Hous of Reps. #875/Protect our organic food!

[hiitdogs]

I can't believe anyone wuld take something posted to World Net Daily seriously.

Well, I guess World Net Daily is the same publication that claimed that "soy makes kids gay". I am sure their concern is really for the small organic farmers and keeping our organic food supply

Kathryn, there is no indication that Monsanto is behind this proposed bill. That being said, I still fail to see how record keeping would drive small farmers out of business. Keeping records is a normal part of business, I am required to keep everything that was written, said or done for every single client for 10 years, everything has to be documented, other than a few file folders or a computer program (or Excel spreadsheet) and some time to set it up and update it it doesn't cost me anything.

 

[icumom]

AHAAAA-soy makes kids gay?!!!Well there ya go!!! Who knew?!! LOL!

With melamine in formula, DDT used for years until the "tree huggin' liberals" and the scientists showed it for the poison it is, lead in drinking water, lack of enforcement of code regulations leads to evil in a few who can poison the many....and its a shame a few stinkers make the rest of the honest folks suffer....

Our local organic and organic method(not quite there with being able to be certified organic,but purdy clean growers!)farmers (I know 4 families) say they have no problem with it...and are suspicious of the ones who DO....hmmmmm.....

 

[LauraMax]

A lot of it is pesticides and chemicals that are NOT allowed to be used on crops in the US (because of their toxicity), but are sold to Mexico and other countries--by Monsanto in particular--and end up getting into our food system anyway when the produce comes into our markets. (though I'm not sure it's the 'majority' of our produce?)

Laura, there are many reasons to avoid bioengineered food (which is not the same as hybridized food).

For one , we simply don't have enough knowledge of the effects on these foods on humans in the long run.

Secondly, companies patent bioengineered foods which means they 'own' the food and can control how it is used;
Monsanto (again) has tried to sue farmers with farms adjacent to those in which their bioengineered crops grow when those crops spread on their own.

Also, companies build in a genetic code in many of these foods that makes the seeds of the second-generation plants sterile, which causes farmers in poorer countries, who traditionally saved seeds from one crop to plant the following year, to go into poverty because they can no longer do that and have to keep buying new seeds.

The consequences of the genetic information from these engineered seeds combining with other plants are not fully understood. In one instance, the pest resistance of engineered soy (I think it was) affected other plants (milkweed?) that certain butterflies use for food and killed them. (And I'd rather have poo again than eat a food that is engineered to be its own pesticide, which is pretty much what is happening.)

Genetically engineeered produce can be lower in certain phytochemicals which plants produce partly in reaction to attack by pests, as their own natural defense, which in humans have beneficial effects, such as acting as a defense against free radicals.

Biodiversity is very important, if only for the fact that the less diversity there is, the much greater chance there is of a disease wiping out an entire species of plant.

I don't see how the choice as being between pesticides and poo (though I'll take poo over pesticides)? In fact, I don't really see your reasoning there. Salmonella contamination had nothing to do with pesticides use or lack of it, but all to do with animal agriculture (as was already mentioned, the outbreak was tied to run-off from a factory farm...and the spinach involved was primarity non-organic spinach that WAS treated with pesticides and chemicals).

Yes, food safety is very important, but there are many ways of achieving it. I agree that if this bill is something that is supported by Monsanto (a company only out for profit with no real concern for human health---otherwise I don't see how they would continue to produce carcinogenic and mutagenic pesticides and sell them to other countries) I would be very wary of it.

Well, I'm not entirely convinced. I mean, you yourself admitted not much is known about the effects. What if there are healthy effects? What if bioengineering food can help w/genetic problems?

It's not necessarily a choice betw. pesticides & poo--I was commenting on one aspect of this thread (I'm not really sure why those trying to break down my arguments can't see this?). Pesticides are not just used as bug repellent. It's also used to keep rodents & other animals off of food. So a few serious question for you & others:

Are ALL bioengineered foods patented?
Are ALL second generations of bioengineered foods sterile?
So there's less of a chance of an entire species being wiped out by a disease w/increased biodiversity. Has a species ever been eradicated due to lack of biodiversity?
You would really rather eat feces from rodents & all kinds of other animals than pesticides? Do you have any idea what you're exposing yourself to?

Quite frankly, I believe there could be scientific resolutions to the problems you stated.

Actually what makes me wary is people trying to push their personal political agendas on a fitness forum. That said, I'd like to thank you (and I mean this sincerely) for giving me your viewpoint personally, instead of posting links of other peoples' viewpoints.

 

[Gayle]

Well, I'm not entirely convinced. I mean, you yourself admitted not much is known about the effects. What if there are healthy effects? What if bioengineering food can help w/genetic problems?

It's not necessarily a choice betw. pesticides & poo--I was commenting on one aspect of this thread (I'm not really sure why those trying to break down my arguments can't see this?). Pesticides are not just used as bug repellent. It's also used to keep rodents & other animals off of food.

One problem with pesticides is that they kill, not repel, and they don't discriminate. They kill beneficial insects like ladybugs, spiders and bees (hugely important pollenators) as well as the pests.

Pests like rodents and roaches are a much bigger health problem in the processing/storing of food than the actual growing. Cleanliness on the part of the facility will do much more to help that than pesticides.

Not to mention the fact that it doesn't take long for many pests to become immune to pesticides. Case in point: Apiaries in some western states (can't recall specific states) were losing their hives to a parasite that was riding in on their bees and infecting the larva, killing them. The first method of attack was a pesticide. The parasite developed a resistance fairly quickly and became useless. It turns out a safer and more effective method of control was to coat the hive entrances with mineral oil. The mineral oil didn't affect the bees, but the parasite couldn't hold on.

Pesticides also have unintended side effects. After WWII, DDT was used heavily in agriculture. It was terribly detrimental birds (and other wildlife), like eagles. DDT ran off into water sources, became ingested by all manners of aquatic life, who were in turn food sources for many birds of prey, waterfowl, some songbirds. The DDT caused a major thinning of the shells of eggs, which in turn caused many affected species to not be able to reproduce.

DDT was also discovered to be carcinogenenic to humans by the EPA, as well as other organizations.

Consider antibacterial soaps and how health professionals are recommending AGAINST them for producing superbugs...same idea.

So a few serious question for you & others:

Are ALL bioengineered foods patented?

Don't know about all, but Monsanto (who's the biggest) patents or is trying to patent all of its seed technology. So if there's a seed produced with its technology, then it's subject to that patent.

Are ALL second generations of bioengineered foods sterile?

Dunno.

So there's less of a chance of an entire species being wiped out by a disease w/increased biodiversity. Has a species ever been eradicated due to lack of biodiversity?

Scientifically speaking, a homogeneous environment or monoculture is at a much greater risk of eradication to disease and genetic defect than on that is diverse. Biodiversity is a protection of an entire ecosystem as opposed to just one particular species. For instance, consider the Elm tree in America. In the 1930's Dutch Elm Disease (a fungus from Asia) was accidentally introduced in North America and nearly wiped out the species. If our forests were only made up only of Elm trees, then the entire ecosystem that depended on trees to live, which is huge, would most likely fail completely.

Good thing we have lots of different trees in North America!

You would really rather eat feces from rodents & all kinds of other animals than pesticides? Do you have any idea what you're exposing yourself to?

I'd rather deal with the devil I know, than the devil I don't know. The problem of fecal matter in food can be addressed by reasonable methods of cleanliness and hygiene.

Too many pesticides are introduced without fully knowing their impacts (a la DDT)...same with GMOs.

Actually what makes me wary is people trying to push their personal political agendas on a fitness forum. That said, I'd like to thank you (and I mean this sincerely) for giving me your viewpoint personally, instead of posting links of other peoples' viewpoints.

For me, this isn't a politcal issue, this is a huge health issue for food safety and in addressing poverty worldwide.

I apologize for insulting you earlier. I posted links to information because it was articulated better there than I could've done it in less than an hour. It appeared by your response that you weren't interested in it anyway. If I was mistaken in that, then I am sincerely sorry.

 

[hiitdogs]

Pesticides are not just used as bug repellent. It's also used to keep rodents & other animals off of food. So a few serious question for you & others:

You would really rather eat feces from rodents & all kinds of other animals than pesticides? Do you have any idea what you're exposing yourself to?

Well but the question is if that pesticide kills rodents and other animals what does the same pesticide do to the human body and health, especially in the long-term?

And then the question becomes with pesticides: Do you know what you are exposing yourself to?

That being said, organic farming doesn't mean that you have bugs crawling all over the place or rats poo on the crop. You just don't use potentially harmful chemicals and use instead mechanical devices, natural predetors or natural ingredients like garlic, cayenne pepper, etc. Spraying pesticides is a lot cheaper and seemingly a lot easier but is it really? With all pesticides there will always be pests that won't be killed or repelled by it and in fact become resistant, increasing the need for even stronger pesticides.

They can tell me that the pesticides are not harmful for humans until the cows come home, for me. Harmful in what way? Does it kill me right away? No, of course not! But what about the cummulative effects when eaten over 5, 10 or 15 years? Most pesticides have not been around for long because they have to change the darn pesticides to counteract resistancy in the pests, so they have no flippin' idea about the long term side effects and how it effects the human body in combination.

But even with pesticide treated food you won't get rid of all the rat poo and bugs either.

With bio-engineered food, I have no idea if it is going to have any ill effect on humans but quite frankly I am not willing to play guinea pig either, let alone take any risks for my kids. Like always, we hear that it has not been proven to cause any harm, well, geeh, how about they prove that it doesn't cause any harm in the longterm.

What really gets me though is that the "manufacturers" of bioengineered food are trying to prevent that they have to disclose the fact that it is bioengineered or genetically altered. Geeh, I wonder why! As far as I am concerned, if people want to buy it, go ahead and knock yourself out. I wouldn't buy it and I find it disturbing that it is even talked about not disclosing that it has been tinkered with the food.

 

[Gayle]

My issue with this bill is that it seems designed to provide an extra layer of bureaucracy in a system that already is supposed to have food protections in place but can't seem to enforce those protections. What good is another agency going to be if that agency doesn't enforce the rules?

CLango - ITA! This really gets to the point of my opinion on this bill. Are they going to toss out the old regulations and implement a new system, or just pile on more?

 

[LauraMax]

Well but the question is if that pesticide kills rodents and other animals what does the same pesticide do to the human body and health, especially in the long-term?

And then the question becomes with pesticides: Do you know what you are exposing yourself to?

That being said, organic farming doesn't mean that you have bugs crawling all over the place or rats poo on the crop. You just don't use potentially harmful chemicals and use instead mechanical devices, natural predetors or natural ingredients like garlic, cayenne pepper, etc. Spraying pesticides is a lot cheaper and seemingly a lot easier but is it really? With all pesticides there will always be pests that won't be killed or repelled by it and in fact become resistant, increasing the need for even stronger pesticides.

They can tell me that the pesticides are not harmful for humans until the cows come home, for me. Harmful in what way? Does it kill me right away? No, of course not! But what about the cummulative effects when eaten over 5, 10 or 15 years? Most pesticides have not been around for long because they have to change the darn pesticides to counteract resistancy in the pests, so they have no flippin' idea about the long term side effects and how it effects the human body in combination.

But even with pesticide treated food you won't get rid of all the rat poo and bugs either.

With bio-engineered food, I have no idea if it is going to have any ill effect on humans but quite frankly I am not willing to play guinea pig either, let alone take any risks for my kids. Like always, we hear that it has not been proven to cause any harm, well, geeh, how about they prove that it doesn't cause any harm in the longterm.

What really gets me though is that the "manufacturers" of bioengineered food are trying to prevent that they have to disclose the fact that it is bioengineered or genetically altered. Geeh, I wonder why! As far as I am concerned, if people want to buy it, go ahead and knock yourself out. I wouldn't buy it and I find it disturbing that it is even talked about not disclosing that it has been tinkered with the food.

Well, I'm not a chemist, but I should think the pesticide that repels, not kills, a half pound rat would not kill a 110+ pound woman.

See, the problem that I'm having here, is that there are a lot of people who think that just b/c something is "all natural" or "organic" means that it's automatically healthier for you. Which completely disregards all the scientific advances we've made over the last decades. For some reason there seems to be this general feeling that these advances were made for the sole purpose of greed, which is really selling short not only the researchers who've made them but also their potential benefits to our world.

Gayle, you apologize in one sentence & then insult again in the next. For some reason you continue to think that you can convince people by immaturity and nastiness. You've completely lost any ounce of credibility you might have had left.

 

[Gayle]

Gayle, you apologize in one sentence & then insult again in the next. For some reason you continue to think that you can convince people by immaturity and nastiness. You've completely lost any ounce of credibility you might have had left.

Honestly, it was not my intent to insult you in the second sentence. Sorry.

 

[hiitdogs]

Well, I'm not a chemist, but I should think the pesticide that repels, not kills, a half pound rat would not kill a 110+ pound woman.

See, the problem that I'm having here, is that there are a lot of people who think that just b/c something is "all natural" or "organic" means that it's automatically healthier for you. Which completely disregards all the scientific advances we've made over the last decades. For some reason there seems to be this general feeling that these advances were made for the sole purpose of greed, which is really selling short not only the researchers who've made them but also their potential benefits to our world.

I agree that everything natural is not automatically healthier.

Of course, a pesticide that repels or kills a small bug or even a rat will not kill me, if eaten once, it probably won't have any effect. The question is what does it do to the human body over time when ingested frequently/daily? What if those substances are mutagenic or carginogenic? I may not drop dead right away but there are some diseases that you rather don't deal with and try to prevent.

Sure there have been great advances in science but there also have been advances in science that come at a high price and in my opinion the benefit does not outweigh the risk.

I don't think all advances in science are solely for the purpose of greed but I think we have come to live in a society where short-term gain and profits are valued over all other things. I think corporate greed is at an alltime high. I think that is a very sad state of affairs.

 

[LauraMax]

Honestly, it was not my intent to insult you in the second sentence. Sorry.

OK then, you've regained some credibility. I appreciate your apology & I'm sorry as well if I stepped over the line.

 

[Vee]

See, the problem that I'm having here, is that there are a lot of people who think that just b/c something is "all natural" or "organic" means that it's automatically healthier for you.

I think the reason, for me at least, has to do with loss of trust from recurring instances I experience of "unnatural" foods not being good. From artificial sweeteners to hydrogenated fat, many advances in technology have been discovered, later, as "not good". I trust my food as nature made it.

I also feel healthier when I am eating "natural."

Which completely disregards all the scientific advances we've made over the last decades. For some reason there seems to be this general feeling that these advances were made for the sole purpose of greed, which is really selling short not only the researchers who've made them but also their potential benefits to our world.

I am speculating here, but this speculation is mistrust from my personal experiences. Perhaps the original intent when bio-engineered seeds were developed or pesticides were developed was not greed. What I do feel however is that many corporations can resort to suppressing facts about the side effects and dangers when they come to light later or lobby to have them suppressed because it endangers future profits on past investments.

Let me give you an example which is not directly related but demonstrates why I am less inclined to ignore fears of potential harmful effects. In India, many drugs that are banned in the US are freely available and prescribed on a regular basis. Developing countries are still treated as dumping grounds which to me is proof of such a thing as corporate greed. (Of course the Governments of such countries are primarily to blame for permitting this.)

When I buy locally grown grapes, I soak them for 20 minutes in water to get rid of the pesticide. If I dont do this before consuming, some of us at home never fail to get a sore throat from the pesticide residue. I wonder how safe such pesticide can be.

Perhaps there is an element of getting carried away....I try to be rational....but if I get to vote, I'd vote against.

 

[kathryn]

Of course, a pesticide that repels or kills a small bug or even a rat will not kill me, if eaten once, it probably won't have any effect. The question is what does it do to the human body over time when ingested frequently/daily? What if those substances are mutagenic or carginogenic? I may not drop dead right away but there are some diseases that you rather don't deal with and try to prevent.

And the effects of exposure to multiple pesticides are another factor that is often not considered.

"Natural" doesn't necessarily mean "healthy and beneficial," but as another poster said, I'd rather deal with the devil I know than the devil I don't.

The important point is, there should be choices. Those of us who want to eat unadulterated, artificial-pesticide-free (as was noted above, "organic" doesn't mean no means of repelling insects or other pests, but rather using environmentally friendly means) foods should be able to get them, and if bioengineered foods are somehow in conflict with that (like their DNA spreading to other crops, for example), the benefit should go to the natural crops.

Laura, you brought up the question of whether bioengineered foods have benefits: I can't cite any specifics, because I've forgotten them, but I have read about the effects of some of these foods ending up not being what was intended (I vaguely recall something about potatoes that contained high levels of a carcinogenic substance). I'm sure a web search could find that info (I don't have the time to do it).

Some of the benefits bioengineering is looking for can be obtained by hybridization (a time-tested way of combining the beneficial elements of different types of plants).

Bioengineering doesn't just mix a characteristic of different types of plants, but can mix in animal or virus DNA.

 

[kathryn]

I think the reason, for me at least, has to do with loss of trust from recurring instances I experience of "unnatural" foods not being good. From artificial sweeteners to hydrogenated fat, many advances in technology have been discovered, later, as "not good". I trust my food as nature made it.

I also feel healthier when I am eating "natural."

ITA!

(but I have to write more to post!)