Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
SDR WellnessCoach

Gmo's = Bad? Not So Fast

Recommended Posts

There had to be a logical explanation for Science modifying all our foods. Hopefully this is just the start of their success because changing the "staple" foods (Gluten & Soy) are not a realistic option in the US.

http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/stories/gm-cow-produces-hypoallergenic-milk

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?enabled_terms=&s_it=comsearch51&q=gmo+cow

Link to post
Share on other sites

There had to be a logical explanation for Science modifying all our foods. Hopefully this is just the start of their success because changing the "staple" foods (Gluten & Soy) are not a realistic option in the US.

http://www.mnn.com/f...allergenic-milk

http://search.aol.co...rch51&q=gmo cow

It really just depends on what is changed, how it's changed, and whether or not it's tested.

I don't have a problem with GMO's on their own, but I do have a problem with the fact that they are totally untested and, for the most part, we have no idea what kind of different effects they have on our bodies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The logical explanation for "Science" modifying our food (which is really corporations) is money. Not our health or well-being.

Edit: I re-read this and it came off nastier than I intended. What I mean is, it's dangerous to blindly trust that corporations or the government or even scientists always have your best interest at heart and their actions must therefore be good for us. Science and technological advancements are important, but lots of supposed advancements have ended up being detrimental to our health, intentionally or not. In recent studies, GMO corn caused tumors in rats. http://rt.com/news/m...mor-france-531/

Edited by mammasay
Link to post
Share on other sites

The logical explanation for "Science" modifying our food (which is really corporations) is money. Not our health or well-being.

Or creating crops that can be grown in sub-optimal conditions in impoverished places. Power can be used for good, or evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

70% of the worlds population is "lactose Intolerant". That's a very good reason to modify cow milk.

"Celiac Disease",aka Gluten Allergy,has risen400% in the last 10 years (due to testing/better testing). Since it's a "staple" food, another good reason to modify it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

70% of the worlds population is "lactose Intolerant". That's a very good reason to modify cow milk.

"Celiac Disease",aka Gluten Allergy,has risen400% in the last 10 years (due to testing/better testing). Since it's a "staple" food, another good reason to modify it.

A good reason to modify these things... or a good indication that we're not actually meant to consume these things. Depends on how you look at it, I guess...

The logical explanation for "Science" modifying our food (which is really corporations) is money. Not our health or well-being.

Or creating crops that can be grown in sub-optimal conditions in impoverished places. Power can be used for good, or evil.

True, though if I had to guess, most of the genetic modifying that's being done is for profit. Also, if there really is a danger to eating GMO foods, like studies indicate, it's arguable whether feeding hungry people carcinogenic food is a good solution to hunger and poverty. I've heard more compelling solutions that don't involve GMOs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

70% of the worlds population is "lactose Intolerant". That's a very good reason to modify cow milk.

"Celiac Disease",aka Gluten Allergy,has risen400% in the last 10 years (due to testing/better testing). Since it's a "staple" food, another good reason to modify it.

A good reason to modify these things... or a good indication that we're not actually meant to consume these things. Depends on how you look at it, I guess...

The logical explanation for "Science" modifying our food (which is really corporations) is money. Not our health or well-being.

Or creating crops that can be grown in sub-optimal conditions in impoverished places. Power can be used for good, or evil.

True, though if I had to guess, most of the genetic modifying that's being done is for profit. Also, if there really is a danger to eating GMO foods, like studies indicate, it's arguable whether feeding hungry people carcinogenic food is a good solution to hunger and poverty. I've heard more compelling solutions that don't involve GMOs.

That is it but "they" feel it's to late now to change.

Food allergies/intolerances/sensitivities are not random, they are Genetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

70% of the worlds population is "lactose Intolerant". That's a very good reason to modify cow milk.

"Celiac Disease",aka Gluten Allergy,has risen400% in the last 10 years (due to testing/better testing). Since it's a "staple" food, another good reason to modify it.

A good reason to modify these things... or a good indication that we're not actually meant to consume these things. Depends on how you look at it, I guess...

The logical explanation for "Science" modifying our food (which is really corporations) is money. Not our health or well-being.

Or creating crops that can be grown in sub-optimal conditions in impoverished places. Power can be used for good, or evil.

True, though if I had to guess, most of the genetic modifying that's being done is for profit. Also, if there really is a danger to eating GMO foods, like studies indicate, it's arguable whether feeding hungry people carcinogenic food is a good solution to hunger and poverty. I've heard more compelling solutions that don't involve GMOs.

That is it but "they" feel it's to late now to change.

Food allergies/intolerances/sensitivities are not random, they are Genetic.

Who's "they"? Individuals or the companies profitting off of making us sick? Either way, it's never too late. I grew up on the traditional American diet. I have an emotional attachment to it and a general fondness for it, from a non-nutritional standpoint. But I'd rather never eat grains or milk or whatever else again if it means living longer and being in better health. The solution is education and reform, not modifying foods that we aren't supposed to eat in the first place so that we may be able to tolerate them more but they also may give us cancer.

Edited by mammasay
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who "they" are is a good question. To me, "they" are tho ones that decided Gluten & Soy would be a great choice to be our staple foods. Most of what Medicine is today is to counteract the affects it has on the human body. Which there is now great profit in medications, testing, & office visits. So yeah, it's too late to change it now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who "they" are is a good question. To me, "they" are tho ones that decided Gluten & Soy would be a great choice to be our staple foods. Most of what Medicine is today is to counteract the affects it has on the human body. Which there is now great profit in medications, testing, & office visits. So yeah, it's too late to change it now.

While I agree that the entire system is already corrupt, from factory farming to pharmaceuticals, I (perhaps optimistically) disagree that it's too late. It would take serious change and require political means and government regulations to change the system, but it can be done. Still, what I meant was that we, as individuals, families and communities, can stop participating in a broken system, by choosing not to eat things that we're not meant to, by using our money as our voice and only buying things that aren't genetically modified or covered in pesticides, and by taking control over our health. We can at the very least change things for ourselves this way. But if enough people did this, the system would be forced to change too. Genetically modified foods, for example (along with everything else that harms us), are only profittable because we buy them. If significant numbers of people started to refuse to buy them, companies would produce less and less of them, opting instead for something that people do want to buy. Consumers determine the market, which is why educating consumers is important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The logical explanation for "Science" modifying our food (which is really corporations) is money. Not our health or well-being.

Or creating crops that can be grown in sub-optimal conditions in impoverished places. Power can be used for good, or evil.

Except that isn't what they are doing. And crops that grow in those suboptimal conditions already existed. They just aren't the cash crop staples Europeans introduced everywhere they went.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who "they" are is a good question. To me, "they" are tho ones that decided Gluten & Soy would be a great choice to be our staple foods. Most of what Medicine is today is to counteract the affects it has on the human body. Which there is now great profit in medications, testing, & office visits. So yeah, it's too late to change it now.

While I agree that the entire system is already corrupt, from factory farming to pharmaceuticals, I (perhaps optimistically) disagree that it's too late. It would take serious change and require political means and government regulations to change the system, but it can be done. Still, what I meant was that we, as individuals, families and communities, can stop participating in a broken system, by choosing not to eat things that we're not meant to, by using our money as our voice and only buying things that aren't genetically modified or covered in pesticides, and by taking control over our health. We can at the very least change things for ourselves this way. But if enough people did this, the system would be forced to change too. Genetically modified foods, for example (along with everything else that harms us), are only profittable because we buy them. If significant numbers of people started to refuse to buy them, companies would produce less and less of them, opting instead for something that people do want to buy. Consumers determine the market, which is why educating consumers is important.

Here's the thing about GMO's. I can eat Soy either GMO or Organic, it does not harm me at all. Wheat on the other hand, doesn't matter if it's GMO or Organic it does a lot of damage to me.

I do agree GMO Gluten is more toxic to a person with a Gluten Allergy as opposed to Organic Gluten. BUT they both are toxic none the less. The rise in chronic illnesses supports this & the way the American Diet is today (Gluten for example is in almost everything).

Because most people have know idea the food they eat everyday is causing their chronic ilnnesses, successful GMO is needed.

1 other thing is testing. People think they might have Celiacs. They get the Celiac Panel (Glaidin/Gluten, TTG, IgA) test done. It comes back negitive, well then I don't have it. Well, the Celiac Panel ONLY tests for damage done to the Villa by 1 of the 27 proteins Wheat contains. It doesn't test for a Gluten Allergy, only damage. IF you comeback positive for Celiacs Disease thru blood tests, it's FAR from over. Then you need to be scoped. IF they see damage to the Viila, a biopsy is needed. Now the last part (and the worst). A lot of doctors still blow this of (especially in children). Why? Because why would you want to go on such a restrictive diet or put you children thru it? Plus, like a article on read on WebMD, people that have Food Allergies are picked on and/or bullied.

HLA Celiac Panel could be a good test. However, the doctors only look @ the HLA-DQ2 & HLA-DQ8 because that's Genetic testing for Celiac. The HLA-DQ1 & HLA-DQ3 is the Genetic testing for a Gluten Allergy which goes unnoticed. The best tests so far are Wheat IgG, Barley IgG, & Rye IgG (or any Food IgG really). Again, IF your doctor does order the tests (& the right 1's), you get referred to a Allergy Specialists that will then tell you..."that's nothing, 95% of people have antibodies to food". Doctors know best, right? Many believe that.

My point is, there are not enough people that know some food's are bad for them to make enough "noise" so "they" would take notice and make the neccessary changes needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who "they" are is a good question. To me, "they" are tho ones that decided Gluten & Soy would be a great choice to be our staple foods. Most of what Medicine is today is to counteract the affects it has on the human body. Which there is now great profit in medications, testing, & office visits. So yeah, it's too late to change it now.

While I agree that the entire system is already corrupt, from factory farming to pharmaceuticals, I (perhaps optimistically) disagree that it's too late. It would take serious change and require political means and government regulations to change the system, but it can be done. Still, what I meant was that we, as individuals, families and communities, can stop participating in a broken system, by choosing not to eat things that we're not meant to, by using our money as our voice and only buying things that aren't genetically modified or covered in pesticides, and by taking control over our health. We can at the very least change things for ourselves this way. But if enough people did this, the system would be forced to change too. Genetically modified foods, for example (along with everything else that harms us), are only profittable because we buy them. If significant numbers of people started to refuse to buy them, companies would produce less and less of them, opting instead for something that people do want to buy. Consumers determine the market, which is why educating consumers is important.

Here's the thing about GMO's. I can eat Soy either GMO or Organic, it does not harm me at all. Wheat on the other hand, doesn't matter if it's GMO or Organic it does a lot of damage to me.

I do agree GMO Gluten is more toxic to a person with a Gluten Allergy as opposed to Organic Gluten. BUT they both are toxic none the less. The rise in chronic illnesses supports this & the way the American Diet is today (Gluten for example is in almost everything).

Because most people have know idea the food they eat everyday is causing their chronic ilnnesses, successful GMO is needed.

1 other thing is testing. People think they might have Celiacs. They get the Celiac Panel (Glaidin/Gluten, TTG, IgA) test done. It comes back negitive, well then I don't have it. Well, the Celiac Panel ONLY tests for damage done to the Villa by 1 of the 27 proteins Wheat contains. It doesn't test for a Gluten Allergy, only damage. IF you comeback positive for Celiacs Disease thru blood tests, it's FAR from over. Then you need to be scoped. IF they see damage to the Viila, a biopsy is needed. Now the last part (and the worst). A lot of doctors still blow this of (especially in children). Why? Because why would you want to go on such a restrictive diet or put you children thru it? Plus, like a article on read on WebMD, people that have Food Allergies are picked on and/or bullied.

HLA Celiac Panel could be a good test. However, the doctors only look @ the HLA-DQ2 & HLA-DQ8 because that's Genetic testing for Celiac. The HLA-DQ1 & HLA-DQ3 is the Genetic testing for a Gluten Allergy which goes unnoticed. The best tests so far are Wheat IgG, Barley IgG, & Rye IgG (or any Food IgG really). Again, IF your doctor does order the tests (& the right 1's), you get referred to a Allergy Specialists that will then tell you..."that's nothing, 95% of people have antibodies to food". Doctors know best, right? Many believe that.

My point is, there are not enough people that know some food's are bad for them to make enough "noise" so "they" would take notice and make the neccessary changes needed.

Your last sentence is exactly why I said education is a huge and crucial part of changing this. Perhaps someday "successful" GMOs will exist, but right now studies indicate that GMOs cause cancer. So creating wheat (or whatever crop) that is digestible but causes cancer in the long-term is not success. It's trading one problem for another, or in some instances trading one problem for the same problem. I really don't like this mentality that changing your diet is this really impossible thing. It's not. I haven't eaten meat in several years. At first it was a pain and was difficult and people even "picked on" me about it (not like I gave a flying you know what about that). Now it's just second nature. I'm currently avoiding gluten and refined sugar as much as possible. It's still in that phase of being difficult and annoying, but it's only been a few weeks and it's already easier than it was when I first started. I have several friends with Celiac's. The first thing everyone asks them is "Isn't that SO hard?" and their answer is always no, because they're used to it and their diet is normal to them. It just takes commitment, will power, time and a little extra effort, something Americans are not generally fond of. But that's a problem with the American mentality that everything should be easy and instantly gratifying, not a problem with the concept of changing one's diet.

Edited by mammasay
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention the most common crops that are GMO are the most commons ones that people tend to be allergic to.

It's all for the money. They even modify the seeds so that the seed from the fruit would be non functional, meaning the farmers would have to buy seed every year, and not be able to use the seed from their plants.

What is also a good reason to spray pesticides? To keep the crops from dying or save them from natural causes, so they can make more money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from all the things that are wrong with what Monsanto is doing, one of the things I find most frightening about GMOs is that they're unstable at a basic genetic level, and they may affect our own DNA, and continue to do so even after stopping consumption. We don't really know what that means yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from all the things that are wrong with what Monsanto is doing, one of the things I find most frightening about GMOs is that they're unstable at a basic genetic level, and they may affect our own DNA, and continue to do so even after stopping consumption. We don't really know what that means yet.

In other words, leave the perfection of nature alone. It knows more than we do, and looks beyond our personal needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from all the things that are wrong with what Monsanto is doing, one of the things I find most frightening about GMOs is that they're unstable at a basic genetic level, and they may affect our own DNA, and continue to do so even after stopping consumption. We don't really know what that means yet.

In other words, leave the perfection of nature alone. It knows more than we do, and looks beyond our personal needs.

Precisely. The ethics of manipulating the biosphere need to be personally (and globally) addressed.

Oh yeah, and VOTE YES ON PROP 37!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×