Please reference your information as I would like to learn the science behind this.
For a well-researched investigation into GM foods, check out Geoffrey Smithās Seeds of Deception. It provides both the science of GM foods, and examples of where things have gone wrong. It also goes into why regulatory bodies in Australia and America do not conduct safety studies.
Or go to http://www.madge.org.au.
Regretfully, there is more adverse evidence than any of us would like.
Andrew
2 Likes
Compulsory labelling gives consumers choice! As consumers we should be entitled to this.
3 Likes
There is no evidence of harm, or benefits, as GMOs have been unlabelled and there has been no way of tracking any effects they may have on humans. If the GM companies are so confident in the safety of their products, why have they fought so hard against them being labelled? A manufacturerās claim to safety does not have a lot of credibility as they have a vested interest in making a profit from their products.
1 Like
I agree, Andrew, that there is more adverse evidence than we would Like. I found Jeffrey Smithās book "Genetic Rouletteā which covers the documented health risks of GM foods is another excellent reference for people who want to know more about GM foods.
1 Like
I think this is the critical question in the debate!
1 Like
Simple abswer, GM food labelling is barely enforced by FSANZ, many imported products containing GM ingredients are not labeled correctly. Needless to mention that all major GM food crops are engineered to produce their own pesticides through DNA splicing and then get double dose of herbicide and pesticide spraying during their lifetime with cancer causing toxins. All these facts can be checked of course and are often denied by the industry who instead shows short term numbers and short term studiesā¦ The only benefits of GM food crops are profits earned by the industry and their goal as to get more control over the food production via patents and seed monopoly. 50 years ago smoking tabacco was deemed totally safe, now they say GMOs are also totally safe, what a big fat lie!
1 Like
Maybe go to google scholar and see what research has been done. A quick search, this morning had thousands of papers.
A book by any author isnāt peer reviewed, so isnāt necessarily any better than a Pete Evansā opinion.
Iām anti labelling as all GMO foods have to go through a thorough approval process & labelling will just get them banned as we live in a world where people take food and medical advice from actresses, celebrity chefs, questionable, or rather completely unqualified bloggers, such as food babe.
Foods like golden rice could improve the health of millions, if not billions.
Scare campaigns wage by the likes of Gwyneth, Greenpeace or Pete Evans, could reverse these advances.
1 Like
Totally agree Ellebee. The GM Industry has to be the only sector which is dependent on invisibility in order to survive. Why else are we kept in the dark as to where these crops are growing, how they enter the food chain, and into the food supply without requiring any meaningful labelling. As you say if it is unlabelled it is untraceable, and unaccountable.
1 Like
However, David Suzuki, a geneticist, did say about the book āGenetic Rouletteā, āThis book validates the concerns of biotech critics who warned that our knowledge is too primitive to avoid unexpected and deleterious consequencesā.
It was interesting that John Howard over ruled his heath minister who wanted ALL GM ingredients to be labelled. The health minister had done the research and could see the need for GM to be identified but John Howard said it was only to be indicated if it was more than 1%. Why should Australians be kept in the dark; but as usual the government sides with big business.
2 Likes
All canola oil is GM free. There are no inserted or modified genes, proteins or DNA in canola oil. Yes, there are GM canola plants, which help farmers use less pesticide and get higher yields. But the oil they produce has all proteins removed during the refining process before going to market. The plants may be different between GM and non-GM canola, but the oil is exactly the same.
jezzaaaa I know that, I knew the science, what I donāt know is which products I use have used GMOs
I want to be able to pick up something and it tells me no GMO used in making the products.
As it is canola is not bought at all, soy is only bought from Australian sources, ditto corn or maize. Makes it awkward finding out what I am buying, means I have to email every product manufacturer and supermarket when it would be so much simpler that they tell me up front.
Means it is hell for any company trying to bring in a new product, because I really doubt I am the only obnoxious bastard in the country. If a new product comes along, it sounds interesting so I email the manufacturer. And wait.
1 Like
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/938661/the_inside_story_on_monsanto_and_the_glyphosate_birth_defect_data.html
American Bar Association might be a good starter https://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html
I had a lot of information bookmarked, seems Monsanto might be active in getting those pages removed. Are they buying the companies that once ran the stories or using courts to stip us finding out?
- Huffington Post is not a science journal.
- Last time I checked, you have the right to sue for anything, sometimes juries find against companies despite evidence, and the US court system isnāt one to hold up as a great example.
Finally on you Monsatto taking over companies to silence them.
Main issue is that itās not true. Second issue is that Roche is currently acquiring Monsatto.
Post a science, peer reviewed article showing GMOs are dangerous.
Thatās all Iāve asked.
We have celebrity chefs against GMOs and pro organic but organic chemicals are often more carcinogenic that roundup, & they arenāt tested for in most studies.
1 Like
GMO products are extremely bad for us, anyone can do research and see that scientists who are leaders in their field have nothing but negative things to say about it, but Monsanto and other companies only wants you to know about the research they have made, research they have paid for, research made by scientists on Monsantoās payroll, therefore the results of these researches are manipulated to benefit Monsanto.
Do you want to know what you or your children are eating? Sure you do, thatās why GMO labeling is a must, then the choice is up to the consumer whether theyād like to purchase the product or not.
We should have the freedom of choice.
1 Like
If [quote=āmayaghosn52, post:68, topic:5334ā]
anyone can do research and see
[/quote] then please post this information here for us all to see.
I remember seeing a report about some Canola (Rape) Seed spillage on a rural road. The seed was Round-up resistant so it grew and when council sprayed it, everything else around it died but the Canola grew and benefited from the lack of other species competition. Now it is a pest as it is growing in an area where it isnāt wanted yet is almost impossible to kill. There were other attempts to remove the grain such as by soil removal but it has continued to grow despite all the efforts.
GM foods can have unforeseen outcomes when things go wrong.
3 Likes
My links have been removed, did Monsanto have anything to do with that?
Anyone can sue, but why should you have to when you have been diseased by a company not caring about anything but profit? I am sure mesotheleoma sufferers would poo poo your argument, they are dead or dying and you would say just sue.
As consumers and eaters of food we have to have the basic right to know what we are eating, A huge company should not be able to cover up what is going into our food because that is the more profitable way for them
I did post a science peer reviewed article
Hereās what I see in your post
Links removed, must be a conspiracy.
You then talk about asbestos based cancer on a topic re GMO labelling.
Next you claim a link with the word blog in the URL is a science based journal. The blog does link to a journal, but they arenāt the same thing.
Blog posts on journals arenāt particularly that great a source, so please quote, not from the summary, if you have anything from the journal itself. Journal articles can be removed, for an example, & to show why, Iād suggest you look at Andrew Wakefield and his claims.
The guy who claimed peer reviewed science is bunk when Iām the only one suggesting we look to the peer reviewed research more than we listen to celebrity chefs, actresses and bloggers like the food babe.
Letās face it, you agree with science when it agrees with your preconceived ideas, but not when it doesnāt.
Iāve never claimed roundup canāt cause cancer.
Iāve never claimed asbestos doesnāt either.
I will say there are safe doses of some chemicals, but not others.
I have no idea what the safe exposure to roundup is, but would have an idea on where to start looking for it.
I also havenāt read, in any journal, if roundup breaks down to more safe substances, but given that it doesnāt stop grass growing in places weeds are sprayed, I suspect it does.
