BIOENGINEERED FOOD: A POLL
lenapelady
Should foods that have been genetically engineered bear special labeling?
Yes, the consumer has the right to know
No, bioengineered food is no different from Mother Nature's
No, it would just add another layer of bureaucracy to the industry
When I saw it, 79% voted for labelling, 7% said it was no different than
natural.
LL
--
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
KDawn
LL! This kills me.....The govt agencies lambaste the herb and suppliment
companies about what they *claim* in their labeling and insist they stop, they
poopoo all these claims while wanting to take over this area of health to the
point that only THEY will be able to distrubute these items and make the same
claims....ALL they see are dollar signs, none of these agencies give a hoot
about OUR health~it isn't about what is good for us! Monsanto's terminator
Technology is DEAD in the water thanks to public outcry but don't hold your
breath on that because there are other companies sitting at the back door to
do the very thing Monsanto just gave up. Better keep savings your seeds!!
The latest report I received last week was about irradiation and that Tyson
has decided to irradiate all their meat but will not include the symbol for
irradiated foods but instead mention in microscopic print that it is indeed
irradiated. Lets face it they use the labeling to their benefit
only...whether it be the lask of it or use of it...it's always to their
benefit. They WANT to lable foods organic so they cal make the BIG dollars
knowing that more and more people everyday are opting for safer foods....BUT
their idea of Organic DOES NOT meet the guidelines set forth by the NOSB and
WE are still raising hell about this. Their *idea* of organic is, irradiated
foods, using biosolids (Sewer sludge~you know, the junk left over after the
solids are treated~ACK~give me a break), bioengineering AND *inert*
ingredients in the products used as pesticides.....ALL of these things poison
our foods and Glickman and his idiots want to call this ORGANIC?
Gezzzzzzz.....don't get me started. (LOL) After all FDA means Federal Dumb
Asses~doncha know!:)
Kdawn
lenapelady
saying that we overuse antibiotics (and no doubt, we do, to some extent),
and that therefore they aren't working against many things; and of course
that there's new bad things evolving that aren't affected by antibiotics.
HOWEVER.....for how long now have they been feeding antibiotics to cows? IS
THE TRUE OVERDOSAGE coming from beef products?
LL
--
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
KDawn <oakb...@citrus.infi.net> wrote in message
news:387B191E...@citrus.infi.net...
KDawn
with antibiotics, pesticides, fungacides, rbgh plays a big part in this ugly
picture...how could it not. I for one, don't touch the stuff and have not taken
antibiotics in over 24 years and don't plan to if I have anything to say about
the matter. Hopefully, I will never end up that sick where it is a must to save
my life and give me a push in the right direction. And ofcourse they are over
prescribed to begin with as are most drugs. I just roll my eyes everytime I see
a *new* and *improved* (LOLOLOLOL`yeah right!) drug advertised on TV....it will
do ALL that and the side affects ARE: possible headaches, vomiting, diareaha,
dizziness????? ACK!!! Yup~new and improved! (MB!)
K
Kip King
over 110 supplements a day.
> lenapelady wrote:
>
> > CNN is running a poll that asks:
> >
> > Should foods that have been genetically engineered bear special labeling?
> >
> > Yes, the consumer has the right to know
> > No, bioengineered food is no different from Mother Nature's
> > No, it would just add another layer of bureaucracy to the industry
> >
> > When I saw it, 79% voted for labelling, 7% said it was no different than
> > natural.
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com
> >
Kip King
KDawn wrote:
>
> Bingo LL!! I have no doubts that the high consumption of dairy and meat loaded
> with antibiotics, pesticides, fungacides, rbgh plays a big part in this ugly
> picture...how could it not. I for one, don't touch the stuff and have not taken
> antibiotics in over 24 years and don't plan to if I have anything to say about
> the matter. Hopefully, I will never end up that sick where it is a must to save
> my life and give me a push in the right direction. And ofcourse they are over
> prescribed to begin with as are most drugs. I just roll my eyes everytime I see
> a *new* and *improved* (LOLOLOLOL`yeah right!) drug advertised on TV....it will
> do ALL that and the side affects ARE: possible headaches, vomiting, diareaha,
> dizziness????? ACK!!! Yup~new and improved! (MB!)
> K
>
> lenapelady wrote:
>
> > OK, one thing that I've been wondering about. Recently, doctors have been
> > saying that we overuse antibiotics (and no doubt, we do, to some extent),
> > and that therefore they aren't working against many things; and of course
> > that there's new bad things evolving that aren't affected by antibiotics.
> >
> > HOWEVER.....for how long now have they been feeding antibiotics to cows? IS
> > THE TRUE OVERDOSAGE coming from beef products?
> >
> > LL
> >
> > --
> > What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
> > -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
> >
> > KDawn <oakb...@citrus.infi.net> wrote in message
> > news:387B191E...@citrus.infi.net...
bewitagos
"When I saw it, 79% voted for labelling, 7% said it was no different than
natural."
That same seven percent probably think that the earth is flat too.
What I find ironic, is that they've been tampering with the food supply for
decades now, is this "new" bioengineering any more dangerous than the growth
hormones <and who knows what else> that we already consume daily?
Jimmie
theg...@bigfoot.com
bacterias and
viruses. Many of the new bacterial strains and diseases are only the tip of the ice
berg
and many more super-resistant bacterias will be mutating and evolving as the GE
seeds
mix with the ecosystem that we all live in. Dag, the amount of diseases that have
already
been proven to have been caused by GE is growing ( have listed the prsat site
before),
CNS problems and the growing ever popular blood disease -not so rare anymore- where
the hemoglobins overproduce and patients need to get bled, there are so many more.
The
dairy and meat products are now only one factor of antibiotic resistant bacteria,
those will
no doubt be mutating with these newly man-mixed strains. Humans also have their own
resistant microbes living within from decades of improper antibiotic consumption.
We have
unknowingly (most of us from following Dr.'s orders) created our own resevoir of
little mighty
bugs. Thanks, Jennifer
William McLaughlin
wrote:
>OK, one thing that I've been wondering about. Recently, doctors have been
>saying that we overuse antibiotics (and no doubt, we do, to some extent),
>and that therefore they aren't working against many things; and of course
>that there's new bad things evolving that aren't affected by antibiotics.
>
>HOWEVER.....for how long now have they been feeding antibiotics to cows? IS
>THE TRUE OVERDOSAGE coming from beef products?
Dear LL:
From what I hear, much of it is. That's why I eat only
natural meat and dairy products. It's more expensive and hard to find
(thank goodness for FRESH FIELDS), but I think it's worth it.
Because of their relatively high fat content, meat and dairy
products are the biggest source of fat soluble (i.e. persistent in the
body over long periods) pollutants in our diets. If you go organic on
nothing else, eating natural meat and dairy products can substantially
reduce your intake of pollutants and antibiotics.
All the best,
Mac
(Copy sent via email.)
-----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MC LAUGHLIN
vaga...@voicenet.com
Affiliation: Card-carrying member of the Whiteboy Tribe
Indian Name: Running Joke
Power Animal: Brontosaurus (mine's bigger!)
-----------------------------------------------------
A Criminal is a person with predatory instincts without sufficient
capital to form a corporation."
---Clarence Darrow
KDawn
very subject as well as asking everyone to write their local reps. I can only hope we
do as well with this as we did regarding the govts *attempt* to change the rules of the
National Organic Standards Board last year.
As to your question Jimmie. This *not so new* technicology, imho, has far reaching
dangers as it is being applied here as *they manipulate the very fabric of life. (*words
from the articl) I won't go into all that here and make everyone nuts but I will list
some web sites for all those interested in learning more about this. When you really
sit and read all there is to know about this, it will boggle your mind...but then maybe
not, after all, it's not as though many do not know just how ugly and greedy this govt
is and always has been when is comes to *people*. These Frankenfoods are bad news.
There are many foreign countries that refuse to accept any of these G.E. foods from the
us and many here in the us have been consuming them for a long time now without even
knowing it. The corn used in certain brands of corn chips is G.E. corn...one third of
the corn grown is but that is only ONE product and there are NO labels so this is the
first thing we need to demand, we have the right to know and make an educated choice.
The only way to avoid this mess is to stick with certified organic and that is very hard
for many to do if it is not available. The long reaching consequences of this very
uncharted techinology is very scary, even to those of us that grow our own food because
ultimatily it will reach our crops too by sheer use of the wind and then what...cross
pollenization and there goes the seeds of life that have been around for eons. We
aren't talking mere hybrids here(which occurs naturally to an extent as it was meant
to) we are talking monsterfoods. And just the fact that these foods have dna added
from viruses and pesticides and antibiotics is even more reason to believe that this
certainly will affect our resistance just as the crap in the dairy goods. The FDA
certainly has nothing~NOTHING!! set up test any of this~it hasn't been tested~*we* are
the testers. So what else is new? Ofcourse, there are always two side to every
story...sometimes more:) so one of the sites below will give you the other sides
opinions.
Oh, and fyi The Senate has named January *BioTechnology Month*~does that tell you
anything. <grin>
OK I will shut up now! :) here are some sites~
http://www.OrganicGardening.com/
http://www.psrast.org/
http://www.bio.org/welcome.html
Enjoy!
K
Kip King
only.
lenapelady wrote:
>
> OK, one thing that I've been wondering about. Recently, doctors have been
> saying that we overuse antibiotics (and no doubt, we do, to some extent),
> and that therefore they aren't working against many things; and of course
> that there's new bad things evolving that aren't affected by antibiotics.
>
> HOWEVER.....for how long now have they been feeding antibiotics to cows? IS
> THE TRUE OVERDOSAGE coming from beef products?
>
plpaul
> > > Kdawn
> > >
> > >
CORPORATIONS RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dont try to stop them, sit silently and do nothing.
buy every that is sold. consume consume consume!!!
cheers
KDawn
Oliver Loveday
have organically grown, hand ground corn meal and I know how to make them myself. Tell the
fry bread cook to move over. I'm coming in the kitchen.
Oliver!
KDawn wrote:
--
<((c)¿(c))>
--------------
There is with poetry a dilemma. Having only words to work with, and words are not only
leading, but misleading as well, there is never a concrete form of communication within the
medium.
Oliver Loveday © 11/21/99/11pm EST
Excerpt from: The Confused Memoirs of a Disillusioned Artist, Anecdotes regarding the life
of an artist and satire of the current art scene. A work in progress.
http://www.oliver.nxs.net/memoirs.htm
KDawn
ofcourse you know that in order to take the Head Chefs place in *the* kitchen that you have to
have the Frybread down Pat first~(ducking) :)))
K
Kalera
isn't that it's gross... it's not, really, not in the sense of being dirty or
full of bacteria... it's that it *IS* full of dangerous heavy metals such as
mercury and other inorganic toxins which are then found in the plants grown
using it as fertilizer... or in the unfortunate case of the French, in animals
FED the sludge. These toxins are incredibly dangerous, ESPECIALLY to children
and pregnant women, and there's absolutely no excuse for exposing people to
them via commercial foods!
-Kalera (kale...@aol.com), mommy to Juliet (January 29, 1998) and Sam
(October 9, 1999) and wife to Chris, the best husband ever.
Independent rep for non-toxic household cleaning supplies & topnotch water
filtration: www.trekalliance.com ID# 136641
KDawn
K :)
Angela
(From Environment News Service)
Trading in Biotech Organisms: Can It Be Safe?
OXFORD, UK, January 6, 2000 (ENS) - Biotechnology and international
trade in genetically modified organisms is high on the international
agenda this month.
Scientists can now transfer genetic material - DNA, the biochemical
instructions governing the development of cells and organisms - through
biochemical means to radically alter the genetic structure of individual
living cells. They can introduce a great diversity of genes into plants,
animals, and micro-organisms almost instantly.
While some believe that modern biotechnology promises improvements in
human well-being, these procedures raise ethical, environmental, and
health issues. These concerns are being picked up this month in two
arenas where negotiations stumbled last year.
The world's governments are resuming talks towards a legally binding
biosafety agreement in Montreal on January 24 after negotiations in
Colombia were suspended 11 months ago. They will be dealing with
reduction of potential risks from the transboundary movement of living
modified organisms.
In another forum, trade diplomats are preparing for resumption of
World Trade Organization (WTO) talks. Agriculture is up for
negotiation, and the products of biotechnology are in the spotlight.
WTO Gears Up for Talks
The WTO General Council on December 17, 1999 decided to postpone
until early 2000 a decision on how to proceed with issues outstanding
from the Seattle Ministerial Conference. The WTO meeting collapsed
in disarray December 3, in Seattle, Washington after environmental
and labor protesters disrupted proceedings during the first two days
of a four day meeting.
On Wednesday, at the 54th Annual Farming Conference in Oxford, England,
August Schumacher, Jr., Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, called for
quick action to launch another round of global trade talks.
Facilitating trade in the products of new technologies, including
biotechnology, is one of the five essentials for the new round of WTO
talks, Schumacher said.
"The concept of a working group on biotechnology was a topic of vigorous
debate by WTO members at the [Seattle] Ministerial. We still think that
a biotech working group is the best way to address this issue. Besides,
there are many forums legitimately discussing biotechnology - the Codex
Alimentarius Commission, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, the Biosafety Protocol. However, the trade aspects of
the agricultural biotechnology issue should also be addressed in the
WTO context, as well as bilaterally," said Schumacher.
U.S. President Bill Clinton and European Commission President Romano
Prodi have agreed to high level talks on biotechnology and to consult
with those outside government in this process, Schumacher told the
farm meeting. The approval processes for biotech products and market
access will be up for discussion.
A consultative forum that will advise the two leaders is expected to
include scientists, academics, consumers, and environmental groups.
The United States has also formed an agricultural partnership with
China focusing on technical exchanges in biotechnology, aquaculture,
and natural resources and the environment. At the Seattle
Ministerial, China recommitted to this agreement, Schumacher said.
This agreement is separate from the bilateral WTO agreement and is
not contingent on China's WTO accession which is now in process.
Biosafety Treaty Talks to Resume
The latest attempt to agree on a Biosafety Protocol under the existing
Convention on Biological Diversity took place last February in
Cartagena, Colombia. Talks were suspended when officials were unable to
finalize the text in the time available due to a number of outstanding
differences.
Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) include food crops that have been
genetically modified for greater productivity or nutritional value, or
for resistance to pests or diseases. Common examples include tomatoes,
grains, cassava, corn, and soybeans. Seeds for growing crops are
particularly important to negotiators because they are used
intentionally to propagate or reproduce LMOs in the environment.
Together, these agricultural LMOs form the basis of a
multi-billion-dollar global industry.
Pharmaceuticals derived using LMOs form the basis of an even larger
industry.
The biosafety talks reflect growing public concerns about the potential
risks of biotechnology. Many countries with modern biotechnology
industries do have domestic legislation. But there are no binding
international agreements covering LMOs that cross national borders
because of trade or accidental releases.
"The ability of modern biotechnology to contribute to human well-being
in the 21st century will be boosted dramatically if the international
community takes action now to create credible and effective safeguards
for the environment," said Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the
United Nations Environment Programme, which administers the secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity, under which the talks are
taking place.
Governments have disagreed over the proposed scope of the Biosafety
Protocol's regulatory powers. Some have wanted to restrict the scope of
the Protocol to LMOs intended for introduction into the environment,
such as seeds. Others have argued for a broader scope that would include
LMOs that are agricultural commodities or that are used for food, feed,
or processing.
At informal consultations in Vienna in September, there was a general
agreement that the scope should be broad. Negotiators also advanced on a
conceptual framework for designing the practical procedures that would
apply to these commodities.
Another contentious issue is liability: if LMOs enter the environment
and cause damage, who pays? Also unresolved is how to minimize the
potential socio-economic impacts, such as the competitive decline
of traditional crops faced with LMO imports.
Another unresolved question relates to the Protocol's relationship to
other international agreements, particularly those under the World
Trade Organization.
Many developing countries lack the technical, financial, institutional,
and human resources to address biosafety. They need greater capacity for
assessing and managing risks, establishing adequate information systems,
and developing expert human resources in biotechnology.
"Reducing unnecessary and potentially catastrophic risks is in the best
interest of everyone - developed and developing countries, consumers and
industry, and all those who care deeply about our natural environment,"
Toepfer said.
The negotiating groups in the Biosafety Protocol process are the
Miami Group (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Uruguay, and the
U.S.), the European Union, the Central and Eastern European Countries,
the Compromise Group, and the Like-Minded Group of Countries which
includes most of the developing countries.
WTO Rules and Biosafety Protocol Could Conflict - Biosafety is a
new term used to describe efforts to reduce and eliminate the
potential risks resulting from biotechnology and its products. It is
based on the precautionary principle, which states that the lack of
full scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse to postpone
action when there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage.
The commercialization of biotechnology has spawned multi-billion-dollar
industries for foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals that continue to grow at a
dramatic pace.
Under WTO rules, the regulation of trade must be based on "sound
scientific knowledge."
Under environmental regimes, the agreed standard of proof is the
precautionary principle.
The WTO does not accept socio-economic concerns, such as the risk
that exports of genetically engineered crops may replace traditional
ones and undermine local cultures and traditions in importing countries.
The subsidiary agreements of the WTO, including the Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Agreement, Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement,
and the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property , also
contain specific provisions that apply to the biosafety issue.
Angela : )
Kalera
research to genetically alter cows to produce milk that is more similar to
human milk.
Uuuuuugggghhhh.
theg...@bigfoot.com
KDawn
k
ps/Where did you read this Kalera?
Anuh1
macc...@aol.comsee.sig (Kalera) writes:
>Dunno if anyone's interested in this one, but Nestle is currently conducting
>research to genetically alter cows to produce milk that is more similar to
>human milk.
>
>Uuuuuugggghhhh.
>
>
Mind-boggling....
Kalera
longtime members there, who actually has spoken to Nestle. They intend to use
it to make infant formula... of all the insidious ways of getting genetically
altered food into our lives, feeding it to BABIES! Yet another reason that we
must promote and encourage breastfeeding as much as possible.
In article <38873AC3...@citrus.infi.net>, KDawn wrote:
>HURL!!! ARE they NUTZ!
>k
>ps/Where did you read this Kalera?
-Kalera (kale...@aol.com), mommy to Juliet (January 29, 1998) and Sam
PBTrue
Already the milk we give our children contains all the contaminants
and hormones and chemicals they put in to the soil and feed.
Nature's way is the best.
Hope the bio-technicians catch on soon.
Peace,
--
PBTrue
pb_...@email.com
Clyde Crashcup
macc...@aol.comsee.sig (Kalera) said:
> On the breastfeeding news group... it was posted by one of the
> respected longtime members there, who actually has spoken to
> Nestle. They intend to use it to make infant formula... of all
> the insidious ways of getting genetically altered food into our
> lives, feeding it to BABIES! Yet another reason that we must
> promote and encourage breastfeeding as much as possible.
There may be more insidious things out there - like getting genetically
altered products into human milk, THEN feeding it to babies! Many things
pass into human milk.
There are genetically engineered staple crops - a strain of corn and a
strain of potato - that have been altered to produce powerful pesticides.
The potato in particluar is so toxic that the WHOLE PLANT is registered AS
A DANGEROUS PESTICIDE with the EPA. Were a farmer to apply the chemical
this potato makes to his crops, he'd be in big trouble. Yet, we can be fed
this unknowingly, since there are no regulations to prevent it. And much
money spent to keep it that way.
All kinds of pesticides have been shown to pass into human milk. In
mammals, many pesticides, even taken in minute quantities, accumulate
slowly to dangerous levels. I knew a woman who lived across the James River
from Hopewell, VA, home of the infamous Kepone spill. Several years after
moving away from the area, her breastfed baby got kepone poisoning.
Things to think about. And more reasons to get rid of genetic engineered
Frankenfood once and for all, by all means possible.
____
---/ ^^ \--- Sincerely,
-----< ____ >----- Clyde B. Crashcup
---\____/--- formerly of many titles
(Eye on monsanto)
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
theg...@bigfoot.com
Would you by any chance have the url for a petition site? I don't think I got
around to signing and I would like to have my opinion known to the companies
that are continuing this. (I had a site saved on my com and can't find it now.
I must've deleted it.) If you don't have it, I can look on my own. It has been
known apparently by the scientific community that there is high disaster
potential with agri-ge since documentation of their objections in the
mid-70s. Although, it has gone on with the encouragement of our own FDA since
the early 50s. I think it was around that time that the us gov/corps wanted to
create a higher nicotine tobacco so that it wouldn't lose all the nicotine in
the tar removal process. Last semester I studied this for a term paper I wrote
and if anyone is doubtful of any facts, I will look through it to double
check. (No, doubt memory can distort.)
Jennifer
Clyde Crashcup
theg...@bigfoot.com said:
Hello Clyde,
> Would you by any chance have the url for a petition site? I
> don't think I got around to signing and I would like to have my
> opinion known to the companies that are continuing this. (I had a
> site saved on my com and can't find it now. I must've deleted
> it.) If you don't have it, I can look on my own.
I don't have a specific url for a petition.
However, a higly recommended place to start looking for it - and anything
else on the whole GE issue is:
http://www.tao.ca/~ban
Bioengineering Action Network
P.O. Box 11703
Eugene, Oregon 97440
(541) 302-5020
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ oO \~@ Sincerely,
/_< \__/ >_\ Clyde Crashcup, the Anti-Clyde (Reconstituted)
\__U_/
/ \
\ /
/|\ /|\
theg...@bigfoot.com
Thank you Clyde.
Jenn