[BilboBagend]

So, does anyone here have any rational opinion about genetically engineered foods.

They range from new raw foods where we have no idea what the effects will be, to foods that will be purified and therefor chemically identical to the original purified food and therefor as harmful or harmless as the identical.

Example: Vanilla. Soon to be released for consumption will be vanilla created by genetically engineered yeast. IF this vanilla is purified as it will need to be purified, then it will be identical to the currently chemically manufactured vanillin. Yes, chemically manufactured vanillin must be identified as not be from the vanilla bean but a product of a chemical factory. Natural vanilla from the vanilla bean is called vanilla in the food industry. In the new twist, the yeast produced vanilla will be allowed to be called natural vanilla rather than vanillin from the chemical factory. Real vanilla will be indistinguishable in the market from the yeast produced vanilla.

What's your opinion?

This is a great case for reasoning about safety, about truth in advertising, and free market capitalism. As long as the vanillin is purified there is no safety concern. People have been eating vanillin for millennia. People have been eating chemically produced vanillin for perhaps a century. It is of a know level of safety in our food supply and well accepted by all parties. This new product is no different and the FDA has ruled in this way. I agree.

Truth in advertising. Hiding this new produce is a clear lie. It is NOT real natural vanilla. Real natural vani8lla is a complex mixture of many things, not all pure vanillin. If the yeast is producing a complex mixture, it will not be the same complex mixture. To be regarded as old, known, and safe, it will need to be purified. If purified, it is not real natural vanilla. If not purified, it is not a known safe mixture. In both cases it is not the same mixture of the same components that come from the vanilla bean. Thus, calling it natural vanilla is just a very simple obvious lie. Jusr more lies in advertising.

Free Market Capitalism: One of the basic foundational premisses in "Capitalism", "Free Market Capitalism" is that the consumer is well informed about the products that they are buying and have free will choices about what to buy at what price. Hiding the truth about the products we purchase is a violation of Free Market Capitalism principles. This creates "managed markets", one of the things we railed against in Soviet economic operations. I prefer "Free market Capitalism" and full disclosure of all product details so that the consumer can make free market decisions about what products to purchase at what price. (and get what they actually pay for).

[RealJustme]

What's your opinion?

Another liberal battle cry without merit.

[brandon]

About the only thing I can agree with is that there needs to be full disclosure about what you are buying.

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.[

We bought our farm about seven years ago and have been experimenting with organic techniques growing vegetables, including GM varieties. This was on the advice of the locals who all grow GM corn, beans, wheat, and cotton, etc. They laughed their asses off at us for wanting the property to eventually be certified organic and not wanting to go GM, which is still our goal. We have learned a great deal about blight and disease.

We grow probably 99% of our own personal produce and put up for our short warm winters. When we do buy, we buy from local stands and butchers where at least we know we are helping our neighbors.


Support localism
No farms no food.

[BilboBagend]

Bravo Brandon. Good luck with farming. That is a tough business. Yes, support local farms and other businesses. They are fewer and fewer by each year.
\
I am glad you agree with full disclosure. Now tell Congress about that, because they have always sided with the industry view that we have no right to know what we a buying, that labeling with details that reveal the nature of what we buy is harmful to the interests of the industry.

As to what you don;t agree with, well, ?????

[brandon]

It's not so much a disagreement as it is maybe ignorance on my part. I honestly cannot see the difference in our ancestors cross breeding their vegetables for improvements and some scientist directly inserting other vegetable DNA.

By repeatedly losing thousands of dollars worth of product and labor, I'm beginning to believe that if we want to eat disease and insect resistant food grown without the use of chemicals and pesticides, we may have to embrace the modern version and methods of what Granny used to do in her garden.

[BilboBagend]

1) We will all be eating mostly insects in the not to distant future for our protein source.

The difference is that cross breeding one plant with another introduces some risk, but only a moderate risk and one that we have managed for millennial. Introducing snipped out pieces of DNA from an animal into a virus, bacterium, or yeast/fungus is an extremely higher risk, as is putting viral or bacteria DNA into an animal or plant. We have little experience. The consequences are huge. It's possible to introduce a gene sequence into a food product that would produce a virus that would do anything, sterilize the whole species into which it was introduced, all wheat for example, or to sterilize the planet. This could be done intentionally or accidentally. One must admit that the most severe possibilities are the least likely. Still, real disasters are possible. It is also true that we will need to progress on this path due to an increasing population. and it;s needs. The reality is rational management. Something we humans are very bad at doing. Politics always leads us to irrational paths supported by big money for short term profit. As an example, it's not really very hard to design and build a nuclear plant with a extremely high margin of safety, it's just unlikely that our commercial interests would invest that much money. We are very bad at passing on the full cost of production in what are in reality very high cost industries. We prefer to pass on the costs through government remediation of disasters. Some day it may be too late to do the remediation.

As an aside, my real beef with modern machine pickable, long storable vegetables is that they have very little taste. There are no commercially available tomatoes, or for that matter seeds, that give the tomatoes that I ate in NJ in the 60s. They had worms and bugs in them. They tasted great. You cut away the bad parts and ate the rest. Fruits and vegetables are now breed for large size and looks. Yes, the nutrition is about the same. The problemk is that there is less reason to WANT to eat them. Also, now the time when they are ripe is very short. They go from hard to rotted with very little time at ripe.

If you want cheap goods, you get cheap goods. Cheap goods supports lower labor costs and larger profits and mostly executive compensation and expense accounts. Financial markets skim the profit that real investors would usually make. Little is left for either the investor or the laborer. This is the problem with concentration of wealth and rigged financial markets. This is the problem with allowing gambling in our financial markets. The bookies make all the money.

Farmers who farm highly desirable vegetables that taste good go out of business because their cost of production is higher, as is handling and delivery. People look at the higher cost and buy cheap, mostly because they are not making enough to consider taste. People buy easy to eat, tasty food that contains little real food. Because it tastes good and is cheap. Nutritional value and health are very difficult to understand. Bye, bye vegetables. Hello, Cheetos, burgers, and fries.

[johnforbes]

If you ate today, thank a farmer.

If you read this, thank a teacher.

If you read this in English, thank a soldier.

[BilboBagend]

Hey, little wannabe faux. Do you ever have anything besides shallow platitudes? I thought not. Once a little wannabe faux, always a little wannabe faux, JJF

LOL

[johnforbes]

If you babbled incoherently today, and lied about having PhD and MBA degrees, you are Blabo, er Bilbo.

If you ate today, thank a farmer.

If you read this, thank a teacher.

If you read this in English, thank a soldier.

[BilboBagend]

ROFLMAOAY

[elklindo69]

I have no issues with GM foods as long as the products are labeled as such, and are proven to be safe...

[BilboBagend]

The problem is, they will not be proved to be safe, they will nor be labeled.

[Dogzilla]

I'm in agreement with Brandon....I don't see any difference in GMOs and the old ways of interbreeding within groups to get a new hybrid. There are millions more people every week on Earth....and they all wanna eat. If we're gonna be able to keep up with the demand, we're gonna have to use a little ingenuity in our methods.

[RealJustme]

I have no issues with GM foods as long as the products are labeled as such, and are proven to be safe...

Feel good liberals tried to pass a mandatory GM labeling of all food in Washington State this year, at first everyone said why not...then they learned that labeling everything would result an additional $400.00 a year in food cost for every family in Washington, plus the liberals' own scientist admitted there was nothing indicating items with GM were unsafe, but they argued it would give citizens freedom of choice to chose which ones they wanted. If was shot down, even by the feel gooders. Even Californians shot the same Bill down last year.

Stupid anus loving liberals, I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying. It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."

[elklindo69]

I have no issues with GM foods as long as the products are labeled as such, and are proven to be safe...

Feel good liberals tried to pass a mandatory GM labeling of all food in Washington State this year, at first everyone said why not...then they learned that labeling everything would result an additional $400.00 a year in food cost for every family in Washington, plus the liberals' own scientist admitted there was nothing indicating items with GM were unsafe, but they argued it would give citizens freedom of choice to chose which ones they wanted. If was shot down, even by the feel gooders. Even Californians shot the same Bill down last year.

Stupid anus loving liberals, I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying. It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."

At times stupid is entertaining and other times its annoying.

Did you ever bother reading the packaging that your toothpaste came with? It has a label claim on it as required by the FDA. And I'm pretty sure that toothpaste doesn't cost an xtra $400 a year because they are required to have label.

[RealJustme]

Did you ever bother reading the packaging that your toothpaste came with? It has a label claim on it as required by the FDA. And I'm pretty sure that toothpaste doesn't cost an xtra $400 a year because they are required to have label.

Elk concerning what you wrote, it's not logical, my man. It's just not logical.

[brandon]

Farmers who farm highly desirable vegetables that taste good go out of business because their cost of production is higher, as is handling and delivery

No speculation and financial markets involved here Bilbo. We sell our products locally or sell them at our own little stand. We load up a truck and drive out to the highway or in to town.

We all need to keep promoting farmers markets in our town square, park and downtown areas. I know I would rather buy a 5 mile tomato from a local farm family than a 1500 mile tomato from some big box that may not have even been grown in this country.

Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing

[BilboBagend]

4 months a year I buy my produce from two sources. A farmer 3 miles away and a cooperative farm 40 miles away.

Good luck at farming.

[sillydaddy]

Nothing kills the appetite for fresh veggies like an e-coli alert .

[RealJustme]

Bilbo- 4 months a year I buy my produce from two sources. A farmer 3 miles away and a cooperative farm 40 miles away.

I buy mine fresh weekly, so I don't have to depend on the Genetic engineered produce, but if I could only buy it 4 times a year like Bilbo the GM produce would be the way to go.

[BilboBagend]

Hey justupid, the point is you have no idea at all when or if your are buying GM products. Government has supported industry in making sure that information is NOT available.

You really need to learn how to read justupid.

[RealJustme]

Hey justupid, the point is you have no idea at all when or if your are buying GM products. Government has supported industry in making sure that information is NOT available.

OK, no labeling required it's all genetic engineered, do you really think that the crops being grown today and animals being raised haven't been modified from their original form? The planet would starve if that were the case. The first farmers in America were Indians, they quickly learned to cross breed or transfer of specific traits, or genes, from one organism into a plant or animal of an entirely different species to get a better product.

To say you want to go back to unmodified plants and animals, not only is it not possible, it's not logical, my man. It's just not logical.

[BilboBagend]

justupid proves with even more evidence his complete inability to actually read.

[elklindo69]

The first farmers in America were Indians, they quickly learned to cross breed or transfer of specific traits, or genes, from one organism into a plant or animal of an entirely different species to get a better product.

Justme, you would make a fantastic fictional author.

AKA, a scriptwriter for faux news...

[johnforbes]

But stuff such as "faux news" are not amusing, or witty, or anything but juvenile.

The notion inherent in that use is that there is a real news, and it is the standard ideological fare you find on CNN and NBC.

But CNN, CBS, NBC, the NY Times, the Baltimore Sun, the Washington Post, the NY Times, the LA Times, et al. are essentially just house organs for the White House.

It is NOT healthy for America to lack media outlets which will not speak truth to power (as the cliche went).

It is great that Fox News provides an alternative to the standard Left Wing news.

Liberals try to downgrade different opinions, but that merely reflects their terror at genuine ideational diversity.

[johnforbes]

But usages such as "faux news" are not amusing, or witty, or anything but juvenile.

The notion inherent in that is that there is a real news -- the standard ideological fare you find on CNN and NBC.

But CNN, CBS, NBC, the NY Times, the Baltimore Sun, the Washington Post, the NY Times, the LA Times, et al. are essentially just house organs for the White House.

It is NOT healthy for America to lack media outlets which will speak truth to power (as the cliche went).

It is great that Fox News provides an alternative to the standard Left Wing news.

Liberals try to downgrade different opinions, but that merely reflects their terror at genuine ideational diversity

[BilboBagend]

aw, little wannabe fuax doesn't like the completely accurate label of "faux" being applied to obvious "faux"s.

That seems rational. Completely dishonest, but perfectly rational.

[brandon]

General Mills Starts Making Some Cheerios Without GMO

General Mills has started producing Cheerios free of genetically modified content, making the 73-year-old breakfast cereal one of the highest-profile brands to change in the face of growing complaints over such ingredients.

General Mills Inc. has started producing Cheerios free of genetically modified content, making the 73-year-old breakfast cereal one of the highest-profile brands to change in the face of growing complaints over such ingredients from activist groups and some consumers.

The change—which only affects original Cheerios, not other varieties like Honey Nut Cheerios—has been in the works since about a year ago, when General Mills began working to change manufacturing for Cheerios to eliminate ingredients containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

The company started manufacturing the GMO-free cereal several weeks ago, and expects it to be available to consumers “shortly,” once the products have made their way through the distribution system and onto shelves. The Cheerios will carry the label “Not Made With Genetically Modified Ingredients,” though the company notes that they could contain trace amounts due to contamination in shipping or manufacturing.

Critics of GMO use in foods called attention to the Cheerios move Thursday, hailing it as a major victory. Advocacy groups have raised concerns about possible health problems from eating foods with GMOs, which are crops like corn grown from seeds genetically engineered for desirable traits like pest resistance. The groups have promoted consumer campaigns in some states to mandate labeling of GMOs in food, and targeted specific brands—including Cheerios—and to change their policies.

Most big food companies have rebuffed such efforts, arguing that there is no evidence of any health problems resulting from GMOs despite decades of use. The food companies also generally have refused voluntarily labeling, saying it is costly and will give consumers a misconception that GMOs are harmful.

“There is broad consensus that food containing GMOs is safe, but we decided to move forward with this in response to consumer demand,” said Mike Siemienas, spokesman for General Mills.

The Minneapolis-based company said it chose Cheerios because the primary ingredient is oats, a crop that isn’t grown from genetically modified seeds, so the transition just required it to find new sources of cornstarch and sugar.

“Even that required significant investment,” Mr. Siemienas said. He didn’t provide a figure, but said that the hurdles would make it “difficult, if not impossible” to make Honey Nut Cheerios and other varieties without GMOs.

GMO Inside, a campaign that advocates GMO labeling, said Cheerios is the first major brand of packaged food in the U.S. to make the switch from containing GMOs to marketing itself as non-GMO. Some foreign countries have restricted GMO use in food for years.

Other companies have also said they plan to change. Whole Foods Market Inc. said it will require by 2018 that all food in its stores containing GMOs, disclose the fact on labels. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. and Kellogg Co.’s Kashi, which markets its cereals and snacks as having “natural ingredients,” have both said they are working on taking GMOs out of their food.

But it is a lengthy and expensive process. Kashi says only 1% of U.S. cropland is organic and around 70% of packaged foods contain GMOs.

[Grog]

Does General Mills have a deal to put Hot Wheels in their boxes? Or was it Kellog's?


Forbes? I'm hearing rumors you're featuring yourself sporting new, exceptionally snug bike shorts on your credentials site. White Santa?

[johnforbes]

Usages such as "faux news" are not amusing, or witty, or anything but juvenile.

If Bilbo really had a doctorate, he would see past such silliness.

The notion inherent in that is that there is a real news -- the standard ideological fare you find on CNN and NBC.

But CNN, CBS, NBC, the NY Times, the Baltimore Sun, the Washington Post, the NY Times, the LA Times, et al. are essentially just house organs for the White House.

It is NOT healthy for America to lack media outlets which will speak truth to power (as the cliche went).