Are genetically modified foods bad?

[rickymooston]

Do you have issues with genetic food engineering? Discuss.

Likewise do you think organic food is better

[Nick]

Man has been modifying food ever since we started walking on 2 legs.  Now with genetic research scientists have developed ways to grow more with less chemicals being put on , draught resistant, and pest resistant.  With the world population 7billion and growing it is the only way to feed people without mass starvation's every few years.  Plus with the planet growing more and more warm we have to do something to save and protect our food supply.

What do you think is going to happen if we don't...God going to give us manna from heaven?

[ParkingPlaces]

I should probably research this a little before I open my big mouth. But my body is so full of chemicals I have no control. 

First of all, I do recognize that some genetic crops have literally been lifesavers. Wheat has been bred using genetic modification to grow in climates it could not grow well in before. And people have been able to eat and survive because of that. So it is not necessarily all bad. Though I like to think we humans could have come up with more natural solutions had we not been distracted by killing and selling.

I do know that genetically modified corn has a) caused the companies that made it to sue poor farmers who happened to be growing corn right next door to another farm where genetic corn was planted. In one case that I know about, the pollen drifted into the poor farmers corn and then said farmer was sued for a million or more for growing patented corn without buying the seed. That was idiotic. The seed company won and the farmer had to pay.

I know that those crappy tomatoes that look and feel and taste like plastic at my local grocery store are genetically modified to be drop resistant so they can handle being handled. You can't hurt them, you can't taste them, you can't chew them. The perfect food.

I know that genetically modified grain crops are cross-breeding with natural grasses growing in various parts of the world, wiping out the completely natural grasses and replacing them with hybrids. In some regions, there are no completely natural grasses left. Somehow I think we might live to regret this. Or not live, regretting this.

However, we are going to have to figure out how to genetically modify bananas or there will be none to buy within 15 years or so. Apparently some disease eventually gets into every banana plantation, and once it is there, it cannot be eradicated. And so they have to plant bananas somewhere else far away. And then the disease shows up there and the story gets repeated.

Banana growers are running out of safe places to grow their product. Your grandchildren may never get to taste one.

Attempts to make a genetically modified banana that is resistant to the disease have so far failed. But could succeed.

Organic is another matter. Theoretically very nice, it has downsides as well. First of all, the concept of "organic" has been co-opted by by all the big food companies and they have found ways to use the word on their labels when there isn't much organic at all about the product. So it is sort of hard for the consumer to know if and when they are buying organic. You can grow it just fine, but it is not always clear if you are successfully buying it.

Secondly, the perceived divide between adherents or organic and followers of the great god Ronald McDonald cause yet another line to be drawn in our society. It sucks to be the other guy. Someday we'll be shooting each other over this.

It also turns out that organic people are affected weirdly by the concept. People who buy organic salt end up using far more of it than they would use plain old Mortons. Chemically there is no difference, but people who think they are buying the healthy stuff use their righteousness to justify using more. And they do the same damage to their bodies that cheap salt does to less righteous folks. (This is similar to the harm suntan lotions do. Since we have put labels on lotions telling how "well" they will protect us via a number system, skin cancer rates have gone up. Because instead of being careful in the sun, folks now say "Hey, I'm safe, I'm using SPF 1 trillion so I don't ever have to hide from the sun." Life doesn't work that way.)

Secondly, psychologists have experimented with peoples perception of organic foods, and have found that if someone consumes something organic and then is asked to donate to a charity, they are less likely to give because they think they've already done something good by eating organic. To be fair, it easy enough to create artificial circumstances like that which create similar outcomes with nothing organic involved. But what people perceive of as good does modify their moral stance on other things that are "good" and "bad". So even if organic food is the greatest thing since, well, sliced whole wheat gluten-free hippie mamma bread, it has negative effects on society.

And then there are the tyrannical organic food types, and vegans. That turn their noses up at everything that doesn't have sprouts in it. I prefer JW's at my door over some of the judgmental creeps I've encountered over the years.

So the food is probably fine. But the way it affects individuals and society is a little iffy. Just like recycling, which causes folks to think it is okay to buy all that stuff that is wrapped in plastic because it can be recycled, organics causes folks to justify certain attitudes which suck. (Note; Since so many of us recycle and think that we are doing the right thing, the discussion of whether or not it is actually necessary for five screws to be packed in an unopenable plastic bubble pack is almost never discussed. It should be.)

Don't know if this was what you were looking for rickym, but it's all I got without going to plan B (wikipedia).

[rickymooston]

My personal opinion is, this technology has potential. I would like to see it regulated and for testing to be done

There are cases where in fact problems have occurred.Several were mentioned in the boom survival of the sickest; e.g., a clover that made sheep infrtile.

In Canada, we have a science based approval process. Mh understanding is, what is in our supermarket is safe.

Yes, breeding has been done for a long time.

[pingnak]

Define 'bad'.

If by 'bad', you mean farmers in nearby fields being sued out of business by genetic 'patent' holders when they replant last year's seeds, cross-pollinated with the seeds you're only allowed to buy, then yes, it's BAD.  But mostly that's bad law, bad legal policy.


But no worse than the other horrors in our food supply.

[ParkingPlaces]

Define 'bad'.

Okay, bad as feeding GM corn to cattle and buffalo causes a measurable increase in spontaneous abortions? Feeding it to humans is linked to faulty insulin production in humans and kidney damage. That kind of bad?

[pingnak]

Feeding ANY corn to cattle is BAD.  Their GI tract can't handle it.  They don't digest it right.

They stand ass deep in manure and mud all their lives, being fed CORN that they would never naturally eat.  Actually they'd eat the whole rest of the corn plant that they composted, but they wouldn't eat the corn cobs.  They're injected with HORMONES to make them gain weight faster, too.  And then they're fed to humans.  Yummy.

It just happens to be the CHEAPEST feed available, due to government subsidies that make corn cheaper than dirt.

[ParkingPlaces]

But now that ethenol production is competing with food for corn products, it is getting even more whacko.

From what I can see, GM corn is worse for critters than regular corn, which is already bad enough. And people are finding links to human health concerns caused by GM corn. I'm sure this is disputed. Mostly by people making money off of the stuff, I assume. The big picture, be it GM plants, global warming, the world economy or anything else is very hard to get because way too many don't want any of us to have all the facts. Not when they are inconvenient. So we can argue all we want over these issues. But we'll seldom have enough access to the truth to make sound conclusions.

[One Above All]

There's nothing wrong with it if it's properly tested. If we know what we're doing, as Nick said, it's really the only way to feed everyone.

[rickymooston]

Define 'bad'.

Okay, bad as feeding GM corn to cattle and buffalo causes a measurable increase in spontaneous abortions? Feeding it to humans is linked to faulty insulin production in humans and kidney damage. That kind of bad?

Wow, quite a lot of claims here.

Feeding ANY corn to cattle is BAD.  Their GI tract can't handle it.  They don't digest it right.

They stand ass deep in manure and mud all their lives, being fed CORN that they would never naturally eat.  Actually they'd eat the whole rest of the corn plant that they composted, but they wouldn't eat the corn cobs.  They're injected with HORMONES to make them gain weight faster, too.  And then they're fed to humans.  Yummy.

It just happens to be the CHEAPEST feed available, due to government subsidies that make corn cheaper than dirt.

How do you know corn is bad for cows? Likewise with the claim that the hormones ingested by cows are bad for us?

I am curious, if you arrived at those beliefs by consulting objective sources or not.

Do you have evidence for any of them?

[Nodak]

Feeding ANY corn to cattle is BAD.  Their GI tract can't handle it.  They don't digest it right.

They stand ass deep in manure and mud all their lives, being fed CORN that they would never naturally eat.  Actually they'd eat the whole rest of the corn plant that they composted, but they wouldn't eat the corn cobs.  They're injected with HORMONES to make them gain weight faster, too.  And then they're fed to humans.  Yummy.

It just happens to be the CHEAPEST feed available, due to government subsidies that make corn cheaper than dirt.

Okay, alot of anti- ag propaganda here.
Keep this in mind when parroting the baseless claims of anti-ag organizations.........Unhealthy cows are nonproductive cows.  That would not make any financial sense. 

There is no difference in the meat/milk you consume from a treated cow vs a non-treated cow.
Corn fed cows have more fat in them....which is unhealthy but it makes the meat tastes better to Americans. I personally am use to grass fed cow meat because i butcher my own cows.....but that is because I live on enough land to have that luxury.....most people don't.

[ParkingPlaces]

Nodak

I don't know if this is a case of being anti-ag or being anti-ag-huge-business. I don't think anyone disputes the value of ranchers and farmers. What we are disputing in this thread is GM crops and their effect on the world. I have no trouble whatsoever using ye olde google and getting tons of hits that dispute the safety of GM plants in dozens of ways. Plus I have no trouble finding web sites dedicated to the legal issues that have come up regarding GM food.

GM foods are, by definition, not natural. Fish genes in our tomatoes to keep them from freezing so quickly is not a normal course of events. The ability of a crop to be sprayed with weed killer and not die while the weeds within the crop do die is not a natural course of events. Whenever someone, be it an individual or a corporation, decides to do something major like produce GM products, to calmly accept that all is okay because nobody would ever harm another human for profit is possibly naive.

Things are going wrong. Hounds Tooth, a noxious weed out west, can currently be treated successfully with Roundup. But the the maker, Monsanto, admits that they have have, through carelessness or some other means, managed to allow Roundup-proof Hounds Tooth out into the wild. And it is slowly spreading out, fanlike, from the research areas on its way to re-infest the land, a newer, stronger variety that won't die easily. Is this something we should not discuss because it is dissing ag businesses, or is it a legitimate concern that is worthy of public discussion?

I have no trouble finding people concerned about Bovine Growth Hormone and the human ingestion of it. People concerned about such things don't seem to be cranks the way the anti-human vaccination crowd is. My generic store brand milk has a label on it that proudly declares that it is not from cows treated with that substance. I'm guessing that there might actually be a reason not to feed yet another chemical into our bodies. I could be wrong, but as I alluded to in my previous post, it is very difficult to get trustable answers in a world where so many have vested interest in making us agree with them, regardless of whether the answer they want us to believe is right or wrong.

Now I don't care what I eat. I'm old, and I joke that I will probably live longer because I'm so full of preservatives. But the issue over safe food isn't only preservatives. If you eat lettuce grown in California, it has traces of a compound in rocket fuel that, when accidentally or carelessly spilled in that region quickly spread throughout the water table because most everything it touches acts porous to it, and it spreads like wildfire underground. You eat the lettuce, it goes through your system, the rocket fuel additive emerge unharmed, and it starts spreading through your local water supply. We don't know how harmless this is. Should we therefore not ask questions about it? Are we questioning the rocket fuel industry unfairly? Are we supposed to ignore the question because the ag industry is involved and too precious to question?

If we can't ask questions freely, then we can't expect accurate answers. I live in Montana. Much of the state depends on agriculture. I'm in the construction industry, and my job depends on the health of the local economy. So I certainly have a vested interest in local farmers and ranchers doing well so I can do well. But do I have to buy in to the story that nothing they do could ever hurt me just so the many potentially harmful chemicals and genetically modified products they grow and use can continue to profit someone somewhere who cares only about the bottom line?

There is research out there that says GM products, with the exception of one type of corn, do not produce larger yields than non-modified crops. There is research out there that says that the unnatural chemicals and compounds we are eating in GM and processed foods is one of the factors causing people to become obese. And I'm sure if I were to read more of my google results, I would find other questionable outcomes to add to this list. Am I not supposed to do that? Read google results?

I don't know how to find the answers. You may be completely correct, and my questioning of the industry may be way off base. But I don't know how to determine that. My children may have less than a decade to live because of the crap they are shoveling in their mouth that pretends to be food. I don't know that either. We have long ago given up the ability to get accurate information because there are not professionals out there in public relations making sure that the version we get is cleaned up. There are politicians out there providing similar disinformation as they damage our world in various ways. On top of that, uninformed people have a habit of making crap up and calling it true, so we have people convinced that airplanes are spraying nano particles containing mind-control substances and we have mothers who don't vaccinate their kids because they are convinced shots cause autism.

It all sucks. We are all stupid because we don't have enough information. But please let me ask whenever I'm curious.

[12 Monkeys]

could a twinkie be considered a modified food? yes there are some ingredients in it you recognize but it is terrible to put it in your body

[ParkingPlaces]

could a twinkie be considered a modified food? yes there are some ingredients in it you recognize but it is terrible to put it in your body

I think the better question is can a Twinkie be considered food? 

[Kimberly]

ParkingPlaces

I thoroughly loved your posts in this thread. Your words express a great concern that shouldn't be ignored. Kudos to you for standing up and speaking your mind so eloquently.

I personally have no opinion on the OP because I've not researched it and am one of the uniformed people who has only read misinformation, and political propaganda. I've tried several times to form an opinion on this topic and I never can. It's interesting to see others discuss it though.

[pingnak]

You could always watch 'Food, Inc.' and judge for yourself how 'healthy' a feeder farm is.

Who says miserable cows aren't productive?  As long as they keep putting weight on, that's all that matters.  They pump them up with antibiotics to keep them from getting 'sick'. 

You may as well claim the chicken breeds that never see the light of day, and can't even support their own weight wouldn't be profitable if the chickens weren't 'happy'.

[rickymooston]

I have no trouble whatsoever using ye olde google and getting tons of hits that dispute the safety of GM plants in dozens of ways. Plus I have no trouble finding web sites dedicated to the legal issues that have come up regarding GM food.

The moose is waiting. Peer reviewed repudible sources are best. 

GM foods are, by definition, not natural. Fish genes in our tomatoes to keep them from freezing so quickly is not a normal course of events.

Penn Telller made claim that in fact tomatoes with animal genes, while used in the lab are not being sent to the dinner table.  Is the claim of the expert they quote correct? I do not know.

Modern medicine is not natural. I am not sure that unnatural implies unhealthy. Sometimes it does.

The ability of a crop to be sprayed with weed killer and not die while the weeds within the crop do die is not a natural course of events. Whenever someone, be it an individual or a corporation, decides to do something major like produce GM products, to calmly accept that all is okay because nobody would ever harm another human for profit is possibly naive.

This is why science based testing, monitored by independent government bodies is required. These bodies need to be at arms lengeth from political control. In Canada, we have this.

Things are going wrong. Hounds Tooth, a noxious weed out west, can currently be treated successfully with Roundup. But the the maker, Monsanto, admits that they have have, through carelessness or some other means, managed to allow Roundup-proof Hounds Tooth out into the wild. And it is slowly spreading out, fanlike, from the research areas on its way to re-infest the land, a newer, stronger variety that won't die easily. Is this something we should not discuss because it is dissing ag businesses, or is it a legitimate concern that is worthy of public discussion?

This sounds like a legitamate concern. Perhaps, Monsano should be sued by the government or chasrged with clean up?

I have no trouble finding people concerned about Bovine Growth Hormone and the human ingestion of it. People concerned about such things don't seem to be cranks the way the anti-human vaccination crowd is.

See the request for peer reviewed articles on the subject.

My generic store brand milk has a label on it that proudly declares that it is not from cows treated with that substance.

That is good business, the question is, is it good science?

If you eat lettuce grown in California, it has traces of a compound in rocket fuel that, when accidentally or carelessly spilled in that region quickly spread throughout the water table because most everything it touches acts porous to it, and it spreads like wildfire underground.

This claim sounds untrue. How much rocket fuel is there?

Are we questioning the rocket fuel industry unfairly? Are we supposed to ignore the question because the ag industry is involved and too precious to question?

If these claims are not backed by independent peer reviewed scientific reseach, then yes.

If we can't ask questions freely, then we can't expect accurate answers. I live in Montana. Much of the state depends on agriculture. I'm in the construction industry, and my job depends on the health of the local economy. he factors causing people to become obese. And I'm sure if I were to read more of my google results, I would find other questionable outcomes to add to this list. Am I not supposed to do that? Read google results?

You are an American. Your country wasfounded on people being able to ask questions, freely.

The hard part is thinking critically about the answers that come back

I don't know how to find the answers.d we have mothers who don't vaccinate their kids because they are convinced shots cause autism.

It all sucks. We are all stupid because we don't have enough information. But please let me ask whenever I'm curious.

Google is a great start. The trick is to ask yourself, how objective the sources are.

Biased sources

The Kato institute
Green Peace
The organization representing the businesses involved.
Most news outlets. I consider the BBC an exception but that's me.

Objective Sources

Harder to find. Some government oganizations. In the US, I'm skepticle that some of their government backed
Research is at arms legth from their goovernment politicians.


I think Canada andthe UK have good reputations.

Peer reviewed papers in scientific journals

REputible Universities

...

[ParkingPlaces]

I have no trouble whatsoever using ye olde google and getting tons of hits that dispute the safety of GM plants in dozens of ways. Plus I have no trouble finding web sites dedicated to the legal issues that have come up regarding GM food.

The moose is waiting. Peer reviewed repudible sources are best. 

GM foods are, by definition, not natural. Fish genes in our tomatoes to keep them from freezing so quickly is not a normal course of events.

Penn Telller made claim that in fact tomatoes with animal genes, while used in the lab are not being sent to the dinner table.  Is the claim of the expert they quote correct? I do not know.

Modern medicine is not natural. I am not sure that unnatural implies unhealthy. Sometimes it does.

The ability of a crop to be sprayed with weed killer and not die while the weeds within the crop do die is not a natural course of events. Whenever someone, be it an individual or a corporation, decides to do something major like produce GM products, to calmly accept that all is okay because nobody would ever harm another human for profit is possibly naive.

This is why science based testing, monitored by independent government bodies is required. These bodies need to be at arms lengeth from political control. In Canada, we have this.

Things are going wrong. Hounds Tooth, a noxious weed out west, can currently be treated successfully with Roundup. But the the maker, Monsanto, admits that they have have, through carelessness or some other means, managed to allow Roundup-proof Hounds Tooth out into the wild. And it is slowly spreading out, fanlike, from the research areas on its way to re-infest the land, a newer, stronger variety that won't die easily. Is this something we should not discuss because it is dissing ag businesses, or is it a legitimate concern that is worthy of public discussion?

This sounds like a legitamate concern. Perhaps, Monsano should be sued by the government or chasrged with clean up?

This particular article does not mention the weed I did, or it may be using another common name for it, but I only  mentioned one. It mentions twenty types. And notice that Canada is not immune. And the article is from the Minneapolis Post, so this is not a fly-by-night website.

http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2012/05/arms-race-against-weeds-new-weapons-extend-losing-strategy

Here is an article that is a couple of years old from the NYT. Same problem, different year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all

I have no trouble finding people concerned about Bovine Growth Hormone and the human ingestion of it. People concerned about such things don't seem to be cranks the way the anti-human vaccination crowd is.

See the request for peer reviewed articles on the subject.

My generic store brand milk has a label on it that proudly declares that it is not from cows treated with that substance.

That is good business, the question is, is it good science?

Don't know. Let me google it. Hmmm....

First, we'll ignore that it is also made by Monsanto. I'd hate to jump to conclusions.

You mentioned Canada. Can't get milk with it there. Illegal. Same with Europe. And now in the US only about 17% of the cows are getting it. So apparently it is either a) dangerous or b) perceived as dangerous and not used. Virtually everything I find on Google says it is bad for us, and I can't find much about how refreshing it is, like Pepsi. But if only 17% of the cows are getting it, and I'm not, it is apparently not much of an issue. It should be easy for anyone who doesn't want to consume it to avoid the stuff.

A few articles just to show that I can actually use search engines:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormone

A very short and damning story about the product and Canada (damning if you're not big on bribes)
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_milk_in_Canada_contain_Bovine_Growth_Hormone

Here is one that thinks the stuff is akin to cupcakes. (Note that my search term was "bovine growth hormone" and nothing else. This first clearly positive story on the stuff was on the fourth page of the search results):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/court-victory-bovine-grow_b_751009.html

Now how one group can say there is absolutely not health risk from BGH and another can say it is a proven carcinogen I don't know. But in a case where I can easily avoid the stuff, I will.


I found it interesting that Monsanto was taking people to court to keep them from putting "No Bovine Growth Hormone" labels on milk. Monsanto lost. That's how I know mine doesn't have it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/court-victory-bovine-grow_b_751009.html

If you eat lettuce grown in California, it has traces of a compound in rocket fuel that, when accidentally or carelessly spilled in that region quickly spread throughout the water table because most everything it touches acts porous to it, and it spreads like wildfire underground.

This claim sounds untrue. How much rocket fuel is there?

I wish it was. And the amount is almost irrelevant. It flows so freely in underground aquifers that even the tinest amount will spread all over hell and gone.

The stuff is called perchlorate, and though it is a natural substance, it is not something that normally contaminates water supplies. And while the health risks of the stuff may be low compared to some things, we don't know that for sure. (The only major health risk I see discussed is regarding its negative effects on the thyroid in women and children. I have seen people link it to cancer, but I'm not finding anything reliable on the subject in my search).  It may be measured in parts per billion, but when you drink a glass of water with a couple of quadrillion molocules in it, you get quite a few billion bits of the stuff.

The EPA initially recommended a limit of 1 part per billion in drinking water. The Bush administration said there is no need to regulate it and anything under 15 parts per billion should be just fine. I'm biased, but if the Bush administration liked the stuff, I probably don't.

By the way, once he left office they felt free to regulate, and have regulated the levels in drinking water. So at least the issue isn't being ignored, even if the government is at times sort of incompetent when it comes to stuff like this.

Here are some links:

Wikipedia, for a short version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perchlorate

This is an article out of USA Today, but published in an environmental blog:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/02/epa-rocket-fuel-tap-water/1#.T8V8bpj-tLS

The EPA page on the subject:
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/unregulated/perchlorate.cfm

If you want a pro-perchlorate page, it has a site of its own! Yea!
http://perchlorateinformationbureau.org/
Where they claim that 24 parts per billion are just yummy.

I can't find the article I had  read on lettuce and the chemical, but I found others. Like this one:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.113-a232a

And here is the abstract of a study done by Texas Tech in 2003 that found 97% of the human breast milk samples it studies were contaminated with perchlorate. Remember that part where I said it was bad for women and children.

Are we questioning the rocket fuel industry unfairly? Are we supposed to ignore the question because the ag industry is involved and too precious to question?

If these claims are not backed by independent peer reviewed scientific reseach, then yes.

A couple of the above links were to peer reviewed scientific papers.

If we can't ask questions freely, then we can't expect accurate answers. I live in Montana. Much of the state depends on agriculture. I'm in the construction industry, and my job depends on the health of the local economy. he factors causing people to become obese. And I'm sure if I were to read more of my google results, I would find other questionable outcomes to add to this list. Am I not supposed to do that? Read google results?

You are an American. Your country wasfounded on people being able to ask questions, freely.

The hard part is thinking critically about the answers that come back

That is what I'm trying to do. Ask the right questions, get the right answers. It is difficult to parse info accurately when so many points of view are diametrically opposed. I guess I just have to choose sides and hope I'm right.

I don't know how to find the answers.d we have mothers who don't vaccinate their kids because they are convinced shots cause autism.

It all sucks. We are all stupid because we don't have enough information. But please let me ask whenever I'm curious.

Google is a great start. The trick is to ask yourself, how objective the sources are.

Biased sources

The Kato institute
Green Peace
The organization representing the businesses involved.
Most news outlets. I consider the BBC an exception but that's me.

Objective Sources

Harder to find. Some government oganizations. In the US, I'm skepticle that some of their government backed
Research is at arms legth from their goovernment politicians.


I think Canada andthe UK have good reputations.

Peer reviewed papers in scientific journals

REputible Universities

...

I'm trying. Really I am. This is a good exercise in researching hard questions. And luckily I was breast fed before they invented rockets (well, not really, but the ones we had were powered by pterodactyl farts.  )

Wish us all luck in these matters.

Edit: Fixed pathetic quoting problems

[rickymooston]

I browsed your links. The on rocket fuel. In fact, that chemical also comes from bleach and fertilsers

Rocket fuel is rare. Bleach is not.

The EPA info on it is rather interesting.

Apparently the chemical is also naturally occuring.

I used google scholar to find more articles on the bovine thing. You are right, it looks pretty scary. And the negative effects have been known since 1970.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910060320/abstract

There was also a paper by the NIH, claiming the lack of labeling was wrong.

Your google skills are indeed good. The trick is always to filter through the crap and select relevant data from reliable sources. I had a hard time doing that on global warming.

[pingnak]

Graphic...


http://thedailywh.at/2012/05/30/this-is-also-all-kinds-of-wrong-of-the-day-4

[Nodak]

I have no trouble finding people concerned about Bovine Growth Hormone and the human ingestion of it.

Humans aren't ingesting anything different in rBGH treated cows vs non-treated. That is my point. Show me the study that shows increased levels or differnces in the hormone level of what you consume. All meat has hormones in it. All milk has hormones in it. Organic milk has the exact same hormones as conventional milk. There is not one bit of difference in organic milk vs Conventional milk. All have hormones, and neither has antibiotics in it. Posilc (rBST) is a like a supplement of a natural product In the cow.....Cows that naturally milk more produce more somatotropin....w rBST we are just giving them more of the product that has been genetically Manufactured

My generic store brand milk has a label on it that proudly declares that it is not from cows treated with that substance.

That's marketing 101 for ya!

I'm guessing that there might actually be a reason not to feed yet another chemical into our bodies.

As noted above....you are not feeding another chemical into your body wrt to rBST.

If we can't ask questions freely, then we can't expect accurate answers.

I'm not sure where you are getting that you can't ask questions..... But most of the accurate answers are going to come from science based studies.   I definately understand wanting some answers and how confusing it is for novices in the field. When 98% of the population have no clue about agriculture but have their bellies full every day, its hard to know where to even begin to give them a foundation knowledge about the science of agriculture. I can't tell you the number of well educated city folk who are always surpised to hear  that a cow has to get pregnant and have a calf every year for her to produce milk.  where do you even start in the conversation? Plus, they have alot of misinformations (or worse BELIEFS) that you have to overcome. Having to explain agriculture and science at the same time is close to impossible task.

I live in Montana.

well, we are practically neighbors.....I'm in western North Dakota!

[ParkingPlaces]

Nodak

It appears that you are right about the BGH issue. At least as far as the effect on humans. There are those that claim that it causes health problems for the milk cows. I have no idea how accurate that is. But I am told that those problems are the reason the hormone has been banned in Canada, Europe and Australia.

Now since I am really hoping someone will shoot a cow in the next day or two so I can have fresh hamburger on Saturday, my overall concern about animals involved in food production isn't universally empathetic. So if milk cows are suffering needless pain while roaming over green meadows, and they don't have to be, then I tend to care at least a little bit. If they are not, that would be nice to know.

But apparently those that raise the alarm about BGH as harmful to humans have nothing to go on. And I know this now. I did not know this when this thread started. Consider my newfound knowledge progress of one sort or another. I'll still buy the cheap milk with the label that says it doesn't have any growth hormone. Because it is cheap. And that is just about the only dairy product I regularly use. I never use butter (or margarine), seldom use sour cream, and only very occasionally buy cottage cheese. So I am not likely to become a supporter of the hormone either. But at least I'm not wrong about how horrible it is any more. Thanks for your part in this.

We would be closer to being neighbors if you lived in Rhode Island and I lived in Connecticut.  I live in Western Montana. As the crow flies, it is 485 miles just to the North Dakota border. And I ain't a crow. We're still neighbors of course, but by east coast standards we might as well be living in two different countries.

[Nodak]

Nodak

There are those that claim that it causes health problems for the milk cows.

Again, unhealthy cows are nonproductive cows.  For cows to produce the amount of milk they do, they need to be in as good of health as an elite athlete.  It truly is an athletic event. The amount of effort that goes into cow comfort and health is a wise financial investment for milk production. Probably the most difficult animal welfare issue to deal with w milk cows is that the male calves are "disposable"....and remember a cow *HAS* to have a calf every year to produce milk.  One way to get around this is the ongoing development of sexing sperm so that you produce only female calves....Again, using science and technology to advance animal agriculture.

I have no idea how accurate that is. But I am told that those problems are the reason the hormone has been banned in Canada, Europe and Australia.

People always quote that the EU has "banned" it. It was not banned due to safety concerns. It is purely *economic*.....those are quota milk countries with no reason to expand production (unlike the US). One thing that always gets missed....dairy products from cows supplemented with rBST are not banned anywhere! There is not one place in the world that has a policy that forbids importing dairy products based on rBST use or disuse. So they may not allow their producers to use it but they will snatch up our cheap milk products that are made under production practices that utilize technology like rBST.

So if milk cows are suffering needless pain while roaming over green meadows, and they don't have to be, then I tend to care at least a little bit. If they are not, that would be nice to know.

Again, suffering cows are unproductive cows.  BUT the small farms that have not kept up with technology become unprofitable and the health and welfare of the animals begin to slip.
But for some reason (likely due to ignorance of agriculture, science and economics) the is always a large outcry when we incorporate science, technology and efficiency into agriculture....and anti-"big Ag" corporations.

If you look at the number of cattle in the USA versus the amount of land we dedicated to agriculture, through efficient production methods we have decreased the inputs and increased the outputs. This is another point that is often overlooked by those opposed to production agriculture. Today we have 9 million dairy cows in the USA and 50 years ago we have 30 million. Today we have about 50% more milk with 30% of the cows. Now....if the minority of consumers and some uniformed legislators want our farmers to farm like they did when my grandfather farmed, with 140 acres, 10 cows, 20 pigs and 30 chickends, we are going to need about 20 million more cows. Where on earth will we put them and where are we going to spread their manure? A study out of Cornell this year states that if you look at the environmental impact of the dairy industry now versus 50 years ago, and evaluate it on a per gallon of milk basis, we produce less of an impact now than 50 years ago. This is not news to us in the industry but the mainstream media misses that. It is the same as riding a bus.....you may get 8 mile per gallon the bus but it can haul more people so on a per person basis the bus is more friendly than the Prius.

But apparently those that raise the alarm about BGH as harmful to humans have nothing to go on. And I know this now. I did not know this when this thread started. Consider my newfound knowledge progress of one sort or another.

Sorry, if I got too long winded and a bit riled up. In general, I come to WWGHA for a mental break from veterinary medicine.....but I can't help myself when I see misinformation....even though it ruined my WWGA buzz to step into vet med again. I'm glad it helped and I will go back to my WWGHA buzz now.

I'll still buy the cheap milk with the label .......... Because it is cheap.

This is a whole 'nuther very involved conversation....the government involvement in making milk cheap and the Americans entitlement to cheap food....its ruining our agricultural system in USA and the reason there is consolidation ("Big Ag corporations") in agriculture....but I'm going back to my WWGHA buzz for now.

I live in Western Montana. As the crow flies, it is 485 miles just to the North Dakota border. And I ain't a crow. We're still neighbors of course, but by east coast standards we might as well be living in two different countries.

Yea, but you know what they say about North Dakota...and is likely true for Montana.....The whole state of North Dakota is like a small town with really long roads.....So, you're really just the next town over.

[Nodak]

Graphic...

Ping,
I could not open the video for some reason and the link did not work. But there really is no need for me to watch it because I've seen likely similar videos from the HSUS. The HSUS, although they do some good projects which I actually participate  on in Central and South America, is an animal rights group that misinforms the public, cherry picks their propaganda to spread, and is not science based but emotion based.  They have a very effective fundraising operation which a large part of the proceeds do NOT go to animal welfare but to trying to shut down animal agriculturen (and maintain their own power). Their agenda is clear.

Anytime there is abuse of animals it is illegal and should be prosecuted. This video likely led to the firing of a number of employees and managers...as it should. That does not mean that it is representative of animal agriculture. Similar to videos of dog-fighting is not representative of the majority of pet owners.

So, I don't know what your goal was in posting the video, but please do not spread ignorance and misinformation.......I think that is an official "sin" on wwgha.

[nogodsforme]

Corn is bad for cows, who do better on grass. Corn bloats them up and makes them sick. Corn is okay for pigs, who are omnivores like humans, bears and dogs. This info is from my [many moons ago] tropical agriculture training, and may be out of date.

[rickymooston]

The actual story of why rBHA hormone is banned in Canada is a bit scary. I am not against genetetically modified foods but I am very much against unregulated or poorly regulated ones. The Canadian system seems to ask the companies to do their own testing and not in a way that can ensure arms length objectivity in the certification process. Companies like Masano, apparently, are pretty scary. 4 people lost their jobs refusing to abide by gag orders with respect to issues related to this. 2 journalsists with a Fox news affiliate and 2 Canadian regulation scientiists. My confidence in the Canadian system is actually reduced after this story.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC280709/ <--- This article points to the problems with its use in dairy cattle to the cattle.

This manuscript presents the results of a review of the effects of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) on dairy cattle health, reproductive performance, and culling, that was carried out by an expert panel established by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA). The panel was established by the CVMA in response to a request from Health Canada in 1998 and their report was made public in 1999. A series of meta-analyses was used to combine data on health-related parameters that were extracted from all randomized clinical trials that had been published in peer-reviewed journals or which were provided by Health Canada from the submission by Monsanto for registration of rBST in Canada. A companion paper (1) presents the estimates of the effect of the drug on production parameters. Recombinant bovine somatotropin was found to increase the risk of clinical mastitis by approximately 25% during the treatment period but there was insufficient data to draw firm conclusions about the effects of the drug on the prevalence of subclinical intra-mammary infections. Use of rBST increased the risk of a cow failing to conceive by approximately 40%. For cows which did conceive, there was no effect on services per conception and only a small increase in average days open (5 days). Use of the drug had no effect on gestation length, but the information about a possible effect on the risk of twinning was equivocal. Cows treated with rBST had an estimated 55% increase in the risk of developing clinical signs of lameness. Few studies reported data on culling, but based on those that did, there appeared to be an increase risk of culling evident in multiparous cows. Use of the drug in 1 lactation period appeared to reduce the risk of metabolic diseases (particularly ketosis) in the early period of the subsequent lactation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8932606

Levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) are substantially elevated and more bioactive in the milk of cows hyperstimulated with the biosynthetic bovine growth hormones rBGH, and are further increased by pasteurization. IGF-1 is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, as evidenced by marked growth-promoting effects even in short-term tests in mature rats, and absorption is likely to be still higher in infants. Converging lines of evidence incriminate IGF-1 in rBGH milk as a potential risk factor for both breast and gastrointestinal cancers

The above from one peer reviewed survey paper and another one of many studies linking the increase to an increase in INF-1 production in the milk to the cow consuming the rBGH.

What is most scary is, in fact in the US, is was ultimately farmers and business interests who lobbied for the labeling.

I did come across a survey paper that includied the original reason why the American FDA allowed it originally. I think Mosano being allowed to prevent labeling of the food was quite wrong. I do understand why, if the technology was safe, that they feel that way though.

[Nodak]

Corn is bad for cows, who do better on grass. Corn bloats them up and makes them sick.

Nogods,
Why are cattle fed corn? They are fed corn because it is a starch and energy source that makes them grow. Consumers want steak that tastes good.  There is simplly not enough land in the USA to raise the amount of meat and milk that we are currently raising to grow it on pasture

Again, if corn made them sick, they would be unproductive and not have weight gain.....very poor financial investment. Feeding corn inappropriately or too quickly will make them sick. Proper feeding does not.

[Nodak]

The above from one peer reviewed survey paper and another one of many studies linking the increase to an increase in INF-1 production in the milk to the cow consuming the rBGH.

The often quoted increase in IGF-1 in cows supplented with rBST is a bit of a stretch. You produce more IGF-1 in your saliva daily than you would drink from several thousand glasses of bovine milk - organic, rBST free or conventional. There is no evidence that rBST increases IGF-1 in milk more than is naturally consumed by your own human body. I beleive the amount I read was you would need to drink 30,000 glasses of milk to consume enough bovine IGF-1 to equal the amount your body makes daily....kind of hard to imagine that is causing a problem.

Recombinant bovine somatotropin was found to increase the risk of clinical mastitis by approximately 25% during the treatment period but there was insufficient data to draw firm conclusions about the effects of the drug on the prevalence of subclinical intra-mammary infections. Use of rBST increased the risk of a cow failing to conceive by approximately 40%. For cows which did conceive, there was no effect on services per conception and only a small increase in average days open (5 days). Use of the drug had no effect on gestation length, but the information about a possible effect on the risk of twinning was equivocal. Cows treated with rBST had an estimated 55% increase in the risk of developing clinical signs of lameness.

This *meta-analysis* paper is not painting an accurate picture. Once again, if cows have increase mastitis,( which would require antibiotics and/or dumping the milk because of too high somatic cell counts)......increased reproductive problems.....increased lameness.....These would all SIGNIFICANTLY reduce milk production and increase costs to the dairy farmer. It would make NO FINANCIAL SENSE TO THE DAIRY FARMER  to use something that DECREASED profit. It does not compute.

[shnozzola]

I voted that more controls are needed.  Government and business in agriculture must continue to hold each other’s feet to the fire.  Remember that university science was strongly behind DDT in mid 20th century.  IMO, while we certainly can improve foods with all types of genetics we use, we must make sure each step is properly tested and retested.  Growing sweet corn for a number of years, late summer in late August into September we sprayed Lannate (methomyl – a carbamate) and Warrior (pyrethrin) every 3 days when the European corn borer and fall armyworn were the worst.  Both chemicals  -1 day pre harvest interval.  I’d like to see the testing showing that corn was chemical free.

 Like I’ve said before, while the public loves the idea of organic, people are too far from agriculture to handle such things as cutting a worm out of an ear of corn.  There must continue to be strong oversight in all things “chemical” involving our food.  Unfortunately, the public wants low prices for food, and high quality from farmers.  Farmers do an amazing job pleasing us.  Anyone pay attention to the price of milk and how tough it has become again for small farmers?

edit :  Concerning DDT, -  the Bald Eagle is making a strong comeback along the Susquehanna in my neck of the woods.