• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Vote Yes on Prop 37

Haywood said:
GreatDane said:
Huey said:
While I have no problem with labeling foods that contain GMO crops, problem is, everything will be labeled because most of the corn and soybeans grown here in the US are GMO crops. Do we go as far as to start labeling clothes, as they probably contain GMO cotton?

I don't know of any danger of GMO cotton but I never tried to eat my blue jeans. :teasing-neener: . But yeah, the idea is to eliminate GMO foods. Death to Monsatan.

Yes dog, only in CA.

There is a growing body of evidence that GM wheat is contributing to obsesity, due to a protein that stimulates hunger. This protein has other bad side effects too and does not exist in natural wheat. Unfortunately, almost all wheat is GM and has been for years. A lot of this GM stuff got crammed through without nearly the scrutiny it should have received.

Scott, where did you hear this? As far as I know, there is no GMO wheat on the market. Monsanto had plans to release Roundup Ready wheat years ago, but shelved the plans due to European issues. All of the wheat grown today is normal wheat that was produced under normal agricultural practices.

That's the problem with today's internet society, too many half truths and misconceptions, that science seems to take a back seat. I'm not saying that a company like Monsanto isn't greedy and out to capture every dollar they can, but they are all like that.
 
Just a link to backup that there is no GMO wheat out there currently. :text-link:

I will say, that I have heard that with high fructose corn syrup in just about everything, that it may be part of the problem with the skyrocketing diabetes and obesity. That is a different argument though, as all corn would be responsible for that, and not just gmo corn.
 
Haywood said:
There is a growing body of evidence that GM wheat is contributing to obsesity, due to a protein that stimulates hunger.

I thought all proteins that we consume were broken down into amino acids and then our bodies use those amino acids (and other amino acids that the body produces) to build the proteins it needs.
 
Huey said:
Just a link to backup that there is no GMO wheat out there currently. :text-link:

I will say, that I have heard that with high fructose corn syrup in just about everything, that it may be part of the problem with the skyrocketing diabetes and obesity. That is a different argument though, as all corn would be responsible for that, and not just gmo corn.

Here's an interesting snippet about HFCS from a study at Princeton:
High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there are at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.

As Huey stated, that's a corn issue, not just a GMO corn issue.
 
You guys who endorse GM foods should have the right to put into your bodies whatever you choose. We all should. It's your body. It's your family.

No matter what I post, no matter how many links I post, you all will still stand by your beliefs and consider my view as a conspiracy. That's fine with me. I didn't start this thread to start a debate. If you're reading this topic and weren't aware of the GMO conflict and are reading more to educate yourself then I'm happy.
 
This is the first thread I recall seeing about GMOs. In fact, this is the first time I'd ever heard of that acronym. I obviously knew about Monsanto and I knew there was some controversy over their seed but no real details. Again, I just did wikipedia and a few quick google searches to at least establish somewhat of a knowledge base. The thing that drew me into the thread was a bunch of fucking entertainers implying that I'm stupid and helpless; that they know everything and I should do what they say without question. Screw that. It's gonna take a lot more than Danny fucking Devito to convince me one way or the other.

So please make your case or point me to other threads that already contain it.
 
Dane, as previously stated, I have no problem with labeling, but it should be based on science not from some group promoting fear with half truths. GMO's have been in the food system for 15+ years, and I don't see an explosion in ill health affects that some people will say happen. Not picking on Haywood here, but I would imagine he read something about gmo wheat from someone that he respected their opinion and took it as the truth. Problem is, it wasn't the truth, but it gets spread around. There never has been any gmo wheat on the market. Not saying that there isn't a link between wheat and obesity, it just isn't because of gmo's.
 
1. Consumers should have the right to choose and to know what they’re eating.

2. The main company (Monsanto) supporting NO on 37 created Agent Orange. The same chemical used over Vietnam.[1]

3. These crops have been proven to cause tumors in lab tests.[2]

4. GMO’s cause liver damage in rats.[3]

5. They cause kidney damage in rats.[4]

6. They cause infertility in rats,[5] and hamsters.[6]

7. They caused hair to grow in the mouths of hamsters.[7]



8.The Biotech giants aren’t required to conduct long term safety studies on GMO’s.[8]

9. GMO’s create super weeds, and super insects that evolve to circumvent the crop protection.[9]

10. Former top executive and lobbyist of the GMO company, Monsanto, Michael R. Taylor was appointed deputy commissioner of foods for the FDA. He helped write the regulation during the Clinton Administration to allow rBGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) into US food and children’s milk which has subjected the public to increase risk for many types of cancer.[10]



11. Michael R. Taylor also fought for “substantial equivalence” during the same time period, to prohibit the distinction between GMO and normal crops.

12. The FDA does no independent testing of GMO’s.[11]

13. GMO crops could cause major ecological damage to the environment that cannot be reversed.[12]

14. If these crops weren’t harmful, the chemical giants wouldn’t finagle to gain higher office in order to change the rules regarding GMO distinction (aka. substantial equivalence. See reason number 7.)

15. Billionaire, Bill Gates, has 500,000 shares held in Monsanto and has openly stated he would like to lower the population by 10-15%. [13]

16. Chemical Companies like Monsanto have spent $7.1 million dollars to defeat prop 37. Together, Companies like Monsanto have raised over $37 million and counting to defeat prop. 37.

17. The companies fighting to label the food are already required to label the food as GMO in over 50 countries in the world.[14] For example, all of Europe, Japan, Australia, and EVEN China.

18. California has the 8th largest Economy in the world. This would serve as an example to other large economies to follow suit.

19. California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the U.S. for more than 50 consecutive years.[15]

20. More than half the nation’s fruit, nuts, and vegetables are grown in California. [16] So half of the nation’s fruits, vegetables and nuts would be labeled GMO: which is why the chemical giants and food corporations are fighting hard to keep their agenda afloat.

21. If these crops weren’t harmful, they would promote them to be labeled just like all of the other ingredients.

22. If it cost these corporations so much money, then why are they spending far more than they would lose labeling the product as they already do in other countries?

23. These Chemical companies spend about a million dollars a day in their campaign to confuse voters about the measure.[17]

24. If food companies have to reformulate their products for California, then they will have to for the rest of the country and the world. This would put a huge dent in GMO cancer causing crops.

25. This is probably the only chance to stop the monopoly of our food supply that companies like Monsanto, Cargill, and Dupont have.

26. Products that are falsely labeled as “natural” and/or “Organic” still contain GMO’s and pesticides. (i.e. Kashi etc.)[18]

27. Monsanto’s definition of GMO’s on their own website: “Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs.”[19]

28. The “No on 37” campaign lied about a Doctor they used in their own commercial which claimed he worked for Stanford University. Dr. Henry Miller was really a “research fellow” from the Hoover institution.[20]



29. Dr. Henry Miller, specialist from the “No on 37” commercial, said that people who were exposed to low radiation levels around Fukushima may have benefited from it.[21]

30. Dr. Henry Miller, the specialist they used and lied about in the “No on 37” commercial, was the founder of the Advance of Sound Science Coalition. A Phillip Morris backed company that tried to discredit the links between tobacco products and cancer.



31. Dr. Henry Miller, (See reasons 27 and 28) has argued for the re-introduction of DDT, a toxic pesticide so bad, that it has been banned since 1972.[22]

32. Dr. Henry Miller, (See previous reasons) is on the scientific advisory board for the George C. Marshall Institute, which is known to be funded by big oil.[23]

33. 90% of Americans want foods containing GMO to be labeled.[24]

34. For the sake of humanity, our children, and our children’s children.

35. Despite popular belief, GMO’s haven’t increased the yields of crops.[25]

36. We are what we eat. So, If we eat Soylent green, then we ARE Soylent green.

37. Millions have already signed petitions telling the FDA to Label GMO’s, as should you. So sign the petition here: http://justlabelit.org/take-action/3
 
Dane, do you read this and believe it all?

Couple of ponts:

I'm not sure if Monsanto created Agent Orange or not, but that is like saying we shouldn't buy Bayer aspirin due to the fact of their involvement with the Nazi's in WWII.

Do you actually believe the Bill Gates comment or it's message?

So all of the fruits, nuts and veggies grown in California are GMO's? The article would have you believe that.

As someone who has personally yield checked normal corn vs it's bt counterpart, I can say with a definite yes, they do increase yield.

They do not create superweeds or superbugs. Through a process of normal selection, resistant pests are selected by improper or overuse. The alternative to feeding a growing world, is the use of pesticides. Now I don't know about you, but given the choice of eating gmo corn, or drink a glass of insecticide, I will choose the corn every time!

Dane, it's ok to be concerned about what you put into your body, but do it based on sound science and fact, not this BS from a bunch of tree hugging, cloud kissing, don't step on the insects group out of California. Last I heard, support for this bill is tanking hard. This comes off more like a Peta campaign. The only thing I took from the article if I was to believe it, is that I probably shouldn't be feeding my hamster gmo corn.
 
15. Billionaire, Bill Gates, has 500,000 shares held in Monsanto and has openly stated he would like to lower the population by 10-15%. [13]

WTF? This is the sort of bullshit reasoning that ticks me off. (Not saying anyone here believes this.) Even if the above two "facts" are true, any connection between them is purely speculative. This sort of sensationalist crap is why I don't put much stock in opponents of GMO. Show me some solid evidence one way or another, not wild fancies.

Note, I admit I have paid little attention to the whole GMO thing. Like CMonster, I tend to view it as a non-issue; the world's population is beyond what can be fed with purely organic techniques. We need science to help things along a little or people will starve. On the other hand, we need some rational, careful, non-biased oversight and testing of new techniques, not sure how best to make that happen.
 
It seems that the discussion has turned to whether genetically modified crops are good for the consumer and/or the environment. That's not the issue at hand, which is whether or not they should be labeled.
 
Towen7 said:
It seems that the discussion has turned to whether genetically modified crops are good for the consumer and/or the environment. That's not the issue at hand, which is whether or not they should be labeled.

Yes the consumer should be as informed as possible.

Regarding the consumption of GMO products, the curmudgeon says the hell with it. At my age WTF. It might actually increase my life and hey what the hell is a few visible genetic mutations. This third arm is pretty handy.
 
Towen7 said:
It seems that the discussion has turned to whether genetically modified crops are good for the consumer and/or the environment. That's not the issue at hand, which is whether or not they should be labeled.

It's believed that the labeling will have a negative connotation and drive consumers away - hence my over-the-top post about embracing the label...
 
Towen7 said:
It seems that the discussion has turned to whether genetically modified crops are good for the consumer and/or the environment. That's not the issue at hand, which is whether or not they should be labeled.

I'll run with this and not waste time with any debate re the safety of GM foods.

I'm done here.
 
Dane, I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't oppose labeling, but in with keeping with the American way, I can almost guarantee you, that most products would be labeled "May contain GMO crops" or something similar. I don't think the American public really cares.
 
Back
Top