Genetically Modified Food For Children

Misty

Misty

Member
Location
Illinois
In an article in the Democratunderground.org website:
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:17 PM

Has Michelle Obama joined forces with Monsanto?

Live Leak is reporting that Monsanto has upon negotiating with Michelle Obama agreed to dedicate $50 million towards genetically modifying crops to be healthier.

The popular agriculture company Monsanto is partnering with First Lady Michelle Obama to promote nutritional foods for kids. According to reports from the Associated Press, Monsanto will spend $50 million over five years on a campaign to market ‘healthy’ genetically modified food to children. The agrochemical company will also bring its food offerings for kids in line with the new federal standards for labeling and nutrition.

Obama announced her intentions in front of crates of fresh produce on Thursday. “When I see a company like Monsanto launch an initiative like this, I feel more hopeful than ever before,” said the First Lady. “We can improve how we make and sell food in this country.”

How do you feel about GMO food for children or even yourselves? Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to eat GMO food, let alone for children. I think it should be labeled in stores which foods are genetically modified, but so far that hasn't happened.
 

I against GMOs, some things are starting to note it on the label voluntarily. Even the Smart Balance spread I use for some things says "Non-GMO Pledge". It's a selling point for me for sure, Monsanto is evil and greedy, IMO.
 
SeaBreeze said:
I against GMOs, some things are starting to note it on the label voluntarily. Even the Smart Balance spread I use for some things says "Non-GMO Pledge". It's a selling point for me for sure, Monsanto is evil and greedy, IMO.
Click to expand...

Interesting that there are Non-GMO Pledge labels on some products....Good to know, SeaBreeze. Will start looking for the labels. It's a good selling point.
 

WebMD, shill for Monsanto. Interesting article on deception in advertising. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...20160119Z1&et_cid=DM95459&et_rid=1320630111


WebMD also receives funds from the U.S. government. In 2013, WebMD received a $4.8 million government contract to educate doctors about the Affordable Care Act and stimulate drug sales.

At the time, the lack of transparency and disclosure of the contract raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. As noted by Michael Minkoff:

"If WebMD is comfortable selling out to the drug companies, I can't imagine they will show more compunction concerning the civil government. In order to keep their government contracts, it is very likely they will say whatever they are told to say."


​
WebMD is also partnered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This virtually assures that you will not learn about any alternatives besides those approved by the FDA for your condition, and further strengthens the promotion of sponsored drugs.

By default, you will be kept in the dark about the strategies that can make a real and lasting difference, such as simple dietary changes and exercise, which in some cases have been shown to be just as effective as drugs.

WebMD also has a programming partnership with CBS News;11 the two working closely together to create co-branded news segments. However, this partnership is not openly disclosed to viewers.

In 2008, CBS News ran a segment on how to protect yourself from bad medical information on the Internet.12 Part of the recommendations included looking at sites like WebMD, as its content has been reviewed by health professionals.

But, when so much of the information presented is sponsored advertorials and "native advertising," just how valuable is that medical advice? Viewers were essentially snookered twice, because you're just as likely to be misled by advertising as you are by an outright crook.
 
SeaBreeze said:
I against GMOs, some things are starting to note it on the label voluntarily. Even the Smart Balance spread I use for some things says "Non-GMO Pledge". It's a selling point for me for sure, Monsanto is evil and greedy, IMO.
Click to expand...

I agre with SeaBreeze. I think GMO's are evil and Monsanto is worse.
 
I have no problem with some GMO's... Making food more available... less perishable... easier and faster to grow.. is a good thing IMO. Since we do not incorporate a food sources genome into our own.. it passes through like anything else.. It does not alter our genes.. I would gladly eat GMO Salmon or anything else..

Someone please explain to me how eating a tomato that does not bruise as easily.. or a banana that doesn't turn brown as fast hurts you. Will they make us bruise less or not turn brown? Will eating salmon that grows quicker cause us to grow quicker. Maybe I'm over simplifying it.. but I see much greater things to worry about.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree, QS, it is progress, and it brings back the old saying "Get a horse!" when the first autos constantly broke down...
 
QuickSilver said:
I have no problem with some GMO's... Making food more available... less perishable... easier and faster to grow.. is a good thing IMO. Since we do not incorporate a food sources genome into our own.. it passes through like anything else.. It does not alter our genes.. I would gladly eat GMO Salmon or anything else..

Someone please explain to me how eating a tomato that does not bruise as easily.. or a banana that doesn't turn brown as fast hurts you. Will they make us bruise less or not turn brown? Will eating salmon that grows quicker cause us to grow quicker. Maybe I'm over simplifying it.. but I see much greater things to worry about.
Click to expand...

You can read here why many people are concerned, I'm likely too old to be seriously affected by eating GMO foods, and I don't have any kids to worry about. Still, I think it's reasonable and the right of the consumer to have information like this on the label so we can choose what we're paying for and putting in our bodies.

But, for those who claim to be concerned with the health of their children and grandchildren, I think genetically modified foods should be something to worry about. Learn more about them on these pages.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/44-reasons-ban-or-label-gmos?page=1


http://www.greenmedinfo.com/guide/gmo-research-center
 
I AM very concerned about my grandchildren and my great grandchildren.. and all future descendants.. That is why I am not jumping on the "hate GMO" bandwagon.

Please consider this. With 7 billion people on the planet.. it has been estimated that we are already well over the sustainable population. In other words.. there are more of us than the earth can feed. Any scientific advancement to make food more plentiful... less perishable... etc.. should be saluted... not maligned. We should be urging the improvement of GMOs... not outlawing them.. While we can be concerned about what possible detriment GMOs may or may not cause our future descendants.. we should be more concerned with them starving to death or having to compete for food.. One concern is "possible" the other is most definite.

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
 
"Someone please explain to me how eating a tomato that does not bruise as easily.. or a banana that doesn't turn brown as fast hurts you."

We've been down this road before, won't hurt to review the facts. Genetic modification of PLANTS creates the ability for them to produce chemical substances allied to the chlorinated pesticides, exactly like estrogen-mimicking pesticides, which the plants exude over their surfaces; this repels and even kills, insects. Obviously then, washing the plants' outer surface is claimed to remove the chemical residues, which it does. However, unlike insecticides applied from without, which DO wash off, the plants thus modified, and their fruit, contain these chemicals within their tissue structures, where they were made in the first place.

Thus, eating genetically-modified fruits and vegetables introduces the inescapable fact that absorption of pesticide by the human body is inevitable.

That's why, in reality, GMOs are to be carefully viewed. The compounds in question do not affect the user eating the veggies directly. They show up in future generations' fatty tissues. They are not poisons, not toxic in the usual sense of the word. So, in my own case, for example, having produced no kids to be concerned about (or grandkids), I have no qualms whatever over consuming GMOs.

Think about future generations when making the decisions regarding GMOs as far as veggies are considered. Genetic mod of other foodstuffs is yet another story, but suffice to say, many animal types involved in the human food chain consume plant-life, whether GMO'd or not. Then there's the milk........a really significant one. imp
 
I seldom touch any soy products because of the GMOs in so many of them. Same with corn and they've managed to get either soy or corn in almost every processed food you can find at the grocery store. I think that has a lot to do with why breast and prostate cancer is so prevalent in our country today. I studied up on this years ago and came to my own conclusions, along with consulting with a couple naturopathic practitioners I knew. I believe each person has to figure it out for themselves and do what feels best to them. This is something no one is ever going to agree on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imp
QuickSilver said:
Please consider this. With 7 billion people on the planet.. it has been estimated that we are already well over the sustainable population. In other words.. there are more of us than the earth can feed. Any scientific advancement to make food more plentiful... less perishable... etc.. should be saluted... not maligned.
Click to expand...

There's no proof that I'm aware of that GMOs are helping at all to feed the earth. I can't understand how anyone who claims to be concerned about the environment can be in favor of genetically engineered crops.

More here.


Biotech companies and proponents of industrial agriculture tout genetically engineered (GE) crops as the key to feeding the world, because they supposedly increase the yields of major crops. Yet current evidence indicates this is an empty promise.

Recently, I published a report which shows that in the 20 years since the cultivation of genetically engineered crops, their yields haven’t actually increased in wealthier countries nor helped feed the hungry in developing regions. In fact, GE food seems to be distracting from real solutions proven to help lift small farmers out of poverty.

Corn and soybeans engineered to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide account for more than 80 percent of the global acreage growing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) today.

In my report, I highlight a recent peer-reviewed paper by New Zealand geneticist Jack Heinemann, who found that the mostly-GE corn and soy grown in United States have no greater yields than non-GE crops in western Europe, where GMOs are not allowed. Heinemann’s research was a big blow to biotech industry claims of increased yields.

GMOs aren’t keeping pace with traditional crop breeding in Africa, either. The weekly scientific journal Nature highlighted efforts by the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa project to improve crop production in dry regions where drought can slash yields by up to 25 percent.

Since 2006, the project has developed 153 new crop varieties using traditional breeding techniques—and found these new strains produced up to 30 percent better yields than genetically engineered varieties, even in nutrient-poor soils.

The World Resources Institute also released a report concluding that traditional breeding has been, and will continue to be, the primary engine of improved crop yields.

Considering that genetic engineering is at least 100 times more expensive than traditional breeding, I wonder why GMOs are getting so much attention.

Biotech companies often spend upwards of US$100 million to develop just one genetically engineered crop variety that may not even increase yields—money that could be better spent helping small farmers get access to basic resources such as fertilizers.

What GMOs have done is to rapidly increase the use of herbicides.

The rapid adoption of herbicide-tolerant Roundup Ready corn and soybeans resulted in a major surge in the use of Roundup, the main ingredient of which—glyphosate—the World Health Organization deemed just last week to be a “probable human carcinogen.”

A previous publication by WHO found that farmers who are frequently exposed to glyphosate have twice the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a life-threatening blood cancer.
 
Misty said:
In an article in the Democratunderground.org website:
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:17 PM

Has Michelle Obama joined forces with Monsanto?

Live Leak is reporting that Monsanto has upon negotiating with Michelle Obama agreed to dedicate $50 million towards genetically modifying crops to be healthier.

The popular agriculture company Monsanto is partnering with First Lady Michelle Obama to promote nutritional foods for kids. According to reports from the Associated Press, Monsanto will spend $50 million over five years on a campaign to market ‘healthy’ genetically modified food to children. The agrochemical company will also bring its food offerings for kids in line with the new federal standards for labeling and nutrition.

Obama announced her intentions in front of crates of fresh produce on Thursday. “When I see a company like Monsanto launch an initiative like this, I feel more hopeful than ever before,” said the First Lady. “We can improve how we make and sell food in this country.”

How do you feel about GMO food for children or even yourselves? Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to eat GMO food, let alone for children. I think it should be labeled in stores which foods are genetically modified, but so far that hasn't happened.
Click to expand...


Oh my gosh, wasn't it Obama who promised before he got to be President that he would see to it that GMO products were labelled (was that done?), and then he appoints a Monsanto exec as America's 'food czar' and now his wife is promoting GMO's for them?

Sorry all you Obama supporters here, but I think that just stinks.
 
QuickSilver said:
I have no problem with some GMO's... Making food more available... less perishable... easier and faster to grow.. is a good thing IMO. Since we do not incorporate a food sources genome into our own.. it passes through like anything else.. It does not alter our genes.. I would gladly eat GMO Salmon or anything else..

Someone please explain to me how eating a tomato that does not bruise as easily.. or a banana that doesn't turn brown as fast hurts you. Will they make us bruise less or not turn brown? Will eating salmon that grows quicker cause us to grow quicker. Maybe I'm over simplifying it.. but I see much greater things to worry about.
Click to expand...


Pouring pesticides and herbicides onto the soil that is supposed to support plants isn't a healthy practise by any stretch of the imagination though and that's what a lot of the GMO plants experience. Besides weeds and bugs, those chemicals affect other things that are important. Like the birds, which are supposed to feed off the bugs that inhabit the plants. They eat poisoned bugs and it seems they are probably slowly poisoned themselves. Weaker eggs, smaller babies.....one reason perhaps why songbirds all across the land are decreasing in alarming numbers?

Then there's all the little microbes and bacteria in the soil that help plants to soak up the minerals and micronutrients that they need. To assume that pesticides aren't killing those off or weakening them would be shortsighted. I have read that it makes the soil unhealthy and the result would be less nutrients availability from the soil which means less nutrients in the food.


This http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/ho...can-promote-cancer-new-study-reveals-1?page=1 article that starts like this:

Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) is in our air, rain, groundwater, soil and most food in the U.S., and an increasing body of research reveals it has cancer-promoting properties.
Researchers from the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research have recently confirmed the carcinogenic potential of Roundup herbicide using human skin cells (HaCaT ) exposed to extremely low concentrations of the world's best selling herbicide..........................



And as I'm sure you know, Roundup is a Monsanto product and was a huge part of their bottom line. That's faltering now because of a serious downturn in the use of the product perhaps as a result of producers becoming aware of studies like the one discussed in the article. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-idUSTRE65T2VJ20100630

I think QS, you'd understand what's being said in the first article even more than I because it discusses some of the medical observations the study made. And when you think of the proliferation of cancer's, well......it's maybe not so surprising at all since they were doing the first test fields of GMO in 1988 and now GMO's are in everything.

Those other things might be conveniences (I have an extra day to eat this banana or if I cut my apple before I'm ready to eat it, it will stay nice looking), but if these crops are being drenched in Roundup and that product is carcinogenic....you gotta ask yourself if it's worth it don't you? Maybe you feel different than I and that's your decision. I probably split my purchases with 1/3 of the budget going to organic. I'd do more if I could, but it's a combination of economics and availability.
 
Debby said:
Oh my gosh, wasn't it Obama who promised before he got to be President that he would see to it that GMO products were labelled (was that done?), and then he appoints a Monsanto exec as America's 'food czar' and now his wife is promoting GMO's for them?

Sorry all you Obama supporters here, but I think that just stinks.
Click to expand...

Affirmative. However, as a non-supporter of either major political party, I gotta admit I'm not surprised. Just was too much hanky-panky pandering to friends and self-appointed, rich, "consumer-conscientious" business people than could be conicidental. imp
 
Last edited:
Debby said:
Sorry all you Obama supporters here, but I think that just stinks.
Click to expand...

I do support and have voted for Obama, but as I've said before, I don't agree with everything he has done or wants to do. I haven't followed this too closely, but I like to slowly at least see non-gmo products labeled. I can just assume if there's no label touting non-gmo, than the product is likely genetically modified. Looks like Michelle was against them, but Obama bowed down to Monsanto? http://www.offthegridnews.com/how-t...pports-organic-while-the-president-backs-gmo/
 
Monsanto? Who Has any Clue?

Monsanto, given it's greed and power, might just actually own, by now, the ground upon which the White House stands. imp
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top