification requires funding - scientists don't tinker for the hell of it - very often anyway - and funding comes at a particular motivation. Governments has that sort of money - but so do corporations and if there is a dollar in it they will pursue it and powerfully defend their right to use it. It would suggest again that the technology is not inherently bad - just the ways that we use it are terribly dubious - as to benefit in the long term to all.

    Flu vaccines? I am not sure about the role of animals in their production, but vaccines could be produced for the destruction of the 'bird flu' virus. The best remedy for bird flu virus would be to end the intensive farming which provides a fertile ground for the development of diseases. We would all be in support for an end to this attrocity.

    The main vegan objection to GM in foods is the requirement for testing on animals. The most thorough test that ensures the safety of a food (for a particular animal) is a generational test where the animal is not only tested but also offspring. It is a condition of our society that anything that is developed is to be shown as clean as possible without risk to human health. There is the corresponding fear of litigation. It will be nice when the full circle comes around and we realise that the old ways were often better.
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  22. #22

    Default

    Unfortunately it's impossible now to buy certain foods, especially corn products, that are COMPLETELY free of GMOs. They aren't growing these crops in a plastic bubble, the seeds, pollen, or whatever it is, travels via wind down the road to the "organic" farm and then contaminates it.

  23. #23
    ConsciousCuisine
    Guest

    Default

    Yes, *if* Organic farms are next to GMO farms there is nearly guaranteed cross-pollination.

    Another great reason to buy locally when possible (besides the sustainablility, the eco-friendly aspects of buying locally and so on) is so you can find out which farms are growing next to or close to Non-Organic and GMO farms.

    In fact, Monsanto has been in the practice of buying out land next to non-GMO and Organic farms, planting their GMO crops then *suing* the organic farms (and winning) to close out organic farmers and produce, being that the GMO's are *patented* and the have the "rights" to their frankenfoods which have made their way via cross-pollination into the Organic and Non-Gmo foods...

    We don't eat any corn or corn-derivative product that is not organic. We make most of our food at home (99%).

    Occasionally, we eat at the local co-op (all organic Deli) and at one restaurant which is a Veg*n joint that is in honor of a Spiritual Master (and we ask to see labels of things like tempeh and tofu, (which they get from a local Organic Soy Dairy) and avoid any corn or other frequently GMO-containing foods.

    That's it. We are as protected as we can be without living in the hills, growing our own food and living "off the land" as much as possible. (I would if I could!)

  24. #24
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    Veganblue, not a lot in this World is 'natural' now, is it, but by 'near to natural' food, I mean food that has been 'tampered' with by humans as little as possible - i.e fresh fruit and vegetables. This is why I am aiming to be in a position (soon) where I can grow all my own, so I know that it is 'pure' organic, and 'nearly natural'.
    We live in a 'plastic' World, but I want to reject that plastic junk ideal and work with nature as far as I can, as a human.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    92

    Default

    Quote ConsciousCuisine
    Occasionally, we eat at the local co-op
    I've seen this term elsewhere on the board. What exactly is a co-op? Maybe we just call it something else in Michigan.

    -JK

  26. #26
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    Quote PinkFluffyCloud
    Veganblue, not a lot in this World is 'natural' now, is it, but by 'near to natural' food, I mean food that has been 'tampered' with by humans as little as possible - i.e fresh fruit and vegetables.
    Using the old techniques of genetic modification by artificial selection, we are blessed with the delights of modern agriculture - wild fruit plants do not necesarily naturally produce the great fleshy things we call fruits if it were not for the gradual selection over generations for traits that we deem beneficial. The plants that produced inferior fruit were not allowed to breed to the next generation and now we have apples, tomatoes, great big carrots, pumpkins, soft leafy plants with big foliage - all due to our active selection for these characteristics. There isn't a great deal of natural agricultural crops including wheat which is vastly modified from the original plant. It goes on today where plant breeding scientists cross breed varieties to get "better" characteristic. Sometimes getting that genetic material into the plant genome is difficult or impossible using sexual reproduction. Considering the genetic material that makes up all living things is essentially the same, barrier to cross breeding is that two dissimiliar organism will not produce a next generation with any chance of survival. *If* one of the parents had the genes that were desired then it is far more likely that the offspring would survive. All that is required is placing the genes into the parent....and then you have GM.

    You can appreciate the sequence of events that has led to what we have now. Each incremental step is so subtle that the warning bells barely shudder.

    Going 'back to nature' is a resonant theme it seems. I am all for doing it actively now - not when we are forced to because there is no other choice.
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  27. #27
    ConsciousCuisine
    Guest

    Default

    Quote JasperKat
    I've seen this term elsewhere on the board. What exactly is a co-op? Maybe we just call it something else in Michigan.

    -JK

    Our "Co-Op" is a Cooperatively Owned Natural Food Store with Deli/Natural Home/Body/Book/Fairi Trade and Organic Clothing and Goods sections...it is mostly Organic...

  28. #28
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    veganblue - 'modifying' fruits etc is not the same as GE where genes from another species is inserted, as in the well-known example of fish genes inserted into tomatoes so that they keep cool. Do you want to eat fish with your tomatoes? Bacteria is inserted into some other fruits and veges. The whole point of messing around with GM, is for multinational companies to make more money.

    When was the last time you ate a delicious apple? Or a tomato that doesn't have a thick skin for easy packaging? Just as I boycott products from the slaughter industry, so I prefer to boycott Monsanto products. And don't forget where the 'exterminator' gets its name, now that farmers in poor countries can no longer save the seeds of the food crops they grow.
    Eve

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    92

    Default

    Quote ConsciousCuisine
    Our "Co-Op" is a Cooperatively Owned Natural Food Store with Deli/Natural Home/Body/Book/Fairi Trade and Organic Clothing and Goods sections...it is mostly Organic...
    I guess I'm confused about who is cooperating in the ownership
    Do the vendors all own a piece?
    -JK

  30. #30
    ConsciousCuisine
    Guest

    Talking

    Quote JasperKat
    I guess I'm confused about who is cooperating in the ownership
    Do the vendors all own a piece?
    -JK

    It is technically "owned" by the Employees and Members. They are a"non-profit" kind of place, *not* a corporation...

    From A Press Release:


    "Ocean Beach People's Food Co-op
    (San Diego, California)

    Ocean Beach People's Co-op is a member-owned full-service vegetarian retail market that has been serving the community since 1974. Originally a worker's collective, the cooperative has grown to include 3000 feet of retail space, 7000 members, and over 60 employees. The Co-op offers an extensive selection of organic produce, organic and natural grocery items, organic dairy products, bulk items, perishable items, fresh deli items, books, vitamins, herbs, cruelty-free bodycare, and aromatherapy products. We specialize in products that are organic, wholesome, minimally processed, cruelty-free, and environmentally safe. Stop on by and see all that we've got to offer. "

  31. #31
    mysh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Space Coast (Florida)
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Proof that anarchism does work...
    No Gods, No Masters.

  32. #32
    ConsciousCuisine
    Guest

    Default

    Quote mysh
    Proof that anarchism does work...
    Sure, I have seen that Anarchy in small communities can work...

    But when we are talking about the "machine" it's either strategize or be ground up and spat out... either way, you'ver bound to be disgruntled with how it works out, but it's a bit less bothersome if you do *something* to move it in the right direction...

  33. #33
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    Quote eve
    veganblue - 'modifying' fruits etc is not the same as GE where genes from another species is inserted, as in the well-known example of fish genes inserted into tomatoes so that they keep cool. Do you want to eat fish with your tomatoes? Bacteria is inserted into some other fruits and veges. The whole point of messing around with GM, is for multinational companies to make more money.

    When was the last time you ate a delicious apple? Or a tomato that doesn't have a thick skin for easy packaging? Just as I boycott products from the slaughter industry, so I prefer to boycott Monsanto products. And don't forget where the 'exterminator' gets its name, now that farmers in poor countries can no longer save the seeds of the food crops they grow.
    Fish and tomatoes already share genes without the interferrence of man. If evolutionary theory is to be believed; we all arose from a common ancestor - possibly a bacterium - but despite this you will find sequences for proteins found in tomatoes that you will also find in fish. The difference with GE being that we can get a plant to produce the molecules that a fish already does - if it is made by a plant - is it actually fish? What about the other proteins that the plant and the fish make - are they fish or plant? Since autotrophes (produce own food from inorganic matter) would have developed before heterotrophes (must consume autotrophes or other heterotrophes) it could be suggested that the fish has been producing plant molecules all along as well as dveloping some of its own combinations.

    It is within the realm of possibility that a plant will start producing the gene from the fish by the accident of mutation - if this is beneficial it will pass into the gene pool of that plant. Something so specific could take millions of years to develop and still be unlikely but the mechanisms are there. Genes are not static things.

    Genetic modification is not an 'evil' in itself, but the motivation for actually modifying something is the real problem - and to what end the modifying is supposed to serve. More nutritional food? or longer shelf life at the cost of taste and value?

    When I can I buy organic tomatoes - for the taste. I also try and grow as much as I can as the flavours are much better from a plant that is grown in healthy complex soils not the leached one with gross NPK fertiliser and pesticides to keep them healthy. I also love organic apples and enjoy a selection of heritage plants and ones I have sown from last years crops. This is because home grown tastes better - but if in the lab I could devise an apple with a paper thin skin with a full sweet smell and crisp juicy flesh better than a fuji, sundowner or royal gala - would you eat it knowing it was GE? I would guess not but am curious to know what you are afraid of.

    The bayers and monsanto's of the world should be feared since they have thier own self-interest at heart as the number one priority; and apart from the employment they provide and the great taxes; seem to have no intrinsic use of their own. They do not serve the community or the interest of the world - in fact, to do so is usually merely a PR stunt or mere side-effect.

    We agree that GE is being used by unscrupulous people and they must be made accountable - preferrably stoped - but is GE in itself bad?

    If you are aware of monsanto products for us to avoid, I would like to know of them to avoid them too. Monsanto was the company spraying America with DDT - why it is still in business is probably purely a political reason...
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  34. #34
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    It was also the company that brought agent orange into being in Viet Nam. veganblue, you say you're curious to know what I'm afraid of. I'm not afraid of anything, but I am rather wary of you.
    Eve

  35. #35
    tails4wagging
    Guest

    Default

    GMO is a timebomb wanting to happen. The knock on affect of this interference with nature is that, the GMO is windblown and is destroying the essential foodstuffs for insects which in turn affects the birds etc.,. Also look at the beautiful monarch butterfly, there was a great concern in recent years that suggested the caterpillar of this lovely creature does not survive on GMO/cross contamination, so the risk for its extinction is very worrying, and that is only one species we know of.
    Of course, there is also Genetically modified mice for vivisection, surely, to God, no one approves of that!!

  36. #36
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    I agree, Tails, it's sickening!!

  37. #37
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    Quote eve
    It was also the company that brought agent orange into being in Viet Nam. veganblue, you say you're curious to know what I'm afraid of. I'm not afraid of anything, but I am rather wary of you.
    I like to understand all sides of a discussion; therefore I ask questions. Sometimes this means I ask difficult questions to get a balanced view and it can also help others to analyse why they hold their opinions. Statements like it is wrong because it is bad is a tautology and not useful to establish any truth in a scenario - I am looking at more than personal opinion but why people hold personal opinions.
    Exploring a topic such as this will require sensitivity since it brings up strong feelings, especially in such a group as this. You would be able to help this by stating why you hold your opinions and assist me in forming a more balanced view of the topic.
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  38. #38
    PinkFluffyCloud
    Guest

    Default

    I see what you want, Veganblue, so here are my concerns:
    GM foods lead to uncontrolled Pollination and Cross-Pollination, disrupt the 'natural' cycles and contaminate the lineage of different species.
    GM foods introduce new plant DNA and rogue genes into the food chain.
    GM foods are not properly tested, just compared with 'similar' products.
    Tests on Rats showed a thickening of the stomach lining after just 10 days on GM potatoes (not that I necessarily beleive that animal testing is relevant!!!!) - and human volunteer testing showed that GM soya was indigestible, and that Maize caused allergic reactions in 50% of the tested consumers.

    On a personal level, I am one for the 'Gaia' theory, so I just can't bear the thought of this Frankenfood!

  39. #39
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default Objection to GM

    Quote PinkFluffyCloud
    I see what you want, Veganblue, so here are my concerns:
    GM foods lead to uncontrolled Pollination and Cross-Pollination, disrupt the 'natural' cycles and contaminate the lineage of different species.
    GM foods introduce new plant DNA and rogue genes into the food chain.
    GM foods are not properly tested, just compared with 'similar' products.
    Tests on Rats showed a thickening of the stomach lining after just 10 days on GM potatoes (not that I necessarily beleive that animal testing is relevant!!!!) - and human volunteer testing showed that GM soya was indigestible, and that Maize caused allergic reactions in 50% of the tested consumers.
    Thanks PinkFluffyCloud I get the feeling that some may get the impression that I am pro-GMO's which I certainly am not so far - just trying to tease out the elements within the debate so thankyou for your input.

    There is a great deal to fear from GMO's; not just themselves but the ways they are being used including the emergence of roundup resistant weeds - it was only a matter of time. The roundup resistant weeds have not taken genetic material from the GM crop; they have been selected for by only plants that can survive glysophate being able to co-exist in the same field as the GM crop. What may eventually happen is that people will have to be employed to manually remove the weeds hence creating employment and returning to the ways things were done pre the industrial age. Maybe I am being too optimistic; but someone has to be positive about the way forward.

    I think that GM is extremely shortsighted in the way it is being used and inexcuseable in the way that they are using animals. There is a current situation where goats are being modified to produce spider silk proteins in their milk - so that the thread can be harvested; a situation that is abhorrent in the projected abuses of the animals that can be expected if the dairy industry is a model for prediction.

    The most remarkable development is the creation of viruses that induce sterility in target species. Considering the unstable nature of DNA in huge populations; the liklihood that the virus will stay specific to that species is not a threat that is worth tinkering with.

    In New Zealand, where possums are an introduced pest species that are dramatically changing the New Zealand landscape of both fauna and flora; a virus is being considered. The possibility of it crossing the Tasman is a very real threat to not only that possum but ultimately all marsupials.

    GM research is an expensive and imprecise science of which there is usually no fix if things go wrong. The motivation is almost entirely financial and leads to greater control of agriculture for the investing corporation as compared to altruistically benefiting everyone. Until it can be shown to be benign, I will be opposed to it's introduction.

    Apologies to any confused individuals that miscontrued my intent.
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  40. #40
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    You say: "Apologies to any confused individuals that miscontrued my intent" So what was your intent? Somehow, no matter what the subject, you seem to take it upon yourself to instruct the rest of us.

    You also say: "Statements like it is wrong because it is bad is a tautology and not useful to establish any truth in a scenario - I am looking at more than personal opinion but why people hold personal opinions". What's that supposed to mean? Who is using tautologies?

    I think that pinkfluffycloud neatly clarified the dangers of GM, yet still you had to write another long posting. Talk about being prolix.
    Eve

  41. #41
    veganblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    530

    Default

    The GM debate is a very complex one. Teasing out the long term ramifications and getting short term action on the topic requires more than an unqualified opinion that GM is bad. This kind of opposition will not sway legistlators, scientists or big business. Two of the most effective tools I know of are the weight of public opinion and reasoned scientific debate. To this end analysing a subject and being aware of all the alternatives is important.

    To understand is my intent. I am not seeking to instruct, but to stimulate discussion so that I may learn and anyone else can also.

    I am, however, interested in your intent eve, and why my, and the postings of others, causes you such great ire - so much so that you feel the need to make ascerbic comment and interrupt. If you are not interested in either this topic or any others that I post to, please feel free to read other postings and hopefully make constructive comments elsewhere.

    Thankyou for your postings regarding current AR activities here in Australia. It is good to be kept up to date on what is going on around the country.
    "if compassion is extreme, then call me an extremist"

  42. #42
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Quote veganblue
    To understand is my intent. I am not seeking to instruct, but to stimulate discussion so that I may learn and anyone else can also. I am, however, interested in your intent eve, and why my, and the postings of others, causes you such great ire - so much so that you feel the need to make ascerbic comment and interrupt. If you are not interested in either this topic or any others that I post to, please feel free to read other postings and hopefully make constructive comments elsewhere.
    But I AM interested in this topic, and have posted heaps of articles on many websites on the topic, and keep in touch with ETC to have the most up-to-date info. What I am NOT interested in, are comments deliberately made to 'stimulate discussion', rather than the posting of sincere views.

    You accuse me of making acerbic comments to you and others. You're the only one who has whinged. I feel free to make comments, just as you commented on tautologies. I won't thank you for your permission for me to feel free to read other postings and to make constructive comments - do I need your permission?

    What you say does not cause me great ire, your comments would have to have more substance for that. In fact, since ire means anger and wrath, well for your info, those are feelings that I finished with many years ago. I've been vegan since before you were born, and rather than give me any other advice or permissions, may I ask if you have taught your grandma to suck eggs yet?
    Eve

  43. #43
    ConsciousCuisine
    Guest

    Default

    [QUOTE=eve]What I am NOT interested in, are comments deliberately made to 'stimulate discussion', rather than the posting of sincere views. QUOTE]


    Wow. You must really dislike Gertvegan's incessant (and much appreciated, by ME anyway) posting of links and quotes with no personal commentary.

  44. #44
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    What? Why would you think I really dislike Gertvegans postings? Please don't put words in my mouth. I LOVE Gertvegan's comments and links, and have often thanked her for them. The fact that they come without personal commentary is also appreciated.
    Eve

  45. #45
    ConsciousCuisine
    Guest

    Wink

    Quote eve
    What? Why would you think I really dislike Gertvegans postings? Please don't put words in my mouth. I LOVE Gertvegan's comments and links, and have often thanked her for them. The fact that they come without personal commentary is also appreciated.



    I put NO words in your mouth, Eve. I would *never* do that (I do not assume anything ).

    I expressed an opinion based on following the logic you put forth.



    [QUOTE=eve]What I am NOT interested in, are comments deliberately made to 'stimulate discussion', rather than the posting of sincere view[QUOTE=eve]

    Gertvegan often posts links and quotes, which do not have his personal commentary attathed; no opinion.

    They are thought provoking.

    Therefore, they do not express a "personal, sincere view", but are a representation of someone else's views.

    Therefore, following your expressed logic, following that you are "NOT interested in, are comments deliberately made to 'stimulate discussion', rather than the posting of sincere view" it would then make sense that you would NOT enjoy Gertvegan's postings of soley quotes and links.

  46. #46
    I eve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Well, you misunderstand me CC, if gertvegan doesn't attach a personal opinion, well she is not posting comments simply to stimulate discussion. You assumed that I really dislike gertvegans postings, and I'm simply saying that I love her postings. I just took exception to a young man who is instructing me in what I can and can't say. Let's not get bogged down.
    Eve

  47. #47
    ConsciousCuisine
    Guest

    Default

    Quote eve
    Well, you misunderstand me CC, if gertvegan doesn't attach a personal opinion, well she is not posting comments simply to stimulate discussion. You assumed that I really dislike gertvegans postings, and I'm simply saying that I love her postings. I just took exception to a young man who is instructing me in what I can and can't say. Let's not get bogged down.

    No asssumption going on here Eve!

    I didn't ASSUME you liked Gretvegan's statements, I posted an *opinion* based on following your logic! No "assumptions". If I assuemd anything, I would state it as a fact and have no logic to back it up. It was an OPINION following your expressed reasoning.

    Also, since I knew you were online and likely to respond, it was more of a "questioning" statement than anything.


    If the real intent of your message was to express that you took exception to "a young man who is instructing me in what I can and can't say", that didn't come across to me directly by way of your *words*, again following the rhythm of what you posted and how it resonated with me.

    I was simply saying that that is where your post took me. Not saying you personally feel the way your specific wording carried me to.

    If I were to feel as you expressed, you initially indicated that you felt about Veganblue's posts, then *I* also would not enjoy posts like Gertvegan's that seem intended to simply inspire discussion and thought and lack personal comment...

  48. #48
    cedartree cedarblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,964

    Default

    just a quickie eve - gerts a guy i think you'll find

  49. #49

    Default

    Also, I find it disrespectful that people make comments about those that are of lesser age than they are; in my opinion, only ignorant people resort to such comments. Age has little to do with intelligence, knowledge, and knowing how to respect others.

  50. #50
    mysh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Space Coast (Florida)
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Artichoke47
    Age has little to do with intelligence, knowledge, and knowing how to respect others.
    I think my four year old could quite effectively disprove that... Once you're as old as me, you'll understand.
    No Gods, No Masters.

Tags for this thread (If you see one or more tags below, click on them if you're looking for similar threads!)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •