Does anyone else worry about this? It is hard enough to find out what additives are in regular food, but how in the world are we ever going to know about how a food has been genetically modified?
What if they start making veggies (or anything we can easily-tolerate) by adding a gene from wheat or dairy, for example? How will we ever know? This really scares me. It should be especially scary for folks who have true allergies. Eating a food to which a peanut gene has been added could be fatal for someone with a peanut allergy.
Is there anything we can do about this? Food for thought.
Love,
Polly
Genetic Modification of Foods
Moderators: Rosie, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Genetic Modification of Foods
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Polly,
I'm glad you brought this up. I've been thinking along the same lines. I've even wondered if there is one GM gene present in all of our intolerances that we are actually reacting too (the protein it produces anyway). Figured that was too far out to mention. I think GM food could be a problem.
I wish I had enough knowledge to isolate the protein(s) that we react to. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out how similar they are? Anyone know someone doing their doctorate that needs a subject?
Jean
I'm glad you brought this up. I've been thinking along the same lines. I've even wondered if there is one GM gene present in all of our intolerances that we are actually reacting too (the protein it produces anyway). Figured that was too far out to mention. I think GM food could be a problem.
I wish I had enough knowledge to isolate the protein(s) that we react to. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out how similar they are? Anyone know someone doing their doctorate that needs a subject?
Jean
Be kind to everyone, because you never know what battles they are fighting.
Hi Polly,
I believe this is a very valid concern, based on the fact that genetic modification is generally done in order to obtain a desired protein expression. In an example cited in this dciscussion, for example, the content of a major allergen in soybeans was increased, after genetic modification was performed in order to obtain hergicide resistance, (a popular reason for genetic manipulation, these days):
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html
Specifically, the trypsin inhibitor (a major allergen) content was significantly increased in GTS. GTS stands for glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Glyphosate, (trade name, Roundup), is an extremely popular herbicide, used in commercial ag production. It is economical, and very effective. Basically, it will kill any plant that is green and growing, unless it has specific resistance to glyphosate. I'm sure that Jean is familiar with it, (and probably uses it). Therefore it is THE most effective way to obtain weed and grass control in production agriculture. It is used on corn, soybeans, and cotton, for example, and it's use on growing crops is rapidly expanding, as the profit is squeezed out of ag production by world-wide low prices. Farmers really have no choice, as it is the only affordable way to get weed control in many crops. They either use it, or go broke from low production, due to crop competition from weeds, or high labor costs.
Therefore,since the world insists on low food costs, (at least on the production end), I'm pretty sure that we will continue to see increasing genetic modification in the food we eat. Grain prices to the farmer in the U S, for example, are roughly the same that they were 30 or 40 years ago,while input costs have skyrocketed. All the price increases that have acrued to food, since then, have gone to the middleman, unfortunately.
The bottom line is, I guess we will find out if we can tolerate it, when we eat it.
Love,
Wayne
P S The point of the article I cited, by the way, is to point out why most of the "safety" tests done on these GM commodoties, are invalid.
I believe this is a very valid concern, based on the fact that genetic modification is generally done in order to obtain a desired protein expression. In an example cited in this dciscussion, for example, the content of a major allergen in soybeans was increased, after genetic modification was performed in order to obtain hergicide resistance, (a popular reason for genetic manipulation, these days):
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html
Specifically, the trypsin inhibitor (a major allergen) content was significantly increased in GTS. GTS stands for glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Glyphosate, (trade name, Roundup), is an extremely popular herbicide, used in commercial ag production. It is economical, and very effective. Basically, it will kill any plant that is green and growing, unless it has specific resistance to glyphosate. I'm sure that Jean is familiar with it, (and probably uses it). Therefore it is THE most effective way to obtain weed and grass control in production agriculture. It is used on corn, soybeans, and cotton, for example, and it's use on growing crops is rapidly expanding, as the profit is squeezed out of ag production by world-wide low prices. Farmers really have no choice, as it is the only affordable way to get weed control in many crops. They either use it, or go broke from low production, due to crop competition from weeds, or high labor costs.
Therefore,since the world insists on low food costs, (at least on the production end), I'm pretty sure that we will continue to see increasing genetic modification in the food we eat. Grain prices to the farmer in the U S, for example, are roughly the same that they were 30 or 40 years ago,while input costs have skyrocketed. All the price increases that have acrued to food, since then, have gone to the middleman, unfortunately.
The bottom line is, I guess we will find out if we can tolerate it, when we eat it.
Love,
Wayne
P S The point of the article I cited, by the way, is to point out why most of the "safety" tests done on these GM commodoties, are invalid.
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
-
harvest_table
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Fergus Falls, Minnesota
I had really not thought about GM foods until you brought this up so, did some surfing and have learned some basics. It's complicated, interesting and should certainly be of public concern and more so for those with food allergies.
There are quite a few sites about GM foods/and food intolerance
and they all seem to share these same concerns. How safe are these foods? How are they monitered and labeled? How will we know exactly what we are eating? Is the government doing enough to protect us?
http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/food ... drugs.html
Will ( or could) the new labeling law which is now in effect ( Jan 2006) help us identify if a particular food or product has been GM in the future?
Love,
Joanna
There are quite a few sites about GM foods/and food intolerance
and they all seem to share these same concerns. How safe are these foods? How are they monitered and labeled? How will we know exactly what we are eating? Is the government doing enough to protect us?
http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/food ... drugs.html
Will ( or could) the new labeling law which is now in effect ( Jan 2006) help us identify if a particular food or product has been GM in the future?
Love,
Joanna
THE GLUTEN FILES
http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/
http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/
Johanna,
I don't know all the details of the new labeling law, but I doubt that it addresses the actual genetic implications of GM foods. Normally, labeling laws only require a processor to state ingredients that he has actually added to a product. In the case of agricultural commodities, the original product, as it comes from the fields, is normally considered to be a known entity, and the chemical composition of that commocity is not listed on a label. IOW, a tomato is considered to be a tomato, just like all other tomatoes, regardless of it's origins. Those regulations need to be re-written, to reflect the actual extent of protein alteration, in layman's terms, in the case of GM foods. At least, that's my opinion.
Love,
Wayne
I don't know all the details of the new labeling law, but I doubt that it addresses the actual genetic implications of GM foods. Normally, labeling laws only require a processor to state ingredients that he has actually added to a product. In the case of agricultural commodities, the original product, as it comes from the fields, is normally considered to be a known entity, and the chemical composition of that commocity is not listed on a label. IOW, a tomato is considered to be a tomato, just like all other tomatoes, regardless of it's origins. Those regulations need to be re-written, to reflect the actual extent of protein alteration, in layman's terms, in the case of GM foods. At least, that's my opinion.
Love,
Wayne
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
-
artteacher
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 731
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:13 pm
.
Hi guys,
I've considered it, too. For instance, I can't drink any soy milk (and I've tried a few) except MoonRose brand. And can't eat any other soy product in significant amounts, either. MoonRose specifically says it's made from non-GMO soybeans, and I think one of the reasons it doesn't upset my stomach has to be the unaltered soybeans. In almost every other way, the ingredients are the same as other soymilks. The other differences are pretty slight: vegetarian formula (meaning that the sweetener isn't filtered through powered bones to whiten it), and the type of sweetener (evaporated cane juice) which should virtually free of sulfites. Since I don't have problems with other sugars in small amounts, or with sulfites in small amounts, those shouldn't be the problem factors. I corresponded with one of their representatives about this, if you remember - he's the one who sent me the funny but informational emails.
I think it's worth an experiment, if any of you could craft one. But I buy non-GMO products when I can: cornmeal, for instance, just on principle.
Good question, Polly. Love, Marsha
I've considered it, too. For instance, I can't drink any soy milk (and I've tried a few) except MoonRose brand. And can't eat any other soy product in significant amounts, either. MoonRose specifically says it's made from non-GMO soybeans, and I think one of the reasons it doesn't upset my stomach has to be the unaltered soybeans. In almost every other way, the ingredients are the same as other soymilks. The other differences are pretty slight: vegetarian formula (meaning that the sweetener isn't filtered through powered bones to whiten it), and the type of sweetener (evaporated cane juice) which should virtually free of sulfites. Since I don't have problems with other sugars in small amounts, or with sulfites in small amounts, those shouldn't be the problem factors. I corresponded with one of their representatives about this, if you remember - he's the one who sent me the funny but informational emails.
I think it's worth an experiment, if any of you could craft one. But I buy non-GMO products when I can: cornmeal, for instance, just on principle.
Good question, Polly. Love, Marsha
Wayne,
Ah! I've been wondering what herbicide farmers use on broadleaf corps. I've seen the effects of Glyphosate in fields. It looks to me like the application stunts the crop plants for a week or two, am I right? Yes, I use Roundup, but cautiously. That darn drift usually gets me. There are a few Roundup resistant weeds here in Michigan, with many more on the way, I'm afraid (subject of one of the seminars I just attended).
Wouldn't it be interesting if we found out that the protein(s) that makes plants Glyphosate resistant is the one we react to... I'm kind of surprised that corn is genetically modified for Glyphosate resistance, since a broadleaf herbicide takes care of most weeds in a corn field. Do you know if this has been done to wheat? Again, being a monocot, I would think the broadleaf herbicide would be sufficient.
Thanks for the answering a question I've had for so long.
Love, Jean
Ah! I've been wondering what herbicide farmers use on broadleaf corps. I've seen the effects of Glyphosate in fields. It looks to me like the application stunts the crop plants for a week or two, am I right? Yes, I use Roundup, but cautiously. That darn drift usually gets me. There are a few Roundup resistant weeds here in Michigan, with many more on the way, I'm afraid (subject of one of the seminars I just attended).
Wouldn't it be interesting if we found out that the protein(s) that makes plants Glyphosate resistant is the one we react to... I'm kind of surprised that corn is genetically modified for Glyphosate resistance, since a broadleaf herbicide takes care of most weeds in a corn field. Do you know if this has been done to wheat? Again, being a monocot, I would think the broadleaf herbicide would be sufficient.
Thanks for the answering a question I've had for so long.
Love, Jean
Be kind to everyone, because you never know what battles they are fighting.
Hi Jean,
The main reason for GTM, (Glyphosate Tolerant Maize--we are about the only ones in the world who refer to maize as corn), is because of the need to control Johnson grass in the South, (in the North, the rhizomes freeze during the winter months, which kills them), and because of the economy of control on broadleaf weeds (Johnson grass is a major economic problem in corn fields in the South). Roundup will control most broadleaf weeds for about $5 per acre, whereas the broadleaf-specific chemicals that will give equavalent control, cost at least three to four times as much, and some years, that price difference means the difference between a profit and a loss on the entire operation.
There are hormonal-type herbicides, which are economical, such as 2-4D, and it's imitators, but they are extremely risky to use in many areas, due to the drift problem caused by their extreme chemical volitality, as they warm up during the day, especially where soybeans and cotton are grown, and where there are gardens or ornamental plants within about a ten mile radius.
To my knowledge, no one is working on roundup-resistant wheat, probably because roundup is a preferred treatment to control volunteer wheat stands in crops which follow wheat, in a normal rotation. There are economical broadleaf weed control chemicals for wheat, which are in the same price range as a roundup treatment. Grasses are not as serious a problem for wheat, due to the fact that wheat grows during the winter months, when most grasses will perish from normal weather effects. Cheatgrass and ryegrass are exceptions, but they can be hancled with chemicals and prudent management.
I sure hope that the proteins that make plants glyphosae resistant are not the ones that we react to, as I doubt that production agriculture could afford to take that big step backwards with weed and grass control.
Love,
Wayne
The main reason for GTM, (Glyphosate Tolerant Maize--we are about the only ones in the world who refer to maize as corn), is because of the need to control Johnson grass in the South, (in the North, the rhizomes freeze during the winter months, which kills them), and because of the economy of control on broadleaf weeds (Johnson grass is a major economic problem in corn fields in the South). Roundup will control most broadleaf weeds for about $5 per acre, whereas the broadleaf-specific chemicals that will give equavalent control, cost at least three to four times as much, and some years, that price difference means the difference between a profit and a loss on the entire operation.
There are hormonal-type herbicides, which are economical, such as 2-4D, and it's imitators, but they are extremely risky to use in many areas, due to the drift problem caused by their extreme chemical volitality, as they warm up during the day, especially where soybeans and cotton are grown, and where there are gardens or ornamental plants within about a ten mile radius.
To my knowledge, no one is working on roundup-resistant wheat, probably because roundup is a preferred treatment to control volunteer wheat stands in crops which follow wheat, in a normal rotation. There are economical broadleaf weed control chemicals for wheat, which are in the same price range as a roundup treatment. Grasses are not as serious a problem for wheat, due to the fact that wheat grows during the winter months, when most grasses will perish from normal weather effects. Cheatgrass and ryegrass are exceptions, but they can be hancled with chemicals and prudent management.
I sure hope that the proteins that make plants glyphosae resistant are not the ones that we react to, as I doubt that production agriculture could afford to take that big step backwards with weed and grass control.
Love,
Wayne
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
That's what I kind of figure about GM wheat. And, people have been gluten intolerant for much longer than there has been GM crops...
Interesting about the GTM, more information for my brain to store that it will probably never need, LOL.
At one of the sessions at my conference, I learned about a man who bought an old farm field, planted $60,000 worth of nursery stock, and lost it all to residual herbicides in the soil. Makes a soil test seem cheap (which they are)! What a sad picture that was.
I was unaware of the long range drift 2-4D has! That's scary. I was also unaware that Glyphosate didn't decompose on trees. Saw pictures of damage on trunks, especially thin barked trees.
You would have enjoyed my Abiotic Damage to Plants class that I attended. The instructor loved my abiotic story and wants pictures to use in his lectures. I often found burnt foliage in my gardens, especially right outside of the doors of the club houses/banquet rooms. When I found half of two different plants burnt in a nice arch on a four foot wall, I figured out what was happening. Yep, drunk men have been peeing on my plants. Someone recommended that I hook up motion triggered cameras and post pictures of the perpetrators. Signs were recommended, but they would just serve as a target. LOL
Sigh, Love, Jean
Interesting about the GTM, more information for my brain to store that it will probably never need, LOL.
At one of the sessions at my conference, I learned about a man who bought an old farm field, planted $60,000 worth of nursery stock, and lost it all to residual herbicides in the soil. Makes a soil test seem cheap (which they are)! What a sad picture that was.
I was unaware of the long range drift 2-4D has! That's scary. I was also unaware that Glyphosate didn't decompose on trees. Saw pictures of damage on trunks, especially thin barked trees.
You would have enjoyed my Abiotic Damage to Plants class that I attended. The instructor loved my abiotic story and wants pictures to use in his lectures. I often found burnt foliage in my gardens, especially right outside of the doors of the club houses/banquet rooms. When I found half of two different plants burnt in a nice arch on a four foot wall, I figured out what was happening. Yep, drunk men have been peeing on my plants. Someone recommended that I hook up motion triggered cameras and post pictures of the perpetrators. Signs were recommended, but they would just serve as a target. LOL
Sigh, Love, Jean
Be kind to everyone, because you never know what battles they are fighting.
Jean,
That old farm field probably had a high level of residual attrazine. Attrazine was used in the midwest much sooner than it was here in the South, and it was used long enough for many broadleaf plants to build up a tolerance for it. Consequently, where here in the South, we used one to maybe one and a half pounds of active ingredient per acre, up there, it was common practice to use three to four pounds per acre, and in some cases, much more. Attrazine has a pretty persistant carryover effect, especially in a dry year. Unfortunately, plants which have never been exposed to it, have never developed any tolerance for it, so that's why it was so effective on that poor fellow's nursery stock.
The characteristic that makes 2-4D so potent, is the fact that every morning, (for several days after application, usually), after the sun comes up and heats up the residual chemical, it volatilizes, and drifts out over the surrounding countryside, giving repeated doses of the hormonal chemical.
I understamd that's correct about neutralizing glyphosate. It's a salt, and it is neutralized by certain components in the soil, though I'm not sure just what is involved in the chemical reaction.
Yep, boy will be boys, (unless someone gives them a good reason to change their habits). You might put up signs, warning of hidden surveilance cameras. If they finally figure out that there actually aren't any surveilance cameras, and they resume their undesirable habits, then you might put up dummy cameras to fool the "dummies".
Love,
Wayne
That old farm field probably had a high level of residual attrazine. Attrazine was used in the midwest much sooner than it was here in the South, and it was used long enough for many broadleaf plants to build up a tolerance for it. Consequently, where here in the South, we used one to maybe one and a half pounds of active ingredient per acre, up there, it was common practice to use three to four pounds per acre, and in some cases, much more. Attrazine has a pretty persistant carryover effect, especially in a dry year. Unfortunately, plants which have never been exposed to it, have never developed any tolerance for it, so that's why it was so effective on that poor fellow's nursery stock.
The characteristic that makes 2-4D so potent, is the fact that every morning, (for several days after application, usually), after the sun comes up and heats up the residual chemical, it volatilizes, and drifts out over the surrounding countryside, giving repeated doses of the hormonal chemical.
I understamd that's correct about neutralizing glyphosate. It's a salt, and it is neutralized by certain components in the soil, though I'm not sure just what is involved in the chemical reaction.
Yep, boy will be boys, (unless someone gives them a good reason to change their habits). You might put up signs, warning of hidden surveilance cameras. If they finally figure out that there actually aren't any surveilance cameras, and they resume their undesirable habits, then you might put up dummy cameras to fool the "dummies".
Love,
Wayne
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Wayne,
It's soil bacterial action that decomposes the glyphosate. That's why it doesn't decompose on tree trunks.
I figure most of the nitrogen burn is from men that are attending weddings, so it's a one time deal. If they are drunk enough to pee outside, they probably won't notice, or care about, the signs or cameras. I've considered tying back thorn bush branches with a liquid triggered spring!
We do get into some weird conversations, don't we?
Love, Jean
It's soil bacterial action that decomposes the glyphosate. That's why it doesn't decompose on tree trunks.
I figure most of the nitrogen burn is from men that are attending weddings, so it's a one time deal. If they are drunk enough to pee outside, they probably won't notice, or care about, the signs or cameras. I've considered tying back thorn bush branches with a liquid triggered spring!
We do get into some weird conversations, don't we?
Love, Jean
Be kind to everyone, because you never know what battles they are fighting.
Jean,
Thanks for the information on glyphosate decomposition. I sort of assumed it was a chemical reaction. I guess really, if something were to happen to all the soil bacteria, we probably couldn't survive very long.
Hahahahaha. What a cruel, but probably effective, idea. If this is a one time thing, that doesn't speak very highly for the general state of sophistication and refinement, of the males of this species, does it. I thought that was just a trait peculiar to us uncultured country boys, who don't know any better. LOL.
We certainly do get into some weid conversations. Hahahahahaha.
Love,
Wayne
Thanks for the information on glyphosate decomposition. I sort of assumed it was a chemical reaction. I guess really, if something were to happen to all the soil bacteria, we probably couldn't survive very long.
Hahahahaha. What a cruel, but probably effective, idea. If this is a one time thing, that doesn't speak very highly for the general state of sophistication and refinement, of the males of this species, does it. I thought that was just a trait peculiar to us uncultured country boys, who don't know any better. LOL.
We certainly do get into some weid conversations. Hahahahahaha.
Love,
Wayne
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
I have to say that I agree to some extent that GM foods are partially to blame for the increased incidence of auto-immune diseases, which includes allergies and asthma. Having done some reading about allergies, it is the protien in a food that triggers a reaction. We all have a threshold that when crossed we have a reaction. The wheat we consume today has a much higher gluten content than what our grandparents ate as children. I think that more people's thresholds are being hit. I think this also explains why sometimes we can tolerate a little of something. Other factors will influence your threshold such as seasonal allergies and consumption of other foods. For example if you are corn intolerant, you may tolerate a bit of corn one day, but not when you have eaten a bit of another food you do not tolerate. The effect is cumulative. This really makes teasing out offenders difficult. Remember, wheat is one of the top 7 allergies along with eggs, milk,nuts, soy, and others I can't remember off the top of my head. Just my .02.
SueM
SueM
-
harvest_table
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Fergus Falls, Minnesota
Stickers on produce tell more than the price
Hi, speaking of GM foods....
Got an e-mail from a friend who owns an herbal shop and it surprised me. It was titled, the stickers on produce in the markets tell more than the price.
5 digets, starting with 8
genetically modified
5 digets, starting with 9
grown organically
4 digets
grown conventionally
Anyone seen this labeling?
Love,
Joanna
Got an e-mail from a friend who owns an herbal shop and it surprised me. It was titled, the stickers on produce in the markets tell more than the price.
5 digets, starting with 8
genetically modified
5 digets, starting with 9
grown organically
4 digets
grown conventionally
Anyone seen this labeling?
Love,
Joanna
THE GLUTEN FILES
http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/
http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/
Hi Joanna,
Thanks for the information. Sure I've seen the labeling, but didn't realize what it meant. From now on, I'll be looking more closely.
Love,
Wayne
Thanks for the information. Sure I've seen the labeling, but didn't realize what it meant. From now on, I'll be looking more closely.
Love,
Wayne
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.