10 Genetically Modified Foods To Avoid

[OsO]

when it comes to eating healthy just do the best you can.

maximize on the good and minimize on the bad.

 

[Jazzy Jay]

Organic foods cost twice as much. Whats a starving college student suppose to do?

 

[ANewClassic]

Looks like its all shyt u can grow urself....

I'm going to go thank my parents and grandpa for all those fresh veggies

 

[flipn50]

FML I eat rice everyday.

 

[PortCityProphet]

Organic foods cost twice as much. Whats a starving college student suppose to do?

eat up them meal plans breh.

shyt is always gonna be fukked as long as you rely on someone else for anything. just do what ya wanna do and eat what you wanna eat. what don't kill ya make ya stronger










until it kills you

 

[FreedS[ohh]lave]

I been on my whole foods shyt recently..healthier and the shyt good for you..

 

[OsO]

Organic foods cost twice as much. Whats a starving college student suppose to do?

pasta and spaghetti sauce is a few bucks.

whole grain bread, peanut butter, jelly, honey... all a few bucks.

fruits and veggies are dirt cheap.



eating better definitely takes more effort initially because you have to forge different habits. but once you get it goin and you know exactly where you need to go to get different foods youre good.

 

[Hawaiian Punch]

I've been avoiding corn like a plague and make and effort to eat organic stuff. It's hard man, no matter what you do you will be exposed to this stuff.

 

[Ezus Jezus]

damn, what can you eat then??

 

[newworldafro]

Just copied and pasted from this thread..... http://www.the-coli.com/locker-room/32471-genetically-modified-food.html#.UJwX-MXAd8E

So last night a Proposition 37 in California, which would have forced GMO producers to label their foods saying if it was GMO or Not was defeated..........................................

Proposition 37 appears to have failed in California, but GMO labeling awareness achieves victory

Proposition 37 appears to have failed in California, but GMO labeling awareness achieves victory

(NaturalNews) Proposition 37 appears to have failed at the ballot box in California, according to the California Secretary of State ballot measures results. The GMO labeling ballot measure, which would have required food companies to label the GM content of foods, was defeated with the use of over $45 million in fraudulent advertising and dirty tricks funded by Monsanto, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, DuPont, Bayer and other food and pesticide companies.

Over the last month, this cabal of deceptive companies has funneled money into a campaign of criminal fraud which, among other crimes, fabricated a fake FDA quote and sent out mailers that fraudulently used the FDA seal. A criminal complaint has already been filed with the FBI.

The "No on 37" campaign also used fabricated front groups and impersonated a police organization (among others) to send out yet more fake mailers to voters, claiming that the police oppose GMO labeling. That fraudulent claim, of course, is entirely false.

Huge victory in terms of GMO awareness and grassroots support

The grassroots effort to pass Proposition 37 was supported by the efforts of millions of activists, plus financial donations from Mercola, Nature's Path, Amy's, Dr. Bronner and other companies. Natural News donated $10,000 to the effort and provided comprehensive editorial coverage of the grassroots effort. Click here to see a chart of who gave money to the effort.

And click here to see some of the "natural" brands that betrayed consumers with the "No on 37" deception.

Those brands include Kashi, Silk, Cascadian Farm, Larabar and more.

In many ways, the YES on 37 campaign was a huge victory for awareness. The campaign organized over 10,000 volunteers in California alone and succeeded in achieving a massive social media presence.

The YES on 37 campaign also forced Monsanto and the biotech giants to spend $45 million to defeat the measure. That's a record expenditure by the world's largest toxic pesticide companies to try to prevent consumers from knowing what they're buying. Remember: GMOs are the only products that consumers accidentally purchase without knowing what they're buying.

What's clear from all this is that GMO labeling has a foothold in the minds of American consumers, and this effort to label GMOs is going to be repeated state after state, year after year, until victory is achieved.

The biotech industry can no longer keep its dirty little secret: There's poison in your food, folks, and the big food producers absolutely do not want you to know that you're eating it.

The GMO labeling battle has only just begun

Monsanto and other companies appear to have won this showdown in California, but they are going to lose the war of deception against consumers. As awareness of GMOs continues to spread, people will demand honest labeling in increasing numbers.

The huge burst of awareness on Prop 37 has a lot of people asking the questions: Hey, what are GMOs? And why aren't they labeled on foods?

That question will ultimately spell defeat for Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and all the other evil, deceptive corporations who bankrolled the "No in 37" criminal fraud that deceived a majority of California voters.

Just a a few weeks ago.................................................

Rat Study Sparks Furor over Genetically Modified Foods: Scientific American

Rat Study Sparks Furor over Genetically Modified Foods
Cancer claims put herbicide-resistant transgenic maize in the spotlight

By Declan Butler

By Declan Butler of Nature magazine

Europe has never been particularly fond of genetically modified (GM) foods, but a startling research paper published last week looks set to harden public and political opposition even further, despite a torrent of skepticism from scientists about the work.

The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, looked for adverse health effects in rats fed NK603 maize (corn), developed by biotech company Monsanto to resist the herbicide glyphosate and approved for animal and human consumption in the European Union, United States and other countries. It reported that the rats developed higher levels of cancers, had larger cancerous tumors and died earlier than controls. The researchers have not conclusively identified a mechanism for the effect.

The rats were monitored for two years (almost their whole life*span), making this the first long-term study of maize containing these specific genes. About a dozen long-term studies of different GM crops have failed to find such stark health effects. An earlier test of NK603 maize in rats in a 90-day feeding trial — the current regulatory norm — sponsored by Monsanto showed no adverse effects.

The explosion of media coverage about the findings has energized opponents of GM food, especially in Europe. French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that, if the results are confirmed, the government will press for a Europe-wide ban on the maize. The European Commission has instructed the independent European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, to assess the study.

Many scientists, however, have already questioned the study’s methodology and findings. They assert that the data presented in the paper do not readily allow the claims to be independently assessed, and they question the study’s experimental design and its statistical analysis of any differences between the treated groups and controls. Other scientists point out that the Sprague-Dawley strain of rats used in the experiments has been shown to be susceptible to developing tumors spontaneously, particularly as they grow older, making it difficult to interpret the results. Monsanto itself said that the study “does not meet minimum acceptable standards for this type of scientific research”.

The €3.2-million (US$4.1-million) study was led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen, France, in collaboration with the Paris-based Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), whose scientific board he heads. CRIIGEN bills itself as an “independent non-profit organization of scientific counter-expertise to study GMOs, pesticides and impacts of pollutants on health and environment, and to develop non polluting alternatives”. The article’s publication coincides with the launch this week of a book by Séralini, Tous Cobayes? (All of Us Guinea-Pigs Now?), which tells the story of the research project and is accompanied by a film and a television documentary.

In a written response to Nature’s questions, Séralini and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, president of CRIIGEN and a co-author of the paper, say that they have been surprised by the “violence” and immediacy of scientists’ criticisms. They argue that most of the critics are not toxicologists, and suggest that some may have competing interests, including working to develop transgenic crops. They also point out some errors by critics, such as claims that graphs in the paper showing rat survival over time do not include data for the controls.

France checks the scientific validity of shocking GM food study


GMO Study -- Lab rats grow massive tumors after being fed GM corn.



GMO Corn Producing Giant Tumors In Rats

No need to worry though, keep celebrating......

OBAMA APPOINTS MONSANTO’S VICE PRESIDENT AS SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE COMMISSIONER AT THE FDA | The Story of Liberty


OBAMA APPOINTS MONSANTO’S VICE PRESIDENT AS SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE COMMISSIONER AT THE FDA


The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Michael Taylor, MONSANTO’S VICE PRESIDENT, was just appointed senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. This is the same man that was in charge of FDA policy when GMO’s were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety. He “had been Monsanto’s attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA [and then] he became Monsanto’s Vice President and chief lobbyist. This month [he] became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America’s food safety czar. This is no joke.”

"GMO Global Alert"

 

[Nefflum nigga]

Damn that's fukked up.

Monsanto originated and still is in saint louis county, off Lindbergh an olive blvd

U should see the signs n billboards on our highways sayin "Monsanto, helping saint louis grow".

Demonic shyt bruhs...

This has been a well known fact that Monsanto is odd and has real life mad scientists workin for them.

They created agent orange .. That should say a lot

 

[newworldafro]

WHY THE LABELING REFERENDUM FAIL???

Well the claim is that the advertisements against labeling saying it would cost more.....and of course that it is safe with no problemas.......but I'm wondering how much would it cost to find space on food label to put "GMO" on it...when they have all kinds of stuff on labels???

I don't know...early polls said that the label side would win with no problems, but then maybe the media blitz from the characters below really had an effect?? Idk?? ...

Check map of county by county vote...
Proposition 37 - Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling | General Election | California Secretary of State

Big Business Attacks Organic Leaders Over GMO Labeling at Gramercy Images News

Maybe this article can answer the question though.......

Michele Simon: Lies, Dirty Tricks and $45 Million Kill GMO Labeling in California
Lies, Dirty Tricks and $45 Million Kill GMO Labeling in California
Posted: 11/08/2012 10:08 am

California's Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, died a painful death Tuesday night. Despite polling in mid-September showing an overwhelming lead, the measure lost by 53 to 47 percent, which is relatively close considering the "No" side's tactics.

As I've been writing about, the opposition has waged a deceptive and ugly campaign, fueled by more than $45 million, mostly from the leading biotech, pesticide, and junk food companies. Meanwhile, the "Yes" side raised almost $9 million, which is not bad, but being outspent by a factor of five is tough to overcome.

While we can always expect industry to spend more, the various groups fighting GMOs for years probably could have been better coordinated. I was dismayed and confused by all the fundraising emails I received from different nonprofits on Prop 37 and wondered why they weren't pooling their resources.

But would more money and better strategy have made a difference? Given the opposition's tactics, it seems unlikely. I am not easily shocked by corporate shenanigans, but the "No on 37" campaign is my new poster child for propaganda and dirty tricks. It's worth recapping the most egregious examples.

Lying in the California voter guide: The "No" campaign listed four organizations in the official state document mailed to voters as concluding that "biotech foods are safe." One of them, the American Council on Science and Health, is a notorious industry front group that only sounds legit. Another, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, actually has no position and complained about being listed. (I was attending the group's annual meeting when this came to light and promptly notified the "Yes" campaign, but the damage was already done.) The other two organizations, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, in fact have more nuanced positions on GMOs than just "safe."

Misuse of a federal seal and quoting the Food and Drug Administration: This one caused even my jaded draw to drop. In a mailer sent to California voters, the "No" campaign printed the following text along side the FDA logo: "The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be "inherently misleading." That is exactly how they wrote it, with the incorrectly placed quotation marks. How can a $45 million campaign make a mistake like that? They can't; it's deliberately confusing. It also may even be a violation of criminal law to use a federal seal in this manner. I am told that some California voters were fooled into thinking FDA opposed the measure. Of course, that was the idea.

Misrepresenting academic affiliation: More than once, the "No" campaign gave the false impression that its go-to expert Henry Miller was a professor at Stanford University, in violation the school's own policy. (In fact, he's with the Hoover Institute, housed on the Stanford campus.) Only when Stanford complained did the "No" campaign edit the TV ad, but many already saw it, and then they repeated the lie in a mailer.

Deploying unfounded scare tactics: I fully expected the "No" side to use distracting arguments to scare voters while ignoring the merits of issue. But it took this common industry strategy to new heights, making wild claims about higher food prices, "shakedown lawsuits," and "special interest exemptions." While each of these claims is easily debunked, being outspent on ad dollars makes it hard to compete, especially when all you can really say is, "that's not true."

Additional lies and dirty tricks: 1) claiming the San Francisco Examiner recommended a "no" vote when in fact the paper endorsed "yes"; 2) putting up doctors and academic experts on the dole from Big Biotech as spokespeople without disclosing the conflict of interest; 3) securing a major science group's endorsement just two weeks before Election Day; 4) somehow convincing every major California newspaper to endorse a "no" vote, often with the very same industry talking points; and 5) placing ads in deceptive mailers that looked like they came from the Democratic party, cops, and green groups.

Each of these tactics, combined with a $45 million megaphone to spread the lies and deceit, simply overwhelmed the "yes" side. Some on Twitter criticized Californians for voting no on 37, but do not under-estimate the effectiveness of scare tactics such as claims of higher food prices. Industry uses them because they work. And voters believe the arguments not because they are stupid or don't care about the food they eat, but because they are pummeled with ads, getting only one side of the story. This is a problem inherent to the proposition process. (I live in California and have seen scare tactics work on everything from tobacco taxes to gay marriage.)

Indeed, the California experience may seem like déjà vu all over again to Oregonians who recall the ballot initiative there to label GMO foods in 2002. It lost miserably (70 percent voted no) and guess what the winning argument was then? And that measure also enjoyed an overwhelming lead in early polling, but a multi-million dollar ad blitz in the final weeks claiming higher food costs turned that right around.

While a lot has changed in 10 years for the food movement, the same industry tactics still work. (At least we came a lot closer here in California.) Advocates have also tried in 19 states to go through the legislature and failed there too, thanks to industry lobbying.

It's a shame because we really need a win at the state level to boost the federal Just Label It campaign, which aims to get the FDA to require labeling. I disagree with Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Farms and leader of Just Label It, for putting all his eggs in the federal basket. While Hirshberg and his company endorsed 37, he donated relatively little to the campaign and was even quoted in the New York Times saying he doesn't think this problem can be solved state by state. Obviously not, but how does Hirshberg ever expect to get anywhere at the federal level unless and until we can gain traction locally? This is exactly how most policy change is made, especially when we face massive industry opposition. Some are already predicting that the California loss will set back the effort nationally.

But the campaign is still an important step forward in the larger political fight against Big Food, one that raised a lot of awareness about GMOs, food production, and corporate tactics, both in California and nationally. As Twilight Greenaway noted at Grist, win or lose, the effort to pass Proposition 37 in California demonstrates a "bona fide movement gathering steam."

Now we have to keep gathering more and smarter steam. It was never enough to just be right, or even to have the people on our side. Not when the food industry gets to lie, cheat, and steal its way to victory.

State and Local Labeling Initiatives « Label Genetically Engineered Food

 

[Nefflum nigga]

This is within 10 miles of Monsanto.

Residents complain of 'worse than normal' smell coming from Bridgeton landfill | KMOV.com St. Louis

They use decomposing trash to make heat. But it isn't contained properly, they have a fear that the heat will start to get out... Bad thing about that is there's nuclear waste buried beneath it......

 

[Firefly]

Damn.....nothing safe. Plus if you can't afford good quality meats and dairy and fresh veggies you're fuccccccced.



Explains why so many people running around with not just disease but heavy mental issues.

 

[Captain Crunch]

So demonic