The FDA
 

The FDA protects us from unsafe drugs and food, right? They tell us what we can and cant use by their own determination, and blah blah blah. Everytime a new drug comes out, they have to approve it. Yes.

The reason I dont stand behind whatever the FDA says is because while they tell us how to take care of ourselves, theyre bastardizing organic standards along with the USDA and they do it all in favor of corporate interests. No you cant use this drug, its bad for you, and by the way, we made it even more legal to put even more dangerous synthetics in the food you eat because Wal-Mart wants to profit on the organic movement sweeping the nation. But real organic food is too expensive and complicated, so we just slip in a rider to this bill and voila! Nobody votes on it and now organic standards are leniant enough that we can call anything organic! Now Wal-Mart will give us some money as thanks because all those foolish hippies will buy organic from them!

Bite me, FDA and USDA.

Whats really sad is people dont really understand what a huge problem this is. Organic standards are for people who dont want to eat a bunch of genetically engineered, irradiated, or synthetic food, and who can blame them? Theres a truckload of health problems that follows suit with synthetic food, including cancer and birth defects. Also, big factory farms raising animals have no qualms with injecting their stock with unnatural hormones. As an example, rBGH, or bovine growth hormone. Starbucks has always promised to use fair trade and organic dairy products someday, and its been years since they made that promise. Theyve done nothing to make good on that claim. rBGH makes a cow produce more milk in its lifetime than it naturally would, and has been shown to cause cancer in people that drink that milk. And the cows health suffers as well.

The FDA, USDA, and corporate pigs dont care whats in our food, just so long as we buy it, eat it, and come back for more. Because were human, we have to eat. They know that, thats why its such a flawless market to cash in on.

People who want organic food these days could be buying something that is labeled USDA organic, but thanks to corporate interests vs. the peoples interests and the governments siding with the prior, its nearly just as bad as everything else on the shelf. So now we cant even trust that USDA Organic stamp on the product.

So I cant smoke pot, but I can eat a bunch of genetically engineered, irradiated, and synethic crap that could devastate my health? Why cant I do that on my own terms?

Um.. what's wrong with genetically engineered food? Guess what, you've been eating it your whole life. Your parents have eaten it their whole lives, your parent's parents, etc. for thousands of years.

The wheat we eat today? It's genetically identical to the wheat the Romans grew (they've done tests). It's because they cross bred the grains (re: genetically engineered) until they got what they want, and have been since cloning the strand.

The avacado you ate last week? Genetically IDENTICAL to every other avacado in the US, and has been since the early 20th Century which pre-dates any understanding of DNA. Every single avacado is a clone of one plant, long before Dolly.

So the only thing that separates it now is the scientists have more control over the product they get, with less hit and miss (though it still exists). We'll get larger food yields with less pesticide, fertilizer, etc used to raise it.

sorry Miss Mango, i second Seaver, there is nothing wrong with genetically engineered foods, we've been selectively breading animals for millennia, plants too. As for irradiation, thats how you kill bacteria, so food does not spoil as fast, you get more of a dose of radiation standing in front of your microwave then the meats do when they get zapped.

Of course youre right, but its not a perfect system. People are getting greedy with new technology, and a lot of the food weve been eating has caused more health issues in the past than a lot of people know about. And its still happening now, and it could get worse with the FDA and USDA constantly working within corporate interests to allow more synthetics and telling consumers it fits our standards so its good enough for you.

Genetic engineering is still a new technology. It hasnt been around very long. I am talking about the level of genetic engineering we see today, using chemicals and manmade hormones and freaky stuff like that. What youre talking about is a natural occurence that really had no subversive effects on anyone. Genetic engineerings only been around for about 30 years. And since its introduction to food production, granted there have been some benefits, American health has plummeted, and its taken out the little guy. Family farmers have been forced to sell their land, and the ones remaining scrape by. Its really taken out the balance between rural and urban commerce, something the economy depends on.

And even worse is the fact that in about 20 years, most of Americas farmers will retire and most of them have no one to take over the farm, allowing even more room for factory farmland.

Genetic engineering has a lot more to do with a lot of how we live our lives than is really noticeable right now, but eventually the consequences will catch up with us.

look, I don't care what you say or think about genetically engineered food as it relates to my consumption (not that I don't care about it as a matter of course, because you have your ideas about it and I have mine).

Why go into a discussion about the merits of it?
Can dilbert and seaver agree that regardless of the howfors and whatnots, that people who want to eat organic food shouldn't have to deal with food labeled organic even though it's not?

shit, I don't go around trying to convince people that nightlights aren't necessary because their fear of the dark is irrational. it's a fucking fear and if they want a nightlight, plug it in plug it in.


the only way it might affect you guys is if I tried to mandate that all foods had some sort of labeling indicating processing. I'm not willing to go that far as a government mandage, but I'd certainly welcome it. I wouldn't want everyone's food costs to go up just so I can feel more safe about my food sources...I'll gladly pay more for that luxury if I want it.

but don't support the right of corporations to butt in and try to get tricky to swoop my business. if it says range free, it better be. and if it says hormone free, it better be that too. especially if I'm paying for that information with my own dime and there's enough of me to support the business telling me the truth.

The OP was not an attack of GM foods (to me) it was an attack on the devaluation of organic standards.

In the UK, such standards are set by volontary organisations (such as the soil association), which protect the producers and users, and if anything hurt the retailers most of all.

If corporations are making all foods dangerous then one must wonder what the heads of these corporations eat?

It's unfortunate that the FDA and the USDA are subject to corporate pressure but I'm sure the corporations share as much of the blame as these agencies. Maybe I think too much of people but I can't imagine that these agencies willingly changed these standards arbitrarily. If corporations have influence on these agencies then a natural question is why? What can these corporations do to the FDA and USDA that would force them to bow to their needs? Why don't we change that?

are you serious :D
money baby, money
financial ties in the form of grants, research monies, positions when the advisors leave the boards, contracts, political backrubbing, things like that.

and I have no idea what CEO's eat, probably liberal babies.

It's all one freaky-big conspiracy, damnit! The government seeks to control our minds with GM foods!

There's not been one single proven case of a death or disease caused by human consumption of GM food. Either they're doing a damn good job of poisoning us, or everyone who cries foul is a nutter.

These are all lies?

I have never seen this shown in any scientific study.

To begin with, any study I've ever read implicated elevated levels of calcium as the possible cause of increased rate of prostate cancer in men. Men who drank 2 or more glasses a day were almost twice as likely to develop advanced prostate cancer- note for a moment, that this is related directly to the high levels of calcium intake, and has nothing to do with the dairy product itself, or anything else in it. As for the risk of ovarian cancer, it is linked in some studies (but not all) to high levels of galactose, a sugar released by the digestion of lactose in milk- note again, that this has nothing to do with any additives in the milk, but a natural part of every glass you'd get from any cow, anywhere, regardless of human intervention.

As far as the breast cancer question goes, more studies link it to elevated levels of estrogen in the cows' milk, as pregnant cows secrete more estrogen into their milk than cows who are not. Some studies point the finger at this elevated level of estrogen as speeding up cancer cell growth. Some studies say it's that all the fat in milk causes a woman's body to metabolize excess estrogen.

Some believe the IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor) is causing it, because lab studies showed that IGF-1 increases growth rate of cancerous cells- the issue with that is, all the studies I've seen of this correlate the use of bare IGF-1 to cell reproduction... not IGF-1 in milk, and not IGF-1 that's been broken down after digestion in the stomach. Because IGF-1 is a protein, it is broken down out of its normal state in the stomach before it reaches anywhere in the body that can absorb it (i.e., the small intestines). That means, it is no longer that insulin-like growth factor by the time it gets to where the body would be able to absorb it. Also, even if we were able to absorb it intact, levels of IGF-1 in milk are not significant when evaluated again IGF-1 levels produced and found naturally in humans. IGF-1 is normally found in human plasma at concentrations much higher than those found in cow's milk.

Your best argument for milk causing cancer is a cow's ingestion of pesticides or industrial toxins- but that has nothing to do with what we do to increase a cow's milk production, that is a result of poor product safety practices. That, or the elevated levels of estrogen- which has yet to be conclusively linked.

Some people seem to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to hydrogonated oils and High fructose corn syrup. Even more do so with all the chemical enhancements, antibiotics and other drugs pumped into animals and produce. I think that's what most people think of when they refer to genetic engineering. It's not about cross breading but is about chemical and other external enhancements. We have no idea what the long-term impact will be with much of this crap and I for one don't want to be a guinea pig.

We ought to be able to count on organic food being what it is supposed to be for those of us that don't want to keep our heads in the sand.

It's unfortunate that most governmental agencies are so driven by lobbyists. This activity has grown tremendously over the past 20 or so years. The medical industry is driven by the pharma companies and doctors think everything can be cured with a pill. It is insanely big money. So big that a company like Pfizer will close a 2,100 employee research and development center in Ann Arbor because they are losing exclusivity on a few key drugs and aren't willing to develop new stuff; they'd rather just close a major center focused on the future.

Hormones and hydroginated oils are VASTLY different than genetic engineering. Genetic Egineering IS cross breeding. Do you think they create DNA out of a machine? No, they clip it from plants with desirable traits and put them in a dish, they then put cells of said plants into the dish, and it occurs the exact same way as cross-breeding, the plant's own cells do the work. And nice way of trying to portray us as head in the sand, I'm just glad I'm not yelling at a wall.

What do you think will be the outcome of the engineering? Do you think all the wheat in America will suddenly start producing arsenic instead of wheat? Do you seem to think that corn will start giving off radiation instead of growing kernels?

The scientists only keep the successful crosses. They keep the corn that can resist bugs, they keep the wheat that grows faster and fuller. What does that sound like? Sounds like selective breeding to me.