GMO

[nononsensemumof2]

Morrisons, Siansburys, Co-Op and M&S have joined Tesco in allowing GMO fed chickens on their shelves.! This is the tip of the ice burg.!
There is an International protest against GMO on 25th May, I urge you all to organise to join in, if you value choice about what you eat, because if GMO is allowed into our food chain, we will have let the genie out of the bottle, forever.!
Cross contamination and patented law suits will be the order of the day, if we allow Monsanto to get a foot hold on our food supply.
Not only is this vile virus a health hazard to humans, but it is destroying our environment too, re bees, etc.
Plus it is attempting to own Mother Nature via its patented seeds, thereby selling us dangerous produce with a corporate stamp.!
We must all wake up to this onslaught against nature and our right to chose. Please get out in force and demand an end to this profit lead evil against nature now.

I'm sorry but the tryptophan example is completely and utterly irrelevant.

That is an example of a GMO being used to produce a therapeutic product. Nothing to do with the food chain. In no way comparable.

L-trytophan is a dietary supplement.

The US has now reversed its 20 year ban on the over the counter sale of the supplement

[http://www.hollandandbarrett.com/HealthNotes-Search?search=%2Fassets%2Ffeature%2Fl-tryptophan-is-back_11489_4%2F~default]]

www.hollandandbarrett.com/HealthNotes-Search?search=%2Fassets%2Ffeature%2Fl-tryptophan-is-back_11489_4%2F~default

Fair point. But it's produced in the same way as a therapeutic would be.

It is a Completely different and non comparable example.

And if you weren't so selective in your cut and paste from wikipedia you would have given a more balanced rationale which included a desctiption of how the manufacturers cut corrners with the purification which ime is likely to be a more realistic explaination of how the tryptophan was less pure. It also talks about how the body could respond to an 'over use' of tryptophan and make its own toxic products in response.

Just trying to add some balance...

Edwinia, that is why I linked to the complete article so that people could read it all. I am only highlighting some significant aspects.

And I'm highlighting the other significant aspects so that the debate on mn remains balanced :)

Some people believe that GM is just about politics and billions of dollars etc.

Many of us, however, believe it is about health. I am not just worried about the food chain or billions of dollars.

I am worried about all aspects of health - whether that be the food we eat or the medicine, supplemens or therapeutics we may take which may have been in part genetically engineered.

Edwinia, you are right

This has been a balanced debate on all sides, thanks to nononsensemumof2's thread.

Thread is hilarious. The definition of DNA, the phantom 'male' interlocutors, Evil GM overlords, Godwin and all.

claig, I remember nothing of the historic week in the nineties and the Daily Mail is not a respected scientific journal like the National Enquirer. Now that's a paper for serious fact lovers.

'I remember nothing of the historic week in the nineties'

It was legendary. I was there, I saw it unfold. I have never marched or protested against anything in my life, but even I phoned up a major green organisation and said "when are we going to start to end it?" and all they could say was "contact your local area".

As a great man once wrote about that historic week in the early nineties

"There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries"

and all the green organisation could say was "contact your local area".

Shakespeare himself could not have penned such a tragedy.

We came, we saw, we lost

I'm with Claig on this. Seeds of Deception is a very good book. And just because nonsensemum came across, umm, not very well, this thread turned farciacal about what is actually a serious subject. The genetical modification of our crops by a few biotech companies with enormous power with the US Govt.
If the internet had been a big thing when the BSE in meat crisis broke you lot would have called the first whistle blowers 'swivel eyed loons' as well.
Its not just the saftey aspect but the fact these companies have the power to force farmers to grow their seeds and leave little choice in the matter. Do we really want our food supplies in the hands of a food huge corporations? Genetically altered for profit, to withstand even more toxic chemicals?
Not me. And if they are out there, I want them labelled. Something that Monsanto have been resisting.

Back to 4chan with ya! That was some funny shit though.

Can I just point out something whatshername2 tried to slip through earlier:
"Studies have proven that GMO fed to rats causes tumours"
NO, this is NOT true

Not even the most hairbrained Daily Mail links that claig posted earlier would claim such utter nonsense

I'm going back to my and now. Sorry for shouting.

It's worth remembering that GM is not a thing, but a technique. People often conflate concerns about the goals people using the technique, concerns about the resulting crops bred using the technique and concerns about the technique itself.

For example, a lot of people say that they don't like genetically modified crops because they're created by Monsanto.

Here's an example of a UK research institute, funded by the UK government, running a trial of wheat which has been genetically modified to produce the same insect-repelling smell that other plants can produce already. The idea is that you could cut down on putting pesticides on your crop, because the crop would be using its own anti-pest techniques. Do people have the same concerns about this particular breed of wheat, and if so, what are they?

"Do people have the same concerns about this particular breed of wheat, and if so, what are they?"

Yes, I have concerns about this type of wheat. I believe the public has the right to have this type of food labelled and there should be labels on all food that uses any of it. Just as the chemicals that make up toothpaste or shampoo are listed on the back of the product, so food containing GM crops should also be labelled.

That way, the public can make its choice.

The biotech bigwigs might want to eat it, but I would prefer to have a choice.

So would you be happy if the bread made from the wheat was available in the shops, but had the wheat variety listed in the ingredients?

I wonder whose food the public would buy then. Organic food made by small independent farmers who have been in decline for yers, but may then see a resurgence, or food containing GMOs supplied by large multi-billion dollar conglomerates.

From this thread, it is pretty clear what nononsensemumof2 would choose and why.

I expect that people would probably make a range of choices, much as they do now. Some people buy on farming practice, some buy local or seasonal, some buy on convenience, some buy on price, some buy on quality.

'So would you be happy if the bread made from the wheat was available in the shops, but had the wheat variety listed in the ingredients?'

Yes, because I am a realist. I know that ordinary people can't stop these lobbies and corporations, so we have to have the best compromise we can find, and that is for strict labelling which allows us the chance to choose.

I wouldn't buy it. I realise that some people wouldn't care and would just want cheap food. Even though I think that that is misguided, I realise that nothing will change the influence of the lobbies.

That historic week in the early nineties has gone. We had our chance then and all we got in response was "contact your local area".

'I expect that people would probably make a range of choices'

So why do the billion dollar lobbies often seek to deny us the right to choose by not supporting strict labelling? What are they scared of? They told us it is safe. Do they think we don't believe them?

Do their beliefs and profits override ours?

If they want to make a silk purse out of sow's ear, at least let them label it as such, so that the public is aware of what they are buying.

Claig, I can't work out if you are a troll, mad, a tinfoilhelmet nutter or all of the above.
Firstly, your blind adherence to whatever the OP says is frankly freaking me out. As is your belief that if someone, anyone, pops up on MN and gives us there merest hint of there being a protest, we should be on bended knee thanking her, rather than asking for any facts.
If someone came to your door collecting for a charity and told you nothing other than 'you should support this', would you give them money?

Secondly, you seem so incredibly obsessed with this cause that you have admitted you know very little about that you are spamming us with any old links you can find on the internet, while telling us you worship at the alter of the Daily Mail (which is why I can't help but wonder if you really are just a troll). And trotting out some smashing cliches, which are befitting of that 'Daily Mail headline generator' website of old.

Thirdly, and this is what I'm finding really odd, is that you don't know why GM is/could be 'bad', what is 'bad' about it, or why any of us should think it is 'bad'.

You've trotted out a load of easily debunked myths - organic farmers are in decline. Not true.
Monsanto are making billions from this. Not true.

All you are missing now is telling us there is a government conspiracy. If you could tell us a backstory about ministers/senators/kings being friends/cousins/non-exec directors of Monsanto, it would tick my last bullshit bingo square. Go on, make my day...

"Claig, I can't work out if you are a troll, mad, a tinfoilhelmet nutter or all of the above."

You missed one option out. None of the above, but rather an informed thinker somewhat in the vein of nononsensemumof2.

'If someone came to your door collecting for a charity and told you nothing other than 'you should support this', would you give them money?'

Certainly not, and it is the same if someone knocks on my door and asks me to support New Labour.

'Secondly, you seem so incredibly obsessed with this cause that you have admitted you know very little about that you are spamming us with any old links you can find on the internet'

I am not obsessed with it. I just have a different belief to your credulous one. I am not spamming links. I am finding links to show that there are concerns about it, even if you are so credulous as to believe that there are none.

'Thirdly, and this is what I'm finding really odd, is that you don't know why GM is/could be 'bad', what is 'bad' about it, or why any of us should think it is 'bad'.'

Of course I know why.

I share the concerns of Labour MP Michael Meacher rather than your credulous naievete.

"This is a brilliant book which combines shrewd dissection of the true nature of GM technology, a devastating critique of the health and environmental hazards of GM crops, and scarifying examples of the manipulation of both science and the media by the biotech industry... What is so exciting about this book is that it is no dry text of scientific exegesis?it positively fizzes with the human drama of the cabals and conspiracies behind the scenes... It is meticulously documented and powerfully written, somewhere between a documentary and a thriller."

?From the UK edition foreword by Michael Meacher, former UK environment minister