[Dr Lecter]

US citizens ignorant of genetically modified diet
10:00 16 December 2006

Despite having consumed genetically modified food in their cookies and apple pies for the best part of a decade, most Americans still don't know they're routinely eating the stuff.

A poll of 1000 US citizens published on 6 December reveals that only a quarter realise they're eating GM food, and 60 per cent have no idea it's in their diet.

“60 per cent of Americans have no idea they are eating genetically modified food”

"It's not completely off the radar, but it's not at the top of the mind for US consumers, and never has been," says Michael Fernandez of the Washington DC-based Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, which commissioned the survey. Public ignorance might be down to the fact that most GM material is effectively hidden, he says. It may be present, for example, as soybean lecithin or maize syrup in cookies, without labelling.

So what would it take to increase awareness? As always, a good food scare. The unexplained presence of GM material in imported food, for example, would play on people's prejudices, says Fernandez.

http://www.newscient...line-news_rss20

My Question is: Did you know?

Any my other question is: can someone change the title?

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 17 December 2006 - 10:52 PM

[David-kyo]

Any my other question is: can someone change the title?

Do you mean the typo, or the lack of accuracy?

[Otal Nimrodi]

I knew, I didn't CARE, but I knew.

[Deepsycher]

As for a title I am thinking of GM Foods Ignorant To Health?

Yep, from two years ago. When Bush was suing the EU for trying to label GM food, imported from America. I think he was trying to sue for discrimination.

"Hey by making the packaging look prettier, that should be the answers to all your problems, just pay attention to the packaging and looks and feel the tastes. Thats all you need to know, because I am worth it."

Also I hear the World Food Progam refusing to help poorer countries that refuse their GM foods. If I can find the correct articles from last year.

http://www.newscient...le.ns?id=dn2618

A WFP horribly gone wrong: 500 children fallen ill:
http://www.americas.org/item_29730

They say people who are poor are beggers and beggers cannot be choosers. Like some countries America needs guinea pigs, and they too happen to be a part of that whilst Bush was trying to force GM to a national scale where some people just don't want it.

Some charities think the request to mill the maize is reasonable. "We should not [reject] grain even if it's GM, when it's at the expense of people's lives."

I think this person is missing the point. "We should reject grain even GM if it's at the expense of the quality of people's lives." Because either you go hungry or you fall into the risk of become ill AFTER you eat. Let them say that about the infected BSE meat ten years ago that came out of cheapness from feeding cows incorrect foods such as cow feed that was already unconsumptional.


I think GM foods might be necessary far in the future if a certain species of food dies out rather than trying to make a profit selling it to countries who don't want it.

At the meantime shoudn't they be studying the long term effects of their creations?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 17 December 2006 - 09:37 AM

[Cyzyk]

I'm an Amurichan and I know I eat the stuff. I try to avoid it though, since I'm suspicious of anything the general public does.

[Deepsycher]

I have reason to be paranoid. The day when ordinary plants become mixed up with GM seeds globally and weeds that starts to mutate into superweeds. They can declare that grown food is now privatised.

Here is the problem:
"The world is now in our hands. We damaged the world so it needs us to survive. But, but no one else can legally grow our fruits and vegetables with our name on it because it is legally ours.

I'll make it simple to include the possibilty that they'll start to ©opyright vegetables and fruits or anything by allowing it to be killed first indirectly by superweeds. These GM companies might not be doing it intentionally as they know it can happen. So they sit back and secretly give it to citizens?

I hate to be a guinea pig but I use to be one except it wasn't with GM stuff. It was the chemicals that were put in my food. My health wasn't so affected but my mental state was badly affected.

Value for Money:
Like in some countries I think around 50 years ago they use to mix chalk with flour. That tradition hasn't changed because they now use chemicals mostly made up from plastics.

They use to mix flour with non edible substances so the quantity appeared larger in value.
A classic example was a time when Margaret thatcher and her team advised ice cream van workers to puff air in their ice cream so it appeared large. I think it was refered to as soft ice cream.

In the same way that some people think they are getting a good deal because:

Genetic engineering holds great potential payoffs for farmers and consumers by making crops resistant to pests, diseases, and even chemicals used to kill surrounding weeds.

http://news.national...eticplants.html

They manipulate food to taste like something that it isn't.
An orange juice without any oranges inside.
A packet or cheese crisps without any cheese inside.


And now they are trying to manipulate the architecture with food.
Plenty of choices for food on how it can be grown.

Is this for the name of cheapness?
I think it is.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 17 December 2006 - 02:03 PM

[Deepsycher]

Sorry for this double post but I forgot to add that as well as comparing something that is made to appear larger in size to something that has been modified I read it is cheaper to grow and produce.

Like for greenhouse gases, the more resistant they make these GM crops when the weeds mutate into superweeds from the same genes and spread all over, then they can start to melt away organic crops. Making their crops fitter, making the enemy fitter to a new stage.


What they seem to be doing in effect to the situation between crops and weeds is making "the survival of the fittest" tougher to rule out and kill off or contaminate free crops that are not their own.

Does anybody agree?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 17 December 2006 - 02:40 PM

[Cyzyk]

Did you know that if certain seeds fall off a truck and start to grow on your land you can be sued for growing crops you don't have a license for?

[Deepsycher]

Nope I didn't know that.

Certain seeds. You mean for GM seeds or naturally grown seeds?
Meaning I need a license to grow food?

[Deepsycher]

Despite my points it's so quiet. I just realised.
Sorry if I ruined the discussion for everybody else.
Accidentally a habit I am trying to control.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 18 December 2006 - 07:54 AM

[Emu]

I mean, GM foods are pretty ubiquitous now, you know it when you start seeing foods that advertise that they *don't* contain GMO. I buy organic foods when I'm thinking about it, but that's mostly because of pesticides and antibiotics rather than GMOs. I am not too worried about GMOs because they still contain the same stuff, just rearranged slightly which maybe causes them to make more of a certain protein or something that they'd be making anyway. I won't really worry about it until I see further evidence that I should.

but what does worry me is this:

I have reason to be paranoid. The day when ordinary plants become mixed up with GM seeds globally and weeds that starts to mutate into superweeds. They can declare that grown food is now privatised.

Did you know that if certain seeds fall off a truck and start to grow on your land you can be sued for growing crops you don't have a license for?

say you're a farmer who doesn't use GMOs and on a windy day your fields get cross-pollinated with some pollen from a nearby corporate farm that uses GMOs. that's right, you're now using GMOs even though you didn't want to. and you can probably get sued. I really think they need to regulate this better and have laws protecting people from these sorts of lawsuits.

[Cyzyk]

Certain seeds. You mean for GM seeds or naturally grown seeds?
Meaning I need a license to grow food?

I'm pretty sure its just the GM ones. They can't sue you for raising watermelons off seeds you kept from last year's melons.

[Deepsycher]

Well that is just typical of them. They want to OWN food.
"Hey look any crop that can survive Winter is ours. We modified it."
"But they are growing everywhere. So we want everyone who grows it to have a license to grow crops and a percentage of the price they are sold at."

Looking so important like they done something amazing with their GM crops.
"We have improved crops, made it easier to grow, any shape or size you want and to resist pests and weeds." When all they done is made "the survival of the fittest" tougher. So the weeds with their genetic genes kill of the original free crops. While life for the GM crop still goes on.

but what does worry me is this:
say you're a farmer who doesn't use GMOs and on a windy day your fields get cross-pollinated with some pollen from a nearby corporate farm that uses GMOs. that's right, you're now using GMOs even though you didn't want to. and you can probably get sued. I really think they need to regulate this better and have laws protecting people from these sorts of lawsuits.

So just some rich capitalist people who want to control the food supply for a share of our money. You can eat it but you can't grow it. Similar principle to some trend of online music. Where you can download anything you want for one price a month but after you stop paying you can't access any song. Unless of course you illegaly grow it to another source analogly. It seems like they want the protection the music industry had years ago.


For contamination slowly spreading:
Like in some part of the Matrix, "If you can't beat us, be us!".
Then Smiths will be mutating everywhere.

Seriously it is their fault for not controlling where their seeds go to. Their responsibility for where it goes. Why should farmers take responsibility for people who mess with food in a biological scale not noticeable to the human eye? I thought they should be held accountable for contaminating areas that are no their own.

Like how they tried to make space into a commodity by reflecting adverts down to earth on clear nights, now they are trying to own food.



It is like a farmer accidentally releasing his batch of animals into the wilds. Claiming they are rare species. And then suing for which land they step on and multiply to.

So if I was a GM farmer paying some license to grow their crops.
One day they'll say:
"You don't need to get it from us anymore."
"But still keep on paying because its everywhere and we own it."


Next thing to discuss further:

Contaminating people's land and suing them for it.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 18 December 2006 - 03:56 PM

[Slade]

My question is "Why should we care?" Are they unhealthy for us (or more unhealthy, depending on what they're being used in)?

I've heard things about this stuff, but nothing that has really piqued my interest.

[Deepsycher]

I have nothing against studies and experiments of plants being done to replace an extinct fruit or when a fruit becomes extinct in the future.

But not to extinct a fruit to bring it back as someone else's invention to own.


Oh LOOK. The EU a while back wanted to label 0.9% GM contaminated foods as Organic.
This is deception to hijack on the back door.



Why should we care?

If there are problems with the GM fruits and crops as shown in earlier studies of people falling ill that is something to worry about and the right to grow fruits and crops could be made illegal if someone else takes ownership of that through contamination of their own.


I don't know who agrees with me but this is how I see it.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 18 December 2006 - 04:34 PM