# Corporate Commercial Foods and Us



## imp (Sep 6, 2015)

I am appalled by today's general acceptance of foodstuffs known to most everyone to have had added to, been modified, enhanced, "made safer", more tasteful, more "nutritionally valuable", by the use of Chemistry and Physics. "GMO"s, Genetically Modified Organisms, have proliferated in our marketplaces. For example, in 2014, 90% of the corn available for consumption, had been GMO'd, whether fresh, canned, or frozen.

"GMO" means not only are the actual products we eat, modified in some way, but the very _organisms _associated with them have been Genetically Modified. Many are single-celled like Staphylococcus, modified because those "Staph" germs produce various waste products which can be turned into tainted market-profitable produce items, claimed to be pesticide resistant or implied as "more pure". Make no mistake, much of the stuff today, overpriced, and claimed to be "Organic", may in reality be more harmful to us than the good, old, everyday store-offered products. We have no concrete scientific data to condemn GMOs. 

Look at the image below. What, exactly, do you think the "fiber" is that they add? And. really, why? Next pic tells why, blatantly. INCREASE PROFITS!












These ads were taken from a trade publication, "Dairy Foods", www.dairyfoods.com.


The propaganda promotes world-wide, now, acceptance of the wonderful, new, innovations making our lives better. Buy "Organic"? Proof of such? Which country of origin would lie regarding authenticity? "Organic"??        Trust them.     imp


----------



## Lara (Sep 10, 2015)

I think Europe is pretty much GMO free. Not so in America but concerned groups are working on it. It may well be why the obesity rate is so high here. I pay attention to whether a product has a GMO label or not. Trader Joe's (grocery store) says that all their brands are GMO-free. I'm very skeptical. 90% of their store is their own brand. I've asked 3 employees and they all say the same thing, "anything with a Trader Joes name on it is GMO-free". But there is no GMO-free label on any of their products. How can that be?


----------



## Debby (Sep 15, 2015)

'...We have no concrete scientific data to condemn GMOs....'

But recent studies have shown that Roundup is in all likelihood a carcinogen and one of the 'benefits' of GMO's is that Roundup can be poured on by the tonne and the food crop doesn't die.  So even if the actual genetic modification isn't harmful, the fact that glyphosate is used in such abundance is likely affecting human health and I've heard that it may also be affecting the health of the soil and microbes that are needed for healthy plant growth.  California has made the decision to add glyphosate to it's list of carcinogenic chemicals which naturally is giving Monsanto fits because of the impact of potential Roundup sales losses.


I'd also like to see some back up to your contention that organic foods are unhealthy.  I have never heard that before.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-probably-carcinogenic-humans/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...nfirms-roundup-will-be-labeled-cancer-causing

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/12/us-glyphosate-idUSTRE77B58A20110812


----------



## Debby (Sep 15, 2015)

The fibre that is being discussed is this:


*
Fibersol*[SUP]®[/SUP]-2 digestion-resistant maltodextrin is a soluble corn fiber that acts as a low-calorie bulking agent containing 90 percent dietary fiber. It can be used with minimal formulation adjustments in a variety of food applications to maintain or improve a product's desired attributes.  

So you probably aren't getting as much dairy as you think you are and you are getting fibre from corn that was doused in Roundup numerous times in it's growing period and grown in Roundup dosed soil.  Happy eating eh?


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 15, 2015)

No one has ever explained to me.... to my satisfaction.... how a GMO food product harms us..   If a gene in a plant is altered to improve flavor, or prevent early spoiling.. how exactly does that harm us consuming it.   Since the function of the GI tract is to extract nutrients to use for energy... and then poop out what is not needed, it is doubtful that these products will harm us in any way.  We are not incorporating these genes into our DNA..     I can understand avoiding added chemicals or additives...... but a Gene?    I don't believe it for one minute.  So please enlighten me..


----------



## imp (Sep 15, 2015)

Personally, QS, I agree with you on that one. What troubles me aside from genetic modification, is chemical modification falling under the same heading, GMO, which involves endocrine disrupting chemicals.   imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 15, 2015)

imp said:


> Personally, QS, I agree with you on that one. What troubles me aside from genetic modification, is chemical modification falling under the same heading, GMO, which involves endocrine disrupting chemicals.   imp



That would still be a genetic modification of a gene... for example, modifying a banana plants genetic make up so it would not produce the chemical change that causes a banana to rot.  From what I have read, the chemical is not being modified, but the genetic make up of an organism to produce a chemical, and I don't understand how that would be harmful to us.


----------



## Debby (Sep 15, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> No one has ever explained to me.... to my satisfaction.... how a GMO food product harms us..   If a gene in a plant is altered to improve flavor, or prevent early spoiling.. how exactly does that harm us consuming it.   Since the function of the GI tract is to extract nutrients to use for energy... and then poop out what is not needed, it is doubtful that these products will harm us in any way.  We are not incorporating these genes into our DNA..     I can understand avoiding added chemicals or additives...... but a Gene?    I don't believe it for one minute.  So please enlighten me..   and   '.... the chemical is not being modified, but the genetic make up of an organism to produce a chemical, and I don't understand how that would be harmful to us.






I'm on the fence about GMO's specifically, but I'm not on the fence about the chemicals that those plants get doused with repeatedly.  From your comment, I'm assuming that you're more concerned about the Roundup Ready aspect to these foods or am I mistaken on that?

But maybe what we need to be concerned about is what you phrase as being an 'organisms ability to produce a chemical...'  Considering that BPA (found in hard plastics and food cans) is now included in the group of chemicals referred to as obesogens and known to change the DNA of unborn fetus's thereby increasing the propensity to obesity,  is there a possibility that the banana's new chemical output could cause harm but that the results are subtle and cumulative and so won't be known until a couple generations have been impacted/changed?  

How many years was BPA used in food holding plastics before the research showed that it was harmful and needed to be limited in 'food' applications?  And despite that current awareness, humans have evolved already because of it and will continue to evolve thusly in spite of the awareness.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279464/  (this link makes mention of inheritable gene modifications due to the operation of obesgons on DNA)


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 15, 2015)

Debby said:


> I'm on the fence about GMO's specifically, but I'm not on the fence about the chemicals that those plants get doused with repeatedly.  From your comment, I'm assuming that you're more concerned about the Roundup Ready aspect to these foods or am I mistaken on that?



Yes..  you are correct...   I am concerned with chemicals sprayed on plants..  but I am not concerned about GMOs..   As I stated, I cannot see how altering a gene in a tomato plant can harm us.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 15, 2015)

Debby said:


> I'm on the fence about GMO's specifically, but I'm not on the fence about the chemicals that those plants get doused with repeatedly.  From your comment, I'm assuming that you're more concerned about the Roundup Ready aspect to these foods or am I mistaken on that?
> 
> But maybe what we need to be concerned about is what you phrase as being an 'organisms ability to produce a chemical...'  Considering that BPA (found in hard plastics and food cans) is now included in the group of chemicals referred to as obesogens and known to change the DNA of unborn fetus's thereby increasing the propensity to obesity,  is there a possibility that the banana's new chemical output could cause harm but that the results are subtle and cumulative and so won't be known until a couple generations have been impacted/changed?
> 
> ...



I'm not... it's a gene that produces a chemical to prevent fast rotting, or fast ripening of a banana..  Seems like a good thing to me.   I throw out a lot of bananas as I don't bake banana bread..   I need an explanation of how a banana gene alteration can harm us.  We are NOT incorporating the genes of the banana into our own genome..  To me it's a harmless thing... Do we have a gene that prevents us from rotting or ripening?


----------



## imp (Sep 15, 2015)

* "As I stated, I cannot see how altering a gene in a tomato plant can harm us."
*
In and of itself, it cannot. However, various kinds of highly-specialized bacteria are being genetically-modified, causing chemical-specific changes in the materials produced as these modified bacteria inter-act with, say, a crop of bananas. Thus, not the bananas themselves are being GM'd, but rather only bacteria, a seemingly harmless process. Various studies conducted concerning effects on laboratory animals have shown GM-specific serious health issues, the kind we humans view as really terrible. Guess how these studies have almost all been dispensed with? Shelved after eminent Scientists disproved them publicly. Eminent Scientists did the studies, similar Scientists quashed them. 

Wouldn't one think truly concerned specialists like these would call for MORE study, rather than dismissing seriously damaging evidence? Monsanto has spent untold hundreds of millions of dollars convincing us of total safety to humans. 
*
"Concerns about the toxicity of PCBs are largely based on compounds within this group that share a structural similarity and toxic mode of action with dioxin. Toxic effects such as endocrine disruption and neurotoxicity are also associated with other compounds within the group. The maximum allowable contaminant level in drinking water in the United States is set at zero, but due to water treatment technologies, a level of 0.5 parts per billion is the de facto level.[SUP][5]"
[/SUP]
"In the United States, commercial production of PCBs was taken over in 1929 by Monsanto Chemical Company (now Solutia Inc) from Swann Chemical Company"
*from:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl

It has been documented that in the 1930s Monsanto produced extensive data "proving" the safety of their PCB products, while knowing full-well the future dangers to all human beings. Today, blood samples taken randomly worldwide contain measurable quantities of PCBs. It has even been found in the ice at both poles. 

So, why include PCBs, or ANY endocrine disrupting chemical, and a GMO discussion? Because many genetically modified bacteria produce endocrine disruptors which find their way up the food chain.    imp


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 15, 2015)

well... shit... ya have to die of something... I guess I'll take my chances on GMOs.  I venture to guess that most of US are too old now for it to matter.

It's a shame if all this is going to harm people in the future... but exactly WHAT are you going to do about it?  How are any of us going to put a stop to it?   I mean in our lifetime  which I would imagine for most of us on this site 20 years give or take..  Might as well eat what we like and stop worrying about it.. if the food doesn't kill  you, the stress and the fretting over every mouthful will..


----------

