What is your take
on genetically engineered foods?

Is it illegal
for farmers to use non GMO seed in India?


GMO = Genetically Modified Organism

The 'GMO' genie is out of the bottle. You will not put it back. You will not be ABLE to put it back. The seeds and pollen are in the wild now - they will cross-breed and hybridize NON-GMO crops - and then Monsanto will file suit to collect fees from the farmers who never wanted to use GMO in their field because their crops became contaminated with GMO pollen by airborne means. This is why I buy heirloom produce from farmers markets ...

India is showing some common sense by disallowing the use of GMO eggplant, but they're fighting a losing battle.

I try to only buy organic ...
but many products in US
are modified as well.

Corn is the largest GMO crop here - and that's primarily to pay off the agribid'nesses like ADM so they can make tons of money from their ethanol subsidy for 'green' 'energy' ... what BS ... Yellow crookneck squash is also heavily GM'ed ... the list is long and it ain't gonna get any shorter ... be careful what you buy ...

Oh - the 'RoundUp Resistant' strains are contributing to greater usage of RoundUp and other herbicides, too ... seems it gets into the weeds too and makes THEM 'RoundUp Resistant' ...

We are just starting to wake up to where this is going.
Watch the movie, "Food Inc." & see what you think.

Is the movie a documentary
or something fictional?

GMOs are the dumbest things the human race has come up with ... well close anyway. They create monoculture and destroy unique gene pools.

The move by the US Supreme Court to legalize the ownership of genes, plants, and animals is simply crazy.

Recently, someone patented the corn tortilla. How screwed up is that?

This can't be good!!!

Franken-veggies are more prolific than people think....

I looked up the topic to see what was new. They now have genetically modified pigs who do not need phosphorus supplements.

They are not currently legal for human consumption, but like corn, it is just a matter of time.

This type of food is mostly banned in England and Europe. We do not know the long term consequences except that the corn has now pollinated crops far from where they were planted and are now changing historic species of corn in Mexico.

Some plants are genetically altered to produce pesticides.

OY VEY......

I feel an eating disorder coming on.........

SUPERMARKET NEWS FORECASTS NON-GMO UPRISING



By Jeffrey Smith
January 17, 2010

NewsWithViews.com

For a couple of years, the Institute for Responsible Technology has predicted that the US would soon experience a tipping point of consumer rejection against genetically modified foods; a change we're all helping to bring about. Now a December article in Supermarket News supports both our prediction and the role the Institute is playing.

"The coming year promises to bring about a greater, more pervasive awarenes" of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, wrote Group Editor Robert Vosburgh, in a trade publication that conventional food executives and retailers use as a primary source of news and trends in the industry. Vosburgh describes how previous food "culprits" like fat and carbs "can even define the decade in which they were topical," and suggests that GMOs may finally burst through into the public awareness and join their ranks.

Vosburgh credits two recent launches with "the potential to spark a new round of concern among shoppers who are today much more attuned to the ways their food is produced." One is our Institute's new non-GMO website, which, he says, "provides consumers with a directory of non-GMO brands . . . developed ‘for the 53% of Americans who say they would avoid GMOs if labeled.'"

The other launch is the Non-GMO Project, offering "the country's first consensus-based guidelines, which include third-party certification and a uniform seal for approved products. . . . The organization also requires documented traceability and segregation to ensure the tested ingredients are what go into the final product."

He alerts supermarket executives that, "the growth of the organic (which bans GMO ingredients), local and green product categories reflects a generation of consumers who could be less tolerant of genetic modification."

Please allow me to sit back with an I-told-you-so grin of satisfaction. Two years ago, I wrote a newsletter article describing three components that would move the market on GMOs:

1. The Non-GMO Project's new "widely accepted definition for non-GMO" would spark a GMO cleanout, starting with the brands in the natural food industry.

Our Institute endorses the Non-GMO Project and encourages food companies to enroll their products with this excellent nonprofit organization. Their official seal was introduced in October 2009 and has quickly become the national standard for meaningful non-GMO claims.

2. "Providing clear Non-GMO product choices" with our Non-GMO Shopping Guide would make it easier for consumers to select "non-GMO products by brand and category."

The same Guide is available as a website, a spread in magazines, a pocket guide, a two-sided download, and coming soon, a mobile phone application.

3. "Educating Health-Conscious Shoppers" about the health effects of GMOs is the key means by which GMOs will become a marketing liability—the next culprit.



Past culprits drove the market because of consumer beliefs that were unhealthy. In the same way, evidence demonstrating the health dangers of GMOs is already igniting an anti-GMO fever. In 2009, for example, the prestigious American Academy of Environmental Medicine urged doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients, based on evidence that GMOs fed to lab animals triggered diseases and disorders.

GMO Rejection Will Be Widespread

The prognosis in Supermarket News overlooks critical differences between GMOs and the other culprits. Fats, carbs, salt, and sugar each offer unmistakable consumer appeal. As a result, food companies offer options with them, without them, and at low levels.

Genetically modified (GM) foods, however, don't offer a single consumer benefit. The five major GMOs—soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, and sugar beets—are gene-spliced to either tolerate poisonous herbicides, or produce poisonous insecticides. Consumers never clamor for them.

Also unlike the other culprits, companies can usually eliminate GMOs without even changing recipes. Purchasers can simply instruct suppliers to provide the non-GMO soy and corn derivatives, the non-GMO sugar, etc., as Trader Joe's and Whole Foods have already done for their home brands.

Therefore, when major food companies notice even tiny losses in market share, their GMO cleanout will be widespread. Kraft Foods and others will recognize that the same consumer trend that forced them to remove all GM ingredients in Europe and Japan has reared its head in the States.

Consumer Opinion Already Poised Against Biotech

We're already seeing the momentum build against genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most dairies have shunned the controversial drug that is now synonymous with "increased cancer risk" in the minds of many consumers. (The recent condemnation of the hormone by the American Public Health Association will help nail its coffin shut.)

In the case of GMOs, the proportion of US consumers needed to avoid brands that contain GM soy and corn, etc. is quite small—probably only 5%. That means that the purchasing power (and trend setting ability) of 15 million people or 5.6 million households can turn GMOs into a marketing liability. But when you look at the numbers, no matter how you slice it, they add up to a coming non-GMO tidal wave.


About 28 million health-conscious Americans regularly buy organic. About 87 million are strongly opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. And 159 million say they would avoid GMOs if labeled. While most people do not conscientiously avoid brands with GM ingredients, its usually because they don't know how. That's where our Non-GMO Shopping Guide comes in—disseminated far and wide in 2010.


Vosburgh says that in the food industry, culprits "can even define the decade in which they were topical. In the '80s, it was fat; in the '90s, it was carbs." We won't need a full decade to send GMOs packing. Although I can't forecast the exact timing, I'll wager one prediction. By this time next year, Monsanto—the largest GMO producer—is not going to be happy.


http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey129.htm

(NaturalNews) Consumers may soon have a new "Frankenfood" to contend with as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will soon decide whether or not to approve genetically-modified (GM) salmon as food. If approved, the GM salmon -- known as AquAdvantage -- will be the first GM animal officially authorized for human consumption in the U.S.

Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc., the company responsible for the new "Frankenfish", has been seeking approval for it from the FDA since 1995. By programming salmon genes to continuously produce growth hormone, scientists from the company have been able to make their engineered fish grow to full size in less than 250 days, as opposed to the 400 days it takes for a natural Atlantic salmon to grow. This, they say, will improve the fish economy and reduce environmental stress.

The company claims that the fish are sterile, pose no environmental or health threats and taste just like the real thing, but not everyone is convinced. In fact, previous studies have shown just the opposite to be true.

Talk about insanity ! ! !

All of these experiments must be a huge threat
to the future of the earth's environment
and, more so, the existance of mankind.

That made me think of the scifi flick Space Truckers where they have "square-pigs" for easier shipping.

they can grow square watermelons now...

[NewScientist] By far the most common genetically modified (GM) organisms are crop plants. But the technology has now been applied to almost all forms of life, from pets that glow under UV light to bacteria which form HIV-blocking "living condoms" and from pigs bearing spinach genes to goats that produce spider silk.

GM tomatoes, as puree, first appeared on British supermarket shelves in 1996 (a different fresh GM tomato first appeared in the US in 1994), but the consumer furore that surrounded GM technology did not erupt until February 1999. This was because a controversial study suggested that a few strains of GM potatoes might be toxic to laboratory rats. Those experiments, subsequently criticised by other experts, were carried out in Scotland by biochemist Arpad Pustzai.

What followed was a European anti-GM food campaign of near religious fervour. Spearheaded in the UK by environmental groups and some newspapers, the campaign would have far-reaching consequences. It culminated in an unofficial moratorium on the growth and import of GM crops in Europe and led to a trade dispute with the US.

GM crops are today very rare in Europe, strict labelling laws and regulations are in place for food (DNA bar codes), and public opinion towards the technology remains largely negative. Several UK government reports have offered qualified support for GM crops and produce, though they argue that the economic benefits of the technology are currently small. Some African nations have also opposed engineered crops, even to the point of rejecting international food aid containing them.

GM produce has been taken up with far less fuss in the US (where it does not have to be labelled), India, China, Canada, Argentina, Australia and elsewhere. However controversy over a type of GM corn - only approved for animal feed - which turned up in taco shells and other products stirred opinion in the US.