margaretcarnes wrote:Oh Mr Plum - now I'm totally confused! You said in your OP that you try to eat organic whenever poss. Why? There have been tests done which seem to show no difference health wise between organic and non-organic diets. Only a huge difference in cost.
(No, I can't remember where I read it!)
However, I appreciate the GM concern, so just took a peek at your first link. Theres a conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories! For heavens sake -
'Several African nations have dubbed GM/GE foods as lethal, and believe the U.S is fulfilling a population reduction strategy in Africa'.
Coming from some pretty hungry people who would gladly eat the hind leg off a donkey thats a classic!
margaret
There you are. A joy to talk to.
tests, shmests. I don't believe a word the media say or the bogus 'science' being used to pull the wool over our eyes.
Every month a new spin on health and food. I love the
'genetic link to obesity' headline. Isn't it exactly what people want to hear? Now no-one has to do anything about it, it's genetic. Oh joy! Not only that but it lets the food companies off the hook for feeding us toxic 'shi*e' (forgive the crude expletive).
The Africa comments are shocking and there is nothing to suggest such a thing if you read articles like this...
http://www.newscientist.com/popuparticle.ns?id=in35
Hold on while I post this disclaimer...
I do not know, absolutely, if the following information is true. I present the information for discussion purposes only. If you act on anything I say here you do so at your own risk. There is a distinct possibility that some of the information could be labelled as conspiracy. I realise that the very word strikes fear and loathing in the hearts of certain members. I apologise for this but am not sure how I can avoid it. Perhaps if I replace the word 'conspiracy' with something less loaded with negative connotations... How about 'mylittlepony'? The war profiteers can even put it on their missiles. Who wouldn't want one with a name like that? 
On the subject of organic vs non-organic, there is a huge amount of dodgy goings on. For example... manufacturers are allowed to use the word 'natural' on their packaging on the basis that the source ingredient was in fact 'natural'. No matter that they strip out all the nutrients, irradiate it, pump it full of growth hormone, appetite stimulants, preservatives, colourings, flavourings, antibiotics...
by the way.. did you know the word 'probiotics' means 'for life'. So what does 'antibiotics' mean?
... they will render it, coat it in refined sugar, refined salt, perhaps add hydrogenated wossname, a myriad of ways to change the food from 'natural' into 'glow in the dark'. Yet you still see in huge letters on the front of the packet 'Natural'. Factually accurate yet totally misleading.
Remember 'Nimble' the lighter bread? All they did was pump more air and use less ingredients and they charged extra for it, so I know exactly where you are coming from. People are totally seduced by packaging and labelling and false advertising into eating crap I wouldn't feed to pigs. It shows how marvellous the human body is that we survive this onslaught at all.
I don't want all this garbage in my body. I don't care how well the liver cleans it up. I'm not totally strung out over it since you don't get invited to parties if you refuse to eat or drink what's on offer. The body also needs some junk to build its defences.
I'm not sure hungry people would eat the hind leg off a donkey. After 2 or 3 days without food, the body no longer creates hunger pangs. Those who have fasted for any length of time will know this.
One might conclude a strategy of covert genocide is in operation in Africa. Why? Well, start with the rice that is shipped to Africa. It is polished rice. All the nutrients stripped out of it. So, the propaganda is... food is being donated... but in reality the food is useless. You can read more about this and other food industry deviousness here...
http://www.whale.to/v/stitt_b.html
Coming back to GM foods more health issues raised. The cancer section is troubling...
http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm
If you can't be bothered to read it all, here's a snippet...
# In 1994, FDA approved Monsanto's rBGH, a genetically produced growth hormone, for injection into dairy cows – even though scientists warned the resulting increase of IGF-1, a potent chemical hormone, is linked to 400-500% higher risks of human breast, prostrate, and colon cancer. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago, it "induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells." Rat studies confirmed the suspicion and showed internal organ damage with rBGH ingestion. In fact, the FDA's own experiments indicated a spleen mass increase of 46% - a sign of developing leukemia. The contention was that the hormone was killed by pasteurization. But in research conducted by two Monsanto scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19% of the hormone was destroyed despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 30 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UN's Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continues to market this product in the US.
Correct me if I'm wrong but when the FDA and the manufacturer confirm the cancer-causing potential of this product, why is it still being marketed?
Are people knowingly being made ill, or is it simply that corporations will foist this stuff on the market and cross their fingers, knowing in the interim they will make a fast buck and get the legislators to give them protection against litigation. Seems like a no-brainer to me. How much money can they make in the 4 or 5 years it might take to get a product pulled?
I'll see if I can find any more on the Africa rejection.
Might as well have a double cheeseburger and knowingly control our culinary suicide .
